Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/22/05 04:14 PM, carmelhadinosaur wrote: No, because i said what knowledge is.
Invent a new word for your god.

What the heck are you talking about? Yes, I know what "knowledge" is. You argued that God cannot exist unless He has a brain. Well, you must be one of those fools I mentioned that refuse to believe there is anything beyond the realm of human understanding. Humanism is a freakin' JOKE, dude. If a person honestly believes that human beings are the "ultimate" power in the universe, then he needs his head examined.

Nature is everything. What is unatural is nature and what is super nature is nature.

*eye twitches* http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=supernatural

Say, you believe that time exists btw?
(lol ofcourse you do, but lets make it sure)

Of course, time exists. What has that got to do with anything? I wish you would quit acting like an arrogant twip and come to the point. Yes, time exists.

Wrong forum, but interesting point as i DO believe in god, but i have nothing wrong with atheists...i think its fine that people have different beliefs as long as the beliefs they have do not promote killing and adultery and such...

But your post got me thinking..

At 4/22/05 04:34 PM, TheExile wrote: Wrong forum,

er... why?

The Politics forums is basicly just the "slightly more serious stuff" forum. Not everything has to be directly about politics.

At 4/17/05 10:25 AM, Rooster349 wrote: True stength comes from realizing that you are a temporary part of the cosmos and proclaiming a higher power as a master. Atheism is for those who refuse to realize their utter unimportance in the grand scheme of the world. Atheism is for the weak.

No, religion is for the weak.

Think about it, religion is for those that think that after this hard life there will be a brilliant afterlife where everything will be perfect, just because they refuse to accept that this is all there is.

Of course, that's from an atheist point of view, while I'm agnostic.

At 4/22/05 04:45 PM, Grimport wrote: No, religion is for the weak.

In case you hadn't noticed... human beings are weak. So faith is for the weak, and atheism is for the delusional. ^_^ Is that barely possible?

Think about it, religion is for those that think that after this hard life there will be a brilliant afterlife where everything will be perfect, just because they refuse to accept that this is all there is.

Does it not occur to people that perhaps we BELIEVE that there's something more to our existence? It's not like we're in some kind of denial. We're not the lunatics atheists have made us out to be. ~_^

God IS real!

Think of it, how would the earth be created out of nothing? How would we be created to know something out of beginning with nothing? There are so many things to consider before you can say everything was created out of nothing. Plants, animals, people, water, rocks, how we think, there is so many things to consider that after a while, you can say either...

1)Probability isn't real because the chances of the whole universe being created perfectly is pretty much nil.

2)Probability is real and the one in a trillion chance it took to make the galaxy happened.

What do you think?

At 4/22/05 05:03 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: In case you hadn't noticed... human beings are weak. So faith is for the weak, and atheism is for the delusional. ^_^ Is that barely possible?
Does it not occur to people that perhaps we BELIEVE that there's something more to our existence? It's not like we're in some kind of denial. We're not the lunatics atheists have made us out to be. ~_^

I respect how you didn't flame me horribly there, like most people would have done.

Oh, and keep in mind I was thinking from an atheist point of view, meaning I don't really believe you Christians are a bunch of lunatics.

At 4/22/05 06:00 PM, Grimport wrote: I respect how you didn't flame me horribly there, like most people would have done.

Nah, I don't "flame". It's not my thing. ~_^

Oh, and keep in mind I was thinking from an atheist point of view, meaning I don't really believe you Christians are a bunch of lunatics.

I know. I saw that, but I don't understand the motive behind that post. I mean... if you didn't believe anything you said, then why did you even bother to post it? I respect agnostics, but I do believe that atheists are fools (as the Bible claims).

I respect agnostics, but I do believe that atheists are fools (as the Bible claims).

I just want you to know that not all (in fact most) atheists are not well exemplified by the generic teen anti-Christianity/anarchist version of an atheist. After breaking apart from my Christian heritage, I decided to develop my own ethical and moral standards. Once these were developed and I began to fully examine Christianity, I came to realize that mine are nearly parallel to theirs.

After this astounding discovery I went to research other religions and what their moral regulations are, and I noticed that they, too are parallel to those of mine and Christianity -- and I do mean all of them. Whether you are Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Islamic, Bahaian, Taoist, Animist, Hindu, or Wiccan, your religion's ideals are the same as those of all the others. The only things that differ are (naming the least important first) the culture encompassed by it and the reasoning for the rules. One thing, however, recurs in every piece of reasoning: the breaking of a relationship. It is stated that breaking the rules would break a relationship, be it with God (Christianity/Judaism/Islam/Bahai), yourself (Buddhism), or the Oversoul thingy (Animism/Taoism/Wicca).

The thing that annoys me with all of these (except Buddhism), is that the relationship being broken is with a higher being. Why would you have a relationship with a higher being in the first place? How could one form a relationship with a higher being when they are beyond our comprehension in the first place? Why would it matter if this relationship is broken? What I speculate is that the relationship being broken is not with a higher being, but rather with nature and natural order -- a relationship with logic is being broken.

Most would say that human beings are supreme to other living beings, but I would have to contradict them. Humans seem to be the least logical of all living beings. We're not great because we have opposable thumbs and can build technology. You never see a deer questioning its existence (oh wait... maybe that's what it's doing while staring at your headlights.. all the same...) you never see a shark seeking the meaning of life. This is because they already know it -- the point of life is to live.

Yes, I do support the idea that we were created this way completely by chance. You may start yelling at me, cursing at me, screaming "BUT THE ODDS OF THAT ARE SO LOW!!!" However, did you ever stop to think what the odds of that not happening are? Think about how vast and nearly infinite the universe is and ask yourself what the odds of such a thing never occurring are -- you might not be anything great, but that doesn't mean you're not special!

If we all got here by a series of random (lucky) accidents, then how could we be endowed with a sense of right and wrong? Why do we have a conscience? How could a universe created via chaos have so much amazing order?

I know these were intended as rhetorical questions, but I'll answer them anyway. Order and chaos are subjective. The only reason this universe has order is because we exist in it and view everything that occurs in it as order. It's the same way that there is no such thing as supernatural -- that is to say, everything takes place in nature and therefore if it is above nature, it never happened, and if it happened, it is not above nature. If you were to travel to a universe where gravity repelled instead of attracted and light was a lack of darkness instead of vice versa, you would view it as chaos while someone who was brought into existence there would view it as order, and if that someone was brought to our universe, they would view it as chaos. This also applies to the sense of right and wrong. Our sense of right and wrong is only right and wrong because we view it as so. Go to ancient Rome, and right and wrong will have a wholly different meaning -- killing would be commonplace, bisexuality would be encouraged, and forty-year-old men would be marrying 16-year-old girls, and all of this would be perfectly acceptable.

Well, I got a bit side-tracked with that last bit, but my whole point in this post is that religions really aren't different -- people really aren't different. Certainly everyone is unique, but cultures and religions differ only by their language and their clothes. I only hope that one day, all will realize this. The reason I only hope for this is because I don't believe it will ever happen. You can see how throughout time man has never really changed -- we've never grown smarter or more peaceful, only more technologically advanced. People were evil in the days of Abraham, they were evil in the days of Moses, they were evil in the days of King Solomon (hell, the king himself was evil to an extent), they were evil in the days of Joshua (aka Jesus), and they are evil still today. Human beings are doomed to be screwed up (it's probably a genetic flaw), and unless a new level of evolution brings us to it, we will never have peace. This is the only occasion in which I hope that I am wrong.

yeesh, i just noticed how long that last one was...

I just want you to know that not all (in fact most) atheists are not well exemplified by the generic teen anti-Christianity/anarchist version of an atheist.

Sorry for the double negative! Meant to say: I just want you to know that not all (in fact most) atheists are well exemplified by the generic teen anti-Christianity/anarchist version of an atheist.

Alright, not to change the subject, or anything, but why do people always use weirdass websites to back up their beliefs? I could create a freakin website right now, lie to you all, and you'd never know.... Just thought I'd bring it up.

OMFG, t3H no0o0o! MIDGET IN A HOTDOG SUIT!!

Creationism and Evolutionism are the two major theories behind the ORIGIN of the universe.

No. They're not. Natural selection has nothing to do with anything that came before the primeval sludge of earth. Creationism does go back to the beginning of the universe, yes, Natural selection only tells us howlife today evolved from life yesterday. How the egg from which the chicken was born was not layed bya chicken, but a chicken-like creature.

Oh please. I know what you people believe

Obviously not if you use bad reasoning and flawed science as your methods for "discrediting" other points of view.

Oh, here is a website that gives compelling evidence for God:

Read through the site... I'll admit not the entire thing, but quite a bit of it. It's all crap. I could write a Masters thesis on what is flawed logically in there. Suffice it to say I am not impressed.

It's obvious that we are sanctified. We have a moral conscience.

I still don't get the reasoning, but then again, I don't see being "sanctified" or somehow holy as the prerequisite for having a moral compass... so I guess this is just one point where we'll have to agree to disagree.

Then why are other [non-human] fossils (supposedly hundreds of millions of years old) dated using the carbon-14 method?

If they are, it's bad science pure and simple. Bad science is bad science no matter who does it or what they believe.

1) Children from secular households wouldn't be able to decide for themselves.

I am from a secular household. I got the opportunity to go to church and sunday school and decide for myself. Every child should have the same opportunity. I would draw a parallel to the devoutly religious household whose child is denied the opportunity to really study the reasoning and science behind natural selection and the Physics of the beginnings of the universe. And argument agains one side can be as easily placed against the other, thus there is a stalemate and the discussion must ogo elsewhere.

2) They should be compared side by side. Don't you agree?

Meh... if they're taught well, it shouldn't matter. Placing them as they are now, in separate realms of a persons life is fine. If someone isn't smart enough or determined to learn enough to look at them side by side himself, then I'm sorry, that's not my problem.

If Evolutionists are correct, then there should be hundreds of millions of fossils of living things in intermediate stages of evolution. There should be tons of freaky fossils of animals changing from invertebrates to vertebrates. Why haven't these fossils turned up?

Actually the gradual-change version of evolution is slowly slipping out of favor in the scientific circles for this very reason. There is a new theory that evolution doesn't happen in a gradual way, but in sudden, discreet leaps of evolutionary advancement. However, again these are both just theories and the fact that fosils are VERY rare, especially really old ones that could answer your questions... I am really not surprised at all that there are gaps, even large ones, even many large ones, in the record.

According to the law of entropy, all things (living and non-living) become less complex and more chaotic over time... Evolution claims the opposite.

Oh, THAT'S what you were talking about... I thought you were talking about the law of the conservation of matter and energy... my bad. Umm... I hate to burst your bubble again, but the law of entropy still exists and still works. A patch of increasing order does not an entire universe of entropy undo. Entropy is measured based on entire systems, even with the increase in order that the Earth has seen in the last few million years, Entropy still exists in the diffusion of energy, the breaking down of materials, etc, etc. And anyway, is your beef with the law of entropy here or the theory of evolution? Because Entropy is reversed all the time on the stellar and galactic scale. Clouds of very chaotic dust are collapsed into ordered stars and solar systems and galaxies... does this negate Entropy? No, it does not.

So what do you personally believe?

Hell that question right there could take up several posts, but I'll try to condense it.

I'll be straightforward and say I really have no idea if a god exists or if s/he/it created the universe. No god currently explained by religion satisfys my logical requirements, however. As I said before I believe in free will. All of the current models of god have him being omniscient. And Omnisciense precludes free will. Basically if any being knows, or has set my "choices" those choices are only illusory and I have no real purpose in my life. Like a Hot-Wheels car running around it's track, I have no actual say in my path.

Logical Extension of this thought: If free will really doesn't exist and a god does, who has built the universe, from beginning to end and has set the choices and paths of everything living and non, then who or what is responsible for sin/evil? Can anything actually BE evil or sinful if it was designed, put in place, and chosen by said creator?

However, if a god DOES exist, regardless of if it is omniscient or not, regardless if I have the free will I have faith that I do, then I would believe that he set the universe up to make us through its natural forces... through evolution. If he is as powerful as you believe he is, then I believe that all of this "chance" you think we had to have to reach this state really isn't chance and was designed to happen as it did. I see a god as the clockmaker model. He built the universe with its physical laws and everything as it was going to be, then let it run and create through the turning of the cogs, what it would. Like I said, I see no conflict between divine creation and evolution.

At 4/22/05 04:26 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: What the heck are you talking about? Yes, I know what "knowledge" is. You argued that God cannot exist unless He has a brain. Well, you must be one of those fools I mentioned that refuse to believe there is anything beyond the realm of human understanding. Humanism is a freakin' JOKE, dude. If a person honestly believes that human beings are the "ultimate" power in the universe, then he needs his head examined.

Lol i wasn't clear. I didn't say that if god doesnt have a brain he does not exist - i said that if god doesnt have a brain he cant know everything, capish?
Anyway, humanity isn't a joke, because i do not believe in better (NOT i don't believe in something better, which is what you'd like to understand from it probably).
I believe it is all randomness, everything. Look at the multiverses or whatever you wanna call them - whats their size compared to a human? you know 999..... and that shit. Because human can see themself and do whatever they want in their own size, and nothing happens to them purposely from outside, than anyone can believe in anything and no change will happen. If you'd believe that a tree can do mircles and other that god can- no difference will be, not difference at all.

*eye twitches* http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=supernatural

Hehe, yano, some site are writting that there is a god, and writting everything for what they need as fact, and some sites says there isnt, and using studies for it.
Why should i believe your creatonist site?

Of course, time exists. What has that got to do with anything? I wish you would quit acting like an arrogant twip and come to the point. Yes, time exists.

Srry i have to do it like this.
And plz answer these two questions:
Are seconds, minutes, hours etc are completely preciesed and/or exists?
Does time works like a flash movie, by frames?

At 4/22/05 11:59 PM, Ravariel wrote: No. They're not. Natural selection has nothing to do with anything that came before the primeval sludge of earth.

Okay, now I see where you're coming from. I was thinking from a Creationist point of view.

Obviously not if you use bad reasoning and flawed science as your methods for "discrediting" other points of view.

Bad reasoning and flawed science? I've reviewed both theories, and it's clear to me that there are many more "flaws" in Evolution than Creation. I mean, people criticize Christians for backing up Creation theories with scripture from the Bible. Yet evolutionists back up their theories with evolutionary science. You still haven't discredited the notion that the geologic column (which doesn't exist anywhere in the world) uses circular logic; as a matter of fact, all you've done is tell me that I'm mistaken. Well, if the geologic column is, in fact, an acceptable method of dating fossils, then why can't you discredit those websites? Is it because my sources quote directly from prestigious scientific journals and encyclopedias which state that fossils are dated by the age of their rocks, and rocks are dated by the age of their fossils? The geologic column is one of the biggest chunks of evidence for Evolution, yet it's a total scam. And I'm the one using "flawed science"?

Read through the site... I'll admit not the entire thing, but quite a bit of it. It's all crap. I could write a Masters thesis on what is flawed logically in there. Suffice it to say I am not impressed.

If you could write a Masters thesis on what is flawed in there, then I'm sure you wouldn't mind posting a few of its mistakes right here...

I still don't get the reasoning, but then again, I don't see being "sanctified" or somehow holy as the prerequisite for having a moral compass... so I guess this is just one point where we'll have to agree to disagree.

I didn't say "holy", I said sanctified. Check out the first and fourth definitions:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sanctified

I am from a secular household. I got the opportunity to go to church and sunday school and decide for myself. Every child should have the same opportunity.

Unfortunately, not every child does receive the same opportunity.

Meh... if they're taught well, it shouldn't matter. Placing them as they are now, in separate realms of a persons life is fine.

Well, it certainly would be better if the two could be compared. It isn't right that a child is taught Evolution as FACT. When discussing human origins, the word theory never even gets brought up. Children aren't told that Evolution is just a theory (incapable of being proven), in which there are many flaws. I was looking through one of my old biology text books, and I found one line in the entire book that mentioned Creationism.

Actually the gradual-change version of evolution is slowly slipping out of favor in the scientific circles for this very reason. There is a new theory that evolution doesn't happen in a gradual way, but in sudden, discreet leaps of evolutionary advancement.

The evolutionists are adjusting their theory, again? It seems like every time new evidence is found that supports the idea of Creation, evolutionists manipulate their own theory so they can fit in. Well, I guess the fossil record gap is no exception. Every time real "science" (the observation of natural forces, not aimple speculation) is introduced into the debate, the idea of Intelligent Design appears more and more realistic.

but the law of entropy still exists and still works. A patch of increasing order does not an entire universe of entropy undo.

What the heck? I'm defending the law of entropy, not challenging it. The Theory of Evolution claims that, as time passes, matter and energy becomes more complex. The Law of Entropy states that, over time... things decay, become more chaotic, and even deteriorate (the exact opposite).

Entropy is measured based on entire systems, even with the increase in order that the Earth has seen in the last few million years, Entropy still exists in the diffusion of energy, the breaking down of materials, etc, etc.

First of all, you're correct. "Diffusion of energy, the breaking down of materials." Well, evolution would beg to differ. According to the Big Bang theory, energy fused (not diffused), and materials came together in miraculous combinations (not broke down). So how do evolutionists explain this? We cannot replace a series of scientific LAWS with one THEORY. That would be bad science. And I don't really understand your "patch" idea: These physics work over here, but not over there."

And anyway, is your beef with the law of entropy here or the theory of evolution? Because Entropy is reversed all the time on the stellar and galactic scale.

Umm... My beef is with the theory of Evolution (sorry, but I trust a scientific law over a scientific theory). Evolutionists don't always argue on a "galactic" scale. How about human beings? They argue that we evolved from prehistoric slime. Well, obviously this defies the law of entropy because scum is much less complex than we are (LoL). So if, according to the law of entropy, matter and energy breaks down and deteriorates... how could we have come from "nothing" into the amazing beings we are today?

I'll add to the equation (the basics, here): life cannot come from lifelessness. Well, evolutionists claim that we originated from inanimate matter. But how is this possible? I mean, how does "Natural Selection" explain the miracle of DNA?
------------------------------------------------------
I'm not arguing that Creationism is more "scientific" than Evolutionism. I simply realize that neither can be proven, and therefore, both require faith to believe in. I choose to have faith the the universe was designed, not a product of chance. How anyone could look at the amazing complexity and phenomenal order of the world and think... "luck", is beyond me. Oh well, if people want to believe that their existence is meaningless, then they can be my guests. But I can't help believing that there's something more... something greater. Creationists are constantly mocked for being too "unscientific", but perhaps it's the Evolutionists that are too "nonphilosophical". ~_^

At 4/23/05 12:41 AM, carmelhadinosaur wrote:

At 4/22/05 04:26 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

Lol i wasn't clear. I didn't say that if god doesnt have a brain he does not exist - i said that if god doesnt have a brain he cant know everything, capish?

"If God doesn't have a brain, He can't know everything..." Are you THAT shallow?

Anyway, humanity isn't a joke,

For future reference: Humanity =/= Humanism.

because i do not believe in better (NOT i don't believe in something better, which is what you'd like to understand from it probably).

*attempts to decipher*

I believe it is all randomness, everything. Look at the multiverses or whatever you wanna call them - whats their size compared to a human?

What the heck are you trying to say, kid? And "multiverse" isn't a word.

you know 999..... and that shit.

Should I?

Because human can see themself and do whatever they want in their own size, and nothing happens to them purposely from outside, than anyone can believe in anything and no change will happen. If you'd believe that a tree can do mircles and other that god can- no difference will be, not difference at all.

Sure... whatever. I'm sorry, but i's rather difficult for me to communicate with with people devoid of intellect. Go here, and practice posting. Then when you think you're ready, come back and we'll discuss this.

*eye twitches* http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=supernatural

Hehe, yano, some site are writting that there is a god, and writting everything for what they need as fact, and some sites says there isnt, and using studies for it.
Why should i believe your creatonist site?

Dictionary.com is a Creationist site? I had no idea. -_-

At 4/22/05 06:21 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: I know. I saw that, but I don't understand the motive behind that post. I mean... if you didn't believe anything you said, then why did you even bother to post it? I respect agnostics, but I do believe that atheists are fools (as the Bible claims).

Actually, my agnosticism means I haven't come a conclusion about religion or why people are religious. It was a theory.

:You still haven't discredited the notion that the geologic column (which doesn't exist anywhere in the world) uses circular logic

Your premise was that somewhere in the world is an uninterrupted column of datable material from which all other dates are associated. This is NOT the case. ALL the geologic column states is that the further down it is the older it is. That is all. Any place that says there's a uniform measuring stick that can be used anywhere is completely wrong.

Listen: Rocks are dated by their fossils if those fossils are datable by normal (i.e. corbon-14) methods. This is because the rock-dating methods are generally LESS accurate to a certain degree. Carbon-14 can date within months... Uranium dating's margin of error is several years. When you get past the reach of carbon-14, you date the fossils by dating the rock in which they lie. I'm really quite amazed that this wasn't already apparent. It is NOT, as you state, circular logic.

If you could write a Masters thesis on what is flawed in there, then I'm sure you wouldn't mind posting a few of its mistakes right here...

Give me a week and I will.

Unfortunately, not every child does receive the same opportunity.

I'm sorry, as unfortunate as that is, that's not my problem, nor is it the problem of the schools. The lack of parenting skills in this country is a WHOLE other bag of flames to be opened and doesn't belong on this thread... mebbe we can start another one.

Well, it certainly would be better if the two could be compared. It isn't right that a child is taught Evolution as FACT. When discussing human origins, the word theory never even gets brought up.

Well, that's a fault of the schools and the teachers, not of the theory itself. For a parallel argument, is Intelligent Design not taught as fact in churches? Is it called a theory there?

The evolutionists are adjusting their theory, again? It seems like every time new evidence is found that supports the idea of Creation, evolutionists manipulate their own theory so they can fit in.

Again, your bias and lack of understanding of the scientific method shows through. ALL THEORIES CHANGE WITH NEW EVIDENCE. When evidence comes around that proves a theory to be wrong, a new one is brought up. The Big Bang theory? Disproved by the very man who thought it up, Stephen Hawking. Got a funny story about that... mebbe I'll share if I have the characters left.... but I digress. We don't shape the evidence into new ways to discredit theism in some way... the new evidence shapes the theory. This happens in every branch of science, not just those that deal with evolution.

::The Theory of Evolution claims that, as time passes, matter and energy becomes more complex.

No, no it doesn't. Natural Selection only says that when a change occurrs in a species, it will only survive if said change makes it more viable than it's predecessor. And that these changes are what brought about the different Kingdoms, Phyla, Classes, Orders, Families, Genuses (Genus'? Geni?) and Species of the world. Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus evolved into Homo Sapiens, Homo Sapiens evolved further into the subspecies Homo Sapien Sapien (modern humans) because each change that came around made the species more viable. Again, the theory of evolution is ONLY APPLIED to life, as it is defined, on planet earth.

:We cannot replace a series of scientific LAWS with one THEORY. That would be bad science. And I don't really understand your "patch" idea: These physics work over here, but not over there."

Of course you can overturn what are thought to be laws with thoeries, if the evidence that brought about those theories proves those laws to be inaccurate. The "Law" of entropy is not so specific and strict a law as you seem to believe. The "Law" of conservation of matter and energy is not a law... it is broken on a galactic scale throughout the universe. That breaking of the "law" is what physicists currenly believe to be responsible for Dark Matter and Dark Energy. But that's a discussion for another time and another thread. The "Law" of entropy is as flawed as those laws. It is nowhere near as specific and prevalent as you would have us believe.

I'll add to the equation (the basics, here): life cannot come from lifelessness. Well, evolutionists claim that we originated from inanimate matter. But how is this possible? I mean, how does "Natural Selection" explain the miracle of DNA?

Natural selection, no not specifically. Unfortunately, we have to base our theories on observation of things that happened millions of years ago and the evidence we find isn't, unfortunately, chiseled into a tablet for easy reading. Current (well, it happened in the 80's but that's current enough for now) experimentation has been able to replicate the conditions of early earth and has been able to form, through those conditions, complex strands of Amino Acids, the very building blocks of DNA. One could extrapolate that if they could continue the experiment indefinitely on a global scale, keeping the model of early earth perfect, they could create life... from lifelessness.

:Oh well, if people want to believe that their existence is meaningless, then they can be my guests.

What on earth makes you think I believe my existance meaningless? I have free will, I can give my life whatever meanin I choose. And that is the greatest meaning any life could have, if you ask me. My view on it is that an omniscience removes all meaning from my life, and instead I become but a robot who does what he is pre-programmed to do.

P.S. Quotes... just for you... don't say I never did nuthin' for ya.

well... some quotes... not sure what I did to @#$% up half of them that didn't @#$% up the other half... oh well >.>

You said that radiometric dating supported it; well, that would be fine if the geologic column and modern dating methods (such as uranium and carbon-14) weren't interdependent. Not only that, but the GC was developed before these methods even came into practice. So I guess I should show you some more quotes that expose the circular reasoning of the column: -_-
____________________

Can't Be Found Anywhere: "If a pile were to be made by using the greatest thickness of sedimentary beds of each geological age, it would be at least 100 miles high... It is, of course, impossible to have even a considerable fraction of this great pile available at any one place. The Grand Canyon of the Colorado, for example, is only one mile deep." - Geology, p. 417 (Von Engeln & Caster)

Column is Incomplete: "Nowhere in the world is the record, or even part of it, anywhere near complete." - The New Catastrophism, p. 14 (Derek Ager [Past Pres., British Geological Association])

Nothing More than a Concept: "The end product of correlation is a mental abstraction called the geological column." - Encyclopedia Britannica (1985), p. 779

Built by Correlation: "Because we cannot find sedimentary rocks representing all of earth time neatly in one convenient area, we must piece together the rock sequence from locality to locality. This process of tying one rock sequence in one place to another in some other place is known as correlation, from the Latin for 'together' plus 'relate.'" - Physical Geology, p. 181 (L. Don Leet [Harvard] & Sheldon Judson [Princeton])

Built Around Fossils : "... most geologic correlations are still based on fossil occurrences. This is true not only because fossils are more common in sedimentary rocks than are radioactive elements, but also because the analysis of fossils usually allows for greater accuracy." - Earth and Life Through Time, p. 123 (Stephen M. Stanley [John Hopkins Univ.])

NON-Radioactive Correlation: "... fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur ... I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils." - New Scientist (Derek Ager [Past Pres. British Geological Association])

Building the Column: "A rock that had an early form of an organism was clearly older than rocks containing later forms. Furthermore, all rocks that had the early form, no matter how far apart those rocks were geographically, would have to be the same age... fossil successions made it possible to say that the Cambrian rocks are older than the Ordovician rocks. In this way our geologic time table came into being... WITHOUT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION and the interdisciplinary science of paleontology, it could not exist." - Geology, p. 544 (Putman & Basset)
____________________

R. H. Rastal, Cambridge: "It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here ARGUING IN A CIRCLE. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the organisms that they contain." - Encyclopedia Britannica. vol. X, p. 168

Tom Kemp, Oxford: "A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?" - New Scientist, vol. 108, p. 67

J. E. O'Rourke: "The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning, if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales." - American Journal of Science, vol. 276, p. 51

David M. Raup, Univ. of Chicago; Field Museum of N.H.: "The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity... Thus, the procedure is far from ideal and the geologic ranges are constantly being revised (usually extended) as new occurrences are found." - Field Museum of Natural History [bulletin], vol. 54, p. 21

D. B. Kitts, Univ.of Oklahoma: "But the danger of circularity is still present... The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation... for almost almost all contemporary paleontologist it rest upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis." - Evolution, vol. 28, p. 466
____________________

Does any of this convince you? Evolutionists depend on the geologic column for just about everything, yet according to these scientific journals and researchers, the column is based on circular logic. These are not even Creation scientists! They're Evolutionists! But they admit that the geologic column 1) does not exist, and 2) is inherently flawed. It would be fine if uranium dating had 'something' to do with it, but the column was dreamed-up before any kind of radiometric dating methods were established (see sixth quote). I'll be replying to the rest of your post soon, and thank you for attempting to use "quotes". ~_^

At 4/23/05 08:29 AM, Ravariel wrote:

If you could write a Masters thesis on what is flawed in there, then I'm sure you wouldn't mind posting a few of its mistakes right here...

Give me a week and I will.

Good grief, I don't need a ten-page essay (LoL). If you have a problem with some of the logic that site uses to explain the existence of God, then post it here, and I'll respond as best as I can. I just hate replying to mammoth posts. ~_^

Well, it certainly would be better if the two could be compared. It isn't right that a child is taught Evolution as FACT. When discussing human origins, the word theory never even gets brought up.

Well, that's a fault of the schools and the teachers, not of the theory itself. For a parallel argument, is Intelligent Design not taught as fact in churches? Is it called a theory there?

Church is for worshipping God, spiritual encouragement, and learning about His will for our lives. Science class is for studying nature, conducting experiments, and comparing various theories. I have a little question, though: why has one theory seem to have taken over all fields of science? I mean, the origin of mankind is more of a philosophical thing than a scientific thing. And considering science is nothing more than observation, how on Earth have people integrated this one theory into just about everything? Science is now based on Evolution (when it should be the other way around). In my opinion, we should be using science to prove theories, not using theories to prove science.

The evolutionists are adjusting their theory, again? It seems like every time new evidence is found that supports the idea of Creation, evolutionists manipulate their own theory so they can fit in.

Again, your bias and lack of understanding of the scientific method shows through.

It's ironic that you should bring up the scientific method. First of all, it was developed by a Creation scientist. Secondly, the scientific method and Evolutionism do NOT go hand-in-hand. You probably wouldn't even consider Evolution a "theory" in accordance with the scientific method because it's never been consistent. Right now, it would still be considered a "hypothesis", as Evolution's been stuck on steps 3 & 4 for decades. =P

ALL THEORIES CHANGE WITH NEW EVIDENCE.

Theories are consistent (a postulate, so to speak). As I said before, the word you're looking for is hypothesis... hypotheses are constantly being revised; theories are not.

The Big Bang theory? Disproved by the very man who thought it up, Stephen Hawking.

Funny, I didn't know that. ^_^ Then how come so many Evolutionists still believe in it?

No, no it doesn't. Natural Selection only says that when a change occurrs in a species, it will only survive if said change makes it more viable than it's predecessor. And that these changes are what brought about the different Kingdoms, Phyla, Classes, Orders, Families, Genuses (Genus'? Geni?) and Species of the world. Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus evolved into Homo Sapiens, Homo Sapiens evolved further into the subspecies Homo Sapien Sapien (modern humans) because each change that came around made the species more viable. Again, the theory of evolution is ONLY APPLIED to life, as it is defined, on planet earth.

Umm... we are matter; we are energy. Why shouldn't the laws of entropy / thermodynamics apply to human beings? And by the way, you forgot sub-phylum and variety (aka breed). =P Let me ask you a question: why isn't "Homo habilis" or Homo erectus" in existence today? Evolutionists claim that humans evolved from apes, yet apes still exist today. What's the deal? Some Evolutionists claim that we're the end-result of a bunch of "freak" genetic mutations. Others claim that our genes are "programmed" to mutate. Eh, whatever... -_-

We cannot replace a series of scientific LAWS with one THEORY. That would be bad science. And I don't really understand your "patch" idea: These physics work over here, but not over there."

The "Law" of entropy is as flawed as those laws.

Wait a minute. You believe that the 'law of entropy' is flawed, but the theory of evolution' is not? Well, I'mpretty sure that most scientists would disagree with you about entropy. The majority of evolutionists would try to find a way around it, not just ignore it altogether. But you seem to have different beliefs than most of the evolutionists I've spoken with.

Unfortunately, we have to base our theories on observation of things that happened millions of years ago and the evidence we find isn't, unfortunately, chiseled into a tablet for easy reading. Current (well, it happened in the 80's but that's current enough for now) experimentation has been able to replicate the conditions of early earth and has been able to form, through those conditions, complex strands of Amino Acids, the very building blocks of DNA.

Yes, I know that. Scientists know exactly what all life consists of, but they could never reconstruct it in a lab. I'm pretty sure they've narrowed us down to about four common elements (forgive me, I don't remember which [carbon's #1, I believe]). These elements can be found anywhere in the world. Well, they may know what we're made of, but do you honestly believe that they could design and create their own organism? Supposedly, life formed by chance, an accident. But what are the chances that energy would "randomly" fuse together in the absolute PERFECT combination to form living organisms (of all five kingdoms)?

What on earth makes you think I believe my existance meaningless?

Pardon me, but just about every other Evolutionist I've spoken with in the NG political forum has argued that our lives are meaningless. But if believed in Natural Selection, then I probably would believe that, too. I can imagine how thinking that you're nothing but a product of time and chance, the descendant of prehistoric pond scum, could affect one's self-esteem (LoL). Ya know what I mean? ~_^

I would just like to point out real quick that in Texas and about 14 other (mostly southern) states evolutionism is illegal to teach in public schools while creationism is not.

At 4/23/05 12:45 PM, crazimyke wrote: I would just like to point out real quick that in Texas and about 14 other (mostly southern) states evolutionism is illegal to teach in public schools while creationism is not.

I live in the South and have never heard of that. Do you have a source?

By the way...

Umm... we are matter; we are energy. Why shouldn't the laws of entropy / thermodynamics apply to human beings? ... Let me ask you a question: why isn't "Homo habilis" or Homo erectus" in existence today? Evolutionists claim that humans evolved from apes, yet apes still exist today. What's the deal? Some Evolutionists claim that we're the end-result of a bunch of "freak" genetic mutations. Others claim that our genes are "programmed" to mutate. Eh, whatever... -_-

The matter we consist of doesn't decay, it changes form, and in fact, some of it does decay. When one dies, they (along with the sun) feed the plants which feed the animals which feed us (along with the plants and water). The energy is dispersing and then being absorbed back into the system. It's called the circle of life?

At 4/23/05 12:59 PM, crazimyke wrote: The matter we consist of doesn't decay, it changes form, and in fact, some of it does decay.

Is it just me, or did you contradict yourself? o_O

When one dies, they (along with the sun) feed the plants which feed the animals which feed us (along with the plants and water). The energy is dispersing and then being absorbed back into the system. It's called the circle of life?

What does this have to do with how some members of a species supposedly "ceased" to evolve while other members of the same species mutated into something more complex?

At 4/23/05 01:04 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

At 4/23/05 12:59 PM, crazimyke wrote: The matter we consist of doesn't decay, it changes form, and in fact, some of it does decay.

Is it just me, or did you contradict yourself? o_O

Yes, I did contradict myself, partly due to crappy grammar. My main point was that evolution can easily coexist with the law of entropy. The matter that children are made out of is not the same matter which thier parents were made out of -- it comes from plants and animals and is formed into the child. Certainly, this matter is constantly decaying, but not faster than the cycle of life changes it.

Sorry if what I'm saying doesn't flow very well, but I'm trying to multi-task right now and it's proving more difficult than I expected.

When one dies, they (along with the sun) feed the plants which feed the animals which feed us (along with the plants and water). The energy is dispersing and then being absorbed back into the system. It's called the circle of life?

What does this have to do with how some members of a species supposedly "ceased" to evolve while other members of the same species mutated into something more complex?

This doesn't. I hadn't really addressed that comment, but I will now. There was simply a separation among species. A couple of them took the genetic leap and mated within themselves and possibly with some of their previous species which happen to find them sexy. Not all of the species would undergo the evolutionary leap, and therefore some of them will remain the same and continue to mate among themselves, essentially splitting apart from those who evolved.

At 4/23/05 07:26 PM, crazimyke wrote:

At 4/23/05 01:04 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

At 4/23/05 12:59 PM, crazimyke wrote: The matter we consist of doesn't decay, it changes form, and in fact, some of it does decay.

Is it just me, or did you contradict yourself? o_O

Yes, I did contradict myself, partly due to crappy grammar. My main point was that evolution can easily coexist with the law of entropy. The matter that children are made out of is not the same matter which thier parents were made out of -- it comes from plants and animals and is formed into the child. Certainly, this matter is constantly decaying, but not faster than the cycle of life changes it.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Human life, which could only have come from human life, can only spawn other human life. No exceptions. There is one thing I don't understand, dude: most (if not all) evolutionists believe that we evolved from primordial scum via a series of random, "lucky" mutations. 1) How could these mutations have affected an entire species? I mean, do people actually believe that one freak organism mated with another freak organism (with identical genetic mutations) to create a new species? 2) Evolutionists claim that all life on Earth evolved within the past 3.5 billion years (give or take a few millenia). But exactly how likely is this? First of all, genetic mutations are quite rare. And, because of the law of entropy, genetic mutations that advance an organism are extremely, extremely, extremely rare (to the point of nonexistent). Well evolutionists claim that genetic mutations have not only advanced a single organism, but all of the world's animal species! Do you realize how impossible this is? Every animal in existence would have to undergo millions of these positive genetic mutations that affected all organisms of that particular species. Tell me... do you actually believe that everything Evolution claims has taken place could happen within the past 3.5 billion years? I know it seems like a long time, but when you compare a handful of mud to the human brain, 3.5 billion years seems like an awfully short period to turn one into the other through a "natural" process.

When one dies, they (along with the sun) feed the plants which feed the animals which feed us (along with the plants and water). The energy is dispersing and then being absorbed back into the system. It's called the circle of life?

What does this have to do with how some members of a species supposedly "ceased" to evolve while other members of the same species mutated into something more complex?

This doesn't. I hadn't really addressed that comment, but I will now. There was simply a separation among species. A couple of them took the genetic leap and mated within themselves and possibly with some of their previous species which happen to find them sexy. Not all of the species would undergo the evolutionary leap, and therefore some of them will remain the same and continue to mate among themselves, essentially splitting apart from those who evolved.

Do you realize that not one thing you said isn't complete speculation? Science is here for observation, nothing more. (sigh) I only wish that evolutionists could understand that. Creationism = speculation, Evolutionism = speculation. But evolutionists insist on twisting their theory into something it's not. Both theories require faith... And none of the reasons you listed can be scientifically substantiated. Sure, you can support them with more evolutionary science, but that's why the theory of Natural Selection is so flawed. Evolution is "scientific", as long as the science supporting it is based on the assumption that Evolution is correct (the geologic column is a perfect example of this circular reasoning). No evidence can surface that would conflict with Evolution, and if it does, then evolutionists just modify their theory! Good freakin' grief, dude. Creationists are fed-up with corrupt science. ><

Anyway, so you have those sources I requested?

Good grief, I don't need a ten-page essay (LoL). If you have a problem with some of the logic that site uses to explain the existence of God, then post it here, and I'll respond as best as I can. I just hate replying to mammoth posts. ~_^

It's not so that I can write it big, it's so that I can write it RIGHT. I'll need the time to study your sites, their sources and other sources of information.

I mean, the origin of mankind is more of a philosophical thing than a scientific thing.

Another point we'll have to agree to disagree on :/

And considering science is nothing more than observation, how on Earth have people integrated this one theory into just about everything? Science is now based on Evolution (when it should be the other way around). In my opinion, we should be using science to prove theories, not using theories to prove science.

We certianly should be... and again, any scientist who thinks the theory proves itself is using bad science. I have not seen any examples yet of Scientists saying the theory of evolution proves some other theory's hypotheses. Now, giving a commonly-accepted theory as EVIDENCE of another theory's correctness is fine. But every scientist knows that theories cannot be proven, they can only be disproven/

It's ironic that you should bring up the scientific method. First of all, it was developed by a Creation scientist.

Umm... good science knows no deity. Regardless of who thought it up, the scientific method works because it's good science.

Funny, I didn't know that. ^_^ Then how come so many Evolutionists still believe in it?

It's VERY new science. I couldn't even explain to you what exactly it is they believe happened now... i'm still trying to read up on it and grasp the concepts myself. My lack or math of a high enough level to understand the equations means I have to wait for it to be put into laymans terms in a book or magazine.

Umm... we are matter; we are energy. Why shouldn't the laws of entropy / thermodynamics apply to human beings?

I never said they didn't.

why isn't "Homo habilis" or Homo erectus" in existence today?

Homo Sapiens became the dominant species and either the other Homo Species died out due to environmental pressure, due to conflicts with the superior Homo Sapiens or what we don't know yet. If we had all the answers this debate wouldn't be debatable.

Evolutionists claim that humans evolved from apes, yet apes still exist today.

No, they don't. They claim that modern apes and monkeys and modern humans share a common ancestor that is neither a modern ape or a modern human. Apes exist today because they took another evolutionary path that kept them out of direct competition with Homo Sapiens.

Wait a minute. You believe that the 'law of entropy' is flawed, but the theory of evolution' is not? Well, I'mpretty sure that most scientists would disagree with you about entropy. The majority of evolutionists would try to find a way around it, not just ignore it altogether. But you seem to have different beliefs than most of the evolutionists I've spoken with.

You keep giving these Laws features that they don't have and then claiming that 'evolutionists" are twisting science to their own ends. Please, this only makes you an even bigger hypocrite than them. Here is the second law of thermodynamics:

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." This is also commonly referred to as entropy. A watchspring-driven watch will run until the potential energy in the spring is converted, and not again until energy is reapplied to the spring to rewind it. A car that has run out of gas will not run again until you walk 10 miles to a gas station and refuel the car. Once the potential energy locked in carbohydrates is converted into kinetic energy (energy in use or motion), the organism will get no more until energy is input again. In the process of energy transfer, some energy will dissipate as heat. Entropy is a measure of disorder: cells are NOT disordered and so have low entropy. The flow of energy maintains order and life. Entropy wins when organisms cease to take in energy and die.

Simplified: Matter and energy tend towars a chaotic state. Any temoporary increase in order must, by definition, add more entropy to the universal system than it takes away from being ordered. Nowhere does this state that order cannot increase, just that there must be a reactionary increase in overall DISorder... and that increase in disorder may not even be in the same sub-system as the increase in order. I.E. The Sun... it send to the earth energy from which life can continue to increase it's order and complexity, but it burns itself out doing so, thus increasing the overall entropy of the mega-system, the universe. Please, learn the actual features of a law before you go spouting off about it's contradiction to some other theory.

Yes, I know that. Scientists know exactly what all life consists of, but they could never reconstruct it in a lab.

Most research grants don't cover a 3.5 billion year experiment. That they couldn't get farther than the Amino Acid stage is not surprising. To get farther than that would take so many years the experiment's cost would be unfeasable.

Pardon me, but just about every other Evolutionist I've spoken with in the NG political forum has argued that our lives are meaningless.

If they believe life is meaningless, I feel sorry for them. But then again, the requirement for some creator to give life meaning to other people saddens me just as much. That people somehow don't believe that they give their own life meaning is something Ive never understood. I don't see how coming from a possibly random series of events, starting out as basic amino acids, and slowly coming together into DNA and replicable life is somehoe degrading. It is to me, the most wondrous thing ever. Look at what we have become! Look at how far we have risen from simple strands of proteins. How is that somehow embarassing? It's like being embarrased about marrying up in stature because you weren't born there yourself. i just don't get it.

Umm... in the future, could you respond to my entire post? I posted a lot of stuff I thought was important, but it got left out. So could you please try to reply to the whole thing?

At 4/24/05 01:58 AM, Ravariel wrote: But every scientist knows that theories cannot be proven, they can only be disproven/

Then why on Earth is Evolution taught as FACT in public school?

Umm... good science knows no deity. Regardless of who thought it up, the scientific method works because it's good science.

(LoL) Like I said, according to the scientific method, Evolution is not even a theory; it's a hypothesis because it is inconsistent and constantly being revised.

Homo Sapiens became the dominant species and either the other Homo Species died out due to environmental pressure, due to conflicts with the superior Homo Sapiens or what we don't know yet.

Umm... why have you decided the answer before you ask the question?

If we had all the answers this debate wouldn't be debatable.

Evolutionists should at least stick with one idea. It seems like everytime we blink, evolutionary scientists come up with something else to claim as "fact".

Apes exist today because they took another evolutionary path that kept them out of direct competition with Homo Sapiens.

Oh look... MORE speculation. -_-

You keep giving these Laws features that they don't have and then claiming that 'evolutionists" are twisting science to their own ends. Please, this only makes you an even bigger hypocrite than them.

Bigger hypocrite? How? I'm not the one claiming anything. I realize that both theories are nothing but speculation; evolutionists claim that they have the answer to how we got here, so the burden of proof lies entirely with them. I know that "faith" is necessary in order to understand our existence. And Creationists believe that nature cannot be explained with more nature. Nature could have only been created by a Force that exists outside of the nature. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that only a supernatural Force could have created the natural world.

Please, learn the actual features of a law before you go spouting off about it's contradiction to some other theory.

(LoL) I'll admit that the law of entropy (in theory) could allow for Evolution if you admit that the geologic column was developed using circular logic. =P Speaking of which, you haven't replied to those twelve quotes supporting the idea that the column is flawed.

Most research grants don't cover a 3.5 billion year experiment. That they couldn't get farther than the Amino Acid stage is not surprising. To get farther than that would take so many years the experiment's cost would be unfeasable.

So many years? I thought that evolutionists claimed that life originated 3.5 billion years ago. It's not like people are asking them to constuct a human being, just a simple organism.

If they believe life is meaningless, I feel sorry for them.

Heh, so do I. But unfortunately, most evolutionists I see believe their lives are worthless.

I don't see how coming from a possibly random series of events, starting out as basic amino acids, and slowly coming together into DNA and replicable life is somehoe degrading.

Nah, just impossible. ~_^

It is to me, the most wondrous thing ever. Look at what we have become! Look at how far we have risen from simple strands of proteins. How is that somehow embarassing? It's like being embarrased about marrying up in stature because you weren't born there yourself. i just don't get it.

Well consider both perspectives: one theory teaches that are closest ancestors are swinging from trees and eating crackers at the zoo. People who subscribe to this theory believe that the earth is nothing more than a chunk of rock spinning aimlessly through the cold, dark, vast "nothingness" of space. The other theory teaches that we are wonderfully and masterfully designed. This theory suggests that our Creator had a plan for our lives and that we are set apart for a reason. Tell me... which makes you feel "better" about yourself (LoL)? I hope this answers your question, and I tried not to be too theological about it. ~_^
______________________________

Look, dude. It was never my intention to start a 'Creation vs. Evolution' debate. I've argued this subject many times before, and to tell you the truth, I'm getting sick of it (LoL). It's kinda odd discussing this with you because you hold different beliefs than most of the evolutionists I've encountered in this forum. Anyway, if you wanna drop this, then that's fine with me. We don't seem to be getting anywhere, so perhaps we should just end this thing and waste our time in other topics (LoL). Oh well, it's up to you. I'm tired, so I'm heading off to bed; it's like 3 in the morning here. *yawn* I guess I'll respond to your posts tomorrow (if you decide to reply, that is). Later, man.

At 4/24/05 03:08 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: Then why on Earth is Evolution taught as FACT in public school?

It is taught as "fact" because a) from a fully logical standpoint it is the best explination (since creationalism requires the christian diety) and b) it is difficult to tell a child that something is "under speculation" so best to not confuse them conflicting ideas

(LoL) Like I said, according to the scientific method, Evolution is not even a theory; it's a hypothesis because it is inconsistent and constantly being revised.

No a hypothesis would be a single statement, the theory is much more complex than that.

Apes exist today because they took another evolutionary path that kept them out of direct competition with Homo Sapiens.

Oh look... MORE speculation. -_-

To my knowledge that is the original explination and not something "new"

And Creationists believe that nature cannot be explained with more nature. Nature could have only been created by a Force that exists outside of the nature.

You mean like how you throw bible quotes at us when we say that the bible might not be completely accurate? Also nature can be used to "prove" nature through experimentation. If through the scientific method you can find a trend and see that this trend seems to be a universal truth, then you can call it law.

:Therefore, it is logical to conclude that only a supernatural Force could have created the natural world.

Created, maybe but controlled? That is a diffent being entierly.

So many years? I thought that evolutionists claimed that life originated 3.5 billion years ago. It's not like people are asking them to constuct a human being, just a simple organism.

Most experimentation has only lasted for a few years at tops. No where near the potentially hundreads needed to spark life by current theories. How about this for a brain teaser, we have found microbiobial life on mars. If god is the grand creator of life as well as it's master, why only microbes? Surely god could have made life adapt to the changing conditions and make something more advanced, more worthwile if you will. However, there the bacteria sits doing virtually nothing. I've always understood it to be that god supposedly does everything for a reason, so what is the reason for the bacteria on mars? Doesn't this support the notion of life springing up all by itself since it serves no known purpose?

Heh, so do I. But unfortunately, most evolutionists I see believe their lives are worthless.

1 life is meaningless in the evolutionary chain, but 1 life is still meaningful to the person living it. Big difference there VCV.

Tell me... which makes you feel "better" about yourself (LoL)? I hope this answers your question, and I tried not to be too theological about it. ~_^

Using that logic we should still consider the earth flat since it was "nicer" to think of the world as flat that as round. How good someone feels about an idea or theory serves no purpose in judging it's validity.

*I know you don't want to really debate this, but I couldn't help myself from responding*