Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/15/07 03:38 PM, Peter-II wrote:

At 2/15/07 03:10 PM, Dre-Man wrote: No physical processes have been shown that explain how evolution or the big bang occured.

lul, wut? The physical process that explain how evolution occurs is genetic mutation. DNA mutates, if the mutation benefits the organism, that organism will reproduce more and as a result its offspring will inherit this beneficial mutation.

No physical processes have been shown that exhibit a living organism being spawned from thousands of molecules to spontaneously create life out of nowhere. Find a link to prove THAT wrong.

As for the big bang, there are a number of hypotheses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Specula tive_physics_beyond_the_Big_Bang

"hypotheses."

All in all, you can't really make this allegation since no physical processes have been shown that explain how the universe just transcended from almighty Yahweh's very fingers in six days.

We don't claim that almighty Yaweh used physical processes to create the world in six days; you're an idiot for even trying to demand physical proof of a spirit that is not even believed to exist in the physical universe.

Two dictionary definitions of the word theory, one of which is derived from Mr. Webster himself.

1.) contemplation or speculation.
2.) guess or conjecture.

Three cheers for he who doesn't know the difference between a dictionary definition and an analysis!

Three cheers for he who has more waffles than a buffet breakfast at a waffle house!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science

A theory is a speculation, or a guess, that's a FACT. If you don't want your evolutionary bullshit to be seen as speculation, don't call it the THEORY of evolution.

At 2/15/07 04:02 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 2/15/07 03:38 PM, Peter-II wrote:

At 2/15/07 03:10 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

No physical processes have been shown that exhibit a living organism being spawned from thousands of molecules to spontaneously create life out of nowhere. Find a link to prove THAT wrong.

Lol wut? Isn't that exactly what creationism claims? Life spontaneously created out of nowhere? Scientific theory says molecules => amino acids => ... lots of steps => life. Far from the spontaneous creation that creationism claims.

As for the big bang, there are a number of hypotheses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Specula tive_physics_beyond_the_Big_Bang

"hypotheses."

All in all, you can't really make this allegation since no physical processes have been shown that explain how the universe just transcended from almighty Yahweh's very fingers in six days.

We don't claim that almighty Yaweh used physical processes to create the world in six days; you're an idiot for even trying to demand physical proof of a spirit that is not even believed to exist in the physical universe.

And you're an idiot for even trying to demand proof of natural theories that don't work with the concept of proof. And you can demand proof of the physical phenomenom of creation "just spontaneously happening" as in the Yhwh theory. He doesn't demand proof of the spirit itself, just of the physical act of the universe just popping into existence.

Three cheers for he who has more waffles than a buffet breakfast at a waffle house!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science

A theory is a speculation, or a guess, that's a FACT. If you don't want your evolutionary bullshit to be seen as speculation, don't call it the THEORY of evolution.

Just because there are retards that are unable to comprehend the scientific meaning of the word theory, doesn't mean the entirity of humanity has to stoop to their level.

At 2/15/07 04:17 PM, Togukawa wrote:

Thanks, saves me the trouble of responding myself...

Also Dre-Man, about the hypothesis thing, basically we can't know what was before the big bang, with our current equipment / knowledge of the universe thing. This is why science is always advancing. Curiosity is what enables us to find these things out, and I'm afraid "non physical, incomprehencible deity creates it in six days" just isn't satisfying enough for me...I'd like to know the physical reality, myself. Maybe God created the big bang. Maybe he didn't. I'm not jumping to any conclusions.

At 2/15/07 03:46 PM, Imperator wrote:

The bible specifically says that life was created in 6 days. Wait a minute, didn't you say that you had an MA in theology? Didn't you say that you were studying to become a scholar?! PAHAHA! Shows how much of a lying Catholic sack of shit you really are. Go ahead and call me a fundamentalist again, but you know it's true.

Fundamentalist swine!

I never said I had a MA in Theology. And I AM a scholar, just not of the professional variety....(yet)....

"Born and raised Roman Catholic, went to Catechism for 12 years, went to a private school, went through 4 years of religion classes in high school, took several classes on Christianity in college."

Didn't do you much good. 16 or more years of education on Christianity didn't even give you a basic education on the Bible, you must have been reading a whole hell of a lot of Spiderman comics during class. What's that sound, is it you choking on your toes?

You DO realize a day in some cultures aren't defined by 24 hours......

Sure, 6 days must have meant 60 million years.

Shit, we have a Jewish calender, a Gregorian calender, and a Chinese calender. Which one's right?

Speaking of, Happy Chinese New Year!

Furthermore, the mark of a Fundamentalist is believing a Literal interpretation of the bible.....

Why don't you tell me what you base YOUR non-literal interpretations on? The flawed teachings of your misguided little clergymen whom you think have the power to wash away your sins? Or did you actually base them off of your own reading and deciphering of the bible? Something tells me it's the words of the clergymen that are dribbling out of your divine Roman Catholic cake hole.

Togu:
I'm thinking low IQ.

Togukawa, though I usually disagree with him completley, actually has a basis for his arguments, though he may be repetetive. You on the other hand, have no basis for your arguments, and are even MORE repetetive. I even have more respect for an atheist who loves to bash the Bible and all it stands for, than an idiotic Catholic scumbag that does nothing more than give Christianity and the true words of the Bible a bad name.

But I still to this day have never seen an example of evolution OR the big bang for that matter. No physical processes have been shown that explain how evolution or the big bang occured.

Consequently Dre-Man, I've never seen any physical processes that have shown or explained God's presence. It's a two way street.

Kudos to you Togukawa, you were right, Mr. Multi-Personality just waffled again, now he's an athiest!

Because people will relentlessly fail to prove the Bible wrong or even discredit it in the slightest manner with their bullshit "theories". And the Bible predicts that as well :)

bullshit "theories" led to every Church Council known to date, including Nicaea, Trent, and Vatican II.

And that's supposed to persuade me how? I think Catholics are idiots, yet what they think is supposed to sway my way of thinking? Logic...

Christ, WHY did people have to translate the Bible into English so idiots like Dre can ruin it? FUCK, I'm wishing it were still only sold in Latin right now.....

Like you can read latin. HA! The Bible wasn't even originally written as Latin, it went from Hebrew to Greek, and from Greek to hundreds of other languages! The English bible wasn't even translated FROM latin! Please keep going Imperator, keep showing us how much your 16 year Catholic education has payed off. Show us the way oh holy roman catholic divine!

Oh BTW Dre-Man:

On the matter of "WORSHIPPING Saints":

Great, keep going with the worshipping thing even after I admitted an incorrect use of words. Now who's repetetive?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_o f_Nicaea

Bible verse, bible verse, where's the bible verse? Doesn't work, sorry. Whether or not you worhip the saints is irrelevant, the fact that you pray to them is enough to blatantly prove your direct contradiction the Bible. Call it "honoring" them, call it "idolizing" them, it's all the same. You ask them to be your advocate in the face of God. And they are DEAD, they can not hear you, they are not in heaven, and will not be until judgement day comes.

Read Revelation, which you obviously haven't done even in the entirety of your supposed 16 year Catholic education, and you will learn, that even the holy Saints and martyrs have not been saved yet. You know what, don't read it, I'll quote it for you. A little more education to add to your supposed 16 years of religious enlightenment.

Revelation 6:9-11

9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow-servants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

This obviously states, without question or doubt, that the Saints and martyrs that were killed in the name of the Lord, will not be brought up to heaven until the rest of their brethren die in the hands of the dragon (Revelation speak for "satan" if your 16 year Catholic education didn't tell you that already), and that they are to rest in their graves for a little season, until the time comes for them to ascend. Thus they are dead, and can not hear your prayers. The Bible does not tell us to pray to the saints and martyrs, the Bible does not tell us that the saints and martyrs will pray for us in the face of God if we ask them to, thus you do this without the expressed permission of God and the Bible.

But my interpretation doesn't count at all you see, I'm a fundamentalist.

If I came out and said without any backing from the Bible which is the only article of Christian code existing today, that praying to the angels is a legitimate practice because they are divine beings, would I be correct? The angels are holy, and have direct contact with God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. If I prayed to them, asking them to be my advocate in the face of the Lord, would I be correct? No.

"As the sacred and life-giving cross is everywhere set up as a symbol, so also should the images of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, the holy angels, as well as those of the saints and other pious and holy men be embodied in the manufacture of sacred vessels, tapestries, vestments, etc., and exhibited on the walls of churches, in the homes, and in all conspicuous places, by the roadside and everywhere, to be revered by all who might see them. For the more they are contemplated, the more they move to fervent memory of their prototypes. Therefore, it is proper to accord to them a fervent and reverent adoration, not, however, the veritable worship which, according to our faith, belongs to the Divine Being alone — for the honor accorded to the image passes over to its prototype, and whoever adores the image adores in it the reality of what is there represented."

Thus, the father of Constatine was warding against what is now modern day Catholicism, and prayer to the Saints for that matter. He says that they are to be honored, and revered. Not prayed to, or asked to be the advocate of men in the face of God. You just quoted something that contradicts your own beliefs. Logic...

(my emphasis). There's your PROOF against your "bullshit" theories on Catholic Saint worship. You may now slit your wrists....I suggest both down the street and across the road methods.....

Misuse of words, I admitted to that. Drop it.

At 2/15/07 04:48 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 2/15/07 03:46 PM, Imperator wrote: You DO realize a day in some cultures aren't defined by 24 hours......

Sure, 6 days must have meant 60 million years.

The total duration is 7 days, 7 being a symbolic number.

Togu:
I'm thinking low IQ.

Togukawa, though I usually disagree with him completley, actually has a basis for his arguments, though he may be repetetive. You on the other hand, have no basis for your arguments, and are even MORE repetetive. I even have more respect for an atheist who loves to bash the Bible and all it stands for, than an idiotic Catholic scumbag that does nothing more than give Christianity and the true words of the Bible a bad name.

You are the last person on the earth I'd ever want respect from. Who are you to insult Imperator's interpretation of the Bible when you have only read a single version, and not even a study Bible.

Consequently Dre-Man, I've never seen any physical processes that have shown or explained God's presence. It's a two way street.

Kudos to you Togukawa, you were right, Mr. Multi-Personality just waffled again, now he's an athiest!

You fail to see Imperator's point. If you consider physical processes as a criterion for a theory, then you've got to put your own to it as well. If you contend that evolution is flawed because of lack of physical evidence, then creation is flawed as well, for that exact same reason. It's a two way street.

Because people will relentlessly fail to prove the Bible wrong or even discredit it in the slightest manner with their bullshit "theories". And the Bible predicts that as well :)

bullshit "theories" led to every Church Council known to date, including Nicaea, Trent, and Vatican II.

And that's supposed to persuade me how? I think Catholics are idiots, yet what they think is supposed to sway my way of thinking? Logic...

The Bible you read is a translation defined by those Church Councils. And the translation itself is based on a theory about Hebrew language.

Christ, WHY did people have to translate the Bible into English so idiots like Dre can ruin it? FUCK, I'm wishing it were still only sold in Latin right now.....

Like you can read latin. HA! The Bible wasn't even originally written as Latin, it went from Hebrew to Greek, and from Greek to hundreds of other languages! The English bible wasn't even translated FROM latin! Please keep going Imperator, keep showing us how much your 16 year Catholic education has payed off. Show us the way oh holy roman catholic divine!

Quousque tandem abutere patientia nostra? Diutius... The point is that there was a time where the Bible was only available in Latin, meaning only educated people could read it, as opposed to the vulgus.

At 2/15/07 05:07 PM, Togukawa wrote:

At 2/15/07 04:48 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 2/15/07 03:46 PM, Imperator wrote: You DO realize a day in some cultures aren't defined by 24 hours......

Sure, 6 days must have meant 60 million years.

The total duration is 7 days, 7 being a symbolic number.

Ah yes, 7 is the Lord's perfect number.

Togu:
I'm thinking low IQ.

Togukawa, though I usually disagree with him completley, actually has a basis for his arguments, though he may be repetetive. You on the other hand, have no basis for your arguments, and are even MORE repetetive. I even have more respect for an atheist who loves to bash the Bible and all it stands for, than an idiotic Catholic scumbag that does nothing more than give Christianity and the true words of the Bible a bad name.

You are the last person on the earth I'd ever want respect from. Who are you to insult Imperator's interpretation of the Bible when you have only read a single version, and not even a study Bible.

Great, throw me down after I defended you from him, he just happened to call you an idiot, but I'm the enemy again. He insulted MY interpretation of the Bible, he called ME a fundamentalist, yet I am the one attacking?! HOW?! And I don't need a study Bible to tell me what a chapter is or is not saying. I do happen to have an NIV study Bible, though I rarely use it.

Consequently Dre-Man, I've never seen any physical processes that have shown or explained God's presence. It's a two way street.

Kudos to you Togukawa, you were right, Mr. Multi-Personality just waffled again, now he's an athiest!

You fail to see Imperator's point. If you consider physical processes as a criterion for a theory, then you've got to put your own to it as well. If you contend that evolution is flawed because of lack of physical evidence, then creation is flawed as well, for that exact same reason. It's a two way street.

Yes, he is claiming that there are no physical processes explaining God's presence. He's right, but why would a Catholic make that statement? Why would a Catholic speak out against his own beliefs? It makes absolutely no sense. Once again I tell you, you can not expect physical evidence of a spiritual deity thought not to exist in the physical universe. It's NOT a two way street. It's two absolutely seperate streets, it's like comparing a gondola river in Venice to an autobahn in Germany.

Because people will relentlessly fail to prove the Bible wrong or even discredit it in the slightest manner with their bullshit "theories". And the Bible predicts that as well :)

bullshit "theories" led to every Church Council known to date, including Nicaea, Trent, and Vatican II.

And that's supposed to persuade me how? I think Catholics are idiots, yet what they think is supposed to sway my way of thinking? Logic...

The Bible you read is a translation defined by those Church Councils. And the translation itself is based on a theory about Hebrew language.

What makes you think that the Bible was translated from hebrew by catholic church councils? Most of the Bible came from the greek septuagint, a greek translation of the old testament.

Christ, WHY did people have to translate the Bible into English so idiots like Dre can ruin it? FUCK, I'm wishing it were still only sold in Latin right now.....

Like you can read latin. HA! The Bible wasn't even originally written as Latin, it went from Hebrew to Greek, and from Greek to hundreds of other languages! The English bible wasn't even translated FROM latin! Please keep going Imperator, keep showing us how much your 16 year Catholic education has payed off. Show us the way oh holy roman catholic divine!

Quousque tandem abutere patientia nostra? Diutius... The point is that there was a time where the Bible was only available in Latin, meaning only educated people could read it, as opposed to the vulgus.

Actually, the was the Bible utilizes such flowery english still prevents the uneducated from deciphering it.

And I don't need a study Bible to tell me what a chapter is or is not saying.

Actually, the was the Bible utilizes such flowery english still prevents the uneducated from deciphering it.

Thanks for proving my point Dre! Makes my job of making you look stupid that much easier!

To clear some things up, god created Science to PROVE the bible correct. I love to go to http://www.drdino.com and research some stuff about this topic. The evolution of man is complete bull**** obviously. We can evolve, but we can't create amoebas? and we come from monkeys. Yes. The stupid little ignorant runts that throw crap at you on your first trip to the zoo. Yup, according to theory, we're somehow related. How, I still dunno, but we are.(I don't believe it personally) And I think there is something some people have never introduced into scientific theory. White Holes. Yea, ever thought of something like that? Dr. Dino says that at a center of a black hole, time relatively stands still, as there is no matter in such a confined space. He also says, in white holes, time AGES so fast, we are unable to measure it. I don't think the earth is billions of years old. We may have AGED that long, but we are not that old relatively and literally. Anyways, what is our universe is a HUGE white hole? Ever thought of something like that?

Well, it doesnt matter because atheists havent done anything worth being put into history books yet, so its like they never exsisted if you dont listen to them.

At 2/15/07 10:17 AM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: lol, Raverial, even his name is religious.

Huh? This name is a made-up variation on Celtic naming conventions for the Fey (faeries, elves, etc)... nothing to do with religion (at least not specifically).

At 2/15/07 03:10 PM, Dre-Man wrote: They haven't and never will, but they think they have. Just let them, it's almost entertaining to watch them think that they're more intelligent than creationists or religious people because of their oh so unproven "theories".

As others have said, learn the scientific definition of the word "theory" then come back and we'll talk.

Wait a minute, didn't you say that you had an MA in theology?

Mocking sarcasm goes right over your head, don't it?

We believe in gravity because it's right in front of our face. If I wacked you in the face with a baseball bat until you were unconscious and you fell flat on the ground, I would see an example of gravity. But I still to this day have never seen an example of evolution OR the big bang for that matter. No physical processes have been shown that explain how evolution or the big bang occured.

Antibacterial-resistant bacteria. Game. Set. Match: bugs.

As for the Big Bang... doppler shift and background radiation will do for that. I'd post links but you wouldn't rad them (or if you did you'd not understand them, or consider them part of the atheist conspiracy that is holding down the truth of the literal interpretation of Genesis)

At 2/15/07 04:02 PM, Dre-Man wrote: No physical processes have been shown that exhibit a living organism being spawned from thousands of molecules to spontaneously create life out of nowhere. Find a link to prove THAT wrong.

*cough* http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exo biology/miller.html

"hypotheses."

Hypothesis =/= theory.

We don't claim that almighty Yaweh used physical processes to create the world in six days; you're an idiot for even trying to demand physical proof of a spirit that is not even believed to exist in the physical universe.

Does he exist in time? (the more intelligent of you may see where this is going... let me guide him, if you please :P)

At 2/15/07 04:48 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Sure, 6 days must have meant 60 million years.

When a thousand years is but a day to god, methinks that god's "day" could be anything he wanted it to be.

Consequently Dre-Man, I've never seen any physical processes that have shown or explained God's presence. It's a two way street.

Kudos to you Togukawa, you were right, Mr. Multi-Personality just waffled again, now he's an athiest!

Wait... you think he was talking TO you ABOUT Imperator? Lawl.

At 2/15/07 05:53 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Great, throw me down after I defended you from him, he just happened to call you an idiot, but I'm the enemy again.

Lol, you think they were dissing eachother... that's so CUTE!

Sigh... just when we get an actual intelligent discussion about religion going, Dre comes in here and faggs it all up again.

At 2/15/07 06:49 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Well, it doesnt matter because atheists havent done anything worth being put into history books yet, so its like they never exsisted if you dont listen to them.

Carl Sagan
Stephen Hawking
Frederiche Nietzie (I know I butchered that)
Sigmund Freud
Ernest Hemmingway
Albert Einstein
Aldous Huxley
Ayn Rand
Benjamin Franklin
Bertrand Russel
Frank Zappa
Voltaire

saywhutnow?

Sigh... just when we get an actual intelligent discussion about religion going, Dre comes in here and faggs it all up again.

lol. You are hearby sig'd!

At 2/16/07 02:16 AM, Imperator wrote:

Sigh... just when we get an actual intelligent discussion about religion going, Dre comes in here and faggs it all up again.

lol. You are hearby sig'd!

W00T! Go me!

At 2/15/07 06:40 PM, RPGBandit wrote: To clear some things up, god created Science to PROVE the bible correct. I love to go to http://www.drdino.com and research some stuff about this topic.

"Research"? There? Oh and God didn't create science to prove the Bible,first off since that's impossible for science to do, and secondly because science as we know it is only a couple of centuries old.

The evolution of man is complete bull**** obviously. We can evolve, but we can't create amoebas?

How are us being a product of evolution and our ability to create amoebas related?

and we come from monkeys. Yes. The stupid little ignorant runts that throw crap at you on your first trip to the zoo.

We don't COME from monkeys, we have a shared ancestor. Who's stupid and ignorant? At least have an inkling of understanding about the theory you so eagerly bash.

Yup, according to theory, we're somehow related. How, I still dunno, but we are.(I don't believe it personally).

You don't even believe we're related? Interesting, so sharing 95% of the DNA is not being "related" whatsoever? Or don't you believe that either?

And I think there is something some people have never introduced into scientific theory. White Holes.

Normally speaking, absolute bullshit isn't introduced into scientific theory.

Yea, ever thought of something like that? Dr. Dino says that at a center of a black hole, time relatively stands still, as there is no matter in such a confined space.

No matter in such a confined space? Do you even realize what a black hole is? A huge concentration of mass is kind of the whole point of black holes... Which leads me to wonder what the definition of a "white hole" would be. Absence of mass isn't a white hole, it's called a vacuum. Time doesn't run faster in vacuum.

He also says, in white holes, time AGES so fast, we are unable to measure it. I don't think the earth is billions of years old. We may have AGED that long, but we are not that old relatively and literally. Anyways, what is our universe is a HUGE white hole? Ever thought of something like that?

So how do you define the age of an object then, if not by the time that has passed?

And Dre-Man just cracks me up. One wonders just how much knowledge one can get from the "flowery english" of the Bible if one is unable to understand who's insulting whom...

And Dre-Man just cracks me up. One wonders just how much knowledge one can get from the "flowery english" of the Bible if one is unable to understand who's insulting whom...

What cracked me up more was his own words on how he came to the conclusion:

Actually, the was the Bible utilizes such flowery english still prevents the uneducated from deciphering it.

Now, I have tons more classroom experience with the bible than he does, so.....how is it he's not one of the "uneducated decipherers"? heheheheeh, now we're gangin up on em, good stuff.

now we all know that imperiator is smarted than Dre-man

I just had a thought:

It’s stupid but bare with me.

If god 'planted his seed' in the Virgin Mary without her consent wouldn’t that be qualified as rape?

If god 'planted his seed' in the Virgin Mary without her consent wouldn’t that be qualified as rape?

Under the assumption that that's how Mary became pregnant:

No, if we are basing the legal definitions of rape under ancient Roman law.
Yes, if we base it under modern American Law.
??, if we base it under modern Israeli/Palestinian law.

At 2/16/07 09:11 PM, Mor-Evil-Than-Google wrote: I just had a thought:

It’s stupid but bare with me.

If god 'planted his seed' in the Virgin Mary without her consent wouldn’t that be qualified as rape?

but God never had sex with Mary, she simply bore the child.

At 2/15/07 04:17 PM, Togukawa wrote: Just because there are retards that are unable to comprehend the scientific meaning of the word theory, doesn't mean the entirity of humanity has to stoop to their level.

i've tried explaining the use and meaning of a word (i can't remember if it was theory or something else) once before and it went absolutley no where, was a little depressing.

How come science and religion can't coexist? While all scientific evidence (and common sense) points to evolution, it had to start SOMEWHERE. Single-celled organisms didn't just pop up out of thin air. Why not fill that void there with God (in whatever way you believe in such a thing, unless it's the Flying Spaghetti Monster). The way I think of it is, God, in some way, shape or form, set it all up a few billion years ago and then just let the ball roll.

See intelligent design

That's a little different. Intelligent design is more of just a euphemism for Genesis so that it can be taught in schools.

At 2/16/07 11:19 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: That's a little different. Intelligent design is more of just a euphemism for Genesis so that it can be taught in schools.

In it's complete explanation, it gathers a base off creationism and then infuses evolution into the picture. ID believes don't have the answers for everything, therefore they believe that the universe must have been mapped out by a sentient being with the knowledge to construct matter that would begin to form life. After the base matter was formed, 'evolution,' so to speak, took hold, and under the guidance of an intelligent creator, led to the universe as we know it today.

ID has to be based off of enough science so that it may be taught in schools in America, otherwise, it could be blocked by separation of church and state as well as parents who don't want their kids exposed to creationist dribble.

Makes sense, I suppose, but it still seems like it exists not as an actual theory to the big questions but as a means to satisfy everyone.

At 2/16/07 11:32 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: Makes sense, I suppose, but it still seems like it exists not as an actual theory to the big questions but as a means to satisfy everyone.

It is a modified version of Creationism that allows it to be taught in schools, incorporating the most basic fundamentals of evolution, giving ID a scientific base to be taught on.

Right, what I'm sayin' is, since there's more proof towards evolution, there should be a theory that's kinda the other way around, still both but with more focus on evolution, whereas in ID the focus is on Creationism.

At 1/18/07 10:37 AM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: Any other questions?

Any answers?

Oh,your not getting into heaven now.

At 2/16/07 11:03 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: How come science and religion can't coexist? While all scientific evidence (and common sense) points to evolution, it had to start SOMEWHERE. Single-celled organisms didn't just pop up out of thin air. Why not fill that void there with God (in whatever way you believe in such a thing, unless it's the Flying Spaghetti Monster). The way I think of it is, God, in some way, shape or form, set it all up a few billion years ago and then just let the ball roll.

They usually DO coexist, for some reason, these boards seem to always suggest otherwise. In your day to day actions, you can observe the mutual existence of both though (which might explain why on here it isn't the case)....

Found this appropriate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPGzVJQKBF4

"No, God just went 'click' "

I think Robin had Dre in mind when he thought of that one.....