Celtic Heroes

And the above is priceless we have two highly religious people or more who can't even agree on simple facts. That should be a clue It is all bs.

You are saying science is also "bs", since there is debate all of the time.

Also, highly religious? You will call anyone "highly religious", but I doubt you would call anyone a scientist. You act as if reprimanding for use of false facts is not a part of science, either.

Science reaches a probable conclusion in which a preponderance of evidence wins the debate. That can not be said for religion which encompasses hundreds of different variations that all lack evidence.

Also no, facts are seperation from belief. That's why I like to say: I believe in science while you believe in evolution. Creationism is fact.

Everything is a belief and nothing is certain. However...

Science leads to probable certainty. Science supports evolution. Science does not support creationism.

Now, you may doubt evolution and the Big Bang. This is acceptable; doubt is very good. However, outright denial in favour of something with less to almost no evidence is foolish. The same scientific method that brings us technology, medicine, knowledge, and progress supports evolution and the Big Bang.

Couldn't it be said that you're outright denying creationism? Is there really enough evidence to prove one over the other? There really isn't a ton of truly factual evidence regarding evolution. Almost all transitional humanoid fossils have been found to be faked. I'm not for sure of this, but if there are any please correct me.

You do realize that there were people who did not agree with the Catholics and so were torchered and killed during that time? Read foxes book of martrys and you will figure it out.

Also no, facts are seperation from belief. That's why I like to say: I believe in science while you believe in evolution. Creationism is fact.

Also mocking my beliefs is not going to get me to "come to my senses"(sarcasm). You said that baptists were new. That may be true;it may not be. I don't know. But the belief behind it is not new.

It's amazing how much the religious dont know about thier own religions.

There is no belief required for evolution to be factually correct. You chose to ignore facts and make pretend creationism is real - well good for you and your disbelief in the real. Pretending evolution isn't real has the exact same effect pretending the sun isn't real. Zero.

By the way you never answered if you are into the whole demonic possession think like royal. The whole cast demons into pigs and run them into the sea thing like Jesus supposedly did.

You into demons too?

I don't have any "beliefs" at all. None. No faith. Lol.

It's all based on evidence.

Also no, facts are seperation from belief. That's why I like to say: I believe in science while you believe in evolution. Creationism is fact.

Everything is a belief and nothing is certain. However...

Science leads to probable certainty. Science supports evolution. Science does not support creationism.

Now, you may doubt evolution and the Big Bang. This is acceptable; doubt is very good. However, outright denial in favour of something with less to almost no evidence is foolish. The same scientific method that brings us technology, medicine, knowledge, and progress supports evolution and the Big Bang.

Couldn't it be said that you're outright denying creationism? Is there really enough evidence to prove one over the other? There really isn't a ton of truly factual evidence regarding evolution. Almost all transitional humanoid fossils have been found to be faked. I'm not for sure of this, but if there are any please correct me.

It takes a feverishly religious zealot to see each new intermediate fossil as doubling the gaps in knowledge.

There is zero scientific debate. We have genetic DNA evidence, fossils (not faked lol you can see them yourself if you go to the right museums), archaeological and geological evidence.

FFS you can swab your cheek and see what % your DNA is shared with Neanderthals since they interbred with humans. There were many genetic advantages passed on such as processing fats better.

There is solid evidence disproving the breeding population of humans ever dropped below a few thousands of people. Therefore all of biblical genesis is a lie. Adam and Eve a myth. Go ahead and keep believing in myths though don't let facts an evidence sway your views.

Are you from the southern United States? It's simply amazing how many people think facts are the same as opinions.

It takes a feverishly religious zealot to see each new intermediate fossil as doubling the gaps in knowledge.

Sorry i don't understand what you're trying to get at here.

There is zero scientific debate. We have genetic DNA evidence, fossils (not faked lol you can see them yourself if you go to the right museums), archaeological and geological evidence.

If there is no scientific debate, why did Bill Nye and Ken Ham have a creation/evolution debate not 3 months ago? Evidently someone thought there was enough reason to have a debate. What transitional species are there? Please tell me

FFS you can swab your cheek and see what % your DNA is shared with Neanderthals since they interbred with humans. There were many genetic advantages passed on such as processing fats better.

We share 50% percent DNA with bananas, but we don't act 50% like bananas.

Also no, facts are seperation from belief. That's why I like to say: I believe in science while you believe in evolution. Creationism is fact.

Everything is a belief and nothing is certain. However...

Science leads to probable certainty. Science supports evolution. Science does not support creationism.

Now, you may doubt evolution and the Big Bang. This is acceptable; doubt is very good. However, outright denial in favour of something with less to almost no evidence is foolish. The same scientific method that brings us technology, medicine, knowledge, and progress supports evolution and the Big Bang.

Couldn't it be said that you're outright denying creationism? Is there really enough evidence to prove one over the other? There really isn't a ton of truly factual evidence regarding evolution. Almost all transitional humanoid fossils have been found to be faked. I'm not for sure of this, but if there are any please correct me.

Yes, there is enough evidence. How exactly are such fossils faked? However, even if fossils had some fault, we still can not deny the fact that traits are passed on and species are able to adapt allowing a favourable adaptation to continue. It is not too far off the suggest that a number of these changes have occurred over the span of thousands and even millions of years.

sigh... i gave up on this when all the proof and work dersu put in got locked and is now being ignored from the first thread

If there is no scientific debate, why did Bill Nye and Ken Ham have a creation/evolution debate not 3 months ago? Evidently someone thought there was enough reason to have a debate. What transitional species are there? Please tell me

You assume that Bill Nye vs Ken Ham was a scientific debate.

We share 50% percent DNA with bananas, but we don't act 50% like bananas.

DNA is far more complex than that and I find it especially humorous that you would imply we only look at raw comparisons of DNA and "act."

Here is a quick simplified lesson:
DNA is short for deoxyribonucleic acid. It is actually made up of chromosomes, which are nucleic acid protein wrapped around histones. At its basic level, we see DNA as a double helix, or a twisting double ladder. Each rung on the ladder is a nucleotide. Each nucleotide is composed of a sugar, a phosphate, and a nitrogenous base. Now, the important thing here that changes is the nitrogenous bases which can be Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Guanine (G), and Cytosine (C). Adenine can only bond with thymine as cytosine can only bond with guanine.

So essentially in our double helix we see something like this: (s is sugar, p is phosphate, and I will use the above letters for nitrogenous bases)
s-p-A~T-p-s
s-p-C~G-p-s
s-p-G~C-p-s
Etc etc

Now, different combinations of these are "read" in threes in order to produce an amino acid. The different combinations lead to different amino acids and different combinations of amino acids can change everything. A single letter could be miscopied and produce huge variance.

My point is that a change mentioned above could occur in regards to .5 of DNA. So yes, a 98% match to a chimp means a lot more than 50% to a banana, especially with all the other phenomenon.

Note: Very tired at the moment. Something may be incorrect.

Also no, facts are seperation from belief. That's why I like to say: I believe in science while you believe in evolution. Creationism is fact.

Everything is a belief and nothing is certain. However...

Science leads to probable certainty. Science supports evolution. Science does not support creationism.

Now, you may doubt evolution and the Big Bang. This is acceptable; doubt is very good. However, outright denial in favour of something with less to almost no evidence is foolish. The same scientific method that brings us technology, medicine, knowledge, and progress supports evolution and the Big Bang.

Couldn't it be said that you're outright denying creationism? Is there really enough evidence to prove one over the other? There really isn't a ton of truly factual evidence regarding evolution. Almost all transitional humanoid fossils have been found to be faked. I'm not for sure of this, but if there are any please correct me.

For the 3rd time... We found one of the missing links already, called Lucy. Homo habilis.

Also no, facts are seperation from belief. That's why I like to say: I believe in science while you believe in evolution. Creationism is fact.

Everything is a belief and nothing is certain. However...

Science leads to probable certainty. Science supports evolution. Science does not support creationism.

Now, you may doubt evolution and the Big Bang. This is acceptable; doubt is very good. However, outright denial in favour of something with less to almost no evidence is foolish. The same scientific method that brings us technology, medicine, knowledge, and progress supports evolution and the Big Bang.

Couldn't it be said that you're outright denying creationism? Is there really enough evidence to prove one over the other? There really isn't a ton of truly factual evidence regarding evolution. Almost all transitional humanoid fossils have been found to be faked. I'm not for sure of this, but if there are any please correct me.

Would you care to bring any of this evidence to light, because all you Christians are saying there is evidence of creationism but don't actually present any evidence, and attempting to justify it isn't proving it, proof is testable, provable