Celtic Heroes

Bringing the theory of evolution into a discussion about religion always brings about a heated debate. Evolution is, for me, an undeniable fact, whether you believe in it or not does change the fact that it has been proven, and can be observed by looking at fossils etc.

That being said, it is perfectly all right to question the finer details of the theory; questioning the world around us is a fundamental attitude upon which science rests, but I personally see no overwhelming evidence that points to us being completely off.

If you do not believe in evolution is fine, as long as you do not impose your beliefs upon those who do believe in the theory, and vice versa.

Another point that I would like to make, is that science and religion can co-exist. It's not black and white. You can take a little from both. In the end, science and religion are very similar. Both are the attempts of humans to understand the world in which we live.

What, in my eyes, defines a person is the values that he or she has, what he or she does, not whether he or she believes that God created the world in six days(?) or that man and apes are descendants of a common ancestor(s).

Fighting evolution

i can provide lots of evidence for the contrary.

natural selection only works when there already self reproducing organisms, so how did the first cells change to how they are now? i have heard an argument that natural selection is an oxymoron because it gives the power to choose, something that only belongs to intelligent beings, to nature. of course natural selection works in some cases, like the peppered moths obviously, but there are things about living things today that i do not see how they can be applied to natural selection.

i just skimmed through the above, didnt bother to read it so show me direct evidence.

i have much more in store.

stop criticizing us for petty little things while making yourself look like a moron. show me evidence, if you have any.

1. I already stated I am not religious.
2. I have already refuted your above arguments in previous posts and my posts have not been addressed. Address my previous posts first, I hate repeating myself.
3. There are plenty of educated people who do not trust in macroevolution, you just think otherwise because it is taught in public schools.
4. Stop trying to use microevolution to prove macroevolution.

You are not religious but do not 'believe' in evolution????

You refuted nothing with facts. Every comment I made has huge mountains of very very obvious evidence anyone with intellectual honesty and an Internet connection can access.

There is no difference between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution. Though those are apologist terms not scientific ones. The only difference is time.

There are virtually no educated people who "do not trust in macro evolution" that do not have an agenda - typically some fundamentalist religious slant.

There is a reason why it is taught in schools. Christians just hate evolution because it is 'proof' genesis is false and therefore no original sin so no need for Jesus to kill himself and the whole thing falls apart. You don't question gravity, quantum mechanics or any other science taught in schools with the exception of the science that disproves the earth is 4000 years old.

You know in Europe it is a serious crime to deny the holocaust. It isn't opinion and it's just so unbelievably in denial of reality and hurtful to people it is a crime.

What we need in America is a law that makes it a serious crime to deny reality in the face of overwhelming incontrovertible evidence. I think that this would help clear up quite a few problems.

I do not believe you are not religious. You are definately entrenched in the dogma of the deep south bible belt science denial. You think the thoughts and use the terms. You ignore the same evidence. If you are honestly not I suggest a good therapist. Because if you really don't know what is real on that level you are a danger to yourself and others.

Ok, I was replying to your posts because I thought you were actually serious and knew at least some of what you are talking about, but now I'm sorry I wasted my time.
You honestly don't know the difference between micro and macroevolution!?! Even the kids flunking out of my chemistry and biology classes at least know that. You obviously aren't actually informed at all, you have just been raised believing in something and are now on a blind crusade to prove you aren't wrong. So far, no matter who tells you otherwise, you are completely closed off to new ideas and opinions, you are convinced that what you believe is right without any willingness to change your opinion even if it is refuted over and over. You are completely condecending towards people who are much smarter than you and probably much older (I don't know your exact age for sure, but you are probably still in highschool judging by your knowledge level). You preach objectivity while looking at everything with one of the most subjective views demonstrated on this forum. I do not think you actually know what objective means.

You also continue to put words in my mouth, I said there are educated and intelligent people who are much smarted than you (believe it or not there are people smarter than you) who do not trust evolution, I never said I do not accept evolution. I think its a fairly good theory which takes a lot of evidence into account and provides for the most part, a plausible answer. It has some holes but it is still useable. You on the other hand seem determined to see it as an absolute, irrefutable fact when it has no where near enough proof to support itself. (Also note that evidence and proof are NOT the same thing)

I have absolutely no affiliation with your "deep south bible belt".

No one claims the earth is 4000 years old, YECs say it is between 6000 - 10,000 years old.

There are many Christians who believe in evolution as well, the fact that you didn't know this is more evidence that you do not actually know what you are talking about.
You are just trying to assign motives to my posts because you aren't able to argue with me.

There is a huge difference between micro and macroevolution. I hate repeating myself when you could have just scrolled back and read my earlier posts and also when I know that it will have absolutely no effect on your actions, but for the sake of everyone else reading: Microevolution is observable and involves changes in the frequencies or changes within a species. No new species is formed. (note that the changes in bacteria that you like to point out are actually a form of microevolution)
Macroevolution is NOT observable ( and is therefore not even science) and requires new genetic traits to be introduced in a species thereby changing it into a whole new species.

No, I do not expect you to have any change in your hypocritical heart and suddenly realize that maybe it is possible for someone else to be right, but I am posting so that anyone else reading can see that it can be perfectly logical to not blindly follow evolution.

For you, you have degraded into another atheist hating on religion because he can't stand the idea of anyone or anything being smarter or better than him or knowing something he does not or holding him accountable for his actions. You are just another biased atheist who doesn't want truth. And more evidence that this topic has declined from being a discussion into being a hate ramble.

You sir are horribly ignorant. I am quite aware of evolution. You have not provided ANY evidence or facts so NO I am not changing my mind. If you had simply done a google search here is the first result lol! From Wikipedia:

Microevolution is the changes in allele frequencies that occur over time within a population.[1] This change is due to four different processes: mutation, selection (natural and artificial), gene flow, and genetic drift.
Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of microevolution. Ecological genetics concerns itself with observing microevolution in the wild. Typically, observable instances of evolution are examples of microevolution; for example, bacterial strains that have antibiotic resistance.
Microevolution over time may lead to speciation or the appearance of novel structure, sometimes classified as macroevolution.[2] Contrary to claims by creationists however, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.[2][3]

Which is EXACTLY what I said. I am not hating but it is frustrating when people are in denial of reality. Epically when that not only hurts themselves but society as a whole. I strongly suggest you learn what is real before you wind up injured or dead from your own ignorance as to what is real.

There is my evidence complete with cited sources. Please please provide some evidence - real evidence with sources - no BS crackpot religious sources - to back your minority unfounded claims.

I double dare you to make less sense.

Religion is formed from stories versus science which is formed from... theories? If this is the argument, you must validate yourself based on an outside source.

Do not support Christianity with the bible and do not support theories by repeating it or adding more theories.

That means you are left with logic:
We do not know how the universe came to be, we can only guess.
There are written documents which mention names and dates. Whilst a large portion may be inaccurate, it is reasonable to assume that some things must be true. After all, every lie (not that any religion is a lie) is built on a kernel of truth.
We can not see god, feel god (physically touch), hear god, etc.
We can not go back in time to verify theories such as the Big Bang or evolution over a long term.

With that in mind, you can still live. We can still laugh, have fun, investigate life, maintain faith, open up to new ideas, stick with traditional ideas, etc etc etc.

From what I have seen from many religions, there is a large amount of free-will and forgiveness. You do not have to %100 take a side in a war that does not even exist.

Atheists had good lives, Christians had good lives, Hindus had good lives, etc. Everything comes with time and for right now, what we do not know about these subjects can not hurt us.

I hate reply to long posts with a short one, but your arguments are so one sided. You are saying there is absolutely no flaws with science, though we Christians and others who do not believe in the Big Bang Theory are providing a counterexample to every one of your arguments, yet you make more and more and, of course, you have to throw in a comment trying to explain how 'deranged' we are. EdElric came up with an excellent argument to prove your incredibly false claims and annoyingly false percentages. Also, religion is not based on guesses. We have historical evidence backing our claims - the Bible. There is also much historical evidence that has been found. What you are also saying is that there is no argument in science. What about spontaneous generation? What about the extinction of dinosaurs? There are also many flaws in your theory. Why did the particle explosion that supposedly created the earth create two different genders - and with the correct genetalia to reproduce? Why is water the only substance that in its liquid physical state it is more dense than its solid state? If it wasn't, we would not be alive. Did a particle smaller than the tip of a needle plan all of this?

There has been ZERO evidence to show anything I have said is false. I have posted articles with many sources as evidence. The claims are annoying to you because they are not in alignment with your faith. I'm sorry (not sarcastic) if reality does not jibe with your assumptions. You cannot simply waive away facts with your feelings despite how you feel.

The bible was written hundreds of years after the fact by many different authors. Nearly all the details in the bible are borrowed ie copied from earlier traditions and beliefs. To just assume it is true while ignoring the TREMENDOUS amounts of evidence to the contrary is arrogant, intellectually dishonest, and will likely have some serious repercussions if your reasoning strays too far from reality.

Yes I did use Wikipedia. Most actual science journals are behind a paywall. Which do you subscribe to so I do not need to use free sources?

I clicked on the first link because the entire rest of the world is in agreement. Only those ignorant and never educated or those whole religion has addled all sense from the brain take issue. The evidence is not hard to find it is staring you in the face everywhere you look.

Because it can be altered does not make it wrong. It is in fact correct on most all of the details. It is one of the best free sources.

You have provided no counter examples. The correct way isnt to hand wave away cited evidence it is to provide more snd better citations wirh an explination Please provide them and if they are true we can help make Wikipedia more accurate.

Once again, where are your counterexamples? Also, I explained that your false percentage data is absolutely annoying. It is.

The Bible is the written Word of God and nothing else - stop the false claims.

Some of your claims are a bit off, although. Vaccines and medicines will become less and less effective after viral strains are created, but that does not prove evolution.

Once again, where are your counterexamples? Also, I explained that your false percentage data is absolutely annoying. It is.

The Bible is the written Word of God and nothing else - stop the false claims.

Some of your claims are a bit off, although. Vaccines and medicines will become less and less effective after viral strains are created, but that does not prove evolution.

Lol! Counter examples to what? I provided evidence. You did not. Show citations that undermine or disprove the above citations.

Yes the data is annoying because it is so easy to show you have no scientific footing. You chose that undefendable position not me.

The bible is not the word of god. The old testimate was written hundreds of years later from scribbles on paper and hand me down stories most of which were borrowed from other religions. The new testimate was just the old testimate with new additions to please some English royalty. Totally fabricated.

And I never said any data proves anything. It is evidence that supports a theory. There is no such thing as a 'proof' in science only disproving. You are thinking about axiomatic systems like mathematics. That's where you assume things then prove implications exist or are true using those assumptions.

Once again, where are your counterexamples? Also, I explained that your false percentage data is absolutely annoying. It is.

The Bible is the written Word of God and nothing else - stop the false claims.

Some of your claims are a bit off, although. Vaccines and medicines will become less and less effective after viral strains are created, but that does not prove evolution.

Lol! Counter examples to what? I provided evidence. You did not. Show citations that undermine or disprove the above citations.

Yes the data is annoying because it is so easy to show you have no scientific footing. You chose that undefendable position not me.

The bible is not the word of god. The old testimate was written hundreds of years later from scribbles on paper and hand me down stories most of which were borrowed from other religions. The new testimate was just the old testimate with new additions to please some English royalty. Totally fabricated.

And I never said any data proves anything. It is evidence that supports a theory. There is no such thing as a 'proof' in science only disproving. You are thinking about axiomatic systems like mathematics. That's where you assume things then prove implications exist or are true using those assumptions.

You haven't given any citations though...

You are correct at the end, you can't actually prove something with science, this is exactly my point all along.
I have no issue with someone believing in evolution. I have no issue with someone teaching evolution as the theory that it is. I have an issue with someone blowing up their head to mega-size and going off on a mad crusade to insult and put down everyone who disagrees with them. So far, that is all you have done. Anyone who does not agree with every little detail you say you call stupid, ignorant, uneducated or insane, my only conclusion is that you must just be a troll here to ruin this topic. Honestly, the conversation was very constructive until you came along, now its turned into a mess and you still refuse to cut the crap and admit you don't know everything.

You also are constantly using threats. You try to scare people into believing you (before its too late, before you get hurt, before you wind up dead blah blah blah).
This is called an appeal to fear and is a fallacy. Most people will go through life ignorant of the details we are discussing here and many of them will lead happy healthy lives because none of this has anything to do with them. People will live and die, laugh and cry, celebrate and mourn, all completely regardless of their personal beliefs. The only reason you bring in the "I'm so concerned for your safety" crap is because you: 1. are trying to be condescending and tick everyone off, 2. You don't have a very good grasp on reality and actually think that everyone who doesn't think exactly like you is miserable, 3. You are trying to look all wonderful and self-righteous like you actually care, because without it it looks like you are just belligerent and want the topic locked, 4. you think that the appeal to fear will work and everyone will agree with you because they are so scared of you prophecies of doom.