Hi, here's a thread for evolution vs. intelligent design discussion
|
Jsecure Hanks
Capitalist
Join date: 9 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,451
|
10-10-2005 17:34
Some of these explanations of how lungs, a heart, a brain, blood and kidneys (all codependant) could spawn together at once sound (to be generous) extremely thin on the ground.
Even if you could get "another vertebrate" or something as one person pointed out, it's one thing to have another of something, and one thing again to create something amazingly complex, which is entirely new, like a lung. It is impossible for this to be invented from nothing as the result of even a thousand genetic mutations. Most mutations don't really make a lot of sense. They may slightly alter something and in some cases enhance it, but creating a whole working lung would be rare.
But what about all the codependant systems I mentioned above... At once?!?
The existing scientific theories which people try to apply to this are far, far too sketchy for a consicencious "scientist" to say this is a working theory. You cannot rationally explain this with random genetic mutations, and wipe away the implausibility of this by using the catch all "Oh but there were millions of years, lots of stuff goes on with mutations".
It's junk science. There's no proof in the slightest, no missing link creature with a primitive half lung half freakish nothing system. There's no evidence at all to show a clear path from being a microbe to suddenly having a full working mamalian system.
So does God exist? Well let me put this to you:
Your theory of "Evolution" is one of the most implausible, worst proven cases ever argued. It is shaky and has little to no proof to back it up.
The next time you want to laugh at someone for believing in God, re - read this thread. Look at how passionately you guys support evolution, and then remember there is so little evidence to actually prove this, and it's massively implausible for the creation of a system of codependant organs. If you can defend something as flaky as Evolution, then you've no right laughing at anyone who believes in God. After all, as the universe is so incredibly complex, the idea of a creator almost makes sense in a lot of ways.
Well, a lot more than the idea some random change, a pair of random extra backbones or something, spawned up to seven new extremely complex codependant organs which would have resulted in the painful death of their owner if so much as one was missing from the set.
|
Malachi Petunia
Gentle Miscreant
Join date: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 3,414
|
10-10-2005 18:34
From: Jsecure Hanks It's junk science. There's no proof in the slightest, no missing link creature with a primitive half lung half freakish nothing system. There's no evidence at all to show a clear path from being a microbe to suddenly having a full working mamalian system.
Your theory of "Evolution" is one of the most implausible, worst proven cases ever argued. It is shaky and has little to no proof to back it up.
The next time you want to laugh at someone for believing in God, re - read this thread. Can I just laugh at you instead for making the most absurd statement you have yet uttered on these forums? I wouldn't think of laughing at someone for believing in god of any flavor, I reserve that for fundamentalist dogmatists that know not of what they speak. If biology is junk science, then there is no such thing as science.
|
Memory Harker
Girl Anachronism
Join date: 17 Jun 2005
Posts: 393
|
Tsk.
10-10-2005 18:40
From: Jsecure Hanks There's no proof in the slightest, no missing link creature with a primitive half lung half freakish nothing system. I see you've yet to meet my Uncle Stanley. 
|
Kevn Klein
God is Love!
Join date: 5 Nov 2004
Posts: 3,422
|
10-10-2005 20:13
From: Ulrika Zugzwang Since others are fielding the scientific and philosophic questions wonderfully, I thought I'd hop in and work on terminology and misconceptions.  The statement above is true and with it one can rule out all theories which rely on a random process to explain the observed phenomenon known as evolution. The currently accepted theory, natural selection, which explains the change in organisms over time, evolution, is not a random process. In fact natural selection gives a hint in it's very name that something is being selected. In natural selection, random variations in genotype (genetic structure) lead to variations in phenotype (the form an organism takes) which provide varying levels of fitness in a given environment. Organisms which are more fit are more likely to survive and thus pass on their genes to another generation. Over time a greater percentage of organisms cary these genes, thus leading to evolution (a change in an organism over time). It is not random. It is selection.  ~Ulrika~ The quote was pertaining to abiogenesis, not evolution. I think everyone here understands the basic tenets of the faith in macro-evolution. We also understand adaptation, a built-in(created) ability for life to adapt and spread the best genes to the population. Of course, there is natural selection, animals instinctively attract to the most fit. Of course those animals with the ability to adapt faster will have an edge. I disagree with the notion mutations created the perfection of any life form. Looking at termites one can see a high level of intellegence, they are the worlds greatest builders. Nearly blind I might add, yet they have not evolved in millions of years according to the experts. Why did they stop evloving? Are they perfect now? If so.. why didn't our ancestors reach such a level before reaching human. I mean, wouldn't an ape like creature be better suited to this world than a hairless, weak human? It would appear evolution made a mistake, because the better suited ape-like people are gone.
|
Ulrika Zugzwang
Magnanimous in Victory
Join date: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 6,382
|
10-10-2005 20:38
From: Liona Clio - Evolution cannot disprove faith.
Evolution (the change in organisms over time) is an observed fact. Natural selection is theory that explains evolution. Thus it makes no sense to say that "evolution cannot disprove faith". ~Ulrika~
_____________________
Chik-chik-chika-ahh
|
Paolo Portocarrero
Puritanical Hedonist
Join date: 28 Apr 2004
Posts: 2,393
|
10-10-2005 21:02
That's an example of intra-species evolution (e.g., adaptation). I am well aware of the example you cite. This does not prove inter-species evolution, which presumes that species morph into drastically different forms over the ages. From: Ulrika Zugzwang Paolo, this has been observed first hand many times. One can find dozens of examples in a basic book on evolution, which can be checked out at your local library, if you're interested. One famous example is the industrial melanism of the peppered moth. The text below is taken from this website. Industrial melanism is a phenomenon that affected over 70 species of moths in England. It has been best studied in the peppered moth, Biston betularia. Prior to 1800, the typical moth of the species had a light pattern (see Figure 3). Dark colored or melanic moths were rare and were therefore collectors' items.
During the Industrial Revolution, soot and other industrial wastes darkened tree trunks and killed off lichens. The light-colored morph of the moth became rare and the dark morph became abundant. In 1819, the first melanic morph was seen; by 1886, it was far more common -- illustrating rapid evolutionary change. Eventually light morphs were common in only a few locales, far from industrial areas. The cause of this change was thought to be selective predation by birds, which favored camouflage coloration in the moth. In the 1950's, the biologist Kettlewell did release-recapture experiments using both morphs. A brief summary of his results are shown below. By observing bird predation from blinds, he could confirm that conspicuousness of moth greatly influenced the chance it would be eaten.
What's even more interesting to me is that industrial melanism in peppered moths can and has been duplicated in the laboratory. It is testable and repeatable. By removing moths of one color from a captive population, the color of the moth can be changed back and forth. ~Ulrika~
|
Ulrika Zugzwang
Magnanimous in Victory
Join date: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 6,382
|
10-10-2005 21:25
From: Kevn Klein Of course, there is natural selection, animals instinctively attract to the most fit. This is a false statement. Animals don't "instinctively attract to the most fit". In actuality the environment puts pressure on various organisms which each have a varying probability of reproduction called "fitness". Over many generations genes with a greater fitness spread through a population. From: someone Of course those animals with the ability to adapt faster will have an edge. This is a false statement with respect to natural selection. The rate at which animals individually adapt has nothing to do with natural selection. Instead variations in genes provide individual organisms with different fitness levels in a given environment. Over many generations genes with a greater fitness spread through a population, leading to a change in the organism over time (evolution). From: someone I disagree with the notion mutations created the perfection of any life form. This is a straw-man argument. I never stated that "mutations created the perfection of any life form". In actuality, random variations in genes, due to genetic diversity or mutations, provide individual organisms with different fitness levels in a given environment. Over many generations genes with a greater fitness spread through a population, leading to a change in the organism over time (evolution). From: someone Looking at termites ... Why did they stop evloving? Are they perfect now? Your first question is based on a false premise and your second on an unscientific qualifier. Termites are still evolving and "perfection" has no scientific meaning. Instead, one says that termites are well adapted to their environment. As evidence of their spread into a variety of niches and their slow change over time (evolution), I submit this site. Educate yourself on the thousands of different types of termites and their spread into thousands of different niches. From: someone It would appear evolution made a mistake, because the better suited ape-like people are gone. Once again, evolution is an observed change in an organism over time and natural selection is the theory that explains it. Thus it makes no sense to say that "an observed change in an organism over time made a mistake". Additionally, you're making the common mistake that organisms evolve from simple to complex over time. There is no such ordered march in complexity in organisms. Instead organisms randomly become more complex or simple over time, depending on pressure from the environment. For those with a foundation in statistics, you will be interested to know that complexity follows a power distribution with the majority of organisms being simple and very few being complex. This is another observed fact.  Kevn, based on your text above, you've shown an inability to grasp even the simplest concepts presented by me in this thread. You have not yet understood that evolution is a change in organisms over time, that natural selection is the theory that attempts to explain it, and that environmental pressure on an organism tests the fitness of its genes. I suspect that this is a fundamental limitation in your faculties and is the primary reason you are a creationist in the first place. If I'm mistaken and it's just that a forum is a difficult place for you to extract data, then perhaps a college course in evolution (or the reading of a college-level evolution text from the library) might still do you some good. Enough slumming for me. I've got to hit the N'burg forum.  ~Ulrika~
_____________________
Chik-chik-chika-ahh
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
10-10-2005 21:25
From: Kevn Klein Most of the greatest minds believed or believe in a god or creator of some sort. You might find this list of famous dead atheists illuminating: http://www.jmarkgilbert.com/atheists.html here's just a small sampling... Benjamin Franklin Thomas Paine James Madison Napoleon Bonaparte Abraham Lincoln Edgar Allan Poe Walt Whitman Mark Twain Friedrich Nietzsche Thomas Edison Sigmund Freud George Bernard Shaw Joseph Conrad H.G. Wells Marie Curie Frank Lloyd Wright Robert Frost Albert Einstein James Joyce Alfred Hitchcock Ernest Hemingway George Orwell Richard Feynman Isaac Asimov Carl Sagan John Lennon Douglas Adams
_____________________
 My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
Malachi Petunia
Gentle Miscreant
Join date: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 3,414
|
10-10-2005 21:42
From: Paolo Portocarrero That's an example of intra-species evolution (e.g., adaptation). I am well aware of the example you cite. This does not prove inter-species evolution, which presumes that species morph into drastically different forms over the ages. So it appears you didn't read #105 where I specifically addressed this claim of yours. Everyone in this thread who thinks that "discourse" means repeating yourself over and over again while paying no attention to responses, please raise your hand. 
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
10-10-2005 21:47
From: Paolo Portocarrero That's an example of intra-species evolution (e.g., adaptation). I am well aware of the example you cite. This does not prove inter-species evolution, which presumes that species morph into drastically different forms over the ages. I think this particular argument against evolution spawns from pure semantics. All evolution is intra-species. When the line branches it simply means that two groups stop intrabreeding. That wouldn't even have to happen as a result of a mutation. It could simply be two populations that become separated geographically and live in slightly different environments that favor different mutations. Fast forward a couple of million years and they may have evolved in entirely different directions. A dinosaur didn't one day give birth to a bird.
_____________________
 My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
Lo Jacobs
Awesome Possum
Join date: 28 May 2004
Posts: 2,734
|
10-10-2005 21:50
My stoner friend thinks that lizard aliens came down from the sky and bred with us and made us who we are.
Can anyone tell me why he thinks this?
_____________________
http://churchofluxe.com/Luster 
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
10-10-2005 21:52
From: Lo Jacobs My stoner friend thinks that lizard aliens came down from the sky and bred with us and made us who we are. Can anyone tell me why he thinks this? No idea, but can you put me in touch with his dealer? 
_____________________
 My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
Juro Kothari
Like a dog on a bone
Join date: 4 Sep 2003
Posts: 4,418
|
Why Faith will always win over Fact
10-10-2005 21:56
OK OK - so, I'm not a rocket scientist by any stretch of the imagination, and yes, I'm an athiest, but after listening to both sides of this argument from y'all here and from other sources I have come to my own little conclusion that no matter what - ID will always trump Evolution. It is nearly impossible to have a serious debate over this subject simply due to the foundations of each of these topics. One of them is based in scientifc method, the other in faith. It's really like comparing apples and oranges, only the orange doesn't need to be seen or touched to prove it exists and the apple, while missing many parts is not without some doubt that it is, indeed, an apple. Proving evolution must be an insanely difficult tasks for the scientists - there just aren't a whole lot of fossils to create a seamless timeline strecthing back to the earliest lifeforms. Fossils are very rare and in order to for material to be fossilized requires a fairly specific set of circumstances - the material must be covered quickly by sediment (or undisturbed for a longer period of time in an anoxic environment). Simply put - the odds are largely against most material turning into fossils. With these abundant holes in the record, it leaves the theory wide open for challenges, which in itsself is not necessarily bad. The scientific community has done a remarkable job at stitching together an evolutionary timeline with the little material they have to study and with every new fossil discovery, more holes are being filled and, usually, more questions arise. That's how theories work though - they are never considered fact or infallible and they stand until they are falsified. We are, thankfully, mindful that we know we cannot know everything there is to know, so the theory remains flexible to take on additional information that will either support the theory or falsify it - so far, Evolution has not been falsified, to my knowledge. ID, on the other hand, does not require support of the scientific kind, but it does require support in the form of faith. You cannot prove or disprove something that is unseen, unfelt or unheard. You must have faith and that faith becomes your proof. Faith is the affirmation of belief in something that does not require any testing of evidence, which is naturally something scientists would want to do. So, naturally faith will always trump evolution in the minds of some, because faith in ID can fill any holes left by evolution and even preceed evolution and cannot, with today's science, be tested - it just *is*. For me personally, I believe in things that are proven - not just to me, but through definitive processes laid out over years of research and refinement. That is my personal belief - that evolution is real and due to a series of unfortunate circumstances (time, decay, destruction) we cannot yet fill the holes in the evolutionary record. As a sidenote, I'd like to point out the irony that we, as a society, generally accept circumstantial evidence as proof enough for some crimes and put people away for crimes based on circumstantial evidence, which infers a conclusion - sorta like a theory. 
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
10-10-2005 22:10
Personally, I don't know what more proof of evolution people need than the simple fact that you can tell someone's ethnicity just by looking at them. Why do Chinese look Chinese? Why do the Irish look Irish? When the Irish and Chinese breed, why do their children look like a mix of Irish and Chinese? They look that way because of the way genetics work and because we all come from populations of humans that were largely isolated from each other for very long periods of time. Creationism contends that all humans come from the same two parents. Fine. Even if you believe that, the only way to explain the physical differences between different ethnicities is very long periods of being in isolated breeding populations. They look different because they evolved differently. Out of curiosity (because I don't think I've ever heard one) does creationism or ID have an explanation for this?
_____________________
 My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
Ananda Sandgrain
+0-
Join date: 16 May 2003
Posts: 1,951
|
10-10-2005 22:22
It's time to punctuate a bit of equilibrium with a little random humor.
The Thesis Song
here's a thesis there's a thesis and another scary thesis fuzzy pencils funny topics thesis thesis drunk
thesis thesis notebook thesis coffee bagel icecream thesis thesis thesis scary thesis thesis thesis drunk
i was once a student i lived in a dorm They said Knew the Dead Man the story’s not the norm my thesis is about the this guy and how he told a tale and now listen, little child to this student wail
did you ever see a thesis kiss a thesis on the thesis thesis's thesis tastes of thesis thesis thesis drunk
half a thesis twice the thesis not a thesis teacher thesis thesis in a LJ Oh God my thesis thesis drunk
Do I have to read it? will they all just laugh? is it made of vodka? chicklet tonail bath now my song is getting thin So wish me lots of luck time for me to read my thesis and then go get dead drunk
stolen from metaquotes on LJ
|
Torley Linden
Enlightenment!
Join date: 15 Sep 2004
Posts: 16,530
|
10-10-2005 22:51
Here's a spontaneous question for ya: does "feces" rhyme with "species" rhymes with "thesis"? 
|
Chance Abattoir
Future Rockin' Resmod
Join date: 3 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,898
|
10-10-2005 22:53
From: Torley Torgeson Here's a spontaneous question for ya: does "feces" rhyme with "species" rhymes with "thesis"?  Not unless there are theses.
_____________________
"The mob requires regular doses of scandal, paranoia and dilemma to alleviate the boredom of a meaningless existence." -Insane Ramblings, Anton LaVey
|
Memory Harker
Girl Anachronism
Join date: 17 Jun 2005
Posts: 393
|
Of course, silly Chip!
10-10-2005 22:55
From: Chip Midnight Personally, I don't know what more proof of evolution people need than the simple fact that you can tell someone's ethnicity just by looking at them. Why do Chinese look Chinese? Why do the Irish look Irish? When the Irish and Chinese breed, why do their children look like a mix of Irish and Chinese? They look that way because of the way genetics work and because we all come from populations of humans that were largely isolated from each other for very long periods of time. Creationism contends that all humans come from the same two parents. Fine. Even if you believe that, the only way to explain the physical differences between different ethnicities is very long periods of being in isolated breeding populations. They look different because they evolved differently. Out of curiosity (because I don't think I've ever heard one) does creationism or ID have an explanation for this? Of course! See, God was so proud of the rainbow that He'd created to remind His children that, though He might decide to re-destroy the world at some then-undetermined point in the future, He wouldn't destroy it via flooding ever again. And so, He decided to replicate His band of promisary colors-in-the-sky upon (and within --- oh, so MANY prepositions!) the bodies of His created humans. Except, to differentiate between the rainbow and the people, He figured it made more sense if the people's colors and attributes would MELD a bit more than did the colors of the rainbow. At least to the naked eye. Or even, perhaps, the eye in a thong. (Which, if you think that's gross, you should see that picture of the hippo.) http://forums.secondlife.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=27023AND, Chip, it also made sense if God didn't didn't create Blue people or Green people or Violet people, but, instead, stuck more to the "earth" tones that Ralph Lauren and Martha Stewart have tended to cyclically favor. Because ... um, well, because God moves ... in mysterious ways. (It's alright, it's alright, it's alllllllll...right.) (Thank you, Bono.) (You're welcome, Memory.) And, also, Chip, while we're here? What about those cuddling animations you promised me a few weeks ago? Didn't you say --- or, wait, was that Cristiano who promised those? Ack. All you damned Midnights, you're all so hard to tell apart! And now here I am, once again, without a cuddling animation for Euterpe and me! Which is prolly why, come to think of it, I'm rattling on about God and rainbows and Martha "Con Hair" Stewart and so on in this forum, instead of being home in Ironjaw where I belong, and, and, and ---- Weex! It's just too much! It's all just too damned much for one girl to bear! (No, not girl-to-bear! Don't try to involve ME in your clandestine Furry rendesvouses, Chip, you scarily intellectual, prim-torturing, hentai avatar, you!) *pauses* *takes deep breath* *looks around* Hey. Where'd everybody go? *sigh* Are you there, God? It's me, Memory.
|
Ananda Sandgrain
+0-
Join date: 16 May 2003
Posts: 1,951
|
10-10-2005 22:57
From: Chip Midnight Why do Chinese look Chinese? It's questions like this that really stump me.
|
Chance Abattoir
Future Rockin' Resmod
Join date: 3 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,898
|
10-10-2005 23:03
From: Chip Midnight Why do Chinese look Chinese? So we'd know our enemy. From: Chip Midnight Why do the Irish look Irish? Famine. From: Chip Midnight When the Irish and Chinese breed, why do their children look like a mix of Irish and Chinese? No, they look more like famished Koreans. From: Chip Midnight Out of curiosity (because I don't think I've ever heard one) does creationism or ID have an explanation for this? Creationism says they are a different species and interbreeding is a sin. ID says have sex with everyone and make a kingdom ruled by post apocalyptic agrarians. Wait.... oh, not that id. Now it's time for sexy pic of the night: 
_____________________
"The mob requires regular doses of scandal, paranoia and dilemma to alleviate the boredom of a meaningless existence." -Insane Ramblings, Anton LaVey
|
Dark Korvin
Player in the RL game
Join date: 13 Jun 2005
Posts: 769
|
10-10-2005 23:16
From: Jsecure Hanks I think evolution is a fine lazy man's theory, but I still have holes in it I'd like to see plugged. They say when something changes by random genetic mutation, if the change is beneficial it remains via breeding. Now, the lung takes in air, and circulates it round the body. However, a lung is useless without a heart and distributed network of pumps throughout the human body to keep the blood flowing. Which is a good point, blood. You're going to need a LOT of blood to make a pair of these lung things work. But here's a sticky point, the heart will soon die without oxygenated blood. What's that? Blood that's been through Lungs. Let's see, lungs. Ah yes, needs a working heart and blood. Where is blood made? Hmm, I think that's in the liver or somewhere. Liver? Damn, that's a fourth organ into the mix... Hmm indeed. Well anyway it's a good thing the heart keeps beating. Why does it do that... The brain??? Damn, the brain regularly sends an electronic signal to the heart to tell it to keep beating! You know what we need to co-ordinate all these organs which are so complex no computer or scientist can yet perfectly or decently replicate them? The conductor of the London Philharmonic Orchestra! Yes, he's a fine chap. Let's get him in here. Seriously though, all these devices are about as useful as a lawn mower in greenland unless they all happen at once. Now I'm not going to jump in and say this is evidence of God, but I am going to say "Science" is going to have to do better than the weak theory of Evolution to back this up. And some of you like to laugh at me, saying my beliefs are built on shaky ground. Hmm, try closer to home. I suggest you learn about how insects work. You might find that organisms don't always need lungs above water. An ant for example breathes without lungs, yet they have muscles that work similar to the abdomen and heart muscles in humans. There are many existing animals that have anatomies completely different from one another. Many times animals do not have all the organs that you may consider necessary in combination to work. There are also similar species that have vastly different capabilities from one another. The box jelly fish for instance has developed a larger brain in comparison to other jelly fish. It has developed primitive eyes the other jelly fish do not have, and it tends to control its movement in a more "intelligent"manner. We can see both dumb eyeless drifting jelly fish exist alongside jelly fish developing a brain with eyes and more control of movement. Just because we can't see evidence of every animal that has died out does not mean that evidence does not exist in living species that similar animals can become so different from one another. Flightless birds is another strange phenomenon. Another interesting mutation in humans is people that are born with both sex organs. What is the intelligent plan behind such a mutation? Is there some greater purpose behind people being born that are not clearly Adam or Eve. Just my own little pondring.
|
Dark Korvin
Player in the RL game
Join date: 13 Jun 2005
Posts: 769
|
10-10-2005 23:18
From: Selador Cellardoor Natural selection doesn't lead to the survival of the strongest, by any means. It leads to the survival of those who are best suited to their environment. And when that environment becomes inimical, then those who survive might well be the weakest rather than the strongest. For example, if food runs short, the smaller, weaker individuals might well cope better, and have a lower pre-reproductive mortality rate. The phrase 'survival of the fittest' is universally misinterpreted. It doesn't mean that only the muscle-bound will survive. The word 'fittest' means those who are most fit for their environment. That can mean a multitude of things. Good point, my mistake for using survival of the strongest in something that is meant more to be survival of the fittest.
|
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
|
10-10-2005 23:32
From: Memory Harker Of course! See, God was so proud of the rainbow that He'd created to remind His children that, though He might decide to re-destroy the world at some then-undetermined point in the future, He wouldn't destroy it via flooding ever again. And so, He decided to replicate His band of promisary colors-in-the-sky upon (and within --- oh, so MANY prepositions!) the bodies of His created humans. Except, to differentiate between the rainbow and the people, He figured it made more sense if the people's colors and attributes would MELD a bit more than did the colors of the rainbow. At least to the naked eye. Or even, perhaps, the eye in a thong. (Which, if you think that's gross, you should see that picture of the hippo.) http://forums.secondlife.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=27023 AND, Chip, it also made sense if God didn't didn't create Blue people or Green people or Violet people, but, instead, stuck more to the "earth" tones that Ralph Lauren and Martha Stewart have tended to cyclically favor. Because ... um, well, because God moves ... in mysterious ways. (It's alright, it's alright, it's alllllllll...right.) (Thank you, Bono.) (You're welcome, Memory.) Hehe. I'm afraid that's probably not too far off From: someone And, also, Chip, while we're here? What about those cuddling animations you promised me a few weeks ago? Didn't you say --- or, wait, was that Cristiano who promised those? Ack. All you damned Midnights, you're all so hard to tell apart! I'm the one with horns and a tail. 
_____________________
 My other hobby: www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
|
Daz Honey
Fine, Fine Artist
Join date: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 599
|
to the religious fascists...
10-10-2005 23:39
no offense but if you think teaching some antiquated religious text over evolution is so important to save our souls you damn our society to ignorance. hey, if i'm going to hell then fuck off and leave me alone, you cannot change MY faith any more than I can change yours. so shut the hell up you little minded holier than thou morons, go back to your hamlets in the dark ages and die of the plague and a hundred diseases scientists have cured.
Of course most of the creation fascists use the benefits of modern science and their real adgenda is power of the people. Do you really think Pat Robertson and George Bush can hear God? if you do you are as nuts, and I mean legally insane, as them. But we know the truth, they are lying to you and because you don't have the scrote to challenge them you let them say all these retarded things like advocating murder and God made hurricanes to kill homosexuals, get a freaking clue you ignorant dopes, if God is real, if the freaking Christian God is real, do you think he wants molested children, children killed in wars there was no reason for and children being raised in ignorance? please, wake up and smell the cofee, religion is not the word of God, all those texts were written by man, and because most people are not strong enough to have independant thoughts they buy all the b/s and you end up with wars and ignorance and a system of abuse.
I've read the bible and took a powerfull message from it, when Jesus got pissed and kicked ass in that temple where God was second to self interest it was to show that your soul is important not the material things, not power not oil not blindly following the herd. Spirituality is the key, have faith in a higher being and the world is a better place for there is a better world ahead. Our time here is finite, love and do good deeds, be humble and know that what you do in this life affects your soul. Please wake up and stop being so selfish, we will not be converted to your version of whatever God is, we are educated now, we know that all children should be treated as precious things regardless of what their religion is (forced upon them).
But that is the key to why the rightwing crazies are so adamant to remove science and common sence from the classroom, they want ignorant children as they are easier to manipulate. It has nothing to do with saving souls or whatever they say, it is simply for power. Our strength is knowledge and common sence, theirs is ignorance and blind obedience. I suggest challenging every religious fascist who thinks their faith is somehow stronger than yours, i do it all the time and never has one of them been able to show me anything except that they are brainwashed and want me to blindly follow them but sorry, I've spent a lot of time on my spirituality, I know God as well as anyone and he has guided me.
_____________________
All children are artists. The problem is how to remain an artist once he grows up. - Pablo Picasso
|
Dark Korvin
Player in the RL game
Join date: 13 Jun 2005
Posts: 769
|
10-10-2005 23:40
From: Chip Midnight Hehe. I'm afraid that's probably not too far off I'm the one with horns and a tail.  Well there is the story of Noah's sons and the Tower of Babel that I've heard of being the source of races. One interesting thing is that myths have an evolution as well. I find it interesting that the forefathers of Abraham in Sumeria had a Garden of Eden myth that had the snake as the mother of the earth who went crazy and tried to kill all of her babies. Though I'm sure his forefathers just had it wrong. Truth only existed at the time of Moses.
|