Evolution, a myth for non-theists

I suppose I am a buddhist fundamentalist. Yes I am absolutely against the democractic process that allows direct rule by a simple majority of the american people. I am very supporitve of a system of governtment with checiks and balances to protect the constitutional rights of the people in the minority opinion, while also preserveing a method by wich the reperesented majority might pass laws governing the struction of a society.

If people were smart enough, educated enough, or cared enough to sort out on thier own that science belongs in schools and religion belongs in the home and that intelligent design is junk science and evolution is establishe theory, then I might consider direct democracy a reasonable thing. Untill then I want the comfortable protections out system has in place to protect me from rule by the lowest common denominator.

I highyl reccomend that anyone who would debate the relative merits of democracy, and the american consitutional system, with me read the federalist papers. Alexander Hamilton says most of what I would say, and does so much better.

In point of fact the whole creationism thing is impossible to me because I don't beleive in god, and there fore ther eis no transcendent intelligence that is capable of designing the universe. The eveolution really is the only theory availble to me.

So to sum up Jake's so called fundamentalism:

1. Christianity is a big myth that provides a framework of morality tales which offer a reasonable way of living ethically with those around you;

2. Most christians aren't;

3. Ingnorance is a choice and most people make it;

4. Intelligent design is junk science;

5. There is no god, nor any other transcendent intelligence that designed the universe, thus intelligent design is flawed as a theory as its baasic requirement is not met;

6. The U.S. Constitution is a brilliant and endruing tribute to good government, despite efforts of the religious right to circumvent it;

7. Astroturf and the designated hitter should be outlawed;

8. The 2002 Superbowl was fixed;

9. Janet Jackson hos nice boobies;

10. The war in Iraq is a failure of the governeing establishment to recognize all the prior lessons of history: occumpying armies do not make peace or build nations.

Ther eis more, invovling flowers, feather and a women in high heels.but you lot are much to young for that.

Please don't lie about my beliefs. kthxbye...

Thanks for proving the difference. Macro evolution is myth (filling in holes) where as micro-evolution is fact. Anyone who ever read a single thread where I discussed evolution knows the difference. I'm sure you already know my position, but want to nitpick as a derailing method.

Derailing a thread doesn't win the debate or ever support your position Your post supports my position.

GOD! when will u all evolve the intellect that can let you realize you're just feedin' this guy's fragile lonely ego?

go eat some more cupcakes, Kevn.

What about my position on this topic causes you to feel so threatened? No one is required to participate. Please feel free to ignore this thread or any thread in which I participate. Or just add me to your ignore list. kthxbye ....

I have not derailed your thread at all. But this whole thing is about macroevolution, not simply evolution. If you want to be taken at all seriously, you should state that in the beginning.

Creationism

Though the details of macroevolution are debated within the scientific community, it is widely accepted. Macroevolution is largely disputed by many creationism and intelligent design advocates. Generally speaking, these groups differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution, asserting that the former is an undeniably observable phenomenon, but that the latter is not. They have proposed a number of limits beyond which they assert evolution cannot occur. Proponents of Intelligent design argue that the mechanisms of evolution are incapable of giving rise to instances of specified complexity and irreducible complexity. Proponents of creation biology assert that life was originally created in a finite number of discrete created kinds beyond which and between which no evolution can occur. The argument being that the dominant source of biological change is population isolation, genetic drift and mutation which causes the loss of the diversity of the original kinds and genetic information, rather than an increase of genetic diversity through mutation or other evolutionary mechanisms.

Sound familiar?

Oh, also you said something about the creation of the earth, which is in the definition of geology... not evolution.

Love, have you ever participated in a thread about evolution with me? If so, did you know my understanding of the difference between adaptation/breeding and the belief all life came from a single life form without any prior life from which to come?

Yes, it is what I told you earlier.

whatta weazel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sally Rosebud
Oh, also you said something about the creation of the earth, which is in the definition of geology... not evolution.


Love, have you ever participated in a thread about evolution with me? If so, did you know my understanding of the difference between adaptation/breeding and the belief all life came from a single life form without any prior life from which to come?




this exchange captures the problem very beautifully.

I think the response deserves this award:

People like Kevn make me consider religiousity a mental dissorder. I appologise to the large majority of religious people who do not wish to be associated with him.

(if this is considered a personal attack and gets the thread closed... I really can't say I'd be dissapointed.)

Do not call me love, or sweetie or any other term of endearment. You do not know me, and are not in a position to call me any of those things.

Yes, there is a difference. You should not call it evolution if you are only interested in discussing macroevolution, call it macroevolution, or be prepared to discuss all points of evolution, not just macroevolution. If you want to talk about the creation of the earth, please start talking about geology.

Fine. I evolved. You didn't. Have a nice day.

None of you exist. This thread doesn't exist. You aren't even posting here.

I think I've proven this time and again. When will you learn?

Never, of course. You don't exist. It was a trick question.

I don't. Nor do most SCIENTIFIC MINDED INDIVDUALS who follow the scientific theorem of evolution that I have met.

Evolution and the origins of the universe ar elinked, tenuously, but by no means more than a touching of fingers to make a religious analogy.

To say any origin theory and evolution are linked is like saying god made adam and eve and allowed them children..so hes responsible for cain's actions.

They not only contradict each other, they also have serious problems individually. My favorite - in the first creation story in Genesis, God creates light as the first thing he does, but he doesn't create the sun and stars until the fourth day! Er, oops! Gee, ya think the authors were unaware of where light actually comes from? *chortle*

the fact that you even started this thread speaks volumes about your own insecurity and doubt about your beliefs. lol, you are so transparent. god gave you a brain, yet you fanatically disregard your own mental accuity, and subscribe with all your might to a book that Constantine and his drinkin' buddies pulled out of their ass one drunken day in Nicea, 1700 years ago, just so the emperor could be more financially secure.

and what i find threatening about your topic, is that it's men like you, and thinking like yours, that is responsible for more death, wars, and dark ages, than from any other single cause. let's go party like it's 1399! way to keep up the status quo.

Then live in fear, I'm not going anywhere.

Bro Chippy, you know I don't argue the Bible when discussing evolution or ID. Do you think it might upset me? Think again

The depth of that statement matches you well. Grade school?

Baby doll, I'll call it what I will. k? kisses

Nah, no worries pal. I'm tough skinned enough to handle comments far more rude and obnoxious than yours. Just read the other posters remarks in this and several other threads.

It's like water off a ducks ass to me.

Are you for real? I mean didn't I just ask you NOT to call me things like that? I see you have absolutely no respect for other people. You are obviously not a man, merely a boy.