Author Topic: Evolution = Myth (Read 1591 times)

Sandman · « **on:** April 04, 2004, 11:33:13 PM »

Fossil Find Is From Early Push-Up Creature

Nefarious · « **Reply #1 on:** April 04, 2004, 11:40:16 PM »

I dont understand your point.

If anything it destroys your idea that Evolution is a Myth.

Dead Man Flying · « **Reply #2 on:** April 04, 2004, 11:43:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nefarious
If anything it destroys your idea that Evolution is a Myth.

Sarcasm is not your friend.

-- Todd/Leviathn

Nefarious · « **Reply #3 on:** April 04, 2004, 11:43:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Sarcasm is not your friend.

-- Todd/Leviathn

Apparently So:eek:

crowMAW · « **Reply #4 on:** April 04, 2004, 11:45:18 PM »

Jeez Sandman...didn't you know that little creature was one of the beasties in the Garden of Eden back just 6000 years ago?! Everybody knows that carbon dating is grossly inaccurate. And besides evolution must be wrong since no one has actually ever seen a species evolve into another species. heheheh

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #5 on:** April 04, 2004, 11:52:25 PM »

The people who wrote the bible werent always being literal, which also means that peoole who interpret its writings literaly are incorrect... So dont criticize the bible, criticize the people who perhaps interpret it incorrectly.

I once criticized the bible as idiocy written by 2000 year old ignorant goatherders, all out of my own ignorance, but it is a far more sophisticated and well written document that I ever imagined now that I have taken some time to study it...

Now be careful in your initial knee-jerk reaction to what I just said...

Nash · « **Reply #6 on:** April 05, 2004, 12:51:56 AM »

I believe in a god of some sort. And I believe in evolution.

Not sure why it's made out to be an either/or.

capt. apathy · « **Reply #7 on:** April 05, 2004, 01:53:05 AM »

evolution makes sense to show how differetn branches of species end up suited for their environment.

it only becomes stupid when you try to project it back to explain the existance of all life. to believe that we got to where we are now by a random series of lucky brakes, starting with one little cell off goo, requires way more faith than creationalism.

Chairboy · « **Reply #8 on:** April 05, 2004, 01:54:49 AM »

More faith then Creationism? I don't think you've thought that through. Creationism is 100% faith, no need for anything like evidence.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #9 on:** April 05, 2004, 02:02:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Now be careful in your initial knee-jerk reaction to what I just said...

OUCH! Damn... just broke my toe...

Tuomio · « **Reply #10 on:** April 05, 2004, 03:19:24 AM »

April 1st

AKIron · « **Reply #11 on:** April 05, 2004, 11:42:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
More faith then Creationism? I don't think you've thought that through. Creationism is 100% faith, no need for anything like evidence.

While I'm not a creationist in the traditional sense, there is plenty of evidence to support the belief in a "created" universe. In fact, I hold the universe itself to be that evidence.

Chairboy · « **Reply #12 on:** April 05, 2004, 12:05:02 PM »

Are you familiar with circular logic? "The universe exists, therefor it was created, and that's why it exists. Of course!"

For centuries, it was KNOWN that mice were spontaneously created in piles of hay. What makes the assertion of divine creation any better?

midnight Target · « **Reply #13 on:** April 05, 2004, 12:09:27 PM »

Another cool transitional fossil.... you know, like the ones Creationists say don't exist.

AKIron · « **Reply #14 on:** April 05, 2004, 12:21:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
Are you familiar with circular logic? "The universe exists, therefor it was created, and that's why it exists. Of course!"

For centuries, it was KNOWN that mice were spontaneously created in piles of hay. What makes the assertion of divine creation any better?

Yes, I am familiar with the concept of circular logic. I didn't say that the physical universe was proof of creation, only that it was evidence. You understand the difference, right?