I beleave in both...

creation

If we came from monkeys, why are they still here?

it boils down to this:

where did that nice, bright yellow banana that can fall to the ground and lay there for a week and still be good to eat come from? or what about that tempting orange with the same scenario? man didn't create them. if you need some logic, that's it.

-Big Easy

Man didn't create them, so god must have? If that's your logic, I hope you're not a programmer.

volante,

i'm not saying that we came from 'God' as it were, i'm just saying we didn't freakin' come from some slime that fell off a rock.

what i am saying is that we were created, by whom i couldn't say.

-big easy

Are there any doubt's by semi intelligent people that the answer is evolution?

I belive that last time I checked that Evolution ruled..........

Havent seen a sign or any evidence from the

"BIG GUY" :winkwink:

Only people who dont know what evolution is ask this question. And it's apes, not monkeys.

Here's how it works... A group of apes left Africa, while still leaving some apes in Africa. The apes that left underwent different struggles to survive in their new home such as weather, food, predators, etc. In order to survive they had to adapt and change. They changed just a tiny bit over a long period of time, while the original group back in Africa may or may not have changed at all. Repeat this over millions years.

Who created God? If the answer is "He always was," then to paraphrase Bertrand Russell, "If anything always was, why does it have to be God? Why not the Cosmos itself?"

I think it's pretty evident that some humans are more evolved than others!

One more vote for the egg :thumbsup

http://www.valleyskeptic.com/fuck_creationist.html

Dl the song ...and feel for the creationists:1orglaugh

fact.

The questions "Who Created Existence" and "Why of the Universe" are ancient, mind-subverting gimmicks of positing invalid, intellectually untenable questions that have no basis in reality. That false-question maneuver has been used by theologians and other mystics for centuries. The gimmick works by taking an invalid or meaningless idea and then cloaking the idea with specious but profound-sounding phraseology. That phraseology is then used as an "intellectual" prop to advance false, irrational concepts or doctrines. Consider, for example, the "Who Created Existence" and the "Why of the Universe" questions so often used by poets and theologians to advance the God or higher-power concept. On closer examination, one realizes that invalid questions such as "who made the universe" are meaningless and unprofound. For that type of infinite-regression question (of who created the creator and so on back) answers nothing and is anti-intellectual. Such a question cannot or need not be answered once one realizes that existence exists.

On realizing that by nature existence simply exists, one then realizes that the "Who Created Existence" and "Why of the Universe" questions cannot or need never be answered because no causal explanations are needed for existence or the universe. Existence is axiomatic. It just exists; it always has and always will exist. Nothing created it and no causal explanation is needed or valid. For, what is the alternative? No alternative is possible or needed, unless one accepts the contradiction that existence does not exist!

Burp!

http://www.neo-tech.com/advantages/advantage28.html

Not quite.

Evolution - only a theory, but with strong evidence to suggest it is fact.
Creationism - only a theory, but with no evidence to suggest it is fact.

evolution

(god)
In the very beginning there was a single speck of conscious being, it was self aware, and it wanted to experience itself as being all that "IS"...

(big bang)
So it exploded in every direction, spreading itself outward and creating the universe.

(creation)
Each tiny individuation of it became all that "IS" matter, life, etc.

(evolution)
Each tiny individuation is imbued with the spirit and consciousness of all that is, this is the soul. The soul learns and grows as its energy is transferred through matter, and thus evolution occurs.

(reality)
The creation of this divine dichotomy is a venue for us, the individuations of god (budhha, jesus, mohammed, binky the clown, satan, it matters little), to experience ourselves and eachother. In this way god experiences itself.

(the lowdown)
We are godself among godself, the question is only...who remembers who's who.

There is no right or wrong. Only in the presence of its opposite does something exist. Heaven and Hell are created and experienced only in the mind. Your perception IS your reality. There is nothing you have to do...

WE ARE ALL ONE.

Believe what you want it matters little.
Yet thru aligning yourself with this train of thought you see thru the illusion of life, and all things become possible.

Listen you your sould and you shall here yourself speaking the truth of the universe.





:2 cents:

evolution is the key!

We are part of a universe and have a universe within.

We could easly be thought of as a virus to this planet.

No shit!

Get over it.

Then where is the "science" behind evolution? Evolution follows NO law of thermodynamics. It takes much more faith to believe in evolution than it does creationism. It always amazes me how evolutionist people debate this topic by saying "religion sucks". Religion is nothing but a cause, principle, or belief held to with faith and ardor. Believing in evoltion is a religion.

Lets talk science.

- A fossil is created by organic material being replaced by sediment. This must happen extremely fast and with tons and tons of sedimentary pressure. This is why you never see a fossil of pet Rover in the back yard. How can millions of animals in every part of the earth (even fossilized whales have been found in the mountains of California) be fossilized? The ONLY logical explanation is a great disaster which covered the WHOLE earth in a short period of time (i.e. the flood).

- There have never been any transitionary fossils found. Fossils that show the path of evolution are non-existent. Considering the millions of fossils found, that statement alone is quite a stumbling block.

- The majority of earths stratification is different all over the world. The supposed "layers" of history are never the same from one area to the next.

- Sceintists have consistantly made wrong assumptions based on the fossil record. The example of the blunders concerning the fictitious brontasaurus and Peking man are but some of the more obvious fuck ups.

- We are bombarded with cosmic dust every day from meteorites and space debris. If the earth was millions of years old we would be standing close to the moon on a big ball of meteorite dust.

There are a million issues I can bring up but I know that I hate to read these long ass posts myself and this one is WAAAAY too long as it is.

In conlusion:
I think that to NOT look at other THEORIES of existence is ridiculous. To teach people, children especially, that evolution is FACT is the most absurd thing that the scientific community can do.

The lack of transitional fossils is a popular arguement against evolution. I was handed a brochure by some religous nut on campus the other day that used the same ignorant arguement. The lack of transitional fossils can be explained in a few different arguements.

"First, some transitional forms may have been soft-bodied organisms that were never fossilized.

Second, transitional forms may not have been preserved because of geographic accidents: some organisms lived in actively eroding, instead of depositing areas, or they were destroyed in an orogeny (or major erosional event).

Third, transitional forms may not have been found yet. Prior to the early 1980?s no transitional forms were known to connect whales with their most closely related fossil relatives, the mesonychids. Since then, an impressive succession of intermediate forms has been found clearly documenting their evolution. Science progresses by finding new data.

Fourth, transitional forms may have existed for such a short duration of geologic time that they were not preserved, resulting in evolution by punctuated equilibrium. Fifth, transitional forms may have lived elsewhere and the organisms subsequently migrated to other locales. "

Hopefully that sheds some light on the fossil arguement.

"The infall of dust is one hundred times less than these Creationists say it is. This has been known since about 1963. The argument has been kept alive by not quoting from scientific articles written after 1960. "

I believe in 'creation', but as for discussion...I have no opinion on this matter, as when it comes time for me to leave this earth and my 'soul' (however you want to describe it) will be enlighten about 'who created what' and 'where everything came from'..

Until then, I'm going to live it up! whether I live to be 50-70-or even 100yrs old...

and monkeys MAY HAVE flown out my butt and elvolved/created this whole damn mess. To base beliefs on a bunch of "may have"s is much more ignorant than any argument by a religious nut. To call my arguments ignorant is quite amusing. I believe in science and truth. I have no choice.

How can anyone believe whole heartedly that evolution is reality when the facts just are not there? It is like believing in aliens because "there are just so many stars out there that there has to be other forms of life". A person can believe the sky is plaid if they want but it does not make it so.

There are enough holes in the theory of evolution to give pause to anyone seeking factual information as to the cause of life.

When push comes to shove, and fucking religion aside, creationism has a better scientific standing model than evolution.

and the "scientific article" that this quote references is...

obviously biased

How could you live on a planet that is so full of life and think any diffrent?

Elaborate please.... This ought to be funny.

And I don't want to hear any rubbish about the second law of thermodynamics or lies about the fossil record.

Creationism can't even be tested, which forms the basis for a scientific theory. But go ahead anyway...

Because I live by fact and science. No matter how hard that I WANT to believe that there is life on other planets, I cannot believe it because there is no evidence. Theories, conjecture, and wishful thinking do not make something so.

Speaking of funny...
how is thermodynamics rubbish? Why are the fossil records lies? and why is it that creationism is crap because it cannot be tested but evolution cannot be tested either, yet is held as truth?

Now that is some funny shit.

Attack me if you wish but remember...religion can suck my dick. I am not biased in any sense other than truth and science.

:thumbsup

There are no "other" worthwhile theories to teach children. Creationism is a myth, just like the stories of Zues, etc. There is no evidence, absolutely none. I challenge anyone to find one shred of scientific evidence pointing in the direction of creationism.

If you want to teach kids something, teach them that blind faith is a piss poor way to think. Take a look at facts, gather evidence, then formulate a theory based upon those facts, like evolution has done.

Ahem.... Bullshit.

Archaeopteryx - transitional form between reptiles and birds.

Ichthyornis dispar - transitional forn bewteen reptiles and birds.

Ambiortus dementjevi - transitional form between reptiles and birds.

Probainognathus jenseni - transitional form between mammals and reptiles

Diarthrognathus broomi - transitional form between reptiles and mammals

Oligokyphus major - transitional form between reptiles and mammals

Eozostrodon parvus - transitional form between reptiles and mammals

Australopithecus afarensis - transitional form between primates and humans

Australopithecus africanus - transitional form between primates and humans

Australopithecus robustus - transitional form between primates and humans

Homo habilis - trasitional form between primates and humans.

You know, you might actually try reading a book on evolution written by a reputable scientist. You may learn something.

I assume you are really referring to the second law of thermodynamics. The one that states that entropy (disorder) increases with time, thus invalidating the theory of evolution which obviously requires increasing order.

Well if you had even a basic understanding of thermodynamics you would know that the second law is only applicable in a closed system. The earth, however, is an open system and we recieve energy - primarily from the sun in the form of light and heat. The universe, as a whole, can be assumed to be a closed system and over time (lots of it) all life will die out.

This old argument was put to bed eons ago and I'm surprised that you dragged it out. Perhaps you can tell us where your information comes from.

Excuse me. I was not aware that I had never read a book on evolution. Have YOU ever read anything on creationism? Other than a pile of biased crap created to show that any other theory than evolution is bunk? Obviously, I am "preaching" religion or some shit to the highly educated. Thanks for enlightening me.

A bird fossil with teeth is hardly considered a tranisitional fossil unless you really, really want it too. A transitional fossil is catorgarized by being inter-species. There are many weird fossils in the fossil record: Birds with no feathers, mammals that layed eggs (hey, maybe the palatapus is evolving!), reptiles with hair. However, all of these animals were COMPLETE. Unless evolution happened overnight (which is becoming a more popular theory) then a large part of the fossil record would contain animals in an incomplete stage of development. This is not so.

Once again I am getting my assed kick by someone who obviously is so much superiour in intelligence than me that he has to point out that my understanding of thermodynamics (and this subject at hand) is below average. I would like to thank you for pointing that out. I will work on my knowledge.

Earth is not a closed system, however, the solar system is. Is the evidence that the solar system is evolving or dying? Am I correct in assuming that the sun is getting smaller and dying? Our solar system is dying not evolving. Because it is in a closed system. There is no help coming from Alpha Centari.

It was my pleasure to enlighten you, you certainly needed to be enlightened. Yes, I have read some books on creationism by the usual idiots Duana Gish and Henry Morris - both hard core Bible bashers - and they anything but scientific.

More to the point, what books have you read on evolution? I'd also like to know what books on creationism you have, who wrote them and what their scientific qualifications are.

I would recommend you read "Science on Trial" by Douglas J. Futuyama.
His credentials:
Bachelor of Science from Cornell University
M.A. and Ph D from University of Michigan
Author of "Evolutionary Biology" a widely used college textbook on evolution
Editor of "Evolution", international journal of evolutionary research
John Simon Memorial Fellow
President of American society of Naturalists
Professor in the Dept. of Ecology and Evolution at the State University of New York at Stony Brook.

I understand your view. Blind faith is utterly ridiculous. I do not propose the theory of creationism because of blind faith. Far from it. I did however, take it into my own hands and studied both theories quite extensively. It was quite difficult because the information for evolution is everywhere while the information for creationism is few and far between. Also, creationism is somehow assigned the stigmata of "spirtualism" which makes the facts harder to see.

I do not feel that it is fair to argue a point if a person has not studied both sides in a non-biased way. I can argue the theory of evolution as good as the theory of creation. To say that one side is totally ridiculous without knowing its foundation and structure is not my idea of knowledge.

This paragraph proves you are a moron. :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Now I wonder why that would would be????

Hmmmm.... Maybe because there is no "creationist" research, only pitiful and deeply flawed rebuttals of over a hundred years of research by the worlds most renowned scientists.

You sound like a high school student. How old are you?