This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
where is the creature that is this common ancestor? Furthermore, how do we know it isn't a hoax like the 20+ other hoaxes that have been "missing links"?? I mean, seriously... Why do people even believe anyone when they say they found the "missing link" anymore?
There are books on this. I'm not going to write a new one.
But many of the important steps that abiogenesis would need have been directly observed, like the spontaneous creation of amino acids and nucleic acids in early-earth conditions.(I know you know that, I'm just adding a footnote for the benefit of others.)(edited because I have brain parasites infecting my spelling centres)
If you could find it, I'd appreciate it. As far as I've heard all the various permuations of the Miller-Urey experiments have just created amino acids and sugars.
What part of the above quoted conversation said anything about science?Does that qualify as science.Nope.Yes, man does have free-will and is fallible. But at the same time God is sovereign and in control of everything. Can I explain how that works? Nope.Do I believe it to be true? Yep.
If evolution is the answer, why aren't the Miami running backs getting any better?And if scientology is the answer, why aren't there huge bearded alien types in the Dolphin's O-line?Some lines of development due eventually die out. Like any led by Wannstedt. Sort of like Homo Erectus, who probably got the crapped kicked out of them by homo Sapiens. The football equivalent would be the Patriots.SQUISH THE FISH!!!!(ok, I am really a giants fan, but from New England, and couldn't resist)Okay... I think I've had enough of this.One final question... if God exists, why did he create the 2004 Dolphins?
Actually, I don't believe that is the case. There are plenty of scientists that are Christians. I can't prove it but I've heard they're out there.Also, don't we get into this discussion at least once per year? Can we go ahead and save everyone some time and schedule it in advance from here on out?I propose October 1st of each year. Mark it down. I volunteer to bump this thread on that date.
Do not taunt or poke the smoo.
they don't say "come believe in nothign with me"...they just go around telling everyone how there is no God and how anyone who believes so just hasn't actually looked at the world around them and is weak-minded and in need of the crutch that is God...but, nah, they don't really ever puch thier agenda on people... no, definately not...*rolls eyes*
Then they were provoked. Try not pushing your Christian agenda on them and they won't push theirs on you.Problem solved.
nah, actually it isn't...as scary as that might sound...you aren't even the worst one I've come across...
That's probably because you assume everyone you meet that isn't pushing an athiest agenda is a Christian.
I wouldn't call you weak-minded....but if you insist.
no, I don't...although that would be a safe assumption since most people in the US (where I live) are Christians...and if they aren't Christians they believe in a God of some sort... whether they be Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, etc., there aren't a whole lot of athiests (by the stats)...
You probably live somewhere weird.
Huh? Not hardly.I don't assume anyone is anything. In fact, I don't really care either way. Just leave me alone and I'm happy.
I think both sides agree with this, except for the weirdos.
Both sides most definitely do not agree with this. It's already been pointed out that part of the Christian agenda is to spread the message. I don't want to just pick on Christians, although they seem to be the most guilty of public preaching. I've never had a Jew try to convert me.Also, when one of the sides is trying to restrict the human rights of others based on the teachings of their little Bigot's Handbook then that's not choosing to leave others alone either.
That's because deep down they know that they are wrong.
That's because they're not supposed to. Even if you come to your own decision that you want to convert to Judiasm, Jews are supposed to try to discourage you from doing it to test the sincerity of your convictions.
ok, some sort of religion...and ddin't Buddha do the whole "you can be a part of god yourself" thing? *not sure*The Buddha was not a god. Nor did he believe in one.
:rotflmao: :rotflmao:
This is very true. Do you ever see athiests going door to door trying to pass on their beliefs? Do you ever see athiests handing out pamphlets on evolution and the big bang theory? There are two main things that athiests get upset about with respect to religion.1. When people want religious beliefs to make their way into the science classroom in public schools (parochial schools can do what they wish). Religious beliefs are not supported by scientific research and should not be treated as such. Religion has done nothing but hinder the progress of science for centuries.2. When people want to make discrimination public policy based upon religious beliefs. Anti-sodomy laws and gay marriage laws are excellent examples of this. Zero discrimination ought to be the default position unless one can gather sufficient evidence that discrimination is required (age restrictions, eye test for drivers license, etc.). If you want to use the Bible to discriminate then the burden of proof is on you to prove that God exists and that he hates gays and sodomy.
Now we'll go off on another tangent, but if seek zero discrimination, then I assume you are against affirmative action plans and quotas. If not then how can you justify some one less qualified getting a job over some one more qualified based on ethnicity or skin color?I am with you on marriage. I think that the state should have no interest in marriage at all. This includes heterosexual marriages. Sure this would make estates a problem, but it would give everyone equal footing. As for laws, shouldn't they reflect the will of the majority? If the majority is against gay marriage or whatever other hot topics there are, then they should use their majority position to push this topic. I am not saying that fundamentalist (if they are a majority) should tyrannically enforce morality...but let's give the legal system its due.
Affirmative Action and similar policies are a very tricky topic that I'm not sure we want to tangent into (evolution is so much more fun and hotly contested) but I will say that I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, as someone who was a top student from a relatively low-income family, I found it distressing that the majority of scholarship monies available seem to be earmarked for minorities, many of whom were less needy than myself. On the other hand, I do agree that there is a need to provide methods and incentives for many of the groups that these scholarships are earmarked for in order to give them opportunity to get out of bad neighborhoods and poverty. The difference between this sort of discrimination is that the intent is not to discriminate against those that get passed over by the AA candidate but to provide opportunities for those who have been behind the curve. Gay marriage discrimination provides absolutely zero benefit to anyone. Those who are against it would not find their lives to be even remotely different were this discrimination to disappear.The will of the majority sometimes needs changing. A half century ago the will of the majority was that black people shouldn't have equal rights and that women shouldn't be on equal footing as men. Should these "wills of the majority" have remained? Were we in the right with the discriminatory practices of the past because the majority willed it?
I agree that the government shouldn't ban homosexual marriage... UNLESS it is the will of the people (aka - the majority of the people) that it be illegal...then it should be illegal...the real question here is how many people:a) think it should be legalb) think it should be illegalc) don't careif b is higher than a + c it should be illegal...I dont' agree with homosexuality, but I couldn't care less if the government made it illegal/legal, but if the majority thing that marriage rights should be held to a bond between one man and one women, then so be it...this is a democracy, man, majority rules... or did we quit thinking that years ago?
