Debate and Discussion

Creationism VS Evolution
Neilsama at 11:59PM, Feb. 28, 2007
(online)
posts: 430
joined: 1-2-2006
subcultured
there should be a law against creationist scientists calling themselves scientist.
you don't go to a doctor that's not really a doctor do you?

real scientists use the scientific method…most creationist scientist just bounce from hypothesis to conclusion without doing aything in the middle
There are real scientists out there who consider themselves creationists but work in other fields of science. But I think the people to whom Subcultured is referring are the ones who specifically call themselves “creation scientists” and work specifically to establish a Biblical timeline in some allegedly scientific way. The ones like Kent Hovind, Duane Gish, Carl Baugh, Ken Ham, etc. These men are not scientists, and they don't do scientific work.

Creationism is not a science. There is no theory to creationism. I've never heard a creationist even articulate what the theory of creationism is. It's basically, “God did it, and evolution is wrong.”.

Frighteningly enough, I discovered today that the Institute for Creation Research has somehow earned itself an acredited status among the board of education and was thus eligable to register for the domain name icr.edu. I can't begin to tell you how much that pisses me off.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:10PM
ozoneocean at 1:39AM, March 1, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,788
joined: 1-2-2006
So from what you guys are saying, “the American Taliban” that my dad keeps going on about (mad fundamentalist Christians) are real? Oh dear. :(

You have to always be careful about opposition to the mad people's ideas though, so you avoid alienating moderate religious people and driving them over the the extremist camp in regards to things like evolution. For example, as a lot of people have said; evolution is not an endorsement of atheism, which is not in fact a scientific outlook but philosophical one.

Don't offer people black and white choices: “you either accept evolution and totally reject any involvement of a spiritual agency in the origin and formation of life or you are an irredeemable imbecile”. That's bad because it leads them to reject your ideas entirely, Much like George Bush Jnr's imbecilic remark: “you're either for us or against us”. There must be compromises and fall back positions to enable them to slowly come around to your way of thinking. I'm not saying that any crazy creationist or ID notions should be taken on board, but it's fine to let people keep their ideas about some extra dimensional spiritual being having a hand in the formation of the universe and by extension; life. I'm pretty sure that's the position that most mainstream church's take these days, and it doesn't conflict in any way with the theory of evolution.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:26PM
Neilsama at 9:18AM, March 1, 2007
(online)
posts: 430
joined: 1-2-2006
ozoneocean
You have to always be careful about opposition to the mad people's ideas though, so you avoid alienating moderate religious people and driving them over the the extremist camp in regards to things like evolution. For example, as a lot of people have said; evolution is not an endorsement of atheism, which is not in fact a scientific outlook but philosophical one.
I do make it clear that my rejection of theism is purely philosophical, which is why I've stopped making that aspect such a focal point to my arguments. It's easy to get caught up in a debate of religion, because religion is definitely the key motivator behind creationism. It then becomes imparative to identify the false dichotomy endorsed by creationism. It's the creationists saying that evolution cannot co-exist with religion. Evolution simply says that biological change is a mechanism for survival, and nothing more.

I don't deny that the implications of evolution will call certain beliefs into question. Obviously, evolution and Noah's flood cannot co-exist in the same paradigm, and the actual six-day creation is clearly a contradiction. But to say that there is nothing beyond nature is not the point of evolution. It doesn't say that, it doesn't have to say that, and it would be very unscientific if it did.

ozoneocean
Don't offer people black and white choices: “you either accept evolution and totally reject any involvement of a spiritual agency in the origin and formation of life or you are an irredeemable imbecile”. That's bad because it leads them to reject your ideas entirely, Much like George Bush Jnr's imbecilic remark: “you're either for us or against us”.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes. Again, this is a weapon I use against creationism. Instead of demanding an absolute black-and-white dichotomy, I simply point out that it's the creationist camp insisting that God and evolution cannot co-exist.

ozoneocean
There must be compromises and fall back positions to enable them to slowly come around to your way of thinking. I'm not saying that any crazy creationist or ID notions should be taken on board, but it's fine to let people keep their ideas about some extra dimensional spiritual being having a hand in the formation of the universe and by extension; life. I'm pretty sure that's the position that most mainstream church's take these days, and it doesn't conflict in any way with the theory of evolution.
Maybe worldwide, but I seriously wonder about the States these days. We're really bad right now. Education is so mired by political wranglings that hardly anything of any value is actually taught in a science classroom.

I don't ever recall even being taught what science WAS. Almost every science class I ever had was basically a natural history lesson supported by “scientists say this and that”. That's terrible! No wonder there's such rejection. The one thing they don't teach in a U.S. science classroom is science!

It wasn't until well after high school that I got any real education in science. One of my closest friends is a biochemistry major, and another internet friend of mine is a molecular biologist. Between the two of them, I've gotten a much sturdier education than I ever got from a public school.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:10PM
LIZARD_B1TE at 3:32PM, March 1, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,308
joined: 6-22-2006
Neilsama
I don't ever recall even being taught what science WAS. Almost every science class I ever had was basically a natural history lesson supported by “scientists say this and that”. That's terrible! No wonder there's such rejection. The one thing they don't teach in a U.S. science classroom is science!

Ironically, I go to a Catholic School where they do actually teach science. Every test we've had in science this year, the first question is always: “All science is based on the assumption that the natural world behaves in a _______ and ________ manner.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:36PM
subcultured at 4:22PM, March 1, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
wats the answer?
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:01PM
LIZARD_B1TE at 4:51PM, March 1, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,308
joined: 6-22-2006
Consistent and predictable, at least, that's what the teacher says. It might be inaccurate, but whatever. At least I know I can never get 0% on the tests.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:36PM
Eirikr at 9:21PM, March 2, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,634
joined: 2-7-2006
Going on a little of a tangent here, whats up with Intelligent Design? It seems exactly like creationism, except they didn't name who created everything(But you know who they're talking about).
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:19PM
reconjsh at 9:42PM, March 2, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
I think the difference is “Creationism” believes that Genesis from the Bible is an exact blueprint and completely contradicts the Theory of Evolution, whereas “Intelligent Design” suggests that there's a reason why everything evolved as it did - because a higher power (i.e. God) willed it so.

From Dictionary.com:

intelligent design
n. The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes

creationism
n. 1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis.
3. the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.

last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
Aurora Moon at 12:36PM, March 3, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
that's the thing. some people think that evolution is some process where it's all completely random and stuff… and that's why they don't believe in it. they go “well, look at the gators and the alligators!!! if evolution was real, then why didn't they evolve and change over the billions of year??”

but evolution doesn't work that way. sure, the huge vasts of years plays an factor in it, but it's all about CHANGING when your species NEEDS TO, in order to survive. It's not like the creatures would suddenly wake up and poof into something else completely.
the alligators for instance– it survives just fine, it's an powerful force in the food chain of life. it doesn't have that much in the way of predators. So that species doesn't need to change.. it's fine just the way it is.

Evolution only appears in an species when the species are in an tight bind–where it's obvious that they wouldn't survive much longer in the long run.
Example: say an group of unique birds lives on some island that only has fruit and warm-blooded animals. They eat only the fruit on that island. But for some bizarre reason the fruit on that island slowly starts to disappear over the long year spans… slowly starving the bird species. They can't eat anything else because their beaks aren't equipped for eating meat, etc. So just when it looks like that bird species are about to die off and become gone forever… the later generations hatched from the eggs seems to have curved, sharp beaks where their parents didn't. seems this later generation was born to eat meat!
now that's evolution!

it's not as random as people thinks it is. Evoultion has an actual purpose to it other than just some “random change”.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:09AM
subcultured at 12:56PM, March 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
yup, if it works..then there's nothing to change.

the form of the sharks work for a long time, but maybe there were sharks that migrated to deeper water. so they had to evolve to a different form, the form is the frilled shark.

J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:01PM
reconjsh at 1:28PM, March 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
Someone
Evolution only appears in an species when the species are in an tight bind–where it's obvious that they wouldn't survive much longer in the long run.

That's not accurate. Evolution occurs when there is an available niche that isn't fully exploited and there's a critter adapted to survive in it and passes on it's unique genes and thus spawns a new species over time. That's why there's sub species within species and there's also common ties within larger categories of critters. If it was all about hard times, then with each new adaptation and resulting species, the previous would cease to exist. This is obviously not the case.

Example: The current niche is working out for your birds, but there is another available (like plenty of beetles in trees with no birds to eat them) and one of your birds comes along with genetic abnormalities (like a longer bill able to reach the beetles within the trees) adapted to exploit the new niche. But the new adaptation wasn't necessary for the survival of the species and so both old species and new one (after of course the new one gains enough critters) will continue to exist.

Evolution can/does occur in times of need or hard times, you're right… but it can also occur in perfectly fine times too. It's all about an available niche. If there's no niche available, then the species doesn't evolve, it goes extinct in hard times.

Example: If the brids run out of berries, and there's no alternative food source (like there's no beetles/there's some bigger stronger critter eating the beetles instead) for them to consume (or one a particular bird with an abnormality can start eating) then the birds will have to face either: migration to a new niche where there's food and room for them; or extinction (at least of that particular populace).
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
subcultured at 1:47PM, March 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
diversification of a spcies is always good because if a set of genes is immune to sickness, but the rest of the population is wiped out, then at least part of that specie survived.
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:01PM
KomradeDave at 1:51PM, March 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 589
joined: 9-26-2006
reconjsh
That's not accurate. Evolution occurs when there is an available niche that isn't fully exploited and there's a critter adapted to survive in it and passes on it's unique genes and thus spawns a new species over time. That's why there's sub species within species and there's also common ties within larger categories of critters. If it was all about hard times, then with each new adaptation and resulting species, the previous would cease to exist. This is obviously not the case.

Example: The current niche is working out for your birds, but there is another available (like plenty of beetles in trees with no birds to eat them) and one of your birds comes along with genetic abnormalities (like a longer bill able to reach the beetles within the trees) adapted to exploit the new niche. But the new adaptation wasn't necessary for the survival of the species and so both old species and new one (after of course the new one gains enough critters) will continue to exist.

Evolution can/does occur in times of need or hard times, you're right… but it can also occur in perfectly fine times too. It's all about an available niche. If there's no niche available, then the species doesn't evolve, it goes extinct in hard times.

Example: If the brids run out of berries, and there's no alternative food source (like there's no beetles/there's some bigger stronger critter eating the beetles instead) for them to consume (or one a particular bird with an abnormality can start eating) then the birds will have to face either: migration to a new niche where there's food and room for them; or extinction (at least of that particular populace).

Very true. There's a recent book out by Dr. Sharon Moalem, Survival of the Sickest, that discusses this sort of thing a lot (but more in relation to people).

An example she uses for adaptation within a single species is diabetes, which is more prevalent in relatively warmer areas. People whose ancestors were from colder regions are at higher risk for diabetes because diabetes (in a grossly simplified explanation) allows sugar to stay in the bloodstream, thus reducing blood's freezing point and keeping organs and blood vessels safer from ice formation.

Another example used is that many people of Asian descent tend to have a relatively higher tolerance to caffeine while those of European descent tend to have a higher tolerance to alchohol. The bodies of these peoples, quite gradually, were adjusted to these things which were used for the purification of water.

They didn't one day just have these tolerances because they were convenient, however. Over the years the people who had the genetic ability to handle these things (which was not detrimental and so was not wiped out) were less affected by them and so were liekly more attractive in some small degree (they weren't as drunk or buzzed as those without the adaptation). Thus the adaptation spread over the generations. Evidence for this can be found in the rates of alchoholism in bloodlines that were only recently introduced to things like alchohol.

It's a good read for a debate like this.
Handshakes and mustaches are the only ways to know how much you can truly trust a man.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:20PM
subcultured at 2:16PM, March 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
it's prolly like sickle cell disease…sickle cell disease usually affect those of african decent, which in that part of the world had a lot of malaria cases

although sickel cell disease is a horrible and painful disease and lowers thier life expectancy( malaria kills quicker) they are not as affected of malaria. therefore through a blood anomaly genes can survive until a cure is found or the virus can no longer affect them.
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:01PM
KomradeDave at 2:39PM, March 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 589
joined: 9-26-2006
subcultured
it's prolly like sickle cell disease…sickle cell disease usually affect those of african decent, which in that part of the world had a lot of malaria cases

although sickel cell disease is a horrible and painful disease and lowers thier life expectancy( malaria kills quicker) they are not as affected of malaria. therefore through a blood anomaly genes can survive until a cure is found or the virus can no longer affect them.

Yup. Europeans have a similar adaptation called Hemochromatosis, which deposits iron from the blood into organs with the scientific explanation being that the plague needs iron in the bloodstream to survive. If there isn't enough iron for the plague to survive it dies off or is at least weakened. This and sickle cell are both featured in the book.
The point is that they are genetic mutations that kill people, evolutionary logic therefore says they should have been bred out. They haven't been bred out, however, because the diseases that result from these mutations help groups of humans survive events at least long enough to reproduce, which is one of the primary factors of evolutionary change. The book is largely about how there might not be a human race left had all diseases been stopped early on. They, in many ways, were integral to man's survival.

(The evolutionary change hypothesis states that “if a mutation aids either survival or reproduction (in that order), then said mutation will be passed on.”
Handshakes and mustaches are the only ways to know how much you can truly trust a man.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:20PM
ozoneocean at 4:10PM, March 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,788
joined: 1-2-2006
Also, in the cases of those problems (and many others), you can certainly live long enough to breed (and will be healthy enough to do it to): so even though they may lower life expectancy, it's not enough to prevent the problem from being passed on. That also one of the factors in the longevity of acquired problems like AIDS, it would be less of a wide spread and growing concern if it killed faster… (not that I want it to, but you have to appreciate the irony)- while the terrible mass-killing plagues of the past simply die out; victims of their own success.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:26PM
reconjsh at 5:39PM, March 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
ozoneocean
Also, in the cases of those problems (and many others), you can certainly live long enough to breed (and will be healthy enough to do it to): so even though they may lower life expectancy, it's not enough to prevent the problem from being passed on.

I almost made this point but decided not to post it, lol. Since most people only have a couple kids, instead of breeding their whole life like the animal world… short life due to genetic weakness isn't really a factor in human evolution like it would be else where. Also, humans have mobile niches… we can bring the necessities of survival to the human instead of the human having to find one to balance in.


I often wonder if reverse evolution is taking place? The genetic elite (our intelligent, atheletic, etc) have significantly fewer children than our bottom of the barrel in society (our leeches, ignorant, lame, fat, etc)… so we're not advancing the best genes we can as a species.

Kind of a dark opinion… but still valid I think.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
KomradeDave at 5:57PM, March 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 589
joined: 9-26-2006
reconjsh
I often wonder if reverse evolution is taking place? The genetic elite (our intelligent, atheletic, etc) have significantly fewer children than our bottom of the barrel in society (our leeches, ignorant, lame, fat, etc)… so we're not advancing the best genes we can as a species.

Kind of a dark opinion… but still valid I think.

I think it's very valid. If you look at it worldwide there are much higher birthrates where there is much less development. Normally this wouldn't be a problem because children die off, but due to human compassion for those that appear less fortunate they are given access to medicine and food (but not always a means to support themselves).
Another book more relative to this in particular is Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel. Diamond posits that agriculture has led to the survival of the less fit, because a society that has any extra food can support those that can't get it themselves. He cites some intelligence studies that show those still in a hunter gatherer society have higher intelligence than those in agricultural and industrial society. In our society you can survive and reproduce (hella reproduce) when natural selection would otherwise pick your line off.
Handshakes and mustaches are the only ways to know how much you can truly trust a man.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:20PM
LIZARD_B1TE at 6:15PM, March 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,308
joined: 6-22-2006
reconjsh
I often wonder if reverse evolution is taking place? The genetic elite (our intelligent, atheletic, etc) have significantly fewer children than our bottom of the barrel in society (our leeches, ignorant, lame, fat, etc)… so we're not advancing the best genes we can as a species.

This is because smart people don't want to deal with those little terrors we call “children”.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:36PM
saltydadcomics at 8:40PM, March 3, 2007
(offline)
posts: 29
joined: 1-21-2007
Of all the people in this post how many of you actually have met GOD?Or at least have stood in his presence?I have.I don't really care if you believe me or not that's not important.If you can tell me the exact formula (science or religion) that will get me there again i will listen.Because ever since that has happened i have been a happier more useful and OPEN MINDED person than i ever was.I still don't discard the idea that
evolution is possible it just does'nt serve me any purpose to deal with life.Should we teach evolution in school?Well,let's just say i've dicovered that my fingers are beginning to web bacause i surf in the water so much.Do you believe me?Why not?Is it because it sounds preposterous?Well it should and that's what the THEORY of evolution sounds like to me.I still can't breathe underwater.DAMMIT!I think the schools should teach evolution in a class of theories and religion should be taught in a class of self improvement.TO ME THE ENTIRE SCHOOL SYSTEM NEEDS AN OVERHAUL.Explain to me how to change as a human that wants to kill,steal,rape,lie,wait….my baby is wakin' up hold on a minute…um..and destroy themselves and others.TELL ME HOW TO CHANGE PEOPLES THINKING AND LET ME SEE IT WORK!Only GOD knows what i need to change me.You know what? i think i just wasted a half hour of my life on this post.
Life's All Hours updated weekly ,mostly ,well…sort of.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:19PM
reconjsh at 8:52PM, March 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
Well, I won't be so bold as to say I'm a “genetic elite”… because I'm clearly not. But I will say that my wife and I are both college educated, fit, and worldly… and we've decided almost for certain not to have children.

I'm not sure if that's relevant, but there will be no “me junior” to cancel-out Little Timmy the Societal-Leech, ninth child of the 5th husband of Molly the Trailor Queen, if you know what I'm saying.

Someone
In our society you can survive and reproduce (hella reproduce) when natural selection would otherwise pick your line off.

I like how you worded this. =) Well said. I wonder how I'd fair in a different society? I'd probably have been buzzard-bait by age 5.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
reconjsh at 9:00PM, March 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
saltydadcomics
Of all the people in this post how many of you actually have met GOD?Or at least have stood in his presence?I have.I don't really care if you believe me or not that's not important.If you can tell me the exact formula (science or religion) that will get me there again i will listen.Because ever since that has happened i have been a happier more useful and OPEN MINDED person than i ever was.I still don't discard the idea that
evolution is possible it just does'nt serve me any purpose to deal with life.Should we teach evolution in school?Well,let's just say i've dicovered that my fingers are beginning to web bacause i surf in the water so much.Do you believe me?Why not?Is it because it sounds preposterous?Well it should and that's what the THEORY of evolution sounds like to me.I still can't breathe underwater.DAMMIT!I think the schools should teach evolution in a class of theories and religion should be taught in a class of self improvement.TO ME THE ENTIRE SCHOOL SYSTEM NEEDS AN OVERHAUL.Explain to me how to change as a human that wants to kill,steal,rape,lie,wait….my baby is wakin' up hold on a minute…um..and destroy themselves and others.TELL ME HOW TO CHANGE PEOPLES THINKING AND LET ME SEE IT WORK!Only GOD knows what i need to change me.You know what? i think i just wasted a half hour of my life on this post.

The question of this thread was:
Should creationism be taught in a public school?

Sounds logical to include it in a philosophy and/or religion class. The arguements here, however, have mostly been “should it be in a SCIENCE class?”. Which I can agree that it does not belong there.

The school system definitly needs an overhaul. Forget religion and everything else for moment: why aren't we teaching our <18 children philosphy and more importantly, why aren't they learning ethics? I mean, I'm a young man but I still see a GIANT gap between the values I experienced as a teenager and what the current generation seems to lack in morals. It's insane… and it's because a completely different - poorly equipped - generation of parents are raising today's youth than those who raised me/us.

PLEASE don't get me started on today's education system, youth and especially today's parenting.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
KomradeDave at 9:21PM, March 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 589
joined: 9-26-2006
reconjsh
PLEASE don't get me started on today's education system, youth and especially today's parenting.
Maybe you should start a thread on it, get yourself started. I think it'd be a good discussion.
Handshakes and mustaches are the only ways to know how much you can truly trust a man.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:20PM
ozoneocean at 9:58PM, March 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,788
joined: 1-2-2006
Meeting god eh? Yeah, sounds a bit far fetched, but that's your business and I accept that.

The perception that natural selection is being circumvented by the agency of organised society is incorrect. We're all part of that system, it's just more complicated than you'd normally imagine. That's because the “live or die” system based solely on the ability of an organism to survive through its own resources against nature totally without any intervention just doesn't happen as much as you'd think.

There are other factors:
local environment; everywhere has something unique about it, maybe one section gets extra rain that allows some thing to survive only there. An elderly and infirm rodent may survive and continue to breed because it happened to make its home next to an easy source of nourishment like inside a termite mound.

pure luck; maybe seed pods just happened to blow into a small area where everything else was dying off, and they flourished there, and so saved a population of small rodents that would otherwise have become extinct.

Tricks of weather; a warm ocean current diverted by the upthrusting of a new line of sea volcanoes and pack ice drift changes the weather patterns around a small group of cool islands in the Southern Ocean bringing them much warmer weather than normal which allows a colony of subtropical plants to establish themselves there (which were transported by migrating birds), and they gradually adapt and develop into a new species as the weather changes back to the normal cold patterns again after a certain time period.

community factors; Plants living together in rainforests change the weather in their area, therefore influencing their survival, plants adjacent to each other dictate the amount of sun or rain each one receives in their own mirco-environments, therefore influencing survival. An elderly lame Hyena my be able to survive a lot longer than it would on its own simply because its able to stick it out with its pack and always get enough food to eat because its pack mates make easy an abundant kills in an area particularly rich in game.

And so it goes… :) So don't think you're cheating “natural selection” by using doctors and paying for food that someone else grows for you, everything is part of it. If you wouldn't normally survive in open bush land in the Kalahari during summer, who cares? That's not your environment anyway. Your environment is your own town, workplace and home. Sooner expect a crocodile to survive 3 miles bellow the ocean, or less extreme; a small insect eating bird from one particular forest in southern Thailand to survive if it was transported to a forest near the French Alps.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:26PM
reconjsh at 10:14PM, March 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
Someone
The perception that natural selection is being circumvented by the agency of organised society is incorrect

Mmm, right AND wrong. Your points are great and valid, no arguement there. My point was more about numbers. If humans with inferior genes reproduce increasingly more, then it seems that reverse evolution is occuring. That the genes most likely to persist/increase in number are the inferior ones.

But, I guess one could say “what exactly is inferior?”. To which, I couldn't answer with anything other than my opinion.

But I'd also state that the smart, atheletic and able humans are reproducing less than the slow, lame, obese, morally shallow, lowest rung of our society. And it seems logical that they would do so… but it makes the future seem a bit bleak.

On a side note: How did you meet God, saltydadcomics?
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
KomradeDave at 10:19PM, March 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 589
joined: 9-26-2006
The kids say if you stand in front of a mirror and spin around three times chanting “bloody Christ, bloody Christ, bloody Christ” and he will appear in the mirror.
Handshakes and mustaches are the only ways to know how much you can truly trust a man.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:20PM
reconjsh at 10:28PM, March 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
KomradeDave
The kids say if you stand in front of a mirror and spin around three times chanting “bloody Christ, bloody Christ, bloody Christ” and he will appear in the mirror.

That's “Minnie-Minnie Ha-Ha”. =P
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
ozoneocean at 11:02PM, March 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,788
joined: 1-2-2006
Ha! Reverse evolution would only happen if time ran backwards… If people are getting fatter and stupider, then so be it, that's normal evolution in progress. Evolution doesn't describe a relentless march to perfection, simply a continual process change that is undergone. So that goes to this:
But, I guess one could say “what exactly is inferior?”.
Exactly. :)

I suppose that's where Creation comes in: Things are made perfect; or just because they are created, means they must be perfect because why would a god produce something crappy?

The god meeting is curious… where was it? In a church in prayer, in a dream, in a moment of personal danger, while meditating on a natural wonder, or in the melted cheese pattern on an extremely tasty pizza?
I'm sorry, but it's a concept that lends itself to humour…
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:26PM
reconjsh at 9:24AM, March 4, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
Someone
Ha! Reverse evolution would only happen if time ran backwards… If people are getting fatter and stupider, then so be it, that's normal evolution in progress.

Good point Double O! You got me there. My bad.

But I think you get what I was saying… our human evolution isn't currently favoring our genetic elite. This is obviously becausen of what you said earlier… that human survival/evolution really doesn't have anything to do with intelliegence and physicality like it used to for us.

I guess I'd rather see our more intelligent & more fit people perpetuate the human race instead of our least intelligent & fit. We're becoming very more dumberer and fatter.

But I digress.

Wow, I just discribed the premise of several campy SciFi Horors there. Scary to think I just said that above stuff. =(
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
saltydadcomics at 10:16AM, March 4, 2007
(offline)
posts: 29
joined: 1-21-2007

I met him when i had no where else to turn.My intelligence,philosophy,willpower,attitude,human aid,theories about life, science and morales were all bankrupt and i was ready to check out because i could no longer see any way of feeling better day to day.In other words i met him at the edge of hell.(no pitchfork devil bullshit here).Here's the kicker.I now realize that it was me who got myself there by living by ideas of intelligence only.My knowledge of God did not come from me figuring out whether i was created or evolved.My experience of meeting with God came from a desire to find a way out of my own hell (which at the time i didn't even know it was hell).That is why i said religion should be in a class of self improvement.NOW ,WHEN PEOPLE LAUGH AT THIS POST I HOPE THEY REALIZE THAT ONE DAY THEY MAY STAND IN THE MIDST OF THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION.Just as i did.This here is what i call casting pearls before swine.If you don't laugh or look down your nose at this post then all the better.I don't look down my nose at people who believe in evolution without a creator i pray for them to see what a wonder it is to be loved by SOMETHING SO POWERFUL.So powerful that it changes people.
Life's All Hours updated weekly ,mostly ,well…sort of.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:19PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved