Are you an evolutionist or a creationist and why

[linderlizzie]

I believe that God created the Earth in the beginning.    He created time. I also believe there was evolution among the species to allow for the survival of the fittest, but the animals were initially created in their own kind by a creator.

It takes faith to believe in God, but I know it's right in my . To believe that all life evolved from nothing, and that before that, there was nothing at all seems to me to require much more faith. Plus the fact that when we die, if there is nothing to look forward to (like Heaven), that's a very sad prospect indeed. 

This was just my two cents worth, people. I hope we keep this clean. That's the best part about Fusion Cash. No one really gets nasty about their point of view. After all, we're not going to change our minds from this or that posting.

[hitch0403]

After all, we're not going to change our minds from this or that posting.

Lizzie.....when the evil-doer dying next to Jesus asked Jesus to remember him,did he change his mind from what he was?

Obviously he did from Jesus answer back to him after Christ saw his heart.

The apostle Paul was killing others and thought he had the right religeon until Jesus humbled and blinded him.But then he found truth cos God saw his heart was in the right place to be forgiven and teach the truth about TRUE God.

Judas was NOT forgiven cos he sinned directly against the holy spirit knowing all along Jesus was Gods son and selfishly only thought of his GREEDY self.

[InfuseMe1]

well, since I don;t believe in evolution, then I must be a creationist, and then, I just create all those cool things that come into my mind, whether it be food, gardening, woodworking, painting, building, crocheting, etc...  - see?

[mythociate]

Emperor Constantine has what meaning to the Bible? Just a question to gain knowledge.

He oversaw it's original binding-together; when Christianity was still a New Age religion.

Why bother with dis-proof?

Because people used to think smearing animal blood on wounds would heal people. Knowing how things work is extremely vital to humanity. This extends to basic biology to vast astronomical studies.

And disproving that does what-exactly?

If believing lets you sleep a little more-comfortably, what's the harm?

I could argue that it's delusional, but you'd be right- no harm is coming to the individual. The reality of it is that it's not just individuals who are doing this- there has been bloodshed over these delusions for ages and there still is.

There's bloodshed over all kinds of delusions (love, property-rights, etc.) How `bout start with those, & leave our made-up past alone? lol

And who's to say that those hundreds (if not thousands) of different scientists were not merely characters in 'the mythology of today' (science-fiction)?

That very well could be! But the evidences we've discovered so far have stuck within our reality for quite some time, so I really don't find a reason to dismiss them as pseudoscience. But going back to the original thought of this thread, would you rather trust scientifically literate people whose job requires them to disprove each other, or would you rather trust an ancient book written by primitive people who were scientifically illiterate and gullible?

It sounds like the question is 'Who do you wanna team with: the group of people who all agree, or the group who all disagree.' Sometimes the first is best, sometimes the second is; depends on what your goal is in choosing. If you want peace, go for agreement. If you want conquest-type power, you want the one whose leadership is 'shaky without you.'

[Falconer02]

And disproving that does what-exactly?

It prevents death and the spread of disease.

There's bloodshed over all kinds of delusions (love, property-rights, etc.) How `bout start with those, & leave our made-up past alone? lol

Because it's still a reason there's bloodshed. And out of all of the ones you've listed, it's probably the most needless due to it's ancient and out dated origins. In no way am I defending the immoral acts you've listed- I'm just stating that, as far as substance and reason goes, it's the most pointless.

It sounds like the question is 'Who do you wanna team with: the group of people who all agree, or the group who all disagree.' Sometimes the first is best, sometimes the second is; depends on what your goal is in choosing. If you want peace, go for agreement. If you want conquest-type power, you want the one whose leadership is 'shaky without you.'

My previous post was only referring to the difference between science and religion. Though I understand what you mean, I'm not really delving into politics here.

After all, we're not going to change our minds from this or that posting.

Then you shouldn't be in debate and discuss if you aren't willing to educate yourself. If you wish to continue spewing your false religious ideologies, you have that right. But at least stand back and question your own beliefs if someone makes a decent point.

[mythociate]

It sounds like the question is 'Who do you wanna team with: the group of people who all agree, or the group who all disagree.' Sometimes the first is best, sometimes the second is; depends on what your goal is in choosing. If you want peace, go for agreement. If you want conquest-type power, you want the one whose leadership is 'shaky without you.'

My previous post was only referring to the difference between science and religion. Though I understand what you mean, I'm not really delving into politics here.

Oh, but you're getting into the very ROOT of politics---which people agree with what! On this question, religion's "proof" (what EVERYONE agrees with) is the tradition that's been written; science's 'proof' is the NEW tradition (taken from better-&-better observation & measurement) that's been written. I think it depends on what ground you're standing-on; the sturdy boat (stuff you know) on the shifty sea of the unknown, or the firm ground in the middle of the island where all your ancestors are buried.

After all, we're not going to change our minds from this or that posting.

Then you shouldn't be in debate and discuss if you aren't willing to educate yourself. If you wish to continue spewing your false religious ideologies, you have that right. But at least stand back and question your own beliefs if someone makes a decent point.

[/quote]

Walking the Middle Way: I guess they're saying we aren't going to change 'what we know' because you 'know' something different (God's work--almost by-definition--DEFIES logic, being "foolish" to those who don't believe).

But does the one who builds on sinking-sand--after he SEES that he's building on sinking-stand--hurry up and start working on the next floor (swiftly becoming the new ground-floor)?

[JediJohnnie]

You'll find that Falconeer often spouts his "superior" wisdom,and is easily offended when it is not instantly agreed with.

[Falconer02]

You'll find that Falconeer often spouts his "superior" wisdom,and is easily offended when it is not instantly agreed with.

This is an incorrect assumption, and is simply a cheap baiting tactic. It's also "Falconer" not "Falconeer". It's like every one of your posts is mean-spirited and full of errors...I have fun pointing out the hypocrisy of someone who says they're a Christian ;-)

[Falconer02]

Oh, but you're getting into the very ROOT of politics---which people agree with what! On this question, religion's "proof" (what EVERYONE agrees with) is the tradition that's been written; science's 'proof' is the NEW tradition (taken from better-&-better observation & measurement) that's been written. I think it depends on what ground you're standing-on; the sturdy boat (stuff you know) on the shifty sea of the unknown, or the firm ground in the middle of the island where all your ancestors are buried.

I see what you're saying and mostly agree, however I believe the island metaphor you speak of is not a rational reason to keep believing in ancient ideas. Ultimately this is all I'm stating-

Walking the Middle Way: I guess they're saying we aren't going to change 'what we know' because you 'know' something different (God's work--almost by-definition--DEFIES logic, being "foolish" to those who don't believe).

In all honesty I'm just quoting Hitch because he has this inability to debate or discuss while listening to other people. I know I'm being condescending, but it's very odd constantly seeing "If it ain't in the bible, I don't care!" posts-- that mentality is what impedes any discussion from progressing. You on the other hand are the opposite as you seem to want to discuss beliefs and such, so I appreciate the replies.

Going back to this quote, if I were to tell you that there's a magic invisible dragon in my freezer and he created and sees everything, would you believe me? And if you didn't, couldn't I use the same logic path to make this dragon seem real?

But does the one who builds on sinking-sand--after he SEES that he's building on sinking-stand--hurry up and start working on the next floor (swiftly becoming the new ground-floor)?

Interesting metaphor. Do you think it fits within that picture I posted?

[hitch0403]

Falconer...discuss would be a better choice of words.As ive said many times to debate the bible would mean that its more important to me than to do a kind service to God or any other member on FC interested.Whereas i know you enjoy debating and i also know you have a poison in you regarding a Creator.Its more obvious to me you believe there is a Creator than not.How could one have such a dis-like for something they didnt think existed?

I am not fond of yor untruths towards the JWs i will admit.They truly have love among themselves and its a shame you NEVER saw it.But for whatever reasons you fell that way so be it.Again when i write on the forum it has nothing to do with debating you.If you wanna discuss something in a humane manner i dont have a problem with that...but if its just to gratify yourselve to say,"I won that round"...take a hike.There are others here i am sure that can read into my posts and also see where you are at!!!

Have a nice day.....LOL!

[hitch0403]

There are a few typos in my last post Falconer.You be the shark...i left you some blood!!!LOL!

[Falconer02]

There are a few typos in my last post Falconer.You be the shark...i left you some blood!!!LOL!

I AM ZE GRAMMAR NAHT-ZEE!

As ive said many times to debate the bible would mean that its more important to me than to do a kind service to God or any other member on FC interested.

My point is you're incapable of carrying on a conversation without having a bible handy. If we were to have a discussion on world war 2 history, and all I keep doing is quoting Mein Kampf and only literature surrounding that, you're just going to scratch your head.

i know you enjoy debating and i also know you have a poison in you regarding a Creator.

Not A creator. THE creators-- defined gods and the failure of people to realize that these concepts are wickedly flawed. That's probably a more accurate description of my 'poison' I suppose.

Its more obvious to me you believe there is a Creator than not.How could one have such a dis-like for something they didnt think existed?

Again, it's the fact of these concepts being flawed, willingly ignoring them, and still preaching them as if they're perfect. I do not have a problem with the speculation of there being some supreme being/beings/aliens/etc. out there. However if you don't have proof of them, you can't state that the mythology surrounding them is true and that they can be taken legitimately (well...besides the moral parts).

I am not fond of yor untruths towards the JWs i will admit.

Falsehoods you mean? You do know that everything I've stated in the past about this religion (false prophecies, frauds, uncaring individuals, etc.) are backed up by factual info and examples? I'm not saying they're all bad, but I am stating that the negative treatment within this religion is fairly well known.

If you wanna discuss something in a humane manner i dont have a problem with that.

We've tried numerous times, and you've done nothing but ignore, disappear, or continuously quote JW literature rather than focus on the actual issue and try to understand each other.  I do believe most people would actually enjoy hearing your actual thoughts on an issue rather than reading a wall of bible quotes. I'm not saying you shouldn't use quotes-- I'm just stating you shouldn't be so heavily reliant on them for every post you make.

There are others here i am sure that can read into my posts and also see where you are at!

I suppose that's a good thing.

[mythociate]

But does the one who builds on sinking-sand--after he SEES that he's building on sinking-stand--hurry up and start working on the next floor (swiftly becoming the new ground-floor)?

Interesting metaphor. Do you think it fits within that picture I posted?

Looking at that 'ignores all contradictory evidence,' I think of the bumblebee. I've heard that the bumblebee shouldn't be able to fly. It obviously is, but (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090507194511.htm) it takes more brute-force than it looks like they have! "The bumblebee flies anyway."

The metaphor I think fits better with the picture is ... I look at them and think of 'boats' (or "starships"): the science-one looks like it has too many doors-to-keep-a-watch-on---ways for leaks & bugs etc. to tear it apart. The faith-one looks safer.

[JediJohnnie]

Falconer...discuss would be a better choice of words.As ive said many times to debate the bible would mean that its more important to me than to do a kind service to God or any other member on FC interested.Whereas i know you enjoy debating and i also know you have a poison in you regarding a Creator.Its more obvious to me you believe there is a Creator than not.How could one have such a dis-like for something they didnt think existed?

I am not fond of yor untruths towards the JWs i will admit.They truly have love among themselves and its a shame you NEVER saw it.But for whatever reasons you fell that way so be it.Again when i write on the forum it has nothing to do with debating you.If you wanna discuss something in a humane manner i dont have a problem with that...but if its just to gratify yourselve to say,"I won that round"...take a hike.There are others here i am sure that can read into my posts and also see where you are at!!!

Have a nice day.....LOL!

Exactly.It's the man's insufferable arrogance that I can't tolerate.If anyone wants an honest discussion of what I believe,that's fine.But Falconeer's attitude of demeaning the beliefs of a vast multitude whom believe in a deity (and as I said earlier,a multitude of people whom he obviously thinks has the mind of a tapeworm) is not worth the effort.If you don't allow him to "educate" you and agree with whatever his liberal philosophy professors filled is head with,you're not "debating" him properly.Let him think he "won" all the debates in the world.I'm sure that's the only reward he'll have.In this life or the next.....

[Falconer02]

xactly.It's the man's insufferable arrogance that I can't tolerate.

Just because it's easy to disprove every elementary flawed thing you type does not mean I'm arrogant. It means I'm correcting your misinformation. If you take offense to that, I really have no idea why you're in this part of the forum (I'm starting to sound like a broken record stating that to you, aren't I?). The only arrogant thing about me is just laughing over how terribly you display yourself as the kind religious person your religious protagonist tells you to be- you state lies, exhaggerations, the spreading of rumors/misinformation, and general spite towards others.

If you don't allow him to "educate" you and agree with whatever his liberal philosophy professors filled is head with,you're not "debating" him properly.

Really? Do I need to really explain what a debate is? I suppose I would since you obviously just contradicted yourself-

Debate is a broader form of argument than deductive reasoning, which only examines whether a conclusion is a consequence of premises, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn't the case, or rhetoric, which is a technique of persuasion. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic. The outcome of a debate depends upon consensus or some formal way of reaching a resolution, rather than the objective facts as such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate

So, despite the spiteful little personal attack on these fictional liberal professors you made up, you're pretty much saying "If you can't debate, don't engage in a debate with Falconer." so I thank you for that. You don't have to agree with what I say, but you do need to be kind and explain why so you can educate the other person. And besides- I'm all for reaching a consensus in the end. And there's ample proof of such examples on the forum if you search my posts. But, in religious arguments, it's always the religious person who either disappears or has a temper tantrum at the end. You above most are proof of that. Oh wait- I'm arrogant again for stating that fact now, aren't I?

Let him think he "won" all the debates in the world.I'm sure that's the only reward he'll have.In this life or the next.....

And the 3$ at the end of each month! So again I thank you for engaging me. I gotta go turn in my post count now, but for debate's sake and to see if you have the integrity to carry on a formal debate, what is your proof that there is a life after this one?