this has been probably the worst debate i have read in a while

no one attempts to disprove evolution, because it is fact. however evolution and religion rarely contradict each other rofl.
nice ignorance fallacy there btw too, ironic you aren't a christian.

I sure hope you're kidding.

There is no need to remove evolution for intelligent design to work.


I don't believe it to be only one or the other.



blanket terms
blanket insults?
hang on to that one shred of what you understood in bio 102 when you went to community college.
there is no need to insult anyone for their beliefs.

i sure hope you are. this is 2013, where evolution is accepted as fact.

it is accepted as fact, but has not, as yet, been proven as fact. that the earth was flat was also generally accepted as fact for a while.




keep patting yourself on the back for you superior ignorance. correct me if im wrong, but im going to assume that your basis for this is that if evolution is right, then creationists are wrong. that is wrong, however. creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive, so even if evolution WERE fact, it would not disprove creation.

This post was edited by ReturnFormer on Nov 16 2013 09:19pm

why?

The evolution theory looks pretty strong. The part about it that really bugs me is where I'm supposed to believe that we have this inanimate primordial soup and then a shock of electricity hits it and it pretty much IMMEDIATELY begins to self-assemble into some sort of proto lifeform. They reproduce this is a laboratory too. They put a bunch of chemicals in a controlled environment, hit it with electricity, and it just starts creating the basic building blocks of life. I don't like that answer for how life started. That's WAY too MUCH order eagerly being created out of chaos for my taste. That feels like the universe was designed to create life.

So I still don't know how I feel about the issue.

This post was edited by DellGriffith on Nov 18 2013 01:34am

I thought of a better way to explain how I feel about evolution.

Let's say for example a scientist runs an experiment where he throws down several hundred pages of blank notebook paper and some pens, shocks it with electricity and produces the complete works of Shakespeare. And its a reproducible experiment. Scientists everywhere can come up with the complete works of Shakespeare by running this experiment. At that point, I can accept you can derive the complete works of Shakespeare by doing this, and while it cannot produce something far more complex like the entire contents of the Encyclopedia Britannica or everything in Wikipedia, I cannot help but begin to get a little suspicious that the universe was designed to produce this result.

Please say you didn't seriously ask that


Lol....

You can redefine creationism as many ways as you'd like--you can say "god designed the world and allowed for evolution" --where I'm from (Virginia) creationist typically(not 100%) believe the literal interpretation of the bible.