While I agree with you in principle, I still maintain that there is sufficient evidence to support the theory of evolution. For sure enough evidence that we should not having these threads once a month. Whether one *wants* to believe in the theory of evolution or not is irrelevant - it is a valid theory that is in use every day.

Mike

I agree that evolution occurs in animals today. If that is what you mean by the "theory of evolution" then I don't think many would argue with you.

If you mean the other "theory of evolution" where people talk about man evolving from worms...well then that's a different story...

name the king of egypt in exiodus
or the one joe read dreams of
or the king who wanted abe's wife
real people BS

jerico was in ruins way before josh showed up at the walls
in fact the whole place belonged to egypt a minor point
but clearly stated in egypts records

and just when did ever first born sons die in egypt
as the mummys are missing or any other record of such event

david was a local GOD not a king
sorry but no record of him as a ruler
BTW the david coins are fake too

in the real; places collum

""There occurs not a shred of evidence for a city named Nazareth at the time of the alleged Jesus. [Leedom; Gauvin] Nazareth does not appear in the Old Testament, nor does it appear in the volumes of Josephus's writings (even though he provides a detailed list of the cities of Galilee). Oddly, none of the New Testament epistle writers ever mentions Nazareth or a Jesus of Nazareth even though most of the epistles got written before the gospels. In fact no one mentions Nazareth until the Gospels, where the first one got written at least 40 years after the hypothetical death of Jesus. Apologists attempt to dismiss this by claiming that Nazareth existed as an insignificant and easily missed village (how would they know?), thus no one recorded it. However, whenever the Gospels speak of Nazareth, they always refer to it as a city, never a village, and a historian of that period would surely have noticed a city. (Note the New Testament uses the terms village, town, and city.) ""


Mithraism has most of the christian story but 200 years before date of the rerun that is your belife
dec 25 birth, by a virgin to a easter death with a last supper atended by 12 followers who ate his body and drank the blood and a 3 day return to life

Again a total lack of respect for other peoples beleifs, not fairytales. Also a total lack of understanding of both religion and evolution. I would be ashamed to display such total ignorance.

For those scientists that are convinced by evolution and are anti-religion, my question is this: Why are you inclined to stamp out a facet of ourselves that has evolved with us? Nature has provided us with a desire to believe in God and develop religion, and this has been a help in our ascendence to planet's dominant organism. Do you not believe that man's interest in religion and God is a product of evolution, or have you decided to live outside of the natural world?

Science and religion are two different, but not mutually exclusive disciplines. Those who emphatically insist that they are earn my mistrust. Evolution no more disproves God than the Bible proves Him, and if your faith is so weak that the discovery of the missing link would shatter it, then you need someone to pray for you.

why Taz
it is simple
two towers fell because of belife in fairytales
on that day I said enuff of this foolish idea
there is no real difference in the belifes of the big three
some claim a god others claim a god and son, or a profit
millions of people have died and saddly today still die because of these belifes
I see no reason to respect or even tolerate any religion that
has caused deaths and they all have

then you get the other problem
they all want to impose their version of gods laws on the nations
no matter what cult or sub cult they all call for control in the name of their god

when the religions stop killing people and give up on trying to control the laws of nonbelivers then they can ask to be allowed to be in peace

intill then they are a clear and present danger to life on earth

Without religion there is NO reason NOT to kill as many people as you need to to get your way. Simple animal world, the fittest survive, the rest die. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, all have had their way, their non religious way and they have killed more people than any other, period. So you want more of this kind of people, the ones without morals, the ones that kill, just because they want to kill. Your mind is weak, your logic flawed. I hope and pray your kind never prevail.

Somewhere, about 7 years of age, many of us start to question the WHY we are here. Some think science is the answer, it is not. Science only explains how things work, not WHY they work. Anyone who has put more than a few moments of thought into the subject has to have studied the religions of the world. Sadly most have not done so, as shown by the totally ridiculous postings of the anti religious group. Their ignorance of religion and the century’s of deep thought, by some of the worlds most gifted scholars, is outrageous. It is painfully clear they know NOTHING, yet they profess to know how to run the world.

NO the big 3 all have a code based on fear of sex
religious codes are NOT based on right and wrong but on fairytales

donot allow a witch to live
kill a woman for having sex
no rights for gays
no right of women to control their own bodys
how is that just or correct

rights of others are not respected by any religion
only members of the cult have rights

simple laws based on the public good
need no god based BS
to be moral and in the best intrests of all people

every one knows it is wrong to kill or steal
and law is the biz of the state not the church
every time the churchgets control of the law
there is no justice

tali-ban has the same basic program as the christian fundies
ban sex
censor everything
no womans or gay rights

Buddhists dig sex.

What god bothering hubris.

It is the height of self righteous arrogance to assume those who reject your medievel beliefs have done so with the blithe, uncritical capacity typical of many who accept them.

If you want to go toe to toe on Theology, theres a plenty here who will be delighted to oblige you.

Pretty stunning stuff, alright. But if you read (above) that it was a position decided at the age of 7, it makes more sense.

hi all,

so far I have watched with a popcorn and now finally you have brought me in, I AM an atheist. I am married to a wonderful Christian woman and we have a wonderful relationship. We are both people of science ( both have graduate degrees in molecular biology )Ok enough of the internet dick swinging

Snownman,

"Without religion there is NO reason NOT to kill as many people as you need to to get your way.....Your mind is weak, your logic flawed. I hope and pray your kind never prevail."

Logic? lets do logic.....

This is an Argumentum ad Consequentiam (Arguing that a proposition is true because belief in it has good consequences, or that it is false because belief in it has bad consequences is often an irrelevancy. For instance, a child's belief in Santa Claus may have good consequences in making the child happy and well-behaved, but these facts have nothing to do with whether there really is a Santa Claus.)

More over I am 35 and I have not killed one person to date to get my way. What proof do you have that your statement is true? unfortunatly for the rest of us your kind has prevailed and well your record speaks for itself.



"Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, all have had their way, their non religious way and they have killed more people than any other, period."

here we have an An appeal to emotion (This is a type of argument which attempts to arouse the emotions of its audience in order to gain acceptance of its conclusion)

I beg to differ, this Red herring argument can not obfuscate the fact that religion has claimed more lives than these three (nevermind that you just Godwinned yourself)



"Some think science is the answer, it is not"

What pray tell is the answer? because up to now religion has been doing a bang up job (sarcasm) lets see how many major discoveries (Medicine etc ) fall under religion and how many under science?



"Somewhere, about 7 years of age, many of us start to question the WHY we are here. "


you are right in this I did, however I never attributed my "being " to a higher power, myth, whatever you would like to call it. instead I started to study biology, Biochemistry, physics, and the rest of the hard sciences to understand my surroundings and yes science made more sense than religion to me as to how and why.



"Anyone who has put more than a few moments of thought into the subject has to have studied the religions of the world.....know NOTHING, yet they profess to know how to run the world."

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam ( An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it)

Again I did, and nope not one once did it fill any need in me, again am I missing something?

Getting back to the main question, Evolution is the basis for many biological discoveries, just as simple math was a back bone for the space program so to is evolution to biology, biochem and so on. with out it some religious people would not be alive to spew your retoric.

but hey what do I know, I don't have the bible on my side

FFS, SnowChild ........... are you the devil's spawn? .......... if so, .........

how much is Fint paying - for child support?

When evolution is outlawed
only outlaws will evolve.

I've told you so many times... Man does not have the ability to rule himself sucessfully. Why do you think he has a grasp on the other things?

Total chaos all around and I'm hearing, "he knows things". Wrong!!


KT

So where's the evidence, again?



KT

Here is a question for all you believers:

Science of today has come a long way. Many of us are involved in very complicated technical matters in our daily activities. We use and trust the science behind complex machinery. Many of us trust the science behind our doctors diagnostic deductions. We believe so much in our science that we are willing to send people into outer space. And it works.

How come you do not believe in the science used to predict evolution of man ?

I´ll make it easy and answer the question myself for you: Because you don´t want to, since that would contradict the words of the Bible that you have made a choice to believe in.

Which, once again, makes these debates futile. There is no way any of us will convince the other.

It's all around you. But you choose not to see it.

If it were a snake it would have bit you...in fact there is a high likelihood it will.

nota, it would be easier to lend credence to your beliefs if you applied them more universally (unless you believe that science and government haven't worked hand-in-hand to facilitate killing and legislative control of human activity, otherwise they should be rejected also). Regardless, the view that everyone who doesn't adhere to your belief system is wrong and a danger to society is pretty fundamentalist. We all need to believe in something, even if its nothing, that's what nature has told us works.