conservative lifestyle=less problem

Post Reply New Topic

One does not need to "believe" in evolution because it is an observed fact of nature like gravity with multiple independent lines of mountains of evidence all pointing to the same reality. That you do not accept it as a fact is either because you are ignorant of the actual evidence (most common cause of evolution denial) or various other reasons that I am too nice to say right now.

There is a BIG difference between your hypothetical claim about the color of the sky compared to the evidence that exists for evolution. Educate yourself a bit please so you don't come off sounding so ignorant. It is also very different in nature (double meaning here) compared to every other subject you mention in your post. For anyone to think there is any subjectivity to the fact of evolution or that it is not supported by overwhelming evidence only shows how ignorant that person is, or stupid, or insane, or wicked. Those four choices (or combinations of those four) accurately describe every person I have ever encountered who is in denial of this demonstrable reality. Oh and evolution does not require you or anyone else to "believe" in it. It happens anyway.

This thread is stupid.

I think you (conservative) guys are just taking random values which you think are good and unjustifiably sticking a conservative sticker on them.

Of course they are. I'm surprised that the OP had counted monogamous homosexual relationships conservative, thus good, as conservatives are always claiming it's rare for gays to live beyond age thirty due to their lifestyle, or some such nonsense.

At least half the threads in PPR are stupid so what's your point, that this one wasn't started by a liberal?

It all depends on what you mean by evidence. No fossil or scientific principle has a stamp on it saying, "this is the total truth". Whenever we examine something, our conclusions are based on what we already believe about life and nature. An old example is about two men - one Christian, one atheistic - looking at the Grand Canyon. The atheist says, "the Colorado River did this over millions of years", while the Christian says, "a massive flood did this in a century or less". Both statements are based on a worldview, but only one matches a logical examination of the canyon itself. Here's something to chew on: the Colorado River enters the Grand Canyon from the side which has a lower elevation at the top, running towards the higher side on the opposite end. Gravity pulls water downhill, but in the case of the Canyon, the river appears to be running in reverse. The logical conclusion - which does not lean on the Bible or any other religious text - is that the Grand Canyon wasn't carved by the Colorado River. At some point in the distant past, a huge rush of water swept through what is now Arizona, and washed out that whole area fairly quickly.

I have read quite a bit about this, and most who believe in evolution don't even realize they're talking about two different processes. Some call the first "micro-evolution", which in reality is just extremely limited variation within a set kind of creature. Its what gives tigers different patterns of stripes, or does the same with a Dalmatian's spots. The second is often called "macro-evolution", which people assume has to occur because we see similarities between various creatures now (apes and man, for example). However, it is also possible that those similarities result from a common designer, not ancestor; even Richard Dawkins admitted to Ben Stein that various genetic codes might carry some sort of "signature". He just refused to accept the possibility of that cause being eternal or all-powerful.

Everything you claim in this post has been debunked, thoroughly. And no, it isn't just a question of looking at the same evidence with a different world view. Some interpretations are FALSIFIED by the evidence, such as your fantasy about the Grand Canyon being caused by Noah's flood.

Besides the fact of evolution, it is also a fact that there has not been a global flood in recent enough geological history to affect humans. There is not any evidence of the types we would expect to find if there had been such a flood, but there ARE multiple lines of evidence of the type we would expect to find if such a flood had NOT happened.

SO, is your God a liar to plant all this evidence that falsifies your INTERPRETATION of a Bronze age book of mythology? You are spouting nonsense and lies.

Your sources are full of ignorance, denial, distortions and lies, even though they claim to be speaking on God's behalf. They shame Christ, and so does anyone who denies demonstrable reality because of fundamentalist INTERPRETATIONS that are falsified by all the evidence of the physical world.

A few centuries ago it was believed that the sun goes around the earth because that is what the Bible says if you apply the same principles of interpretation to those passages that anti-evolution nut jobs apply to the book of Genesis. Eventually Christians had to admit they were wrong about this because of the overwhelming evidence that clearly showed they were wrong. Evolution is in that place now.

Already MOST Christians worldwide belong to denominations that either accept the fact evolution happens or say it doesn't matter to their faith. The fundamentalists are a very vocal minority though, and in some parts of the world like the Bible belt of the USA they are in the majority. That doesn't make them right. Sooner or later even the fundamentalists will either have to admit they were wrong about evolution (as mainstream Christianity already has) or those denominations will fade into obscurity as failed crackpot cults. And if they do finally realize they are wrong about evolution (yes even macro evolution!), they will undoubtedly find some way to double-talk and make excuses about how the Bible never actually said evolution doesn't happen (as most non-fundamentalist Christians already realize).

Careful. This is turning into spanking bait.

For what it's worth, I fancy myself a Christian, and still believe that it took millions of years to create the Grand Canyon. That, and I readily accept macro evolution.

They're not really two different processes, that's just something creationists like to say because they can't deny that children do not look like their parents.

Do you know what a pseudogene is? What about genetic drift? Or human chromosome 2 being two chimp chromosomes fused together? Or how the genetic code is almost, but not quite, universal? What about how radioactive dating shows that the Earth is millions of years old? Or retroviruses?

And if you have read so much, why do you always make trivial mistakes?

that's funny, because i've read innumerable thoughtful, interesting, and quite civil non-trolly posts from The Walrus.

as for your posts, well.......

What can you expect of Raptor,here's his ride.

What, a picture of the back corner of an SUV?
I have an SUV. Is that spank-able?

^^^^That depends on how much gas it uses.

Not if I'm the one paying for the gas.
And before we go there, I don't buy into the global warming thing.

^^^Well of course you don't believe in climate change,you're a Republican,and they know oh so much more than any of the scientists at NASA.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
If you drive a gas guzzler I suppose you like being shafted by big oil.You might as well bend over for Haliburton.