Zedrush

AK350Z you crack me up mate this has been fun Sorry not been on to reply sooner but meetings all day yesterday and teaching last night am shattered. For me personally scientists study with evolution changes so much, from one theory to another first Darwin was the in thing then it became louis pasteur theory of spontaneous generation, and then it will be another theory, maybe Apple will release i-evolution. But again this is my view and my view only. What I like about and what attracts me to Genesis is it's consistency for me. And if it was written by mere people then they should win science highest accolade for knowing way back then that the world wasn't flat and knowing that 99% of the chemical makeup of the human body can be found in the earths layer six elements specifically. But perhaps this was just luck, clever guys none the less. With regards to evolution and Christian religion being moulded together, this could never happen otherwise the whole of the Christian doctrine would fall apart, the morality of God and the survival of the fittest within the evolution model is so contradictory the whole essence of our faith would be doomed. The O.T promotes peoples greatest weakness becoming their greatest strength. Not the physically strong will survive.

the theory of energy preservation or whatever the english term is, says exactly that. true and fact in everyday life. nobody has ever managed to unify all 4 energies tho in one whole equation....which means that this may not be exactly a fact in kwantomechanics there are several theories about soul and aura and all sorts that bring barytones into play...who knows.... the truth is out there .... the X files! if only you were scully

I have no doubt that some experiments would reveal the same results whether conducted by a priest, nun or buddhist. But very often we find ourselves fitting results within the paradigm of a theory without exploring it further. The same is done within religion, in theology its called eisegesis, interpreting biblical scripture to fit our own beliefs and our own wants without reading it in the contexts it is written (exegesus) When you say 'hard facts," again this is subject to your own personal opinion, as I have said the water is still very murky regarding evolution, its not an absolute and Im not prepared to drink it. Religion is a human construct inspired by historical and spiritual events and experiences, even though the latter may not be empirical enough for the non believers the historical part is evident enough for us to organise our beliefs upon and live our lives by for those wanting to believe. Now this may be hard to accept for anyone who does not believe but i think the biggest frustration for non believers come when they apply their own formulae to every question, some answers cannot be solved by sticking it under a microscope to review, mine involves faith, but that does not mean Im using it as a cop out to the debate of evolution, I am open to learning and coming from a previous atheistic position my rationalisation of any argument would be fair to say the least. You just need to accept that some people will accept evolution and some wont thats life, if it was a 100% proven then maybe people would be more open to accept it, but until then you have to accept that there is room for alternative views. The only time it becomes a battleground is when one side tries to impose their views onto the other side. I believe in creationism, and right now nothing will change that. You believe in evolution, that is your take on how you came into being and I respect that. Can we leave it at that now?

stanski she's going to be a daddys girls, she will have you wrapped round her little finger with that smile of hers, ur in trouble now you do realise that dont you not sure what it is my nephew is 2 years old now and I cant seem to relate to him, weird, my sister says its because i look like a big ogre, thanks sis

hi mate hope you dont mind me asking but where did you hear this? The most striking "fact" about Christianity, (I assume the OP is a Christian) and a follower of the New Testament, is that the 27 books of the NT were written between AD 90 and AD 300, 90 to 300 years after JC's death it's not fact there are hundreds of authenticated historians who were non believers who at the time recorded writings of Jesus's time during his life and immediately after. Even in the muslim faith they can account for this too as well as in pagan writings, all external sources from the christian belief. The only thing I can think of that happened around 300ad was the meeting at the Council of Nicaea 325ad, when they decided what books were going to be included in the new testament as there were a plethora of books written about Christ that they had to narrow it down to what they thought were relevant, and what weren't. But Pauls letters were during and after time of Christ, as well as many other sources. Sorry not trying to have an argument just didnt want something stated as 'fact' about the biblical scripture when there are strong evidence for an alternate view ok am done with this thread now, wow, this really is a hot topic thanks all for such a colourful intellectual debate

gorgeous looking car nice buy

couldnt agree more to disagree,

absolutely love it bro just thought id better tell you now that pic you took in the first one it was me she was texting in case you were wondering,

there is a simple solution that will only cost you mere pennies! lol true but dont want to be greedy now do I we would forgive you you bringing the porker to wales? more on topic: i wonder what the average age in different regions is, eg. if you go to a west mids meet it seems to all be mid twenties. Wales is 350z only mate had this discussion when I had the Aston

there is a simple solution that will only cost you mere pennies! lol true but dont want to be greedy now do I

relative truth? How do you justify truth think this is going down a philosophical route now and for you to say that absolute truth exists only in dogma have you read the previous posts on this thread? "Evolution is fact" and some saying its "not 100% fact but too much evidence for it not to be true?" Does that put evolution in the bracket of dogmatic thinking then if according to you absolute truth only exists in dogma? When the fact of the matter is absolute truth exists on the individual willing to believe in one or the other, it is the individual that makes the truth absolute to him or herself not society, these are after all postmodern times and truth is relevant. The fact that I believe in creationism shouldnt put peoples backs up or have them stereotype me as some bible bashing nutter. Just like people who believe s2000 are to them better than 350z and vice versa. The fact I dont believe in evolution and that no one on here has given any unflawed evidence to prove the theory as a fact, entitles me to my own belief. Im sorry personally I don't follow the theory of evolution, I think personally it has too many unanswered questions and I personally prefer the route of creationism. All Im asking is that people respect this of each other, I didnt ask to get into a debate about it because as said we would be here all day, and Ive got better things to do than sit here justifying my belief. I now understand why people diss Christianity, when people burden you to believe you end up pushing them more away

29, but dont own a zed anymore

Are there holes in evolution? No real scientist would say no. But that's science's strength and its weekness, science acknowledges the holes and tries to fill them. It is self-effacing. Evolution has indeed turned out not quite as simple as the Tree of Life as Darwin has envisaged. There are dead ends, multiple starts, convergencies, sideways diversions, but that does not prevent the larger picture being seen. The development of DNA from RNA, it's all there, like pixels in a television. Isolated points of data on their own, but draw back and a picture starts to form. There are no half apes for the same reason there are no half elephants or half whales. Extinction, disease, ecological niches, fitness for purpose. Evolution is part selective, part luck. The present number of species is but a minutely tiny proportion of the number of species that have ever been. Modern apes haven't evolved because only one group of apes in sub-saharan Africa developed the mental ability to develop complex tool use and eventually, cruicially, give up the hunter-gatherer society for an agricultural one. There were late divergent steps; Neandathals. But they were out competed for resources and despite some interbreeding were eventually wiped out. If you want a better idea of what could have been, look at the Aboriginal people of Austrailia, seperated from the rest of the world for at least 30,000 years. But we do have empirical evidence for evolution, there is none for the exsistence of god or creationism. There is no scientific evidence for the existence of god correct, but there is evidence that can support the theory of creationism, just like there is for evolution in effect. Science in the beginning were given a theory, they extract as much evidence to state if that theory is possible not absolute and thats all they have done is state that it is a possible theory as is creationism but not a factual theory. In essence if evolutional theory was an empty bottle (metaphorical) they would try and use all the research they had to fit into and fill that bottle to make it a completed theory transitioning it into an empirical fact, and thats what they are doing working within the paradigm of that bottle, and anything that doesnt seem to fit they try and figure out but if they can't they simply work in another area to make the bottle full. Will the bottle contain a pure full factual substance that it will be safe to rely on? If the bottle is suppose to be water for us to drink, yet all the evidence points to murky unanswered substance, would you drink it? Is it then surprising that many atheistic scientist are rejecting the possibility of evolution. You say real scientist, but what do you classify as a real scientist? One who just accepts evolution as the be all and end all? One of the most accoladed scientist of our time Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith rejected evolution along with many others. Which goes to prove that the possibility of an alternative view is not only a possibility but a practice amongst many "real" scientists. Why do I believe in creationism is because of my faith, do I believe in it a 100% yes, can I accept that others who don't believe will view it as a theory, the answer is yes I can accept that doesn't mean I accept it personally as a theory. Do I have anything else to support my view other than faith or believing in a magic man as some might put it, yes. Why can I not use evidence where scientists struggle to prove evolution and have no explanation for to justify the possibility of creationism. For example evolution model says "...its not necessary to assume the existence of anything besides matter and energy to produce life." Isnt that in itself a very unscientific claim? If matter is left by itself it does not organise itself. Hence the foundation of our being is flawed how can you then ignore this and then continue with the theory of evolution without first justifying the beginning? Can the existence fit in the creationist model well yes according to these circumstances. Evolutionist also uses many scientific results of "what is not" just as much as "the what is" to prove their theory so does creationism. As for aborigines supporting evolution because of 30,000 years separation from what we class as normal civilisation is confusing, what are you trying to prove here, that they evolved to have their nose pierced? They look like human, the fact that they conduct themselves in a different manner has nothing to do with a physical state but a cognitive state determined by their social influence surely? At the end of the day as said before, people should be allowed to believe in what they want and not judged upon because it differs from the next. If they feel they can justify it 100% then great but to be fair I think this argument is bigger than the both of us can fully comprehend, I dont think scientists will ever have an absolute answer to our existence, just possibilities, hypothesis and theories, with scientific research contextualised to support these theories. Man has ever been curious and unsettled unless it has the definite answer or it cannot rest, how we settle ourselves to justify our existence is a personal journey and one which no one can put an absolute on. Thats my honest opinion. Thanks for the great debate, but Im not here to debate theories we will be here all day with evidence that prove and disprove each others belief. Im simply stating we need to learn to accept different opinions and that there is no social absolute answers, just individual belief.

+1000000000 as long as we dont join the euro im up for this

lol i see this making evolution into its own religion, good debate ak350z but evolution is still a theory at best just like creationism. The fact that scientists have got involved to examine the theory does not simply put it in a different category to creationism, the two are simply beliefs some people choose creation theory some choose evolution. To say one is more plausible than the other is your opinion, which you are entitled to, just like my opinion is creation is the way I believe we came into being. Let me ask you, do you think there is a possibility that the theory of evolution could be wrong? I mean yes we still have arguments how comes apes are still apes how comes they have not evolve or how comes there are no apes that are half ape half man in the process of evolution? it simply doesnt add up. You say that creation resolve their beliefs on emotional faith well evolution resolve their beliefs with it happens over millions of years. Both cannot be proven empirically because no one in this day and age has seen God and no one in this day and age has lived long enough to see apes evolve into man or half man and half ape. Have scientist actually found every type of skeleton that represents each stage of the supposedly evolutionary cycle of man?... have scientists been able to ascertain how a single cell came into being and can scientist with all its modern tech create a living cell from nothing? How do they justify human reproduction under evolution facts if that is what it is?? Hence why both views are plausible as theories neither have absolute truths on society just on the individual who simply believes in one or the other.

I could say the same about evolution they are views of certain scientists trying to validate a theory but due to it not being an absolute truth just a theory it is therefor a belief or a hypothesis a speculation of what could of been. I could bring up many examples that science cant explain that my belief can, does that mean my belief has a universal bearing on the way the world actually works and science doesnt? no, my belief and from what I have deducted and seeing both sides of the argument is that creation has more validity that some theory that scientists are trying to make a fact. Does that mean evolution is wrong, yes in my eyes, does that mean you are wrong for believing it? No it doesnt because in your views you can validate evolution but not creationism. So each to their own. Whats important is that we accept each others views, accept that there is room for possibilities and get on with life. I agree with geoff r that somethings are bigger than us and for us to ever understand, will we ever get an absolute answer, maybe, maybe not but as it stands everything is open to opinion whether you care to class it as a scientific fact or a belief. The fact that believing in something is not scientific doesnt rejected out of the plethora of possibilities of how we came into being. Evolution is still a belief with science trying to prove it as a fact. Creationism is still a belief and again on some levels tehre are scientific evidence on this account to. Eve syndrome research heard of it?

Tons, but this is not a debate on peoples belief, and as said this thread is not a debate about the validity of evolution, this thread is simply identifying that whilst many people believe in evolution there are many who don't and we should respect that there is room for alternative view what ever your personal views maybe. I accept that there is room to believe that God does not exist and I would never condemn those who believe this, just dont try and say to me that my own belief is wrong and bullsh!^ and that your belief is fact, thats all I ask, in this day and age there is room for validity in different beliefs, except those beliefs which mean harm to others

again we have the pretty much and 100% confirmed in the same line reminds me of anchorman movie when he shows him the panther aftershave and says 60% of the time works everytime funny how you can't say evolution is 100% true. And the fact that you cant say it as an absolute leaves room for an alternative view Just that my alternative view is creationism, if people don't believe in creationism I would never say you have a screw loose Ok i'll say it in my eyes evolution is 100% confirmed! You telling me these folks: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolutio ... x/4000.htm, don't sound like nutters? dont stereotype every Christian I respect your belief in Evolution too now lets have a pint make mine semi skimmed milk

again we have the pretty much and 100% confirmed in the same line reminds me of anchorman movie when he shows him the panther aftershave and says 60% of the time works everytime funny how you can't say evolution is 100% true. And the fact that you cant say it as an absolute leaves room for an alternative view Just that my alternative view is creationism, if people don't believe in creationism I would never say you have a screw loose

Hi Ak350z I appreciate what you are saying but to say that you have evidence to put forward that ape turned into man actually happened is within itself again trying to mark evolution as an absolute when it is not. You cannot say 100% that evolution actually happened, just like I cannot say from a scientific point of view that God created man. But it is our belief in evolution that exists due to the plethora of research made and our belief in creation due to the faith and personal experience gained giving us the answers to solve our own personal understanding on how we came into being. My argument was and never will be about the validity of evolution that others believe, but on the fact that there is room for an alternative view. And whatever that alternative view may be people have a right to choose. And if I choose to place my bet on creation, however stupid or naive people think I am being, then thats my choice, people should not judge me on what I believe, only time I should be judged if I tried to impose my belief forcefully onto other people, which I never would do. Also note there are plenty of scientists that do not support evolution just like there is many christians who do believe in evolution and many Christians who do not believe Jesus is the son of God. The fact that we come at peace within ourselves on these questions of how we came into being and that we are satisfied with our answers should be enough for the debate on Creationism vs Evolution to come at rest. People are unique, no absolute truth for the whole world will come out of this, people have a right to be unique in their belief. Truth becomes relative which is fitting considering the postmodern times we live in.

Oh my god, I did a paper on the Bombadier Beetle too first year uni, how weird is that !!!! I saw this made me laugh, just forwarded it to my mates new girlfriend on facebook, think she will appreciate it ha ha ha, Im sorry Im juvenile

you nutter no offence taken. i just dont buy into it, thats just me I believe God created Adam and Eve Im afraid, but if people believe in Evolution then fair play to them I respect that But don't think you can say its pretty much fact, "pretty much" and "fact" still leaves room for an alternate possibility I do believe in adaptation, but not evolution Jay, i think you are right to be taken aback by your mates GF behaviour. You are entitled to your own opinions and beliefs and nothing is factual. But there is a "strong" case for one than the other depending on your perspectives. In such situations you either walk away since the other person is unwilling to respect your views but if it was a stimulating exercise in intelectual balls swinging with a resonable debater you would find that there are more evidence for evolution than creationism but also in fact that they both have a place to explain life as we know it You cannot ignore the evidence or claim ignorance of the subject as you will leave yourself open to attack from maniacs like that GF eg when you saythings like you believe in adaptation only.................. because evolution is adaptation and vice versa I understand mate lol and nice points raised, its just that I cant bring myself to accept there is not also other possibilities out there, even if there is a "strong" case for evolution from what scientists have seen. But the same was said on the atom being the smallest molecule ever, and scientists made people believe that because of substantial evidence and the same was said on the world being flat. I just merely raised an issue that evolution is one possible theory but for me if I had to bet i'd place my chips into creationism... Now I know that people will say have you researched both to conclude your decision to validate why you believe and I'd have to say yes. I have a 2.1 honours degree in theology, I studied it because I was an atheist and I wanted to back up my arguments. I came out as a Christian. But that does not mean I turn my back on all my atheist friends. I cant stand being in a crowd of people rolling around on the floor praising Jesus and condemning those who don't believe thats absolute bull. So why should I stand people who think Im absurd for not believing in evolution. Its funny how they say, the biggest cause of atheism isn't because of the belief itself of Christianity but more of the bible bashing people who represent Christianity. Seems like this girl who thought I was absurd was no different than the Bible bashing Christians Atheists in general shun. Im sure there are many plausible evidence for evolutionism, and many arguments against my own belief is have you ever seen your God. Answer no but I believe from personal experience and Im sorry scientist can't measure that or put it in a test tube. But if I say have you ever seen an ape turn into a man, then you would say it happens over millions and millions of years, but the fact that no one has ever visually seen it I'd say both our views have validity whether its accepted by all or not

where?

you nutter no offence taken. i just dont buy into it, thats just me I believe God created Adam and Eve Im afraid, but if people believe in Evolution then fair play to them I respect that But don't think you can say its pretty much fact, "pretty much" and "fact" still leaves room for an alternate possibility I do believe in adaptation, but not evolution

PMSL Yeh I just spoke to my mate today he apologized and I said what for, youre not her babysitter, he's been dating her for 3 months and has fallen head over heels for her and we hardly see him now, hate it when mates do that I understand there is a plethora of evidence that contributes to the validity of evolution, but then there are non religious but scientific evidence that also contributes to its flaws, whether one out weighs the other Im not sure but then I am not one to judge, I mean If I were to say evolution is a load of bull then Id be the biggest idiot going understandably because my belief has no empirical substance its just that.. a belief in which I have faith in. Just couldnt understand why my belief offended her so much she went ape sh!t at my response second thoughts maybe I can see the heritage now