Zamorakshadow

He does show the evidence for what he says, and posts the source of the information in the videos. Plus, he is an ACTUAL scientist ( PHD in molecular neuroscience) :thumbup: Plus, he is freakin' awesome :P Plus, i am actually watching his videos and then searching for information to proove what he says ( boredom...), and i gotta say, he knows what he's talking about.

I was gonna try to debunk some of the arguments from the "Why christianity" links, but Shin already did it for me. Bad connection eh, i know how that is like =\ The videos i posted show LOTS of evidence for Evolution, 4.6 bilhons years old Earth, and how simple unicelular life forms can form in the primitive Earth conditions. Okay, they don't end the discussion because some people refuse to look at the evidence, but a logical person that likes to use reason from time to time would see that Science wins in this case :thumbup: Thoose videos were made by a Youtube user called cdk007, and i recommend his videos to everyone. They basically explain A LOT about Evolution and Biology, anyone with interest in learning should check them out.

Not implying you said Big Bang was irrational, just saying that both God AND Big Bang are possible, to the ones who believe either one of them is wrong. Okay, the bat/bird thing and PI = 3 arguments of mine are debunked, i admit that. But, my point still stands, the bible is not the perfect word of God, it was written by humans, it has changed in the past, and there are other small mistakes in the Bible, not to mention how cruel the old testament is. If the Bible was the word of a perfect God, it would fit perfectly with the Scientific Theories backed up by evidence, it would be a perfect book accepted by all people, and would not have any mistakes at all. Though, i wonder why are all of you sure the Bible and Genesis are right, and all other religions are wrong. How do you know your religion is the right one? How do you know your God is the right one, creationists? The universe could have been created by Odin, Zeus, Horus, Allah, or any other God. Why does it HAVE to be the christian God? EDIT: To end this debate with Stonewall about age of the earth and evolution once and for all, i'll post a video that show all evidence we have for a 4.6 bilhon years old Earth and Evolution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nj587d5ies The first minut makes it sound like it is just Ad Hominem, but the video gets interesting after the first 2 minutes. And after 5:55 it starts showing evidence to a 4.6 bilhon years old Earth. Also, i assume it is just a matter of time before someone uses the "Life can't pop out of anywhere!" card, so i'll post this video about the origin of life( which i highly recommend, even for the evolutionists out there): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

[hide] Just another example of insulting instead of debating. Explain the dino footprint with a human footprint inside it. No, they havn't. Radiocarbon dating is an example of selective reasoning. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/dogma.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove Also, as for the Bible saying pi=3, that is incorrect. You see, you are referencing in the OT where a giant bowl was being constructed for the tabernacle or temple, I forget which. However, the measurement of the bowl is taken from the inside, while the diameter is taken from the inside. The bowl is a "hand breath" thick, which accounts for the difference. I am a rational human being. In fact, I have studied both sides of the argument. You go to a public school, and have gained their worldview. As for this "proof" As for the Bible calling bats birds, here you go. http://www.tektonics.org/af/batbird.html [/hide] I didn't see any insulting in there. We may sound a little agressive from time to time, but we are not "insulting" you at all. From wikipedia... Human footprints in dino footprints? Fake. And if they were real, we would find hundres of other footprints, and human fossils togheter with dinosaur fossils, and we don't even find MAMMAL fossils in the same layer as dinosaurs, nevermind human. All evidence points for humans arriving waay after the dinosaurs, one ( problably fake) footprint doesn't change a thing. There are over 20 ways of dating, not only radiocarbon. Not to mention how we can see galaxies over 6000 light years away. Studies in the field of Geography, Cosmology, Astronomy and others all point to a 4.6 bilhon years old earth and a 14+ bilhon tears old universe. Telling any (real) scientist that the earth is 6000 years old is like saying the earth is flat, or that the earth is the center of the universe. The earth is NOT 6000 years old. There is overwhelming evidence for that. I study in a catholic school, and i don't have their world view. If you did study the two sides of the argument, i'm sorry, but you didn't study in the right places, i for one still can't believe you actually used one of Kent Hovind's arguments. I have yet to see one of Kent Hovind's arguments that wasn't proven wrong by anyone with basic understanding of science >.< By the age 13 i knew he didn't know anything about science.

The bible says PI = 3. The bible says bats are birds. Just search around for bible mistakes and contradictions and you'll find lots of them... The bible is not the word from a perfect and wise god. Even if Creationism was right, believing Odin, Gaia, Egiptian gods, etc created the world would be more believable than christian creationism, :roll:

Well, for one thing, because scientists/astrologists/cosmologists agree that the "time" dimension (and therefore causality) as we know it today was created by the big bang. Also, that wasn't exactly the point I was trying to make. There are theories that say a new and different "time" dimension is created with each "big bang/big crunch cycle". I was trying to explain why believing in an eternal God is rational. I was also just trying to point out that believing in a Big Bang is also rational :P

That is true, but they also want things that don't make sense on an evolutionary scale. such as this:(sorry, about that new image location used now) [hide][/hide] I didn't know wheter i should cry or laugh when Kirk Cameron used the "Crocoduck" argument... What people fail to understand, is that every fossil is a transitional fossil, because every specie is a transitional specie. Homo Erectus was a transition from Australophitecus to Neanderthal. Dogs are a transition from wolves to the specie they will evolve to in the future. [hide]

Since i don't really expect you to see the video i posted debunking this argument, i'll answer myself before logging off: First of, NO ONE ever said the Big Bang was spinning. Big Bang theory says that all matter was compressed in a single place, when the universe started expanding. No rotating ball of clay. We have evidence for this expansion ( such as background radiation). After the expansion, all matter in the universe was Hydrogen ( and some Helium). The Hydrogen formed gigantic clouds, and gravity after a few milhons of years made the clouds collapse and become stars ( this happens. This has been observed hundreds of time, in fact). The nuclear fusion of the stars made Hydrogen fuse, creating heavier elements, and all known elements started forming. Our solar system formed 10 bilhon years AFTER the Big Bang, and Uranus spinning has nothing to do with the Big Bang, it has something to do with the formation of the Solar System. NOT Big Bang. To understand the history of the universe you need to know a lot about Physycs and Chemistry, and to know about how life formed and evolved after the formation of the Solar System you need to know lots of Biology and Geography. People like Kent Hovind ( dude that came up with Uranus arguement) and other "Creation Scientists" know nothing of any of theese disciplines, and are now spreading misinformation. Ugh. EDIT not to double post again: [hide] [/hide] There are over 20 ways of dating, all tested, we know how all of them work, and all point at a 4.6 bilhon years old earth. Also, dating is not the only evidence for an old earth we have. The size of the universe and how we can see galaxies over 6000 light years away is one of them. One of the lots of evidence for an old Earth. Telling someone that works with Geography that the earth is 6000 years old is like telling him the Earth is flat. We know the Earth is over 4 bilhons of years old. This has been tested and proven for a loong looong time. Please DON'T tell me you believe the Earth is 6000 years old, or i'll go mad >.<

[hide] 1. First bolded statement, is horrible. There is not enough evidence to combat religion at ALL. There is tons of evidence that combats the literal meanings of the bible, however if you were intelligent you would know it is THE MOST researched book on the entire planet that to this day has not had it's symbolic meanings entirely deciphered. I can guarantee you on the subject matter I am more educated that you. I have spent tons of my time researching this topic and taking arguements from both sides, and in the end I still strongly believe there is a God. I study Marine Science and have undergone countless lectures on evolution, astrology etc. In my spare time I study astrology and the origins of the universe, and I'm here to tell you they do not counter religion, many of the points support it. 2. Your point about the 21st century is actually incorrect. This centuary marks the decline of atheism, not the "revolution" as you put it. Newton, one of the most intellectual men of his time ( and perhaps of ALL time ) hypothesised and concluded many scientific ideas that only were recognised by Einstein centurys later, however in Newton's time the work was not published as it lacked sufficient evidence. Such a man awoke each morning and had to sit for hours before starting his day in order to deal with the large amount of ideas that came to him. His intelligence was unparralleled, and even with all this scientific information, reason, and deep intellect, he believed in God. God is not a product of "uneducated, less intelligent people." You do not link science with the intellect, and religious faith holders as blind fools. Such a link makes you an ignorant fool who shows no respect for people just as educated as yourself, though with a faith you lack. First of, decline of atheism? Thats why atheist has doubled in the last 20 years right? Funny how i live in one of the most religious countries in the world ( Brazil), yet when i go to school over 75% of the people i know is atheist. Second, LOL, Newton, really? Newton lived around/ right after the middle ages, when religion ruled EVERYTHING. No one knew about Evolution, Big Bang,age of the Earth, or ANYTHING at all about science. Creationism was the only explanation they had at the time. Don't compare someone who lived so looong ago to someone from the present, that has scientific information. And for the bible being only simbolical... Well, i admit that it is possible for a God to have created the universe via Big Bang. I actually sometimes imagine a god creating the basic rules of the universe, creating all matter via Big Bang, and then waiting for something interesting ( aka life) to appear. Once life forms with intelligence appear, i can imagine this God making an experiment with us, taking forms of different prophets and Gods, and seeing how we would react to them. But, thing is, there is no evidence for such thing, and until evidence is found, it is unscientifical and shouldn't be discussed by scientists. You assume in Newtons time there were no aethists, when in fact there were. And in your arguement, who better to be an aethiest than a scientist correct? This is why my point is valid, indicating that such an educated man still has strong religious beliefs. And although most people don't know it, he actually wrote more on Biblical hermeneutics than his science his is remembered for today. [/hide] I didn't assume there were no atheists, i'm just saying religion had A LOT more power in thoose days. Newton didn't have any evidence for anything besides religion. If he had access to alternatives ( backed up by evidence), he wouldn't be a Creationist. He would maybe still believe in God, but he would know that Evolution & Other Theories are facts. Some points you guys made i answered edditing other posts ( didn't want to double post =\), can you answer them please?

[hide] 1. First bolded statement, is horrible. There is not enough evidence to combat religion at ALL. There is tons of evidence that combats the literal meanings of the bible, however if you were intelligent you would know it is THE MOST researched book on the entire planet that to this day has not had it's symbolic meanings entirely deciphered. I can guarantee you on the subject matter I am more educated that you. I have spent tons of my time researching this topic and taking arguements from both sides, and in the end I still strongly believe there is a God. I study Marine Science and have undergone countless lectures on evolution, astrology etc. In my spare time I study astrology and the origins of the universe, and I'm here to tell you they do not counter religion, many of the points support it. 2. Your point about the 21st century is actually incorrect. This centuary marks the decline of atheism, not the "revolution" as you put it. Newton, one of the most intellectual men of his time ( and perhaps of ALL time ) hypothesised and concluded many scientific ideas that only were recognised by Einstein centurys later, however in Newton's time the work was not published as it lacked sufficient evidence. Such a man awoke each morning and had to sit for hours before starting his day in order to deal with the large amount of ideas that came to him. His intelligence was unparralleled, and even with all this scientific information, reason, and deep intellect, he believed in God. God is not a product of "uneducated, less intelligent people." You do not link science with the intellect, and religious faith holders as blind fools. Such a link makes you an ignorant fool who shows no respect for people just as educated as yourself, though with a faith you lack. First of, decline of atheism? Thats why atheist has doubled in the last 20 years right? Funny how i live in one of the most religious countries in the world ( Brazil), yet when i go to school over 75% of the people i know is atheist. Second, LOL, Newton, really? Newton lived around/ right after the middle ages, when religion ruled EVERYTHING. No one knew about Evolution, Big Bang,age of the Earth, or ANYTHING at all about science. Creationism was the only explanation they had at the time. Don't compare someone who lived so looong ago to someone from the present, that has scientific information. And for the bible being only simbolical... Well, i admit that it is possible for a God to have created the universe via Big Bang. I actually sometimes imagine a god creating the basic rules of the universe, creating all matter via Big Bang, and then waiting for something interesting ( aka life) to appear. Once life forms with intelligence appear, i can imagine this God making an experiment with us, taking forms of different prophets and Gods, and seeing how we would react to them. But, thing is, there is no evidence for such thing, and until evidence is found, it is unscientifical and shouldn't be discussed by scientists. You using loathing, instead of logic. There were people who were athiests back in Newtons era, as they exist now. Please, if you are going to insult, instead of instruct in your believe, then why post in a debate topic? This is supposed to be an intelligent discussion. [/hide] First, if i sound like i am insulting, sorry, i'm in a pretty bad mood today, that is not my intention. Also, yes there were atheists back then, but still, Newton had no evidence for anything besides creationism. There was no Theory of Evolution, no Big Bang theory, not even a Cell Theory at the time. It is obvious that he would believe in creationism, he had no alternatives. If Newton lived today, and we showed him all evidence for both sides, and he is open minded, i'm pretty sure he won't be a creationist. He would possibly still believe in a God, but he would think the Bible isn't literal for sure. See, logic here =) EDIT: Heres why most scientists accept evolution.

1. First bolded statement, is horrible. There is not enough evidence to combat religion at ALL. There is tons of evidence that combats the literal meanings of the bible, however if you were intelligent you would know it is THE MOST researched book on the entire planet that to this day has not had it's symbolic meanings entirely deciphered. I can guarantee you on the subject matter I am more educated that you. I have spent tons of my time researching this topic and taking arguements from both sides, and in the end I still strongly believe there is a God. I study Marine Science and have undergone countless lectures on evolution, astrology etc. In my spare time I study astrology and the origins of the universe, and I'm here to tell you they do not counter religion, many of the points support it. 2. Your point about the 21st century is actually incorrect. This centuary marks the decline of atheism, not the "revolution" as you put it. Newton, one of the most intellectual men of his time ( and perhaps of ALL time ) hypothesised and concluded many scientific ideas that only were recognised by Einstein centurys later, however in Newton's time the work was not published as it lacked sufficient evidence. Such a man awoke each morning and had to sit for hours before starting his day in order to deal with the large amount of ideas that came to him. His intelligence was unparralleled, and even with all this scientific information, reason, and deep intellect, he believed in God. God is not a product of "uneducated, less intelligent people." You do not link science with the intellect, and religious faith holders as blind fools. Such a link makes you an ignorant fool who shows no respect for people just as educated as yourself, though with a faith you lack. First of, decline of atheism? Thats why atheist has doubled in the last 20 years right? Funny how i live in one of the most religious countries in the world ( Brazil), yet when i go to school over 75% of the people i know is atheist. Second, LOL, Newton, really? Newton lived around/ right after the middle ages, when religion ruled EVERYTHING. No one knew about Evolution, Big Bang,age of the Earth, or ANYTHING at all about science. Creationism was the only explanation they had at the time. Don't compare someone who lived so looong ago to someone from the present, that has scientific information. And for the bible being only simbolical... Well, i admit that it is possible for a God to have created the universe via Big Bang. I actually sometimes imagine a god creating the basic rules of the universe, creating all matter via Big Bang, and then waiting for something interesting ( aka life) to appear. Once life forms with intelligence appear, i can imagine this God making an experiment with us, taking forms of different prophets and Gods, and seeing how we would react to them. But, thing is, there is no evidence for such thing, and until evidence is found, it is unscientifical and shouldn't be discussed by scientists. EDIT: Answering other comment whitout double posting... [hide]You see, you typify most evolutionists. They claim that "no scientists disagree with evolution" when in fact numerous do. Honestly, the majority also thought the earth was flat, and had "evidence" to prove it. Many people don't believe in global warming either. As well, no missing link has ever been found. The argument mentioned earlier that very few early human remains have been found, and that is why no missing links have been found, actually proves my point. If the earth was created around 6,000 years ago, then the oldest fossils would obviously be around 6,000 years old. Essentially, there is not solid proof for either argument. However you attempt to shut us up by intimidation. I, however, use logic. Matter doesn't create itself, which evolution claims. Creation claims that God created matter. Now, if I were to find a chocolate cake on the table, and asked who made it, the person stating that my sister (whom I have never met) made it would be more easy to believe than the person stating that the cake created itself. Now, no analogy stands up to close scrutiny, as you can all see. Now, to those who are saying you can prove evolution, or the big bang, you can't. You just can not. You can not repeat those events, (although some theorize that another big bang could occur, but I digress) and you can not witness those events occurring for the first time. Neither can you prove that God created the earth. To those who say God is a crutch, I could simply reply that the reason Darwin thought of the "THEORY" of evolution, is because he was a disgruntled preacher. Of course, I am not claiming this, merely stating that this excuse is as valid as the other, nonsensical. There are numerous proofs against the Big Bang however, such as Uranus. If I have a big ball of clay rotating at a very high rate of speed, and pieces fly off, then those pieces will rotate in the same direction as the original piece of clay. Uranus rotates in the OPPOSITE direction. [/hide] First off, okay there are Creationist idiotic scientists who disagree, but Evolution is accepted by 95% of scientific community. Second, we have transitional fossils showing evolution from the cambrian period to today, we have so much evidence for evolution it is overhwelming, just search for it. Third, evolution deosn't claim matter creates itself. We know the big bang happened, and now are trying to find out where all of that came from. Perhaps there is a God, we don't know, but we are trying to find out. We can't witness thoose events happening, but even though a detective doesn't see the murder happening, he knows the murder happened and has the evidence to get the killer. There is evidence for theese events. Also, LOL, you are taking evidence from KENT HOVIND?! That proofs you don't know anything about what Big Bang theory says, or the history of the universe after the Big Bang, or the formation of starts/planets. Here is the first video ( on a list of around 4) that prooves all Kent Hovind's points WRONG. Have fun.

leave. before i get my knife. and dont come back ... I actually lol'd at this... For thoose talking about close-minded creationists... Doesn't matter how much evidence you show them, and doesn't matter how many times you debunk their arguments, most of them have the idea of Evolution = Wrong since they were young and that won't change. For the past few days me and a few other people have been arguing with one in YT comments, we have debunked all his arguments, but all creationists do when defeated is ignore us and repeat old arguments. I already gave him over 7 examples of beneficial mutations, and he keeps repeating " Give me at least ONE example of a beneficial mutation". We won't ever change their minds. The only reason i have to debate with them is because i like debates, other than that, all of this is pointless =\. Though, this isn't anything new, convincing people to change their minds about anything is hard -.-

I am listening to Dancing Mad ( FFVI) by The Black Mages :thumbup: The music is creepy but is awesome.

I think what i will say might have been said already, but, whatever... Macro evolution DOES exist. Macro evolution has been observed in the fossil record, macro evolution has been observed ( Culex Pipens - Culex Molestus), and Macro evolution IS micro evolution piling up after milhons of years. A dog won't turn to a horse, but it will turn into a different species with time, just like wolves turned to dogs and homo neanderthalensis turned to homo sapiens, just give it a few milhons of years. Scientists don't use the words Micro and Macro evolution for decades because they know that Micro will eventually lead to Macro, this is proven for a looong loooong time. There are tons of evidence for both Evolution and the Big Bang. Anyone who denies them either doesn't know anything about them or just refuse to accept them. Evolution is called "The unifying theory of Biology" for a reason, you know.

It is not our "inner faith" that tells us anything, it is the "faith gene". Humanity has a gene that causes us to be religious. This gene spreaded through natural selection, because in the past it was more of a "storytelling-creativity gene", and the humans who told better stories and were more creative used to get along with other humans better, having more children, spreading the gene that with time would become a "religious gene". Yes, something as complex as the human can come from a long chain of evolution. Even if there is a "Higher power" around, we should search him by trying to find empirical evidence of his existence. Just worshipping different Gods whitout evidence for their existence ( what religion is theese days) is useless, and shouldn't be mixed with science at all.

Religion has no place in science. Uniting them would cause nothing but problem. Science has tons of evidence supporting that the Big Bang happened. Scientists don't know what caused it yet, but they are searching for it. And instead of arguing about Science vs Religion we should be helping the Scientists to find out.

After 1k posts of trolling and acting stupid in the OT Hex decides to be hated by almost everyone in Rants forum too? Oh god... I am looking forward to Mechscape, and if Mechscape ends up being a succes, more profit to Jagex will only benefit Runescape. Wonder why everyone think Mechscape will be Runescape's doomsday -.-

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: The bible does not give you your morals, unless you're homophobic and sexist and all the other crap that's in there. You have your own based on society. If you read the bible, you will find out that not even Jesus followed the guidelines of that book <_<

I don't think a TD game would fit in Rs... I don't think MA fits in RS anyway, nevermind a TD O_o Though, my opinion is problably biased because i HATE TD games...

Is that supposed to be funny? But the logo is truly terrible, what were they thinking? ... I know, i'm lame =\ After seeing that logo i think the medals look great O_o

That logo is the cause of the world-ending in 2012 O_O

I am really sorry here, formally gay? what happened did they go into rehab? you're talking utter nonsense here. People are born that way. people pick on others flaws to better themselves, when inside they're more insecure than anything. I'm straight but I have many gay friends, and they're human like the rest of us what your sexuality is doesn't really change anything. It's YOUR intolerance that causes problems. I have no problem with other people being gay. None at all. However, I do have a problem with people saying there is nothing they can do about it. I believe they can change if they chose. They don't have to, but they can if they want. People who are kleptomaniacs can choose not to steal. Not the best analogy, but you get the picture. I simply hate the whole "I am a victim because of this and this and this." attitude society has adopted. You are responsible for what you do with your life. Don't blame others. If you want to change, you can. Drug addicts can stop if they want, people who play RS can stop. Just don't shove that whole "I am a victim" crap down our throats. Being gay is not a disease, an addiction, or something that you can just "change". Of course, people shouldn't blame society and victimize themselves, but if you are gay, you just can't freaking change it, unless you are able of magically changing the way your brain works. You should try to change from being heterossexual and see if you can do it O_o As i said earlier, the "former-gay" people are either: A) Gays/bissexuals who are fooling themselves. B) People who were in doubt about their sexuality, and though they were gay, even though they weren't. C) Magic people who can change how their brain works. Anyway, i agree that people should stop victimizing themselves for this and that, but there are things they can't just change >.<. EDIT: I don't remember where i read that, but there was a study that proved than most homophobic people actually have homossexual tendencies, and are in denial. So, LOL.

I'm glad thoose words are censored. I hate censorship, but the RS community is so damn immature that theese words would bring nothing good. Even homossexual people themselves would want the words back censored. Now, since this topic is turning into a debate about gay people... If you think being gay is "unnatural", please define what "unnatural" means to you... There are gays in all animal kingdoms, it's something normal in nature O_o I don't know why people think "unnatural" is bad though, clothes are unnatural, yet we like them. And the "former-gays" people you know, they are either gays/bissexual and are fooling themselves, or they were people who were in doubt about their sexuality and though they were gay even though they weren't, or they are wierd people with the ability to change how their brain works. Ask any actual gay around, being gay is something you are born with, it's part of their nature.

Most of them saying things like " LOLOLOLOL WOW > RS Nubz" and "Lulz stop playing kidz gamez and play WOW" makes it pretty clear the majority of the RS haters are WOW players... Not all of them are WOW players, but almost all of the RS haters i see around are.

Ugh, stupid WOW players who bash Runescape are just idiots who never played the damn game and think they have the right to comment about it, and keep creating stupid Runescape stereotypes whitout noticing they fit in thoose stereotypes too >.> Machinima is not the only guilty of making theese annoying flame wars though, Machinima helped make WOW players more vocal and annoying but RS vs WOW wars have always existed, it's just getting more annoying now. I LOL when they say RS has no storyline. Even though Warcraft series and lots of Blizzard games have great storylines, WOW killed Warcraft story. And if you pay attention to the quests, Runescape has a very good storyline, one of the best actually.