insane

Yea I read *most* of it... and I noted the end, however it was irrelevant to the point I was trying to prove - my point? They fudge fossils, and people blindly buy into it because it "proves" evolution.

This is an appeal to consequences, so I could craft an argument that goes like; "If it were true that my friend was an axe-murderer then that would really suck! Therefore he isn't" This is using the same flawed logic you did.

Mercifull, I think you trust bbc? http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/20 ... rans.shtml *shrugs* this is the one I was thinking about.

Eric, I believe I made a post on OT somewhere about God caring about the heart attitude behind our actions... I'll dig it up... God desires our hearts to love him, not our actions. Making us only do right, is like making robots. You never know if the robot actually loves you and desires to be with you. It's all obligation, and I believe that is unfair.

What if living a really terrible life on this world is better than never living at all? Then it would certainly explain why God allows this to happen. I can't speak for myself since I've never experienced it, but a mere 10 years of absolute crap is worth an eternity in heaven... or according to you atheists, it's better that he never existed. *Now* who's the jerk?

Can you please provide some sources for this statement. Either from a non bias news source such as BBC or Reuters or some Science Magazine so that I can look it up. Sure thing, I believe I called it heresay because at the moment I can't remember where I read it. I'm going to work now, so I won't be around for 10 hours at least... I just googled it (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22 ... tion&meta=)... but i don't have time to look, but it looks like there's some stuff there, and not from bias sources either... maybe they are *shrugs*. I didn't see the example I was looking for, the example I remember reading about had something to do with a scientist fixating a tail to a bird that would possibly link the birds to the reptiles, and it was put on display in a museum for a long time until they finally realized what had happened.

wow...i forgot that Darwin actually did admit that his theories were false until more evidence was found...shulda posted earlier You misread what I said. I said that Darwin wouldn't call evolution 'proven'. He didn't admit his theories were false - he said that they were true - but not proven, and that he was sure that the fossil record would improve to prove his thoughts.

I'm really disappointed how every single atheism/creationism/any religious argument results in atheists ignorantly bashing the Christian God. These are all arguments from ignorance... they all go something like "oh yeah, I think I remember something about this, I can't remember the name, or the place, or the Bible reference, or any facts, or anything, but, um yeah, God's sadistic even though I haven't studied the Bible once, nor probably touched one" [/partial sarcasm][/mostly true generalization] So please, don't ignorantly bash Christians unless you've actually looked at the Bible. If you have you've probably got more knowledge about it than half the pro-atheist debaters in this forum - and that really disappoints me.

Charles Darwin himself said that the fossil record would have to improve by vast amounts before he himself could believe evolution proven. If you think about it, it would be logical that finding an inbetween-species fossil would be just as common as finding many other fossils, if it actually takes millions of years to make a transition. But for some reason archaeologists have been found to lie and fake fossils - and the sad part is, scientists have fallen for these obvious fakes, because they are so desperate to find fossils. Why? The answer seems obvious to me; there aren't enough. If there were, there would be no need to fake and blindly believe. Of course this is all heresay though. Take it how you want. And Merc, cut the loaded term crap. Or maybe I could use one myself; Anyone who denies creation is a fool :roll: ^^ Not only is this and what you said completely illogical, it's condescending and not needed - and actually weakens your argument.

I don't really remember, anywhere from 1500-2000 I guess :P

If the entire species becomes homosexual, sure, but just because * marriage is allowed doesn't mean every human being is going to become homosexual. No but it certainly isn't benefitting the species which violates evolutionary Laws (or theories). No, but it's not hurting us, so, why prohibiting it? I wasn't talking about marriage sorry :P I should've explained better, I was going off on a small tangent, that for people to believe in evolution, it's kind of hard to believe in homosexuality as a good thing from an evolutionary standpoint.

If the entire species becomes homosexual, sure, but just because * marriage is allowed doesn't mean every human being is going to become homosexual. No but it certainly isn't benefitting the species which violates evolutionary Laws (or theories).

Psycraft... the problem with the "void" always existing is that it isn't just a 'void', it contains energy and/or matter. The problem is, there are thermodynamic laws stating that after a large enough amount of time, *all* energy and matter in a closed system break down into it's smallest particles. So how come this energy that has always been is excepted from this Law? it seems kind of convenient. Also, the fossil evidence is quite too much minute to support evolution... And what about the Cambrian explosion Dusqi?

What about evolution? Wouldn't homosexuality contradict evolution? Like sure, some animals may be "homosexual"... but in the long run, wouldn't it certainly destroy a species?

But... I look around... at what we've discovered... and no matter what the 'odds' are (how do you even create the "odds" of life evolving intelligently?), I see the evidence that evolution did occur, no matter how unlikely it is. Maybe a creator set off evolution by creating the first unlikely spark of life, or maybe it did happen completely randomly, but evolution did occur. That's what I believe :P that a creator started the evolutionary process... even as a Christian, looking into the Hebrew in the first chapter of the Bible, the word for day, when literally translated from Hebrew has about 60 defintions, for example it could mean year, age, era (the word is 'Yom'). But in my life whether evolution occured or not is really a non-issue :P

Random chance causes "intelligence" from time to time. Put a cat in a box with a string that can be pulled to release the catch on the door, and it'll randomly blunder around the box until it eventually waggles its paw near the string and the door opens. Repeat this 10 times over and by the 10th time it'll straight away waggle its paw at the string as soon as it's put in there. The cat seems intelligent, but in fact it doesn't have any insight into how the string works - it just knows that waggling its paw at the string will let it escape from the box. It's the same thing with elements and intelligence. It's not as if intelligence has appeared from nothing. "Intelligence" is just the result of putting all the elements together in a certain way, which makes them work in an "intelligent" manner. Yeah, and this random chance is so astronomically devoid of hope that leaves a creator I think even more possible than without evolution. I believe evolution basically proves a creator.

Anything Jack Johnson... probably his new album (Inbetween Dreams), just really catchy soft acoustic stuff.

I try to accept all religious views, however I just don't consider evolution to be something that religion has something to say about. Religion is good at questions about beginnings and endings, and I consider evolution to be as factual history as the Romans were. But that doesn't excuse loaded terms ;) do you understand where I was coming from in my post? Also - here's an interesting theory - effect cannot exceed cause, correct? It's just illogical that it would. So how would a non-intelligent being (ie. energy in the big bang, or random enzymes) cause intelligence? That's violating cause & effect.... My solution: evolution overseen by a creator. This to me makes inifinitely more sense than random chance.

First of all - I'd just like to say that the Bible can be interpreted differently, but it doesn't mean that God is relative. God is absolute, and his Laws are absolute. It's how we interpret those.... And Hannibal - I totally understand where you're coming from with the Greek. Just like in Genesis 1, the word "Day", is interpreted from the Hebrew "Yom", which has about 60 definitions, including year, era, age. But the word for 'homosexual' possibly being pedofile, rapist - those are two words that basically make homosexuality 'guilty by association'. And for the Laws in the old testament - they all make complete sense if taken in context and God's intent behind them. For instance, God asking his people not to farm crops every seven years - this was so that his people would spend a year in complete dependence on God to provide - granted, it says in the passage that God will provide a double crop in the sixth year so that they won't have to work in the seventh. The seventh year of 'no farming' wasn't so that his people wouldn't farm. It was God giving his people an active way of expressing their dependence on Him.

Using emotional terms doesn't make your argument stronger. I can say "evolution is unintelligent and the same with everyone who believes it", and all I'm succeeding in doing is insulting evolutionists and not proving a point. I'm surprised that this would come from an "omni-accepter" such as yourself. "Religion" didn't try to tell us anything. Maybe ignorant people that were part of a religion tried to tell us something, but that says absolutely nothing for religion itself. So don't peg religion for something that it didn't do. I could also produce an equally-strong argument for the other side. It would go something like; "It would appear to me that evolutionists are buying into media propoganda that says evolution is true. Blinded by their own proconceived notions of the universe, they run like chickens towards anything that smells like "evidence" towards their cause". I could do more, but it would be pointless without any substantial proof and it's full of loaded terms designed to make the other side look inferior.

The fact that you assume that your interpretation is the 'right' one (see above post) is hypocritical to me. I happen to disagree (again, see above post). It's not my interpretation. It's black and white (see my above post). There's nothing to interpret. I'm quoting a Bible verse that explicitly says something. No interpretation needed. So if you want to argue against God, go right ahead. But don't call me hypocritical.

Allowed, yes. Whether the church will marry them is a separate question, though church marriage for homosexuals has become common in Holland some time ago :). Collegue of my dad had a church marriage with his boyfriend. Ironically that's against what the Bible stands for so it sounds fairly hypocritical to me ;) And Jackalope - yes, everyone can follow Christ - however, when we are totally dependent on Christ we will follow the Law and cease to live in sin (that is of course, to not anger non-Christians here, assuming that homosexuality is a sin like the Bible says). Basically my whole beef is that there are so many more important issues to be taken care of. Also, everyone is all about the "accept everyone" movement... but ironically if someone doesn't support what everyone stands for (ie. someone not supporting gay marriage), then that person is not accepted by the majority. Sounds hypocritical yet once more. The Bible always talks about marriage as being a man and a woman. *Never* does it mention a man and a man. *Never*. *Never*. Let me emphasize that it never talks about marriage being same-sex. Oh yeah, it never talks about marriage being same-sex. *shrug* interpret that how you will. And as a side-note: I don't believe in treating anyone worse than anybody! I am not showing my views whatsoever, I'm just acting as a mediator type. I believe that *all* men are completely sinful and that I need Christ (assuming Christianity) just as much as a serial rapist.

hes the most famous autoer lol...had so many lvl 99's then got deleted a while ago b4 RS2 i saw him at black knights at lvl 56...i just laughed at him :lol: He didn't auto. He tested it for Jagex without their permission and got stat wiped. He thought he was doing them a favor because he wanted to find out how to beat the autoers, but instead he was wiped. ah ok...i knew he did somthing of the sort and got stat wiped... didnt know that half...so for half-truths there people :wink: Ya, it's cool. I just don't like when misinformation is spread and rumors arise. Just don't like that at all :wink: Yea I believe he was pretty decent friends with Paul or something, and then he used [ForbiddenSite] one time and got wiped for it, and I don't think he had too many 99's, just cooking, something like 1300 st.

I doubt it :P

I thought it was alright, but I can't figure out why the shields went down. Here's the only reason I can think of: Alien: "Oh crap, a disease is killing me, I better power down the shields before I die!" Lol, as if a disease would make the shields go away :P