Greatsilverwyrm

Pretty much, sums up most of my point. I find it very funny how people are so eager to believe that they are an evolved for of a hairy bush monkey that picks his nose and eats lice all day long. Sure, if you want to be a monkey go right ahead. My logic tells me to think otherwise. But then again what is my logic worth. I'm just a brainwashed Christian boy belonging to the sacm that is religion and God. Clearly we were all fromed by some chemical fart. Feels good to know i am a monkey that exists as a result from a gassy universe. It's not that we neccessarily "want" to believe that we evolved from an ape-like creature, it's just that such is what the evidence leads us to.

It's just a name. It could be called the "purple gene." The supernatural does not "fit into science" because by definition the supernatural is unprovable with natural evidence. Science deals only with the natural. And no, scientists didn't "mess up." There's simply no evidence for the existence of the supernatural.

You misunderstand the meaning of "god gene." It refers to the fact that people are predisposed to believe in the supernatural. That doesn't say anything about whether or not the supernatural exists, just that people tend to, like I said, be predisposed to believe in it.

Still, there is some evidence for it. Odd might be against it but that does not mean you can totally disregard it. There's no evidence for it that can't be otherwise explained by completely natural means. Occam's razor destroys pretty-much all "evidence" of the supernatural.

You're using faith in believing that it exists and that those sources are true, just as you'd be using faith to believe in evolution and its proof. Everyone uses faith in practically every situation and to discount religious faith would be ... hypocritical...? Here's the thing, though: faith in norway is backed-up by solid factual reliable evidence and the knowledge that you could if you wanted to travel to norway. Faith in God is backed up by no solid scientific evidence and nobody can tell me a 100% accurate way to experience God.

Dogs can make their own choices. Their choices are not as complex as our own but they do make them. When a dog runs and hides under the bed during a thunderstorm, that's a choice that dog is making. It may be one that's influenced mostly by instinct but it's still a choice. Humans simply have enough brainpower to not be influenced by instinct as much as other animals. And they can love, again, their love is not as complex as our love, but that is because their brains are not as complex.

Love and compassion can be easily explained as an evolved behavior to help assist in the survival of the species. If we love we are more likely to look out for and help our fellow humans, which makes the species more survivable. Animals do love, just not on the same level we do. Haven't you ever owned a dog? We are able to think because we have a brain, like all animals. Our brain is just more complex than other animals. We do still evolve. As a population we've been growing taller, for instance. A: Monkeys did not evolve into humans in the first place. We evolved from the common ancestor of all apes. B: Monkeys are still evolving. C: I think you're still not understanding the time-scale involved. It took millions of years for us to evolve from the primitive ape-like creature to what you see today. Everything is still evolving, it's just that evolution takes a very long time to happen. Look at oak trees. They start from an acorn but over the course of 30 years they can reach dozens of feet in height. Your perception of time is such that you can't watch it and see it grow, but every time you look at it it's a little bit larger than the last time you saw it. Furthermore, if you plant an oak tree sapling, then don't see it again for 30 years, when you come back there will have been a dramatic change. You know that it's the same oak tree for various reasons, but you didn't actually witness it grow, did you? That's partially how our understanding of evoulution works. We see a creature in the fossil record and due to many lines of evidence we can say that this creature is a transitional or primitive form of this other creature. We didn't actually witness it evolve but it's evolution is the best explanation for those many pieces of evidence.

When you accept "microevolution" but deny "macroevolution" what you're really doing is claiming that 2 and 2 will always be 2 and 2 and never add up to 4.

In what way do you use random? It's not like the universe rolled a giant set of dice and because "6" came up we poofed into existence. The earth's existence and our existence on it is the culmination of an extremely long series of natural processes. It's true that there is some randomness to that, but due to the size of the universe it's basically inevitable that a planet like ours with intelligent life would arise.

Go go argument from ignorance!

Which is why the most logical explanation is that the mass/energy in our universe has always existed in one form or another.

Ha! Falsify evolution. Go!

I have far more evidence than you do. Your apathy does not change what happened. Your ancestors were not monkeys. This is a misconception. If you'd like to know why it's a misconception let me know. We are. I think you misunderstand the time-scales involved. I never said it wasn't complex. It definitely is complex. It's also completely explainable through natural methods, however.

We weren't "put here" and our being here is not "accident." What are some of the questions you have about the big bang theory? "Tornadoes [sic], volcanoes[sic], lightening[sic], earthquakes, and tsunamis" aren't created, and they aren't a "mistake." In what way is the water cycle too complex? The sun's distance from the earth and the level of heat/light/etc that it provides is one of the causes of our evolution. The sun is not at the "perfect distance" because we are here, we are here because our planet lies within the hospitable zone of our solar system. The supernatural does not exist. Ghosts are in fact figments of people's imaginations. There are perfectly logical evolutionary explanations for our behavior. Our bodies' processes aren't a "coincidence." They are the result of billions of years of cosmic, chemical, and biological evolution. Your entire post is basically one big argument from incredulity.

It's true that traditionally atheism might've been more accurately described as the belief in the lack of a god, but the overwhelming modern day usage is to refer to someone who lacks the belief in a god. Most modern atheists are not so naive or ignorant as to claim that there is no possibility that a god exists, merely that there is an incredible lack of evidence for one. As Carl Sagan said: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I've yet to see any extraordinary evidence. As far as morality goes humans are far from the only animal species that exhibit "moral" behavior. Our morals are but a higher expression of the idea that you shouldn't eat your pack-mates because it means more food for you in the long run.

There are many different radiometric dating methods, each with their own useful range of times. I have not heard of anything recently which would call in to doubt the accuracy of Carbon-14 dating, let alone radiometric dating on the whole. OK, there's multiple problems with this line of thinking.. Substituting "eternal being caused the big bang" for "Genesis." Based on all of our current evidence we know that an event which we call the big bang occurred. We have no evidence of anything happening prior to the big bang. We have no evidence of the existence of an "eternal being". We in fact have no evidence of the existence anything supernatural. An "eternal being" could have caused the big bang to occur, but because we have no evidence of the supernatural and loads of evidence of the natural it makes much more sense that the big bang had a natural cause. [*]Substituting "your god poofed the universe out of nothing and our evidence of the big bang is bunk" for "Genesis." We have mountains of evidence that an event which we call the big bang occurred. That evidence is not bunk. Granting that it could be bunk, you create a false dichotomy. There are lots of other answers other than "the big bang" or "God did it." Why couldn't Thor have done it? Why couldn't Zeus or my mother's hamster? [*]Not substituting "Genesis." We have mountains of scientific evidence which contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis. If we do not interpret Genesis literally in which way do we interpret it? Who decides which interpretation we use? Which parts of it are literal and which aren't? If days aren't days are birds birds?

Could you explain what your definition of a transitional fossil would be? I.e. what characteristics would a fossilized creature require for you to consider it a valid transitional form?

I think it was never meant to be even created, and this is a sign they should stop. :-k There are somethings us mortal humans were never meant to know. Why? I say the more we know about our universe, the better.

I implore anyone who disagrees to please present me with credible evidence to the contrary.

Hooray for having actual artists here again!

Can someone enlighten me on the exact definition of this bizarre coloquialism? Some examples would be nice, too, if you have any handy.

I don't think that the two issues are comparable. They have two completely unrelated purposes and scales. I think his point is that people are [bleep]ing about this, which actually has a good chance of advancing our fundamental scientific understanding of the universe. Then they don't even mention the useless occupation of Iraq, which is hemorrhaging money.

Just disagreeing with me doesn't make me a troll. Calling me dangerous because I disagree with you makes you a troll. And I admit, I only called you a troll so I could use that cute picture. :cry: If someone would talk about such object two hundred years ago, you would most likely be declared as mentally ill. If we go further back, you might even get burnt as a witch. Imagining things from the future has been a little destroyed now, as we imagine flying stuff and teleportation, but there will probably be real things from the future you would look upon as insane. Notice that I'm not saying ghosts/whatever can't exist, that we won't find any evidence for them in the future, but that we currently have no credible objective evidence of their existence.

Not to mention that just because something is improbable doesn't mean it won't happen.

Link to source? I'm fairly sure that if our axis was differently tipped we would simply more/less differentiated seasons. This isn't outside the realm of possibility at all. Assuming it actually did happen.