Creation Vs Evolution

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

sabaku no ketsueki wrote:

quater wrote:

sabaku no ketsueki wrote:

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:i was gonna answer one of these, but Q seems to be able to handle this all by himself.
SO i'll just say this. The theory of evolution has proven to contradict itself with its own science.
the theory of evolution says that we became better, stronger, more adapt, and universally smarter and so on.
Well the law of thermodinamics (ok, i think its this one, but correct me if i'm wrong with the name k?) states that all matter decomposes over time/ And we can see this law in action over many years, thiungs break down not build up.

No actually Amaterasu I'd love to get some back up from someone it gets lonely sitting out as the creationist by himself from time to time. And like you just did, you can whip out things that I forget to mention or didn't know to help stabilize my argument.

Well look whose back. Hey kurokumo calmed down some? ^_^

oh, ok then
i'll try and help out more often then

Sweet ^_^

Plus you get better the more you get in there.

And to you Sabaku: I said Creationist, as in a 6 day creation of the Universe by God. And you are, in fact an evolutionist. You're a Theistic Evolutionist.

Theistic Evolutionist, which takes the creation side more than the evolution....i think
I still lack a lot of information on that, but what I've heard so far makes sense
BUT if I had to choose one or the other, no in between,it'd be creation

There isn't a lot of information on Theistic Evolution. Basically in the old days there was no creation science, just like today there isn't much, because the Government refuses to give money to Intelligent Designers. So they had no way of studying it. So they made up Theistic Evolution so as to keep their faith solid in the light of Evolution.

But today, we can prove Creationism because Scientists are uniting and Evolution is starting to fumble. We are in the second half of the game with a ready team and Evolution is getting weary. So a 7 day Creation no longer needs to be "A metaphor" but we can take our Lord seriously and believe what he said.

is it a metaphor? is it literal? who knows?
7 days? 4 million years? I just say what i think
but doesn't the majority of the bible have a deeper meaning?

um sabaku
do you get a book thats too hard to understand?
something that has lots of metaphors?
isn't it hard to get the message?
well the bible is the total opposite. The message it has is certainly clear and easy to understand. Meaning that metaphors were not used.

On behalf of Sabaku, now you guys are just teaming up.

um, no not really,
its a debate.
Q and I are on the creation side and she is on the evolution side. Nothing more

OkieDok.

Just curious, but if this is a science v. science thing, why do Q and Sabaku keep using allusions and references to the bible?

well sabaku says that the bible is full of metaphors
BUt since its not Q is proving that so

How did that have anything to do with the topic at hand?

it has everthing to do with it
Sabaku is sayiong something of a mix between evoilution and creationg by saying the bible has a lot of metaphors
however Q is argueing (and winning) against that by proving that those metaphors are not metaphors
and proving that creationg happened like the bible stats

That's like imposing religion onto the evolutionists.
Don't look at me, I'm an ignorant so I ask if the bible ever implied upon intelligent design for if it did, that's bringing religion also into the topic we call science. This befuddles me.

i don't know what intellegent design is so I don't know if i can answer you correctly. But creation can't be bbrought up without religion
but meh that can't be helped

does intelligent design specify a specific intervener?

TheFirstKnight wrote:does intelligent design specify a specific intervener?

i don't know
ask Q

TheFirstKnight wrote:does intelligent design specify a specific intervener?

Not at all. That's creation.

Intelligent Design says that there are to many complexities and that there is evidence for a creator of some sort. Whether you believe it was the Holy Lord or Jack Black that's up for you to decide.

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

sabaku no ketsueki wrote:

quater wrote:

sabaku no ketsueki wrote:

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:i was gonna answer one of these, but Q seems to be able to handle this all by himself.
SO i'll just say this. The theory of evolution has proven to contradict itself with its own science.
the theory of evolution says that we became better, stronger, more adapt, and universally smarter and so on.
Well the law of thermodinamics (ok, i think its this one, but correct me if i'm wrong with the name k?) states that all matter decomposes over time/ And we can see this law in action over many years, thiungs break down not build up.

No actually Amaterasu I'd love to get some back up from someone it gets lonely sitting out as the creationist by himself from time to time. And like you just did, you can whip out things that I forget to mention or didn't know to help stabilize my argument.

Well look whose back. Hey kurokumo calmed down some? ^_^

oh, ok then
i'll try and help out more often then

Sweet ^_^

Plus you get better the more you get in there.

And to you Sabaku: I said Creationist, as in a 6 day creation of the Universe by God. And you are, in fact an evolutionist. You're a Theistic Evolutionist.

Theistic Evolutionist, which takes the creation side more than the evolution....i think
I still lack a lot of information on that, but what I've heard so far makes sense
BUT if I had to choose one or the other, no in between,it'd be creation

There isn't a lot of information on Theistic Evolution. Basically in the old days there was no creation science, just like today there isn't much, because the Government refuses to give money to Intelligent Designers. So they had no way of studying it. So they made up Theistic Evolution so as to keep their faith solid in the light of Evolution.

But today, we can prove Creationism because Scientists are uniting and Evolution is starting to fumble. We are in the second half of the game with a ready team and Evolution is getting weary. So a 7 day Creation no longer needs to be "A metaphor" but we can take our Lord seriously and believe what he said.

is it a metaphor? is it literal? who knows?
7 days? 4 million years? I just say what i think
but doesn't the majority of the bible have a deeper meaning?

um sabaku
do you get a book thats too hard to understand?
something that has lots of metaphors?
isn't it hard to get the message?
well the bible is the total opposite. The message it has is certainly clear and easy to understand. Meaning that metaphors were not used.

On behalf of Sabaku, now you guys are just teaming up.

um, no not really,
its a debate.
Q and I are on the creation side and she is on the evolution side. Nothing more

OkieDok.

Just curious, but if this is a science v. science thing, why do Q and Sabaku keep using allusions and references to the bible?

well sabaku says that the bible is full of metaphors
BUt since its not Q is proving that so

How did that have anything to do with the topic at hand?

it has everthing to do with it
Sabaku is sayiong something of a mix between evoilution and creationg by saying the bible has a lot of metaphors
however Q is argueing (and winning) against that by proving that those metaphors are not metaphors
and proving that creationg happened like the bible stats

That's like imposing religion onto the evolutionists.
Don't look at me, I'm an ignorant so I ask if the bible ever implied upon intelligent design for if it did, that's bringing religion also into the topic we call science. This befuddles me.

There are two sides to Evolution. The Scientific side I prefer debating says that Darwin's process of evolution is true. It's the one that intelligent design can refute, and is when I say the debate is Science verse Science. But due to inadequacies of science funding Creationism and Intelligent Design Christians created Theistic Evolution. This says that God lied and didn't create the Earth in 6 days. But the problem is now Intelligent Design has found ways to fund itself and unite privately and now can disprove Evolution on it's own back, and thus Theistic Evolution is false, not to mention it very much so misinterprets the Bible and dumbs down the Lord's truth.

I have to fight the Science verse Science war of Evolution Verse Intelligent Design, and the 6 day creation verse the Metaphor war here. It's quite interesting, but it's why Sabaku and I keep arguing over it. There are two battle fronts here. What's interesting to note is Sabaku says that there is a God is on the same side as you and TFK who are both Solid Atheists from what I have gathered.

TheFirstKnight wrote:not that part, i was just trying to figure out what darkflame was saying in his last post.

To be honest, Darkflame is a mow ron not worth my time. Cells aren't intelligent? My goodness these kids make me laugh sometimes.

Creation, making better and new things are allways better

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

sabaku no ketsueki wrote:

quater wrote:

sabaku no ketsueki wrote:

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:i was gonna answer one of these, but Q seems to be able to handle this all by himself.
SO i'll just say this. The theory of evolution has proven to contradict itself with its own science.
the theory of evolution says that we became better, stronger, more adapt, and universally smarter and so on.
Well the law of thermodinamics (ok, i think its this one, but correct me if i'm wrong with the name k?) states that all matter decomposes over time/ And we can see this law in action over many years, thiungs break down not build up.

No actually Amaterasu I'd love to get some back up from someone it gets lonely sitting out as the creationist by himself from time to time. And like you just did, you can whip out things that I forget to mention or didn't know to help stabilize my argument.

Well look whose back. Hey kurokumo calmed down some? ^_^

oh, ok then
i'll try and help out more often then

Sweet ^_^

Plus you get better the more you get in there.

And to you Sabaku: I said Creationist, as in a 6 day creation of the Universe by God. And you are, in fact an evolutionist. You're a Theistic Evolutionist.

Theistic Evolutionist, which takes the creation side more than the evolution....i think
I still lack a lot of information on that, but what I've heard so far makes sense
BUT if I had to choose one or the other, no in between,it'd be creation

There isn't a lot of information on Theistic Evolution. Basically in the old days there was no creation science, just like today there isn't much, because the Government refuses to give money to Intelligent Designers. So they had no way of studying it. So they made up Theistic Evolution so as to keep their faith solid in the light of Evolution.

But today, we can prove Creationism because Scientists are uniting and Evolution is starting to fumble. We are in the second half of the game with a ready team and Evolution is getting weary. So a 7 day Creation no longer needs to be "A metaphor" but we can take our Lord seriously and believe what he said.

is it a metaphor? is it literal? who knows?
7 days? 4 million years? I just say what i think
but doesn't the majority of the bible have a deeper meaning?

um sabaku
do you get a book thats too hard to understand?
something that has lots of metaphors?
isn't it hard to get the message?
well the bible is the total opposite. The message it has is certainly clear and easy to understand. Meaning that metaphors were not used.

On behalf of Sabaku, now you guys are just teaming up.

um, no not really,
its a debate.
Q and I are on the creation side and she is on the evolution side. Nothing more

OkieDok.

Just curious, but if this is a science v. science thing, why do Q and Sabaku keep using allusions and references to the bible?

well sabaku says that the bible is full of metaphors
BUt since its not Q is proving that so

How did that have anything to do with the topic at hand?

it has everthing to do with it
Sabaku is sayiong something of a mix between evoilution and creationg by saying the bible has a lot of metaphors
however Q is argueing (and winning) against that by proving that those metaphors are not metaphors
and proving that creationg happened like the bible stats

That's like imposing religion onto the evolutionists.
Don't look at me, I'm an ignorant so I ask if the bible ever implied upon intelligent design for if it did, that's bringing religion also into the topic we call science. This befuddles me.

i don't know what intellegent design is so I don't know if i can answer you correctly. But creation can't be bbrought up without religion
but meh that can't be helped

Then if it's what you say with religion, then this is more of a personal belief thing, Amaterasu.

Yes, it can;t be helped without good, strong scientific facts and that's the truth of it, I guess.

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

sabaku no ketsueki wrote:

quater wrote:

sabaku no ketsueki wrote:

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:i was gonna answer one of these, but Q seems to be able to handle this all by himself.
SO i'll just say this. The theory of evolution has proven to contradict itself with its own science.
the theory of evolution says that we became better, stronger, more adapt, and universally smarter and so on.
Well the law of thermodinamics (ok, i think its this one, but correct me if i'm wrong with the name k?) states that all matter decomposes over time/ And we can see this law in action over many years, thiungs break down not build up.

No actually Amaterasu I'd love to get some back up from someone it gets lonely sitting out as the creationist by himself from time to time. And like you just did, you can whip out things that I forget to mention or didn't know to help stabilize my argument.

Well look whose back. Hey kurokumo calmed down some? ^_^

oh, ok then
i'll try and help out more often then

Sweet ^_^

Plus you get better the more you get in there.

And to you Sabaku: I said Creationist, as in a 6 day creation of the Universe by God. And you are, in fact an evolutionist. You're a Theistic Evolutionist.

Theistic Evolutionist, which takes the creation side more than the evolution....i think
I still lack a lot of information on that, but what I've heard so far makes sense
BUT if I had to choose one or the other, no in between,it'd be creation

There isn't a lot of information on Theistic Evolution. Basically in the old days there was no creation science, just like today there isn't much, because the Government refuses to give money to Intelligent Designers. So they had no way of studying it. So they made up Theistic Evolution so as to keep their faith solid in the light of Evolution.

But today, we can prove Creationism because Scientists are uniting and Evolution is starting to fumble. We are in the second half of the game with a ready team and Evolution is getting weary. So a 7 day Creation no longer needs to be "A metaphor" but we can take our Lord seriously and believe what he said.

is it a metaphor? is it literal? who knows?
7 days? 4 million years? I just say what i think
but doesn't the majority of the bible have a deeper meaning?

um sabaku
do you get a book thats too hard to understand?
something that has lots of metaphors?
isn't it hard to get the message?
well the bible is the total opposite. The message it has is certainly clear and easy to understand. Meaning that metaphors were not used.

On behalf of Sabaku, now you guys are just teaming up.

um, no not really,
its a debate.
Q and I are on the creation side and she is on the evolution side. Nothing more

OkieDok.

Just curious, but if this is a science v. science thing, why do Q and Sabaku keep using allusions and references to the bible?

well sabaku says that the bible is full of metaphors
BUt since its not Q is proving that so

How did that have anything to do with the topic at hand?

it has everthing to do with it
Sabaku is sayiong something of a mix between evoilution and creationg by saying the bible has a lot of metaphors
however Q is argueing (and winning) against that by proving that those metaphors are not metaphors
and proving that creationg happened like the bible stats

That's like imposing religion onto the evolutionists.
Don't look at me, I'm an ignorant so I ask if the bible ever implied upon intelligent design for if it did, that's bringing religion also into the topic we call science. This befuddles me.

i don't know what intellegent design is so I don't know if i can answer you correctly. But creation can't be bbrought up without religion
but meh that can't be helped

Then if it's what you say with religion, then this is more of a personal belief thing, Amaterasu.

Yes, it can;t be helped without good, strong scientific facts and that's the truth of it, I guess.

Hey Titan.

I just explained Intelligent Design. Refer to my posts.

Technically Amaterasu isn't an Intelligent Designer like me, so he would have a harder time explaining it.

quater wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

sabaku no ketsueki wrote:

quater wrote:

sabaku no ketsueki wrote:

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:i was gonna answer one of these, but Q seems to be able to handle this all by himself.
SO i'll just say this. The theory of evolution has proven to contradict itself with its own science.
the theory of evolution says that we became better, stronger, more adapt, and universally smarter and so on.
Well the law of thermodinamics (ok, i think its this one, but correct me if i'm wrong with the name k?) states that all matter decomposes over time/ And we can see this law in action over many years, thiungs break down not build up.

No actually Amaterasu I'd love to get some back up from someone it gets lonely sitting out as the creationist by himself from time to time. And like you just did, you can whip out things that I forget to mention or didn't know to help stabilize my argument.

Well look whose back. Hey kurokumo calmed down some? ^_^

oh, ok then
i'll try and help out more often then

Sweet ^_^

Plus you get better the more you get in there.

And to you Sabaku: I said Creationist, as in a 6 day creation of the Universe by God. And you are, in fact an evolutionist. You're a Theistic Evolutionist.

Theistic Evolutionist, which takes the creation side more than the evolution....i think
I still lack a lot of information on that, but what I've heard so far makes sense
BUT if I had to choose one or the other, no in between,it'd be creation

There isn't a lot of information on Theistic Evolution. Basically in the old days there was no creation science, just like today there isn't much, because the Government refuses to give money to Intelligent Designers. So they had no way of studying it. So they made up Theistic Evolution so as to keep their faith solid in the light of Evolution.

But today, we can prove Creationism because Scientists are uniting and Evolution is starting to fumble. We are in the second half of the game with a ready team and Evolution is getting weary. So a 7 day Creation no longer needs to be "A metaphor" but we can take our Lord seriously and believe what he said.

is it a metaphor? is it literal? who knows?
7 days? 4 million years? I just say what i think
but doesn't the majority of the bible have a deeper meaning?

um sabaku
do you get a book thats too hard to understand?
something that has lots of metaphors?
isn't it hard to get the message?
well the bible is the total opposite. The message it has is certainly clear and easy to understand. Meaning that metaphors were not used.

On behalf of Sabaku, now you guys are just teaming up.

um, no not really,
its a debate.
Q and I are on the creation side and she is on the evolution side. Nothing more

OkieDok.

Just curious, but if this is a science v. science thing, why do Q and Sabaku keep using allusions and references to the bible?

well sabaku says that the bible is full of metaphors
BUt since its not Q is proving that so

How did that have anything to do with the topic at hand?

it has everthing to do with it
Sabaku is sayiong something of a mix between evoilution and creationg by saying the bible has a lot of metaphors
however Q is argueing (and winning) against that by proving that those metaphors are not metaphors
and proving that creationg happened like the bible stats

That's like imposing religion onto the evolutionists.
Don't look at me, I'm an ignorant so I ask if the bible ever implied upon intelligent design for if it did, that's bringing religion also into the topic we call science. This befuddles me.

i don't know what intellegent design is so I don't know if i can answer you correctly. But creation can't be bbrought up without religion
but meh that can't be helped

Then if it's what you say with religion, then this is more of a personal belief thing, Amaterasu.

Yes, it can;t be helped without good, strong scientific facts and that's the truth of it, I guess.

Hey Titan.

I just explained Intelligent Design. Refer to my posts.

Technically Amaterasu isn't an Intelligent Designer like me, so he would have a harder time explaining it.

this is most certainly true

quater wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

sabaku no ketsueki wrote:

quater wrote:

sabaku no ketsueki wrote:

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:i was gonna answer one of these, but Q seems to be able to handle this all by himself.
SO i'll just say this. The theory of evolution has proven to contradict itself with its own science.
the theory of evolution says that we became better, stronger, more adapt, and universally smarter and so on.
Well the law of thermodinamics (ok, i think its this one, but correct me if i'm wrong with the name k?) states that all matter decomposes over time/ And we can see this law in action over many years, thiungs break down not build up.

No actually Amaterasu I'd love to get some back up from someone it gets lonely sitting out as the creationist by himself from time to time. And like you just did, you can whip out things that I forget to mention or didn't know to help stabilize my argument.

Well look whose back. Hey kurokumo calmed down some? ^_^

oh, ok then
i'll try and help out more often then

Sweet ^_^

Plus you get better the more you get in there.

And to you Sabaku: I said Creationist, as in a 6 day creation of the Universe by God. And you are, in fact an evolutionist. You're a Theistic Evolutionist.

Theistic Evolutionist, which takes the creation side more than the evolution....i think
I still lack a lot of information on that, but what I've heard so far makes sense
BUT if I had to choose one or the other, no in between,it'd be creation

There isn't a lot of information on Theistic Evolution. Basically in the old days there was no creation science, just like today there isn't much, because the Government refuses to give money to Intelligent Designers. So they had no way of studying it. So they made up Theistic Evolution so as to keep their faith solid in the light of Evolution.

But today, we can prove Creationism because Scientists are uniting and Evolution is starting to fumble. We are in the second half of the game with a ready team and Evolution is getting weary. So a 7 day Creation no longer needs to be "A metaphor" but we can take our Lord seriously and believe what he said.

is it a metaphor? is it literal? who knows?
7 days? 4 million years? I just say what i think
but doesn't the majority of the bible have a deeper meaning?

um sabaku
do you get a book thats too hard to understand?
something that has lots of metaphors?
isn't it hard to get the message?
well the bible is the total opposite. The message it has is certainly clear and easy to understand. Meaning that metaphors were not used.

On behalf of Sabaku, now you guys are just teaming up.

um, no not really,
its a debate.
Q and I are on the creation side and she is on the evolution side. Nothing more

OkieDok.

Just curious, but if this is a science v. science thing, why do Q and Sabaku keep using allusions and references to the bible?

well sabaku says that the bible is full of metaphors
BUt since its not Q is proving that so

How did that have anything to do with the topic at hand?

it has everthing to do with it
Sabaku is sayiong something of a mix between evoilution and creationg by saying the bible has a lot of metaphors
however Q is argueing (and winning) against that by proving that those metaphors are not metaphors
and proving that creationg happened like the bible stats

That's like imposing religion onto the evolutionists.
Don't look at me, I'm an ignorant so I ask if the bible ever implied upon intelligent design for if it did, that's bringing religion also into the topic we call science. This befuddles me.

i don't know what intellegent design is so I don't know if i can answer you correctly. But creation can't be bbrought up without religion
but meh that can't be helped

Then if it's what you say with religion, then this is more of a personal belief thing, Amaterasu.

Yes, it can;t be helped without good, strong scientific facts and that's the truth of it, I guess.

Hey Titan.

I just explained Intelligent Design. Refer to my posts.

Technically Amaterasu isn't an Intelligent Designer like me, so he would have a harder time explaining it.

Hey, yea, I was having a comp prob. but yea, I read and shall answer in this post since I couldn't, the last.
Ah, alrighty then.
I hear of Intelligent Design and I get that but no one has ever bothered to explain a possible creator for the many changes of evolutions throughout the lovely life of Earth. I know close to little on Theistic evolution (though it has been brought up, I've heard) but it sounds interesting, I might wanna do some more research on it though it isn't the typical stuff you'd find in a library.

Oui I see. Now I understand the conflicting views with you and Sabaku. I saw how she argued but I had no clue it was all for theistic evolution. That is strange for me for I considered many Christians as believing creation but I guess it's a stereotype.

No, I am not.

CREATION!

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Hey, yea, I was having a comp prob. but yea, I read and shall answer in this post since I couldn't, the last.
Ah, alrighty then.
I hear of Intelligent Design and I get that but no one has ever bothered to explain a possible creator for the many changes of evolutions throughout the lovely life of Earth. I know close to little on Theistic evolution (though it has been brought up, I've heard) but it sounds interesting, I might wanna do some more research on it though it isn't the typical stuff you'd find in a library.

Oui I see. Now I understand the conflicting views with you and Sabaku. I saw how she argued but I had no clue it was all for theistic evolution. That is strange for me for I considered many Christians as believing creation but I guess it's a stereotype.

No, I am not.

what type of changes of evolutions throughout the lovely life of Earth.
meaning what is it thgat evolved

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Hey, yea, I was having a comp prob. but yea, I read and shall answer in this post since I couldn't, the last.
Ah, alrighty then.
I hear of Intelligent Design and I get that but no one has ever bothered to explain a possible creator for the many changes of evolutions throughout the lovely life of Earth. I know close to little on Theistic evolution (though it has been brought up, I've heard) but it sounds interesting, I might wanna do some more research on it though it isn't the typical stuff you'd find in a library.

Oui I see. Now I understand the conflicting views with you and Sabaku. I saw how she argued but I had no clue it was all for theistic evolution. That is strange for me for I considered many Christians as believing creation but I guess it's a stereotype.

No, I am not.

what type of changes of evolutions throughout the lovely life of Earth.
meaning what is it thgat evolved

Aye, yes, was that a question?

Organisms have evolved since the beginning of time.

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Hey, yea, I was having a comp prob. but yea, I read and shall answer in this post since I couldn't, the last.
Ah, alrighty then.
I hear of Intelligent Design and I get that but no one has ever bothered to explain a possible creator for the many changes of evolutions throughout the lovely life of Earth. I know close to little on Theistic evolution (though it has been brought up, I've heard) but it sounds interesting, I might wanna do some more research on it though it isn't the typical stuff you'd find in a library.

Oui I see. Now I understand the conflicting views with you and Sabaku. I saw how she argued but I had no clue it was all for theistic evolution. That is strange for me for I considered many Christians as believing creation but I guess it's a stereotype.

No, I am not.

what type of changes of evolutions throughout the lovely life of Earth.
meaning what is it thgat evolved

Aye, yes, was that a question?

Organisms have evolved since the beginning of time.

but not turtles
or frogs
or fish
or birds
or trees
or flowers
or lions
or wolves
or elephants
or horses
or duck billed platypus'
or monkeys
just humains
ypu, makes perfect sense
that must have happened (sarcasm)

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Hey, yea, I was having a comp prob. but yea, I read and shall answer in this post since I couldn't, the last.
Ah, alrighty then.
I hear of Intelligent Design and I get that but no one has ever bothered to explain a possible creator for the many changes of evolutions throughout the lovely life of Earth. I know close to little on Theistic evolution (though it has been brought up, I've heard) but it sounds interesting, I might wanna do some more research on it though it isn't the typical stuff you'd find in a library.

Oui I see. Now I understand the conflicting views with you and Sabaku. I saw how she argued but I had no clue it was all for theistic evolution. That is strange for me for I considered many Christians as believing creation but I guess it's a stereotype.

No, I am not.

what type of changes of evolutions throughout the lovely life of Earth.
meaning what is it thgat evolved

Aye, yes, was that a question?

Organisms have evolved since the beginning of time.

but not turtles
or frogs
or fish
or birds
or trees
or flowers
or lions
or wolves
or elephants
or horses
or duck billed platypus'
or monkeys
just humains
ypu, makes perfect sense
that must have happened (sarcasm)

lol, uh, was I supposed to answer that seriously?

Amaterasu, You're confusing me now, Help

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Hey, yea, I was having a comp prob. but yea, I read and shall answer in this post since I couldn't, the last.
Ah, alrighty then.
I hear of Intelligent Design and I get that but no one has ever bothered to explain a possible creator for the many changes of evolutions throughout the lovely life of Earth. I know close to little on Theistic evolution (though it has been brought up, I've heard) but it sounds interesting, I might wanna do some more research on it though it isn't the typical stuff you'd find in a library.

Oui I see. Now I understand the conflicting views with you and Sabaku. I saw how she argued but I had no clue it was all for theistic evolution. That is strange for me for I considered many Christians as believing creation but I guess it's a stereotype.

No, I am not.

what type of changes of evolutions throughout the lovely life of Earth.
meaning what is it thgat evolved

Aye, yes, was that a question?

Organisms have evolved since the beginning of time.

but not turtles
or frogs
or fish
or birds
or trees
or flowers
or lions
or wolves
or elephants
or horses
or duck billed platypus'
or monkeys
just humains
ypu, makes perfect sense
that must have happened (sarcasm)

lol, uh, was I supposed to answer that seriously?

Amaterasu, You're confusing me now, Help

Love the avatar Titan ^_^

And hear is his point. There is no fossil evidence, none, ever found for proving that we evolved. If there was some evidence we'd end this here and now, but Evolutionists, have been searching for 150 years and haven't claimed a single fossil.

Furthermore, not only is there no fossils, but there is no intermediary species available. An intermediary species is one in the imbetween stages of Evolution. There should be trillions. Think of it this way, there are billions of different organisms on Earth, right? So each species needs at least 5 (And I am being so lenient it's not even funny) intermediary species to complete itself into a new organism. But the problem is we can't find a single one. All organisms are full, and not only perfectly functioning, but perfectly fit for the environment they find.

Here's an example of the environment problem. When we add new animals to an ecosystem the entire ecosystem changes, and many animals can go extinct. But why? Shouldn't some of these animals start evolving? You say, no Q! They don't have enough time to evolve, but I answer back, doesn't each animal evolve at different times, how then was it possible for each environment to be perfect before the new animals arrived, when there is supposedly always new animals arriving?

wow, this thread get's off topic. First you people debate between creationism then intelligent design, then creationism again.

It's not really off topic. It's still somewhere in the realm of how things came into existance, just different theories and such on it.

do you know what intelligent design states? If you do know it, then tell me what it is.

I think it's just a simplified form of Creation, but I don't know for certain.

well, a simple version can be found a few of posts up. Q-tip answered this question already, sort of.

TheFirstKnight wrote:wow, this thread get's off topic. First you people debate between creationism then intelligent design, then creationism again.

They're pretty much the same.

Intelligent Design is the later version of Creationism that doesn't name a creator specifically. That way it can't be called religiously affiliated, and thus allowed into our schools.

lol....loop hole to the system..
schools are meant to teach the evolution side and that just basicaly blew that out of the water

Lightning Mist wrote:lol....loop hole to the system..
schools are meant to teach the evolution side and that just basicaly blew that out of the water

Schools should teach science, and since Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, they have no excuse for teaching one side of the Earth's beginnings that is much more complicated then the Intelligent Design side.

I have always wondered why they didn't open an intelligent Design Class and see if people would sign up. If no one did then no one cared and we'd end this fight, and if they did sign up then it'd be all good.