Your Age, My Assertion, Your Fallacy

[Schroeder]

Well lets just examine my religous life shall we? I was born into a southern babtist household in central Texas. I attended services twice a week, Sunday School, and was enrolled in a church sponsered day care. I believed ferverently, and listen close now, I even spoke with God daily, and no, it wasn't a one way conversation.

But then as I grew up and started reading, I realized that it was all BS. I was a Christian because my parents had made me one. I heard God because I had been told I would so often that I beleived it.

You want to claim Christianity is some personal experience? I will agree, for many it can be. For many it is not though. The vast majority of Christians never have that type fo personal experience, instead simply doing as they have been told they should by the ministers, and going about their daily lives as best they can.

Regardless though, it is STILL a religion in every sense of the word. And it is a religion that relies on inculcation during childhood, or conversion during traumatic life events to gather its flock. Only during these types of situations is your mind flexible enough to trick itself into believeing that your internal monologue is actually your diety.

So get off your high horse . Don't tell me how my life went. Do not poresume to know anything about me you self righteous arrogant p**ck. Instead get your nose out of your bible and read something worthwhile for once. Any decent book of history, science, philosphy, or hell even some decent fiction would be an improvment. Maybe you'd actually learn something real about our world.

This is what ****es me off more than anything else. The exclusionary thinking of fundamentalists. I'm going to put this in all caps so maybe it will actually get thru your steel enshrouded mind. I DO NOT CARE IF YOU BELIEVE IN A GOD. You go right ahead and do that. What I do care about is the fundamentalist view that religion is not allowed to co-exist with other types of knowledge. Science and religion do not have to be contradicory. They can and generally do function quite well side by side. Science is more than happy to leave all questions of the super-natural to you. But science also expects the same courtesy in return. If you want to belive that a god created the universe then go for it. Science will never answer the Who/Why part of where did we come from. What it does answer is the how. if you cannot reconcile what we know to be true in studies such as cosmology or evolution with your strict religous view, then you are limiting yourself to remain ignorant of the wonders of our world for all eternity. And for that I pity you.

so you admit yourself you were one because your parents made you one. so in reality you did not beome saved because it was NOT your personal choice to do so. So all your other spew is your own problem to deal with. you proved my point. ITs persoanl not to be shoved into you by your parents or anybody else. you still fail to see this. you saw a different side and assumed you were lied to or force fed a lie. Not every thing you read is true. But it can be if you want it to be. quite right and wrong, they can go together. But what i see shows God as creator. and evolution does NOT show evolution Theory by any means. Science does show HOW thing work, doesnt show How things were made or created. at least not the way most science thinks it happend. So much for letting opinion be for all to have. if you wish me to be open minded then maybe you should try it to. i disagree with you and wham you go off the top.

 

[OdwinOddball]

so you admit yourself you were one because your parents made you one. so in reality you did not beome saved because it was NOT your personal choice to do so. So all your other spew is your own problem to deal with. you proved my point. ITs persoanl not to be shoved into you by your parents or anybody else. you still fail to see this. you saw a different side and assumed you were lied to or force fed a lie. Not every thing you read is true. But it can be if you want it to be. quite right and wrong, they can go together. But what i see shows God as creator. and evolution does NOT show evolution Theory by any means. Science does show HOW thing work, doesnt show How things were made or created. at least not the way most science thinks it happend. So much for letting opinion be for all to have. if you wish me to be open minded then maybe you should try it to. i disagree with you and wham you go off the top.

How is this any different than the vast majority of Christians? Most of the time, they get raised in a Christian household, attend church frequently as a child, and end up as a Christian. The fact that later in life they make some conscious pledge, does not change the fact that this is an almost inevitable outcome of being inculcated from such an early age. This is how all religions work. You ended up being a Christian solely because you were raised in a Christian environment. if you had been raised in a Muslim or Hindu community, the outcome would have been very different. People adapt to the customs around them. People adopt religions due to inculcation in early childhood, or by being exposed to a particular religion during a traumatic period in their life. Very rarely is it that you find members of a religion that traveled a different path to get there.

You again make assumptions about my path to atheism. This wasn't nearly as simple as reading one book and suddenly seeing the light. no, it was a long and often painful process of exploring and researching the world outside the narrow religious context it had previously been shown to me in. The end result of years of study of both science and other religions showed me that no religion was really different than any other. They were all merely mans attempt to explain unknowns that scared or confused him. In the beginning it was primal forces such as fire, weather, the sun, life, death, etc. over time as these mysteries were understood as natural occurrences, the subjects explained by religion started to decrease. The number of deities decreased along with them, as you no longer needed an individual deity for fire, or the sky. one would suffice to cover the few remaining areas where no human knowledge could go. Where did we come from and where are we going.

What finally made sense was that if over time we lost the need for a deity of fire, then why would we need a deity for anything else? Wasn't it far more logical that our current deities were just the remains of mans primitive superstitions and fears? Did the universe absolutely have to have a creator? Did man even need a creator? Thus I was led to science and ideas such as the Big Bang, and the Toe. Here was a real answer. Not the final answer to be sure, but a cohesive theory that explained much of what was once the unfathomable realm of the supernatural. This taught me that the rise of knowledge was in a direct inverse relationship to the dominance of religion. The conclusion of such an idea? Religion is the opponent of knowledge and free-thought. Here I had ideas that could actually be tested, and demonstrated to be right or wrong to the best of our knowledge. no longer was an invisible entity needed to explain away those scary unknowns, and so my atheism began. In the end, I may be wrong, but there is no evidence to prove me wrong at this stage.

So, you say you made a choice to become a Christian? I say you are wrong. You made a choice to continue to accept what was being taught to you. You made a choice to not question the world, and instead take the easy path of having knowledge handed to you in one simple book. I see no shame in this, we all have a desire to belong to something bigger than ourselves. But I do see willful ignorance when such a lifestyle prevents one from continuing to question. Once you have accepted something as absolute truth, you are no longer capable of questioning such "truth". This creates a huge blind spot in your ability to perceive and interpret new information..

No one asks you to take science on faith. The evidence is there. The theories are there. The ability to test such evidence is there. All one need do is be willing to open your mind to the possibility that you are wrong. To actually see the evidence before you, and not rely solely on internal emotion and what others have told you to believe.

One mistake that Creationists/YECS often make is even engaging in a Creationism vs. Evolution Debate. Evolution makes no claims as to the origin of life. It instead discusses the method of its growth and adaptation to the world around it, to believe otherwise is to demonstrate complete ignorance of what the Toe actually says. Creationism discusses this as well, but it is tied in strongly with an origin of life hypothesis. In fact this is inseparable in creationism. It makes a Cr/Eva debate difficult, as we often are not even discussing the same basic problem. Evolution leaves ample room for a creator. Science does not have the ultimate answer yet as to where we came from, perhaps this will turn out to be some form of creator. I highly doubt it, but nothing is impossible. What is far, far, far less likely is that such a creator bears any resemblance to any creator figure thus far proposed by humanity. Such a creator being is unlikely to take such strong interest in humanity for such a small portion of our existence, and then abandon us for the rest of time. Such is the idea behind most all of the worlds thousands of religions. And it makes no logical sense what so ever.

I am more than open to being proven wrong. But doing so requires evidence, and there is none to be had in this world. The only way you have to prove your deities existence is by its direct action in our physical universe, clearly demonstrable as divine intervention to myself and other skeptics. Or by being confronted by a deity upon my death. Anything else you can present can not be verified as true without invoking subjective evidence from internal emotional responses and unverified ancient texts.

 

[jinkazama]

My father, who has his Ph.D. in physics and is a staunch YEC, has often debated me over the issue of evolution. Although my major is evolutionary biology, I have no degree and I am at least 30 years younger than the man. The debate between him and I has continued to rage on for quite sometime now, and to be honest, I've won them all. The other day, I got the feeling he was getting sick of attempting to convert me to his radical religious doctrine (I am a Christian) and he finally said, "Well you're just 22 and don't have a Ph.D. like I do. What the [heck] do you know?"

To be honest, I'm not surprised. I've torn the guy to shreds so many times in debate, it's not worth it. But the thing is that I realized from witnessing debates on this forum is that just because someone does have a Ph.D. and is older, does not mean they're right. As much as I hate to admit, I've seen even evolution cohorts use someone's degree or age to claim they are right.

Just something to keep in mind the next time some 12 year old Creationist comes in here claiming that evolution is false. The theory of evolution is supported by evidence, not by people's Ph.D.s or people's ages. And let's face it, if people would support their assertions with evidence, and not appeals to authority, this debate wouldn't even be happening.

Why is your father in a state of denial? Maybe you can provide a a transcript, i would like read his aruments.

 

[Schroeder]

How is this any different than the vast majority of Christians? Most of the time, they get raised in a Christian household, attend church frequently as a child, and end up as a Christian. The fact that later in life they make some conscious pledge, does not change the fact that this is an almost inevitable outcome of being inculcated from such an early age. This is how all religions work. You ended up being a Christian solely because you were raised in a Christian environment. if you had been raised in a Muslim or Hindu community, the outcome would have been very different. People adapt to the customs around them. People adopt religions due to inculcation in early childhood, or by being exposed to a particular religion during a traumatic period in their life. Very rarely is it that you find members of a religion that traveled a different path to get there.

you ignore all the stories of people going to the jungels of africa and other places and find they no of this God or of Christ. when evidence would suggest they should not. or of for exmp. helen keeler who new of God and Christ even though she was death blind and dumb before age three. of people never raised in it and suddenly believe and are changed in a instant of miracles not explained. they happen you just ignore these and explain them away. So i dont think you looked very well.

You again make assumptions about my path to atheism. This wasn't nearly as simple as reading one book and suddenly seeing the light. no, it was a long and often painful process of exploring and researching the world outside the narrow religious context it had previously been shown to me in. The end result of years of study of both science and other religions showed me that no religion was really different than any other. They were all merely mans attempt to explain unknowns that scared or confused him. In the beginning it was primal forces such as fire, weather, the sun, life, death, etc. over time as these mysteries were understood as natural occurrences, the subjects explained by religion started to decrease. The number of deities decreased along with them, as you no longer needed an individual deity for fire, or the sky. one would suffice to cover the few remaining areas where no human knowledge could go. Where did we come from and where are we going.

So you believe what others say or assume even though it is not at all provable but ignore the things i mention above which should make you think there is a God after all. HOW do you know you are not being dupped into a lie. if christianity is a Spiritual belief then we can not fully understand this God or how he works and or the Spirit he uses. it sounds to me you just cant except this idea, that you must have complete physical evidence to believe something. of course i dont see how because the theory takes a bit of assumption and guessing what we cant ever see the past.

What finally made sense was that if over time we lost the need for a deity of fire, then why would we need a deity for anything else? Wasn't it far more logical that our current deities were just the remains of mans primitive superstitions and fears? Did the universe absolutely have to have a creator? Did man even need a creator? Thus I was led to science and ideas such as the Big Bang, and the Toe. Here was a real answer. Not the final answer to be sure, but a cohesive theory that explained much of what was once the unfathomable realm of the supernatural. This taught me that the rise of knowledge was in a direct inverse relationship to the dominance of religion. The conclusion of such an idea? Religion is the opponent of knowledge and free-thought. Here I had ideas that could actually be tested, and demonstrated to be right or wrong to the best of our knowledge. no longer was an invisible entity needed to explain away those scary unknowns, and so my atheism began. In the end, I may be wrong, but there is no evidence to prove me wrong at this stage.

How do you know history is written correctly, how do you know it is put together by unbiased people. they could be very wrong. religion is what you want to make of it. christianity is not a religion in the aspect of all the others which reghuire certain laws and instruction or ordances or sacraments or sacrifices ect to be followed. How do you know the BEST of our knowledge is even close. BUT i have NO scary unknowns.

So, you say you made a choice to become a Christian? I say you are wrong. You made a choice to continue to accept what was being taught to you. You made a choice to not question the world, and instead take the easy path of having knowledge handed to you in one simple book. I see no shame in this, we all have a desire to belong to something bigger than ourselves. But I do see willful ignorance when such a lifestyle prevents one from continuing to question. Once you have accepted something as absolute truth, you are no longer capable of questioning such "truth". This creates a huge blind spot in your ability to perceive and interpret new information..

i did have a choice we all do. how do you know i did not look into other beliefs. THEFACTis when i did truelly accept Christ into my life i changed and could never go back to who i was. this was instantly not over years of indoctrination. the book is simple and PROVENto be VERY acurate and true. including the Prophecies that show it to be of GOD.

No one asks you to take science on faith. The evidence is there. The theories are there. The ability to test such evidence is there. All one need do is be willing to open your mind to the possibility that you are wrong. To actually see the evidence before you, and not rely solely on internal emotion and what others have told you to believe.

but you have to assume something first and work from there. and it is easy to find just enough to satify what you want to see. i believe in the devil and his influence on us to tempt and deceive. If he is true then this is very fesible to happen. i think it comes down to wether you believe in a Spirtual realm or not. i do so i base what i see and read and hear on this. there is only one way we will truely find out when we die. at least i will die in comvediance. You may as well i dont know. but the Truth will be revealed then.

One mistake that Creationists/YECS often make is even engaging in a Creationism vs. Evolution Debate. Evolution makes no claims as to the origin of life. It instead discusses the method of its growth and adaptation to the world around it, to believe otherwise is to demonstrate complete ignorance of what the Toe actually says. Creationism discusses this as well, but it is tied in strongly with an origin of life hypothesis. In fact this is inseparable in creationism. It makes a Cr/Eva debate difficult, as we often are not even discussing the same basic problem. Evolution leaves ample room for a creator. Science does not have the ultimate answer yet as to where we came from, perhaps this will turn out to be some form of creator. I highly doubt it, but nothing is impossible. What is far, far, far less likely is that such a creator bears any resemblance to any creator figure thus far proposed by humanity. Such a creator being is unlikely to take such strong interest in humanity for such a small portion of our existence, and then abandon us for the rest of time. Such is the idea behind most all of the worlds thousands of religions. And it makes no logical sense what so ever.

what you said doesnt make much sence. since you just spoke of Truth and what it may or may not be. you may have been lied to or deceived. God sending his son todie for you doesnt sound to me like he ignores us. leaving his Spirit too help us. i dont think you really understand Christianity very well . the christianity you were taught may have been flawed.

I am more than open to being proven wrong. But doing so requires evidence, and there is none to be had in this world. The only way you have to prove your deities existence is by its direct action in our physical universe, clearly demonstrable as divine intervention to myself and other skeptics. Or by being confronted by a deity upon my death. Anything else you can present can not be verified as true without invoking subjective evidence from internal emotional responses and unverified ancient texts.

same goes for the theory of evolution. it is based on certain living seeing Facts which have been twisted or just used to try and prove a theory that obviuosly will never be able to prove a fact. i think it will eventually be proven wrong but never given the title as a FACT of history, thought they are trying very hard to do so. the problem with evolutionist is that they believe all scientist that do not believe it are not good scientist or are being biased because of how they were raised in a christian home or otherwise. and that the evolutionist are never biased and dont interprete evidence in light of what they asready believe and were taught as well.

 

[ebia]

So you really not see the double-think required to maintain this:

the book is simple and PROVENto be VERY acurate and true. including the Prophecies that show it to be of GOD.

and this:

same goes for the theory of evolution. it is based on certain living seeing Facts which have been twisted or just used to try and prove a theory that obviuosly will never be able to prove a fact. i think it will eventually be proven wrong but never given the title as a FACT of history, thought they are trying very hard to do so. the problem with evolutionist is that they believe all scientist that do not believe it are not good scientist or are being biased because of how they were raised in a christian home or otherwise. and that the evolutionist are never biased and dont interprete evidence in light of what they asready believe and were taught as well.

Of course you can "prove" anything is true if you automatically accept anything that supports it as truth and automatically dismiss anything that disagrees with it as false. However, such a "proof" is so obviously flawed it's not going to fool anyone who engages their brain.

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

My apologies Schroeder for not responding so quickly. I've been through a very rough break up and have been in a lot of emotional pain. But I'm back and responding accordingly ...

again it could be a interpretation of the evidence. Many of what is used to support the theory do not do so in one way or the other, it is just factual facts of how a system works.

You say there are other "interpretations" but when you take the evidence all together, I would be more than happy to see a better one. This is what seems to happen with a lot of Creationists: They claim that there are "other interpretations" of the evidence, but when we ask them what they are, they unscientifically give us some.

there are mathmatical proofs that show there is not enough time for the theory to be plausible as well. and the earth being old doesnt neccesarily prove or show evidence of the theory either.

Unless you can limit the theory to under a billion years. And I haven't seen any of the so called "young earth proofs" not been refuted.

thankfully otherwise this one would be dead in the water. Change is not the issue and never has been. it has been whether this change will amount to what you think happend or how life evovled. and as most have said it doesnt yet and conventiant ly wont because of the time ampount it would take to show it. but again my above comment.

Life evolves, how life started is, in my mind, still in question. But one of the aspects of living things is that they change. Do all plants and animals have a common living ancestor? It is completely possible and very plausible as when we look at the evidence we do not find anything that would contradict such an idea.

totally irrelavent. and God could have created it anyway he wished.

Logic fallacy of ad hoc.

So there would not have to be clear catigories. and or those so called one not falling intoa clear catigory may be a clear catigory. every organism as a purpose and it is usually very clear what it is, if we took away a certain species say the meat eaters or bugs or bees or birds or fish, or a ceertain type of each then or ecosystem would suffer alot. i am sure we do not now all the reason for a piticuliar species and the effect would be without it untill it is gone. God may not have created every species but a origanal type which could change or evolve into different species. Evolve into species within its catigory.

You keep using this term "category" but yet you fail to scientifically define it. So please, enlighten me. Where are these limits that you speak about at?

some would say the fossil record would suggest it if not assumed we are just missing those. that they somehow were not fossilized.

99% of the organisms that have ever lived on the Earth are extinct. There's no way we'll ever find all of them, but we have plenty of "links" between the organisms today. And there are pasted links all over the place to show such, the only response from Creationists being ad-hocism.

i was not refering to the CD4 gene but the other mutation that this gene works with to help them be immune. by itself it does not help us be immune. or we would just simply add this one to everybody.

We don't have the technology to do so. However, the RNAi program might be a program similar in the idea that we could straighten out errors in human DNA and such. That technology is rapidly becoming available.

Again, I apologize for the delayed response.

 

[OdwinOddball]

you ignore all the stories of people going to the jungels of africa and other places and find they no of this God or of Christ. when evidence would suggest they should not. or of for exmp. helen keeler who new of God and Christ even though she was death blind and dumb before age three. of people never raised in it and suddenly believe and are changed in a instant of miracles not explained. they happen you just ignore these and explain them away. So i dont think you looked very well.

What's always funny in these tales is that the so called spontaneous believers never name their god, they never fill in the details of their gods story until after the missionary has told them the Jesus tale. Then they proclaim, yes, that's my god. Thus this really demonstrates nothing more than primitive people being converted from an internal spiritual believe to the dogma of Christianity. Nothing strange or miraculous here.

So you believe what others say or assume even though it is not at all provable but ignore the things i mention above which should make you think there is a God after all. HOW do you know you are not being dupped into a lie. if christianity is a Spiritual belief then we can not fully understand this God or how he works and or the Spirit he uses. it sounds to me you just cant except this idea, that you must have complete physical evidence to believe something. of course i dont see how because the theory takes a bit of assumption and guessing what we cant ever see the past.

Lol, that's the whole point. What I believe in IS demonstratable. There is evidence to my knowledge. I know I am not being duped because I can research science and test science. I don't have to take science on faith. If I want to prove to myself that a scientific principle is true, I need merely take the time to run the same experiments that led to the conclusions in the first place. This is the strength of science. This is why we evolutionists constantly cry out for evidence and peer-reviewed writings from Creationists, and why we scoff at them when they refuse to produce such. Science has exacting standards of proof. Religions however have none, relying instead on faith alone.
History is also possible to evidence. If I read an account of the life and times of King Henry the 8th, I need not take the authors word on it. I can continue my reading by finding the other writings the author used for his research. And then I can follow these other authors research. And so on. Often times I can corroborate the written word with archeological or anthropological evidence. None of this requires faith on my part. The evidence is there to be examined by the reader.
The Bible however fails in this regard. While much of the historical information can be corroborated to a degree with other documents and archeological evidence from the period., the miracles and miraculous persona have no evidence to back them up. Moses, Noah, Jesus, only exist in the Bible. No other documents exist to help prove their existence. This smacks of myth rather than fact.

How do you know history is written correctly, how do you know it is put together by unbiased people. they could be very wrong. religion is what you want to make of it. christianity is not a religion in the aspect of all the others which reghuire certain laws and instruction or ordances or sacraments or sacrifices ect to be followed. How do you know the BEST of our knowledge is even close. BUT i have NO scary unknowns.

Religion is what you make of it? Do you not understand that this type of attitude is at the heart of why we cannot take religion seriously? Religion is entirely subjective. There is no objective truth there, it is all based on personal, internal belief and faith that everything one has been taught is true despite the complete lack of physical evidence to support it. And I am sorry to disagree but your bias towards other religions is astounding. Christianity is very much a religion the same as any other you can find. it is dogmatic and codified like any other. it is based on faith and lack of evidence like all others. It removes responsibility from the believer and places it into the hands of a "Sky Daddy" like any other. it demands subservience and sacrifice form its followers like any other. It has a set of laws that must be followed. Do you not follow the Golden Rule and the 10 commandments? Sorry, Christianity is most definitely a religion.
You also have scary unknowns, every human ever born does. We may have developed to the point where we do not actively fear such things, but the gaps in knowledge are still there.. Currently you have wedged your god into these dark places and thus brought yourself comfort, but at the cost of continued questioning and discovery of the world around you.

i did have a choice we all do. how do you know i did not look into other beliefs. THEFACTis when i did truelly accept Christ into my life i changed and could never go back to who i was. this was instantly not over years of indoctrination. the book is simple and PROVENto be VERY acurate and true. including the Prophecies that show it to be of GOD.

Don't make me laugh. The book is simple and proven to be accurate and true? You actually believe this? The reality is that the bible is one of, if not the most, debated books in all of human history. It is constantly being re-interpreted to meet a changing society and moral standard. It is rife with contradiction and fallacy. It has absolutely no corroborating evidence to back up any of its claims beyond simple historical references to the world at the time. If anything, every time the bible has been submitted as proof of a subject, it has been proven to be WRONG. The bible is a philosophical work. Anyone who tries to take it literally needs to have there head examined. It is a convoluted collections of myths and stories from a bronze age tribe of nomadic herdsmen. It is no more demonstratably true than the stories of Gilgamesh or Homers Odyssey.

but you have to assume something first and work from there. and it is easy to find just enough to satify what you want to see. i believe in the devil and his influence on us to tempt and deceive. If he is true then this is very fesible to happen. i think it comes down to wether you believe in a Spirtual realm or not. i do so i base what i see and read and hear on this. there is only one way we will truely find out when we die. at least i will die in comvediance. You may as well i dont know. but the Truth will be revealed then.

What do I have to assume? That there is NOT a god? Thats not an assumption. It is not an assumption that there is no spiritual realm, or that the supernatural does not exist. Let me put this very simply and very plainly.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTANCE OF A DIETY, THE SUPERNATURAL, SPIRITS, SOULS, OR ANY OTHER CLAIM OF RELIGIONS OR PSEUDO-SCIENCE.

Therefore the belief that such do not exists is not an assumption. Far from it, it is a logical conclusion based on lack of evidence. its the old invisible dragon argument. An old argument that you religious folks seem to be completely unable to understand. If you claim there is an invisible dragon living in your garage, yet can demonstrate no evidence for his existence other than your say so, my only logical conclusion is that you are suffering a delusion.


I am sorry, the only one here making an assumption and basing all there belief's on it is you.

what you said doesnt make much sence. since you just spoke of Truth and what it may or may not be. you may have been lied to or deceived. God sending his son todie for you doesnt sound to me like he ignores us. leaving his Spirit too help us. i dont think you really understand Christianity very well . the christianity you were taught may have been flawed.

same goes for the theory of evolution. it is based on certain living seeing Facts which have been twisted or just used to try and prove a theory that obviuosly will never be able to prove a fact. i think it will eventually be proven wrong but never given the title as a FACT of history, thought they are trying very hard to do so. the problem with evolutionist is that they believe all scientist that do not believe it are not good scientist or are being biased because of how they were raised in a christian home or otherwise. and that the evolutionist are never biased and dont interprete evidence in light of what they asready believe and were taught as well.

Evolution is very much a FACT. Things evolve, this is not in debate. The Theory of Evolution is what is in debate. However, it does not take "twisting" any evidence in order to see the ToE as being the most logical explanation of how life evolves. In fact I would argue that it takes "twisting" the evidence to deny the ToE. The fossil record very clearly shows the progression from more primitive forms to the modern animals we see today. Browse thru this forum and you will see countless images that demonstrate this. If you cannot see how we evolved thru time from primate ancestors, then frankly you are a blind fool who feels threatened and lessened by being clumped into the same grouping as the animals around us.

Scientists scoff at Creationists not because we disagree, but because they fail to do any actual science. Try to understand this, MANY SCIENTISTS THAT BELIEVE THE ToE TO BE TRUE ARE CHRISTIANS! The ToE does not deny your religion. Science does not deny your religion. Science makes no statement on religious affairs whatsoever. It is only the continued fear of the religious in this country that perpetuate the Cr/Evo debate. Creationists fear no longer being the special children of their god. They fear that to agree with evolution is to say that the bible is false, and thus there god is false. And this fear drives them to deny the world around the, and create wild, un-evidenced arguments based on re-interpreting science to fit there needs. I am sorry, but it is not the ToE which will eventually fade into obscurity. No, as time marches on, it is more and more the religious die-hards which will find themselves increasingly more alone in there denial of science and the evidence of the world around them.