No.
"And," "but", and "or" are conjunctions. They require two subjects to make sense.
In any case, this is all rather off-topic ...

Well taking into consideration that the English teacher I had has been the English teacher at that school for the past 25+ years and she's basically married to English, it would have been from her own experience.

But she did mention how English is always changing. So they probably changed the rules a bit since she's been teaching.

But that's English for you. No wonder foreigners hate learning English, we have too many stupid rules that are added constantly.

Well, it doesn't prove theism, it supports it. Basically what we have a is a very large range of varying animals in the ground that are just there, some extinct and some not. But all of these animals are found in fully functional states (despite being dead) and highly specialized.. There are no "inbetweens" or missing links, and the few links that have been "found" have been discredited as far as I know. Some people claim that there were biological scaffolds from when animals were evolving from one trait to another, as to avoid encumbrance or severe crippling during evolution from say, water to land. There just is no evidence for any links between animal evolution, and if there were we should uhm, find them everywhere? So yeah, archeology is a hindrance to any Evo theory, and even supports theism. If theism were true what would we find in the ground? A ton of animals in fully functioning and specialized states.


Imma have to call bs on this, as you explain your agenda in the following sentences, particularly the one where you demean religions by calling them medieval, and implying that they are simply old and useless. Although I do agree about the part concerning education. I don't think ANY sort of origin of life should be taught AT ALL, unless there is a specific class to be taken in highschool as an elective, which teaches many perceptions of the origin of life. I don't Biology needs to have Evo or Creationism, or UnIntelligent design, or anything taught mixed in with it. Biology should be taught, not religious beliefs (Yes evo is a religious belief..)


Now I don't think there is such a thing as a "scientific agenda" which I refer to. I think I am the one that uses science to back my arguments. And yes, science disproves certain aspects of certain religions.Yeah, finding dinosaurs is a great discovery, however it is easy to find something and come up with a wrong conclusion. Lets say I "discover" the moon. That would be miraculous if nobody else had noticed the moon before. Then suppose I go to say that I think the moon is made of cheese because of its color. I came up with a bad conclusion despite an amazing observation. Just because someone finds bones doesn't mean they know that they evolved.


Too late..


We don't have a record that we know goes back millions of years. Nobody knows for sure how old the earth is with scientific data. This last quote has a priori in it that consists of believing that the earth is millions of years old before you ask how "god" could have made it.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 22 2009, 6:11 am by CecilSunkure.

Yes, we do. It's called the fossil record.

Unless you're willing to claim that God put pre-decayed samples of K-40 in fossils, you're heading down a slippery slope when you say that fossils support theism. And even if you do want to say that God is trying to trick us in to disbelief by adding said samples of K-40, then I'd drop the argument that the world isn't millions of years old.

That being said, the fossil argument for theism commits the fallacy of assuming that just because certain in-betweens haven't been found, they never existed and all species were just put on to the world as they were by God... just because. Firstly, many many stages of evolution have actually been found, and second, many of the species to which you are referring have only been found a few times. If I take a million different species/individual dinos on the progression of a certain dinosaur, and pick seven to fossilize, then obviously there are going to be some jumps. On terms of general evolution, there is quite simply no evidence for creationism, and no evidence against evolution. Now, the only problem is the question of where the first cell came from, and guess what? Teach evolution in the right way and you make no comment about whether or not it was intelligently designed. I know that there was a cell, and that it split, and that it changed. That's all, because I'm not fool enough to commit intentional fallacy on God or the lack thereof.

I have no problem with religious people, who believe that God is the answer to the unsolved mysteries of life. What I do have a problem with, on the other hand, is religious people who claim that God was the answer to those problems we've already solved. It's irrational, foolish, and bull-headed, and it gives other religious people a bad name. Lastly, whether or not you like it, fundamentalist religions are medieval, and have all held some very very ignorant beliefs in the past. As an individual it is your job to reconcile your beliefs with reality, when we learn more about the latter. If you refuse to modify your faith-based convictions based on what you know, then yes, you are in a medieval mindset, you are ignorant, and there's no avoiding it. Evolution moves closer to being proven with every discovery, and it's time for creationists to wake up, smell the roses, and realize that even though forms of life evolved and the Bible isn't a historical document, God may still exist. In fact, I would go so far as to say that modern discoveries in science have brought the conclusions closer to dualism, you just won't see it till you drop the mindset from the dark ages and take on one more appropriate for the 21st century.

No one was using the fossil record as an argument for theism...

Earth to Syphon.

I was planning to do a longer rebuttal, but I think this quote alone pretty much epitomizes the chasm between our opinions. Evolution is not a religious belief. It is a scientific theory. I do not pray to Darwin. I do not pray to science for comfort or for sick loved ones. I do not think that Richard Dawkins is a prophet that will slaughter the infidels. Anyone who takes evolution seriously does not, in any way (despite your incorrect impressions), consider it a religious belief. I believe in evolution in the same way I believe New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere (despite having never visited) or that Abraham Lincoln existed (despite having never met him). There is evidence for evolution that I find convincing and that is why I think it is the explanation for life (99.25% of scientists agree as well, I should add - the very people who devote their lives to trying to understanding the universe).

So, I ask you, what kind of evidence supports theism? Evidence being defined as "Facts or observations presented in support of an assertion." (wiktionary.org) A bacteria's ability to develop resistance to vaccination (which would demonstrate a useful mutation that changes the creature and helps it survive) is what I would consider evidence for evolution. The wide variety of birds in the present day contrasted with the smaller number of species that existed millions of years ago is what I would call evidence for evolution. What sort of information leads you to draw a direct correlation between the information itself and your conclusion (which seems to be that some sort of supernatural intelligence occasionally creates brand new species)?

EDIT: Clarification

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 23 2009, 5:49 am by Doodan.

Whoops, missed that.


This.

There is no god.

You'd rather have a static language that didn't change with the generations? Doesn't exist. Quit complaining.

Regardless of that, accourding to wiktionary, bias has been in standard English for at least 261 years.

What about French?

Go to France, learn French. Then go to Quebec.

Then go to Haiti, or New Orleans.

Ok, to return to the original topic, and to put aside my Lordship of Evil for a moment.. this is the clever story i tell them here on Earth..
Edit: haha disregard that i suck cocks

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 16 2009, 8:10 pm by Aster.

I agree 100% Aster. I hate it when Christians demonise Muslims, without ever realising it's just an extension of Christianity. You never hear about Jews demonising Christians in the same way.

How is Islam an 'extention' of Christianity?

Muslims do not believe in Christ, they believe in Allah.. Christianity (all forms of it, Catholisism, LDS, Christian, etc...) followers worship Jesus Christ... So how is Islam an 'extention' when they only pray/worship Allah, which is their word for 'God'?

What about Hinduism? That's been around longer than Christianity (Not too sure about Judaism though)...

Hinduism is not a Abrahamic religion and is before Judaism concepts.
Judaism concepts were before Christianity.
Buddhism is also before Christianity but after Hinduism.

so the time line goes Hinduism > Judaism > Buddhism > Christianity.