I do. Its common sense. Science has all the proof. Google it. Christianity only has a 2000 year old altered book.

i believe in evolution. what proof is there that there is such a thing as god. can you tell me that?

^^^What proof deos Evolution have to show that the earth 'happened' to show up out of no where? And if we came from monkeys, then where are the skeletons in between? (I'm a Christian by the way) I'm not trying to be mean or anything, I'm just asking. >_>

Plus, can you honestly look around at what's on earth and tell me that all this happened by chance?

Lets remember that Evolution is a theory, and do you know what a theory is? An educated GUESS. So in other words, they base eveything on a guess of how the world came to be.

you haven't answered angie's question yet what proof is there of a god? i like to know.

Evolution is the STUPIDEST Theory ever... Well Top 5... XD if humanity was really evolving how come im not growing wings? An its been proven false due to the fact that the Sun is growing about 5 Feet to Five miles a year. Multiply that by 8Billion. The science doesnt add up.

Proof of God- Noahs ark has been found, Sea Shells have been found on Mt. Everest, Dinasaur DNA has been found in some bones which proves they're not millions of years old, Humans are the only intelegent species of language and speech, and that the ruins of Biblical cities have been found. :]

You people will discover the truth when all is over.

Amen Anenome. :]

lol The bible is my proof. Do you think it just appeared out of nowhere? I can't belive most people think we are here because of a "random explosion" then the fact that God made us. I'm really not trying to be mean I just don't understand it. I mean, just think for a sec, what if God IS real and your wasting your life talking about science just to end up spending eternity "down under". I know it sounds harsh but, what would you do? Sorry for any spelling errors.

basicly evolution is man making a monkey out of himself since we "EVOLVED" from monkeys pretty silly huh sad thing is most people believe in an EDUCATED GUESS that only has misinterpeted "proof

1. Look at what 'Theory' means in the scientific community.
2. Closer-to-human skeletons are being found. They're less monkey and more human, the more we find.
3. The bible is as much proof as a harry potter book.
4. This is about evolution, not the existence of a god.
5. Humans aren't the only ones capable of language, a cuttlefish is capable of an extraordinary array of lights which mean different things, people are deciphering the language of dolphins, wolves co-ordinate with each other using language, as to many many others. Just cause we don't understand it, doesn't mean they don't talk.
6. Biblical cities HAVE benn found, yes, but so have cities and buildings from much older civilizations.
Sea shells have been found on Everest because that ground used to be sea floor.
7. Birds are dinosaurs. They evolved from Therapods (T-rex, velecoraptor, etc), but I'm not making that my main point as it is up for contention here.
8. The entire scientific community, and alnost the entire world believes in evolution. The only country with such a debate, is the young country of america.
9. if god is real and we are wrong, then he'll forgive us for we do not have true proof of his existence. But on the other hand, how would you feel, theoretically, if god were not real, when you die?

I must say thank you, Shadowwolf, for changing the description to something more politically correct. I have a lot more respect for you because of it.
However, I am waiting for those of Creationism to prove they are right, rather than try to prove evolution as wrong.

Oh and Jordon, if we were created, why don't we have wings? Evolution is about species trying something that makes life easier/safer for them. We've never needed to fly, and so we haven't evolved that way

It's true looking at my 1st description it did seem pretty rude ty for that advice

ok back to the point at hand another point of proof is information..... information cannot add to itself and my point.. our genetic code is information and we can't "evolve" more info into our genes... proof enough yet?

Ah yes, a valid point. But much like a computer program, the information can be changed, and altered, making something very similar, but different in some way. Albeit one 'letter' at a time, as it were, but it adds up over the years, decades, centuries, millennia, and bigger (i don't know a collective for the bigger time numbers lol).

that's a good point but not enough here you said info can be altered BUT YOU CAN ONLY DO THAT WITH INTELIGENCE otherwise... you can change it without gaining information such as a baby frog, because of a mistake he might have one leg or none but without without INTELIGENCE you can only lose data "altering it" so there

No need to shout. The thing is, that you are right :3 if a frog doesn't have the correct information, it may not grow with legs, or be blind, or any number of things. But that same frog will die very quickly, not get the chance to reproduce, and not pass on the set of data that has no legs or eyes. However, let's say that it was born with no eyes, but lived in a place of total darkness. Because it has no eyes, it's brain doesn't need to waste processing power on sight, and can use it to power something like hearing, much better. This would give it better odds of survival, and a better chance of passing on this new data to it's offspring.
In essence, you actually described a perfect scenario for evidencing the theory of evolution (though I know that, because it's a hypothetical situation, it's not likely to be accepted as proof).

The Earth didn't just happen by chance Anemone, it was a long procedure of trial and error:

Long after the Big Bang came to occur, the gravity of our star (a.k.a. Sun) atracted colossal amounts of gases and dirt that were moving around it. The gases, dust and dirt started atracting each other thanks to the gravitational pull of their own. Little by little the rocks turned to boulders and those boulders to bigger and bigger rocks. Like rolling a snowball downhill the more they spun around the Sun, the more dust, gases and elements from space they absorbed.

This process took forever to make life since the planets were still getting hit by meteors which made it difficult for the elements to settle down and the Sun was far stronger and brighter than it is now.

Still, the fact that we find ourselves on this wet rock which just so happens to be at the right distance of the Sun is indeed something to be considered as a lucky chance, but most things in life happen by chance anyhow.

Yes, we can evolve more.

There are humans who can stay calm at heights void of oxygen, humans that can go for months without drinking or eating a thing, or that can even communicate with wolves.

If you don't believe me there is a man whose nose is property of NASA. Why? Well he's got the most sensible nose in the world that can overpower one of a trained dog to find things and odours.

There are also humans who can solve complex ecuations using only their mind and even outnumber the digits of any calculator.

I could go on and on telling more examples but it's time for me to get to bed.

Drakker, that theory is impossible. That's like saying that a soda can will some day turn into a butterfly (I'm just making an example). And where is the proof that there was a 'big explosion'? All I'm saying is that the percentage of the earth 'just happening' or 'a bunch of rocks and dirt' coming together simply by chance, is like flicking a peanut around the word and have it hit you in the back of the head. It's impossible.

Drakkar* sorry about that. :p And also, to think that all of the planets are in THE PERFECT POSSITIONS including the SUN, so that they are far enough away to be a safe distence. Because if the sun were any closer to the earth we wouldn't be able to survive. I don't think any of that happened by chance.

Anemone: That theory is impossible? Are you saying that if 'god' willed all that to happen he wouldn't be able to? The odds are actually pretty high that there is a rocky planet, inside the 'golden zone' and has life on it, within the vast cosmos we call the Universe. And funnily enough, if you were to go to a high enough orbit and flick a peanut, you could theoretically hit yourself in the back of the head by it going round the earth

You have got to be kidding me. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. But continuing this coversation is really pointless.

With the hand of god, nothing is impossible. Or do you doubt his power? If you can't handle the possibilities of God's will, then please, by all means, pull out of the argument

It is impossible because if you did, the peanut would crumble to pieaces and disintagrate. That remark you made is highly offensive and just plan stupid. And only someone who is very immature would say something like that.

It's not impossible.

We are not talking about sodas turning into butterflies, seriously, where did you hear that?

It's possible because we can find rests of a lot of these events by examinating the craters, also the asteroid belt in our Solar System is pretty much the biggest scar from our neighborhood. And the Moon is our biggestbscar too.

And no, the orbit of the Earth is not "perfect" from the normal point of view.

Truth is: the orbit of Earth is oval shaped. And it has been like that for a very long, long time now.

But hey! You can still flick that peanut and hit your head on the back! Maybe not here on Earth but in the right gravity you could!

It may be highly offensive, but not a stupid argument to make. In science, at this moment to my best knowledge, it is impossible to recreate the miracles performed by those in the bible. In that sense, Science is the one that says 'Impossible' to things. Such as nothing can move at the speed of light, except light itself. Religion has always maintained that, with the help of god, nothing is impossible.
To that end, I disapprove of your decision to say that I am very immature.
Though my Religion is against it, the philosophy of god(s)/deities is very reasonable. But without scientific proof, it is very hard to actually believe.
It's good to see you back here Drakkar, your reasonings are good to read, as they differ, somewhat from my own :3

Oh hey Tun Rae! I didn't know you were here!

you have GOT to be kidding me do you seriously believe that we "evolved" from monkeys our closest "cousin"? i mean seriously evolution is man trying to make a monkey out of himself rather silly don't you think?

Makes more sense than man out of clay, and woman out of rib. But I guess that logic does make perfect sense to someone who believes in a creator.
Frankly, it's hard to take seriously the hope of creationism, over evolution. Creation says 'my proof is the bible because the bible is only truth', despite many parts of the bible being disputed by many different sects of the same church. It's only really americans that say the bible is fact. Even the former pope says that the bible isn't meant to be literal, but rather to be used as lessons, and to learn the word of christ.
But I still endeavor to listen, and respond seriously, as it is important to Creationists, and I'm not here just to mock them. I would, however, like to open their minds to extremely likely possibilities of Evolution.
Oh and for the record, it doesn't matter that we're trying to link ourselves to monkeys, because in the end, Evolution says that we are superior to them anyway. Well, probably. We, as a race, will find out in the long run

Not exactly, monkeys and humans are different species even if we are from the same Hominidae family. It's like dogs and wolves, tigers and cats, lizards and snakes and so on.
Also, I already explained to you a very clear example of evolution on the last submission you posted of this.

Evolution.
Natural selection.
Adaptation.
Growth of organisms throughout their chain in life.
Oh, and I sure haven't seen a burning bush talking to an old man on the news in like... ever.
If your so prone to prove christ and Jesus' existence, why have they been such no shows in the modern world, but back then they got into everything?

when it comes to evolution you've got a problem...... did you know that in certaint parts of the earth, that "evolved" fossils are found buried UNDER the anscesters they "evolved" frrom? i would like an explanation for that.........

did you also know that Darwin's first theory was finches on the gollopagos (i might have spelled that wrong) islands that had larger beaks than normal finches so they could get nuts open easier? he thought they "evolved" larger beaks from that idea came the idea of biological gradualism. But he too had a problem, those finches were still just finches, they always had the information to ADAPT therefore they adapted to the environment not evolved so your founder has just been disproved.......

Tectonic movement. The movement of the earth's surface over itself. I'm no Geologist, in even an amateur way, so I can't actually explain myself properly there.
And yeah, that's right. Finches adapted by growing their beaks :3 In the same way that you adapt to getting stuff off the highest shelves, by growing your arm.
It is adaptation, but that is also Evolution. As in, I'm fairly sure that that's the layman definition of Evolution. You should be more careful, you almost proved us right then.
Try proving Creationism right. Where's the evidence of everything being made within a week, and only being four to six thousand years old? Why are there fossils outright, if they aren't part of evolution?

I'll get this one shadow. DUH! the great flood! did you also know that on a few high hills, or small mouuntains, that many animals including their predators have found bunched together? it seems rather obvious that they wwere fleeing a very large amount of water water that buried them in seconds otherwise the predators might have eaten the prey but they didn't.... this shows they were alll running from a common thing. this flood covered highest mountains therefore nothing survived except those in the ark. evolutionists try to make this look like mountains came out of the sea, in a sense your right since they were covered so there

Mountains don't just come out of the sea, they shape up thanks to the crash of the Earth's tectonic plates. So maybe the fossils were underwater at first, but then the tectonic plates crashed and BOOM! new mountain.
Fossils couldn't find their way into solid rock unless they've been there for millions of years, not several thousand. The fossils were already present before mountains came to their full size and position. There is absolutely no way that they could have have been embedded in the rock after it formed, even if there had been a global flood.
Shells on mountains are easily explained by uplift of the land. Although this process is slow, it is observed happening today, and it accounts not only for the seashells on mountains but also for the other geological and paleontological features of those mountains. The sea once did cover the areas where the fossils are found, but they were not mountains at the time; they were shallow seas.
A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons:
* Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys.
* In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood. This was noted as early as the sixteenth century by Leonardo da Vinci (Gould 1998).
* Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea.

Come on guys, if you want this conversation be worth our time at least be more active about it and fight back.
Keeping quiet won't help.

hi im back ive been off colors for a while and im back ty

i got more proof for you now.... evolution states the earth is old, i have proof it it young here is some proof #1 cometts are made of water and each time they hit the earth they add to it's water amount if the earth was millions of years old then our oceans would be filled several times over with water #2 as we all know (mostly) the earth has a magnetic field but it's declining at a steady rate.. my point is that 20,000 years ago the Joule heat (some kind of heat made by magnetism) would be high enough to liquify the earth!!! this planet is young. evolution isn't possible so there for now

Nice points :3 But, again, I find myself with the ability to disagree. #1 Comets don't tend to hit earth, but even when they do, the amount of water in their bodies is pretty miniscule compared to the size of the Earth itself. That said, theorists claim that, during the beginning of it's life, once cooled down enough, it was comets which filled the Oceans. Whereas other theorists postulate that there is a form of 'water generator' inside the earth which is still making water from Hydrogen and Oxygen deep inside the crust. #2 According to records, traped within the tiny mangetised fragments of magma made earth (I can't remember the name of the faultline I'm thinking of, so I can't point you there), the magnetic field of the Earth has waxed, and waned, and changed direction numerous times. This in itself does not prove the age of the planet, but does lead me onto something that does. #3 Carbon dating. I won't pretend to know exactly how carbon dating works, but I believe it works something like this (please correct if you know more on this subject). Atoms have a life span known as the half-life. It's essentially a radioactive decay over a period of time. Some elements decay very quickly (days, weeks, months, years). Whereas others take considerable time longer (tens of thousands, to millions, even to billions of years). By looking at a certain element, and determining it's current state of decay, Scientists can work out the age of the property they're looking at. And by choosing something with an incredibly long half-life, and having that as the universal bases of age, they can compare it's age to other things and determine the age of the object to within ten thousand years or so. Again, I'm not learned enough to be quoted from in this instance, so please read further into it for more accurate information as to what I'm talking about. At any rate, this means that Scientists have determined the Earth's age to be somewhere close to 4.5 billion years old, and the formation of the moon to be not much less than that.

the moon and the earth are the same age right? good....

lol I see what you did there. But they're not the same age (give or take a few days). They're the same age with a difference of a few Million years

1) No they wouldn't. While it is true that meteors are partially made of water they hardly ever make it to the surface because they get burned out when they pass through our atmosphere. And if they do make it to the surface the water doesn't just sit there, it is either consumed, evaporated or absorbed by the soil. It doesn't "stack up" or anything of the sort.
2) That is a pretty good point. However, you are forgetting that Earth is not exactly defenseless because between the magnetosphere and it's surface Earth has a good amount of layers that protect it from high temperatures. Not to mention that Earth has it's own cooling system: Water, because as long as we have water, we have moisture, rain and ice.
Think of the Earth and water as how your body reacts when you exercise, sure you get hot because you are burning calories but your body does something very special to keep a balance on it's temperature: sweat. When you sweat you are giving moisture to your body to prevent heat exhaustion, in other words, your body is using it's own cooling system, just like our home-planet!
Also, even if the Earth were to be liquefied or drowned, life and evolution would still be possible since there is flora and fauna that live underwater too.

Once again i can disagree..... 1 carbon dating is hardly worth mentioning but ok carbon dating doesn't work because all these fossils you date using that method had their carbon "clocks" ruined by waterfalls, streams, and underground moisture any way my turn....
2 the moon is my subject. the moon gains about 3/1000-4/1000 of an inch of dust each year (believe me this is a fact) multiply that by five to ten billion would make 20-60 MILES of dust but our moon has actually very little dust thus proof of young moon a.k.a. young earth

Two part post, while I'm doing research. Apologies for my previous post. 'Carbon dating' is not the mechanism used for determining the age of the earth. If it were, Creationism would be correct. Glad to see you didn't do your research there either. The method used is 'Radiometric dating'. And H20 doesn't have a particularly adverse effect on most of the half lives used. If it did, Scientists wouldn't be using that method as the results would be tainted. I'll be right back with part 2.

Actually the moon dust theory was proven fairly false. While it's true that dust does fall on the moon, it's nowhere near the millions of tons a year creationists say it is. Actually that initial figure came from a paper produced in 1960, and caused considerable concern for the moon landing. But as it turns out, The Astronauts did not fall through miles of dust, they made an impression on an inch or two. More modern estimates taken from space dust, has the dust gaining an extra inch of dust every billion years. If it were as fast as you say, our satellites wouldn't be able to orbit the earth, as they'd become too 'heavy', or too damaged by the dust.
I may have to stop giving my input soon. This argument is starting fall outside my knowledge base. And frankly, I don't expect you to be converted to the side of truth. I simply hoped you could have your mind opened to the possibility of something greater. And yeah, I'm specifically choosing to use the same words as preachers lol

I had said that it was four out a thousand of an inch not tons of dust a year your misrepresenting preachers by saying that and i will always try to keep this argument going hopefully i'll out-do your "evidence"

Ok, so I'm using the information from a different subject, which is actually the source of you 4/1000 of an inch theory. It's been systematically debunked. Moo landings. Repeatedly showed an Incredibly smaller layer of dust than 4/1000 an inch a year. Plus dust collected while in space indicates findings that I described above.
And I'm not misinterpreting the vast majority of Preachers who knock on my door/collar me in the street. Only a couple (literally) have heard me say. "I'm a Satanist, not interested" and let me walk away without saying those famous words "I'm just trying to open your mind to the truth, of the bible"

I don't get it.. Tun Rae you say your a Satanist, someone who believes in satan but you don't believe in God? the Lord who cursed satan and sent him down under? it seems to me your contradicting yourself.... plz explain.

Sorry for the long absence! I've been around places but now I'm back! To Richard777: Tun Rae is a LaVeyan Satanist, which means they do not worship any being other than the self. The concept of "Satan" is used as a symbol of carnality and earthly values, of man's inherent nature, and of a cosmos which Satanists perceive to be permeated and motivated by a force that has been given many names by man over the course of time.
BTW I'm a naturalistic pantheist, just so you guys know :P

Also, I don't know if I should find the fact that you are ignoring me as cute or empowering.
You seem to have been ignoring me for a while Shadowwolf7...

im sorry if it seems that way drakkar.... like you, i get busy but i think Richard777 is doing ok

what can YOU say though about my "information in genes" theory though how can YOU deny it Drakkar?

You mean not being able to evolve more into our genes?
Actually we can and I answered you. Go look up in the comments.

BTW You might wanna keep yourself in line, you seem to have reposted two of Richard777's drawings on your gallery. You didn't even bother to change the descriptions!
Or are you two people the same guy?

Your being ridiculous... i first found Shadow after he traced my work but I'm not mad at him because he said credit to me....
anyway i have more proof for you
the thickness of the ocean sediments. about 29 billion tons of sediments is added to the ocean each and every year at a fairly steady rate if the earth were billions of years old then the sediment in the ocean would measure up to 60-100 MILES of sediment and all the continents would have eroded away. but, instead we find only a few thousand feet of sediment in our ocean and none of our continents have eroded away indicating our earth is young
whew...

Assuming those numbers are accurate (sorry, I can't convert tons to miles on a global scale) then that certainly is an amount. But your forgetting the amount of material, of the Earth's crust which, is 'consumed' by the movement of tectonic plates.
If there was a great flood which covered the earth, where did all the water go? Remembering that the water had to cover every inch of earth with a massive number of gallons. I'm thinking the Oceans over again, but that's speculation on my part.

for point one i can say that the movement of those plates doesn't "consume" anything, like the name its just movement
for point two. that majority of water went to the north and south poles and froze into ice and before that the earth was all mainly forest it wasn't till later after the great flood that the polar caps froze that water

Really? I wonder why he deleted those images then...and you two happen to have very similar grammar problems as well.
I honestly don't know how you find yourself so confident of that kind of information because as far as I know we have only explored about 5 to 7 percent of the ocean floor and .5% of the ocean itself. And the amount of deep oceans explored is way less than that. So how can you be so sure that such information could be used to say that the Earth would be so full of sediment? And even if it was true, the sediments would be moved around thanks to the currents and wildlife, ending up deeper and deeper into the ocean floor. Also, about the polar caps thing: The water can't just magically bunch itself up at the poles and freeze itself as if it were some kind of living creature. The polar ice caps were formed through the precipitation of snow because there's hardly any sunlight over the ice caps, they only froze up after the formation of the Earth and after the Pangea was broken up.

Again, there couldn't have been a great flood. I already told you.

I apologize for my lack in geology, and the terms used. But I'm not saying 'consume' like living things. I'm simply using that word in lieu of a term I don't know.
What I was attempting to briefly describe is that as the tectonic plates move, they often overlap one another. This usually results in one of the plates being pushed down, by sheer weight, into the mantle. It's a slow process, but pretty definite, and measurable.
As to the flood part, sorry Drakkar, I put that one out there.
The thing with Science, and Religion is, that it's only recently, that we've had the advancements allowing us to measure anything vast with accuracy. We've still got a lot to work on in that front, but when most of the religions of earth were created (in their own time, of course), it's easy to see how thier limited information could have led them to the conclusions about the earth, and such.
Just like a teenager feels invincible, and immortal (because they have yet to feel entropy), the belief of the time was that nothing changes, in the grand scales. Animals were made that way, Rock formations were always there, Humans have always been under god, etc etc.
Actually, that's a question: If the bible says that man was created under god, where did these other religions come from, and why wasn't everyone christian from the start? And if you counter with 'jesus wasn't born back then', then I exchange the word christian for jew.

as for deleting that pic, i did that because its out of season and when u brought it up, i thought about it and decided to delete it.....
part two next

actually christains didn't exist in the beginning because there was no sin hence no eternal torment as punishment. but after sin started, sacrifices of animals were necessary to get saved as it showed their faith in the crucifixion of Jesus in the future...... today it is now a free gift meant for us to accept and therefore go to heaven... salvation is meant to be given as gift. and accepted as as gift. if it was given without acception then there would be no penalty for sin....

plus God want us to love him by choice that why it's a gift, not an inheritance

But surely being visited by god would mean we believed in him. Until we got kicked out of eden when we learned of Sin. Surely Heaven and hell would be a concept taught to us, and make us all want to believe in him and follow his teachings. No forcing of will, and no outright rebellion.
And it's not free. Not in the slightest. We are told that we must devote our soul and being to christ, and god. Do as we are told by men who are just doing as they are told by previous men who are doing as they are told by- etc. Believe in the literal words of a story book (if you're american). And feel fear for the wrath of God.
It's like 'free likes' on here: 'You can have a like, as long as you do something for me first'.

Tun Rae,
I must say I feel sorry for you.
what you don't understand is that salvation IS free. those things you mentioned can be done after your saved, but its not required of you.... they can save other people's souls but don't have to.....
the reason i joined this conversation was if you were convinced of creation then I could point you to our Saviour.....
since your not interested in what I have to say, I'm leaving this conversation....
btw what if evolution IS wrong? how would you feel if you were wrong about this? you would pass on without God and go in eternal torment.... just consider that possibility......
and with that I leave

Well, since we are on this new topic I would like to point out something I find very odd in Christianity:
Why do we need to fear God? Is it because he's ever so powerful and that if we are sinners we will be sent to hell for all eternity? Is that why we must fear him?
If that's the case, why do people say "God is love"? How can you love something you fear?
Please explain this to me because I really don't know when was the last time that fear really brought up the best of people to love whatever it is they fear.
I would rather have people say something like "Fear sin." or something similar to be honest, that would make more sense.
Salvation is not free. You have to put a lot of effort to be a good person under the eye of God in order to be saved. And you also need to have love and acceptance among other things for those around you...you know: "Love your brother as you love yourself." which you don't seem to be performing very well by the way...
If evolution was proved wrong I would just accept it and carry on with my life.
What, you think I would just turn christian? No because I don't need Him. I have never needed Him.
I used to believe in him because I grew up learning my grammar and maths at a La Sallian institution, but I eventually grew out of those beliefs by myself because I didn't see the point in believing in something that would never help me at all and I grew tired of relying on something that never worked out for me.

You're not saved until after we're dead and judged to have been good the whole time. Or at least attempted to be the best we could be.
I agree with Drakkar, whole heartedly. with his post. lol sorry, that's all that's needed to be said on that.
And Richard, I feel equally sorry for you. It's true we are supposed to be talking about Evolution vs Creationism, but to explore Creationism is to talk about god's acts of creations, humanity's belief in those acts, and ultimately to question god himself. You can't (realistically) be convinced of Creationism, without being convinced of god first, thereby making your reasoning a bit null in that statement of intent.
I am intently interested in what you have to say. I believe in truth, but I know truth is highly evasive, so I seek all aspects of knowledge, as best I can. Each opinion is something new to add to my reasonings, and so I love to hear a new perspective. This Post (and previous one) have been rather informative, in respects of Creationism vs Evolution.
If you feel you don't wish to be interested in our responses, then I wish you adieu and a good life :3
If evolution is wrong, and there is an afterlife, then I should hope to appeal to whatever deity there is, and claim the ignorance I would rightly have. If the Deity does indeed love and forgive all, then I shall spend my afterlife properly worshipping it.
But what if Creationsim is wrong? What if Christianity's is not the right god, and in fact Allah is the true god? What would you do when you get to the afterlife then?
I promise you, it will take a lot of good evidence to outweigh what I already believe to know and convert me OR a true appearance of a God, or true Miracle to convert me on the spot. And should that day come, you will find I will certainly believe in a god.
But again, until that point, I agree with Drakkar. I do not need him. I am my own Deity, as it were. If times are tough, I don't need someone else to preech to me, I use my own strength to pull myself out of it.
And this is one I love. People have free will. A Meteor falls from the sky, and a young person in it's path declares that they choose not to die at gods command.
God, in theory, will allow this, because he doesn't mess with free will. But in reality would just smush the guy. Controlling his destiny.
Everything by design. God has a plan. It was their time to die. But free will is one thing God doesn't mess with.
Heh heh. You could say that this discussion has Evolved XD (I'm not using that as proof of argument lol)

As Tun Rae said, we are all entitled to our own beliefs for a reason and it will take a huge amount of effort to actually change the beliefs of someone else. it's as if you were uprooting a tree barehanded here, you can't just wipe away an idea or two with just some evidence you found laying around, that is just silly. You can't change people and it's rude to try.
My beliefs are based on all the experiences that I have gone through in my life and because I don't feel the need to rely on some kind of deity in order to be a good person, but I do believe that there's some kind of incredible force way out there far beyond human comprehension which is what holds all of this together.
I like to think that when my body is in a box so that the flora and fauna can feed off my body in death just as how I have fed off flora and fauna in my life, my soul will go around the cosmos aimlessly exploring, feeling and even being part of the creation of the everything and the nothing that surrounds us all.
Still, this is just my idea and I like to believe in something that, in my opinion, is very much what I want to see and be when I die: Something impossible that any kind of rational or irrational mind in the cosmos can't even conceive regardless of how all-knowing it may be.
Because if i die before tomorrow I can die happy in the knowledge that I didn't cause pain to no one, that I always did my best to be a good person and that if my actions didn't affect me or anyone else in a negative way, then why worry?
Nobody truly knows how right or wrong one beliefs may be, but that's what makes us humans so colorful: the differences of religions, races, cultures and everything in between making us a true wonder of life, which often happens to bring a smile to my face if I ponder deep into it for a while.
If you really don't want to continue this, please leave knowing that as a human being you are equally entitled to succeed and to fail, not because you are weak, but because it's in our nature to learn from our mistakes and grow in order to become a better person, or a worse person if you don't use the experience wisely. It happens to everyone because we really never stop learning.
Just be careful, and may the winds of good luck be at your back.

first of all, i don't believe in luck
second of all, the plan of salvation has probably been poorly explained to the both of you
third, "fear" in the sense means respect, not fear in your terms as afraid
next you MUST understand that salvation doesn't require "good" works to be saved, otherwise Jesus wouldn't have had to go on the cross.
next you won't be able to "appease" the Lord after you pass on, you get to heaven by getting saved BEFORE you pass not after....
if have no interest in listening to me then say so and you'll hear no more from me.
if you won't listen to me, your blood isn't on my hands if you pass on without God
this current comment is done for now

I appreciate your reply, but I feel you haven't explained Salvation properly.
God respecting would be a far more appropriate term then, please use it.
So it's ok to do what I like, so long as I believe in god? Cruelty to animals, slavery, racism... it's all fine because i love jesus? Not that I am any of those, but many Many christians are.
God is all loving, and merciful, and forgiving, but won't give you the chance to redeem yourself?
Life is fleeting, lasting up to a hundred-ish years, but afterlife is eternal. That sounds rather narrow minded if you only have your life's chance.
But again, what if you're wrong? I've accepted damnation if I'm wrong. Genuinely. But what about you?
If you feel like we're not listening, again, you are free to leave this discussion. I am asking no more of you, than to do what you wish. (Satanism strongly believes in the Selfish act, promoting your behaviour at this time)
But I do also feel you aren't listening to us. We want to learn, and to exchange ideas. You are beginning to retreat, and not wish to discuss. Your call. There are no winners in debates like this.

salvation is quite basically admitting to God that your a sinner, believing that Christ went to the cross, passed on, and rose the third day and then whole -heartedly asking him to come into your heart and save you
and no, it's not ok to do that stuff but you won't go into eternal torment if your saved but you shouldn't use salvation as an exuse to do wrong. it's still wrong to do those things.
btw you SHOULD NOT accept eternal torment if your wrong, at least get saved, then whether your wrong about other things or not you won't pass on without our Saviour
im sorry if this looks like im not listening, I have listened to you statements and i see how, from your point of view that it would seem right. but i think different than you because of my view point.
thank you for continuing this conversation and i hope that you still do.
and with that i end this comment

drakkar vance i must say that you may pass on with the though that you haven't hurt anyone, but if you are not saved then you still go into eternal torment good works don't save accepting Christ into your heart does save you i hope that you open yourself to the possibility that heaven and "down under" (i can't say h'ell that's censored) actually exist and i hope that you want to go to heaven. from your point of view i can see how good works would send you into a "paradise" of types but all of us have done wrong and we need to be saved in order to go to heaven.
and this ends my comment

Shadowwolf7, that comment was not for you, that was for Richard777 since he says that he's leaving this conversation. Or is it that you both are really the same person? Well, even if you are I don't mind you lying to me.
I can understand that thing about respect and fear, it honestly makes it all sound much better. But I was taught about God all my life, as I said, I grew up in a La Sallian Institution, which is catholic, and I learned a lot of things about God pretty much every day.
But one of the reasons of why I stopped going to church is because every time I went there I saw that people were pretty much dead, at least to me...all doing the same things together and repeatedly, unable to think or do things by themselves, waiting to die and get saved somehow.
The older I grew, the more it freaked me out until I stopped going altogether.
I really don't know why you must be a Christian in order to be saved, what about the people who don't know about it?
Jesus was crucified because of the sin of the people and because people thought he was a nut-job and a troublemaker since he was making people think differently. Because after all Jesus was just a man.
I know you may think that I may be naive, I accept that, we humans are very twisted beings in numbers of ways, but I would rather be happy right now and give it the best of me before it's too late and be a good human just for the randomness of it (and because it feels ever so sweet to do so) instead of being a good christian so that I can win my place on heaven. And I feel much better about it because I don't get to deal with the illusion of control...See, when I was a catholic I used to believe that as long as I did good, I would have my place on heaven absolutely guaranteed; once I grew up I realized that such thinking was just wrong because the ambition of doing that only meant that I was being selfish, I was just doing that for my own need. In other words: the illusion of control makes you very, very greedy.
Some people have told me that when we get up there in heaven, God won't care about your nose, your skin, who you love or how you grew up, because none of those things matter. He will see you smile because you are his son and he loves you with all his heart because you are beautiful as how you are. And if that's the case, then THAT'S where I'd like to hear people say "God is love".
But while Christianity still holds blood of innocents and protects crimes from people within their power, I won't join them.

I feel Evolution is the correct theory because of the many accounts of recordable proof. As in actively measuring, not just looking at objects we have decided are very old.
I feel Creationism is false because it doesn't offer any actively measurable activity to secure proof of eternally the same. And that really it boils down to human pride. Humans want to believe that they were made in Gods image, and are better than anything else, and so advocate Creationism. Because if Evolution is true, then Humans are still changing, are not in God's image, and there will be something greater than them in future.
Most religions feel the need for security, and often that is in the form of 'eternity'. The eternal soul, eternal reincarnation, eternal universe, eternal afterlife.
Things not changing, gives the weak of heart hope. But change is inevitable. Change is Nature, Aging, Learning, Rivers flowing, Dying, Bodies Decomposing. etc.
Hope is important, and vital, but when it becomes clouded, and convoluted with lies, hope is lost and replaced by fear.
I live ever in hope, rarely in fear. I encourage myself to manipulate the change around me, but I know truely that it will happen anyway, and embrace it. I do not fear death, though I'd never seek it, and I don't believe that there is anything beyond death.
One more fun thing, my daughter is a believer of God and Jesus, but believes in Evolution and an old Earth. I foster in her, whatever belief she wishes to hold, but still inform her of my own views. She's 6.

sorry tun rae ive been busy i'll come back once more, and while im here i want to point out that evolution states that humans and everything else are "benifitting" (sorry if i misspelled that) from evolution but a LAW of nature, specifically the second law of thermodynamics says that everything is degenerating and slowly wearing down the hypothosis that everything is improving is wrong because it is contradicted by the second law......
to Drakkar i just want to say that i still go to church, a Christian church, now i'm not saying that Christians are any better then catholics, that would be rude and judgementle but my church is never boring and it's always full of life i can say that the spirit of God is in that church. now i can't explain to you why your church was "dead" to put the way you did but i can say that the types of churches are different and my church is always talking about the Lord.....
also Christianity doesn't hold the blood of innocents., we are just responsible for everyone we do not witness to and if we neglect that then we are responsible for their lives. i don't really understand the second part though, maybe i'll come back later to see if you explain the "protects crime from people" part i just don't know what you mean and with that i leave you (for now).

I've heard that argument, but that usually comes from a source without the best knowledge of the second law. Althogh. correct that it is entropic, that's only true when considering it as a closed system. eg, the universe is slowly decaying. However, evolution isn't a closed system, it's actually heavily influenced by outside sources such as Natural Selection.
It's kind of like a poker tournament. Most of the time the hands dealt will be bad, but each round will wittle out the 'weak' leaving only the strong to progress. In this sense it is much like evolution. And this continues on with each successful player getting closer to the final goal.
With evolution, though, there isn't only one way to win, and every species is moving towards a morse successful style with each generation. Some will inevitably be worse than others, and have less chance to continue, and others will be more successful. The Eye is a great example. Almost every creature has an eye, because at some point in the past it gave a species that much of a greater advantage over it's brethren. And the eye has been evolving ever since. From the light/dark receptors of the ancients, to the multitude of different versions there are today.
And in case you wish to continue down the second law of thermodynamics: the actions that allow change and improvement in life forms, actually outputs added stress and disorder on the Universe, whivh in turn continues the process of Entropy, which kinda pretty conclusively proves the validity of evolution and entropy working without contradiction.
And why do creationists use that law anyway? Everything breaking down over a long period of time (suggesting a beginning and end point outside of god's influence). Surely you'd want to try and disprove that theory as well...

Convenient how you only chose the second law of thermodynamics to use here but you don't even know or care about the rest! I was about to explain that argument but it looks like Tun Rae already beat me to it. Oh yes, I know what you mean. I used to go to a Christian Church at a schedule that was generally for young people, we all prayed and sang together like you do. But it feels fixed, cold and heartless because people only do that because they have to, not because they want. So it's not that it's boring, it just feels like a huge lie to themselves, that's why I feel like they are dead to me because they just don't know any better. What I mean by blood of innocents is the fact that they fought wars, burned and or punished people who said things out of their beliefs in the name of God, which at the end happened to be true like how Galileo tried to explain the Copernican Theory of the Universe. "That's history." Yes, people may say that history is irrelevant, that it's not important; all that matters now is that these billions of pounds of money grow for this extraordinary institution to relieve the poor around the world and make the world a better place. History is of no importance whatsoever. Well I beg to differ... History lives, vibrates and exists in all of us, in this very room in this block surrounded by streets. Let's think about the block or your own home, imagine that your room was lifted and transported to the past, think about all the rape and torture of the Aztecs, Incas or Native Americans, all the horrors of South America and Africa and the Philippines and the rest of the world that you would see just by peeking out your window. Heck we don't have to go that far if you don't want. You can also think about how many people in London were burned for reading The Bible in English. Yep, you read that right! People were burned for trying to learn about the word of God in their own language. Thomas Moore very proudly took credit for this. And guess what? He was made a Saint last century...and a pope (can't remember whom) made him the Patriarch Saint of Politicians too! This is a man who put people on the rack for daring to own a Bible in English! How crazy is that? But whatever right? Let the pedopriests keep on spreading the love right? Let the people bully and torture LGBT people right? Let the rivers of blood overfill because we are the little spoiled lovey-doveys of God, so we have no sin to confess! Woop-de-doo~! ... *Sigh* Honestly, the idea that the church exists to disseminate the word of the Lord is nonsense.

Sorry, I meant "Patron Saint" not "Patriarch Saint". I made a mistake on the translation.
But I guess I forgot to explain that I don't want to be part of a religion that has such morally questionable legacy.
Not to mention the awful dozens of hateful passages in the Bible among other things. It all gives me a weird feeling in my stomach that I don't like :c

I'm done with this debate. Thank you Drakkar for being a like-mind of Sanity, and thank you Shadowwolf7 for bringing in a very pointless topic. It almost literally is only the US that still believes in the Young Earth concept. and Creationism in that sense. Even the previous pope, strongly suggested not accepting the Bible at face values, but rather to learn from the morale lessons it teaches.
I don't believe that there used to be a Bad Wolf who ate a little girl, in a red hood. But I do know not to accept unasked-for advice, from Strangers.
Don't stop believing in your god, it's probably in your nature to need an outside source of hope. But please, seek to educate yourself on physical evidence. Even if that means you go into the field of science to learn the techniques used so that you may personally take to trying to prove the theories true WITHOUT trying to just debunk the currently accepted theory.
Again, Drakkar, thanks. You've been a good educator :3

Ah, you are welcome Tun Rae!
I guess it could have been more fun if Shadowwolf7 bothered to be more active at this, waiting for his responses for so many days really numbs the spice of it.
I don't know if I'll bother to continue commenting anymore either, it seems like Shadowwolf7 is just desperate to be proven right with theories and laws that he didn't come up with himself, he certainly just felt like googling for answers and tried to fire off cliches like a sniper using air for ammunition.
Take care out there! It was nice sharing this time with you! <3

Are you really going to leave this discussion as it is Shadowwolf7? Are you really going to just turn you back and ignore all of this?
At least give this some sort of closure, admit that you can't go on and that you can't prove Creationism at all.