Creation vs. Evolution

[OceanDude]

You can't put a man out of office if God speaks "through" him.

Well there are certainly nasty repercussions if one tries. Recall what happened to Egypt when it tried to lay the Smack on Moses.

OD

 

[Vieope]

Evolution was a way to justify peoples belief that God did not exist and therefore they could do whatever they wanted. They would not need to be held accountable to anyone at the end of their life. Nothing was right or wrong, only what the strongest did was correct.

 

[OceanDude]

No, actually the facts don't necessarily prove the conclusion for creation theory. It is an idea with possibilities. Creation theorists in the Middle Ages supported the notion that the world was flat - and held onto that belief for a couple hundred years after it was proven wrong. Fact: Man is fallable Creation theorists put forth the idea that races were deliberately placed on different continents for a reason, and then held early evolutionist hostage for research funding until they skewed that research to prove the inferiority of other races. Unsure of the accuracy of this complaint. I suspect it more likely that they projected an inferiority based less on race and more on moral or religious devotion and that latter inferiority is likely what they used to account for the differences in nations affluence, prominence and divine favor. These are things that today's creationists tend to quietly sweep under the carpet, pretending that they have gained new creation knowledge independently of other sciences.

One of the issues with "intelligent design" is that, while conceptually it should encourage discussion of MANY different possibilities, it advocates in texts for a particular religious position, as if that alone could be the only alternative.This I believe is their precise complaint about evolutionist theory pundits is it not? Then they explain that knowledge can grow with the creation approach only if research is confined to that specific singular truth - and have thus contributed very little toward expanding our knowledge. I doubt many archeologist are happy with the idea of tithing a portion of their research grants to a competing theory that does not support grave robbing and paying them their own salt either. The bulk of their research is only designed to disprove evolutionary work by asserting, when the gaps are found, that there is only one possible alternative answer. In science this is healthy to have a tension between two competing theories to intice the struggle for truth.They provide nothing new beyond a rhetorical reapproachment to religious education of the 19th century. It seems to me that the evolutionists have resorted to a form of faith based teachings similar to the traditional religious based approach to account for the remaining mysteries and gaps in their "science".

Evolution was not considered necessarily contradictory to God - I don't believe it claims that there is no presence of "God" or any possibility of creation. The knowledge that is present is taught as fact, to a degree, but the whole foundation of theory is that while something is testable, it can also be expanded and eventually proven wrong; that is what is taught in schools. I do not believe this to be accurate. I recollect most texts calling the chapter "theory" but it is presented as fact since traditionally no competing theories are taught. For example, in geology, one researcher hypothesized that plates rubbed against each other and that caused earthquakes - but everyone else disagreed with that idea for about 20 more years. Even though it does not explain everything, that is the best knowledge we have at this point - and it is open to being shown to be only a piece of the puzzle.

As in every other academic subject, the knowledge presented is only the information that we, as humans, have explored up to this point, with some emphasis on critical thinking skills. This is less a matter of what was hollisticly explored and more a matter of what the publishers and financiers wanted to present or fund. And yes, as part of that process, it is certainly acceptable for students to ponder creation as an explanation. But those are not necessarily the only possibilities. If we accept one as an unchangeable truth, we might prevent ourselves from unlocking many other answers about the world and universe that God or destiny has waiting for us to explore.

In my opinion, these creationist people fall into the category of those who would say "If God had meant Man to fly, he would have given him wings." And some other creationist people would likely object to the gross generalization and say that those who insist that man was evolved from the ape fall into the category of those humans who enjoy "being made into a monkey" by other fallable humans.

Comments Embedded:
OD

 

[OceanDude]

The Institute for Creation Research only contends it "wins" every debate with evolutionists, and basically what they can't do is prove their Creation theory. They make the assumption that if evolution can't be proven, then it HAS to be "A" creator and then this is put forward as "intelligent design."

But there are fundamental differences in both creation theory and evolutionary theory - in science, knowledge is flexible and is open to be corrected; in creation, there is only one answer that cannot be questioned. Then from the perspective of scientific thought, being a possibility this does not preclude the possibility that it is correct does it? Does science object to finding truth through other methodologies?Creation "theory" is not a science; it is more a debunking tool of evolution designed to replace development of critical thinking skills in science with religious texts. Critical thinking is only relevant for cases where humanity is capable of fathoming and modeling things acceptable to the human way of rationalizing. I believe that God has already alerted humanity and gone on record as having stated that 'his ways are not our ways' and 'equality with God is not something to be grasped at' (as one might be tempted to pick an apple from the tree in the garden) and 'do not seek to fathom that which is too sublime for you'.

The "debates" they conduct are merely exercises in exposing the gaps in evolution - and yes, in science, theories are developed and discarded as knowledge grows. Up to now no one was challenging the theory that was being taught as fact. I think this is a good thing since we need a check and balance and compel science to come up with better data.They promote creationism through the stealth of "intelligent design" although the textbooks they select do not include an endless possibility of ideas on how life formed. Instructors can always have multiple texts of competing theories when forming their instruction if the publishers will not place summary works into single texts. While I don't necessarily dispute the possibility of creation (in several different ways) I also don't assume there aren't other answers out there, or that the real "intelligent design" isn't the path mankind has been intentionally placed upon by whatever our origination.Write a book and lobby to have it taught in schools as a competing theory.

Comments embedded.
OD

 

[ZECH]

I do not think many "believed" in Kerry, we just wanted Bush out of office and Kerry was the only solution.

No he wasn't. He was just the only one with a chance to win. And it just proved that liberals will vote for ANYONE not conservative. You or me, if we could win the Democratic nomination, would stand as good of a chance as Kerry did of winning, just because we were on the "liberal" ticket regardless of our beliefs or stances.
That is what is so pathetic of our nation now. Until a group of people are willing to take a stand, this will not change and no one will ever stand a chance of knocking off these Lifetime politicians.

 

[RexStunnahH]

I would say creation,I don't see a whole lot of humans evolving into something.If we evolved from something where did that something evolve from,the big bang,doesn't it say it all started with an explosion in space,and organisms and stuff came about,well where did all this come from?There has to be a beginning.Something that started the bigbang.

 

[Minotaur]

Which do you believe in Creation or Evolution? What do you base your belief on?

Whose creation story? Judeo-Christian, Hindu, Native American? Every culture has a creation story, and all are different.

Is there any way to back up the story that the earth was created in 6 days by an anthropomorphic God? There is, however, plenty of scientific evidence to support the evolution of the universe and of life.

Yes, something created the universe and the world, and it has evolved and is evolving. Evolution was and is the process of creation. It doesn't mean it happened in 6 days, however.

That's what I believe.

 

[kbm8795]

What we are assuming is that a "competing" theory is simply the endorsement of one religious belief as the only alternative to scientific inquiry. Belief in creationism neither calls for or endorses inquiry beyond guidelines interpreted by man in relation to one particular religious belief. Obviously, in the public school system, there are student of varying religious beliefs, each with a version on the formation of life on this planet. American creationists want the teachings of one religious belief to "compete" with scientific inquiry.

There are fundamental differences in how facts are presented. One, based on a religious belief, does not allow for exploration or challenge. It is presented as an absolute, not a "fact" which is the truth based on the knowledge accumulated by man to date. Scientific facts can be changed over time as new ideas are tested and old ideas are proven wrong; creationism contends that there is only one absolute that cannot be challenged or altered and that any information that could alter that cannot be examined.

In the case of race, this was indeed part of the facts that western religions tried to propogate - that exploration of the differences between pigment had to be conducted within the basis of an inherent inferiority. This is probably best displayed today by the "scientific" theory put forward by Rev. Moon's Unification Church, which claims that if we put Africans up at the North Pole for a couple of generations, they will become "white." As late as the middle of the 20th century, creationists contended that the "mixture" of the races would result in falling intelligence and birth defects.

Obviously, if we are to embrace these "theories" as competitive in public school science classes, we'll have to look at hundreds of competing religious theories about nearly every singular contention, including those that popular religions find objectionable. This is one reason why we have religious schools operated by singular denominations. Of course, if accreditation becomes based on teaching all of the "competing" theories, these schools will balk at being required to teach another religion's approach or encouraging that their own be challenged. Since each is taught not as a theory that can be later disproved but rather an absolute that cannot be questioned, they fit into religion classes much better than science.

 

[busyLivin]

In the next 10 to 20 years NASA and Europe's space agency are going to be putting telescopes in space that are so sensitive they will be able to see Earth sized planets orbiting other stars. Not only that but they will be capable of analyzing the light reflected off these planets to determine if they have atmospheres suitable for life to exist. Imagine when we find another Earth orbiting a nearby star? What will the creationists say then?

I don't see how that would disprove anything... Except maybe that the virtually "freak-cosmic string of accidents" that we are happened elsewhere.

It would be ignorant to believe we are the only form of life in the universe, but that doesn't mean anything.

 

[milliman]

Creation theorists in the Middle Ages supported the notion that the world was flat - and held onto that belief for a couple hundred years after it was proven wrong.

Creation had nothing to do with a flat earth. People try to attribute wrong ideas to someone to try to make them seem stupid. That is what this is.
The whole world thought the earth was flat. Columbus is the one who wanted to go out and see what was beyond the sunset.

Creation theorists put forth the idea that races were deliberately placed on different continents for a reason, and then held early evolutionist hostage for research funding until they skewed that research to prove the inferiority of other races.

Creation has nothing to do with people on different continents. It deals with how did life begin. Quit straying from the issue.

There is no Biblical scholar who would ever theorize the above either. Creation said that Adam & Eve were created in the Garden of Eden (over in Iraq area.) That is one place, they were not created on differing continents. After the flood, Noah and his family were the only survivors. As their decendents built the tower of Babel, God confused there languages. So they separated and spread out from there. This is what is written.

One of the issues with "intelligent design" is that, . . . The bulk of their research is only designed to disprove evolutionary work by asserting, when the gaps are found, that there is only one possible alternative answer. They provide nothing new beyond a rhetorical reapproachment to religious education of the 19th century.

From what I have observed, they study the facts, and just like a regular scientist, figure out how stuff works. They hypothesize, test it, and see if this fits with what they expected.

They do take there results and show how it could not possibly fit into an evolutionary frame work.

Evolutionary scientists are not even "Intellectually Honest". If they find facts that do not support evolution, they do not discuss it or bring it up at all. They also discard creation since it can not be duplicated in a laboratory. If you even have the opinion of a creator and intelligent design, or write about problems with evolution, you are ridiculed or even lose your job.

Evolution was not considered necessarily contradictory to God - I don't believe it claims that there is no presence of "God" or any possibility of creation. ."

How do you have that opinion ?
Evolution says, Big Bang, life started on its own, mutated into something better, and here we are today.

Where does God come into that picture ?
Or is he just a big smiley face in the sky watching it all happen ?

In my opinion, these creationist people fall into the category of those who would say "If God had meant Man to fly, he would have given him wings."

Pretty nasty opinion. You have already pigeon holed a creationist.
I bet you have never even looked at any of their work.

I think God gave man the ability to learn how to do so many things, and he expects us to be wise stewards with the knowledge we have learned and use it for good.

 

[Arnold]

No he wasn't. He was just the only one with a chance to win.

same difference, if you do not vote republican or democratic not much point, right?

I could have voted for an independant, but that would have just hurt Kerry's chances for winning even more, so that made no sense.

 

[Arnold]

Oh, and this whole argument about creation vs. evolution is pointless for two reasons:

Number one the religeous people will never change their beliefs no mater how much science you give them, they will hold their faith in that book (the bible) until they drop dead.

Number two, neither can be proved, granted there is science that backs up evolution, but not how the world was created, all we really have is a theory.

I believe that if you're a rational, thinking human being you would realize that a story such as Genesis is just that, a story. To take that story literally is just plain silly IMO.

Okay, I am done.

 

[milliman]

I don't see how that would disprove anything... Except maybe that the virtually "freak-cosmic string of accidents" that we are happened elsewhere.

It would be ignorant to believe we are the only form of life in the universe, but that doesn't mean anything.

Studying the universe is really cool. Beautiful stuff.

The hubble telescope brought out a big problem with the big bang theory.
Imagine a explosion, stuff would be ejected in every direction from the center. Up, down, side to side, front back . . . Should be like a big expanding ball . . Factor in gravity and you should get clumping of stuff to make galaxies but still expanding from the CENTER.

After Hubble was put in space, they found that the solar system was basically flat. And the different galaxies were going in all sorts of directions other than just expanding.

Just another of the many problems with the big bang / evolution theory.

 

[maniclion]

This man is the Devil's Advocate, do not be fooled by his wheelchaired facade of innocence.

 

[milliman]

Here is the fossil formation problem with evolution.

How is a fossil formed ? An animal has to die, then get buried quickly by mud and silt to preserve its body. If the body is left on top of the soil, other animals eat it and tear it to pieces. When a fish dies, it usually floats on the water and is eaten by birds or other fish. So it would be a rare day to find a fossil under normal methods. And when you did find one, you would usually find a single specimen.

What do you find in real life ? Ever been fossil hunting ?

You find fossils all over the place. Huge layers of fossils of all types of critters.
How could you explain this ?

If you had a globlal flood (Noah), which is also reported in most cultures around the world on all continents, then you would have mass death all over the world. the animals would die quickly and due to the floods be covered in mud quickly and fossilized in mass.

Seems to fit what we find pretty well.

 

[MaxMirkin]

This man is the Devil's Advocate, do not be fooled by his wheelchaired facade of innocence.

Holy shit, that guy needs to hit the gym!

 

[maniclion]

Here is the fossil formation problem with evolution.

How is a fossil formed ? An animal has to die, then get buried quickly by mud and silt to preserve its body. If the body is left on top of the soil, other animals eat it and tear it to pieces. When a fish dies, it usually floats on the water and is eaten by birds or other fish. So it would be a rare day to find a fossil under normal methods. And when you did find one, you would usually find a single specimen.

What do you find in real life ? Ever been fossil hunting ?

You find fossils all over the place. Huge layers of fossils of all types of critters.
How could you explain this ?

If you had a globlal flood (Noah), which is also reported in most cultures around the world on all continents, then you would have mass death all over the world. the animals would die quickly and due to the floods be covered in mud quickly and fossilized in mass.

Seems to fit what we find pretty well.

So was Noah too drunk to remember to load up the Brontosaurus', T-Rex's and Unicorns or what?

 

[kbm8795]

Creation had nothing to do with a flat earth. People try to attribute wrong ideas to someone to try to make them seem stupid. That is what this is.

Creationism has a history. Consult documents about the teachings of life and the world from the Church at the time.

The whole world thought the earth was flat. Columbus is the one who wanted to go out and see what was beyond the sunset.

Yes, until it was disproven. However, churches refused to teach of believe this for another couple of centuries.

Creation has nothing to do with people on different continents. It deals with how did life begin. Quit straying from the issue.

Actually, early European evolutionists were looking at different races with the desire to better understand differences in pigment color and cultural development. The Church would not endorse any findings that weren't in accordance with their interpretations of biblical teachings at the time. Creationism is not a new "science." It has a history.

There is no Biblical scholar who would ever theorize the above either. Creation said that Adam & Eve were created in the Garden of Eden (over in Iraq area.) That is one place, they were not created on differing continents. After the flood, Noah and his family were the only survivors. As their decendents built the tower of Babel, God confused there languages. So they separated and spread out from there. This is what is written.

You need to discuss the story of Ham.

From what I have observed, they study the facts, and just like a regular scientist, figure out how stuff works. They hypothesize, test it, and see if this fits with what they expected.

What facts do they study? What are the purposes of testing? What expanded knowledge are they seeking?

They do take there results and show how it could not possibly fit into an evolutionary frame work.

Evolutionary scientists are not even "Intellectually Honest". If they find facts that do not support evolution, they do not discuss it or bring it up at all. They also discard creation since it can not be duplicated in a laboratory. If you even have the opinion of a creator and intelligent design, or write about problems with evolution, you are ridiculed or even lose your job.

Partially true. Even in scientific inquiry, there are those who resist new findings that might conflict with their bread-and-butter. . .however, even when it takes some degree of time, a valid new theory will eventually be pursued and tested until it becomes more accepted according to scientific principles. And the history of intellectual honesty among creationists is. . .?

How do you have that opinion ?
Evolution says, Big Bang, life started on its own, mutated into something better, and here we are today.

No one believes that is the bottom line. It is not only left open for further development, but that exploration is encouraged and pursued.

Where does God come into that picture ?
Or is he just a big smiley face in the sky watching it all happen ?

Perhaps God lit the fuse for the "big bang". . .

Pretty nasty opinion. You have already pigeon holed a creationist.
I bet you have never even looked at any of their work.

Actually, yes I have looked at some of their work. And I've looked at their debates and their comparisons within science. I see it as just as possible as the earth being a penal colony for a distant alien species which likely holds many more answers about the journey of life.

I think God gave man the ability to learn how to do so many things, and he expects us to be wise stewards with the knowledge we have learned and use it for good.

Well, I agree with that, but my opinion is that we should not spend that time promoting absolutism.

 

[milliman]

So was Noah too drunk to remember to load up the Brontosaurus', T-Rex's and Unicorns or what?

Good question. Mine too.
Only answer is he took babies.

And if you saw Jurassic Park, you know that can cause all sorts of problems.

 

[Minotaur]

Holy shit, that guy needs to hit the gym!

That is Stephen Hawking, an astrophysicist of the first degree. He has one of the most brilliant minds this side of Albert Einstein. He also has ALS, amyotropic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig's Disease. His body is wasted and useless, but his mind is as sharp and brilliant as ever.

 

[MaxMirkin]

That is Stephen Hawking, an astrophysicist of the first degree. He has one of the most brilliant minds this side of Albert Einstein. He also has ALS, amyotropic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig's Disease. His body is wasted and useless, but his mind is as sharp and brilliant as ever.

I was aware.

 

[milliman]

KBM,

No doubt early church had problems. Indulgences, witch hunts, etcetera.
They wanted to string up Galileo since he did not think the earth was the center of the universe. They wanted to kill Martin Luther since he said you were saved by faith instead of absolution from the Pope.

But don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
People do bad things and when it is the name of religion, it tarnishes it.

From a historical and archeological standpoint, everything in the Bible has proved to be true. (Creation aside since not possible to prove)

When you think of Nostradomus and his predictions, everybody listens, even though many have been wrong, or are so generic that they could apply to almost anything.

Biblical prophecies have always come true. But nobody wants to listen to them because then you would have to believe in the bearded guy.

What about Ham ? ? ?


ps
I like the idea of aliens too.
Bible is silent on creation in other parts of the universe too.

 

[BoneCrusher]

Which version of the bible do we follow when we look at the creation of the world from a creationists perspective. Indesd which religions cover the creation of the world in anything close to detail? I am not being sarcastic ... I am looking for more information on the views of creationist.

 

[Monolith]

Creationism is basically believing that the world was created by a God who intelligently designed the whole thing to fit together. Each thing was created for a purpose.

Evolution is basically believing that everything is an accident. Over time, cells mutated and became better than the preceding cell or species.

I personally think the second one is more fantasy than the first one.

rofl.

Yeah, i can totally see how 10,000 years of selective breeding in domesticated animals - i.e. accelerated evolution - isn't shit compared to the rantings of one of the earths several hundred religions. I mean, really, it makes complete sense that after 8000 years of civilization, we finally stumble onto Christianity and we know its correct!! Its so obvious that every religion before and since is completely bogus. Man, i really cant understand why people won't believe me!

Think about this.
If you were walking in the forest and saw some pine needles arranged on the ground that said "BUSH SUCKS", would you think that they accidentally landed that way, or that some intelligent life form had placed them on the ground that way.
We could discuss later whether intelligent life likes Bush or not, but we will save that for a later day.

You would say it was obviously not an accident that they were arranged that way.

Why ? Why would you not think that it had accidentallly fallen off the tree that way ?

Because you would look at it and know that each pine needle was specifically placed in each spot to cummunicate meaning. each needle had to be in a precise place for each letter to make sense. And each group of letters had to be in the right order to make a word. and the two words had to be in the right order to communicate meaning to you.
All of it was intelligently designed to cummunicate with one another.

You could walk around in the forest for the rest of your life and you will never find pine needles forming words on accident.

Uh... this "example" is so logically retarded i cant believe youre trying to use it. If i saw BUSH SUCKS spelled out in pine needles, id recognize it as a human act - not because i have some bizarre epiphany and realize that only someone of incredible intelligence could have crafted such a witty remark - but because the english language was created by man - and it has no meaning for ANYTHING ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE.

You think the world is so perfectly created that it couldnt possibly be the work of anything other than an intelligent being, right? Well imagine this: you view this planet as perfect because you evolved to thrive in its ecosystem. Obviously humanity wouldnt wake up one day and find itself living at the bottom of the ocean, and say to themselves, "well damn, this obviously isnt the work of intelligence... that guy would have known we breathe AIR and not WATER!!" Your opinion of the earths perfection is a result of your adaptation to its environment. Just like fish adapted to water, and birds adapted to sky.

What if i said to you that a 2,000 degree sulfur vent in a trench 5 miles deep out in the pacific was the most perfectly crafted "world" in existence? You'd probably think that was a bit of a hasty assumption, no? Well, perhaps it wouldnt be very comfy for you, but for the organisms that thrive within that hellish pit, every other place on earth looks like some inhospitable wasteland. To those organisms, the planet is the universe. To them, their home is the only place that seems perfectly created to make them prosper. For humans, the earth is that vent. The galaxy is the rest of the world. We view our home as perfect because we cant contemplate living anywhere else. That is by no means an excuse to draw the conclusion that it must have been perfectly created for our service. As with the organisms in the 2,000 degree vent, we're biased towards what we understand. Ignoring that bias (as you are) isnt simply a matter of faith, its ignorant.

the more complex the thing is, the more you know it was designed by a creator to be that way. So what is the most complex thing on the earth ? ? ?

the human body. Just look at some of its parts. The eye is as incredible as most cameras. It has auto focus, adapts to bright light or night vision by itself, automatically self lubricates and cleans the lens every 10 seconds or so (blinking).
It never grows any algea in the fluid in the eye and it heals itself.

Look at the kidney. Automatically monitors all chemical and fluid levels and filters out what is not needed or retains what it senses it is short on.

How about the hand. Strong enough to pick up huge weights, or supple enough to pick up a wine glass or a piece of paper. Sense hot, cold, texture, wet or dry.
How many robot arms are that versatile.

How about our legs. They still have not designed a robot that can go up and down stairs or a hill yet.

How about the brain. Faster than any computer. Continually monitors heat, cold, temperature, wind, angle of the body. Adjust foot pressure to maintain upright posture whether you are standing or moving. maintains blood pressure, breathing etc.
Filters out all of the irrelevant data and only send important stuff to the brain to act on. ie pain

So why do we look at it and say "oh yeah, an accident" ?
Every little amino acid in your DNA has to be in the exact perfect place, just like the pine needles, to tell it how to function. How did each of those accidentally get there.
That, my brother, takes a lot of faith to believe that it is all an accident.

Ugh. This is the same stuperific logic you used up above. I'm not going to repeat myself, because i have a feeling youre going to ignore everything i said and just come back with "but god says so dued!", so ill just say this:

The eye is "perfect" because 20/20 vision is the best vision humanity has ever had, right?

The kidney is perfect because we've never had a need to filter out "element 292", right?

The hand is perfect because it can sense cold, hot, wet, dry... and we've never had a need to be able to differentiate between 39.1 and 39.2 degrees. We've never had to determine how much water is in a towel, only that it's wet.

Our legs! Yes, theyre perfect too, because they allow us to do everything that, well... everything that legs let us do! Of course, if we had three legs which allowed us to move much faster than we currently do, two legged humans wouldnt be viewed as being very perfect, would they?

As for "all those little amino's"... how do you know it wasnt just a random amalgamation of protein? Lets assume it was - these aminos clump together, and out pops a human. "WOW!" he says, "those aminos were put together in the PERFECT fashion to create me!! I MUST have had an intelligent creator!"

Two galaxys over, s'more aminos clump together, and out pops a 6 tentacled blob of goop. "WOW!" it says, "those aminos were put together in the PERFECT fashion to create me!! I MUST have had an intelligent creator!"

Is this sinking in yet?

Science is really cool and very advanced these days, but they can not make anything live. Not one blade of grass or bacteria. Nothing, nada zero.

So do you really believe you are an accident ?
Or intelligently designed by a creator ?

Ok, so in the past 2000 years, what has the christian god done? Let's see... he's caused at least 9 major wars by my count, resulting in the toppling of empires and the deaths of millions of people. Uh, i guess thats a "point" for god.

Lets look at science over the past 2000 years. What has it done for us? Well, it put a roof over our heads. It gave us agriculture. It gave us domesticated animals. It gave us the steam engine, the industrial revolution, the airplane, the space shuttle, and the computer. Its made war a shorter and less bloody affair. How many points should we give science for that?

Add up the two sides... and im thinking science has the better "intelligent design." Or at the very least, if given the choice between two guiding principles, i'd hope that most people would go with science. It's done more for us than any of the worlds endlessly morphing religions have.

 

[Minotaur]

I was aware.

Bad Max.

 

[Minotaur]

Biblical prophecies have always come true. But nobody wants to listen to them because then you would have to believe in the bearded guy.

What about Ham ? ? ?

What biblical prophecies in particular?

Ham? With cheese, a little mayo.

 

[Dale Mabry]

That is Stephen Hawking, an astrophysicist of the first degree. He has one of the most brilliant minds this side of Albert Einstein. He also has ALS, amyotropic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig's Disease. His body is wasted and useless, but his mind is as sharp and brilliant as ever.

I wonder if he can nut.

 

[Minotaur]

I wonder if he can nut.

I wouldn't bet the farm that he can. In fact, I wouldn't put the fishtank on it.

 

[busyLivin]

I wonder if he can nut.

I wonder why you're wondering that.

 

[Vieope]

I like coffee with sweet toasts.