Evolution debate. Split from Ew Religion.

Well yes, that is why religion is so flawed, that is why you are an atheist, why are you debating the plausibility of what the bible is referring to ?_?

I am saying Adam was not the son of God, and showing that Evolution has more chance of being the more plausible chain of events that created man...

I think if god created Adam, he would be his son.
Plus, if god created everything, why not evolution?

if god created everything, why not evolution?

I suppose God could have designed things to adapt... A very good Point.

Evolution though Scientifically is the grounds to disprove the bible, so rather than Christians doing as you just did, they deny Evolution as occurring prior to the bibles first stories based at the time of Adam 400 bc (I think is what they state)... Evolution goes well beyond that stating the world is much older, millions of years rather than thousands.

The error then is if the Christians say yeah the world is millions of years old then the bibles time line is well out of sync... and more people will discredit it.

No one can prove the Evolution Theory even though it's regarded as a science... It's an odd ground to cover... We have had many debates from Religion change to Evolution... I hope this doesn't tun into another.

I think this question on who was the first Son of God is only relevant to what your own personal belief is.

This topic is stopped but one thing I would like to point out is that people that are part of religions are also called "people of faith." You don't need proof. That gets rid of the part in "faith." Faith is "belief that is not based on proof." WHY THE HELL DO YOU NEED PROOF FOR RELIGION THEN??

EXACTLY! But when people HAVE proved points from a religion, its makes it sound more realistic. Just check out Christiananity, they checked off a few things that are true.

I think if I wasn't forced at school to learn R.E I wouldn't have such a dim view of it as I do now, While school for me was many years ago, I still feel robbed of well valued time spent learning a religion I hadn't been born into.

I am a White British Male, I was never Christened, my family are not Religious yet school HAD to teach us about the bible and other religions to boot.

I would have much rathered a Programming course or Graphics... Some thing I would need in future years.

I don't like Religion being forced onto people, so much so I have it tattooed on my back in a picture format...

Actual Tattoo


Painting I done that the Tattoo is based from


The face in the centre is me or you, who ever really Joe Bloggs... And the chains coming from church is the church embedding it's links into Joe Bloggs... Then the words of the Bible Flow from his mouth to another, and that filters like a stream infecting every one.  The tree on the bank, it's roots are in the water of the stream and that breaks away and new religions based from the source start to grow and branch out.  The Branches in turn spawn new religions (The babies all conjoined) sharing parts of one and another and they finally reach the church again and get written back into the pages of the source as a New Testament, and the cycle starts all over again.

I wish religious education was left to parents and churches and schooling was left to educate.

Back to Topic - Adam the son of God ?

I can't recall if God was written to reffer to Adam as his son in the text of the bible... What's interesting if you type it in Google "Adam son of God" you get loads of links, mainly from religious sites all debating the same thing...

I found this:- Luke 3:38

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

The Bible (Well Luke's Edition) shows Adam was indeed the 1st Son of God.

It must not be done yet, because it looks nothing like the painting.

No need to go to spec savers mate, your right there, it's far from done... I have had a little more done, from the time of that photo, but not much, the church is almost done and the tree outlined a little.

Back to Topic - Adam the son of God ?

I can't recall if God was written to reffer to Adam as his son in the text of the bible... What's interesting if you type it in Google "Adam son of God" you get loads of links, mainly from religious sites all debating the same thing...

I found this:- Luke 3:38

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

The Bible (Well Luke's Edition) shows Adam was indeed the 1st Son of God.

I think if I wasn't forced at school to learn R.E I wouldn't have such a dim view of it as I do now, While school for me was many years ago, I still feel robbed of well valued time spent learning a religion I hadn't been born into.

I am a White British Male, I was never Christened, my family are not Religious yet school HAD to teach us about the bible and other religions to boot.

I would have much rathered a Programming course or Graphics... Some thing I would need in future years.
[...]
I wish religious education was left to parents and churches and schooling was left to educate.

Poor you. If it wasn't for those darn religious education classes you would have been the next Bill Gates. After all, who needs to know anything about the world's biggest religion? What do we care if more than a billion people believe this stuff? All we need to know are the three Rs: Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic... and programming. Every young student needs to know that, right?

Evolution though Scientifically is the grounds to disprove the bible, so rather than Christians doing as you just did, they deny Evolution as occurring prior to the bibles first stories based at the time of Adam 400 bc (I think is what they state)... Evolution goes well beyond that stating the world is much older, millions of years rather than thousands.

The error then is if the Christians say yeah the world is millions of years old then the bibles time line is well out of sync... and more people will discredit it.

Way to paint a billion plus people with the same brush.

No one can prove the Evolution Theory even though it's regarded as a science... It's an odd ground to cover... We have had many debates from Religion change to Evolution... I hope this doesn't tun into another.

Evolution has a mountain of evidence supporting it and competing theories have none. Because of this it is a de facto fact, though its details may vary.

Way to paint a billion people with the same brush.

2.1 Billion people are Christian according to polls... and 1.1 Billion like me are Atheist.

And I have not paint any one with any brush.

Poor you.

Poor every one... Religion should not be eductated to people who have no interest, it should be optional.

you would have been the next Bill Gates

May be I should thank my RE teacher, Bill Gates is a tosser.

evidence supporting it and competing theories have none.

A Theory with no Evidence isn't classed as a theory.

[break-in]

A Theory with no Evidence isn't classed as a theory.

lol, uh, Los, to me, that has just put you in the same category as people of blind faith.

Evolution is not a theory, it is a scientific fact, the method of evolution (like natural selection) is still just a theory, but not evolution itself.

If your knowledge is that fucking limited I really don't see the point in myself, or anyone debating you. For you to claim that evolution is a theory with no evidence is just pathetic.

Go back to school.

[/break in]

I didn't care for my English classes. I failed ninth grade English because I thought Catcher in the Rye was a piece of shit. I also refused to read anything written by Shakespeare and the only assignment I can remember completing was a three page essay that advocated murdering the homeless. It was a month late and got a 33/100.

Should I have opted out of class because it bored me? What about my other classes? Surely I was mature enough at 14 to decide what direction my education would take?

Christianity has shaped the world like few things have. It is a part of the history and culture of most of the world. You live in a country with a strong Christian history and a Christian state religion. I'm not surprised that the people who make decisions thought it was important enough to include it as a mandatory part of your curriculum. Unless the teacher used his class time to proselytize to you then he wasn't really abusing you or ruining your education. It was probably a wonderful supplement to your education, or would have been if you weren't determined to learn absolutely nothing.

Edit: I forgot something.

And I have not paint any one with any brush.

You made every Christian in the world out to be a stereotype of a conservative American Fundamentalist.

May be I should thank my RE teacher, Bill Gates is a tosser.

Bill Gates has donated billions of dollars to AIDS research and is the world's biggest philanthropist.

Evolution is not a theory, it is a scientific fact

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html = Evolution is part both.

Evolution is not a theory, it is a scientific fact

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html = Evolution is part both.

But you're more wrong.

Edit: it's funny that you are using TalkOrigins in your defense. I remember using it against you a few times.

wow, from the link

"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution."

Thanks Los. Good link. You just stated that evolution (PLURAL) is a theory with NO evidence, yet link me to a topic that sates it has enough evidence to be labeled a fact, excluding it's mechanism which is still a theory, WHAT I JUST FUCKING SAID.

What I said last post was; evolution is a fact, but the mechinism of it is still a theory. You are claiming that evolution in whole is a theory with no evidence you then linked me to 'your evidence' which was actually supporting what I was saying.

Los: I am worried about your health, go to your doctor and ask for a cat-scan, get them to focus on your brain and look for anything that could be a tumor causing this stupidity.

Bill Gates has donated billions of dollars to AIDS research and is the world's biggest philanthropist.

I heard that when he dies, he's only giving less than 1% of his wealth to his sons (still a couple million dollars) . Rest goes to charity. Also, DS, mind explaining what it means when evolution is a fact but excluding its mechanism? Just by guessing I think it might mean that Evolution is a theory that was made but was not proven? ;__;

DS

competing theories have none

JH said the above, I said a Theory is not a Theory without Evidence.

I never said Evolution has no Evidence, it has loads, but Evolution is not a Proven science is what I said, it's still regard by many as a Theory... The Theory of Evolution.

Stop misquoting me, and read the posts.

____Besides all this shit_______

This is a topic based on who was the first Son of God...?

How are my Answerers to the topic ?

Do I need a CAT scan for the answers RELIVENT to the topic matter ?

My answer:-
I found this:- Luke 3:38

Quote
Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

The Bible (Well Luke's Edition) shows Adam was indeed the 1st Son of God.

Also, DS, mind explaining what it means when evolution is a fact but excluding its mechanism? Just by guessing I think it might mean that Evolution is a theory that was made but was not proven? ;__;

Sure thing ^_^ and lol @ Gates thing.

A theory does not have to explain everything in itself, nor does it have to explain everything to be correct. The theory of Evolution says that animals evolve (not HOW they evolve, just that they do) and has shown enough empirical (real, showed, physical, etc) evidence in order to have it labeled a fact.

The theory of evolution does not (nor does it have to), say the method of evolution, or how animals evolve. That is the job of other theories to show and prove. This is very similar to the big bang theory, it says there was an explosion, it does not say what caused it.

Natural Selection is the theory that is in current favour as the method of evolution. It however does not yet show enough evidence to be labeled a fact, it IS still a theory and is debated. Just because it is explaining the method of evolution does not mean it is part of, or I guess I should say an extension/connection, of the theory of evolution, it is its own separate theory.

The theory of evolution says animals evolve and that is all it says, this has been proven true.

I never said Evolution has no Evidence, it has loads, but Evolution is not a Proven science is what I said, it's still regard by many as a Theory... The Theory of Evolution.

Stop misquoting me, and read the posts.

My mistake, I apologise.

Perhaps you would like to not dodge the points lead out ?_? Me mistaking your confused ramblings for something they're not gives you no ground to avoid the rest of my post.

I never said Evolution has no Evidence, it has loads, but Evolution is not a Proven science is what I said, it's still regard by many as a Theory... The Theory of Evolution.

Your combining two theories as one, you linked me to a page reaffirming what I had put in the post previously.

Exactly what is still a theory about evolution, i.e; that animals evolve, NOT the mechinism of how that happens (a separate theory) ?_?

Mutation, but that's part of the Theory of Evolution, Mutation can jump a species further and faster than Evolution, Evolution has many other theories working along side it, and until all those Theories are proven The Theory of Evolution remains incomplete.

Any way I resign fro m here... You guy win...

Lets see how you debate when you have no one else giving their opinions as their to worried to... I feel forced out of here by bratty kids.... I will stick to the resource area alone now.

Mutation, but that's part of the Theory of Evolution, Mutation can jump a species further and faster than Evolution, Evolution has many other theories working along side it, and until all those Theories are proven The Theory of Evolution remains incomplete.

Again, no. That would be referring to the method of evolution, not the fact that 'animals do evolve'. If animals mutated, it would still be evolution, you are heavily confused with the theory fact of evolution and the theory of evolutions method.

Evolution means to change, simply. If it was mautation on a higher level that was causing the changes, it would still be labeled evolution.

You fail and clearly can't admit defeat in any type of grace. I can't say that I will miss you from this section.

Species can't just go from species to species like somebody buying a new car.
They are the species they are, humans can't go from humans to cats.

Species can't just go from species to species like somebody buying a new car.
They are the species they are, humans can't go from humans to cats.

So you believe in small changes from within a species then..?

I'm too lazy to figure out how we got into another debate on evolution, but I have no problem with small changes from within a species (ie: micro-evolution -- I don't care if I made a spelling error).

Micro-evolution has been proven as a fact. Though, as it has been said before, the method of said change is not proven.

Macro-evolution, or what most creationists mistakenly think of when they hear evolution, is interspecies evolution. This theory, and yes I say theory, is unproven. Scientists give evolution trees (anybody remember what they're called? I have no clue right now. )  saying different species are related to each other through evolution. But they have no proof, no 'missing link' so-to-speak. Do not misread what I've said, I never said evolution wasn't a fact, evolution is the combination of these two ideas, one which has been proven, and one which hasn't. Thus why evolution is considered to be both a theory and a fact.

Now, as for metamorphosis, this is a form of evolution, but neither micro nor macro. I don't know what it's classified as (scientifically), but it falls under the same category as puberty. It's a maturing process that physically changes the species, but it is not micro-evolution (all members of the species go through it) and it is not macro-evolution (it is still the same species -- although a great deal more attractive if I may say so myself). -- lol

Micro Evolution: Taking a step forward.

Macro Evolution: Walking across the street.

"Micro & Macro" are no longer used in modern scientific terms as they are both using the same mechanics to make the change, the only difference is the time in which the mechanics have had to take effect.

Proving one proves the other, they are the same thing.

How do you feel about this, "I believe that tomorrow will happen, but I don't believe that next week will"?

See how stupid that sounds? What kind of moron would say or think that? Well shucks, this is what you are saying you moron and I would think the same about someone who says this moronic statement as I feel about you right now.

"Micro & Macro" are no longer used in modern scientific terms as they are both using the same mechanics to make the change, the only difference is the time in which the mechanics have had to take effect.

Exactly.

Uh, how did this become a debate on evolution, again?

Um, no. I don't think you understand what's being said at all. Micro evolution is a  bird getting a longer beak. Macro evolution is a bird turning into a bear. It doesn't happen.