WTF FINALS?!

[Gwen]

but you said we both came from the same ancestor. Why would human be weaker than?
Why not evolve human intelligence? We are the dominate species. Isn't that tv goal of natural selection… Weed out the weaker species?
Don't people live in the jungles? They live in the same environment. Oh where are your FACTS that it was the environment that limited apes evolution?

Words like might make it seem like you arnt sure how or why we "evolved" 

Were you there to witness this evolution? Was any scientist there?

It's all faith that your reasoning is correct

[Bobbus]

Gwen's winning this whole damn thread. 

I gotta agree with everything she's said in all of this. But personally, i hate arguing about religion..

[Khachaturian]

I think Adrian, Gwen, and Josh bring up good points
It's hard to decide who is winning (imo)
'cause after reading each post my views are changed…

[JoshKlaz]

1: How is that an opinion? Seriously, information always needs a source. Ask any of your scientists. Saying something like that only shows you have no way to disprove what I said.

2: Could I please see that article?

3: Fair enough. I'm not a scientist, so I can't argue this point further anyway. But a creator could've made it all at once.

4: Actually, no you couldn't use the same argument. The bombardier beetle was one small example, and I doubt the logic and reasoning used for your argument there could apply to everything involving irreducible complexity.

5: Wow. I almost want to stop the argument here with that little comment. "Just because we (well scientists, I'm not one yet) don't understand something, it doesn't mean its not true.". You want to think about what you just said there? And one more thing, the second law of thermodynamics is not an environmental condition. It's a law of physics.

6: Lol, avoiding a very legitimate point aye?

7: Fair enough. Or it could be that a creator made the universe and only wanted this planet to have life.

8: Not very likely is a major understatement. Try getting hit by a car that doesn't exist, that would be more accurate.

9: Fossils were not the only things I mentioned in that section. Read it again then get back to me.

10: Again, you're avoiding a very valid argument…

11: And again...

12: And again, an understatement.

13: What, you don't think the Bible is historically true?

Also, I don't know if God has saved everyone or if He has saved no-one. I don't know what His plans are! But what I do know is that we are ALL sinners, and ALL deserving of hell. That's where divine grace comes in.

Maybe he did create some people just to send them to hell. Either way, we are ALL deserving of hell.

[Marsh]

I hate discussions about religion and politics, recently we've had both. I don't think either side will change anyone minds. People seem pretty far set into there decision. Also why does everyone want to prove there right so damn bad, i don't get how someone elses opinion matters, i no you guys are just discussing but really, its all matter of opinion.

[JoshKlaz]

Lol, I'm open to good arguments, but I haven't heard any so far. I just don't see how people can believe in something as ridiculous as evolution.

[munro]

@ﾉ◊ㄅｻкﾚ∆z:

> Ok, how about any of these reasons?
>
> 1\. Information 
> The instructions for how to build, operate, and repair living cells represent a vast amount of information (estimated at 12 billion bits). Information is a mental, non-material concept. It can never arise from a natural process and is always the result of an intelligence. Just as a newspaper story transcends the ink on the paper, life’s DNA itself (like the ink) is not the information, it is simply a physical representation or housing of the information (the story). Modifying the DNA via mutation can never produce new genetic information to drive upward evolution, just as spilling coffee on the newspaper, thereby modifying the distribution of the ink, will never improve the story.
>
> 2\. Formation of Life
> Dead chemicals cannot become alive on their own. The cell is a miniature factory with many active processes, not a simple blob of “protoplasm” as believed in Darwin’s day. Lightening striking a mud puddle or some “warm little pond” will never produce life. This is another view of the core issue of information as the simplest living cell requires a vast amount of information to be present. The “Law of Biogenesis” states that life comes only from prior life. Spontaneous generation has long been shown to be impossible (by Louis Pasteur in 1859). Numerous efforts to bring life from non-life (including the famous Miller-Urey experiment) have not succeeded. The probability of life forming from non-life has been likened to the probability of a tornado going through a junkyard and spontaneously assembling a working 747 airplane. The idea that life on earth may have been seeded from outer space just moves the problem elsewhere.
> The bacteria in the pond is life.
>
> 3\. Design of Living Things
> Design is apparent in the living world. Even Richard Dawkins in his anti-creation book The Blind Watchmaker admits “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” The amazing defense mechanism of the Bombardier Beetle is a classic example of design in nature, seemingly impossible to explain as the result of accumulating small beneficial changes over time, because if the mechanism doesn’t work perfectly, “boom” – no more beetle! This is also another view of the core issue of information, as the design of living things is the result of processing the information in the DNA (following the blueprint) to produce a working organism.If the organism doesnt work properly its not "boom gone" that a part of evolution, actually an important part called error in DNA. Error in DNA can also be a good thing, for if the error works out for the better survival of the fittest takes its course and that organism lives longer.
>
> 4\. Irreducible Complexity
> The idea that “nothing works until everything works.” The classic example is a mousetrap, which is irreducibly complex in that if one of its several pieces is missing or not in the right place, it will not function as a mousetrap and no mice will be caught. The systems, features, and processes of life are irreducibly complex. What good is a circulatory system without a heart? An eye without a brain to interpret the signals? What good is a half-formed wing? Doesn’t matching male and female reproductive machinery need to exist at the same time, fully-functioning if any reproduction is to take place? Remember, natural selection has no foresight, and works to eliminate anything not providing an immediate benefit.I dont even know what your talking about here, do you even full understand evolution or do you just look at the "this turns into this"
>
> 5\. Second Law of Thermodynamics
> The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to the universal tendency for things, on their own, to “mix” with their surrounding environment over time, becoming less ordered and eventually reaching a steady-state. A glass of hot water becomes room temperature, buildings decay into rubble, and the stars will eventually burn out leading to the “heat death” of the universe. However, the evolutionary scenario proposes that over time things, on their own, became more ordered and structured. Somehow the energy of a “Big Bang” structured itself into stars, galaxies, planets, and living things, contrary to the Second Law. It is sometimes said that the energy of the Sun was enough to overcome this tendency and allow for the formation of life on earth. However, application of energy alone is not enough to overcome this tendency; the energy must be channeled by a machine. A human must repair a building to keep it from decaying. Likewise, it is the machinery of photosynthesis which harnesses the energy of the Sun, allowing life to exist, and photosynthesis is itself a complex chemical process. The maturing of an acorn into a tree, or a zygote (the first cell resulting from fertilization) into a mature human being does not violate the Second Law as these processes are guided by the information already present in the acorn or zygote.Again this can be countered by the "survival the the fitest"
>
> 6\. Existence of the Universe
> By definition, something must be eternal (as we have “something” today and something cannot come from “nothing”, so there was never a time when there was “nothing”). Either the universe itself is eternal, or something/someone outside of and greater than the universe is eternal. We know that the universe is not eternal, it had a beginning (as evidenced by its expansion). Therefore, God (the something/someone outside of the universe) must exist and must have created the universe. Einstein showed that space and time are related. If there is no space there is no time. Before the universe was created there was no space and therefore no concept of time. This is hard for us to understand as we are space-time creatures, but it allows for God to be an eternal being, completely consistent with scientific laws. The question “who created God” is therefore an improper/invalid question, as it is a time-based question (concerning the point in time at which God came into existence) but God exists outside of time as the un-caused first cause.Wow religion is a simple thing, we think things up and all you guys have to say is "but God…" and thier is no way to check your facts
>
> 7\. Fine-tuning of Earth for Life
> Dozens of parameters are “just right” for life to exist on this planet. For example, if the Earth were just a little closer to the Sun it would be too hot and the ocean’s water would boil away, much further and it would be covered continually in ice. Earth’s circular orbit (to maintain a roughly constant temperature year-round), its rotation speed (to provide days and nights not too long or short), its tilt (to provide seasons), and the presence of the moon (to provide tides to cleanse the oceans) are just some of many other examples.it took thousands of years for plants to colide and become the few we have today and in the early earth years we went between really hot and freezing cold. eventually it found a balance
>
> The presence of large amounts of water, with its amazing special properties, is also required. Water is a rare compound in that it is lighter in a solid state than in a liquid state. This allows ponds to freeze with the ice on the surface allowing the life beneath to survive. Otherwise bodies of water would freeze from the bottom up and become solid ice. Water is also the most universal “solvent” known, allowing for dissolving/mixing with the many different chemicals of life. In fact, our bodies are 75-85% comprised of water.
>
> 8\. Fine-tuning of Physics
> The fine-tuning of the physical constants that control the physics of the universe - the settings of the basic forces (strong nuclear force constant, weak nuclear force constant, gravitational force constant, and electromagnetic force constant) are on a knife’s edge. A minor change in these or any of dozens of other universal parameters would make life impossible.
>
> The “multiverse” idea that there may be many universes and ours “just happened” to have these proper values is outside of science and could never be proven. Even then we would have to ask “what was the cause of all these universes?”
>
> 9\. Abrupt Appearance in the Fossil Record
> The oldest fossils for any creature are already fully-formed and don’t change much over time (“stasis”). The “Cambrian Explosion” in the “primordial strata” documents the geologically rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals. There is no evidence of evolution from simpler forms. Birds are said to have evolved from reptiles but no fossil has ever been found having a “half-scale/half-wing”. A reptile breathes using an “in and out” lung (like humans have), but a bird has a “flow-through” lung suitable for moving through the air. Can you even imagine how such a transition of the lung could have taken place? Abrupt appearance and stasis are consistent with the biblical concept of creation “according to its kind”, and a world-wide flood that scoured the earth down to its basement rocks, depositing the “geologic column” and giving the appearance of a “Cambrian Explosion”. Smarter, more mobile creatures would escape the flood waters longer, becoming buried in higher-level strata, leading to a burial order progressing from “simpler” forms to more complex/higher-level forms, which people now wrongly interpret as an evolutionary progression.
>
> 10\. Human Consciousness
> A person is a unity of body + mind/soul, the mind/soul being the immaterial part of you that is the real inner you. Chemicals alone cannot explain self-awareness, creativity, reasoning, emotions of love and hate, sensations of pleasure and pain, possessing and remembering experiences, and free will. Reason itself cannot be relied upon if it is based only on blind neurological events.uhh yes they can, what are you talking about?
>
> 11\. Human Language
> Language is one of the main things that separates man from the animals. No animal is capable of achieving anything like human speech, and all attempts to teach chimpanzees to talk have failed. Evolutionists have no explanation for the origin of human language. However, the Bible does. It says that the first man, Adam, was created able to speak. The Bible also explains why we have different human languages, as God had to "confuse" the common language being used in Babel after the flood, in order to force people to spread out around the world as He wanted. This was only a "surface" confusion though, as all languages express the same underlying basic ideas and concepts, enabling other languages to be learned and understood.Whats wrong with you, I can exaplain how the human language came into existance.
>
> 12\. Sexual Reproduction
> Many creatures reproduce asexually. Why would animals abandon simpler asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction? Sexual reproduction is a very complex process that is only useful if fully in place. For sexual reproduction to have evolved complimentary male and female sex organs, sperm and eggs, and all the associated machinery in tandem defies the imagination.asexual reproduction is convinent put overpopulates easy producing nothing but clones and DNA cannot mix, sexual reproduction lets the cromozomes and genes mix therefore leaving room for the errors in DNA to caouse evolution
>
> 13\. The Bible's Witness
> The Bible is true. The history of the Bible is true. The words of the Bible concerning our origins were given to men to write down, by God, who was the only living being present. We were not there! God said He created the universe. God said He created all living things. We know that life is much more than chemicals. God put His life into Adam and that life has been transferred from generation to generation all the way down to us!sure bible is true whatever, but it happened 1000 years before they wrote it down. (by this statement I'm very sorry to who I insult please dont hate me) but for all we know Jesus could have been a magician
>
> Oh, and I said that once. I don't understand why you couldn't simply read the short paragraph there, instead you carry on arguing as if I had never even shown you the link. I can copy & paste the paragraph if you'd like. The Genesis reference was simply for your own benefit.

I dont wanna change anyones mind, but alot of things you said about evolution were untrue or (I dont mean this in a rude way) you are werent educated properly aobut evolution.

[Gwen]

I hate discussing religion, and politics too! My dad thinks im a heathen because i wont talk about religion or go to church… even tho i do have my spiritual beliefs that are personal to me... and well i dont vote so I dont talk politics.

My whole reasoning for contributing to this discussion was to say that NO ONE knows for certian. It all comes down to speculation and your beliefs. I am not trying to win anyone over to the creationism side, just as im not trying to have anyone go to the evolutionist side. It is up to each individual person to make their own choice. No one will know for sure until the day you die. You might go to heaven... you might go to hell... you might go to heaven with 70 virgins, you might come back as a cow, or you might just end up worm food.

Everyone should be entitled to their own opinion, and no one should be bashed either way. I just hate when "non believers" bash "believers" stating that the believers always thump their views upon everyone... when the non believers are just as guilty.

[AdrianC]

Lol, I don't see how gwen is winning, she only posted a few times, and I've proved that most of what she said is wrong.

As for your questions gwen.

What you must understand is that natural selection does not have a goal. Its not some sort of life form that wants something to happen.

I said humans are weaker physically. Try picking a fight with an ape. Who do you think will win? Humans have the advantage of intelligence, however if you throw a human in the jungle, he's not very likely to survive. At least, not without a whole lot of crap that he didn't actually make on the spot.

Why not evolve human intelligence?

I'll ask you this: Why evolve human intelligence?

Its not like nature knows that human intelligence would make that species stronger. Its all trial and error. If that species lives just fine without our intelligence, why would they evolve it? Lol, ever heard of "If its not broken, don't fix it." ?

Now lets create a possible scenario to explain why we have 2 diff species. Imagine its whenever our common ancestor lived. And you lived in the flowing area:

By [adrianko](http://profile.imageshack.us/user/adrianko) at 2008-11-05

Brown stuff is a mountain, there's a small passage between the mountains.

Alright, so, for thousands of years, whatever ape like creature (I will use the word ape from now on because its shorter. They were not the apes we see today.) existed at that point used to move from one side to the other, and bred with everybody (hehe). Suddenly!!! an earthquake or whatever closed off the passage and now some apes are stuck on the left side, some on the right.They couldn't reach each other anymore.

For some random reason (change in climate, whatever, these happen today as well, so you can't say the climate couldn't change) the grass on the left side started growing. It grew really really tall, and now the apes, staying on 4 feet couldn't see very far. This was dangerous because they would be easy targets for any predators. Some of those apes happened to be able to raise themselves only on two feet, and thus they could see over the tall grass. They couldn't walk on two feet, but they could spot a predator faster.

On the right side, nothing really changed, so the apes didn't have to adapt to anything new.

Now back to the left side. All the apes who couldn't raise themselves were quickly killed by predators. The remaining apes bred among eachother, and all the following generations could raise themselves on two feet. A few thousand years pass, and one ape has a small mutation. He can now walk way better then everybody else on only two legs. When this ape mates, his ummm children? (lol, not sure what the correct term is, but anyway) could also walk way better then everybody else. After thousands and thousands of years, everybody on the left side could walk on two feet fairly well.

At the same time, on the right side, nothing really changed. The species stayed the same, because they did not need to adapt.

Now you can go on and explain intelligence in the same way, but that would just take too long for me to write, and I just don't see the point.

While believing this requires a small amount of faith, evolution is tested over and over again, every day, and it has yet to be proven to be false. We don't know everything yet, but that doesn't mean God is true.

There are way more problems with religion then there are with evolution anyway, so you probably shouldn't use that argument.

Woah, after writing all that, I just saw captain g posted, lol, this is going to take a while.

1\. Ok, prove your point then…. Its your opinion that it could not happen, you don't know that it wouldn't.

2\. Well it was over a year ago... I tried looking for something similar for a few minutes, but if you tipe in protein on Google, with any other words, you will get these highly technical documents, and I don't understand crap. If I find something similar, I'll post it here. I think it had something to do with lava and electricity, can't remember exactly.

4\. Yes it could. Its almost the exact same thing, except you used a specific life form in 3.

6\. Legitimate point? There is nothing backing that up. You just make things up...

7\. You're taking everything literally. If you existed then the car also existed. That wasn't my point tho.

I won't continue, because I'll just end up repeating my self.  I will say this:
We don't claim to know everything. We just try to find the truth. Religion on the other hand just tries to prove everybody else is wrong.

> we are ALL deserving of hell.

Um..uh…um.. wow.

That lite quote right there made me realize that you have some sort of insane admiration of God.

Are you even kiding me with that?

I mean... I mean...

Why the **** would you love God if he wants you to surfer.

I don't really know what to say about this.

[JoshKlaz]

@ Munro:

1\. Can you explain this one with evolution?

2\. But how did that life come into existence itself?!

3\. I don't understand what you mean.

4\. Huh?

5\. That's fair enough, I guess. Perhaps if I didn't have a headache (it's my weekend), I'd be able to counter that argument.

6\. Same can be said about evolution in many cases. Besides, how do you explain the presence of ANYTHING without a higher deity? Imagine nothing. As in, nothing. No information, no one atom, nothing. How would a massive explosion be caused from nothing? Massive explosions wouldn't even exist! Scientists admit that! So at the very least, something outside of time and space would've had to cause it in some way.

7\. Lol, Do you have ANY idea how fine the balance actually is? Do you seriously believe that it simply happened by chance? And how do you explain the bit about how the presence of water is required?

8\. …

9\. ...

10\. Can they? Where did you hear about this?

11\. Ok, please do!

12\. Can you please redo that? I actually didn't understand.

13\. I'm not going to bother further arguing this point, seeing as how you don't believe in God anyway.

[JoshKlaz]

Ok, I'm ending my argument with AdrianC right here. Especially after that little "Religion on the other hand just tries to prove everybody else is wrong.". That was crossing the line in my book.

Anyway, I can see I am not going to get anywhere trying to convince him of the flaws in evolution, and I'm not going to convince him there is a God (higher deity), and I don't feel like spending my entire weekend in front of the computer.

As to that bit about how we are all deserving of hell, how does that mean that God wants us to suffer? Seriously?

I'll continue my discussion with Munro if he wants, but I'm not going to argue with AdrianC unless he starts taking me seriously.

[demon xxx x]

..Just took a look at the thread…
[Please, don't flame me for this post]
Now, I know you seem to have a belief, whether it be small, or large, in God, Josh.

But, my view on all this is, there is no definite explanation for life.  From what I've learned in my 14 years of living, every religion has some scientific information to back it up.  Now, that brings me to believe that they all came from one religion, changed throughout time, having much false, some true information.

May we all be related, may we all not.  May we be created in this "God's" image, may we all not.  It's unknown.  Science can back up every religion in the least bit.  Now, I know not much of other religions, but Catholicism.

But, from what I learned, we are really all confused on this situation, no one has yet to be proven 100% correct about something.  Some people I know say Jesus was just a man who talked a lot, and said he could do miracles.  Now, if that is true, we are not wrong to believe it, since it's not true.  Jewish folk believe the Savior has not yet come… whichever is true, whichever is false, if they are both false.. it's all unknown.

The science side of all this... the Theory of Evolution...

Now, I'm sure we've all heard of it.  It may be true.  I have nothing to believe in, until what is needed to be proved, is proved.  It is said Man[Both genders] had evolved from Monkey/Ape.. the fact that AIDs have been from Monkey's may bring people to believe this. 

In a Catholic Elementary school, it is taught that Jesus, the "Savior" had died for us, and that God created us in his image.  Whilst, Science class may teach you of the Theory of Evolution.

Yes, I know, it sounded like I was talking out my ass.

I think the whole argument here is ridiculous, and the topic should just be locked, though.

[JoshKlaz]

Very well said Dezire, and I guess that with all this uncertainty, we can keep fighting and bickering over who is right or wrong, but you're correct, it can't be proven either way with hard facts. At least not at this time. Maybe someday God will prove himself to those who don't believe, or maybe someday scientists will comes up with a definite, irrefutable fact for the source of life. I guess that until either happens, that is where faith comes in. I have faith based on my experiences that there is a God, AdrianC has faith based on his experiences that there isn't. But neither argument can be proven.

Thank you for that post :)

[AdrianC]

> Ok, I'm ending my argument with AdrianC right here. Especially after that little "Religion on the other hand just tries to prove everybody else is wrong.". That was crossing the line in my book.

You pretty much said it yourself.

> And it isn't so much about proving creation, because there is a lot of faith involved, and some people will simply never accept that. **To me, it is also about defying evolution,** which has too many problems with it to be legit.. I'd rather believe in something that I cannot fully understanding (accepting a higher deity), than believe in something that apparently can be seen but is still full of flaws (too many to make it worth believing in IMO). But I, like you, am no scientist.

Why should this be locked anyway, its not like we're flaming the crap out of each other. If you don't want to post anymore, don't.

[Techno 5.0]

@ﾉ◊ㄅｻкﾚ∆z:

> Actually, yes you did. I even quoted you on it.
>
> Yes.
>
> Yes again.
>
> Your next question is "Than why did go ahead with Adam and Eve if he knew they were going to sin?". Or something like that.
>
> My answer is that I don't know what his plan is and I don't know why he does everything he does. No-one does. Which is why I need to have faith in Him.

exactly…

[munro]

@ﾉ◊ㄅｻкﾚ∆z:

> @ Munro:
>
> 1\. Can you explain this one with evolution?
> well I dont see what your saying in "information" so I cant say anything about it
>
> 2\. But how did that life come into existence itself?!
> Theres a few theorys, some of the main ones are, a meteor carrying bacteria crashed into earth or "Aliens" carryed bacteria here. And by aliens i dont mean "omg UFO!!!111" I mean it in a sense of wasnt born here.
>
> 3\. I don't understand what you mean.
> just saying when an organism has a adaptation gone wrong it doesnt dissapear it dies and becomes a failed mutation.
>
> 4\. Huh?
> evolution is more colplecated than "hey I'm a monkey, WAIT OMG MY KID IS A HUMAN
>
> 5\. That's fair enough, I guess. Perhaps if I didn't have a headache (it's my weekend), I'd be able to counter that argument.ok
>
> 6\. Same can be said about evolution in many cases. Besides, how do you explain the presence of ANYTHING without a higher deity? Imagine nothing. As in, nothing. No information, no one atom, nothing. How would a massive explosion be caused from nothing? Massive explosions wouldn't even exist! Scientists admit that! So at the very least, something outside of time and space would've had to cause it in some way.well its not like scientists arent looking for where life came from, and yea we come up with things to counter what you beileve but it doesnt mean you have to stop beileving.
>
> 7\. Lol, Do you have ANY idea how fine the balance actually is? Do you seriously believe that it simply happened by chance? And how do you explain the bit about how the presence of water is required?
> the original bacteria that evolved was a water based bacteria. Thats how water is involved
>
> 8\. …
>
> 9\. ...
>
> 10\. Can they? Where did you hear about this?
> Some science worksheet I had few weeks back
>
> 11\. Ok, please do!
> Well humans living and evolving had to communicate used sign language to comunicate, eventually that sigh language came with sounds to make things more specific then those sounds turned into to distinctive sounds eventually turning into a language.
>
> 12\. Can you please redo that? I actually didn't understand.
> I was exaplaining the difference between asexual reproduction and sexual reproduction. and why we chose sexual reproduction is because it lets our genes mix with another making things better and teres a better chance of mutation(in a good way)
>
> 13\. I'm not going to bother further arguing this point, seeing as how you don't believe in God anyway.
> when did I say I didnt beileve in god?

[AdrianC]

@Ninja-Tech:

> exactly…

exactly what?

[JoshKlaz]

I guess tho one thing that can really make ANYONE wonder is, where did the first speck of ANYTHING come from. It had to have a beginning. So my theory is that God is a higher dimension outside of space and time (we can't comprehend higher dimensions to this degree, but it doesn't mean they can't exist). Of course, than you would have the question, where did God come from? It's mind-boggling lol.

Thanks for your very valid points Munro, but I think you'll understand that I want to step down for now and enjoy my weekend. Maybe someone will want to pick up where I left off?

And I just want to say that I guess evolution could've happened, I don't know all the facts. I certainly know more about it than I did before I entered this discussion.

But it could only have happened with a first source. Even scientists agree with this.

So I hold fast to my belief that there is a God who, at the very least started it all.

If you have another theory, please say it.

If you disagree with the FACT that it all needed a first source, say, a higher dimensional deity, than you really aren't open to discussion.

[munro]

@ﾉ◊ㄅｻкﾚ∆z:

> I guess tho one thing that can really make ANYONE wonder is, where did the first speck of ANYTHING come from. It had to have a beginning. So my theory is that God is a higher dimension outside of space and time (we can't comprehend higher dimensions to this degree, but it doesn't mean they can't exist). Of course, than you would have the question, where did God come from? It's mind-boggling lol.
>
> Thanks for your very valid points Munro, but I think you'll understand that I want to step down for now and enjoy my weekend. Maybe someone will want to pick up where I left off?
>
> And I just want to say that I guess evolution could've happened, I don't know all the facts. I certainly know more about it than I did before I entered this discussion.
>
> But it could only have happened with a first source. Even scientists agree with this.
>
> So I hold fast to my belief that there is a God who, at the very least started it all.
>
> If you have another theory, please say it.
>
> If you disagree with the FACT that it all needed a first source, say, a higher dimensional deity, than you really aren't open to discussion.

True that.

[JoshKlaz]

Btw Munro, I know this is a bit off-topic, but have you seen my GeoK project?

Trying to get the 1337 of eclipse to check it out lol XD

[munro]

@ﾉ◊ㄅｻкﾚ∆z:

> Btw Munro, I know this is a bit off-topic, but have you seen my GeoK project?
>
> Trying to get the 1337 of eclipse to check it out lol XD

I'l take a look. What is it in WIP?

[JoshKlaz]

It's in Recruiting.

[Bobbus]

How is Gwen not winning this? She's not even trying to 'win' this. She's simply voicing her opinion, and I for one agree with every single thing that she has said.

[Anna Comnena]

It's an epistemological debate on the internet. There are no winners.

[JoshKlaz]

@Bob(bus):

> How is Gwen not winning this? She's not even trying to 'win' this. She's simply voicing her opinion, and I for one agree with every single thing that she has said.

Don't be an ass-kisser.

Kidding XD