I don't know how you come to that conclusion. yes humans are still evolving, But explain how that would make us incapable of logic? None of what you say makes any sense. You have got to the point now when you really are making a fool of yourself. Take your bible and sit in the corner, You are an embarrassment to the still evolving human race.
As a father I agree with what you are saying. I never understood why anyone would "baptise" a child anyways. Nothing in the Bible states that. But the baptism doesn't affect the child, it doesn't make the child religious, but the teaching can. My children (those old enough) have chosen and have surprised me in some really good ways.
Hey ProteinDude, I've got a good one for you If evolution doesn't exist, and therefore we as humans are not evolving, how do you explain the increasingly common absence of appendixes in newborn babies? 'cause according to evolution, since we don't use this part of our body any more, it has become obsolete and therefore isn't being passed on, genetically, to new generations. Did god do it with his invisible bare hands? "Things-tha'-make-ya-go-hmmmmmm"
That's not evolution. That's adaptation. Try again. This is why it's nearly impossible to have an intelligent debate with an evolutionist. They can't seem to understand the difference between adaptation and evolution. For someone who claims to know something about creationism you certainly seem to have no clue about the fact that the Bible not only doesn't require that things remain the same forever, but in fact supports the notion that things will change. Things changing is adaptation. Things changing into other things is evolution. All things evolving from a common ancestor is a religion.
BRUm, those are quoted fantasies, not quoted facts. The facts are that, when you take property away from individuals you have to give control over it to someone. That someone becomes the state and the state bureaucrats then become the dictators over the newly created slaves. This is an inevitable result of collectivism, whether you want to call it socialism, communism, marxism, leninism, trotskyism, stalinism, liberalism, or brumism. You can't polish a turd.
They're quoted from Wikipedia and other credible sources, hardly fantasies. It appears you have yet again failed to grasp my point. Socialism is the "taking of property from individuals" as you put it. Whereas Communism is the Anarchism-like utopian end point to history. Why is that so damn hard to understand? COMMUNISM is the cycle of stages to history and refers specifically to the END of the theory. SOCIALISM is PART of the cycle, the transition stage from a free market to a proletariat capitalist dictatorship (the fourth stage). Communism is the fifth stage. Jesus, this came from the very mouth and pen of Marx. There are ways of getting to a Communist like point without using the Socialist dictatorship, look up Anarcho-capitalism, or just basic Libertarianism - they require no-one to give up their property, but still gives the advantages of Communism. This is my final attempt mate. Make with it what you wish, I can't be bothered arguing the point any more: Shows the stage like motion - Socialism -> Communism. Here's another source in case you're unhappy with the credibility of wikipedia: (Ah, I love that quote taken from The German Ideology - Private property and communism) You see, the Socialist dictatorship is meant to dissolve itself after educating and preparing everyone for self-sufficiency, but, as you have insinuated before, human nature is too corrupt and greedy to simply see the those in power just let it go for the good of mankind. One day though, possibly, one day.. Anyway, I'd only like to hope I have in some way changed a view you held, no matter how small, on the matter of Communism and the beauty of it, despite the reality of achieving it being somewhat debatable. (Just out of randomness, I thought I'd let you know that: I thought at first you called me a 'Polish turd' hahah ) I shall post nothing more on the subject. Although Will, I'd like to read what thoughts you have on Evolution and Creationism. Have a nice day Kalvin: Hm, it seems Evolution is the change in genetic (as they are inherited) traits from generation to generation. How would you define the weakening or loss of appendixes from generation to generation? Ummm... a genetic change?
So really, Evolution by definition is unable to differentiate between adaptation and actual evolution. It is a fact that things change. It is a religious belief that things changing implies changing into something completely new over large (or even short) periods of time. Genetic changes neither prove nor disprove the whole of what Evolution entails. Intelligent Design/Creationism allows for babies to not have appendixes. So, your little example is completely useless to your cause. In fact, there is nothing that can be observed today that would disprove ID/Creationism because obviously these changes are happening in small time frames that allows for a young universe.
If intelligent design allows for humans to lose an entire part of the body it must also allow for other changes, Like the formation of feathers, Upright walking, a loss of bodily hair. You can't draw the lines where you want them. Does intelligent design allow for change and adaptation or not? Because if you claim it does you have inadvertently admitted that evolution occurs.
No, he is stating that adaption occurs. Just like the different colors of human skin, eye shape, etc... we can adapt.
You can't have it both ways. Either we were designed as we are now, Or we change. if you admit that we change you can't at the same time believe in creation. Also, How does the chimp video fit in with the theory of "god-done-it"?
People become dissilussioned with spirituality because they ask themselves questions like "Is God real?" "What does religion do for me?" etc... They should be asking themselves "Is life really an accident?" "How do things come to existence from nothingness?" "Is the universe really the result of a big explosion??"
Let me ask you, are you a follower of Dawkins?? Cause he's usually the type that hurls insults at Creationists. At least he's making money from his books from gullible atheists. How can I accept logic from someone who claims he's a purposeless bunch of atoms stuck together? This atomic bunch that came from nobody knows where and is going nowhere? This is so illogical and yet you want me to listen to your point. Say what??
Think smarter. Maybe we were designed to adapt and change to our environment. No...that couldn't be it.
Collectivism leading to a stateless society is a fantasy. Collectivism ONLY leads to dictatorship and poverty. Evolution is science. Creationism is a fairy tale, much like your "Communism."
No i don't "follow" Dawkins, It's not a religion. I just happen to agree with about everything he says, Because he talks of science and evidence. How can someone not agree with science and evidence? You haven't answered my question. I asked you why a still evolving animal, The human, Wouldn't be capable of logic. If we are a "purposeless bunch of atoms" why would that make us incapable of logic? Do you know what logic is? or are you just cramming it in to every point you make because we have used the word so successfully against you time and time again? You also have the misunderstanding that atheists believe they are going nowhere. it's quite the opposite. We believe we are on a passage to the end of our lives, At which point we will stop existing. Our goal is to make the most of our one time here and to learn as much about the universe we live in through science, reason and evidence. Like i say, You can't have it both ways. You can't claim in one breath that animals do evolve and adapt, And then when you are proven wrong say that god designed us to evolve and adapt. If you believe that god designed us to adapt then you don't believe in creation, It's as simple as that. So again, Do you believe that we adapt and change?
You see, I (proteindude) don't reason with animals. So that is why if you consider yourself an animal I am coming to the logical conclusion that you are incapable of reasoning. You say you believe in evidence and evolution. The fact remains, for evolution to happen it must follow something.
To be totally honest, I have no idea. But since we're on the subject, according to evolution, for evolution to happen it must follow something. After all, we ALL know something does not come from nothing.
Lot's of animals are capable of logic and reasoning. Chimpanzees even have a sense of fairness and justice. So AGAIN, Why wouldn't a bunch of atoms be capable of logic. Just answer the question you coward. You keep making this ridiculous point, But seem incapable of explaining why it would be true. Put up or shut up time. Explain why an evolved human would be incapable of logic or stop saying it. What does that even mean? You aren't doing what i think you are doing are you? You aren't accepting that evolution is a fact and now trying to claim god is responsible for it? Shit i would love it if you done that. Go on, Do it. Say god invented evolution. I agree. So, Where exactly did god come from?
Dude, there you go again with your animals. Do you argue with chimpanzees? Because I don't. I believe chimps belong in the zoo, or in the circus or in the wild. So we do have different views. I see you now changed from an evolved animal to an evolved human. I am so confused. So which one are you: an evolved animal or evolved human? The reason a bunch of atoms can't see logic is the same as a bunch of atoms that keeps a chair together. They are just atoms. That is if I am to follow your logic about the purposeless evolution. NO. GOD DID NOT invent evolution. He made the world in 6 days and on the seventh he rested. If you haven't figured it by now (again, you are incapable of logic), I am a Creationist, a believer, a Christian, a Bible follower a follower of immutable laws and principles unlike some fool who says there is no God.