No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations

[Anachron]

I think this is interesting to read ...

...
Similarly, Michigan State University evolutionary biologists Richard Lenski and his colleagues searched for signs of evolution in bacteria for 20 years, tracking 40,000 generations.3 In the end, the species that they started with was hobbled by accumulated mutations, and the only changes that had occurred were degenerative. University of Bristol emeritus professor of bacteriology Alan Linton summarized the situation:

But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.4

In a recent study, also published in Nature, University of California Irvine researcher Molly Burke led research into the genetic changes that occurred over the course of 600 fruit fly generations. The UCI lab had been breeding fruit flies since 1991, separating fast growers with short life spans from slow growers with longer life spans.5

The UCI scientists compared the DNA sequences affecting fruit fly growth and longevity between the two groups. After the equivalent of 12,000 years of human evolution, the fruit flies showed surprisingly few differences.

One requirement for Darwin's theory is that the mutational changes that supposedly fuel evolution somehow have to be "fixed" into the population. Otherwise, the DNA changes quickly drift right back out of the population. The researchers found no evidence that mutational changes relevant to longevity had been fixed into the fruit fly populations.

The study's authors wrote, "In our sexual populations, adaptation is not associated with 'classic' sweeps whereby newly arising, unconditionally advantageous mutations become fixed."5

They suggested that perhaps there has not been enough time for the relevant mutations to have become fixed. They also suggested an alternative—that natural selection could be acting on already existing variations. But this is not evolution, and it is actually what creation studies have been demonstrating for many years.6

Evolution was not observed in fruit fly genetic manipulations in 1980, nor has it been observed in decades-long multigenerational studies of bacteria and fruit flies. The experiments only showed that these creatures have practical limits to the amount of genetic change they can tolerate. When those limits are breached, the creatures don't evolve—they just die.

Although the experimental results from these studies were given titles with an evolutionary "spin," the actual experiments demonstrate undoubtedly that bacteria and fruit flies were created, not evolved.

 

[neo_sluf]

Lol.. i don't believe in evolution (undoubtedly that bacteria and fruit flies were created, not evolved)... but really interesting topic..

 

[Wazzz]

black people prove evolution exists cause melanin
GG

 

[HappyTauren]

There's a great problem, when your article uses claims that can be disproved in one wiki lookup.

This is what your article states:

"Similarly, Michigan State University evolutionary biologists Richard Lenski and his colleagues searched for signs of evolution in bacteria for 20 years, tracking 40,000 generations.3 In the end, the species that they started with was hobbled by accumulated mutations, and the only changes that had occurred were degenerative. "

And this is what actually happens.

"In 2008, Lenski and his collaborators reported on a particularly important adaptation that occurred in the population called Ara-3: the bacteria evolved the ability to grow on citrate under the oxygen-rich conditions of the experiment. Wild-type E. coli cannot grow on citrate when oxygen is present due to the inability during aerobic metabolism to produce an appropriate transporter protein that can bring citrate into the cell, where it could be metabolized via the citric acid cycle."

Ergo, the whole article is bunk, I do not have enough time to debunk all of this.

 

[Stanakin]

*yawn*

Your religious crusade on the internet ain't gonna convert anyone mate.

 

[Anachron]

Why does everyone think that once you say something against the evolution that we want to convert you?

You are afraid of being converted?

 

[Wazzz]

it's an irrational reaction to the notion of alternative theories

 

[Anachron]

Well then you need to think whether you should write it or not.
I was hoping you have enough strength to decide for yourself if its productive or not.
If you don't have anything good to say, simply don't say it.

 

[Wazzz]

i didn't have the irrational reaction
i talked about black men

 

[Stanakin]

It's an alternative reaction to irrational theories.

Alternative to trying to reason with religious people which is, of course, impossible. Otherwise they wouldn't be religious in the first place.

/leaving before pointless debate takes up too much of my time.

 

[Wazzz]

atheists and theists are amusingly similar ^_^

 

[HappyTauren]

Why does everyone think that once you say something against the evolution that we want to convert you?

Because the only argument any creationist has ever had had to be based on a number of fallacies. Not to mention, creationists have to ignore actual data in order to draw their 'conclusions'. That is not only completely unscientific and dishonest, it is also borderline crazy.

You are afraid of being converted?

You can't convert anyone, so, he probably isn't. The only way to convert to creationism is to start ignoring everything except what creationists say, to forget how to utilize scientific method, to forget statistics, and, after all, to really WANT creationism to be true.

I don't really care either way, whether we are all created in present form or not - what I do care about, however, is that such an idea is infantile at this moment, with so much data supporting evolution (not to mention that knowledge gained through evolution is actually utilized in science to make predictions, which is why creationism would be useless even if it were true).

However, you can't even know how much data supports evolution, because you're listening to creationists who distort everything to their religious goals.

I know how it works, I've been just as crazy as you are.

 

[Anachron]

Because the only argument any creationist has ever had had to be based on a number of fallacies.

Actually, I know that many of the stuff also has evidence in the other direction. Exactly THAT is why you have to believe in religion. Because there is no real evicence for it. Those who support evolution will always find ways why not to believe in it. That is one of the ways how God supports freedom. We can choose whatever we choose to believe. So, for both sides, there is evidence for it and there is evidence against it. You may wonder, what sense does it make, except freedom of choice? It's also to make sure those who will find to Jesus are honest in their heart, pure and they truly believe in him. Trust that comes from the heart, not from the mind. That is the difference between science and religion. And honestly, if I would be God, I would do the same. To only collect people who believe in me by faith, and not by my signs and science. Because only those are pure enough to understand how much glory I have (if I would be a God).

Not to mention, creationists have to ignore actual data in order to draw their 'conclusions'. That is not only completely unscientific and dishonest, it is also borderline

Same with evolution. There is no step between Ape and Human. How comes so? There is always a reason for lack of evidence for evolution. And that is freedom of choice, again created by God. If you would be pure in your heart, you could understand it. You can't teach religion, you can only understand it with your spirit.

You can't convert anyone, so, he probably isn't. The only way to convert to creationism is to start ignoring everything except what creationists say, to forget how to utilize scientific method, to forget statistics, and, after all, to really WANT creationism to be true.

Yes you have to want it, that's right. Because you understood how everything is connected and how someone had to create all of it. So you say: Okay, God, I have seen what you did, so I am ready to get taught by you.

I don't really care either way, whether we are all created in present form or not - what I do care about, however, is that such an idea is infantile at this moment, with so much data supporting evolution (not to mention that knowledge gained through evolution is actually utilized in science to make predictions, which is why creationism would be useless even if it were true).

Well, if you are neither Atheist nor Religious then I guess you are probably more lost than before. I can understand your point of view, because I was thinking the same before. But if you ever stop researching new stuff you will stop developing you brain and your spirit/consciousness. Only if you accept many stuff as truth, then you have the power and the wish to dig deeper to then again find more data and rethink your decision.

However, you can't even know how much data supports evolution, because you're listening to creationists who distort everything to their religious goals.

I know how it works, I've been just as crazy as you are.

Yes, maybe I am crazy, maybe I am not. But the difference between you and me is: I believe in God because he showed himself to me, after I called his name and asked for his help. You believe in him because you thought there is evidence for him, and now you got upset because people keep mocking you and you are tired of not having enough evidence for your God. If you would truly love him, if you would truly understand how he never takes credit for all the good stuff he does, just so that we can understand and find out by ourself, then you are truly lost and do not belong to God.

I write this with a lot of love and I hope none of us will regret the decision sooner or later. God bless you, even though you don't believe in him.

 

[PurgeandFire]

Note: It isn't enough to simply spawn generations to disprove evolution. There are tons of different types of evidence supporting
evolutionary theory, and so many factors that go into it. It would be an endless back-and-forth. Just because it doesn't appear
for one population, doesn't mean it does not exist.

Keep in mind that modern evolution != Darwinian evolution. Evolution has evolved (lol pun intended) massively throughout the years.
The idea of "gradualism", in which the fly would gradually morph into reptar, is mostly set aside in favor of punctuated equilibrium.
As such, there is no reason why the fly should necessarily evolve. It may just be in stasis.

And it would need a lot more than just one or two studies. Bear in mind that religious groups pay off some paleontologists and geologists
to do everything they can to support creationism. These make up a small % of the scientific community, but they constantly
spend time trying to find flaws with evolution. This, in some ways, can be helpful, in that it will improve evolution even more
(if those scientists bring up any valid points). And it has sort of done that over the past. Evolution isn't perfect--it is still being
molded and it isn't just 'one' idea. Keep that in mind.

But anyway, these debates are pretty pointless. I doubt anyone gets convinced of the other side. It just makes
everyone angrier. It makes me want to punch a baby seal (not really. sorry to all those seals I have offended).

 

[Heinvers]

The idea of "gradualism", in which the fly would gradually morph into reptar, is mostly set aside in favor of punctuated equilibrium.
As such, there is no reason why the fly should necessarily evolve. It may just be in stasis.

That's exactly what I think it's the case for this topic!

 

[GhostWolf]

Gee, just because people didn't agree with you in the chat doesn't mean you have to take it here for yet another flame-inspiring useless religion thread.

You actually gave zero "proofs" to "your" side of the argument, so I am not sure how you keep saying both sides have proofs.

Waiting for this thread to get closed.

 

[Anachron]

Gee, just because people didn't agree with you in the chat doesn't mean you have to take it here for yet another flame-inspiring useless religion thread.

This thread didn't mean to start a religious discussion, that is what people made out of it. Because it's easy to distract from the things and all blame religion for it.

You actually gave zero "proofs" to "your" side of the argument, so I am not sure how you keep saying both sides have proofs.

And you gave zero "proofs" of your side either. You won't accept my stuff, I won't accept you stuff. But that's not what I wanted to do anyway. I just wanted to point of some things just wont make sense with evolution. That's what I said. Nothing more, nothing less.

Waiting for this thread to get closed.

Shouldn't be closed unless people keep using the wrong intensions to continue the discussion.

 

[Midnighters]

Here are my thoughts anymore, I will believe there is a God, so if there is, I won't go to hell, but if there isn't who gives a fuck anyway? Why does it matter whether you believe in Evolutionary Theories or Creationism? There is no logical reason to have an argument about it, either way, micro-evolution is real, that is quite apparent. Look how humans have adapted to diseases?

 

[Nuclear]

Oh my...

I'll just address some things said in this thread:

atheists and theists are amusingly similar ^_^

Here are my thoughts anymore, I will believe there is a God, so if there is, I won't go to hell, but if there isn't who gives a fuck anyway?

This is called the Pascal's wager. It might seem like a good idea at first, but how do you know you picked the right god? What if there's a god that only let's atheists in heaven?

micro-evolution

There's no "micro" or "macro" evolution, it's a bullshit argument by creationists who admit that changes happen but still can't accept evolution.

 

[HappyTauren]

Actually, I know that many of the stuff also has evidence in the other direction.

No, you do not know, you think. You posted an article, and you didn't even research its claims. You failed right there. You have an illusion of knowledge.

Exactly THAT is why you have to believe in religion.

Aside from certain people's emotional needs and fallacious attribution, no, there's no real reason to 'have to believe in religion'.

Because there is no real evicence for it.

You mean, it is not falsifiable? If that's what you mean, that means it makes no sense to believe such claims. You can't know whether or not it is true by definition.

You Those who support evolution will always find ways why not to believe in it.

Well, let's see, a huge body of scientific data in the past 150 years vs some people's crazy ideas how god used magic to create the world. And all that with zero explanations that conform to actual data gathered. Oh boy. I am not looking for reasons to disbelieve whatever diety you like, I just have no reason to believe there's anything to that story. When I did use to believe such nonsense, I didn't quite scrutinize anything. I could've been muslim either way.

That is one of the ways how God supports freedom.

Go prove it. Oh right, this idea is not falsifiable. Therefore cannot be used as an argument.

We can choose whatever we choose to believe.

I am not so sure we can, or do you simply KNOW that people have free will? This is a completely different kind of a discussion right in one sentence.

So, for both sides, there is evidence for it and there is evidence against it.

Present evidence against evolution, from a reputable source. As you see, the 'source' you posted is riddled with blatant lies (not gonna sugarcoat it). So, argument your stance if you have solid evidence.

You may wonder, what sense does it make, except freedom of choice?

We can't even figure out whether or not there's any such thing as free will. Our current understanding points to a fat no, but there's no reason to give up on life, because any determinism is on such a low level that we can't make such complex predictions.

It's also to make sure those who will find to Jesus are honest in their heart, pure and they truly believe in him.

In which case you don't need to consider whether creationism or evolution is true, as christians have found ways to make both compatible with their religion. If this is about religion, you shouldn't be discussing science in first place.

Trust that comes from the heart, not from the mind.

You mean, trust that comes from emotional needs and not reason? Well, that's pretty much what I said - people believe in creationism because of their emotional needs.

That is the difference between science and religion.

Precisely, it is also why a religious attempt at science known as creationism is so bunk.

And honestly, if I would be God, I would do the same. To only collect people who believe in me by faith, and not by my signs and science.

Basically, your criteria for who should go to heaven is whether they are irrational or gullible enough?

Because only those are pure enough to understand how much glory I have (if I would be a God).

Dude, I've read the OT. I KNOW 'your' glory. Unless you're ready to rationalize a lot of stuff, you're in for many, many misdeeds.

Same with evolution. There is no step between Ape and Human.

Humans ARE apes. Also, there are plenty of transitional fossils.

How comes so?

Because you'd get an F in elementary biology.

There is always a reason for lack of evidence for evolution.

This is actually pretty interesting. You could observe every being as a species in itself - if it has a different DNA code. What this means is that the number of transitional fossils between you and some apes 2 million years ago is the number of generations it took to get you from some kind of a hairy pre-human ape. What this means is that, for a complete transitional fossil record of YOU, you'd have to go back 3.8 billion years, generation by generation, even going so far to address your single celled ancestors. So yeah, there always ARE reasons for lack of transitional fossils, not evolution. Not even all fossils are saved, mind you.

And that is freedom of choice, again created by God.

Well, yeah, if you believe in god, and in freedom of choice. And since it is an not a falsifiable hypothesis, it cannot be used as an argument.

If you would be pure in your heart, you could understand it.

If you were irrational enough and had emotional needs that required evolution to be false, you'd totally be a creationist, is what I am reading. But I understand it, because I've been that crazy.

You can't teach religion, you can only understand it with your spirit.

Nah, you can't actually understand it. You can only have an illusion of understanding it. But hopefully you'll figure this out.

Yes you have to want it, that's right.

This is a number #1 problem with your idea. You do not have to want evolution to be true to consider it true. You simply actually learn how it works and how you can actually observe it (newsflash: the fact that you don't look absolutely like your father is actually evidence for evolution). You can NOT WANT to consider it true all you want, it won't help you.

Because you understood how everything is connected and how someone had to create all of it.

No, you do not understand anything. As I said, you have an illusion of knowledge, you can't even cite a relevant source of someone who does research. You posted a link which can be debunked with one wiki lookup. The guy cited another study as not finding evolution to be able to make useful mutations, when in fact, the complete opposite is true. The guys at ICR rely on you not researching anything they write. If you actually research what they claim, it becomes blatantly clear that they are, simply put, lying. Why would you even believe people who have to use blatant lies to support their ideas? If they are the preachers of truth their ideas would not only be internally consistent, but also consistent with actual real world data.

So you say: Okay, God, I have seen what you did, so I am ready to get taught by you.

Well, try to figure out an actual problem in science. There are a plenty of unsolved mysteries. Try to get your god on phone and solve some of them, if you believe he can teach you. Remember, he is omniscient, he can know everything, if you prayed every day to get a piece of falsifiable knowledge unknown to everyone else, he'd have to reply, right? Oh, but if he doesn't, then you just aren't good enough.

Well, if you are neither Atheist nor Religious then I guess you are probably more lost than before.

Not subscribing to an ideology is as far from being lost as you can possibly get.

I can understand your point of view, because I was thinking the same before.

But did you have the same amount of knowledge to support what you think? Have you actually deeply researched biology, DNK mechanics, evolution, etc? Or did you only read shallow stuff from either biologists or creationists? Because if you didn't actually get any deep into it, chances are, your stance was unsubstantiated by your knowledge, even if it was correct. That's why you can't compare your prior and current ignorance to my prior ignorance and current knowledge.

But if you ever stop researching new stuff you will stop developing you brain and your spirit/consciousness.

You'd be surprised how much new stuff there is in science. Start with biology, that should be new enough to you. Creationism is simply not falsifiable, not scientific, and is actually wrong if it is presented as opposed to evolution. If you want to learn new things, maybe you should actually start to attempt to try to understand what scientific scrutiny is, and why ICR is not the same thing as 'virtually every other biology researcher in existence'.

Only if you accept many stuff as truth, then you have the power and the wish to dig deeper to then again find more data and rethink your decision.

Well, this is where you have a false dichotomy. You do not have to consider something to be true. However, when you get new data, you should scrutinize it thoroughly and make your decisions. What this means is that you do not have to consider either creationism nor evolution true. But by researching tons of data (taxonomic, archaeological, genetic, etc) you can make your decision. The only thing getting in your way at that point are emotional needs (provided by religion) that force you to interpret data from a creationist point of view, even if it makes no sense, or doesn't actually follow from any data.

Yes, maybe I am crazy, maybe I am not. But the difference between you and me is: I believe in God because he showed himself to me, after I called his name and asked for his help.

Well, many pople believe in gods because they've shown themselves to them. Pretty much all gods have people who believe that it was JUST THAT god that revealed their identity to person X. There's no reason to believe your testimony is any better than those of muslims'. And I (kinda) used to believe the same thing. When you indoctrinate yourself deep enough you start connecting things with no connection. What this means is that you can force yourself to believe that the voice in your head is god, even though it is only projection of your own thoughts. The worst thing? You don't even understand you're forcing yourself into this, until you rethink the core of this idea.

You believe in him because you thought there is evidence for him, and now you got upset because people keep mocking you and you are tired of not having enough evidence for your God.

Actually, it was partially other people that (kinda) forced me to rethink the whole 'god' idea. You know, people were like, dude, your idea of science is distorted through religion, how about you actually try to understand science before misrepresenting it? For awhile I'd fight such thoughts, but then I thought - ok, what if it is _ME_ who is wrong, after all?

If you would truly love him, if you would truly understand how he never takes credit for all the good stuff he does, just so that we can understand and find out by ourself, then you are truly lost and do not belong to God.

Actually, according to the bible, god takes absolutely all credit for absolutely everything that happens. But then again, bible is contradictory, you could be referring to a different idea somewhere else.

I write this with a lot of love and I hope none of us will regret the decision sooner or later. God bless you, even though you don't believe in him.

We all know that you mean well, but to many of us it is also very apparent that you've self-indoctrinated yourself (and I didn't help either, eek!) and that you have a very distorted idea of how science (for starters) works.

This thread didn't mean to start a religious discussion, that is what people made out of it.

Creationism = religion. Sorry. It is not science by any stretch.

Because it's easy to distract from the things and all blame religion for it.

There are two ways around this:
Either you posted a creationist article to talk about god, or to talk about science. If former, it's a religious discussion. If latter, it is not science, therefore it's a religious discussion. Also your article is bunk, but you seem to have already forgotten that.

And you gave zero "proofs" of your side either.

The very study this article cites is proof for evolution (one of, anyway).

You won't accept my stuff, I won't accept you stuff.

Obviously, this has nothing to do with proof, but with standards for what proof is and what is not.

But that's not what I wanted to do anyway. I just wanted to point of some things just wont make sense with evolution. That's what I said. Nothing more, nothing less.

Well, then maybe you should actually try learning what evolution is all about, because the idea of what evolution is that you get from creationist sites is highly flawed. No wonder it makes no sense if you study evolution from 'Institute for Creation Research". You aren't wisely pointing out that 'something's wrong with evolution', but rather that you don't understand it or know (pretty much) anything about biology.

Shouldn't be closed unless people keep using the wrong intensions to continue the discussion.

This falls under religious discussion, kind of, since creationism is basically a religious belief.

 

[MiniMage]

Science is experimentation and observation. Evolution is not something that becomes something else purely because we want it to. Evolution is adaptation. Crabs found evolving in a cave with little to no light, has lost the need for its eyes and its pigmentation is completely gone.

Bacteria is evolving at a extremely agile rate. So much so that some researches believe that if we don't do something, most of it will be immune to penicillin, because it evolves to strike back at it and that's pretty bad when scraping your knee can be a death sentence.

Now; A study done with limited time is silly. The Darwinian concept of one animal becoming another, is most likely true, you can trace it in DNA. But; the concept of the the monkey that walks slowly to become the modern human, is false. We didn't just gradually ease into our existence. It was a minefield of adaptation and mutation. If a mutated gene didn't help the creature, it would die. If the mutated gene attributed to the survival of said creature, it would then spread the mutated gene to some or all of its offspring.

Let's look at the polar bear. In the far distant past, a regular bear had offspring where pigmentation did not show. A white bear. As the bear blended perfectly in the snowy landscapes, the bear without the pigmentation had an advantage over the the brown bears, as the brown bears was spotted almost immediately. This gave the polar bear an evolutionary advantage in this area. In this environment, its mutation had caused the creature to adapt. This does not mean that the bear with pigmentation just died off. Some did, the rest migrated to an area where its brown fur instead, was an evolutionary advantage. Subtle changes through minimal evolution has been proven. Many times.

Today, now that we shit out gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere, polar bears have started to die, drown, from swiming great distances, then trying to climb up on ice that used to be stable, that now just tends to kinda crumble away, melt and become more ocean. As a result, the polar bears have migrated inland, to safer territory. They've now come into Grizzly Bear territory and the two have spawned offspring, the Grolar bears. Fertile offspring of grizzly bears and polar bears. Because this too, is adaptation. Evolution.

Mankind is also still evolving.. Past studies have hinted our species continues to evolve, with research showing changes to hundreds of genes in the human genome over the past 10,000 years; in addition, skull measurements suggest our brains have been shrinking over the last 5,000 years or so.

Elephants are evolving to lose their tusks, from a study in 2005, it was estimated that the tuskless population had risen to between 5 and 10 percent. And it's not just happening in Asia, either. One African national park estimated their number of elephants born without tusks was as high as 38 percent. It's natural selection in action.

Hudson River Fish are becoming immune to Toxic Waste, from 1947 to 1976, the Hudson River was on the business end of some of the country's most egregious water polluting. Over the past 20 to 50 generations, the tomcod has evolved immunity from the poison in their water.

When fire ants were accidentally introduced to the States about 70 years ago, the fence lizard found itself defenceless against them. The innate instinct of the lizards when approaching a threat was to stay still and blend in with the environment and thus wait it out. Fire Ants ganged up on these guys and killed them within minutes. Some lizards have started twitching and shaking when they come in contact with them, so to not get stung to death by those annoying little buggers. Those that were not used to fire ants stood still, while those that were, would twitch and shake and then flee. Future generations of lizards have shown to inherit the twitching behavior and has evolved longer legs to make this defensive mechanism more effective.

Lizards have also evolved in other areas. In 1971, scientists introduced 10 Italian wall lizards to an island in Croatia, but right after they dropped them off, the Croatian War for Independence prevented the researchers from following up on their little lizard guinea pigs. In fact, the scientists couldn't get back to the island until 2004. When they did, they found 5,000 lizard descendants who had not only annihilated the entire indigenous lizard population, but also rewired the shape of their own innards to accommodate the local diet. Before their introduction to the island, the wall lizards were carnivores, so their digestive systems weren't built for leaf-eating. So the lizards developed things called cecal valves, which were muscles that slowed down the process of food digestion and gave them more time to break down plant cellulose.

Then you have the three-toed skinks which come from Australia, which lately births its young from its body, alive, instead of laying eggs, they have, in harsher mountain climates, found it more efficient to keep their young in their bodies longer, because laid eggs are more vulnerable to weather and predators. This to ensure their survival, essentially becoming mammals..

In other places, the lizards of the same species are still laying their eggs on the ground. So there's already a evolutionary divide between the two and the differences may potentially become greater as this thing, possibly becoming its new species.

A fruit fly confined in a specific lab would not need to evolve into something different, it would only adapt to its environment and its ability to obtain food and reproduce. Adaption does not mean that the animal in question must become more complex, sometimes a creature can evolve into something less to ensure its survival. A smaller animal for example require less food and thus ensure that less food is necessary for the survival of that species. Again, adaptation.

The reason people state that they think evolution is true is because currently it is the most probable explanation of what could've and is happening. As much as big bang is the most probable explanation of what could've started the galaxy. No one says that it is by definition fact and true, just that for the moment, this conclusion is the most probable.

As for the bible, the quickest route to atheism is reading the Bible. It's thick with misogyny and xenophobia, exaltations of seriously immoral behavior, and still it manages to be boring.

On the first page of Genesis, God creates man AND woman out of the dust of the Earth. Then on the next page, the man is suddenly alone again and God creates woman from his rib. Self-contradiction right out of the gate. But don't worry, the plot here functions kinda like lost, with those neverending flashbacks.

So Yahweh did create woman out of dust, at the same time as Adam. Her name was Lelith, and the prototype lady had some issues. namely, she wanted to be on top during sex. Seriously. She refused to obey Adam, who complained to God, and he kicked her out. Then apparently she runs into some of the demons running around (Fallen Angels in the Jewish and Apocryphal canon, fun stuff.) the waste, and mates with them. Making more demons. God wipes Adam's memory of the entire sordid affair, works out some kinks, and makes nice, subservient Eve. Who still messes up. The Jewish fathers had some serious issues with women, in that THE ALMIGHTY LORD fucks it up twice.

You know Noah, who saved all the animals from the flood? Did you know what the first thing he did was after the flood had ended? He took one each of all the "clean animals" and sacrificed them to God by burning them. Dafuq? You just saved them and wont this kinda conflict with them repopulating the earth again?

Abraham, the "founding father of the jewish people", did you know his wife was actually his half sister? And his nephew Lot.. Jeez.. He lived in a cave with his daughters, and since the daughters didn't get any male visitors in that cave, the daughters instead got their father drunk and had sex with him, so as to became pregnant. Nice.

Then, Joshua. He hears the voice of god in his head which tells him that the land over there is meant for him and his people, so that he and his people should go there and kill everyone and take over the land, because god told him so. And anyone who doesn't want to follow his plan is righteously killed. Oh, and when they attack and plunder cities and kill everyone in the name of God, Joshua says that no-one may keep ANY plunder for themselves because it belongs to God, and if anyone takes something anyway they are killed.

There's a few of the more memorable things.

 

[Anachron]

No, you do not know, you think. You posted an article, and you didn't even research its claims. You failed right there. You have an illusion of knowledge.

Here is a good article with a lot of researchable information:
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Believing in beneficial mutations is like believing a short-circuit in the motherboard of your computer could improve its performance. To make any lasting change, a beneficial mutation would have to spread ("sweep") through a population and stay (become "fixed"). To evolutionists, this idea has been essential for so long that it is called a "classic sweep", "in which a new, strongly beneficial mutation increases in frequency to fixation in the population." Some evolutionist researchers went looking for classic sweeps in humans, and reported their findings in the journal Science. "To evaluate the importance of classic sweeps in shaping human diversity, we analyzed resequencing data for 179 human genomes from four populations". "In humans, the effects of sweeps are expected to persist for approximately 10,000 generations or about 250,000 years." Evolutionists had identified "more than 2000 genes as potential targets of positive selection in the human genome", and they expected that "diversity patterns in about 10% of the human genome have been affected by linkage to recent sweeps." So what did they find? "In contrast to expectation," their test detected nothing, but they could not quite bring themselves to say it. They said there was a "paucity of classic sweeps revealed by our findings". Sweeps "were too infrequent within the past 250,000 years to have had discernible effects on genomic diversity." "Classic sweeps were not a dominant mode of human adaptation over the past 250,000 years."

Quote originally from:
Hernandez, Ryan D., Joanna L. Kelley, Eyal Elyashiv, S. Cord Melton, Adam Auton, Gilean McVean, 1000 Genomes Project, Guy Sella, Molly Przeworski. 18 February 2011. Classic Selective Sweeps Were Rare in Recent Human Evolution. Science, Vol. 331, no. 6019, pp. 920-924.

Aside from certain people's emotional needs and fallacious attribution, no, there's no real reason to 'have to believe in religion'.

You mean, other than the simply idea of not everything that we are taught in school is true?

You mean, it is not falsifiable? If that's what you mean, that means it makes no sense to believe such claims. You can't know whether or not it is true by definition.

I never said so. I said there are arguments to believe in it, and there are arguments to not believe in it.

Well, let's see, a huge body of scientific data in the past 150 years vs some people's crazy ideas how god used magic to create the world. And all that with zero explanations that conform to actual data gathered. Oh boy. I am not looking for reasons to disbelieve whatever diety you like, I just have no reason to believe there's anything to that story. When I did use to believe such nonsense, I didn't quite scrutinize anything. I could've been muslim either way.

No comment.

Go prove it. Oh right, this idea is not falsifiable. Therefore cannot be used as an argument.

Everything can be proven or disproven, that's how free will is possible. If there would be clear evidence against each other, I would say that we would all believe in it, right? Also, I am pretty sure both are true, so why would I speak against it?

I am not so sure we can, or do you simply KNOW that people have free will? This is a completely different kind of a discussion right in one sentence.

Well, if you don't have a free will, how comes you can regret the decisions that you made?

Present evidence against evolution, from a reputable source. As you see, the 'source' you posted is riddled with blatant lies (not gonna sugarcoat it). So, argument your stance if you have solid evidence.

Darwin himself wrote in chapter 6 of On the Origin of Species that "natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being... If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Now, is there any evidence how an organ such as an eye, an heart or something else ever evolved?

We can't even figure out whether or not there's any such thing as free will. Our current understanding points to a fat no, but there's no reason to give up on life, because any determinism is on such a low level that we can't make such complex predictions.

Actually we can, we just choose to ignore the fact that we have a mind that we can actually use to make decisions either way.

In which case you don't need to consider whether creationism or evolution is true, as christians have found ways to make both compatible with their religion. If this is about religion, you shouldn't be discussing science in first place.

It wasn't about religion at all, people just put up the topic because they like to change the topic to distract from their disbelief in christianity.

You mean, trust that comes from emotional needs and not reason? Well, that's pretty much what I said - people believe in creationism because of their emotional needs.

Yes, that is again because as a God you would want someone nice to enter your kingdom, someone who needs you and who believes in you no matter what. Not because he learned that in school.

Precisely, it is also why a religious attempt at science known as creationism is so bunk.

Evolution and creation both make sense. Just together, not alone.

Basically, your criteria for who should go to heaven is whether they are irrational or gullible enough?

If you are pure in your heart and can see God in his glory, if you can understand his actions then you are awaken enough to enter his Kingdom. For those who are asleep, they will not wake up because believing in Jesus is more than just science. It's the opposite. Only if you understand that science can never explain the universe, then you can start to understand that there is another level of existence.

It's as simple as this: How is it possible that peoples bodies are alive but their consciousness is not there anymore? The brain, their heart, everything working normally, but they just seem like empty bodies. What is this myserious thing everyone is talking about? What is a soul? If there is a soul, how could evolution explain it? It cannot. If there is no soul, how can you revive a completely dead body after 2 minutes of brain death and still get him back with all his personality?

Dude, I've read the OT. I KNOW 'your' glory. Unless you're ready to rationalize a lot of stuff, you're in for many, many misdeeds.

So you read the OT and the NT and you choose to ignore the most possibly most logical story that ever existed? Millions of people would have to think together for all of it to make sense, leave alone how long they would need to write it down. What about the codes that are hidden in the bible, like this one? It perfectly fits to the rest of the book and the history. There are books written with how much stuff is hidden from the naked eye.

Humans ARE apes. Also, there are plenty of transitional fossils.

Humans are humans. Show me transitional fossils please.

Because you'd get an F in elementary biology.

First of all, I got an B, second of all, you knew you were lying and trying to make me look stupid. How dare are you!

This is actually pretty interesting. You could observe every being as a species in itself - if it has a different DNA code. What this means is that the number of transitional fossils between you and some apes 2 million years ago is the number of generations it took to get you from some kind of a hairy pre-human ape. What this means is that, for a complete transitional fossil record of YOU, you'd have to go back 3.8 billion years, generation by generation, even going so far to address your single celled ancestors. So yeah, there always ARE reasons for lack of transitional fossils, not evolution. Not even all fossils are saved, mind you.

Using wikipedia as my source:
Who would think that this one and this one are in any way related to each other?

There are like what, 20 pictures? There were about 100.000.000 already living on this earth. Shouldn't there be a few more skulls from back then?

Well, yeah, if you believe in god, and in freedom of choice. And since it is an not a falsifiable hypothesis, it cannot be used as an argument.

If you believe in science, it's not a falsifiable hypothesis, thus it cannot be used as an argument too! I could simply say that, but I guess you would have to understand that I am not like you.

If you irrational enough and had emotional needs that require evolution to be false, you'd totally be a creationist, is what I am reading. But I understand it, because I've been that crazy.

I do believe that evolution somehow happens, but I believe that God is the creator of all. You know, just because a plane and a car have the same components it doesn't mean they evolved from each other. And the same is with everything else. Many things can change, but a horse will never become a bird and other way around. No matter how much you try to change the genes and that stuff.

Nah, you can't actually understand it. You can only have an illusion of understanding it. But hopefully you'll figure this out.

But you do? With years of research you should be the one understanding that there is a limit on science, and that we simply cannot prove that one thing or another is true. But we can use our mind to select what is more likely in our actual state of consciousness.

This is a number #1 problem with your idea. You do not have to want evolution to be true to consider it true. You simply actually learn how it works and how you can actually observe it (newsflash: the fact that you don't look absolutely like your father is actually evidence for evolution). You can NOT WANT to consider it true all you want, it won't help you.

QUote from my link:

Many scientists are with us
The only tactic left to evolutionists is to ridicule their critics as simpletons who don't understand how their pet theory really works. Here is a link to a roster of hundreds of professionals whose advanced academic degrees certify that they thoroughly understand evolution theory. They also have the courage to defy the high priests of academia by voluntarily adding their names to a skeptics list against Darwinism.

No, you do not understand anything. As I said, you have an illusion of knowledge, you can't even cite a relevant source of someone who does research. You posted a link which can be debunked with one wiki lookup. The guy cited another study as not finding evolution to be able to make useful mutations, when in fact, the complete opposite is true. The guys at ICR rely on you not researching anything they write. If you actually research what they claim, it becomes blatantly clear that they are, simply put, lying. Why would you even believe people who have to use blatant lies to support their ideas? If they are the preachers of truth their ideas would not only be internally consistent, but also consistent with actual real world data.

Sigh. Another quote:
Ernst Chain (1906-1979) and two others were awarded the 1945 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. Chain identified the structure of penicillin, and isolated the active substance. He is considered to be one of the founders of the field of antibiotics. Concerning Darwin's theory of evolution, Chain found it to be "a very feeble attempt" to explain the origin of species based on assumptions so flimsy that "it can hardly be called a theory."A He saw the reliance on chance mutations as a "hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts."B He wrote: "These classic evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they were swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."B Chain concluded that he "would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation" as Darwinism.A He was born in Berlin, Germany, and obtained his Ph.D. in biochemistry and physiology there. He worked as a research scientist at Cambridge (also studying for a Ph.D. there), at Oxford University until 1948, and then as a professor and researcher at several other universities. In 1938, Chain came across Alexander Fleming's 1929 paper on penicillin, and showed it to his colleague Howard Florey. In their research, Chain isolated and purified penicillin. --Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. April 2008. Ernst Chain: Antibiotics Pioneer. Acts&Facts, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 10-12.
A. Clark, R.W. 1985. The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond. New York: St. Martin's Press, p. 147.
B. Chain, E. 1970. Social Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society (Robert Waley Cohen memorial lecture). London: The Council of Christians and Jews, p. 25.

Well, try to figure out an actual problem in science. There are a plenty of unsolved mysteries. Try to get your god on phone and solve some of them, if you believe he can teach you. Remember, he is omniscient, he can know everything, if you prayed every day to get a piece of falsifiable knowledge unknown to everyone else, he'd have to reply, right? Oh, but if he doesn't, then you just aren't good enough.

Seems like you also suffer from this.

Not subscribing to an ideology is as far from being lost as you can possibly get.

If you have no point to defense, there is nothing you should be afraid of. Very clever. But still won't give you any development.

But did you have the same amount of knowledge to support what you think? Have you actually deeply researched biology, DNK mechanics, evolution, etc? Or did you only read shallow stuff from either biologists or creationists? Because if you didn't actually get any deep into it, chances are, your stance was unsubstantiated by your knowledge, even if it was correct. That's why you can't compare your prior and current ignorance to my prior ignorance and current knowledge.

I didn't, but I am sure the people in the big list above did.

You'd be surprised how much new stuff there is in science. Start with biology, that should be new enough to you. Creationism is simply not falsifiable, not scientific, and is actually wrong if it is presented as opposed to evolution. If you want to learn new things, maybe you should actually start to attempt to try to understand what scientific scrutiny is, and why ICR is not the same thing as 'virtually every other biology researcher in existence'.

Dude, I know. Don't get me wrong okay!

Well, this is where you have a false dichotomy. You do not have to consider something to be true. However, when you get new data, you should scrutinize it thoroughly and make your decisions. What this means is that you do not have to consider either creationism nor evolution true. But by researching tons of data (taxonomic, archaeological, genetic, etc) you can make your decision. The only thing getting in your way at that point are emotional needs (provided by religion) that force you to interpret data from a creationist point of view, even if it makes no sense, or doesn't actually follow from any data.

If you don't accept something to be true, you can't give it enough time to link with your other knowledge to build a complex network of thoughts that are needed to get the "Wow, this is real" flash. If you don't get it, mostly it will be because it's not true. The truth is always shocking, that's for sure.

Well, many pople believe in gods because they've shown themselves to them. Pretty much all gods have people who believe that it was JUST THAT god that revealed their identity to person X. There's no reason to believe your testimony is any better than those of muslims'. And I (kinda) used to believe the same thing. When you indoctrinate yourself deep enough you start connecting things with no connection. What this means is that you can force yourself to believe that the voice in your head is god, even though it is only projection of your own thoughts. The worst thing? You don't even understand you're forcing yourself into this, until you rethink the core of this idea.

Why would I call God and then talk with myself the solution over a problem that I didnt know an answer of? I really really was in a bad state, didn't know what to do, I asked God and all of the sudden he gave me the answer. Yes, you can call it coincidence. But I don't believe in coincidences anymore since I am grown up.

Actually, it was partially other people that (kinda) forced me to rethink the whole 'god' idea. You know, people were like, dude, your idea of science is distorted through religion, how about you actually try to understand science before misrepresenting it? For awhile I'd fight such thoughts, but then I thought - ok, what if it is _ME_ who is wrong, after all?

There you go. Other people got you to rethink your stuff. Why? Maybe the majority is wrong. Maybe you are one of the few who is right. After all, back in the dark age, only a handful of people believed that the earth was NOT flat. And they were right. So who cares what others think, as long as you believe that you are right?

Actually, according to the bible, god takes absolutely all credit for absolutely everything that happens. But then again, bible is contradictory, you could be referring to a different idea somewhere else.

He created everything, and that is what he wrote down. For those who wanna believe, he did it. But of course those who do not believe in him (like me a year ago) wont read the bible. So there are other ways to find to him. There is no contradictory.

We all know that you mean well, but to many of us it is also very apparent that you've self-indoctrinated yourself (and I didn't help either, eek!) and that you have a very distorted idea of how science (for starters) work.

Why would I tell myself that I need someone who doesn't exist? I am a lovely human, I have a lot of confidence, I have a great life and I enjoy everything that I have. Why would I do such a thing? There is no reason for it.

Creationism = religion. Sorry. It is not science by any stretch.

& Evolution = Religion. How can it be science if people are still trying to find the evidence that animals develop into another species?

There are two ways around this:
Either you posted a creationist article to talk about god, or to talk about science. If former, it's a religious discussion. If latter, it is not science, therefore it's a religious discussion. Also your article is bunk, but you seem to have already forgotten that.

Yup, my article may be bunk, but it doesn't mean the whole subject of religion is bunk, is it?

Well, then maybe you should actually try learning what evolution is all about, because the idea of what evolution is that you get from creationist sites is highly flawed. No wonder it makes no sense if you study evolution from 'Institute for Creation Research". You aren't wisely pointing out that 'something's wrong with evolution', but rather that you don't understand it or know (pretty much) anything about biology.

I should trust someone who gets a shitload of money for trying to find evidence for a theory that he must believe in since his school? Yeah, makes sense. Just like I trust the banks to lower the costs whenever they get more money.

This falls under religious discussion, kind of, since creationism is basically a religious belief.

I never talked about religion before other people did it. So, it was not me who turned the discussion into it. It was the anti-christian side who had to change the topic, once again.

 

[MiniMage]

Did you just ignore my longass post? That's rude. Stop being rude.
As for Pascal's Wager. I heard somewhere that a man disproved that theory by referencing the bible.

Apparently believing in god only to get in heaven is apparently not "true" faith and thus you should be punished if you do not abandon all logic and accept god like a sheep. I don't remember the exact quote of it though. I can look it up later.

Also, can I negrep Anachron for being stupid? You, anachron, said it first. Here. http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/2515430-post13.html This is what spawned all this religious gibberish.

Not believing in god does not make you anti Christianity, it makes you rather neutral to the whole ordeal. We're tired of people attempting to "save" us from hell. What you meet is not anti christianity, it's annoyed people. Very annoyed. Besides, if we go to hell and experience an eternal hellfire, technically speaking, wouldn't we get used to the fire and the heat? What I mean by that, adaption.

 

[Anachron]

Did you just ignore my longass post? That's rude. Stop being rude.
As for Pascal's Wager. I heard somewhere that a man disproved that theory by referencing the bible.

Sorry I didnt see your post, seriously.

Apparently believing in god only to get in heaven is apparently not "true" faith and thus you should be punished if you do not abandon all logic and accept god like a sheep. I don't remember the exact quote of it though. I can look it up later.

That's true! You are right.

Also, can I negrep Anachron for being stupid? You, anachron, said it first. Here. http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/2515430-post13.html This is what spawned all this religious gibberish.

You failed to noticed that I was quoting someone else talking about religion before ...
Also, you wanna negrep me for my opinion? How far did we get?

Not believing in god does not make you anti Christianity, it makes you rather neutral to the whole ordeal. We're tired of people attempting to "save" us from hell. What you meet is not anti christianity, it's annoyed people. Very annoyed. Besides, if we go to hell and experience an eternal hellfire, technically speaking, wouldn't we get used to the fire and the heat? What I mean by that, adaption.

Well, if you are not believing in God, it means you are not christian. And thus you disagree with christian beliefs, right?

 

[MiniMage]

We are not in a state of disagreement. We are in a state of disbelief. As such, we do not hate god, we just don't believe in the existence of god. As much as we would not believe that a little kids imaginary friend really existed. We would not burst the kids bubble, we would be worried if the imaginary friend started talking to him though. That could end with him becoming like Joshua in the bible and that's bad. Very bad.

So as long as the existence of the imaginary friend is not harmful to others and he does not demand that others believe in his imaginary friend, we would not really mind. Now, when that little kid starts spinning stories that conflict with scientific testing, clearly, one would teach the kid so as to not believe in things that doesn't make sense.

This does not mean we are anti-imaginary friend. We just want the kid to have grown up educated and ready to explore and experiment with the world. The reasons are simple. Religion creates a worldview and asks, how can we adapt the story of the world to fit this template? A scientist starts an experiment and something explodes.. and fucking hell, that's awesome, how did this happen?

As such, the results are recorded after repeated testing, to see if the same thing happened if he replicated the same scenario as before.. and figuring out why that happened. This would not conflict with a religious worldview. You can be an scientist and still feel like you need a imaginary friend on your shoulder.

What science is, is a product of experimentation and analyzing the results.

 

[neo_sluf]

I like to laugh on this thread..

I expected that most people nowadays don't believe in God or Religion because they believe THEY ARE SUPERIOR ENOUGH AND THEY KNOW EVERYTHING and TO SEE IS TO BELIEVE.

Most people don't believe in Creationism and in Bible especially the scientist but can't they understand a simple fact?.. try think of this...


Is the TELEVISION in your home just exist there out of nothing or let say natural phenomenon or THERE IS A CREATOR OF YOUR TELEVISION?..

Creationism is just like that. Me who believe on it believes that everything on this universe WAS CREATED BY A CREATOR.

Even scientist realize that even our brain is to complexly designed that its hard that we come from the monkey.


I promise i will quit in my religion if the scientist found the "missing link" of the human evolution.

That's all my opinion about this topic.. Thank you!!..

 

[Wazzz]

as there was a creator of the television, there have been further developments of better models. evolutions, if you will.

in the theory of creationism, who created the creator?

 

[neo_sluf]

as there was a creator of the television, there have been further developments of better models. evolutions, if you will.

in the theory of creationism, who created the creator?

As what you said... you agree that there is a creator and followed by evolution.

So i think all of us must think that "THERE WILL BE NO EVOLUTION IF THERE IS NO CREATION".. so creationism and evolution are both correct.. I am right?


As for your question.. if i will answer i will need to dig deep in the bible.. but if you wan't a simple answer..

"GOD DOES NOT HAVE BIRTH AND DEATH"...

It is a ridiculous statement and a exaggerating one but that's what the bible says and "THAT'S THE ANSWER OF THE GOD FOR YOUR QUESTION"...

Amen

 

[Streak]

well this topic shall i say a good knowledge of something

 

[MiniMage]

Well, you have a point, after all, we are not entirely sure who created the big bang. Creating matter from the absence of matter doesn't sound very scientific. Although there's m-theory, among others. The level is at guesswork, so why not?

However. Creationism states that everything was created by a sentient creator, as it was written in the bible, which by more counts than one, has been proven to be false. At the very least how the religions of Abraham phrased it. Hell, the morality of the god is even contradictory when monotheism comes into the picture. So maybe there's others, I'm not entirely sure.

You believe that there is a god, but the christian dogma is to be interpreted figuratively rather than literally? Wise choice.

This is also why I say I believe there is no god. If anything, if deities exist, in my mind, there would be gods, not just one god. But even that is a concept I can't truly believe nor disprove. To summarize all debates of the existence of god; We are all agnostic theists on differing spectrums. Some believe in it more, some believe in it less, some barely believes at all.

None of us knows if there is one. Now, let's disregard the religious debates and get back to the topic. The topic was as follows "Anachron linked a false topic which was rather raipidly dubunked in portions by TriggerHappy. This while not actually debunking the entirity of the links, makes the credibility of these reports questionable and thus are something that is not possible to use a source in an argument. His claim was that Evolution was false, with nothing left to prove this claim, it is but a mere comment. In essence, it is unable to be debated. Anachron literally have nothing left to strengthen his claim."

I provided a long list of Examples proving the opposite. Thus, with the thread concluded, we have no reason to continue this dicussion because it has spiraled into a religious debate which is by definition unable to be won. Even if I were to scream that he did not exist, I would merely be screaming doubts, dismissing him because he doesn't make sense. If I were to scream about the existence of god, I would thus be screaming about general ignorance.

There is no knowing, that is faith. To know if something is true, that is not faith. Faith is to believe in the absence of proof, that is faith. To believe while there is proof of the opposite is naive however. But we can't disprove the existence of god, merely its dogma and christian dogma is false. This means we will never be able to properly disprove religion. We can just state that it's probable that he does not exist.

If god created us as we are, then what is the appendix in the human body? His off switch? That is my comment on creationism. That is all. Now; Let's close this thread, shall we?

 

[Wazzz]

it's not easy to say either are correct, seeing as they are both simply theories
it's quite possible that an entity created itself from products that were available, that just leaves the question of 'where did those products come from?'
if there is always a creator, then life never truly began, it simply is

 

[GhostWolf]

The posts became higher and higher quality, but then I got to this which made me stop reading (sorry people after that post):

I do believe that evolution somehow happens, but I believe that God is the creator of all.

Thank you for admitting this thread has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with religion, and is thus completely subjective, useless, and simply flame-inspiring, as I wrote before.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the only true god, and rainbow shooting Dragons are his army.
If you don't believe me, you will go to hell.
Good luck in life.

And no, I am not writing this to "mock" you, as you so defensibly wrote previously. This is as believable as your version (and actually more so, seeing how Christianity is based in its core on lies and translation errors from Hebrew), so stop trying to push your beliefs on other people.

 

[gorillabull]

i think anachron's account might have been hijacked or somethin

 

[Celaquil]

I'm not sure this thread needs to be closed just yet, debates of this kind can be
highly interesting, so long as we don't start dealing hatred around like candy, which
goes for both sides of the argument. Even you Ghostwolf.

Suffice to say, I'll keep an eye around.

 

[Heinvers]

Well, this is getting interesting.

 

[Ralle]

The original topic was disproven and it spiraled into a religious debate.

Thread closed.