Seahawks

go ahead, amuse us. All sorts of things. The science of DNA and how our body works. List goes on and on, not someones opinion about how we got here, that isn't science unless it can be proved. It something that should be left to debate class.

I'm not a atheisist/agnostic so I can only guess. My quess is that they truely beleive what they beleive like us all. Being like any other human they are dogmatic and want what they beleive taught. I'm fine with evolution being taught but some time should be spent also on other thoughts. Since there is no scientific theory that competes with evolution, that might be difficult. If parents and children want religious education, however, they can get all they want; just not from schools that my tax dollars pay for. Sorry. BLame the U.S. Constitution. and I would say evolution is a religion unto it self and your above rational thoughts above should apply.

Really what should happen is Evolution and Creation should be thrown out and real science taught.

because evolution is taught in science classes, and ID is not science. why does evolution need to be taught in a classroom? evolution is not science. Plenty of real science with out a huministic relgious belief of evolution. Chemical compound chart provides lots of fun and its real. Evolution is a basis of beleif and not science.

I'm not a atheisist/agnostic so I can only guess. My quess is that they truely beleive what they beleive like us all. Being like any other human they are dogmatic and want what they beleive taught. I'm fine with evolution being taught but some time should be spent also on other thoughts.

He didn't throw the rattlesnake in your room. He told you to watch out for the rattlesnake but you said screw you I can do what I want and went outside picked the rattlesnake up and decided it was a pet. When it bite you, you were pissed that the rattlesnake existed and blamed the person warning istead of the idiot that decided not to listen.

Your question is so easy, it's almost rhetorical. The question is, if we watched him get buried up to his chin in an avalanche, without anybody else around (except the reader of course) in subzero temperatures, in a very remote area, with 15 minutes of daylight left, would we dig him out? Now that's a legitimate question. To make it trickier, lets assume you have knowledge only of his character and not the fact that he has enough banked calories and natural insulation to keep him warm for several days. If I got buried only up to my chin, and you didn't dig me out, I'd make sure you heard about it. Sounds like an episode of tales of the crypt replacing the ocean for snow.

You are so much driveway gravel, but I will still remind you that this is VH's religion that dictates this, not mine. You are going to Hell, Mongoloid. If you don't like it, you must take this up with VH's God. So if VH was driving in a car and a Hot chick walked by and he had some naughty thoughts and got in a head on he's going to hell?? Don't think it works that way or I'm screwed.

Weren't we all born virgins? Just sayin'....

He was born a virgin becuase he was human and god. Joseph ancestory link back to Adam and God predicted that Adams would crush the serpenant head (devil)The virginal conception and birth was necessary so that the divine Person of the Son of God could enter history as the God-man. Some beleive that by being born a virgin that this makes him Sin free I would disagree. Sin nature would have been passed from Mary. He yielded His spirit to the Father, died, and at some time between death and resurrection, visited the realm of the dead where He delivered a message to spirit beings. Some think hell but the bible doesn't say that. If I remember the serpant cross correctly I think the people had to look at it to be healed or not bitten or something. The paralel to christ would be he was raised on a cross to be looked at and healed.

Yes, easy. Suspiciously easy. According to VH: Anyone with a spec of sin does not go to heaven, because God requires perfection prior to admission into same. That includes gays (who continue to be gay). I would imagine, for that reason, that Hell is more tastefully decorated than Heaven, with its trailer butterflies, inspiration 'golf theme' posters, and lawn deer. You don't get in, Seahawks, by your own admission. Sorry buddy. Guess I'll be seeing you in Hell. If that the case we are all going to hell. Jesus died for all sins past and future. If you die while sinning your not going to hell. None can make that grade. Denying something is sin doesn't get you a ticket to hehh if you beleive in Jesus. It just might show you have some growing to do.

Well, here's where your germane argument becomes extinct. VH and his brand of Biblical literalists DON'T believe in a compassionate or caring God. Their God fucks over all of humanity over all time because the the mistake of one couple, sends perfectly good humans to the firey lake because of one little sin, and doesn't give two shits about how you treat other people as long as you kiss His all powerful ass, even after a life full of fucking others over. "Oh, hey, I'm sorry about all that, Lord. Your my one, true Savior now". Their God is, as I've already stated, a complete and utter narcissistic, sadistic asshole. So your baby was born without a brain? Blame Adam and Eve, bitch! Your whole city just got nuked? Blame Adam and Eve, bitch! You've got worms crawling out of your ass? BAAEB! Don't blame your Loving God, just because He made up all these fucked up rules that were destined to be broken right away and the draconian consequences that come with most minor infraction! Don't blame a God that requires only PERFECTION (nothing fucked up about that, no, nothing at all). Of course, this fucked up religion's followers play the same 'blame somebody else' game. "Hey, I'm not discriminated against gays. Some of my best friends are 'struggling' with being gay. I'm not against science, but I'm not allowed to believe in it. I'm not against the Constitution, but I'm required to do everything I can to violate it. I respect you, but I'm required to impose my beliefs on you, because they're the only ones that are right. Got a problem with that? Blame God." Yeah, OK. You could choose to subscribe to a more mellow form of Christianity; there are plenty of sects out there that don't discriminate against gays, and you can still get to Heaven without being a complete asshole...but you chose this one, fella. So who's the asshole? God? For an atheist, the answer here is self evident. Wow. I don't think God wanted this world the way it was. God gave man free choice. He could have created robots and made everything perfect. What fellowship is that? He even gave the angels the same free choice. The devil (lucifer) who was the leader of all angels and the best and most beautiful became prideful and decided he wanted to be God himself. A battle happened heaven and Satan was cast out. As revenge for being cast out of God presents he went after God creation to strike back at his most prized creation. God character can not tolerate sin and thus can not be around it. So he had a couple choices. Destroy what he loved or turn it over to the devil and give humans a way to reconcile themselve freely to him. Becuase he didn't want any to perish he turned it over and offered himself to death on a cross for our sins so we can be sin free and be reconciled again. So tails and such you want to blame on God and say he an evil person becuase of this is crap. He requires perfection, you say that crap. Funny thing is he gave you an easy way to be perfect in his eyes and you don't have to do anything to get it but beleive that God himself hung on a cross to take away your sins so you are perfect. Pretty easy. He gave you choice. Enough to judge you on later. You call that crap well he made you and the rules. and wether you choice to beleive or not will be someday be subject to the rules. Gays can go to heaven just as much as the next person. I have my struggles with other sins does that mean I don't go?? Of course not.

He's also way cooler, smarter, funnier, and better looking. dude, you got bigger tits, that's all. don't let it go to your head. when someone speaks about intelligent design in a species-creationist sense, human tails and terrible birth defects are entirely germane. as witnessed by the response i received. what does a fundamentalist do when faced with a question that so obviously, to a rational player, negates the existence of a compassionate caring design/build contractor? he resorts to the tidy little myth that he was (probably) forced to accept as a youngster: "gee billy, in the beginning everything was perfect. then a WOMAN ruined it all by not listening to god. Evil woman brings wrath upon all mankind forever, while compassionate male god witnesses birth defects and torture and etc etc blah blah blah. yes i'll admit right away that this sort of childish interpretation of bible story myth frustrates me (i think there is much room to interpret this myth in an intelligent mature way). what frustrates me is the level of denial and hypocrisy that the believer needs to engage in. ok ok it's their choice yes, but it infects our society. it is an actual infection that threatens the well-being of each and every one of us because of its implications regarding public policy. the threat is very very real, from this arcane sense of justice that we have (death penalty) to misappropriation of public funds (religious schools), to war mongering, to many other negatives. yes tails on humans and birth defects are very germane to this discussion, but, as usual, not the discussion you were having. Who said god is a man?? I personaly don't think he is either sex. And if I'm not mistaken wasn't there two who disobeyed?

Darwin envisaged one species slowly changing into a new one, which then changed into another one, until finally not just new species belonging to the same genus were produced, but new genera, families, orders, classes, phyla, and ultimately kingdoms of organisms evolved. The fossil record demolishes this model of ‘phyletic gradualism’. Stephen J. Gould has said that ‘[t]he fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change’ and ‘[t]he extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology’.1 In his view, Darwin’s rationalization that the gaps were due to the ‘extreme imperfection’ of the fossil record is by now utterly untenable. It is estimated that 20 to 30 million species are alive today, though fewer than 2 million have been documented in the professional literature. Over 99% of species that have ever lived are extinct – some 200 million of them. But only about 150,000 species of extinct organisms have so far been catalogued on the basis of fossil evidence.2 No one would deny that the fossil record is terribly incomplete: 90 to 99% of the sedimentary rocks in which fossils might once have been preserved have been destroyed by erosion. What’s more, we have barely scratched the surface of existing sedimentary rocks. If 100,000 palaeontologists were to work 8 hours a day, 365 days a year, it would take them 84 years to investigate just 1 cubic mile of rock. But the estimated volume of sedimentary rock deposits on the present continents is about 134 million cubic miles!3 There are therefore innumerable missing fossils, but there is no reason to suppose in advance that they would support the neodarwinian theory of evolution; in fact, judging by the known fossil record there is every reason to think they wouldn’t. The fossil species already found offer a good random sampling of all the creatures that have existed, and continuous fossil-bearing sedimentary sequences spanning over a million years have been discovered. But as Gould says, ‘when fossils are most common, evolution is most rarely observed’.4 If phyletic gradualism were true, species should be undergoing constant modifications, and we would expect to find fossils of at least some of the ‘inconceivably great’ number of transitional forms that Darwin admitted his theory required. But Niles Eldredge confesses: No one has found any ‘in-between’ creatures: the fossil evidence has failed to turn up any ‘missing links’, and many scientists now share a growing conviction that these transitional forms never existed.’5 And Gould says: the absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.6 If fish evolved into amphibians, for instance, we would expect to find intermediate forms showing the gradual transition of fins into legs and feet. Since the transition would have required many millions of years, during which many hundreds of millions of transitional forms must have lived and died, at least some of them should have been discovered in the fossil record. Similarly, if reptiles evolved into birds, we would expect to find fossils showing the gradual transition of the forelimbs of the ancestral reptile into the wings of a bird, and the gradual transition of scales into feathers, hind feet into perching feet, the reptilian skull into the birdlike skull, etc. But the fossil record provides no evidence that any such transitional species ever existed. Gould says that the history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.

Again, not true, and without a citation and link, I seriously doubt that Schwarz, who specializes in the evolution of humans and apes, ever made this claim. Evolution of new species of anolis lizards in the Caribbean has been directly observed over the past several decades as these lizards spread northward through the island chain. Just one of many examples. Look it up. Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Sudden Origins (New York, John Wiley, 1999), p. 300.

That's a very good question, but making up something all powerful, calling it God, and claiming you've answered it seems like cheating on the test, don't you think? I prefer the "we don't know yet, and we might never know, but we're trying to find out" answer. Just a little more honest. And BTW, how do you know there was nothing before there was something? Seems like a pretty unsubstantiated claim to me. So making something up like evolution and shaking in a few million years to create life is better?? Come on, it just as much if not more of a farce. The more honest answer is that something can't come from nothing. Well, Darwin didn't just make up the theory of evolution. He discovered a bunch of new birds in the Galapagos that seemed to fill every evolutionary nitch: seed eaters, insect eaters, even blood eaters. Strangely, they all turned out to be various species of finches. This observation, or 'fact', led to a question: how is it that there can be so many forms of the same type of bird, each ideally suited for its environment? To answer this question, Darwin came up with a very simple but powerful idea: 1) Random mutations occur over time. Most, but not all, mutations are harmful to the organism. Even the Biblical literalists don't dispute this observable fact. 2) Beneficial mutations that help the organism survive better will, well, help the organism survive better, so that mutation is more likely to be passed on. This is 'natural selection'. 3) Over time, lots of little mutations can eventually lead to substantial changes in the organism. On ancestral species of finch eventually winds up being several species with with nutcracking beaks, insect eating beaks, and blood sucking beaks. Over longer periods of time, when more mutations are involved, dinosaurs can become birds, amphibians can become reptiles, etc. It's a common misconception that evolution cannot be observed in a lab. In fact, it's observed all the time. Virus's mutate and evolve into drug resistant strains very quickly, in a matter of days and weeks, as any AIDS researcher can tell you. The non-drug resistant strain is killed by the drug, the drug resistant strain populates to take it's place. Classic natural selection/evolution at work. Anti viral drug research would not even be possible without taking into account the tendency for viruses to evolve quickly into drug resistant strains. A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that: . . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1 1,2 and 3 are micro show me Macro... you crasp at straws and conclusion with these.

That's a very good question, but making up something all powerful, calling it God, and claiming you've answered it seems like cheating on the test, don't you think? I prefer the "we don't know yet, and we might never know, but we're trying to find out" answer. Just a little more honest. And BTW, how do you know there was nothing before there was something? Seems like a pretty unsubstantiated claim to me. So making something up like evolution and shaking in a few million years to create life is better?? Come on, it just as much if not more of a farce. The more honest answer is that something can't come from nothing. I think real science can prove the beginning of everything. Evolutionist say it came from nothing. Boom and it was. Science says that that impossible to create something form nothing. The bible say boom, God made it so. That may be hard to beleive if you think there isn't a god but it make sense. Hawks, I gave a small tidbit of modern biology that addresses evolutionary questions a few pages back. How do you account for the presence of retroelements in the genome, as well as their distribution in a manner that supports the notion of common ancestry and and evolution over a timescale that spans millions of years? Are these parasitic, self-replicating elements and their abundance within our genome consistent with your notion of a perfect designer? How about contagious viruses that use similar mechanisms to cause untold suffering, agony, and disease? How about the tumors that some of them give rise to? Since I'm not a hard core scientist, I did though take Geology and Ocenaography and biology in college, I could answer these question but when I aske you question based of research from other sites from people smarter than myself you dismiss it becuase I havn't done the homework. I doubt the question you raise here are done with your own intelligence also and are only a Regurgitation of crap you read and not really researched. So if you are really willing to answer tough question that I can raise I will do the homework to answer yours. But I'm not going to do it if you just dismiss them.

I am not pissed off. I just could not wait to use the Lords name in vain. Seahawks a man?......grasping at straws are we? Hey Kevbone is that a picture of evil knievel????? Did you know he was christian??? LOL better change that.

. Kevbone a closet Belinda Carlisle "Heaven is place on earth" fan.

That's a very good question, but making up something all powerful, calling it God, and claiming you've answered it seems like cheating on the test, don't you think? I prefer the "we don't know yet, and we might never know, but we're trying to find out" answer. Just a little more honest. And BTW, how do you know there was nothing before there was something? Seems like a pretty unsubstantiated claim to me. So making something up like evolution and shaking in a few million years to create life is better?? Come on, it just as much if not more of a farce. The more honest answer is that something can't come from nothing. I think real science can prove the beginning of everything. Evolutionist say it came from nothing. Boom and it was. Science says that that impossible to create something form nothing. The bible say boom, God made it so. That may be hard to beleive if you think there isn't a god but it make sense.

seahawks, your living proof that evolution is a farce and I have to question intelligent design based only on you.

Who's claimed the $250k yet???

Ah…..thanks Seahawks……go Blazers. Kind of sick, they are on a roll.

Better question is how does something come from nothing??? It can't. Basic law of the universe. So explain that evolution boy.

You can have my truck bitch.