Religions - Your Opinion

[Sasquatch]

What I'm saying isn't just "I told you so." I'm providing you with reasoning behind my statements. It is no fault of my own if you refuse to pay it any attention.

You're arguing against cited, sourced claims, and you have nothing to back you up. Your "reasoning" doesn't matter. Especially when your responses don't even fit the claims you're trying to respond to.

If you meant in close proximity to each other, then again, there's no reason why they should all evolve and not leave some behind. Just because humans are more fit to survive than apes in some areas, that does not mean the exact opposite in other areas.

You're contradicting yourself, here. If they're in the same area, they should "evolve" along the same line and end at the same final point. They would adapt the same ways to the same environment, and respond in the same ways to the same stimuli.

Your arguments for the loopholes of Evolutionism aren't really founded on anything, either. So for you to say that Evolutionism is unfounded and follow it up with those arguments does not prove anything.

I haven't really posted much on the argument that Evolutionism is unfounded, but that simple fact remains plainly clear to most of us here. Of course, you don't help your own cause when you're unable to respond to simple piercing questions about the belief you support.

In regard to the very first part of your post, while you may try to explain to people that "supernatural beings have supernatural powers," that, too, is not evidence of anything. That is just you, or anyone else using this excuse, saying that you have no logical evidence of why things are the way they are.

Alright, I'm going to try to explain this again.

A belief in Creation requires believing that things happened that didn't follow natural laws. You know, laws of nature. Something had to have supernatural powers to break those laws. Something ... like, say, the supernatural God who made those laws in the first place?

A belief in Evolutionism also requires believing that things happened that didn't follow natural laws. (Even without the completely obvious Big Bang's breaking of multiple natural and scientific laws.) Now, something had to have supernatural powers to break those natural laws ... but there is supposedly no "supernatural being" included in Evolutionism. So where did those supernatural powers come from? How did nature itself break the laws of nature?

All you do with this is show that you believe in fairy tales.

Yes, kid. When you're backed into a corner because you can't argue worth a shit and you just seem unable to back up your own position, just start saying that the person who disagrees with you believes in fairy tales. That's not called ad hominem or anything. What's next, am I a Nazi for not believing Evolutionism, too?

Sasquatch, the thing here is that there is a difference between simply thinking something is correct and believing in it. If a better logical theory than evolution comes along, which is possible, all the scientists will go hop on that train.

Which is why more and more scientists are coming out and saying that they don't believe in Evolutionism? Why more and more scientists are professing a belief in Creation?

They don't believe in evolution, they just think the theory is the best explanation we have at the moment.

There's a difference in "best" and "only". If it was the best theory at the moment, then it would be acceptable to teach it as the best theory -- not the only theory. But legal thuggery and anti-religious sentiment have led to banning everything in schools that isn't, at its base, an anti-religious philosophy.

Evolution doesn't assume the existence of a supernatural power; it just doesn't answer all the questions.

No, it just places supernatural powers on the natural entity of nature itself.

If there was a big bang, did a supernatural power have to be involved, or have we just not found the scientific answer yet?

So it's alright if your supposedly-natural theory has gaps and holes that can only be filled by attributing supernatural powers, but if there's a theory that admits to being supported by supernatural powers of a supernatural being, it's wrong?

The supernatural theory makes sense with supernatural powers involved. The supposedly natural theory makes no sense with only natural powers involved, and thus requires supernatural powers to be involved anyway.

It's a good ol' case of, "Science is better than religious faith, even when the science is unfounded and so shoddy that it requires religious faith to believe!"

Evolution leaves blanks; it doesn't assume that a higher power was involved, or allude to that. You're filling in the blanks on your own, talking about a version of evolutionary theory that is uniquely yours.

How is the animation of life a blank that I'm "filling in on my own"? How is the split from unicellular to multicellular organisms, or the split between modern-day humans and modern-day apes, something that only I am concerned about?

And can we stop calling it Evolutionism? Please? That word and the capital 'e' make it into something that it isn't. It's just a theory, and as soon as a better logical answer comes along the scientists will focus on that one. Nobody 'believes' in it, and it isn't an 'ism'. It's just a theory.

It's a religious theory. I've gone over this before -- requires faith (a lot of faith), attributes supernatural powers, belief in the cause and purpose of our world, etc. etc.

It's funny how some people believe in Evolutionism simply because it's supposedly not religious, then reject any implication that believing in Evolutionism requires any sort of faith.

Alpha -- sorry bud, get to your stuff later. That'll take a little bit longer, but I've got answers.