Do you believe in evolution?

[Lapis Lazuli]

I'm waitin for the day you rednecks evolve past threads discussing creationism/evolution.

[frogboy]

your obviously a fundamentalist atheist and should be burned at the stake/in hell

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

I just want to address a few things before I go off to bed...I know I have to respond to a lot of people, some from the first or second page, so just hang on.  I'll get to you.

Concerning mission trips:
A mission trip isn't just an excuse to brainwash people.  In the past, more primitive tribes would often welcome missionaries, since they felt that there was more out there than the material world, but had no idea where to start looking.  I'm sure the same is true today.  Also, many mission trips are just church-sponsored charities.  They'll go to a poor area, build and supply a school or something, and talk about their religion to anyone who wants to hear.  I can't think of a single instance of a mission trip that forced people to convert before the missionaries would help them.  After all, the best way to share your beliefs is through actions, not words.

Concerning the Roman Catholic Church:
Catholics are at odds with the Bible in many aspects.  They believe in transubstantiation, they deify Mary, they promote the concept of penance (when in reality sin should only be between the sinner and God), they believe in evolution...the list could go on for quite a while.  Despite being the most prominent Christian religion, Catholics aren't a very good example of Christianity.


I think that's all I've got for now; I'll post later about heaven and hell, free will, evolution, the Genesis flood, and other topics that were once relevant to posts in this discussion.

[Mangled*]

The question again, for the third time: Why do you think that the Roman Catholic church accepts evolution?

I DON'T KNOW
Unless it's a bait question I have no clue why you are bugging me about this.

Well you may not but I do. The reason the Roman Catholic church has accepted evolution into their belief is because they basically saw the evidence stacking up wildly against creative design and decided to basically say "Well science is right actually, evolution did happen... God just never told us about it before."

I think good on them because at least they're not just dismissing that scientific knowledge has advanced in the last thousand years.

Yes, yes you have. Every religious topic that has been on this forum you are preaching of the evil intentions  and idiocy of religion.*

Oh yeah because I never heard of this thing you call evolution until I came on the internet. I could explain why I don't believe in evolution but it would just end up in you preaching and moaning about what I believe all over again. I am tired of seeing you freak out over any text that can be tied to religion in any way.**

Every organization has an agenda but that doesn't mean they aren't helping. Nice way to research one or two missions and plaster that thought to all missions. Instead of actually asking about my parents missions you are making your mind up about them and labeling them when you have no base to do so.***

Maybe because every time I say anything about my belief you have to jump on it and start yet another boring and biased "debate." It is not only me, you are constantly trying to "inform" everyone here that you have it all figured out. You are like that guy in the group that is constantly butting in and telling people they are wrong. No one likes you but they have to tolerate you.****

1"All lawyers are dicks"
2"My dad is a lawyer"
1"Yeah, all lawyers are dicks"
2"..."
1"What the hell are you mad about? Don't be such a dick"

The God says to be hot or cold, which means follow Him or cast Him to the side. You are doing the latter. Congrats.*****

No matter what someone says they are wrong, you can't agree to disagree, anyone that thinks a different way than you is a sheep or an inbred moron. ******

*Idiocy certainly. I don't think religions began with evil intentions but they are used as a crutch by evil people. Lets put it this way: you couldn't convince an atheist to blow himself up in a crowd of people. Religion is simply a tool. It's a wrench and you're a nut. - if you catch my drift.

**That's probably right actually. It's thanks to people like me that you even know as much as you do.

***Okay tell me about your parents then, I'd like to hear what kind of work they do.

****Yeah pretty much. If you're going to bring God immediately into a thread about evolution then I'll surgically remove him with my razor sharp perception.

*****Like I said, you can interpret what I say how you like. But if you do then you're likely to take it wildly out of context. - I hear this happens often.

******I've had an inkling that this was the case for years, I think you might be right.

This is going down as another defeat for you until you give me a real argument instead of twisting off into some whining tangent.

Do you see any in consistence between this paragraph and your constant bashing of missionaries/pastors/priests?

---
Mangled*'s Logic Bonds naive misinterpretations of things Mangled* has said
1) Evolution is proven and indisputable because it is based off observations backed solidly by centuries of research, evidence, observations and the like. Jesus' Resurrection can be disproved even though it is also backed by observations tampered historical documents.
2)The fact that you can get a job as a paleontologist or evolutionary biologist is "indication" that evolutionary is indisputable. However, the fact that you can get a job as priest, pastor, or minister is not an "indication" that religion is real/true. happened Because Mangled* says so.
3) All Some priests and pastors are corrupt and just brainwash people because they are evil, whileall some scientists are completely unbiased and 100% fair.
4) Pastors and priests make money from donations from the people who attend church. Therefore their job is on lesser grounds than any job in the scientific field. Because Mangled says so.
5) When some missionaries spread the gospel and their opinions it is brainwashing. But when Mangled* tries to share his atheist opinions, he is simply 'sharing his thoughts'.
6) An occupation that is based on science and fact should be much more highly regarded than jobs based on spirituality. ... Again because Mangled says so.
7) TBA

Instead of losing 2 minutes over responding this post I have simply used streak through on all of the text that is incorrect or made up from absolutely nowhere. I have also inserted words which are bold to correct bondjamesbond.

[Graham]

Mangled you are so ignorant I would be surprised if you had any friends at all. If you want to shut the heck up and actually listen to what I say then PM me.

[BondJamesBond]

No, Mangled*, wrong again. Every single one of those points have been demonstrated in your posts.

1) Ok, like t said, you're just ignorant. Despite Demonic and me giving you SOLID EVIDENCE that you have YET TO DISPROVE, you still just openly deny the Resurrection. I guess I will just say evolution is for slags if that's the way we're going to do this.
2) Ok, like t said, you're just ignorant. Fine, if the fact that you can get a job as an evolutionist should be indication that it happened, why can't the same be said for pastors and ministers? Huh? Oh right, because you said so.
3) Good, only some priests/religious people are corrupt. Even though you have constantly generalized religious people as being evil, and greedy.
4) Ok, like t said, you're just ignorant. Apparently Mangled*'s word is enough proof to validate anything.
5) Again, you have constantly generalized missionaries as, "people who has hate for agendas lulz"
6) Ok, like t said, you're just ignorant. Apparently Mangled*'s word is enough proof to validate anything.

Oh I know: Lawl if God can make teh validation of nething, y can t i?

Because God is all-knowing and all-powerful. Proof? It's in the bible.

And as it turns out, your response contradicts yourself further. Because now all your arguments of, "OMG RELGUOS PPL CORUPTED" have been invalidated by your own words.

In fact, you have been the one who has been pulling facts out of the ass, and groundless opinions. You have been the one constantly avoiding the topic and just trying to sneak cheap shots in. You have left many arguments unanswered or simply replied, "teh sarcsm i cant understnd" or "lul u hold gruge".

Also, Mangled*, I think the fact that the Catholic Church accepts evolution proves two things contrary to your 'opinions'. Religious people can be open minded. And science + religion are not mutually exclusive.

Though you seem to think religion is all about logic and how we do this and that because of that or else this. Religion is faith based on relationship not logic. That's why the two fields can coexist.

So, other than "lul u hold gruge" or "this true becuz i saed so" are you going to make a real response this time... Unlike your last 3 arguments against me?

[The Geologist]

Just because something is written down in the Bible doesn't make it factual.  People create stories, characters, and situations and pass them down as folklore all over the world.  Since you're harping on religion being faith based, knock it off with the proof and validation nonsense.  Shouldn't it not matter if it's 100% proof positive as long as you believe?

Methinks you're provoking our dear friend Mangled by claiming such a factual basis from this text.  Believing it happened is one thing, but dogmatically asserting things went down exactly as written is another.  There is some historical basis for some of the people/events in the Bible, but even those are debated.  Figurative interpretation has always seemed more appropriate to me than stark, literal interpretation.   

[Mangled*]

Mangled you are so ignorant I would be surprised if you had any friends at all. If you want to shut the heck up and actually listen to what I say then PM me.

Of course you're so perceptive that you can judge an entire personality based upon things they type right? Do you think that automatically agreeing with what you say is what makes most of the other people such good 'listeners' whilst me being the main person disagreeing with your opinions (I actually don't disagree as strongly as you seem to think) am obviously not listening to what you are saying. Funny isn't it.

Or maybe I come just across as arrogant because I'm sure about my opinion?

Toby, I won't even bother quoting that astoundingly poor post.

Finally, thank you Geologist. This is what I'm getting at, the Bible is not proof of anything and yet you are so hypocritical by thinking that because you believe it that makes it true?

Face facts here for a minute. The Bible is just an old book which is self-proclaimed word of God and was written a lifetime after Jesus is said to have died. It does not make a valid historical document because it's spiritual scripture and not a documentation of events.

[Graham]

Geo what you are overlooking is that fact we don't believe in creation then God, its God then creation. See when someone becomes a Christian God comes as real to them as the chair beneath them(Or at least they should). Since Christianity is based solely on the fact of having a relationship with God, not sets of rules. It's because this fact we believe He has the power to create us, the universe, and everything.

Mangled to sound as cliche as possible you are hearing but not listening. If you want to continue this further PM me.

[The Geologist]

Uh...that really wasn't what I was getting at.  I was addressing the matter of taking everything in the Bible as factual and/or literal.  If God is all it's chalked up to be then what you said should be a given; I wasn't questioning the relationship with God.  It's citing what's on paper that I was critiquing.

[Graham]

Uh...that really wasn't what I was getting at.  I was addressing the matter of taking everything in the Bible as factual and/or literal.  If God is all it's chalked up to be then what you said should be a given; I wasn't questioning the relationship with God.  It's citing what's on paper that I was critiquing.

Those things are tied together though. Say you have two teachers, one you have a strong relationship with and the other that just showed up. They have two different ideas on a subject and either have the same chance of being right. People would probably take the idea of the person they had a relationship with because they knew the teacher, and all the trust and bs that come from having a close relationship with a fellow human. Also the Bible itself is an instrument that is supposed to strengthen your relationship with God. How its meant to be used is you read it and meditate on it, pray about what you read and through that you will gain first a relationship and second understanding of the Bible and what everything in it means.

[Laser Guy]

I'm waitin for the day you rednecks evolve past threads discussing creationism/evolution.

[8th_account]

1) Ok, like t said, you're just ignorant. Despite Demonic and me giving you SOLID EVIDENCE that you have YET TO DISPROVE, you still just openly deny the Resurrection. I guess I will just say evolution is for slags if that's the way we're going to do this.

I haven't read all posts in here, so bare with me if I've missed something. But I tried looking for Demonic's and your statements regarding the purported resurrection, and all that Demonic has writen regarding it in this whole thread is in the following big quote...

Here's a list of things that you can't prove:
1) You can't prove that Jesus ever existed.
2) You can't prove that if he did exist that he was resurrected.
3) You can't prove that if he existed that it wasn't grave robbers who opened up his tomb.

1. Yeah, the whole New Testament was just invented later on by jews bent to take over the world. Wish I would've thought of that!
2. Indeed. Suddenly a bunch of people just had the silly idea that the son of some jewish carpenter apperantly waltzed out of his tomb, and they started babbling about it while on shrooms. Also, totally unrecorded if you discount most of the documents from around the first century and onward.
3. Yeah, graverobbers actually made a living out of robbing tombs of wandering preachers whom virtually had no money or valuables at all, especially around the time of one of the most sacred jewish holidays, ESPECIALY in the heart of Israel ( which was, by the way, being flooded by roman guards at the time? )

Get off the high-horse: the whole 'Jesus is a myth' theory is as unsound and retarded as creationism is.

... This is, just as Mangled stated, avoiding the topic with irrelevant sarcasm. Demonic couldn't disprove the validity of the statements.

As for your statements, this is what I found...

Ok. Yeah the tomb and boulder are pretty much the biggest signs. First of all the boulder... As you probably know... Massive. Two tons. The tomb? Guarded by the Romans whose strict military policy specified DEATH to even a minute slip-up on the job.

The boulder was rolled not only to completely reveal the entire 'entrance' but up a slope. The guards? Ran. They ran. (or went missing) Even though a death penalty hung over their heads....

A roman soldier was stripped and burnt alive with all his possessions. If a soldier committed an offense and did not admit to it, several innocent soldiers were killed to make an example.

Christ was seen many times after his death during the 1st Easter. And don't forget Apostle Paul.

No. I don't understand. Hundreds of people witnessed the resurrection. There are recollections and written records. Proof.

Oh wait, I understand now. Sorry, my bad. Evolution is backed up observations so it can't be disproved. The Resurrection was also backed up observations but it can be disproved because you say so. I get it.

It could have been the followers of Jesus who did that and wanted it to look as if he had been resurrected.

I hate it when you don't read and try to offer an argument.

Mangled*'s Logic
1) Evolution is proven and indisputable because it is based off observations. Jesus' Resurrection can be disproved even though it is also backed by observations. (validity of observations has been discussed here and here.

My response to all of this, aswell as for Demonic, starts off with a famous quote:
"All we have is other people's accounts of what the eyewitnesses purportedly saw, and these accounts are typically sketchy and were written many years later. Thus, the historian who wants to understand what the resurrection event was must use later, sketchy, second-hand accounts of what the eyewitnesses saw, and from these accounts he must try to determine what the resurrection event was."

Going against the historical uncertainty that there ever was a resurrection, and going against the historical uncertainty that there were eyewitnesses of the purported resurrection, and going against the probability of those eyewitnesses not being subjective, and going against the uncertainty of the purported events not growing and getting altered until they were documented, and going against the lack of available and objective historical documents covering those, at best, second or third hand reports, a resurrection or the circumstances surrounding it cannot be takes as proof.

This site offers great points in dismissing the reliability of "The Guard Story" and "The Empty Toomb Story" among other circumstances regarding the resurrection, that you seem to blindly accept as proof.

[Captain Ben]

what about people who get jobs as priests and nuns?

Well what about them? They earn from the collection plate and donations don't they? So their job is simply to fluff the members of their constituency into believing and contributing money towards the church.

no they don't [if they do it's not much]
how do they fluff people?

[8th_account]

One assumption would be that the more money a church gains, the more the staff earns per month or how well the church is able to efficiently "spead the word" of christianity.

[Mangled*]

Thank you 8th account. You said that which I couldn't find a way to express correctly.

[Smegma]

To attack the church is not to attack religion, nor does it diminish the purpose of religion.

[Graham]

Churches don't earn that much money. They have to pay saleries(believe me churches DO NOT PAY WELL, and you don't get raises), utilities, I know the local churches help out people that really need cash, help buy stuff for burn outs(Burnt down house), building repairs, and if there is anything left alot of churches donate to missionaries. Usually if a church need repairs or a new building they have to wait a long time for enough money to be donated. I haven't heard of a many churches that can honestly toss money around... that is besides televangelist and I don't care for them at all really.

It can take years for some churches to finish fixing up the building they meet in.

Btw spreading the word has dick-all to do with a churches funding. Much less a building or pastor. Real witnessing happens in everyday life. Church in reality is just something to help fuel the tanks of Christians running on empty so to say. Though yes people are reached in church that is fact.

[Psycho]

I think many christians are afraid to seriously sit down and contemplate the fact that there might not be a god. Not just "yeah I can see what you mean" but really, letting go of the faith for a second to look at the matter. It's so hard since when you first have been convinced of something (no matter how far-fetched) It's very hard to let go, or even think objective.

And yes, I've done the opposite.

[Smegma]

And yes, I've done the opposite.

Not very well, apparently