Who has lost faith in religion?

[swaptrex 10+ year member]

this forum is like church now....****.....shutup already people. oh and i believe in god.

yes, infact their talking about changing the name to http://www.churchnrice.com

 

[tRiGgEr 5,000+ posts]

I find it funny that people who believe in God find evolution too far fetched.....yet it makes total sense for them to believe in a theoretical and ideological figure, and to believe that this figure made everything in the universe //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/waycrazy.gif.f4a380c3f94043939fd369defd9e6be2.gif


Aethiest here. Raised christian, lost faith moons ago, and haven't looked back.

I find it funny that you catogarize "people who belive in god" as non scientific. I do belive in evolution/adaption it happens all the time. But I do not belive in man and everything else for that matter coming from one entetty. Evolving from one form into millions of others is a hard thing to belive. Just as you see faith and god hard to belive. Every religion has one thing or the other that is hard to belive. Be it science, christian, catholic, buddist.

Every one will have something to say about another religion. It's what you say about yours that shows who you really are.

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

hope aethiesm is going great! //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

So far so good //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[ighettoboyi 10+ year member]

yea that whole primordial soup theory, sorry can't buy it. sure you can make organic materials out of basic components....but how the he!l does that turn into the world and everything in it? i dunno this is the type of cr@p that makes me wanna skip my bio lecture every m w f...all they ever talk about is evolution

 

[jujumantb 10+ year member]

But I do not belive in man and everything else for that matter coming from one entetty. Evolving from one form into millions of others is a hard thing to belive.

We have bone records of every stage going from simple primates to humans, doesnt make it so hard when there is overwhelming evidence. On the other hand, evidence for a god is based for the most part on heresay, unless you've had some "religious experience" in your life.

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

but how the he!l does that turn into the world and everything in it? i dunno this is the type of cr@p that makes me wanna skip my bio lecture every m w f...all they ever talk about is evolution

LOL.....maybe you should pay more attention in the class and they would answer that question for you //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

We have bone records of every stage going from simple primates to humans,

As well as the evolutionary steps of many other living organisms.

 

[flakko 5,000+ posts]

We have bone records of every stage going from simple primates to humans, doesnt make it so hard when there is overwhelming evidence. On the other hand, evidence for a god is based for the most part on heresay, unless you've had some "religious experience" in your life.

ehhh bone records??? of course scientists have illustrations right??? Have you ever seen photos of the actual bones of the stages from primates to human beings??

The actually fossils dug up proving evolution were very minimal.

1. Lucy- less than 25percent of her bones were found, and spread over miles.

2. Taung - next in line only one skull was dug up. it had an apes shape size and

jaw

3. **** habilis - pieces of skull teeth etc. evolutionists admit there is no good

evidence that this was an ancestor of humans

4. **** erectus - Scientists admit htat this "species" had modern human

anatomy and body size call ing "almost identical" to humans

5. Nebraska Man - they only found one freakin tooth

Even so, Evolutionist dr Mark ridley says "no real evolutionistuses the fossil recordas evidence in favor of the theory of evolution."

I still believe in evolution, just "microevolution" where species adapt to thier surroundings in very minute ways not CHANGING THIER GENETIC STRUCTURE. I mean there is variety in species right??

 

[JAZN 5,000+ posts]

i'm a bio major and even i find it somewhat hard to say we came from single celled organisms. sure theres some evidence to show recent evolution from say the australopithacus genus, but if u go back even further it all starts to become more theory less evidence. conversely, i find it just as hard to believe we have a creator. as a result, i dont bother partaking in religion and try not to think about evolution much either. i just go about my merry day not giving a fvck.

 

[jujumantb 10+ year member]

ehhh bone records??? of course scientists have illustrations right??? Have you ever seen photos of the actual bones of the stages from primates to human beings??

Yes. I took an anthropology course focused on bone records leading up to modern humans

The actually fossils dug up proving evolution were very minimal.

I would like to know your credentials to be able to make such a claim.

1. Lucy- less than 25percent of her bones were found, and spread over miles.

The percentage of the bones found is way beside the point. Important bones WERE found (femur, pelvis) and, from them, scientists were able to accurately calculate the proportions of the other bones not found.

2. Taung - next in line only one skull was dug up. it had an apes shape size and jaw

Next in line? This sounds like you are claiming that these 5 finds are the only records we have //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif There have been HUNDREDS if not thousands of various finds.

Yes, the skull was dug up, the first evidence for A. Africanus., many more bones from this species were found soon after.

3. **** habilis - pieces of skull teeth etc. evolutionists admit there is no good evidence that this was an ancestor of humans

... there are always a few wacky scientists who have outragious views... why do you think they named this species "****"? Think about it.... **** habilus has alot of features shared with humans. Evidence from their skull indicates a greater seperation between the two hemispheres than any earlier species meaning they could likley handle more complex information, these guys used simple tools aswell. There is ALOT of good evidence that they are an ancestor of humans, or atleast related through parallel evolution.

4. **** erectus - Scientists admit htat this "species" had modern human anatomy and body size call ing "almost identical" to humans

Are you just copy/pasting this crap from some website? You are supporting my claim here... thanks? I guess..

5. Nebraska Man - they only found one freakin tooth

You have just made yourself look retarded... "nebraska man" was a pig... //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif not a human ancestor... they later found the rest of the skeleton... You really need to learn more about this stuff before you try to argue it //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

 

[flakko 5,000+ posts]

Are you just copy/pasting this crap from some website?

Uhhh yea im getting this info off some papers.

The percentage of the bones found is way beside the point. Important bones WERE found (femur, pelvis) and, from them, scientists were able to accurately calculate the proportions of the other bones not found.

evolutionists say that they are extinct primates. The leaky family says in the encyclopedia of evolution, 1990 that Lucy was a not a transitional form but an ape. And there were other articles stating that lucy was more ape than a transitional stage

Next in line? This sounds like you are claiming that these 5 finds are the only records we have //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif There have been HUNDREDS if not thousands of various finds.

i dint mean to put it that way.... just some of the major ones rite??

... there are always a few wacky scientists who have outragious views... why do you think they named this species "****"? Think about it.... **** habilus has alot of features shared with humans. Evidence from their skull indicates a greater seperation between the two hemispheres than any earlier species meaning they could likley handle more complex information, these guys used simple tools aswell. There is ALOT of good evidence that they are an ancestor of humans, or atleast related through parallel evolution.

yea but did they actually find the whole skull, pieces were found right? its fragmentary evidence

You are supporting my claim here... thanks? I guess..

no thats not wat i meant. "Day in human evolution calls them 'Truly Human'

Susman and stern in American Journal of Physical Anthropology admit it that its "essentialy modern" which got me thinking...microevolution??

You have just made yourself look retarded... "nebraska man" was a pig... //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif not a human ancestor... they later found the rest of the skeleton... You really need to learn more about this stuff before you try to argue it //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

oh yea fergot bout the pig part

doin the best i can here, first time doin this!!

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

Uhhh yea im getting this info off some papers.
evolutionists say that they are extinct primates. The leaky family says in the encyclopedia of evolution, 1990 that Lucy was a not a transitional form but an ape. And there were other articles stating that lucy was more ape than a transitional stage

i dint mean to put it that way.... just some of the major ones rite??

yea but did they actually find the whole skull, pieces were found right? its fragmentary evidence

no thats not wat i meant. "Day in human evolution calls them 'Truly Human'

Susman and stern in American Journal of Physical Anthropology admit it that its "essentialy modern" which got me thinking...microevolution??

oh yea fergot bout the pig part

doin the best i can here, first time doin this!!

I'm just curious; are you arguing for creationism or simply against evolution? Because, if you are arguing for creationism, then I'm curious what hard evidential proof you have for creationism? If you are simply trying to argue against evolution.....then whatever floats your boat //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[Raven 10+ year member]

Well, there's as much evidence to support the big bang as there is to support creationism. None. I find it interesting that ever since atheism has existed, every atheist has failed to prove God doesn't exist. The same that a faith based religion can't logically prove God's existance. Being immortal, all powerful, all seeing, and all knowing, if God decides he wants people to follow based on faith, you can be sure he's not going to let anyone or anything prove He exists or does not with logic.

 

[m3rK201 10+ year member]

But there has to be sum one in charge....sum where.i duno, in the back of my head sum thin bout big bang has to do with us hear.

 

[chadsmith013 10+ year member]

I have faith in God .