If anyone gets some time, please watch the video I posted on this page previously (it's in 4 parts). It's so fascinating and just gives us more proof that this Earth was created by God and isn't billions of years old. Then we can have a discussion on the video.

AJ, your video proves nothing. It's full of "bad science", I'll call it, and extremely loose cause-and-effect arguments. Most creationist literature is, so I'm really not surprised. Now, on to the main event.

#1 is the EXACT representation of adaptationism. Persons who are considered "indigenous white Western European" have white skin based on the fact that the geographical location from whence we came is not sun-intensive; we didn't need darker skin to protect ourselves from the dangers of ultraviolet exposure. In Africa, however, the intensity is much much higher, hence the dark skin of the indigenous persons there.

#2 is not exactly true. What makes humans intelligent? The ability to communicate? Animals display this ability. The ability to create? Animals have shown this ability as well. Survival instinct? Many animals have better survival instincts than we do. Are we "advanced" simply because we live in houses as opposed to being out in the elements? Some animals can create shelter for themselves, so that's not even true. Yes, we are advanced, I suppose, based on the complexity of our society. I'm not entirely sure we are "advancing", though.

#3... is not an argument. If creationism is true, what is the point in life? Doesn't life just become a race? Doesn't it just become a competition to win the affection of some non-present father figure, who points a finger at us from "thousands" of years ago, and says "Do this or I'll fucking SPANK you."? Seems to me that THAT de-values existance a whole lot more than the alternative.

#4 just makes me laugh. Especially if it comes from a Creationist. "Evolution is false because it's never been proven or observed", and then they turn around and pray to some invisible figure, FROM A BOOK. Who lives in an eternal, magical kingdom in the sky. Honestly -- your hearts are in the right place, but your brain has to WAKE THE FUCK UP.

#5 -- Evolution does not say that any being should ever be perfect. Perfection is unattainable. And some people would say that people ARE better off not worrying about what they believe, whereas people with extremely strong RELIGIOUS beliefs (as opposed to ideas) kill and die in the name of them. Ideas are a lot safer, don't you think?

#6, the only thing I take issue with in that is when religious organizations prescribe how you should live. When organizations are saying "Do this or you're evil and wrong", they're being counter-productive to their own causes, and in a lot of ways to their own religion.

How does it prove nothing? How is it bad science? It has been published in all the major scientific journals, books, and letters for 25 years and NO ONE has been able to disprove it! Instead they're trying to hide it and cover it up!

This is a reply to Justin.Robar's comments made earlier. If you do not want to read the whole huge thing, then don't.
I'm not sure if you have studied anatomy, but while the human external appearance may be different, the actual genetic structure is nearly identical. All humans have uniform body types, and it is true that they have differentiated genes, but I am making the point more that their actual genetic structure is solidly intact, and shows no evidence of any actual differentiation.

What you say about the abilities of animals is true, however, they can only communicate with the most basic of body functions. Animals cannot speak, they are able to communicate, essentially by reading each other, primarily through body language, and then some basic verbal noises. Humans, on the other hand, are rapidly expanding both intellectually and culturally, at a pace unknown by animals. Humans are the only creatures that strives for self-improvement.

Logically, neither alternative has enough solid proof to be taken seriously on just the evidence. Assuming that one of the two presented options is true, either evolution or creationism, the risks tend to favor the creationist side. If God does exist, then you get heaven and all of the benefits that come with it. On the other hand, if evolution is true, nothing of any real value has been lost, as our actions are ultimately inconsequential.
The bit about pointlessness of life was more of a personal statement. I would prefer that my own life has meaning, and that I would also like to believe that I am not just instilled with a pointless sense of justice, of right and wrong. You are somewhat right in saying that it is a comfort issue. Some people find comfort in the fact that God exists, that there is a happy ending to the world. On the other hand, evolution is just as much of a comfort tool. People don't want to believe that what they are doing is wrong, and so they dismiss the presence of God in order to satiate their fears.

Either way, you cannot say definitively that one side is definitely correct. I am simply stating why I believe and why, while attempting to logically justify a personal decision that so many others cannot.

I never argued that creationism was more "right" than evolution. I simply stated my belief that neither doctrine should be officially adopted, as there isn't enough evidence to support either argument. I feel that evolution should not be taught in the public system, as it has too little proof (hence its title as a "Theory"). The arguments for either side are equally convincing (really old books vs really old rocks).

My point is that evolutionary theory leads to perfection (kind of like a limit problem in calculus). There are so many adopted traits that have no value whatsoever, and according to evolutionary law, these should be discarded, as they are unneeded.
I can provide a number of examples, but I do not feel that they would help further the argument that I am trying to make in this point, and I'm sure that you can all name a useless trait or body part that hasn't been discarded yet.

You'll notice that I agree with this point in my last paragraph. I do find this quite annoying myself, although I think that a lot of organizations are getting or have gotten the hint. Nowadays, it is mostly individuals and small groups that endorse this kind of evangelism, a very small and awkward minority. I think that understanding is really what people lack these days.

You can't deny the good that so many charitable faith-based organizations are doing though. I think if everyone game a small piece of their income to the general welfare, we could effectively eliminate poverty.

yes i totally believe that God created the universe. Though we don't have much proof we can really trust that the earth is only created by God and not just by any theory of big bang theory.

1. You don't have ANY proof. Proof implies absolute fact.
2. Why can you trust that? Isn't that still completely blind?

science requires fact. since i am talking about God created the world. only faith is required. cause it is more important that proofs. There are things we have to believe and we don't have to see proof.

Some people call it blind faith. But i don't think we are blind to believe it. I trust God more than the things that i see.

Well now you guys are just arguing with opinions...

I would probably accept evolution if it could explain why things live rather than how. I can understand a cell's anatomy, how it processes materials to generate energy, and then uses that energy to reproduce and further its own survival. The one thing that evolutionary theory does not explain is why life is motivated to exist. Supposedly, during the big bang, random particles and atoms were thrown together and by happenstance, a cell was created. Given an infinite span of time, eventually you have to beat the trizillion-to-none odds. The thing is, after the particles were assembled, what spurred the cell on? How was it motivated to become living?

To use an analogy, it is much like a computer. Given an infinity of configurations, eventually you will have a perfectly functioning system of hardware that can run calculations and the like. The issue that I'm trying to illustrate is that while you may have the hardware, what makes the computer want to then go on and pursue its function? Additionally, at what point does it gain the ability to produce? That is a natural process that we have taken for granted, but seriously, even if it could operate, why would it even want to reproduce? It isn't as complex as a human to understand these things, and can only operate and "think" as part of a whole.

That is an excellent question.

That just stood out at me. What makes so many creationists believe that

A: If you accept evolution you deny there is a god.
B: If there is no afterlife, nothing we do matters. We can just run around and kill and maim and rape just because there's no ultimate punishment or ultimate reward?

Seriously. We as a species like to think that after death we won't just disappear. That's good and fine. But the Earth is still important. We should strive to better it and to better ourselves for more than just a seat in Heaven but so that future generations' lives are easier.

I mean, today, because of people who want to better our world, we have the internet. In a matter of seconds people all over the world could read what I'm typing (seconds after I post it, that is). I could call the local pizza place, which is about 3 miles away or so, and have a pizza, still hot, in under half an hour.

Just because evolution may be true, it doesn't mean that everything is accidental and that nothing we do matters.

And there is no good, solid proof in god that there is not for science. The difference is that people have faith in god and want all kinds of proof in science.