Evolution

[The Ophelias]

For the record, I was apologizing for the horrible natural selection pun.

Got it. Another poster explained it.

[Barfobulville]

Couldn't hurt to specify

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Yes, I believe in evolution. It's the only theory that has, to an extent, being able to explain from where is it that we come from and how we got to where we are nowadays.

[Mt Id]

1) There are hundreds of transitional species identified by both their descendants and antecedents.

so people say but I honestly haven't found any that I agree with. Feel free to source me proofs otherwise, however.

2) The "explosion" took millions of years, point of fact it took longer than humans have existed.

Right...millions of years to complete a change that has an insanely small chance of occurring. Its like 1/billion (not an exact ratio so don't eat me) chance of the right mutation occurring and there had to be multiple mutations of the same organism to get the first recorded species. So you quickly get into nearly infinitesimally small chances for these changes all occurring at the same time and in the space of only a few million years. It just doesn't seem plausible to me.

[Farnhamia Redux]

1) There are hundreds of transitional species identified by both their descendants and antecedents.

so people say but I honestly haven't found any that I agree with. Feel free to source me proofs otherwise, however.

2) The "explosion" took millions of years, point of fact it took longer than humans have existed.

Right...millions of years to complete a change that has an insanely small chance of occurring. Its like 1/billion (not an exact ratio so don't eat me) chance of the right mutation occurring and there had to be multiple mutations of the same organism to get the first recorded species. So you quickly get into nearly infinitesimally small chances for these changes all occurring at the same time and in the space of only a few million years. It just doesn't seem plausible to me.

Transitional fossils

Random genetic drift

I hope these help get you started.

[The Tofu Islands]

1) There are hundreds of transitional species identified by both their descendants and antecedents.

so people say but I honestly haven't found any that I agree with. Feel free to source me proofs otherwise, however.

From talk.origins.

2) The "explosion" took millions of years, point of fact it took longer than humans have existed.

Right...millions of years to complete a change that has an insanely small chance of occurring. Its like 1/billion (not an exact ratio so don't eat me) chance of the right mutation occurring and there had to be multiple mutations of the same organism to get the first recorded species. So you quickly get into nearly infinitesimally small chances for these changes all occurring at the same time and in the space of only a few million years. It just doesn't seem plausible to me.

Don't quite understand what you're getting at here, please explain.

[Dyakovo]

Right...millions of years to complete a change that has an insanely small chance of occurring. Its like 1/billion (not an exact ratio so don't eat me) chance of the right mutation occurring and there had to be multiple mutations of the same organism to get the first recorded species. So you quickly get into nearly infinitesimally small chances for these changes all occurring at the same time and in the space of only a few million years. It just doesn't seem plausible to me.

Don't quite understand what you're getting at here, please explain.

He doesn't accept evolution because a lot of little things have to all happen and in the correct order for you to successfully evolve from a single cell organism to a multiple cell organism...

Or at least that's what I think he's saying...

[Khadgar]

1) There are hundreds of transitional species identified by both their descendants and antecedents.

so people say but I honestly haven't found any that I agree with. Feel free to source me proofs otherwise, however.

2) The "explosion" took millions of years, point of fact it took longer than humans have existed.

Right...millions of years to complete a change that has an insanely small chance of occurring. Its like 1/billion (not an exact ratio so don't eat me) chance of the right mutation occurring and there had to be multiple mutations of the same organism to get the first recorded species. So you quickly get into nearly infinitesimally small chances for these changes all occurring at the same time and in the space of only a few million years. It just doesn't seem plausible to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3nvH6gf ... 6D&index=7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93mWjngq ... annel_page

Knock yourself out. AronRa is quite informative. Hell you can Google Human Evolution and come up with dozens of species that lead up to us.

[Mt Id]

Transitional fossils

Random genetic drift

I hope these help get you started.

I've actually looked at both of those before but they prove nothing to me. They say that there are transitional species that fill in the gaps and then go on to say that evolution works even with the gaps so it sounds more like covering their asses to me. Also they are very careful on what their definition of what a transitional species is, and it isn't what you'd expect. Part of why I think evolution just isn't as plausible as its supposed to be.

Btw, genetic drift doesn't really help much since it just proves my point that there is a really small chance of the correct mutation occurring.

[Smunkeeville]

Are you asking if I believe in a common ancestor, if I believe that things evolve, if I believe in survival of the fittest or all of those or a combo of those or something completely different and unrelated (like the big bang)?

Evolution usually only refers to common ancestry of related species and adaptation. Only people to throw in the Big Bang et cetera are usually ID proponents or Creationists. They do this to muddy the issue when they're getting their asses rhetorically kicked.

Yeah, I know, I was just clarifying because a LOT of the time where I'm at if you talk about evolution they automatically start in about the big bang thing......which is NOT what I thought we were talking about.

[Dyakovo]

Are you asking if I believe in a common ancestor, if I believe that things evolve, if I believe in survival of the fittest or all of those or a combo of those or something completely different and unrelated (like the big bang)?

Evolution usually only refers to common ancestry of related species and adaptation. Only people to throw in the Big Bang et cetera are usually ID proponents or Creationists. They do this to muddy the issue when they're getting their asses rhetorically kicked.

Yeah, I know, I was just clarifying because a LOT of the time where I'm at if you talk about evolution they automatically start in about the big bang thing......which is NOT what I thought we were talking about.

That jump has never made sense to me... What the hell does the Big Bang Theory have to do with the ToE?

[Brutanion]

1) There are hundreds of transitional species identified by both their descendants and antecedents.

so people say but I honestly haven't found any that I agree with. Feel free to source me proofs otherwise, however.

2) The "explosion" took millions of years, point of fact it took longer than humans have existed.

Right...millions of years to complete a change that has an insanely small chance of occurring. Its like 1/billion (not an exact ratio so don't eat me) chance of the right mutation occurring and there had to be multiple mutations of the same organism to get the first recorded species. So you quickly get into nearly infinitesimally small chances for these changes all occurring at the same time and in the space of only a few million years. It just doesn't seem plausible to me.

The first point is along the lines of the 'half an eye' argument, which in its original form is a misunderstanding about how the eye actually developed. There can be no half an eye. However, here's half a nose (in text form):
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/20041 ... 62807.html
Also, intermediates are not half one thing and half another, they are viable lifeforms in their own right and make biological sense to their immediate surroundings without reference to before or after. Hence, dinosaurs are a massive transitional form between reptiles and birds, viable to the point of domination but still with predecessors and descendants which make sense in the triad of predecessors, descendants and environment.
Also, a well documented example is the horse; view the puny four toed ancestors as they become better and better at hippocity (the art of being a horse) but still being able to run fast enough to make each stage viable.
Further to this is the fact that intermediaries tend to die out; we did not evolve from apes, we evolved from an ape like ancestor and apes evolved from a (to them) human like ancestor.

Of chances, this is not a random scheme. Although chemicals seem random, they are not. Laws of chemistry mean that certain combinations are more likely than others, and some are more likely to happen than not. It's not like throwing bricks randomly into a pile and hoping for a house, it's more like going through a lego box looking for all the fourers and sticking two twoers in place when a fourer isn't forthcoming. It looks random, but there is an essential pattern to it.
The mathematics are also often mixed up, and it is also possible that you've been told the wrong thing by someone who did not understand them. The chances are not independent like lottery balls, they are the same down the entire sequence.

Of probability, Geoffery of Ockham, famed for his razor, said that in fact there is more reason to believe in a wondrous universe that was self created than for a wondrous universe that was created by an even more wondrous creator. The general line of reasoning being that whilst God's behaviour may be understandable in human terms, his existence, creation and characteristics are not. Since the universe is understandable in human terms, which is the more likely?
His point was not actually to refute God either, simply to make the point that Christian faith is based on an absence of evidence and trust in an instinctive faith, not through seeking scientific evidence of God.

A last point; evolution theory gives measurable and verified results that can be used to predict certain occurrences and future probabilities, creationism does not, which is effectively like taking off one's reading glasses trusting in one's own eyesight. Since evolution theory does not hurt anyone (who matters, those it does are those trying something on), why not go with it like the Church of England? Why believe in a God who only created a picture of life at one given time when there's the option of a God who set in motion a far sighted plan that at it's current pinnacle has caused to exist creatures capable of self improvement? Which speaks more of omnipotence and omniscience?

[Mt Id]

Also, a well documented example is the horse; view the puny four toed ancestors as they become better and better at hippocity (the art of being a horse) but still being able to run fast enough to make each stage viable.

Yeah about that...

a. A complete series of horse fossils is not found in any one place in the world arranged in the rock strata in proper evolutionary order from bottom to top. The fossils are found in widely separated places on the earth.

b. The currently accepted sequence of fossils starts in North America, then jumps to Europe and back to America again. But there are still differing opinions on whether one of the jumps was from America to Europe or vice versa. Many different evolutionary histories for horses have been proposed.

c. Hyrocotherium (eohippus), supposedly the earliest, founding member of the horse evolution series, is not connected by intermediate fossils to the condylarths from which it supposedly evolved. [Simpson, G.G., Horses (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1951), pp. 105-112, 115-116.]

d. The first three supposed horse genera, found in rocks classified as Eocene, are named Hyracotherium, Orohippus, and Epihippus, and they are said to have evolved in that order. However, the average size of these creatures, sometimes called "old horses," decreases along the series, which is contradictory to the normal evolutionary rule, and they were all not larger than a fox. [Ibid., pp. 116-117; Simpson, G.G., ref. 3, p. 135]
In view of their similarity, these genera could be considered to be members of an originally created biblical "kind."

e. Between Epihippus and Mesohippus, the next genus in the horse series, there is a considerable gap. [Simpson, G.G., ref. 30, p. 124. Other fossil horse data cited below can be found in the same work] The size increases about 50 percent and the number of toes on the front feet decreases from four to three. The series of genera, Mesohippus, Miohippus, and Parahippus, sometimes called the (small) "new horses," were three-toed animals much more similar in appearance to modern horses than the previous group discussed. These, perhaps, were members of another created kind.

f. Merychippus, the next genus in the supposed horse evolution series, and the first of the (large) "new horses," was about 50 percent larger than the group of genera just discussed. It was three-toed, but the two side toes on each foot were quite small and unimportant, and the animals looked very horselike. Pliohippus, the next genus in the series was a one-toed horse. These animals had some characteristics of skeleton and teeth which differed from modern horses, but they may, perhaps, be classified with them as members of the same original created kind.

g. According to the theory, in Europe and North America three-toed horses evolved into single-toed horses. It is interesting that fossil horse-like ungulates of South America would seem to tell the opposite story. If one kind of ungulate evolved into another in South America, it would appear from the location of the fossils in the rock strata that the following succession of evolutionary stages occurred: first, the one-toed Thoatherium gave rise to Diadiaphorus having two small extra toes, which then evolved into the three-toed Macrauchenia. [Gish, Duane, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record (Master Books Pub., San Diego, 1985) pp. 83-84; Romer, Alfred S., Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd Edition (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1966), pp. 260-261]. But perhaps all of these animals were created, rather than evolved.

h. In northeastern Oregon the three-toed Neohipparion is found in the same rock formation with the one-toed horse, Pliohippus. [Nevins, Stuart E., Creation Research Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 10, March 1974, p. 196.]

i. There is a mystery about the theory of horse evolution. It arises from the fact that the brain of little Hyracotherium was simple and smooth, as indicated by the smooth inner surface of the fossil skulls. The brain of true horse, Equus, has on its outer surface a complex pattern of folds and fissures. [Simpson, G.G., ref. 30, pp. 177-179; Davidheiser, Bolton, Creation Research Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 12, Sept. 1975, pp. 88-89]. Cattle brains are quite similar and equally complex and have an almost identical pattern of fissures. Cattle and Hyracotherium supposedly evolved from a common ancestor which had a simpler pattern of fissures. Therefore, it must be assumed that parallel evolution by chance processes produced the same complex brain pattern possessed by both modern cattle and horses. Such a tale is difficult to swallow.
Intelligent, purposeful creation provides a more believable explanation.

j. Dr. Niles Eldridge of the American Museum of Natural History admitted in an interview that the Museum houses a display of alleged horse evolution which is misleading and should be replaced. It has been the model for many similar displays across the country for much of this century.[ Bethel, Tom, "The Taxonomic Case Against Darwin," Harper Magazine, Feb. 1985, pp. 49-61. Niles Eldredge is quoted on page 60.]

[Brutanion]

Also, a well documented example is the horse; view the puny four toed ancestors as they become better and better at hippocity (the art of being a horse) but still being able to run fast enough to make each stage viable.

Yeah about that...

*Removed the filling but kept the sauce.*

The picture itself does say that it's not linear; the point is merely exemplary, not literal. There are more consistent but much less interesting examples (insects, snails, etc) available in some museums.
Even so, the lack of consistency in the horse example is not evidence against anything. For instance I currently have no evidence that three members of this forum are human and not intelligent gazelles, but that doesn't mean they aren't.

Still, have a look at the fossil record and how it doesn't match the flood theory. If you want to give it a try, make a compacted sand landscape in the bath, place different small buoyant objects in it and fill it up. Then whisk gently around for a while (storms, etc, but without destroying the sand landscape) and drain. You'll see them land randomly, some up mountains, some on plains, most far from where they started (in bath terms) and none in set groups. That is the effect of a catastrophic flood. If you think that's not true, look at Bangladesh once a year.

In general, I've noticed that whilst a range of people from Christians to outright atheists extol evolution, there is only a small group who do so with creationism, and they are universally the ones who benefit from it. You might want to consider what the actual ramifications of the belief are, what they mean in spiritual terms and what they cause you to think about things you might otherwise have a different opinion on. Rather than surfing sites looking for what the creationists say you should think and then ask for 'contributions' to their cause, go out and talk with a range of educated people (assuming they're available) and avoid both Pat Buchanan (hardline creationist) and Richard Dawkins (hardline atheist evolution) characters. Then you might find a sense that even if you still believe in God, you believe in a greater and more powerful one than you first imagined and the only people suffering from it are those who would bind your mind to their thin doctrines.
If you wonder why I would care what you believe, it is because I tend to find that those who say 'you must believe in creationism' tend to then go on to say 'and then hate these things that I tell you to'. Anyone entering into a debate from the creationist side who doesn't start screaming 'you're all going to die in righteous judgment, etc' deserves more brain food than just a one sided statement.

[Free Soviets]

Yeah about that...

a. A complete series of horse fossils is not found in any one place in the world arranged in the rock strata in proper evolutionary order from bottom to top. The fossils are found in widely separated places on the earth.

yeah, and? why the fuck would anyone expect it to be otherwise? horses can travel pretty far over short periods of time, let alone the 50-some million years of distinctly 'horse' evolution.

b. The currently accepted sequence of fossils starts in North America, then jumps to Europe and back to America again. But there are still differing opinions on whether one of the jumps was from America to Europe or vice versa. Many different evolutionary histories for horses have been proposed.c. Hyrocotherium (eohippus), supposedly the earliest, founding member of the horse evolution series, is not connected by intermediate fossils to the condylarths from which it supposedly evolved. [Simpson, G.G., Horses (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1951), pp. 105-112, 115-116.]

so? the data isn't quite fine-toothed enough to resolve everything yet. what of it?

d. The first three supposed horse genera, found in rocks classified as Eocene, are named Hyracotherium, Orohippus, and Epihippus, and they are said to have evolved in that order. However, the average size of these creatures, sometimes called "old horses," decreases along the series, which is contradictory to the normal evolutionary rule, and they were all not larger than a fox. [Ibid., pp. 116-117; Simpson, G.G., ref. 3, p. 135]

the rule apparently being that everything is always getting bigger? that's too stupid for words.

But perhaps all of these animals were created, rather than evolved.

yes, that is clearly the best way to deal with the puzzle of all these obviously similar yet diverging forms - maybe god just wanted it to look exactly like evolution!

h. In northeastern Oregon the three-toed Neohipparion is found in the same rock formation with the one-toed horse, Pliohippus. [Nevins, Stuart E., Creation Research Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 10, March 1974, p. 196.]

dude, it turns out that my cousins didn't all die when i was born. fucking mind-blowing

j. Dr. Niles Eldridge of the American Museum of Natural History admitted in an interview that the Museum houses a display of alleged horse evolution which is misleading and should be replaced. It has been the model for many similar displays across the country for much of this century.[ Bethel, Tom, "The Taxonomic Case Against Darwin," Harper Magazine, Feb. 1985, pp. 49-61. Niles Eldredge is quoted on page 60.]

ah, quote mining - that's the stuff. the offending display, presumably, was the old school linear model. it has been replaced with a much more evolutionary bush.
like this:

[Mt Id]

The picture itself does say that it's not linear; the point is merely exemplary, not literal. There are more consistent but much less interesting examples (insects, snails, etc) available in some museums.
Even so, the lack of consistency in the horse example is not evidence against anything. For instance I currently have no evidence that three members of this forum are human and not intelligent gazelles, but that doesn't mean they aren't.

what kind of reasoning is that? "Just because there isn't proof of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist." Come on, that sounds more like what a 12 year old evangelical christian would say about God existing.

Still, have a look at the fossil record and how it doesn't match the flood theory. If you want to give it a try, make a compacted sand landscape in the bath, place different small buoyant objects in it and fill it up. Then whisk gently around for a while (storms, etc, but without destroying the sand landscape) and drain. You'll see them land randomly, some up mountains, some on plains, most far from where they started (in bath terms) and none in set groups. That is the effect of a catastrophic flood. If you think that's not true, look at Bangladesh once a year.

What does this have to do with anything? I'm kinda confused. Are you saying that the landscape of the planet never changes? And if so, why?

In general, I've noticed that whilst a range of people from Christians to outright atheists extol evolution, there is only a small group who do so with creationism, and they are universally the ones who benefit from it. You might want to consider what the actual ramifications of the belief are, what they mean in spiritual terms and what they cause you to think about things you might otherwise have a different opinion on. Rather than surfing sites looking for what the creationists say you should think and then ask for 'contributions' to their cause, go out and talk with a range of educated people (assuming they're available) and avoid both Pat Buchanan (hardline creationist) and Richard Dawkins (hardline atheist evolution) characters. Then you might find a sense that even if you still believe in God, you believe in a greater and more powerful one than you first imagined and the only people suffering from it are those who would bind your mind to their thin doctrines.
If you wonder why I would care what you believe, it is because I tend to find that those who say 'you must believe in creationism' tend to then go on to say 'and then hate these things that I tell you to'. Anyone entering into a debate from the creationist side who doesn't start screaming 'you're all going to die in righteous judgment, etc' deserves more brain food than just a one sided statement.

I have searched sites that give their evidence from both sides of the argument and personally I believe that creation is more likely then random chance creating self-aware humanoids.

a. A complete series of horse fossils is not found in any one place in the world arranged in the rock strata in proper evolutionary order from bottom to top. The fossils are found in widely separated places on the earth.

yeah, and? why the fuck would anyone expect it to be otherwise? horses can travel pretty far over short periods of time, let alone the 50-some million years of distinctly 'horse' evolution.

Yes, they can. The question is, however, why would they? If the living is good where they are, why move? If one particular type of horse likes the tropics, why would it travel to the tundra?

b. The currently accepted sequence of fossils starts in North America, then jumps to Europe and back to America again. But there are still differing opinions on whether one of the jumps was from America to Europe or vice versa. Many different evolutionary histories for horses have been proposed.c. Hyrocotherium (eohippus), supposedly the earliest, founding member of the horse evolution series, is not connected by intermediate fossils to the condylarths from which it supposedly evolved. [Simpson, G.G., Horses (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1951), pp. 105-112, 115-116.]

so? the data isn't quite fine-toothed enough to resolve everything yet. what of it?

merely pointing out the illogical assumption that even though, as you clearly stated, the data isn't quite fine-toothed enough to resolve everything yet that it can actually be used as concrete fact instead of more of a guess.

d. The first three supposed horse genera, found in rocks classified as Eocene, are named Hyracotherium, Orohippus, and Epihippus, and they are said to have evolved in that order. However, the average size of these creatures, sometimes called "old horses," decreases along the series, which is contradictory to the normal evolutionary rule, and they were all not larger than a fox. [Ibid., pp. 116-117; Simpson, G.G., ref. 3, p. 135]

the rule apparently being that everything is always getting bigger? that's too stupid for words.

To stupid for words? Then why does it have its own scientific rule?

But perhaps all of these animals were created, rather than evolved.

yes, that is clearly the best way to deal with the puzzle of all these obviously similar yet diverging forms - maybe god just wanted it to look exactly like evolution!

was this really necessarily? Or were you just wanting to say another useless thing?

h. In northeastern Oregon the three-toed Neohipparion is found in the same rock formation with the one-toed horse, Pliohippus. [Nevins, Stuart E., Creation Research Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 10, March 1974, p. 196.]

dude, it turns out that my cousins didn't all die when i was born. fucking mind-blowing

That's the whole point, thank you. If the new species of horse was supposed to come from the former, why were they both around at the same time? Simple answer: they appeared at the same time and thus no evolution occurred to turn from one to the other.

j. Dr. Niles Eldridge of the American Museum of Natural History admitted in an interview that the Museum houses a display of alleged horse evolution which is misleading and should be replaced. It has been the model for many similar displays across the country for much of this century.[ Bethel, Tom, "The Taxonomic Case Against Darwin," Harper Magazine, Feb. 1985, pp. 49-61. Niles Eldredge is quoted on page 60.]

ah, quote mining - that's the stuff. the offending display, presumably, was the old school linear model. it has been replaced with a much more evolutionary bush.
like this:

It was merely pointing out that many "accepted" explanations of what happened due to evolution are still being paraded around as true when newer evidence has proven them wrong. In fact...that's exactly what you said. Hey man, you're really helping me out here.

[Brutanion]

1)what kind of reasoning is that? "Just because there isn't proof of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist." Come on, that sounds more like what a 12 year old evangelical christian would say about God existing.

2)What does this have to do with anything? I'm kinda confused. Are you saying that the landscape of the planet never changes? And if so, why?

3)I have searched sites that give their evidence from both sides of the argument and personally I believe that creation is more likely then random chance creating self-aware humanoids.

4)It was merely pointing out that many "accepted" explanations of what happened due to evolution are still being paraded around as true when newer evidence has proven them wrong. In fact...that's exactly what you said. Hey man, you're really helping me out here.

Points appropriate to me labelled one to 4. Points to Free Soviets left out.

1)It's true reasoning; 12 year old evangelists try to give evidence. The point simply is that you said the horse example was faulty (which I made no attempt to hide, it was for demonstrative purposes only) and suggested that meant evolution didn't exist. In the same way that I cannot give precise evidence against the existence of God or gods (and neither did I try to), you cannot use lack of evidence (in this case) to suggest evolution doesn't. Like I said, there are better examples around, but horses are nicer to look at.

2)Whilst the landscape does change over time in geological eras (something not mentioned in the Bible, but known about in Eastern spirituality), the fossil record follows the geological change and fossils are found in expected groups based on habitat. Within creationism, the Flood needs to be accounted for, but the expected random dispersal of the fossils (the little items in the bath), over the landscape (the sand landscape) does not occur. The point of performing the experiment is to see what the fossil record should look like if the Flood occurred in its Biblical proportions.

3)Clearly you cannot believe in chance, and not all do believe lives are at all random. However, I suggested the Church of England's line of reasoning; namely that a divine creator set in motion a series of events that created a world actually more sophisticated than previously thought. Their logic is this; if God is omnipotent, then he would more likely create the world where evolution is possible than a stagnant one. This is because the changing world requires more power to create than the stagnant. 'Greater be the glory of God' they say. What this changes though is the nature of the church and those within it. No longer are members required to just listen and say 'Hallelujah', but to go out and explore the greater world and learn about it. This reduces the church's hold on the material and secular lives of the congregation and so far only the truly powerful (as opposed to just noisy) churches have taken that route, although they seem to have grown stronger for it.

4)Noone has so far seriously used an outdated example for its own merit. I provided the horse as an illustration only and Free Soviets has provided the current horse tree. Nonetheless, you seem to have accepted that there is newer evidence, which suggests that you don't find the idea of increasing hippocity so strange after all.
Either way, you can see that some of the fossils are older than others to the point where they could not have been around at the same time. This means that new species would have been created after Genesis, which creationists refute. Also, a creationist should refute all fossils as a divine hoax for an unknown reason. If you don't think they're bogus by design, then the Regent college (the creationist authority) won't accept the argument. If you think they are real, then at the very least you believe in divinely ordained evolution (as the CoE does).

[Aglorea]

On the subject of evolution, I've always said this: I do NOT believe in evolution, because I know it exists. I don't have to take it on faith.

[Saint Jade IV]

Ya suppose I should've said I'll be so sad when you guys are in Hell. What a shame they were such good people. . It seems like everyone who's not a Christian believes we're supposed to be perfect and that were all ammished(WTF is that?) or something and they all look down on us and say how a Christian shouldn't do that. I'd worry about me self doing the right thing instead of pointing my finger at the Christian who did the same thing you did.

Somewhere an English teacher is pulling their fucking hair out.

That would be me.

[Chetssaland]

OK Im back so what do you got for me

Oh yeah and the "amished" thing, I meant amishes. I edited it and fixed it. But not all the other horribly typed paper

[Gauntleted Fist]

That would be me.

You're an English teacher?

Some people on this forum must annoy the shit out of you.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

That would be me.

*pats on the back*
There there Jadey. I'm no teacher and it annoys me deeply.

[Saint Jade IV]

For the record, I don't believe in evolution. I know it happens. Whatever else I believe about how, is my personal business and should not enter into scientific discussions or science classrooms.

[Saint Jade IV]

That would be me.

You're an English teacher?

Some people on this forum must annoy the shit out of you.

I try to recognise that each person's vernacular is valid and respectable. And then I punch at a brick wall for a few hours.

[Saint Jade IV]

That would be me.

*pats on the back*
There there Jadey. I'm no teacher and it annoys me deeply.

from Nanatsu make it all better.