'arguments'....just the one 'e'....

By the way, you may have noticed that you had post #666

Yeah, that's funny.

Anyways I wanted to point out that although i typed you all are evil (in so many words) that I do not really think every one is evil if you do not believe.

Anyways I wanted to point out that although i typed you all are evil

If you do not believe...

Again, if you took that wrong I am sorry.

People are free to believe what they want.

About this evolotion crap - I believe we were created so it has no place in my mind.

Nothing about evolution denies creation. I place creation at the beginning of the universe, where the initial framework was designed to produce a particular result. I'm an engineer and I find greater wonder and power in a God who can design from a fundamental starting point that grows into the full scope of what we observe and deduce in our entire universe than one that was merely created from whole cloth a few thousand years ago.

Found this one floating out there is space by someone who thinks as I do....that it's all a load of bunk.:

"I have determined, after extensive surveying, tabulation, and data analysis, that the average creationist in the US earns $21,387.29 in family income; owns 1.2 cars, 1.8 TVs, and 2.3 kids; and has, at some point in his life, answered to the name "Bubba." He has less than one year of college. Yet he knows more about paleontology than Bakker or Horner or Currie (or he thinks that what they know is wrong--same thing). He knows more about the definition of evolution than Gould or Dawkins. He knows more about biology than Dobzhansky or Mayr. He knows more about cosmology than Hawking, Smoot, or Witten, and more about human fossils than Johanson or the Leakeys. He knows more "true" geology than geologists, more "true" physics than physicists, more "true" astronomy than astronomers--and more about everything than atheists like Asimov or Sagan.
Humble, they're not.

And speaking of lack of humility:

Evolution is a lie, correct? It's an idea spawned by Satan to damn our souls. Okay, let's think about that. Satan gets the souls of sinners, correct? If he wants souls, he has to make humans sin. What are the seven sins? There's greed, lust, sloth, envy, gluttony, pride... and I can never remember the last one, but that's okay because the important one here is pride. The Bible goes to great lengths to say that terrible things lie in store for the proud in the great hereafter.
So which is an idea that contributes more to human pride: that we were specially created in the image of God to be the masters of all other creatures upon the Earth? Or that we are one species out of countless billions that has arisen according to simple and probably inevitable rules of chemistry and selection?"

My guess is that the "Bubba" part will spark the biggest uproar. However, the main thrust of the argument will be conveniently forgotten.

Motion, you understand that that post was completely, utterly bereft of any benefit, right? I really don't even know who you are talking to.

The first half is pig-headed, and the second assumes that people here are fundamentalists who believe in the scenario you describe. I'd be willing to bet that only a fraction of Christians here believe that 'evolution' is a lie. Many Christians don't even believe in Satan, most that do don't see him as an entity with pointy horns. Many Christians don't even believe in hell. Cute parallel, though; an atheist who knows so much about religion and can't recite the seven deadly sins. No reason not to run your mouth about beliefs and people you don't understand, though, is it? Humble, you're not.

You aren't really portraying the average creationist, and you aren't making any valid points to persuade anyone toward your own beliefs, either. Actually, you are alienating people that would otherwise be neutral. Odd though, since stereotyping people based upon their beliefs is a kind of redneck thing to do. Have you ever been to a major cathedral, do you have any clue about who in modern society are 'creationists'? The profile you cite is asinine. It just assumes anyone of any importance agrees with you, and everyone else is a bumpkin. So, you wanna borrow Bubba's pointy hat and stereotype different races next?

Careful about how steamed you get about other people's beliefs. Slippery slope. You're already starting to sound like a bizzaro-Kona. Anyway, you did a good job ripping people for pretending to know about evolution and showing your ignorance of modern religion in the same breath.
[Message Edited]

Creationists are an easy target, after all....

When I worked in an off-campus book store in Tennessee, I knew a guy who claimed to be a skeptic. Upon rejecting religion, he began to notice its pervasiveness in our culture. As a history buff he was annoyed with the constant presence of 'the church'. He started calling himself a 'revisionist historian', trying to cull out the influence of religion in everything. Everything was tainted with the 'religious point-of-view'.

He took great pains to educate everyone he knew about how the church was really filled with pagan symbols, every steeple was a phallus. He whined endlessly about religious fraternal orders, about how the bumkins in town didn't like him because of his beliefs, about how his business was failing because people didn't like to be educated about their superstitions.

By the time I moved he was very interested in rooting out the shadowy religious organizations that had it in for him, and he had a lot to say about 'The Jews'.

My point? Who said I had to have one?

BakerStreet, I agree that most believers I know are like you and Aleatoric, and I have nothing against them; I actually have enormous respect for them because they can think by themselves.  But there are indeed a few fundamentalists here; just a couple though, and most of my posts and also motion's probably, is targeted towards them.

motion: anger. 

Thanks again Paxx.

Motion's last post isn't really valid with regards to the fundamentalists either, though, technically. They perhaps aren't as schooled in Evolution as they should be, but Motion wouldn't know an Australopithecine jawbone if it was firmly lodged in his trachea, either.

No one here formed their opinions in the lab, so everyone here got their information from a book, or worse, from some institutionally-fettered guy reading the book to them. I'm not debating on which book has more potential validity, I'm pointing out that words on a page do not truths make, at least truths with the kind of reliability it takes to discount another human being as a 'bubba'.

All I see between Kona and Motion is one guy who formed his beliefs based upon a book laughing at another guy that did the same, who in turns laughs back. Neither of them have a shred of evidence that wasn't passed from hand to hand, or even generation to generation, picking up bias and bitterness toward the opposition all along the way.

I banged that drum earlier in the thread, and it is just as valid now.

For me, reading a book, or for that matter, THE Book....did NOT form my basis for positional belief. Life experience is a far more noble source than third party mumbo-jumbo, whether scientific, OR theological.

Belief isn't about evidence....neither Darwin, nor the Bible will alter 'belief', only its perception....

Hear, Hear.

Hi, Baker.....BTW....

God is purely "Spiritual" ppl want things they can "touch, feel, read & see" but having a relationship w/ God will never be like that...

so all the Books, Churches, so called Religions and Religious teachers are "formed by ppl" to "assist" the ppl that need tuts and stuff to help them understand and have "faith in God" some tutorials are probably no help at all...

if you put your faith in the tutorials/books & teachers/pastors or whatever you wish to call all those things, instead of just God you'll really get lost (that's why I don't put my trust & faith in any of that stuff)

There's greed, lust, sloth, envy, gluttony, pride... and I can never remember the last one.

Its 'Anger' motion.