What have we learned today?

[Icon of Sin]

Of course evolution exists. It's in Pokemon ffs.

Creationist Pokémon fossils : Rock/Poison snake and Rock/Grass apple.

[Rehab]

Topic has spawned an evolution argument

Hm yes good, good

I have learned things.

1. There are no achievements for ridiculous acts of dumbassery in Star Wars: The Old Republic, such as playing the "let's see how many roofs I can climb on in bases of the enemy player faction" game.

2. There should be.

Pffahaha, awesome. I probably definitely should've asked some time before classes were right about to start, but dude what's your server?

what i learned today is never again

never again

never going to learn again?! what's up

[Doga]

On the topic of the thread, I learned how to find the volume of the shape made by two cylinders intersecting.

Calculus

[Zanarkin]

Exactly. That's because it doesn't happen.

How can you apply that logic to Evolution but totally ignore for your belief? Nobody saw that Jesus truly rose from the dead. Nor did anyone see God make life, nor have you or anyone else seen him do it again. Yet you are willing to believe those things because it was written in a book a long time ago and you were taught to believe it. How come you don't believe in Hinduism gods, or the Greek gods, or any other god/s. What makes the belief in your god more rational than others?

[Inactive Account]

Topic has spawned an evolution argument

Hm yes good, good

Pffahaha, awesome. I probably definitely should've asked some time before classes were right about to start, but dude what's your server?

never going to learn again?! what's up

rehab you had BETTER be on jedi covenant that's where all my dudes are

also science explanations <3

man I'm really happy right now and I have no idea why

probably because it's snowing

today I learned that my snow boots are friggin' awesome

[Fruity Insanity]

I'm no scientist, but I'll explain this to the best of my ability.

Australia has fauna unique to itself, not really seen in many other places in the world, if at all. What I am primarily talking about are mammals such as monotremes and marsupials. I'm sure we know what each of these are: egg-laying mammals, and mammals whose offspring complete most of their development outside of the womb. Most mammals outside of Australia (with a few exceptions), are eutherian, which host their offspring in placenta in the uterus for the majority of their development.

Who cares, right? What does this prove? They could have simply been made this way.

I'm following you.

Interestingly enough, eutherian mammals have somewhat identical marsupial counterparts that fill similar ecological niches. For example, the sugar glider is a marsupial, and the flying squirrel of North America look similar, ans play similar roles in the ecosystem. If you look at the fossil record of organisms, and all of that jazz, you can see that before the eutherian mammals came about, mostly all of the mammals were monotremes and marsupials, dating farther back to a single ancestor for mammals. A phylogeny is a great way to show the relations between different phyla, since it branches out and such.

THIS is what needs proof. Fossil records show that changes WEREN'T gradual. Take the Cambrian era. There were less complex life forms, then WOOSH, there were complex life forms? Mutation could be the answer to that, but what proof is there?

Also, taking similarities is not the most reliable proof. You're comparing two different, yet at the same time, similar species. They're both marsupials. Thus, it would make sense if they had similar DNA codings.

Try, on the other hand, comparing the DNA of a bat and a human. Look at their forearms. They both have a single humerus, splitting the arm roughly in half. They both have an ulna and a radius. Of course, the carpals metacarpals and phalanges are there, too. Since they're so similar, they descended from the same ancestor, right? Well, the DNA doesn't agree with that. (<- I can't really explain much about that. :P Hey, I'm only in high school. XD) The coding is different. Again, mutation solves this problem, but has lack of evidence.

If, in the rest of the world (mostly), eutherian mammals ruled supreme, how did the marsupials and monotremes of Australia survive? Clearly, the ones in the rest of the world did not make it for the most part, making them less favorable to their environment.

Microevolution. I mean, later foxes and rabbits were introduced to Australia and not only survived, but thrived. What does *that* say? So, is survival really the main factor? I think there's something else... (<- Not sure.)

The world was once one landmass, Pangea. In it, organisms could, essentially, freely travel across the continent (moreso populations than organisms, I suppose). At some point in time, the marsupials lived all throughout Pangea, but as time went on, the continents drifted (you "believe" in tectonic plates, right?), leaving the continents to form as they are today. Due to the way the Australian continent oriented itself, the environment never seemed to push for the traits eutherian mammals possessed. In all honesty, evolution does tend to lead to more "complex" organisms, but a major misunderstanding in the dogma is that it is goal-oriented.

Yes... I believe in tectonic plates. Geology's interesting... like every other science. Don't get me wrong, I love science. And I'm not just some stupid religious freak who's just throwing statements out there, even if that's what it may have sounded like. I have scientific reasons to not believe in evolution. You see, I homeschool, so I don't have to learn that oh-evolution-is-the-only-possible-reason-as-to-why-we-exist-today method of biology. Often, kids don't see why evolution is false because they're never taught it. Teachers avoid giving facts against evolution. And when they due, they're "prosecuted" for the "crime." The scientific community, so to say, overreacts to this. (I have nothing against the scientific community, mind you. I wouldn't mind joining on myself.)

Anyway, evolution does lead to more complex organisms. But does that answer the question as to why evolution is or isn't true?

The cytochrome C amino acid (you know... hemoglobin), for example, differs from species to species. The amino acid in a horse and pigeon are only 11% different. The amino acid in a horse and carp (the more "simple" life form), however, are 13% different. That's a bigger number. If complexity means similarity, then shouldn't that not be true? Yes, there are exceptions to this. But they're highly (and I mean HIGHLY) selective.

Organisms do not evolve for a specific goal or purpose. Over millions of years, there is no force that says "Oh, ok, alright, go on land, let's just ditch our gils and become terrestrial.". It is a combination of a passing on of favorable traits (over millions and millions of years) and random chance. Just luck. Why do we use ATP as a molecule for energy? It just kind of happened. Evolution is not always ultimately in favor of the organism; what is favorable in one environment, is not favorable in every environment.

Or a deity created us. :P

Evolution, as fossil records show, at least, was not gradual. WHAT WAS IN BETWEEN?! Really, you can't find much, can you?

And about the luck... just looked it up, but for abiogenesis to happen you need lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and (...)

Lots of luck.

For ribonuclease to form randomly... That's about a 1 in a 10^150 chance. That's JUST ribonuclease.

That's more than one in a google.

What of comparative embryology? Homologous structures?

DNA holds the key to that... I think.

Is it mere coincidence that fossil records date the origins of life back to water, and that many mammals today develop as embryos in sacs similar to an aqueous environment? That such environments have many parallels to those of eggs?

No, it isn't mere coincidence.

But look at it this way.

What macroevolution suggests is that, say, if we humans had to, we could eventually sprout wings and fly.

The problem is this: to sprout wings, our DNA has to be recoded to do that. That happens through inheritance. But how does a human pass down a gene that he doesn't have? Mutation would be an answer... but no. Mutation destroys. You can't make a gene to fly by destroying... at least as far as I know. So, it's impossible for humans to fly... or breath underwater... or create energy through photosynthesis.

But according to (a majority of) scientists, they can.

You say that there are no physical "intermediates" between the ancestors millions of years ago and the species we have today. I urge you to immediately look into some sort of reputable science textbook above the high school level, with sections that outline evolution, and I think you'd be met with figures that suggest otherwise.

Yes, I know that there are other suggestions. I've read about them. (I'm a highly-educated high schooler, by the way. :P)

Say, punctuated equilibrium suggests that changes happened rapidly... in quick bursts of changes.

Still, there should be a significant amount of fossils, even if that were true.

I don't see any. (Mostly because I haven't searched.)

There is a large, hefty difference between a belief system, and scientific theory. I can believe anything I want, but is there proof of it? I can say that long ago, the world was made because some ethereal being decided to belch into a megaphone and the vibrations afterwards spawned the universe. I can say the center of the Earth is made of cheese--I have no physical proof that is it, but do you have physical proof that it is not?

I myself really can't provide much proof. (Like I said, I'm only in high school.)

But there is proof out there - THAT I'm sure of. (Sorry if this sounds... vague. :P)

Here's a little something, though.

QUOTE by macroevolutionist Richard Dawkins: "It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists...Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally (My thoughts: Why do they have to be so mean about it? T_T), and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both object this alternative. (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, [New York, NY, W.W. Nortan & Company, 1996], 229-230)"

He recognizes this... but objects it. I understand, but it makes so much sense.

Rather, there is evidence, hard, factual evidence that is building by the day to support this theory. You can believe anything you want, and no one ever said to trust a single scientist.

They pick out their "hard, factual" evidence, discarding anything that disputes with Darwin's theory. (Darwin was a Christian, too, by the way... in the beginning.)

Never, ever trust a single scientist--they want you to believe what they say in order to gain credibility and funding. Instead, look at the facts. Look at the history; look at the compilation of evidence that seems to go in the right direction.

That's exactly what I look at... and evidence seems to point in the direction of... creationism. (People get fired for disagreeing with this. That's sad.)

Believe what you want, FF4E, but do not deny that these facts, this research, and this evidence is all coincidence. That is the making of a fool, and I would not trust with my life, the well being of our future, in the hands of a fool who cannot see this.

((I'm not concluding, I just wanted to sound dramatic. Will continue to discuss this. Perhaps I misunderstood your viewpoints.))

You certainly have! *rages*Haha... jk. jk.

I don't know... I love science, but I also believe in God. The two don't mix well, do they?

Sometimes things aren't as obvious as they seem.

Believing that God created us is not foolish. It, too, has science on its side.

Edit: I have class at 12:30, so I'll reply eventually.

I have school, too... Serenes Forest distracts me too much.

Also, thank you for replying like this^ (scientifically).

That's much better than, "Your ideas are ****. **** you."

Much appreciated. ^^

[Fruity Insanity]

Of course evolution exists. It's in Pokemon ffs.

Haha. :)

What good proof. :P

How can you apply that logic to Evolution but totally ignore for your belief? Nobody saw that Jesus truly rose from the dead. Nor did anyone see God make life, nor have you or anyone else seen him do it again. Yet you are willing to believe those things because it was written in a book a long time ago and you were taught to believe it. How come you don't believe in Hinduism gods, or the Greek gods, or any other god/s. What makes the belief in your god more rational than others?

The Bible records Jesus' revival and the creation of life. And the Bible, mind you, is just as credible as digging up fossils and finding ancient Egyptian texts. They're both old.

Hindu was created after Judaism.

The Koran came after the Bible.

Greek gods came later.

The Bible actually goes back a long way. (I've read it twice. Yes, the whole thing.)

It's actually a very interesting book. (And suggests that something like dragons once existed. (The book of Job.))

The rest is up to faith.

But that still leaves me with the question - what happened to dinosaurs?

Don't ask me. I have no clue.

[Zanarkin]

I don't see why you insist that evolution is false, and at the same time saying fossils have the same credibility as the bible.

[Fruity Insanity]

I don't see why you insist that evolution is false, and at the same time saying fossils have the same credibility as the bible.

I didn't mean for that to be ironic/hypocritical. :P

Fossils support creationism, too. (<- That's what I meant.)

Oh, and you forgot to capitalize the 'B' in 'Bible.'

...

...

Why do I have to be so... mistreated just for believing in God and what he did for us?

*sigh* :(

Edit: Stupid discrimination for beliefs.

Edited January 25, 2013 by fireemblemfan4ever

[Fruity Insanity]

The more I think of it, the more I think this discussion will be pointless. :P

It's not like anybody'll be convincing me, or vice versa.

...

[Doga]

I'm not saying that believing in God is wrong. Maybe I didn't state it like I meant it, but the beliefs of an individual and scientific evidence should not intersect. I don't know what I am when it comes to religion. I'm not one of those people that goes about, saying that theism is one of the worst things to ever plague the human race (those people are assholes, honestly).

That does not mean we can't take the Bible as a historical source. That would be like taking the the Epic of Gilgamesh and proclaiming it to be true. (Maybe there was a Gilgamesh, but scorpion-men... Really?) This is not to say that the Bible is useless. It just seems more like a moral code, or a book full of fables with morals and lessons. I have not read the Bible in its entirety, but I once tried reading it cover to cover. As a kid in church apparently I did something disrespectful, and my mom tried to punish me by having me read the bible.

I started from Genesis, and got somewhere into Noah's Arc when my mom got upset, since apparently I was supposed to be reading the Jesus parts.

Other that that, and a few analyses of the old testament in high school, my bible knowledge is pretty slim.

Maybe I was being too tongue-in-cheek before with the whole belching comment.

The Bible records Jesus' revival and the creation of life. And the Bible, mind you, is just as credible as digging up fossils and finding ancient Egyptian texts. They're both old.

Hindu was created after Judaism.

The Koran came after the Bible.

Greek gods came later.

I have a bit of complaint of what you said in bold. Just because something is old, it does not mean it is credible.

What makes fossils credible is how they can be traced back using carbon dating, to see how old they are. I'm not a master of chemistry, but I trust the whole half-life methodology enough to have an accurate enough result to determine how old something is. Finding ancient Egyptian texts is a completely different kind of credible than scientific evidence for evolution--they would most likely be used to determine the language of the Egyptians and their lifestyles. Science could be used, I suppose, to see how old such texts were, and the materials used to create them.

The Bible--a bible you can find in many hotel rooms and churches, is not as credible as you'd think. Perhaps I'm playing semantics here, but perhaps we'd be dealing with something substantial if we found, say, the very first, hand-written copy of the Bible. Then, maybe, we'd be somewhere.

The Bible, as a piece of literature, says a lot. It defines the basis for Judeo-Christian faith, and has a lot of value in literary, theological, and anthropological groups. Religion, as you said, pertaining to your beliefs, is, well, reliant on faith.

However, it has no place to be used scientifically. One does not have "faith" that objects fall (under normal gravity) at 9.8 meters per second squared. There is no faith, because if you do not believe it, you can simply execute the experiment and prove it for yourself.

You say that it is unfair that most science classrooms do not teach the creationist views. This is not to say that children cannot be exposed to creationism.

Faith and religion are more cultural than scientific, you have to admit. To teach religious views in science class is not relevant. The family--I assume you are Christian because you are raised in such a way, having been nourished in that kind of environment--has the duty to, if they decide to, teach religious values. Schools can, and are encouraged to, study religious texts for their literary and historical value, but should not be touched upon in biology.

It would be like writing one side of a chemical reaction and putting "ZEUS" at the end of the yield sign.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Doga

[Fruity Insanity]

I'm not saying that believing in God is wrong. Maybe I didn't state it like I meant it, but the beliefs of an individual and scientific evidence should not intersect. I don't know what I am when it comes to religion. I'm not one of those people that goes about, saying that theism is one of the worst things to ever plague the human race (those people are assholes, honestly).

I agree. My biology book is all like, "creationism is right evolution is wrong" and then puts all this proof in there.

And as much as I believe that God created Heaven and Earth, I don't think religion should mix with public education - that's the Church's job. (And yes, I really do think that way.) That's also the reason why that book irks me. :P

That does not mean we can't take the Bible as a historical source. That would be like taking the the Epic of Gilgamesh and proclaiming it to be true. (Maybe there was a Gilgamesh, but scorpion-men... Really?) This is not to say that the Bible is useless. It just seems more like a moral code, or a book full of fables with morals and lessons. I have not read the Bible in its entirety, but I once tried reading it cover to cover. As a kid in church apparently I did something disrespectful, and my mom tried to punish me by having me read the bible.

This is why people become all "Christianity's stupid."

Your mom uses reading the Bible as a PUNISHMENT -> That gives you a (somewhat?) negative view of the Bible, a punishment.

...It should be a privilege. (<- IMO, at least.)

And scorpion-men?

... Either that's not in the Bible or I don't remember that.

I started from Genesis, and got somewhere into Noah's Arc when my mom got upset, since apparently I was supposed to be reading the Jesus parts.

That's what I did... I started from Genesis... and read all the way through.

Although... I see why your mom wanted you to read the Jesus parts. They're the bases of Christianity, basically.

Other that that, and a few analyses of the old testament in high school, my bible knowledge is pretty slim.

You analyze the Bible at school? Never knew that.

And my Bible knowledge is pretty broad, even though I haven't read it in one year. :(

Maybe because my dad was a pastor and had a Ph.D. in Theology?

Maybe I was being too tongue-in-cheek before with the whole belching comment.

Maybe~ :)

I have a bit of complaint of what you said in bold. Just because something is old, it does not mean it is credible.

What makes fossils credible is how they can be traced back using carbon dating, to see how old they are. I'm not a master of chemistry, but I trust the whole half-life methodology enough to have an accurate enough result to determine how old something is. Finding ancient Egyptian texts is a completely different kind of credible than scientific evidence for evolution--they would most likely be used to determine the language of the Egyptians and their lifestyles. Science could be used, I suppose, to see how old such texts were, and the materials used to create them.

I don't trust the half-life methodology.

Scientists often twist the info... either that, or assume that what they say is 100% right. They may not be 100% right. Benefit of doubt.

The Bible--a bible you can find in many hotel rooms and churches, is not as credible as you'd think. Perhaps I'm playing semantics here, but perhaps we'd be dealing with something substantial if we found, say, the very first, hand-written copy of the Bible. Then, maybe, we'd be somewhere.

Actually... I think it is as credible as I think.

Like I said, my dad studied this... a lot. (It took him, like, 8 years to get his Ph.D. Well, I understand why, though. He had a family of 6 to feed.) Anyway, he read the Bible in its original form (Hebrew and Greek)... and... yeah.

The Bible is one of the least changed ancient texts. (But with a lot of variants... lots and lots of variants...)

Mostly because the writers of the Bible were Christians. The Book of Revelations explicitly says that should anyone change his Word... by adding or taking away what he said, shall be condemned. That's the reason why it's unchanged... more or less... and the reason (I think) why it has so many variants... so many different interpretations.

So... yeah. It's pretty credible.

The Bible, as a piece of literature, says a lot. It defines the basis for Judeo-Christian faith, and has a lot of value in literary, theological, and anthropological groups. Religion, as you said, pertaining to your beliefs, is, well, reliant on faith.

Reliant on faith, yes.

A lot of things are reliant on faith... Iike the Big Bang.

The universe is expanding, decreasing entropy, and so on and so forth (I love astronomy, too. <3)

That all points to the Big Bang. But can we say that it really happened? Not really.

However, it has no place to be used scientifically. One does not have "faith" that objects fall (under normal gravity) at 9.8 meters per second squared. There is no faith, because if you do not believe it, you can simply execute the experiment and prove it for yourself.

"Proof" is overrated. :P

Remember the time when scientists thought abiogenesis was real?

I'm sure they didn't think they were wrong, then.

Then Louis Pasteur came along~

Now, we all now that abiogenesis is wrong... without doubt.

It'll take time. You, as a to-be-biologist, recognize that, too. Time will tell.

You say that it is unfair that most science classrooms do not teach the creationist views. This is not to say that children cannot be exposed to creationism.

Faith and religion are more cultural than scientific, you have to admit. To teach religious views in science class is not relevant. The family--I assume you are Christian because you are raised in such a way, having been nourished in that kind of environment--has the duty to, if they decide to, teach religious values. Schools can, and are encouraged to, study religious texts for their literary and historical value, but should not be touched upon in biology.

I do admit that. Heck, I always tell my mom that "science and religion shouldn't mix." Why? Because that's what I believe. I'm not saying that science is 100% right. I'm just saying religion shouldn't be... too mixed with science.

It would be like writing one side of a chemical reaction and putting "ZEUS" at the end of the yield sign

...Zeus doesn't exist. :P (I get what you mean.)

[Ansem]

gaiz

this is fftf

take your evolution discussions to srs discussion

[Darros]

This thread might be headed in the general direction of ;/

called it

[Fruity Insanity]

gaiz

this is fftf

take your evolution discussions to srs discussion

Couldn't we discuss it here?

Good idea.

I'll do that.

called it

I shouldn't have said anything. T_T

Hey, Doga, I made a new thread over at "Serious Discussions."

Reply there. (If you're going to reply.)

Edited January 25, 2013 by fireemblemfan4ever

[Ansem]

i am kai

savior of fftf

[Makaze]

Exhibit A:

I learned... that the Theory of Evolution is absolutely, positively FALSE.

Wait, I didn't learnt that... I already knew it...

Exhibit B:

Argument? No. I don't want to start an argument.

I know some people believe the Theory of Evolution is true or whatnot, and really, I could care less.

People have opinions - I respect that. I was just stating mine.

There is a direct contradiction between these two posts. One of the posts asserts that you can discern the truth, or have learned something through either logic or observation. The other states that the first statement is an opinion and is not a statement of learned knowledge.

Learned knowledge is differentiated from an opinion by the fact that learning comes from observation, while opinions are developed as internal values. For example, a preference is an opinion. Things that you know but others do not are not considered opinions. If you were in a court room and told me what happened inside, I would not be able to discount your account based on it being an opinion because you have knowledge that I do not have. If you told me that it went well, that would be an opinion that I could challenge, but the technical account of what happened would not be.

o·pin·ion

noun /əˈpinyən/ 

opinions, plural

1. A view or judgment formed about something,

not necessarily based on fact or knowledge

When you assert that you have knowledge and mean an opinion, particularly a very controversial piece of knowledge, you are either a) too incompetent to realize the potential backfire of asserting opinion as knowledge or b) trying to set people off intentionally.

That contradiction is why you got called a moron.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Makaze

[peener weener]

what

i just

what

humans can sprout wings?

what inane bullshit is

no fossil links

what are you even

what?

the bible

historically accurate document

the big bang

relies on faith

scientists are unreliable?

abiogenesis was proven wrong?

ZEUS ISN'T REAL?

do you even know what the fuck you're saying or are you just typing some incoherent bullshit that was passed down to you by other people

[Inactive Account]

rehab bro what server are you on and if it is jedi covenant what's your dude(s) name(s) and level range(s) this is important

[Zanarkin]

Oh, and you forgot to capitalize the 'B' in 'Bible.'

...

...

Why do I have to be so... mistreated just for believing in God and what he did for us?

*sigh* :(

Edit: Stupid discrimination for beliefs.

Woe is me, people are challenging my opinions which i stated loud and clear over the internet about a topic widely accepted and expected not to get criticisms.

It isn't even discrimination >_>

Edited January 25, 2013 by SlayerX

[Rehab]

Dohh sorry, my first characters got consolidated onto The Shadowlands x[ I have a couple new characters I'd like to try out on either side, though, so hopefully if the character creation process is as I remember it, I can always make some dudes on Jedi Covenant and try to catch up.

speaking of, holy whoa I have, uh, rather a lot of update to install

Today I learned the Old Republic.. has changed

[Inactive Account]

ahhh no big deal dude, but if you do start on jedi covenant i've got a low-level dude on each side

(why did they get rid of easy server transferring i can't even tell)

[Ein]

what the fuck

[Defeatist Elitist]

I agree. My biology book is all like, "creationism is right evolution is wrong" and then puts all this proof in there.

And as much as I believe that God created Heaven and Earth, I don't think religion should mix with public education - that's the Church's job. (And yes, I really do think that way.) That's also the reason why that book irks me. :P

If your university has creationism in its textbook as a real thing, then you don't go to a real university.

I don't trust the half-life methodology.

Scientists often twist the info... either that, or assume that what they say is 100% right. They may not be 100% right. Benefit of doubt.

Jesus fuck, you constantly prove that you don't fucking understand even a little bit of science. Yeah, it might not be 100% right, so fucking what? Science is all about using the most accurate methods we have to come to the best possible conclusion. There's always the possibility it's wrong, but that's completely fucking irrelevant. If you don't trust scientists on shit like this, then get the fuck off your computer because it's a devil machine that runs off black magic.

Reliant on faith, yes.

A lot of things are reliant on faith... Iike the Big Bang.

The universe is expanding, decreasing entropy, and so on and so forth (I love astronomy, too. <3)

That all points to the Big Bang. But can we say that it really happened? Not really.

fuckyoufuckyoufuckyoou The Big Bang happened, there is overwhelming evidence and support for it, and the fact that you think otherwise once again demonstrates that you have absolutely no knowledge of science or sense of consensus in the scientific community. We can say it really happened. Is it possible it didn't happen? Sure, but that tiny chance is straight up not worth considering.

"Proof" is overrated. :P

Remember the time when scientists thought abiogenesis was real?

I'm sure they didn't think they were wrong, then.

Then Louis Pasteur came along~

Now, we all now that abiogenesis is wrong... without doubt.

You. Are. Fucking. Dumb.

That early (and somewhat bizarre) theory of abiogensis was disproved, but there are still many models of abiogenesis, some of which have a great deal of support.

I do admit that. Heck, I always tell my mom that "science and religion shouldn't mix." Why? Because that's what I believe. I'm not saying that science is 100% right. I'm just saying religion shouldn't be... too mixed with science.

"I don't think this should be done, that's why I'm doing it"

Fuck you.

[Makaze]

DE, you are only making yourself look bad.

If you cannot discuss the subject without getting riled, you probably shouldn't discuss it.

Your swearing and insults will only help him justify his victim complex.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Makaze