I apologize for oversimplification, and double-spacing (whoops, i just space paragraphs. Sorry, generally I do a series of one-liners). I blame it on the curriculum, my age, and society. (Yes, society can be blamed for a bunch of things, such as using hell as a swear word)
O.K. One, this is getting pretty lame. J w/e is reduced to using the english language to cover his @**. As you should know, claiming that someone's definitions are wrong is just a way of saying either: "I'm not listening, 'cause you're saying it wrong" "I'm too lazy to analyze what you actually meant, so instead, I will show how you said it wrong." Either way, you are just not listening, and hiding in your willful ignorance behind a facade of "I don't get it".
Yes, you can simplify things to: The universe was created. And, The universe arose from nothing. But both do injustice to what they represent. The universe arising from nothing has the same amount of space given as the universe creation, but has a universal agreement base. All who believe the universe arose from nothing believe it arose in about the same way. The dissension in their ranks is minor compared to the many deities who supposedly created the universe, and their methods of doing it.
Second, in NO WAY can you ever use any portion of Judeo-Christian religion as proof for ID/Creationism. See God disappearing in puff of logic. That would a major contradiction for a supposedly omnipotent deity. Said omnipotent one is clearly having difficulties being consistent (sp?), for a long time.
Third, obviously, many of the "theists" who came to this thread, none of them have bothered to research anything, beyond their trusty books in hotels (duh), have come, made arguments that have repeatedly been disproved, made the same argument multiple times, not bothered to read the replies, (or if they did, only to pick apart semantics), made completely illogical statements, and shot themselves in the foot. Take, for example, the argument that if Earth was made by little green men, what were the men made by? And who made the men that created the little green men, and who... Yeah. But the moronic part is, we can use the same argument about any higher being (ie god). Since we can do that, assuming the universe arose through various natural and logical processes makes even more sense.
Fourth: Creationism makes no sense. Duh. In any form, shape, or way. The most the creationists can do is say that evolutionists are: A. Minions of Satan. B. Corrupted by Satan. C. Using words incorrectly. D. Hah! Evolution doesn't work! E. It's much nicer to believe there's a God! F. Uhhh... dunno. Their "substitute" if you can call it that, can be picked apart umpteen different ways by anyone with a piece of string and a brain.
Fifth: Evolution does make sense. While all sorts of methods are used to attempt to show that creationism is right, many of them involve methods that are just biased. While you may think a mathematician is "giving evolution a break", in actuality, we are giving creationists a break. See infinite series at point 3. This sort of thing can easily be pointed out, as can various inconsistencies (sp?) in various religions, and conditioned thinking. Conditioned thinking, in this case, I mean rejecting anything that doesn't agree with what you think, or making up something in an attempt to justify your beliefs. These include saying God is a prankster, that there is a massive conspiracy against creationists, that what a majority of people think must be right, that math can be turned on and off at will, and assorted other things.
Sixth: I read Piers Anthony's "Incarnations of Immortality". While it may not be a good basis for making an opinion on whether God needs a replacement, it does show something interesting about how one would expect an ultimate interpertation of evil to act. That is, ignoring rules at will, and enforcing them when it is useful. Which side's argument does this sound like? I'll give you three guesses.
Seventh: What the evolutionary "micro and macro" evolutions are, is basically two aspects of the same thing, but one is easier to attack. Macroevolution isn't a huge change from a bird to a reptile, it's a series of small changes, that just keep occuring.
While a bird isn't a reptile (yes, I know this comparison derides evolution, sorry), if a bird is in an environment that favours reptiles, the most reptile-like birds are more probably to survive. Then, mutations will occur. The outwardly bad mutations (i.e. dying at birth) won't survive, but the outwardly good mutations, such as (dunno, name something) will increase the probability of that creature surviving, and thus of reproducing, and thus of sending it's genes around. Keep this going for a few billion years, and your "bird" that survives best where it is will be all that's left.
Eigth: Taking a religion literally, then trying to disprove evolution, is shooting yourself in the pinkie. Saying that the religion will be proved right is evolution is wrong proves only one thing. You consider evolution the greatest threat to your religion. That implies it's accurate.
As well, nuking evolution opens the door to many religions waiting to get in.
Ninth, worst, and most damning. Religion shows evolution. Ouch. The religions that lots of people believe, and identify with (i.e. the ones that people like, thus the best (fittest) ones) stay around a long time. The ones that don't, don't. As well, religions change to accomodate pressure (i.e. Pope acnowledges (sp?) evolution). This sounds like a minor form of evolution to me. Even if it has nothing to do with biology, it uses the same logic.
Tenth (I make these up as I go): Uhhh... Let's attack Christianity! No flaming.
K, since christians believe their religion is right, as it came after the jewish religion, since it's a revised religion, why is Islam not better? It contains an extra revision, that of Mohammed, yes? So thus, it must be even better! How about the Druze? They have a third coming! Even better!
The reasoning is, Christianity is obselete. Since the people discarded Semetism, they must discard Christianity next, or they will have an inaccurate religion!
Eleventh: Read. The. Posts. 90% of all your arguments have been disproved. I have no sympathy for those who use improbability as an excuse.
I bet I could find better odds for getting AIDS if you're a virgin, than God existing. (actually, there are. In Canada, only one in 4000...)
Clear logical fallacy. Why, I bet that using the Wikipedia definitions of logical fallacies, I could disprove tons of arguments.
Twelfth: Look, strict interpetation of the bible is incompatible with evolution. Duh. Anyone who disagrees is either too liberal, hasn't read the bible, approves of their religion being changed to fit local pressures, or something.
Thirteenth: Read between the lines. According to my post, religion posing as science is the work of the Devil. Amusingly, I don't believe this, but if you don't, you don't believe in your religion, or you don't believe in that religion. There is a nice pattern to work with, and double standards are another sign (see point 6).
Six Hundred and Sixty Sixth. Posted by a person who survived June 6'th, 2006, the least dangerous doomsday ever.
N'th. Dunno.
EDIT: Well, let's see here... Evolution has no path, so deevolution isn't possible, just evolution to suit a niche (i.e. the white house
)
As a agnostic, I have faith in nothing, except that which can be reasonably proven. In this, at least to me, the choice is obvious. Patterns can be proven, logic can be proven, blind belief cannot. I don't blame the people who believe in a deity, I blame those who brainwash them.
I gotta admit, dismissing evolution as a conspiricy seems kinda ironic in that context....
