Reply #15 5. If you bothered to read Darwin's theory, you would see it is all based on exactly that, theory, not fact . What facts do you have to dispute the theory?

what facts do you have PROVING IT?

4.If the Mention of GOD sends you into a fit of anger. Why would anyone get angry at or about something that doesn't exist?

why even mention this if it does not annoy you?

.If you would rather believe that we are monkey people instead of GODS. What's GOD like about the human condition?

what's MONKEY like about the human condition?

2.If you believe that all of life is based on some kind of "cosmic accident" In other words: to hold a belief in miracles?

no , not in other words to suit you, the words I chose are the words I mean, not some other words.

And the number one reason is, You refuse to even consider you "MIGHT" not have all the answers. Its Creationist dogma that would have us all believe everythings already been settled. Not having all the answers and therefore seeking them out is what separates ET from Creationist censure. How deluded does one have to be to suggest the reverse?

and how deluded must one be to believe a monkey is your ancestor>?

KFC (Kickin For Christ)November 6, 2006 14:49:01

Good one Modman!! Balance is good. But it's been mostly one sided around here lately...at least from my viewpoint.

thank you, it has been a little slanted in the big bang direction.

5. If you bothered to read Darwin's theory, you would see it is all based on exactly that, theory, not fact .

Answer: Yep, it's a theory. But one that's been affirmed over and over again

4.If the Mention of GOD sends you into a fit of anger.

Answer: No, no fits of anger here! Except when people try to tell me they've got God all sewn up.

3.If you would rather believe that we are monkey people instead of GODS.

Answer: we are monkeys. At least we act like 'em a lot. (except sometimes monkeys make more sense with their actions!)

2.If you believe that all of life is based on some kind of "cosmic accident"

Answer: What's an "accident?" That's just a human mind thing, like time and fairness.

And the number one reason is, You refuse to even consider you "MIGHT" not have all the answers.

Answer: I've found that the older I get the dumber I get. Now if you'd a met me in my twenties you'd have said " that Joe, now he's a smart motherfucker!"

"what facts do you have PROVING IT?"

People who espouse a belief that can't be proved sound odd demanding proof of other people's theories. You've already denied the need for proof by believing what you believe, right? Why hold them to a higher standard?

I know you'll say they claim to have a higher standard, and they do, but in the end what does that matter to you? There are Christians in the religion section making holier-than-thou statements constantly, to you they'd be boldly proclaiming falsehoods as well. Don't they bother you, or is there something about the leftist bent of this that gets on your nerves?

The problem isn't one side or the other. It is with people who "know" things that they really don't know telling other people that they don't know what they think they know. If it mattered that much, wouldn't God make sure you had the answer?

The only honest people in this whole issue are the people who admit they don't know one way or the other.

and how deluded must one be to believe a monkey is your ancestor

Now of course a monkey wasn't our ancestor...it's our cousin. An ape was our ancestor.

~Zoo

The only honest people in this whole issue are the people who admit they don't know one way or the other.

Reply By: BakerStreetPosted: Monday, November 06, 2006

nobody "knows" one way or the other baker, that is why it is called belief.

What facts do you have to dispute the theory?

That is the funny things about theory. They are not facts. Oh, they are good theories (the ones that survive), but you dont have to disprove a theory with fact. Just with doubt.

Personally, I am with MM. I do beleive in Intelligent design, which does not negate evolution, but does allow for a guiding hand. Perhaps the better argument is disprove Intelligent Design. What facts do you have to disprove that?

And dont bother googling them. For the simple fact is there is none. So we come down to belief.

And yours is as valid as mine, just not to me.

That is the funny things about theory. They are not facts. Oh, they are good theories (the ones that survive), but you dont have to disprove a theory with fact. Just with doubt.

(Citizen)Dr. GuyNovember 6, 2006 17:56:07

I think that is what gets me the most... it plainly states it is a theory, yet proponets of it state it like it is fact.

what's MONKEY like about the human condition?

I appreciate that the words you choose are the words you mean, not some other words but dont you mean APE?

That is the funny things about theory. They are not facts. Oh, they are good theories (the ones that survive), but you dont have to disprove a theory with fact. Just with doubt.

Doubt in the form of?

You cannot "disprove" a theory without contrary fact.

I'm trying to understand #3, frankly. I guess the monkey-people one applies to me, but who believes we are gods? Do you believe you are a god, MM?

The idea that my ancestors were less evolved doesn't really bother my ego. I understand there's a lot of 'i dint cum frum no durn munkie' sentiment out there, but I've never really been able to understand it. Do people really feel so superior when they look at monkeys?

I don't know. When I look at people, and when I look at monkeys, I'm thinking if I had to take a random individual from both camps I'd be safer with my back turned to the monkey.

You cannot "disprove" a theory without contrary fact.

I think I said that. You cannot disprove ID, I cannot disprove random evolution. So you point is?

I think that is what gets me the most... it plainly states it is a theory, yet proponets of it state it like it is fact

I have the same problem with religion.

I think I said that. You cannot disprove ID, I cannot disprove random evolution. So you point is?

Huh? You said:

but you dont have to disprove a theory with fact.

And now you're saying you agree with my statement that

You cannot "disprove" a theory without contrary fact.

These are contridictory positions. So at this point my point would be, you cant rationally hold them both to be true.

BakerStreetNovember 6, 2006 18:26:44

I'm trying to understand #3, frankly. I guess the monkey-people one applies to me, but who believes we are gods? Do you believe you are a god, MM?

yup sure do! but since I like you, you may call me MM or elie.