Quote:

Evolution is founded on materialism because it lacks physical proof. Materialism is what keeps it going. You try and prove that nature created life because you can't believe God did it.



Whatever man, keep thinking this crap. Why do religious people in general keep holding on to the thought that science or scientific theories exclude the possibility of God existing in any way whatsoever?
There are pieces of evidence all around us, there are pretty solid theories using that evidence (let me clarify that's not a crime or sin), enough evidence to reconstruct/interpret a lot eventhough not everything yet can be explained and then there's your, please excuse me, sloppy "God made everything isn't he just great"-stubborn spiritual socalled answer. You've got no evidence, so we should infact attack you uppon that FACT. The reason we try to make our own theories as solid as possible and "waterproof" lies in the fact that we don't exclude God as a possibility, so will you please stop bringing up that annoying empty assumption?
Again, evolution is not a religion, it takes more then just believing in something to become a religion. A theory can even be a religion, religions don't work with theories or at least they don't accept them, there's usually only 'one truth' and even thát thought(! thus not fact) is questionable, since everyone is just a child of it's time, thus making 'the truth' very very relative anyways.
Again, did you ever heard us say that nature could not be God's work at the same time? You are the one making the distinction. I don't think God does not exist because he could not possibly create animals or flowers or anything. I don't believe in God, because there's no and then I really mean zero evidence of his existence or influence, not even 'nature' as you distinguished it is evidence. (Evidence = something that proofs something beyond ANY doubt of course, so anything that might proof, will most probably not be enough to call it evidence, then it would be nothing more but a "possible clue with a very big questionmark on it", but really nothing more).

Edit: You obviously have doubts about the appendix, but there are better examples. What about the sacral area? (the lowest point of our spine.) It's a very clear indication that we might have had tails at one point in our evolution.
In other words, this could very well be the degradated version of the place on which we once would have tails. Infact when looking at human-like creatures who indeed have tails and comparing with human-like creatures with no or very small tails, then it's save to say it's evidence enough!! I don't remember the bible say anything about Adam and Eve having tails though, but in this case the evidence speaks against the text, as happens more often.

Cheers

Last edited by PHeMoX; 04/16/06 19:56.
PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software