Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens

[icebox21]

well actully creationism is proven to a point.in fact the only scientestests who say no to it are the ones who despute it religously

 

[Pro[pH]et]

If you put all the parts of a clock into a dryer and let it run for 1,000,000,000 years do you think you will get a clock?

It takes just as much, or even more, 'faith' to believe in evolution as it does to believe in creation.

You can't prove either one 100%.

 

[Pericolos0]

If you put all the parts of a clock into a dryer and let it run for 1,000,000,000 years do you think you will get a clock?

It takes just as much, or even more, 'faith' to believe in evolution as it does to believe in creation.

You can't prove either one 100%.

actually, you dont need faith for evolution, as it simply is a fact and is being observed all the time.
However, 'how' it happens, thats the theory.

Also the clock metaphore is in no way comparable with evolution, because it simply doesnt work like that. ID supporters like to use it to make evolution seem illogical, but its a false argument

 

[gcomeau]

If you put all the parts of a clock into a dryer and let it run for 1,000,000,000 years do you think you will get a clock?

It takes just as much, or even more, 'faith' to believe in evolution as it does to believe in creation.

Oh geez... that's like saying that if you took 1x10^50th marbles and fired them all into a giant empty space do you think they'd all just happen to stop exactly right next to each other? No! Therefore planets couldn't form out of all those small particles of matter floating around the universe

Yeah... ummm... that makes sense... if we IGNORE GRAVITY.

Kind of like your claim makes sense... if we IGNORE CHEMISTRY AND BIOLOGY.

Evolution doesn't work by just having a bunch of random completely disconnected parts just "bump into" each other to form a complete complex organism!

 

[Phat-t]

well actully creationism is proven to a point.in fact the only scientestests who say no to it are the ones who despute it religously

wha? name one scrap of evidence and I'll give you money.

 

[Ikerous]

wha? name one scrap of evidence and I'll give you money.

The amount of dust on the surface of the moon

 

[Apos]

The amount of dust on the surface of the moon

This argument was so laughably and convincingly debunked so long ago that even most creationists are embarrased that people still use it.

Try again.

 

[Ikerous]

This argument was so laughably and convincingly debunked so long ago that even most creationists are embarrased that people still use it.

Try again.

Decaying magnet field
Salt level in the oceans
Slowing spin of the earth
Sahara desert
The moon is leaving at a few inches a year; several million years ago it woulda been uber close causing the tides to flood everything twice a day
Oldest historical record
Oldest coral reef

^All indicate the earth being less than 10,000 years

edit: Linkage

 

[Ames]

The moon is leaving at a few inches a year; several million years ago it woulda been uber close causing the tides to flood everything twice a day

Force of gravity = (GMm)/r^2

Whoa.

Moon moves away from the earth at a rate of 1 inch a year. Acknowledging the above equation, it is moving faster away due to less gravity than in earlier times.

Moon moves away from Earth at rate of 1 inch per year.

Or about 15 miles every million years.

One billion years ago would be 15,000 miles closer, not acknowledging the above equation.

385,000 km is the distance from the Moon to the Earth right now, not much of a change......

 

[Ikerous]

Force of gravity = (GMm)/r^2

Whoa.

Moon moves away from the earth at a rate of 1 inch a year. Acknowledging the above equation, it is moving faster away due to less gravity than in earlier times.

Moon moves away from Earth at rate of 1 inch per year.

Or about 15 miles every million years.

One billion years ago would be 15,000 miles closer, not acknowledging the above equation.

385,000 km is the distance from the Moon to the Earth right now, not much of a change......

I didn't say i entirely believed all this evidence... (I'm not christian)
However there does appear to be quite a bit of it

Good thinking on that one though :cheers:
(Did you actually calculate all that, or just pull it from a site?)

 

[Apos]

If you put all the parts of a clock into a dryer and let it run for 1,000,000,000 years do you think you will get a clock?

No. But that doesn't have anything to do with anything. The natural world is not like clock parts in a dryer.

It takes just as much, or even more, 'faith' to believe in evolution as it does to believe in creation.

What you need is an education in chemistry, physics, and biology.

You can't prove either one 100%.

You can prove that all known life on earth is descended from a common ancestor and that the process was evolutionary in nature. And you can demonstrate, prove and test out the major mechanisms of natural selection and show them to be at work in all living things and how this process can create the variation we see today. All of this is scientific proof, which means that it stands or falls on the evidence, but the evidence is all remarkably consistent and certain about this.

 

[Apos]

Decaying magnet field

Nonsense. The magnetic field fluctuates. It isn't a constant decay.

Salt level in the oceans

Salt is added and removed from the oceans.

Slowing spin of the earth

What about it?

Sahara desert

Deserts expand and contract all the time.

The moon is leaving at a few inches a year; several million years ago it woulda been uber close causing the tides to flood everything twice a day

The math on this isn't even right, but suffice to say that this is not a constant process.

Oldest historical record

So?

Oldest coral reef

Coral reefs are, like deserts created and eroded away.

^All indicate the earth being less than 10,000 years

Come on, even you are smart enough to realize that at least one of the above proofs, even though wrong, still purports to show an age of several million years.

Linkage

[/quote]

In other words, you are going to take the grossly and laughably misinformed arguments of a bunch of unqualified quacks over the consensus of thousands and thousands of professional scientists. All of these arguments are painfully silly to anyone that knows even a little bit about the fields they fall under. To experts, they are downright insultingly stupid.

How can you really believe that these are good arguments? You're putting us on here.

 

[Ikerous]

You can prove that all known life on earth is descended from a common ancestor and that the process was evolutionary in nature. And you can demonstrate, prove and test out the major mechanisms of natural selection and show them to be at work in all living things and how this process can create the variation we see today. All of this is scientific proof, which means that it stands or falls on the evidence, but the evidence is all remarkably consistent and certain about this.

If you could actually prove it 100% you could make good money
http://drdino.com/Ministry/250k/index.jsp

 

[Apos]

well actully creationism is proven to a point.in fact the only scientestests who say no to it are the ones who despute it religously

Nonsense. Not only are there plenty of religious scientists who affirm evolution, but scientists are nearly unanimous on evolution being a fact based not on religion, but on evidence. Creationism is religion, pure and simple, and everyone knows it.

 

[Apos]

If you could actually prove it 100% you could make good money
http://drdino.com/Ministry/250k/index.jsp

What is this, the day in which you repeat every goofy claim of the least credible of all the creationists. This guy has a bunch of meaningless diplomas from a diploma mill, and his goofy arguments don't even make any sense.
How can anyone who claims that evolution is a process that "Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing." be taken seriously? I mean, that is so laughably nonsensical that I don't even know where to begin correcting the error inherent. Not ONE of the five things on that list has ANYTHING to do with evolution until the last section of question 5, and all of that has been proven time and time and time again: it is as well established and uncontroversial in science as virtually anything else known about the world.

Unlike James Randi's challenge, which is impartially set up under a trust, this challenge is utterly bogus. He's already been buried under the evidence, but he simply maintains that his challenges have not been met. The guy is a goofball, and you are a sucker for being taken in by it.

 

[Ikerous]

To experts, they are downright insultingly stupid.

::Shrugs:: I'm not saying i believe any of this. However, the guy in the link above travels around and will debate any college professor willing on the subject and always wins :-/

The guy is a goofball, and you are a sucker for being taken in by it.

Like i said, i dont believe in this stuff XD

 

[Apos]

Always wins: so he claims on his crackpot website! That's pretty impressive. This guy has the same claims about his theories:
http://www.timecube.com/

Dr. Dino is a joke. Even other creationists shy away from being associated with him.

Like i said, i dont believe in this stuff

Then why are you approvingly quoting it as if it were anything other than a load of dreck?

 

[Ikerous]

Then why are you approvingly quoting it as if it were anything other than a load of dreck?

::shrugs:: XD They sounded reasonable enough to me
I guess i don't get Phat-t's money now

 

[gcomeau]

Decaying magnet field
Salt level in the oceans
Slowing spin of the earth
Sahara desert
The moon is leaving at a few inches a year; several million years ago it woulda been uber close causing the tides to flood everything twice a day
Oldest historical record
Oldest coral reef

^All indicate the earth being less than 10,000 years

Or they might if they weren't so incredibly, amazingly, laughably wrong, as has already been mentioned by others.

1. The salt level in the oceans is almost at equilibrium, with the amount being added to it being nearly exactly matched by the amount being removed from it... and since the influx and outflow rates are dependent on several variable environmental conditions at various times in the past salt levels would have been increasing OR decreasing dependent on those conditions at the time. You can't use the current salt levels as some kind of clock.

2. Who cares if the earth's spin is slowing? This points to a young age of the earth how?

3. Yes? There's a desert and right now it's growing... what's the point? You don't think that deserts continue growing forever at a constant rate that can be used as some kind of absolute dating tool do you?

4. As already pointed out the rate at which the moon is seperating in it's orbit from the earth is accelerating due to the fact that as it gets farther away the gravitational attraction between it and the earth gets smaller and smaller... and also because the tidal effects are actually transferring momentum to the moon. Several billion years ago the moon still wasn't all that terribly close to the earth when you project it's position back using the proper equations that don't ignore well known facts like these.

5. Oldest historical record of what kind? Let me guess, if it isn't written down by a human it doesn't count and just never mind that we know perfectly well that written language is a very recent development in the history of the planet?

6. ???... Okay... so let's say that tomorrow a major ecological disaster wipes out all the oldest coral reefs and a good many other things and the oldest surviving living thing on the planet became the 100 year old tree in my back yard. Would the evidence then suddenly indicate the earth is 100 years old?

EDIt: Oh, and of course the magnetic field isn't decaying, it fluctuates and even occasionally reverses.

 

[Ikerous]

6. ???... Okay... so let's say that tomorrow a major ecological disaster wipes out all the oldest coral reefs and a good many other things and the oldest surviving living thing on the planet became the 100 year old tree in my back yard. Would the evidence then suddenly indicate the earth is 100 years old?

Yes, yes it would. XD

And that one is only interesting because it correspsonds almost perfectly to how far back the flood was
Same for the desert thing, the biggest desert is just younger than how long ago the flood was.

2. Who cares if the earth's spin is slowing? This points to a young age of the earth how?

Cuz if the earth was 4 billion years old, then it woulda been spinning really fast a really long time ago? And we all know if the earth spins too fast we travel back in time. Thus we would never exist cuz we'd keep going back. Pfffh. Duh.

 

[gcomeau]

Yes, yes it would. XD

And that one is only interesting because it correspsonds almost perfectly to how far back the flood was
Same for the desert thing, the biggest desert is just younger than how long ago the flood was.

1. There was never anything remotely resembling the global flood described in the bible. Period. Never happened.

2. The oldest corals are NOT the oldest living things. There are creosote bushes in the Mojave that are around 12,000 years old... so there goes that time correlation anyway.

EDIT: And don't even get me started on the fact that it the flood supposedly happened ~4500 years ago it did it smack in the middle of the 5th/6th Egyptian Dynasties... think they would have noticed?

 

[Ikerous]

1. There was never anything remotely resembling the global flood described in the bible. Period. Never happened.

2. The oldest corals are NOT the oldest living things. There are creosote bushes in the Mojave that are around 12,000 years old... so there goes that time correlation anyway.

1. I'm sure glad you're omnipotent
2. I actually don't think there was on either, but I peronsally wouldn't go as far as saying there never was one because i obviously can't know that.
3. Isn't it weird that almost every culture, no matter how cut off they were, has had a flood legend? And they all are quite similar with one family on a boat?
4. There are 12,000 year old bushes? How do you know how old a bush is? (I'm actual curious, i've never heard of this)
5. My favorite colors are pink and green, what are yours? ^_^

 

[FireCrack]

Mesopotamia was flooded during the early days of mankind when a small set of mountians collapsed.

#4, radiocarbon dating

Cuz if the earth was 4 billion years old, then it woulda been spinning really fast a really long time ago? And we all know if the earth spins too fast we travel back in time. Thus we would never exist cuz we'd keep going back. Pfffh. Duh.

I certianly hope you're being sarcastic

 

[Ikerous]

Mesopotamia was flooded during the early days of mankind when a small set of mountians collapsed.

#4, radiocarbon dating

Doesn't something have to be dead before radiocarbon dating will work....
(Not to mention most creationists will completely argue that radiocarbon dating is completely useless and innacurate)

I certianly hope you're being sarcastic

Lol, XD I would certainly hope so as well

 

[gcomeau]

1. I'm sure glad you're omnipotent
2. I actually don't think there was on either, but I peronsally wouldn't go as far as saying there never was one because i obviously can't know that.
3. Isn't it weird that almost every culture, no matter how cut off they were, has had a flood legend? And they all are quite similar with one family on a boat?
4. There are 12,000 year old bushes? How do you know how old a bush is? (I'm actual curious, i've never heard of this)
5. My favorite colors are pink and green, what are yours? ^_^

1. It comes in handy, but it's hardly required to know there's never been a global flood like the one described in the bible.
2. Yes, you can. Quite easily in fact. Just study some geology.
3. No, it's really not. The ones that have the "family in the boat" common to them tend to be from cultures who fairly obviously inherited the story from the epic of Gilgamesh (The story in the bible is a clear rip-off). Beyond that, floods are fairly common occurances in many parts of the world and some mention of them is bound to make it's way into popular cultural mythology.
4. Radiocarbon dating.
5. Invisible pink of course.

Re: #4. Creosote bushes grow in expanding concentric circles, with the inner rings dying off as the outer rings form. They're dating the remains of the inner rings.

 

[FireCrack]

Creationists can argue that newtons second law is wrong for all i care, it doesnt change the fact.

And the plant is dead, i hardly would belive that somthing would live for 12,000 years.

 

[Ikerous]

5. Invisible pink of course.

Re: #4. Creosote bushes grow in expanding concentric circles, with the inner rings dying off as the outer rings form. They're dating the remains of the inner rings.

Invisible pink isn't a color silly!

And that bush thing sounds neat...
I'll have to look it up later

Creationists can argue that newtons second law is wrong for all i care, it doesnt change the fact.

They say the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 (Or whichever carbon it was, its been a while since i've read any of this stuff) hasn't reached equilibrium which they support through several statistics about the level in the early 1900s with the late 1900s or now.

And the plant is dead, i hardly would belive that somthing would live for 12,000 years.

"The oldest corals are NOT the oldest living things. There are creosote bushes in the Mojave that are around 12,000 years old"
He made it sound like they were alive to me :-/

 

[gcomeau]

Invisible pink isn't a color silly!

Blasphemer!

They say the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 (Or whichever carbon it was, its been a while since i've read any of this stuff) hasn't reached equilibrium which they support through several statistics about the level in the early 1900s with the late 1900s or now.

Meaningless, radiocarbon dating doesn't require it to be in equilibrium, we know perfectly well that the atmospheric concentrations haven't remained constant and the dating scale is calibrated for the varying atmospheric concentrations through the last several tens of thousands of years using cross-corellation with dendochronology, lake varve measurements, and glacial core measurements.

He made it sound like they were alive to me :-/

They are.

 

[FireCrack]

They say the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 (Or whichever carbon it was, its been a while since i've read any of this stuff) hasn't reached equilibrium which they support through several statistics about the level in the early 1900s with the late 1900s or now.

Too bad that there would only be a problem if the ratios had reached equilibrium (wich they wont until all c14 is gone)

 

[Apos]

As far as radioactive dating goes: did you know that every single one of the naturally occuring radioactive isotopes with a half-life of under 80 million years is missing, save for the ones created by observed, ongoing processes? That's right: every single one. Missing. Where are they? They are found elsewhere in the galaxy/universe. They are created in the same events that created our solar system. So where are they?

They have decayed away to untraceable amounts, that's why. With a half-life of 80 million years, 5 billion years is more than enough time for this to happen. But 10,000 years isn't even remotely enough time for them to decay away since they were formed. For them to decay away in that fast a time, they'd have to be shooting massive radiation out like a shotgun from all over the Earth. Suffice to say, there's no evidence of that happening.

 

[Pro[pH]et]

OK, I believe in creation. I have some questions, since I have not studied evolution in depth and it sounds so rediculous.

1. The missing link. Where is it? Have they found it yet? I find it interesting that we have bones from dinasours that are millions of years old, that died out long before man came along and yet we don't have the missing link.

2. All minkind evolved from single cell organisms? How is that more possible than my clock in the dryer comparison?

Don't forget that a lot more people believe in creation than in evolution.

 

[gcomeau]

OK, I believe in creation. I have some questions, since I have not studied evolution in depth and it sounds so rediculous.

1. The missing link. Where is it? Have they found it yet? I find it interesting that we have bones from dinasours that are millions of years old, that died out long before man came along and yet we don't have the missing link.

What exactly do you think this "missing link" would be? What do you expect to be shown?

Anything like this perhaps?:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

2. All minkind evolved from single cell organisms? How is that more possible than my clock in the dryer comparison?

Because the evolution of humans and all other organisms from earlier, simpler precursors is the natural result of the operation of the laws of chemistry and biology and a practically unavoidable consequence of the manner in which DNA replicates itself... which has more evidence in favor of it than basically any other scientific theory in existence and is considered as conclusively scientifically proven as it is possible to conclusively scientifically prove something, whereas the assembly of clocks from parts in a clothes dryer is none of these things.

Don't forget that a lot more people believe in creation than in evolution.

Just not more educated people, and the scientific merit of a hypothesis is not determined by democratic ballot casting, it is determined by the strength of the evidence in it's favor. The number of people who believe in creationism has been quite clearly shown to be inversely proportional to their level of education. A high percentage of high school graduates are creationists. A far lower percentage of college or university graduates are creationists, an extremely low percentage of university graduates majoring in the sciences are creationists, and they all just happen to seem to be fundamentalist religious people of some stripe who object on the grounds that they refuse to believe genesis isn't supposed to be taken literally.

Think there's a reason for that?

 

[Pericolos0]

OK, I believe in creation. I have some questions, since I have not studied evolution in depth and it sounds so rediculous.

i think you are a good example of why evolution should be taught in schools . It's good you have an open minded approach and have questions, doubting sth means you think about it. the way creationists define evolution does infact make it sound very silly, but it really isnt. It's a completely logical process of selection.

but it's very hard to define evolution in one sentence, so it's best to read up on it

1. The missing link. Where is it? Have they found it yet? I find it interesting that we have bones from dinasours that are millions of years old, that died out long before man came along and yet we don't have the missing link.

what missing link are you talking about?

2. All minkind evolved from single cell organisms? How is that more possible than my clock in the dryer comparison?

because the clock in a dryer comparison doesnt work like evolution. evolution is a process of selection. Selecting the better adapted creatures.
When single cell organisms started working together, they had a better chance of survival. when you look at humans, you'll see that we are actually a complex symbiosis of billions of cells. Single cells working together to survive.

Don't forget that a lot more people believe in creation than in evolution.

and this proves what? Ignorance? that alot of people are very religious?
In europe, alot more people believe in evolution than creation. Just take a look and you'll see that the more educated people are, the more they'll believe in evolution

 

[Kangy]

Don't forget that a lot more people believe in creation than in evolution.

I don't really see how that proves a theory to be correct at all. I mean, a lot more people believed the Sun orbited the Earth, but they were all wrong.

 

[Solaris]

2. All minkind evolved from single cell organisms? How is that more possible than my clock in the dryer comparison?

I have agreat practical explantion for this. Its a game caled life, and it shows how complexity can deveop from basic rules, just like ho wthe eye developed from single cell orgasms. all sorts of "creatures" can evolve in this game, when u randomley vreate blocks.
The link is: http://www.ibiblio.org/lifepatterns/ .

Also the time scale in which humans have had to eveolve is emmence. And why would god give us a tail bone? Isnt it to be more logical that we once had tails. And we can look at teh reptillian part of the brain and all sorts of other stuff. But all creationists can say is that they have "faith". One thin I cant understand about religion is say for a christian, if you were born in India, it is likley youd be a hindu, no religion has anymore solid proof than another.

 

[gcomeau]

And why would god give us a tail bone? Isnt it to be more logical that we once had tails.

Better question... why are humans sometimes born with actual vestigial tails? Complete with fully articulating vertebrae, muscles, etc...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

(Prediction 2.2: Atavisms, Example 2)

Answer: because we still retain the genetic code for tails from our distant ancestors, it's just inactive... and occasionally a chance mutation switches it back on.

 

[Pro[pH]et]

Just not more educated people

Yeah, I'm just a dumb, backwoods, uneducated red neck.

It's no suprise that when people finish secular college they don't believe creation is even a possibility. It's not like secular colleges teach both and let the student decide which to believe.

I just want to define myself here a bit.

I believe in God, and that he created everything with a purpose. If we are here by complete chance then there is nothing to live for. When we die, it's over, nothing that happens here on earth will matter. There are no rules, there is no higher power. In the end we don't answer to anyone. There is nothing bigger than man. That leaves us with every man for himself. Now that is a scarry world to live in!

None of that proves creation over evolution and I don't care. I'm not dumb, I can see this world around us. I choose to believe things are on purpose. I choose to believe this world and us in it are not an accident, the result of many random things 'just working out'.

WARNING, MAJOR RELIGOUS PART OF MY RANT! IF YOU DON'T BELIVE IN GOD YOU WILL HATE THIS PART.

God created everything with a purpose. To say He used evolution to create the world insinuates he created this place then walked away for billions of years before the reason he created this place (man) showed up.

He created man and this place in 6 days because He wanted relationship. He gave us the dignity of choice. Every one of us has a choice to believe or not believe.

I choose to believe.

 

[Pericolos0]

Yeah, I'm just a dumb, backwoods, uneducated red neck.

It's no suprise that when people finish secular college they don't believe creation is even a possibility. It's not like secular colleges teach both and let the student decide which to believe.

i got taught both, but after knowing so much about evolution, creationism just became complete ridicule.
you have to keep in mind, evolution is a fact. The evidence is overwhelming. It's taught in biology class because its proven using the scientific method.

facts: observed evolution, fossils, mutations, ....
theory: natural selection, etc

denying the facts of evolution is just plain ignorance. we know evolution happens, we know earth is waaaay older than 6000 years old. There is no geologist thats gonna say earth is 6000 years old, and i believe these guys, because they use the scientific method, and have years of experience and evidence.

I just want to define myself here a bit.

I believe in God, and that he created everything with a purpose. If we are here by complete chance then there is nothing to live for. When we die, it's over, nothing that happens here on earth will matter. There are no rules, there is no higher power. In the end we don't answer to anyone. There is nothing bigger than man.

I am an agnostic, and believe you can never know if there is a god or not. I can relate with the fact that when you die there's nothing. Ever passed out? ever lost consciousness? I think death could be just like that, a sleep without dreams. but i can never be sure ofcourse until it happens to me

That leaves us with every man for himself. Now that is a scarry world to live in!

i think its already a pretty scary world when you see the ammount of murders and disasters. But still, howcome a disbeliever like me still cares about the people around him? Instinct. The human race wouldnt have survived if we didnt care about each other. It's all about natural selection. Just like the cells needing each other to survive, humans need each other. That's why we evolved emotions look love and compassion. Makes perfect sense doesnt it?

None of that proves creation over evolution and I don't care. I'm not dumb, I can see this world around us. I choose to believe things are on purpose.

so you only believe what you want to believe? eventhough it might not be true? You only select your truths?

I choose to believe this world and us in it are not an accident, the result of many random things 'just working out'.

again, this is not how evolution works. Its a selective, not a random process, of choosing the better adapted being.

WARNING, MAJOR RELIGOUS PART OF MY RANT! IF YOU DON'T BELIVE IN GOD YOU WILL HATE THIS PART.

God created everything with a purpose. To say He used evolution to create the world insinuates he created this place then walked away for billions of years before the reason he created this place (man) showed up.

He created man and this place in 6 days because He wanted relationship. He gave us the dignity of choice. Every one of us has a choice to believe or not believe.

I choose to believe.

i really don't know how this shows earth has been created in 6 days. What are 6 days? time is relative.
Why does it have to be 6 days? even the pope said the big bang is a confirmation of genesis. And the big bang theory was proposed by a priest actually
you do realise you are taking a book that was written thousands of years ago, with stories passed on and on, altered, rewritten etc.. as absolute truth? Isn't there something weird in this kind of reasoning?

 

[FireCrack]

that applet is insane

 

[Phat-t]

Yeah, I'm just a dumb, backwoods, uneducated red neck.

It's no suprise that when people finish secular college they don't believe creation is even a possibility. It's not like secular colleges teach both and let the student decide which to believe.

I just want to define myself here a bit.

I believe in God, and that he created everything with a purpose. If we are here by complete chance then there is nothing to live for. When we die, it's over, nothing that happens here on earth will matter. There are no rules, there is no higher power. In the end we don't answer to anyone. There is nothing bigger than man. That leaves us with every man for himself. Now that is a scarry world to live in!

None of that proves creation over evolution and I don't care. I'm not dumb, I can see this world around us. I choose to believe things are on purpose. I choose to believe this world and us in it are not an accident, the result of many random things 'just working out'.

WARNING, MAJOR RELIGOUS PART OF MY RANT! IF YOU DON'T BELIVE IN GOD YOU WILL HATE THIS PART.

God created everything with a purpose. To say He used evolution to create the world insinuates he created this place then walked away for billions of years before the reason he created this place (man) showed up.

He created man and this place in 6 days because He wanted relationship. He gave us the dignity of choice. Every one of us has a choice to believe or not believe.

I choose to believe.

So basically you're saying you choose to believe because you don't want to deal with all the scary thoughts in life and you need an imaginary purpose to be satisfied. I guess it would make the world seem like much happier place. But since you're speaking of this huge "purpose" god intended for us, would you like to explain what this purpose is other than living our lives to the fullest?