Collins believes completely in evolution, and a large part of his book is about that point.

Popping back into the thread, eh, Nephie?

Actually reading his book "Case for a Creator" he believes in creationism. Have you read the book? I mean a brilliant scientist who became a believer doesn't sit well with most atheists so im sure you haven't. According to his book he believes in a divine creator, and does not believe that we evolved but were created. Seriously check out his book its awesome, if you dare to venture into the "belief" section of your local bookstore. Because according to his book he is a believer in God, that doesn't mean you can't believe in forms of evolution though.

source

Who says Dr Collins is a creationist?

I like how you call Francis Collins a brilliant scientist while you don't mention anyone else like James Watson who is an atheist.

Francis Collins is indeed a good scientist in his narrow field, but you have to realize that he didn't make his decision on a scientific rationale.

Saying a "brilliant" scientist believes in a sort of creation does not constitute your evidence in the falsity of evolution. You should also notice that he does not state evolution is incorrect. And as Cimber said, he arrives at this conclusion that there was some form of initial creation not through scientific practice, but rather personal belief.

All you have done Neph, is attempt to bash evolution, through straw man and red herring statements. If you had but a fraction of the understanding Collins does of evolution, I am sure we would not be having this conversation. But rather than learn, you still persist in your own delusion and self-grandeurs that you are correct, yet you still display the same unwilling to actually present evidence. Surprisingly, your moral compass seems to have no problem going right back to your old tricks after it was point out to you by numerous people. I would have to disagree, I don't think in your case its what Jesus would do.

I didn't think you'd answer my questions...

H630, I applaud your openness, objectivity and honesty.



Please know that I, nor scientists, are trying to destroy a persons faith. They are simply trying to understand the workings of the world and the universe, Yes, there are some like Dawkins who take a hardline stance and believe God has been disprove. While I'm a big admirer of Mr. Dawkins, I do not agree with such a staunch position. It is impossible to prove or disprove God--at least until we die. Then we'll know with absolute certainty.

The Historian ... I'll let this quote from An Introduction to the Bible (20-24) speak for discipline of History as a whole:

The words “critical” and “criticism” are often misunderstood. To study something critically does not mean that one takes a negative approach to the subject. Rather, to study a subject critically is to examine it carefully, analytically, and as objectively as possible in order to make well-founded and intelligent judgments about it. Art critics or literary critics are not individuals who disparage works of art or literature; they are people who appreciate the value of these works, try to assess their meaning, and attempt to share informed judgments with others. Likewise, biblical critics are persons who study biblical literature, using critical methods to understand the texts, and then share insights and information from their studies with others. Biblical critics are not attempting to destroy or alter the message of the biblical texts; on the contrary, they are seeking to understand these ancient writings.

Here are a series of articles on evolution written by Christians ...

*ESSAY V: EVOLUTION FOR CHRISTIANS by Robert J. Schneider
http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essay05.asp

Most kindly,

Sean

Case for a Creator was written by Lee Strobel, not Francis Collins. Incidently, that means you either have such low standards for referencing sources that you didn't even bother to check that point, or you are a liar willing to misrepresent the views of others to try to prove your point. Pick; I'm inclined to believe the latter since you claim to have read the book.

Collins wrote The Language of God, in which he talks about not just arguments for God, but defends evolution.

Ha, thats great. Good work checking Guardsman! Seems, Neph was showing off his "true" Christian morals!

Most here know my reasons for leaving Christianity are legion ... but one of the main factors was Christian apologists. At the head of the list are Craig, McDowell and Strobel. These men are intellectually dishonest faith peddlers. They intentionally read their faith into history, greatly distorting the truth--e.g. The Bible is inerrant, Gospels are eye-witness accounts etc. They supply their version of history, then go on the attack against true Biblical exegetes for applying proper (very stringent) historical methods and meddling with their Jesus. Case in point: Ben Witherington claimed modern scholars are being deceived by Satan! This dishonesty eventually cost me my faith after fifteen long years. Why? Because if one must lie in order to forward the faith, what does that make the faith? To me ... it meant a lie.

And don't let me forget Norman Geisler. He is the epitome of ant-intellectualism. Here is his advice on historical study:

BEWARE OF PHILOSOPHY:
A WARNING TO BIBLICAL SCHOLARS
by Norman L. Geisler

Beware of Agnosticism
Beware of Evolutionism
Beware of the Philosophy of Progressivism
Beware of —Historical Criticism“

HOW TO BEWARE OF PHILOSOPHY

I turn now to the final section of this discussion: —How to Beware of Philosophy.“ M y advice here is divided into two parts: intellectual and spiritual. First, some intellectual cautions to evangelical exegetes.

How to Avoid Unorthodox Conclusions While Doing Exegesis

In view of the foregoing discussion, some advice from an evangelical philosopher to evangelical exegetes is in order.

Some Intellectual Advice (for the Mind)
My first piece of advice is this:

Avoid the Desire to Become a Famous Scholar.--There seems to be an almost irresistible temptation among many scholars, particularly younger ones, to —make a name for themselves.“ In biblical terms this is the sin of pride of which Holy Scripture warns us. Pride distorts our vision of the truth because it is the presumption to knowledge born of ignorance. It is humbling to remind ourselves that the apostle Paul explicitly exhorts us that though —I understand all mysteries and all knowledge . . . but have not love, I am nothing“ (1 Cor. 13:2). Scholarship should be used to build Christ‘s spiritual kingdom, not to build an academic kingdom for one‘s self...

... St. Paul agreed when he warned against putting novices in positions of leadership (1 Tim. 3:6). And the apostle John warned against the —pride of life“ as one of our three basic sins (1 John 2:16). Avoid the Temptation to Be Unique.--My second piece of advice is closely associated with the first. It is this: Avoid the desire to be unique. The temptation to this form of pride seems to be endemic to the higher academic process. For by its very nature a doctoral dissertation is usually supposed to be an original contribution to knowledge. But if the scholar is to make a discovery that no one else has ever made, then it is an almost irresistible temptation to congratulate oneself for being the originator of this new truth. Little wonder the apostle warned us that —knowledge puffs up“ but —love builds up“ (1 Cor. 8:1). The Scripture alerts us to the fact that the occupation of intellectuals in the modern academy is little different than that of those on the ancient Mars Hill who —spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hearsome new thing“ (Acts 17:21, emphasis added).

Do Not Dance on the Edges.--My next bit of advice for evangelical exegetes is to avoid dancing on the edges. Do not see how far the borders of evangelicalism can be stretched to accommodate the latest scholarly fad. Do not flirt with the latest critical methodology. Some of our own ETS members have been caught in this trap. It would appear that Grant Osborne temporarily fell prey to this temptation when he claimed that Matthew expanded on Jesus‘ supposedly original statement to baptize in His (Jesus‘) name, turning it into the Trinitarian formula recorded in Matthew 28:18-20. Other biblical scholars, like J. Ramsey Michaels, went over the line of orthodoxy and declared that in some cases the Gospel writers created, not merely reported, the sayings of Jesus....

SOURCE
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:nlW_r...p;client=safari

Kindly,

Sean

How to forget Norman L. Geisler. I was lauginhg after reading his manifiesto. @Dont think, just obey@

I liked the video. I thought it was interesting. I haven't decided what I believe in when it comes to evolution.

Alright, I realize that this debate is old and probably over, but I've spent so much time reading all these posts and I have to have my two bits now.

I am an Anthropology major. While I may not have the degree yet, at least I can back up all my statements with evidence. Neph, you remind me of a guy I met once that tried to convince me that the Earth was only 6000 years old. He called me a disillusioned Satanist and told me that I was going to Hell, but could not prove anything that he said.

I want to make it very clear to you that it would be ignorant to believe that all people who believe in science and evolution do not necessarily have no belief in God. I believe in God, and I believe in evolution, because in my eyes, it does not make God any less amazing if he decided to make a single-celled organism before he made a man. He still created an amazing world, and if you were more open, then you would see that. Do you believe that your God would be less if an ape came first? Do you?

I also wanted to bring up the case of your "giants". If you're so bent on believing everything that the Bible says, than how could you have failed to note that the giants were not man? In Genesis it speaks of giants walking with men, because they were the offspring of man and corrupt angels. These beings I figured you had heard of, because you derive your name from them. They were called Nephilim.

I'm not saying that these beings are real because, let's face it, your evidence was crap, but if you want to declare "My book is law!", then why don't you actually read the damn thing BEFORE you preach it?

If you want to be a Creationist, then that's fine by me. I have no problem with it. But do not bash the people who believe in something else. I noticed on this board that you kept claiming that people were bashing you and calling you names, but the first thing that you did when you walked in here was tell everyone that they were thinking like "monkeys". You told everyone that they were anti-Christian non-believers, and you had no right to do that. If you want others to respect your opinion, then you need to respect theirs.

Besides, who are you to judge them? Does your Bible not say, "'Judgement is mine', sayeth the Lord, 'Do not judge, lest ye be judged in return.'"? (I apologize for not knowing the exact chapter or verse of the Bible that this is from. I'm afraid that it's been some time since I've picked mine up.) If you want to preach to everyone, then practice what you preach. That's all I'm saying.

If you have some snide remark to this post about my "heretical beliefs" or "lack of faith", then I wouldn't be surprised. It would fit your profile. Go ahead. Shoot. Debate with me. I dare you. I actually have my evidence at hand.

personally i feel no matter what scientific evidence anybody is going to have that goes agianst any of the evolution theory atheist are not going to take serious. if somebody had overwelming evidence that evolution didn't happen or overwelming evidence in god atheist would still find i way to discredit them, because they just don't want to believe it. it's okay. it's the same thing with us religious people. no matter what scientific mumbo jumbo you bring to us we're not going to turn loose our beliefs. so we are all the same in those aspects.

Ahh, leave it to a fellow Ohioan to make us all look like bible thumping belt dwellers! Why do you guys need to believe atheists have "faith" there is no god? Does it somehow build your self-esteem? Does it make you feel like they are no better than yourselves, so you can go on about your life?

Is really hard for you to understand that some people have no faith in a god or deity, and that lack of faith is not supported with faith in some other fairy tale.

Well, I think you are down to Earth about it, I'll give you that.
Granted, everyone who believes what they do, is strong in that belief and will protect their belief. That makes them strong in their belief. I understand them for doing so.

I have no right at all, to go against what you personally feel. You have a right to personally feel what you feel about others. I just think, ok, personally think, that in each group, there are those who probably won't disprove opposing theories no matter what. Everyone is different, and I feel that should be taken into account as well.

Though, this thread has gotten long, and I try to keep up, but did anyone know that Kent Hovind who was the reason this thread was started, is in jail? I do not know about the rest of you guys, but I will more fervantly not take very seriously, what this guy is saying.

What makes you think for a sec, that it's because they just DON'T want to believe?? Why do people call what they don't understand - mumbo jumbo??

when i say they don't want to believe is because people have an extreme amount of pride, whether they want to admitt it or not nobody wants to be wrong and look stupid. if god was proven true that would make science and atheist wrong, what would some of the atheist say then, uuhhh sorry about calling you believers ignorant and stupid. nobody wants to admitt they are wrong especailly on topics like this. when this dude on the video makes a strong point agianst any evolutionaly theory he's automaticly "full of it" as the quote said just because he's not atheist. i only got to watch 40 mins of the video because my computer is junk but i'd say he did a over all good job in countering some of the big bang theory.

when i say mumbo jumbo i just like using the term, i think it's fun to say. what makes you think i don't understand evolution and science. in science was my favorit subject in high school and i was in advanced classes though i don't have any science degree (i guess that still makes me ignorant in the sudject to some poeple) i still study and read up on every science field to this day. when i say mumbo jumbo it's not that i don't understand it it's mostly i like saying it and i don't agree with some of the evolutional theory as fact.

in fact beckys mom i seem to recall you having a thread not to long ago complaining about "why do atheist asume believers know nothing about science and the religious asume atheist no nothing about religion" that was you wasn't it or am i thinking of somebody else.

p.s tell becky what's up.

i never said atheist had "faith" there is no god. i said atheist don't want to believe in a deity. why do atheist twist the words of any religious people around, do you like feeling like the victom? are you that insucure?

oohh yeah, ohio is far from bible thumbing, stop believing steriotypes about your state. ohio is more like hill billys who hate god cuz they had to walk to school with no shoes in the snow.......

But thats just an assumption of yours...forgive me if this sounds RUDE..but you obviously havent thought of it

Hear me out for a sec..

You assume they are blocked by ie - pride...don't want to look stupid <---well thats tied up with pride also..its called ego lol

but how or WHAT makes you think this?? ...assumption caused by tunnel vision?? looks like it!!

Did it ever occur to you that many don't follow god because they USED to and find no real answers ??

What about ex ministers and priests?? do you seriously believe that they turned from religion all because they........didn't want to look stupid?? <--using your assumption lol

What you need to think about is this.................Lets say you woke up one day and decided religion just ain't working out as you had once imagined....(hey it happens)...nothing was adding up anymore....so now what?? is it really because you don't want to look stupid? OR shot in the dark here, but could it be because you lost interest and wanted to look elsewhere?? <----possible huh??


Now to focus on those that just don't give a crap about religion....................well plain and simple...those that dont give a crap for it...wont talk about it...EVER.............

I dont give a monkeys fiddlers f0000k about football...im hardly going to go and start posting in footie forums now am I LMAO


Well sweetie...read your posts above...you have done exactly that...you just ASSUME atheists must not follow your God because they don't want to look stupid...you even used PRIDE as another example

I asked you about mumbo Jumbo...because I wondered WHY did you call it that <--seriously was a question lol...not making an assumption of any kind...I asked if you did this because you dont understand...and I seriously meant it... that question again is ....d
o you call things like it - mumbo jumbo because you dont understand it ??


OR to extend my question...do you call it mumbo jumbo..because you just hate it??
OR because you just don't agree with it?? <---------------------------sorry I should have posted my question this way in the 1st place lol my bad



LOL I did tell her...but she is too interested in her Pingu dvd lol

i like how these debates turn into one person trying to out logic the other with fancy lingos and what not (i admit like like doing it)

anyway when you said i assume "they" are blocked i wasn't just singling out atheist as you may have thought i was doing. when i say blocked by pride i mean everybody....on earth. i said everybody has all this pride nobody wants to admitt they are wrong and look foolish, if one says they don't i feel dumb when proven wrong about something they are so insistant about they are lieing, just my opinion. what makes me think this you say? take a look at the video in qeustion here. this guy is breaking down the big bang theory and doing a good job and replacing theorys with other theorys on why the big bang theory just maybe might be wrong. good work on his part, but everybody who came in here who believe in evolution did not want to hear it, no matter how good his points were.....he's "full of it". i don't know your beliefs beckys mom but do you think this guy is full of sshh...crap?

it has occured to me people use to follow a religion but soon stop because they don't find the ansewers they want. i see it every day. my attatude towards that is go ahead do what is good for you. for what ever reason i don't care. i judge no one....i am not god. i don't really understand your question about ex preist but okay....

you seemed to be misunderstanding my statement about people feeling stupid but it's okay. if i woke up in the morning and said man my belief sucks and choose the diffen't way only to find out one day my original way was the right way (which i don't feel there is a right way in this world), i would be wrong, might even feel alittle stupid. i'm saying that on serious topics such as this nobody wants to be wrong. if yourself or me was proven completly wrong about our belief we might feel dumb. people might play tough and say i don't feel dumb and try to hide it but we're all human....HUMANS HAVE EMOTIONS....FEELING STUPID IS ONE. especailly proven wrong about stuff like this.

did you call me sweetie???? mrs. beckys mom this is hardly the place and time

mumbo jumbo is once again something i don't agree with. nazism is mumbo jumbo, drugs are mumbo jumbo....i could use other words less funny and forum freindly if you like. if i hate something i just straight say it .......i hate that shhh...crap. but because of my beliefs....i try not to hate anybody or anything at all...

So far, I haven't met a single person to give me ANY evidence against evolution. And if I had overwhelming evidence that there was a god, then maybe I would be a more devout believer. I'm not going to let a silly thing like "pride" stop me from accepting real evidence. The point of being a scientist is having a passion for the pursuit of knowledge. To gain knowledge is the highest pursuit. So why would I turn that away just because it went against my beliefs?

I will ask you which parts of "evolutional theory" you don't agree with. I am going to go out on a limb and guess they never get posted though.

I am a Christian to but if god came to the jews 2000 years ago and said you are made of nirtogen chains with other starnge chemicals and you all came from prtopcells they would have no idea what he meant, i think this guy is not very bright he seems nice but he is not smart (also we are now watching a planet form and a nearby gas clump in forming a star, he needs to do research)

I'm not trying to argue with you on this point. I just want to express the fact that I believe in a god, but I do not believe in religion. Religion is an institution that was created and, in my opinion, corrupted by man. I do not have to go to church every Sunday to be judged by a preacher in order to feel closer to God. That is just how I feel about religion.

so this dude in the video and his evidence didn't make you think at least alittle about the big bang theory. you're saying this guy has no scientific evididence what so ever on why the big bang might be wrong.

Wanting to believe is faith in a way. As an atheist, its not that I don't want to believe there is a god, its a matter of there be no logical reason for their to be a god. Ohio is more like Hill-billy's? Have you ever been to rural Ohio? Are you aware there is currently a big ID movement here in our state due to all the fundamentalist Christians? Ohio is about as bible belt as you can get.


By the way, were there any evidence for a god, I would acknowledge it. I am not above ignoring evidence and science (which it appears most biblical literalists are).

Kent Hovind? None.

He couldn't tell you what science was if it bit him on the ass.

so far the big bang theory in my opinion is completly a guess and isn't fact at all. for one, there is no evidence for a "massive explosion" that brought everything into existance. two, matter deosn't show up out of thin air...or should i "no air". three, no matter how hard we try nobody was around billions of years ago or even 6,000 as some christians might say to even start to claim we know how the universe showed up.

By the way Godofcats, you just happily found yourself lumped into the "I claim to know all about evolution but have no idea" category. The big bang has nothing to do with biological evolution, had you 'studied' evolution, you would know this. Had you got your information from incorrect creationists sources, well, I would expect you to make just this kind of mistake you did.

i'm from cincinnnati, i lived there for 20 year, last year i did move to a rural part of ohio east of columbus (there is literally nothing east of columbus) and to tell the truth everything is alien to me. while the culture is way differn't here than in cincinnati (hill billys are what we called these people where i'm from) i've seen nothing of this christian fundimental stuff around here.

And your "I understand the science" credibility meter just dropped to .

1. The big bang did not create anything. It was simply an expansion of what was already there.
2. The big bang was not a "massive explosion", it was an expansion.
3. The big bang has nothing to do with biological evolution.
4. The big bang does not require matter to show up out of "thin air".
5. Science does not require a direct observer to infer past events, while helpful, it is not a necessity.
6. There is plenty of evidence left of the big bang, all sorts of wonderful background radiation that was left in its wake.

You have moved east of Columbus and you have yet to see the fundies? Where to Newark or Zanesville? And you have yet to see the fundies? Man open the eyes.

i'm in cambridge, i've seen alot of amish and jahovas witnesses (i guess they could be condisdered fundies) but really the people i hang out with and stuff are not religious at all, tell me about this I.D thing you speak of, what are they trying to do?

2000 years ago, the Hebrews would have thought that "nitrogen chains with other strange chemicals" was some kind of angelic or even godly language. True they would not have understood it, but can you imagine what a 21st century reader of the book would think?
"Holy Carp! There really MUST be a god......"



Too bad the holy books of old do not have any such clear, concise words that would lend it credence to those of us who do not believe in deities.

Uh, change science curriculum to include non-science related things. I really hate linking to their website, but here it is.

As a heads up, I would not learn anything on "evolution" at that site either GoF.

The only thing this guy should make a person think about, is punching him in the face. He has no accreditted degree, has no evidence, and is a CRIMINAL. (See the article posted above by Watchful) For every person he and those of his ilk convince they are correct and know the truth, probably ten lose interest in the religion.

Evolution is life. it is constsntly changing and addapting.

no degree......NO DEGREE YOU SAY. well then that automaticly discredits somebody cuz they have no degree. my girlfriend has no culanary degree but i bet should could out cook any pompous chef with one. i have no musical degree but i bet you i can make a song that sounds just as good as any cociane sniffer who has one. does anybody stop to think just because sombody don't have a degree in a sudject in a certain field it doesn't mean they don't know about it. that's arragant. there's going to be at least 20 post about what i said there.....please, does anybody on this site have a science degree? well if you don't you shouldn't talk according to bball. THAT ARRAGANCE AND STUPIDITY.

once agian i understand he's a criminal, i knew this since this video first showed up on this site months ago. you know what WHO CARES. is something wrong just because a criminal said it. i guess if i criminal tells me the earth is round i shouldn't believe them....damn lying criminals. i find the criminal exscuse weak. now agian somebody please tell me a few things if anything this guy is saying wrong, cuz if he's wrong i'd like to know at least a few reasons why. ohh i forgot, he's in prison right now that's why he's wrong.

Are you dense? I said "accredited" degree. There is a difference. He poses as someone who has all the knowledge and understanding of science, BUT HE DOESN'T. He uses his non-accredited degree as "proof" that he knows of what he speaks. And so people like you, actually give him the time of day, which he doesn't deserve.

It doesn't automatically discredit someone in all fields and all walks of life. BUT IT DOES IN THIS ONE. If you are going to pose as an expert in such a complicated field, you better be one. He demonstrates no understanding of science because he either is incapable or just doesn't want to. He clearly doesn't have a good enough knowledge of science to discuss what he attempts to discuss. He claims to have all the answers, but has no evidence. But unfortunately that doesn't stop him from influencing so many people because they simply like what he says. All you have to do is look at some post in this thread explaining his ignorance.

So what you are telling me is that you would have surgery performed on you by someone with no formal training? Because that is exactly what you said. You wouldn't mind a Court TV fan, becoming a judge because they think they could do it from watching TV. Your argument is completely and utterly useless. Sorry.


It is amazing how there is no ground to stand on to defend this guy, but here you are, only because you like what he says. But unfortunately he has no evidence or knowledge, just an agenda. And again you are simplifying the argument way too much just to try to get a point across. But sorry, it doesn't work. The fact that he is a criminal is a testament to his character. And it isn't just a petty crime, it is tax fraud. And the sad thing is he thinks he is justified in what he did. If he is willing to lie to the government, who are capable of putting him in jail, what makes you think he cares at all about lying to a bunch of people willing to give him money.

Edit-You are obviously getting upset with the personal attacks, but that doesn't make it okay. You want arragonce and stupidity together-go find a picture of Hovind.

Sweetcheeks, I know I am not the one telling you not to take him seriously. Go ahead, it is your right. I just don't think I will ever take him seriously. I didn't see anywhere in this thread, if people knew he was in jail. When I did a net research on him, and this tidbit of info popped up, I was in for a great surprise, and thought others should know. The thing, is was the evidence to clinch me, that is all, me, to not take him seriously. You can do that if you want to, but I wont. I see a man, who comes across like he is a leader, a fine example, to tell us how things are, and how to live, and he evades paying taxes. That is not a good example for me, and I am not believing him at all. You want to, great, I won't lose sleep over it.

I have to agree with bball here. Just because someone lacks a degree does not make them unintelligent or unable to understand, but in fields such as the hard sciences there are things that can get very tough to understand without having years of formal studying of the field.

Going around posing as a doctor of a science and then showing you know nothing about science, even simplistic things that require no degree, does not do you credit.

look here everybody, i never said i agree or believe what this guy says. i found some of what he said interestng...others stupid. and in all actuallity this guys attitude wierded me out to tell the truth. i came in here and seen people saying he doesn't know what he is talking about, he doesn't know science, he's full of it, he's a criminal. all i asked was somebody to tell me why he shouldn't be taken seriously. what i got was the same things i just stated, he's a criminal, he doesn't know science, no degree....which didn't convice me at all that some things he said were pretty good counter theorys to the more popular theorys.

Edit-You are obviously getting upset with the personal attacks, but that doesn't make it okay. You want arragonce and stupidity together-go find a picture of Hovind.
[/quote]


personal attacks...i attacked nobody...i may have attacked peoples words but i didn't personaly attack anybody so i don't know where that came from man unless people are so damn sensitive they can't even get their words critisized and they call it a personal attack

a personal attack is....you're an idiot, you're stupid, you're mama's so fat...., i'll kick your a$$.
never said anything of the sort to anybody.

In what sense are his "theories" any good?

Go back and read the thread. There is plenty of infomation to refute his claims. But I will give you one. Dating methods. He ignores every well established method of dating, and the science behind them, because those dates come back older than 6,000 years.


And I quote you-"THAT ARRAGANCE AND STUPIDITY." You called what I said stupid, twist how you want, that is calling me stupid. You were obviously upset because you thought I was being arrogant and stupid, and you thought that you made a good point to oppose what I said (you didn't btw) and so you threw in a caps insult.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXfAduDQpn0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zwbhAXe5yk

lol

Yeah. 'Cause evolution and the Big Bang are definately the same thing...

YEAH. And how come Darwin couldn't explain dark matter? That proves the Bible is right.

Even Einstein admitted he was wrong!! So how are we supposed to believe in evolution???

Man, I need some sleep.

thats the nature of set-in-stone believers. ANY flaw in the theory, ANY miscalculation by a scientist whatever his field, and these people jump up and shout "hallejuah!!"

but ask them for a shred of evidence to back up their own claims, and you are told "have faith...."

Often times, when people say "have faith" it sounds to me like "turn off your mind".
Not always, but often enough.