Crushmaster, have you read Darwin's original work on domestication of dogs and pigeons? Just curious how you would explain animal domestication and selective breeding. I am honestly curious, so you don't have to create a few second snappy response. Just tell me what you know.

Alot of this can be reasoned out using simple reductionism. Assuming there are a few key points agreed on. Most creationists accept the existance of genes (afterall we've mapped specific genes and can pick and pry them as we please), so with this one agreed upon point we can ask some questions expecting answers from both sides.

If we're created, and no evolution is possible, or even necessary, then what purpose does the gene have? You could argue, it's so that your kids bear a resemblance to one yourself. Then why give other animals genes and in many cases the same genes? Why allow for recessive genes responible for cancer and disease to exist? Why allow genes to be manipulated? Why are they identifiable at all?

The main underlying question being, what better purpose could genes exist for than the replication and preservation of the genes themselves (evolution)? And what better purpose can an animal (or a man, for you creationists) exist for than the preservation of it's own life and, uniquely in man, the pursuit of it's own happiness.

If a more rational (not mystical or agnostic) answer from creationism for any of those questions arrises, I would research and consider it based on the information and past experience I have obtained (bias). Ahhhh, but there are so many questions like these with a ready answer: evolution. Why should I submit my obvious pretense for logic and reason for the blurry haze of non absolutes that is mysticism.

[QUOTE="Packt"] How can you bestow chance with an intelligence? It isn't a being. Contrasting the intelligence levels of chance and an omnipotant being is redundant. Why would you assume lack of proof (according to you) to one side of an argument as affirmation of the correctness of your side of the argument. This type of thinking is labled "the god of the gaps" read about it.Crushmaster

Unless Chance is one mighty smart guy, we must conclude that God exists. Crushmaster

You are. Let me reduce the reasoning of the latter quote in variable terms: Unless A is true, then we must conclude that B is true. Why must we conclude B is true? You've already debased the vailidity of A, so why use it to affirm the correctness of B. The two variables are not relative, and therefore the argument is redundant.

How contradictory of you to accuse other posters above of using an ad hominen argument, when the above argument you made is essentially one aswell.

why the hell are there species like that, i mean they can't be any use to the planet, or any other species.

12345678ew

Unless Chance is one mighty smart guy, we must conclude that God exists, and He created all things. We must also conclude that everything has a Creator.Crushmaster

I believe we, basically said, "simply evil". Romans 3:10 says, "There is none righteous; no, not one"; Jesus said, "There is one good; that is, God"; etc. The Bible speaks a good deal on this subject.

What are your views on this? And your reasons for those views?
EDIT: The fourth option should have ly on the end of 'most'; sorry about that. I would edit it, but it would delete all of the votes.
Please Note: This topic's purpose is evangelism. Please keep the discussion on the poll question, and other religious/Christian-based subjects. Thank you.
In Christ,
Crushmaster.

Crushmaster

I think it is a mockery of human justice to insinuate that man is born guilty (under sin). What is man but what he makes of himself? A man creates his own standard of values based on his own theory of mind. Man is nothing but an end in himself, no higher purpose can be sought than the presevation of his life and the pursuit of his own happiness. This is the great freedom man has over other life forms: the ability to choose his own standard of living. What contempt one must have for himself if he submits to the bias of others, what can he hope to accomplish but some hideous replica?

A man must be aware though, that he is not entitled to happiness, but must seek it volitionally, by his own exacting standards of value. A man who thinks he is entitled to happiness reproaches the independant man. He expects his share of the happiness with no cause. This is not a stable social strategy. The only stable strategy is each individual work for his own happiness, expecting nothing unearned from others.

Man must choose allies with similar standards of life. Friendship must be based on mutual respect, not symbiotic need.

[QUOTE="Packt"][QUOTE="spazzx625"]He is saddened by his ugliness, which makes me kind of empathetic...dracula_16

It was nice knowing you. :lol:

I believe it is cyclical. Have you people noticed the new bill that just passed the House. This proposed bill is cap and trade. The government is using this Global Warming scheme to impose taxes on the people and raise energy prices. The government is lying by stating that carbon dioxide is a deadly chemical that is the cause of global warming. Doesn't the sun play a major role in all of this? When that is mentioned they completely deny it. People, they are using Global Warming to further their agenda and impose more taxes. Carbon dioxide is used by plants to convert it into Oxygen, what we breathe in. They want to reduce CO2 levels by 80% in 2050. Won't that be dangerous since it will reduce the amount of CO2 which in turn will reduce the amount of O2? Get ready to hand over billions more to this corrupt government just for breathing.

Lunarblade1

Are you insinuating that the government is buying out indivdual scientific opinion?Can any scientists be trusted under your theory? Have you no sense of a mans integrity toward his work? These are men of reason and scientific study, do you think the amount of time and devotion to such work could be bought out by the government? At what cost?

The latter is easily answered when thought of in metaphysical terms.

He is saddened by his ugliness, which makes me kind of empathetic...spazzx625

I would consider GTA4 one of the best games I've ever played. I've never heard of the second one. Either way, get GTA4 aswell if you can. It's a must play.