Griz,

I said "I'm an a-hole, so I'll debate just about anything", meaning that
if someone wants to debate, I'll debate even if everyone else is sick of
the topic. I didn't mean that I would be rude, cruel or childish.

Creativity offers the ability to route one's opinion or bend one's
belief. It also offers an opportunity to answer questions without which
we would not grow.

When a question presents itself and the creativity of the mind begins to
theorize, we make strides in our way of life.

If those whose religeous conviction denies that this was not ordaind to
be so, then perhaps they are the Amish.

I can view relgions with tolerance. I can accept faith as a personal
endeavor. I can accept beliefs that are open to the changes, to the
strides we make as questioning human beings. What I have a difficult
time with is hypocracy.

Hypocracy, to me, is knowing a truth but not disclosing it, believing in
something but only when it's convenient. Refusing to admit a
possibility because it does not fit into the paramaters that are the
limitations of ones belief. Adjusting the parameters of ones belief to
fit a particular situation, but only if it benefits the continuation of
the belief.

Creativity allows us to find truth, allows us to fantasise about
possibilities. If any believe that any of the organized Christian faith
allows for creativity, I expect you'll find hypocracy brewing there.
With the exception, of course, of the most orthodox of the Amish
community.

Yes I have a difficult time with hypocracy, this is when I try to be
humble, and sometimes rely on my own creativity.

Eveolution is a fairly new theory in the scheme of things, but how many
theories in the past, have changed the parameters, broadened the
limitations of organized religions, simply on the basis of convenience?

Here's what gets me....... We claim to believe that Dinosaurs are
millions of years old.... Hhmmm.... Why is it that science tells us
Dinosaurs were here way before man was.... Did you know, that we (Yes,
the Human Race) discovered "Dinosaurs" in the late 1800's? Before then,
those bones were assumed to be those of giants, elephants, or dragons.
Between around 500 b.c. to about 90 a.d., there just happens to be
paintings of dragons from around the world. With man slaying such beats
during festivals. How can those who have never seen a dragon with their
own eyes, have good enough paintings and drawing relating to such
creatures as our precious Dinosaurs? Dinosaurs were carnivorous and
herbivores too correct? It is strange how different parts of the world
hold "dragons" with different temperments. Kind of makes you think.

My whole thing is, adaptation and evolution are not the same to me. If
one can bare more heat than another, then one simply adapted. Man kind
has been around long enough to take on a new form. If we evolved from
apes, I see no reason why there would still be apes. I believe the
different forms of "Man" that you see are each entirely different
species. Notice how there are not deformities found between each form.
There are steps 1,2,3... etc. Yet no 1.2, 1.3, 1.5 and so on.

Hmm well evolution could exsist everything changes within time. Even
though my religion views have nothing to due with how I think in this
theory because it could be both ways. Its like people who say global
warming doesn't exsist but it does due to scientific proof.Darwin wasnt
a idiot. Plus look at peoples bone sturctures in anthropology ... etc.
Anyhow yeah im ranting.

Yeah plus I think there were people who exsisted before adam and Eve ...
and I dont beilve in dinosuars but I beilve in dragons.

No, Darwin wasn't an idiot, he was just wrong. The incredible lack of
true transitional fossils (for those keeping count, we have 0) is the
largest hurdle for Darwinists. The commonly presented "transitional"
fossils are similar species. So they will present one Dimetrodon
species after another and claim that it is proof of evolution, without
showing any true transitional features. Transitional features would be
"semi" wings. It's speculated that bats evolved from some type of
flying squirrel. Where is the almost-a-flying-squirrel fossils? Where
are the more-than-a-flying-squirrel fossils? The point is that wings
could not have evolved overnight, so where are the fossils showing that
slow change from squirrel to flying squirrel to winged bat? We have
found no transitional forms within a species, all so called transitional
forms are "from one species to another" while they could just as easlily
be completely seperate species with no relationship at all.

Creationist are always out there to pollute the minds of free thinkers.
They seem to have an answer to any question but in reality they have
none. Science is not a proven science but religious fantasias are in no
way proof of a creator either.

"Creationist are always out there to pollute the minds of free thinkers"

I disagree. I'm one of them "creationists", I'm happy to explain
Evolution to my children, I encourage them to participate in Science
class. I expect them to comply with school teachings in Biology and Life
Sciences.

I teach them, as I explain here in these threads, the subtle difference
between observing Natural Selection in Action, versus, the interesting
idea that it can be projected backwards towards fossil records.

They think Dinosaurs are cool. They think ppl descended from primates.
Thats fine. I imagine eventually one or two of them will agree with me,
maybe not.

That to me is *the* definition of a 'free thinker', and quite a contrary
example to your statement.

That is 'way cool' Mike..

My parents were also free thinkers, who let me decide on my own..Nothing
was 'crammed' down my throat..

You are nothing but a Troll

Cool!!! can I come trip trapping over the trolls bridge, please??...I
love that story..

I think it’s interesting how everyone has their own perceptions of
things.

To me, the idea that we evolved from the cosmos is an extremely romantic
idea. It really drives home the feeling that we are part of the cosmos
and genuinely belong here. It also makes me view the cosmos itself as
the mother of humanity. Planet earth is every much a part of us as any
other part of our body. We simply can’t live without it, we require
it’s atmosphere to breath, we drink its water, and we sustain ourselves
from consuming other living things. We simply cannot survive without
consuming other living things, all because of the way that we evolved.

The other picture, that a supreme being waved a magic wand and created
the whole universe just for the purpose of putting us on this planet as
some kind of a test to see if we will be eligible for eternal life just
doesn’t appeal to me at all. I’m not saying that it can’t be true.
Anything can be true. I’m just saying that it doesn’t appeal to me at
all. That picture seems quite cold and harsh to me. I find the first
picture to much more romantic and appealing. So I actually view
evolution as a very beautiful thing.

But to each their own.

Mike?! A Troll?! Wow. I never knew.

Funny how so many "free thinkers" have antagonism towards views
different then their own. How can one think freely, with such
antagonism?

watt happened to the BE'hemouth?bible job40;15.no doubt some one will
have a translation and explain that one as they see it.if that dosent
describe a dinasor watt would