NationStates Jolt Archive

Obviously I do not actually belive that... But here is someone who does

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

I shall leave it to you to discuss the Mad Rambelings inside this incredable one-sided, close minded and disturbed website.

Jack Chick is frickin hilarious.

Did you see the one where the xtian "hero" shows the muslim the error of his ways, and the muslim instantly converts? I laughed 'til I cried on that one.

"We have been watching your planet ever since it was created. Five thousand years ago. By GOD!"

Oh God I love this Guy!!! I rember the one with DnD where the GM introduces the players into Witchcraft and how to cast magic Spells to smite those they hate... I played DnD for years, Wheres MY Induction into the Black arts? I never got to learn Magic!

No melissa* you died you dont exist anymore! (after the girls were playing D&D and melissas* character dies)






* not actual name

Oh God I love this Guy!!! I rember the one with DnD where the GM introduces the players into Witchcraft and how to cast magic Spells to smite those they hate... I played DnD for years, Wheres MY Induction into the Black arts? I never got to learn Magic!

haha me neither, should we sue TSR (or WotC, or Hasbro, or whoever can give us $$$)?

Wow, i think i just got dumber by looking at that :shock:

have you ever met the people that hand those things out? i always have to ask them if they have actually read them and if they really believe that crap. i mean, if i was a christian i certainly wouldn't want to be associated with those things.

sometimes i wonder if jack chick might not be just pulling the most elaborate prank ever.

It is often the case in his 'Comics' That he portrays much of Science and everything else he finds evil.. as this Vast, evil conspiracy that is nothing more than a house of cards, that with The Holy Bible™ and the courage of a Brave boy or girl, this Paper Tiger can be destroyed and shown as a sham! "Evolution" "Science" "The Big Bang" all things that magically vanish with the truth of scripture!!!

Does anyone... ANYONE really think any Professor worth his salt would react to an idiot like that kid in THAT mannor?

I love Jack Chick's comic...

"Blackleaf nooooooo!!" :lol: :lol: :lol:

Wow, i think i just got dumber by looking at that :shock:

Imagine how I felt when I read, like, 20 of them. Why, my vast intellect was reduced to that of a mere mortal. It took me days to recover. :mrgreen:

Also on that website the fight against the horrible evil harry potter rages on!

wheres the tract for that?

Yea,m we should start posting links to some of the better ones, My favs
The Gay Agenda
Dnd= Black Magic
Harry Potter and Demon Summoning 101

Is there a tract on the evils of heavy metal and rock music? That would surely bring a bunch of laughs.

while they are good for a few laughs, i eventually get physically pained by the fact that people that stupid are allowed to live. i'll trust an electron microscope, hubble, and the reliable decay of carbon over a few idiots who scribbled some garbage down five thousand years ago.

I see a lot of truth in those explanations, and see a lot of people whom believe otherwise dening the possibility of Creation over Evolution, thus leading me to believe Open-Minded people are indeed a rareity.

I, myself, am an Open-Minded Christian Baptist. I see why people believe in Evolution, indeed, and I have found evidence overwhelming. Yet, it is impossible for the Theoretical Possibility of Evolution to become a Factual Logical Conclusion to the end-result of Human Abilities. I could explain more, but I'd be getting too confusing.

Anywho, I strongly believe in Creation by Lord God Almighty, and I do sympasize(Typo...) with people whom believe in Evolution. Thus, I respect beliefs, to an extent.

Anyway......

I see a lot of truth in those explanations, and see a lot of people whom believe otherwise dening the possibility of Creation over Evolution, thus leading me to believe Open-Minded people are indeed a rareity.

I, myself, am an Open-Minded Christian Baptist. I see why people believe in Evolution, indeed, and I have found evidence overwhelming. Yet, it is impossible for the Theoretical Possibility of Evolution to become a Factual Logical Conclusion to the end-result of Human Abilities. I could explain more, but I'd be getting too confusing.

Anywho, I strongly believe in Creation by Lord God Almighty, and I do sympasize(Typo...) with people whom believe in Evolution. Thus, I respect beliefs, to an extent.




Anyway......

And we sympathize with you

Oooh Man... Could we PLEASE not actually turn this into a Evolution vs Creationism Debate? Id MUCH rather keep this a Jack Chick is an Idiot Debate!!!

Oooh Man... Could we PLEASE not actually turn this into a Evolution vs Creationism Debate? Id MUCH rather keep this a Jack Chick is an Idiot Debate!!!


Yes yes I know but Norea actually agrees with Jack Chick apparently and thats just as funny

Oooh Man... Could we PLEASE not actually turn this into a Evolution vs Creationism Debate? Id MUCH rather keep this a Jack Chick is an Idiot Debate!!!

Awwww how come? Each side yells at eachover 'til both sides are blue in the face, neither side gives an inch and then everyone takes their ball and goes home.

Is there a tract on the evils of heavy metal and rock music? That would surely bring a bunch of laughs.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0034/0034_01.asp

http://www.chick.com/tractimages79624/0034/0034_14.gif

Is there a tract on the evils of heavy metal and rock music? That would surely bring a bunch of laughs.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0034/0034_01.asp

http://www.chick.com/tractimages79624/0034/0034_14.gif ugh, why'd you have to post that? the evolution thing had some good points in it but this..... "damn you free soviets, damn you to hell!"

LOL this site is sooo true

Aliedel

Thanks for the Compliment, glad top see we are on equal grounds and not at each others troats, lol! :lol: :)

Is there a tract on the evils of heavy metal and rock music? That would surely bring a bunch of laughs.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0034/0034_01.asp

http://www.chick.com/tractimages79624/0034/0034_14.gif

Ahhh that was great, thanks man (woman?).

Aliedel

Thanks for the Compliment, glad top see we are on equal grounds and not at each others troats, lol! :lol: :)'



I dont have to agree with you but I suppose its just as logical as evolution which is also pretty crazy......but this is about the jack chick......which reminds me of a baby chciken in a business suit

Ahhh that was great, thanks man (woman?).

man.

and you're welcome.

jack chick is an evil man. this has got to be one of the greatest pranks ever concived(sp?) (besides the moon landing of course) im sure this so-called "jack chick" is having a pretty goo laugh right now.

i love that site, so full of christian crazyness, i think i'm gonna cry :lol:

jack chick is an evil man. this has got to be one of the greatest pranks ever concived(sp?) (besides the moon landing of course) im sure this so-called "jack chick" is having a pretty goo laugh right now.

even if jack chick is pulling an elaborate prank, the people who hand these things out aren't.

A true internet treasure. I mean come on, this is as much a part of American pop culture as Coke bottles. And here they are, in all their guilt-inducing magnificence on one site!

Definately passing this one on...

LOL this site is sooo true

You really believe that? I guess you're crazier than I thought before.

Jack Chick's a fzckin' hypocrite. Maybe it's just me, but I think the Christian church has enough troubles with the rest of the world...we don't need internal conflict. But there goes Mr. Chick, professing to be the good Christian and calling Catholics "Ba'al worshippers".

I've been meaning to write him a long email...perhaps I should get around to it.

Having said all that, while I can certainly understand the basic premise of the theory of evolution, it remains just a theory...and one with a few holes. I did notice one or two worthwhile points in the midst of the comic diatribe...the bits about gluons fascinated me, and I'm going to have to go speak to some physicists.

:? Aiera

i love that site, so full of christian crazyness, i think i'm gonna cry :lol:

I think the far crazier thing to do would be to call that site "Christian". If I bothered to take the time to cruise through it, I could probably find a dozen good examples of where Mr. Chick contravenes Christian principle...but as it is, I don't feel Mr. Chick is worth my time.

:? Aiera

Is there a tract on the evils of heavy metal and rock music? That would surely bring a bunch of laughs.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0034/0034_01.asp

http://www.chick.com/tractimages79624/0034/0034_14.gif
We're gonna rock rock rock!!! Rock with the rock!!!

:shock:

Where's the yaoi?

:shock:

Where's the yaoi? Someone call? :wink:

You know I was going over his archives, and in every single one it amazes how quickly the 'Evil Person' turns around to 'His' way of thinking, its like "Whats this? a Book of God? Oh what a FOOL Ive been! Jesus! Save me!" Im like WOW! If you give someone so hideiously religious text they magically convert!!!

I see a lot of truth in those explanations, and see a lot of people whom believe otherwise dening the possibility of Creation over Evolution, thus leading me to believe Open-Minded people are indeed a rareity.

The 'explanations' in Jack Chick's evolution tract are known to be fraudulent and have all been disproven; some of those arguments were obsolete even before Darwin published his Origin of Species. They are designed to convince people who will believe anything they are told, without looking into the facts. It's surprising how gullible people are.

I prefer the one with the Christian converting that muslim; I love the second panel, with the guy on the floor going "Moon God!?"

Also, why does a devout christian just happen to have a photo of Allah sitting on his throne with him?

LOL this site is sooo true

I've never met a real Christian who considers Jack Chick to be anything less than offensively blasphemous.

There is a major problem with the theory of Evolution.

Computer simulations have proven that it would take 40 to 100 billion years for the simplest bacterium to randomly form out of the "primordial soup." However, science says our planet is only 4 billion years old. Life as we know it could not have "evolved" into existence in the timeframe science has alloted.

There is a major problem with the theory of Evolution.

Computer simulations have proven that it would take 40 to 100 billion years for the simplest bacterium to randomly form out of the "primordial soup." However, science says our planet is only 4 billion years old. Life as we know it could not have "evolved" into existence in the timeframe science has alloted.

I very much doubt it.

If this claim is not an outright lie, then you are evidently misinformed, or are (like many creationists) misinterpreting the information. Provide a source, if one exists.

The earliest life forms are now extinct, so their formation cannot be accurately simulated, because we don't know what they were. Using modern bacteria as a basis will provide innaccurate results, because the original life forms would have been much more simple. Since the mechanism by which the first organisms formed has not been fully discovered, such simulations are impossible anyway.

However, you shoot yourself in the foot with this argument; it states that it has been proven that bacteria will form randomly from primordial soup.

There is a major problem with the theory of Evolution.

Computer simulations have proven that it would take 40 to 100 billion years for the simplest bacterium to randomly form out of the "primordial soup."

Umm...how?

It's random.

You can't predict WHEN or IF it will ever occur.

It may never occur, or it may happen right away. That's what "random" means.

There is a major problem with the theory of Evolution.

Computer simulations have proven that it would take 40 to 100 billion years for the simplest bacterium to randomly form out of the "primordial soup." However, science says our planet is only 4 billion years old. Life as we know it could not have "evolved" into existence in the timeframe science has alloted.

Firstly, your beef is with the theory of abiogenesis, not evolution.

Secondly, your beef is more like a vegi-burger. You need schooling.

There is a major problem with the theory of Evolution.

Computer simulations have proven that it would take 40 to 100 billion years for the simplest bacterium to randomly form out of the "primordial soup." However, science says our planet is only 4 billion years old. Life as we know it could not have "evolved" into existence in the timeframe science has alloted.

Firstly, your beef is with the theory of abiogenesis, not evolution.

Secondly, your beef is more like a vegi-burger. You need schooling.

LOLOL !!!

Indeed.

It never astounds me when the debate about evolution crops up. I would say that 90% of people have not got a clue what a theory is....let alone a fact.

Sounds more like an Arguement for planet seeding than anything :wink:

I personally dont like the theory. Life would have to have formed in this system, and even then have gotten lucky to keep alive.

The chances of it coming from outside would be like getting a swish basket from 100 meters away and staring backwards.

The extraordinary odds against the formation of bacteria, aside from coming from dubious sources, also assume that this planet is the only place where such random chances can occur.

Take into account that the universe contains trillions of planets, billions of which will have the same chemical composition and proximity to a main-sequence star that the Earth does. Billions of primordial soups bubbling away simultaneously drastically increases the chances that life will occur on one of them. If you roll five dice, you're more likely to get a six than if you roll one dice.

Even if we exist because of a billion to one chance, it is now irrelevant, because we exist, and that billion to one chance has come to pass whether you like it or not. The universe likely contains many unlikely things, and we're one of them.

There is a major problem with the theory of Evolution.

Computer simulations have proven that it would take 40 to 100 billion years for the simplest bacterium to randomly form out of the "primordial soup." However, science says our planet is only 4 billion years old. Life as we know it could not have "evolved" into existence in the timeframe science has alloted.

Firstly, your beef is with the theory of abiogenesis, not evolution.

Secondly, your beef is more like a vegi-burger. You need schooling.

LOLOL !!!

Indeed.

It never astounds me when the debate about evolution crops up. I would say that 90% of people have not got a clue what a theory is....let alone a fact.

Yeah Social darwinists who justify everything using "Survival of the fittest" are pretty laughable too.

Yeah Social darwinists who justify everything using "Survival of the fittest" are pretty laughable too.

I wasn't aware that Social Darwinists were particularly prevalent.

Having said that, Capitalism is essentially Social Darwinism.

Oh youd be surprised. People dont really identify themselves as social darwinists but thats the name they give to thier justification.

Some capitialists for whatever reason are also philanthropists

Obviously I do not actually belive that... But here is someone who does

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

I shall leave it to you to discuss the Mad Rambelings inside this incredable one-sided, close minded and disturbed website.

Jack Chick is one of the best sources of comedy in this world. And with that, I give the MST3K version of the Jack Chick tract "Dark Dungeons"! [Disclaimer: As much as I wish it was, the mst3k version of this isn't mine. =( ]

*Cue the music*

"In the not too distant future
Way down in Deep 13
The evil Dr. Forrester
Was hatching a nasty scheme
He hired a temp by the name of Mike,
Just a regular joe he didn't like.
His experiment needed a good test case,
So he conked him on the noggin
And he shot him into space. (Get me down!)

I'll send him cheesy movies,
The worst I can find (la-la-la).
He'll have to sit and watch them all,
And I'll monitor his mind (la-la-la).
Now keep in mind Mike can't control
Where the movies begin or end (la-la-la)
He'll try to keep his sanity
With the help of his robot friends.

Robot Roll Call:

Cambot! (Show yourself!)
Gypsy! (I'm not ready!)
Tom Servo! (h'lo there!)
Croooow! (That's one "o"!)

If you're wondering how he eats and breathes
and other science facts (la-la-la),
Just repeat to yourself, "It's just a show,
I should really just relax...
For Mystery Science Theater 3000!"

http://www.humpin.org/mst3kdd/

I remember a while back there was a parody chick tract, about Cthulhu, entitled something like "Who will be eaten first?", but it was recently censored. That humourless bastard!

la! Shub Niggurath! la! la!

Wow. Fun topic. Besides, whoever said it was random? It's not random chance, its possibility. 40 billion to 100 billion is under a -completely- random simulation done by biased Christians or really poor computer scientists. An actual simulation would have to account for the factors of elimination of implausible possibilities and changes in allele frequencies and an understanding of the biophysics of organism proximity when arriving to sexual reproduction.

Jack Chick is a fun guy, better off being a "fungi" without the fingers and the minimal intelligence to be a dissenting cartoonist. I can imagine him having been raised in an atheist home and doing the same thing against Christians. Heck, I can imagine him being raised Texan and venting his anger by shooting people.

Just goes to show, people come in all sorts. All those sorts come in the varieties of social climes they are part of. I hope everyone understands they are at least partially motivated by their social clime, and that in order to be completely confident in one's assertions, one must follow the fundamental and universal concepts that EVERYONE can accept (or choose to deny if there fanaticism has carried them that far).

I still think there should be tracts about furries and Warhammer 40K.

"organic evolution - life from rocks"

Dear Lord. Worst biology/chemistry teacher ever. And "observable" effects includes stuff like cosmic background noise, the red shift of galaxies, fossils, datable and predictable strata, etc. Drawing conclusions from the evidence is science, and as the methods of testing are constantly being refined (for instance the dating of strata is becoming more and more precise,) it can hardly be called "faith" since these things are not absolutely believed.

I'ma do a dissertation, because someone actually argued that it made a few good points.

For a start: no, it didn't. By creationist standards it's not only woefully out of date but it happens to make a few things up.

The Richard Leakey reference is fraudulent. He did not find a modern human skull aged at 212 million years at all. The oldest skull he did find was about 2.5 million years old, but its most distinctive separative feature from modern man was that although its size was similar to that of a modern human skull its brain case was almost half that of that of the modern human.

And the...er...reference to most scientists feeling that Lucy being an unusual chimpanzee is ridiculous. Lucy is generally regarded as belonging to a species of Australopithecus; she was a fully erect biped (ie. not possibly a chimp) that possibly occasionally took to trees. Her arms are too short in relation to her legs for her to be a chimp and too long to be regarded as a human, among other things. A "missing link" would be an unusual type of primate, in that it would share the features of two species of animals; in most cases referring to a species clearly sharing the traits of its descendents and ancestors.

Urgh, the chart.

Bloody Muse and his mountain of lies.

Lucy was a bit over 3 foot IIRC and quite blatantly not a chimp for the reasons given above.

Heidelberg man's jaw was far too robust without modern man's protuding chin for it to be "quite human." If it belongs to any already established species then its most likely to be a Homo Erectus specimen.

The Nebraska man tooth was shown to belong a pig after a relatively short period of time, after a number of scientists proclaimed it to belong to modern man or one of his ancestors. It is an example of science working correctly since the fallacy was quickly and effectively shown. Unlike the follow up:

Piltdown man is the best known case of a hoax fooling almost the entire scientific community for an extended period of time, most scientists choosing to ignore it rather than try to stick a blatant abberation in with the rest of the fossils being discovered or actually study the skeleton. Why it's in a chart of "rarely made public" "facts" is beyond me since it's so famous. It was certainly a horrendous mistake and one that shouldn't have lasted almost completely unchallenged for so long.

I can not be bothered to deal with Peking Man (Homo Erectus) directly, so: http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/erectus.html

Dr. Cave never actually argued anything of the sort about Neanderthals being the same species as modern humans. He did argue that they stood far more erect than was generally regarded at the time.

I've no idea who or what New Guinea Man is. Very curious.

I'm not sure what the comic's trying to argue about Cro-Magnon man, though I know what it's certainly implying. It is Homo Sapien; modern man. The problem being that no-one's ever said anything different.

I'm developing too much of a headache and doubt I know enough to go into any detail about geological dating methods. I can toss out radiometric testing and our understanding of coral and tree ring dating but that's about it. I'll grab a Talk Origins link that I *think* covers it. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

Don't know about Haeckel, don't particularly care.

The human coccyx having nine muscles attached does not in any way show that the tail is not vestigial. If anything it emphasises the fact.

Don't particularly care or know about whales, but "losing something" is not the opposite of evolution; vestigial organs are gradually going to atrophy if and as they became detrimental to a population's survival and chances of reproducing.

What binds atoms? Be a bit more specific, there are four known forces in the universe; the weak atomic force, strong atomic force, electromagnetism and gravity. If there are any post-graduate physicists in the Forum, then they can feel free to say a lot of stuff about this which makes no sense to people like me.

Blah blah blah.

Blah.

Evolution has holes it has yet to fill? So do all branches of science; which is perfectly understandable given its nature and the degree of depth that we are possible to draw links between the myriad of systems going on in the universe. Evolution being "just" a theory puts it on the same credibility field as gravity. Creationism, however, is a hole. It answers few questions but presents far, far more and replies to no evidence; its ideas are truly based on faith. Evolution is a damn dandy theory that describes and explains what the evidence shows us.

Go here for more funny stuff!

http://www.thetruthforyouth.com/standard/main.htm

Does anyone even take Jack Chick seriously?

--------------------------------
Free your mind!

Does anyone even take Jack Chick seriously?

the person that gave me a copy of big daddy when i was in a mall in the panhandle of florida seemed to. that's what makes it funnier. seriously do these people actually read these and think to themselves 'this is the best argument i have ever heard and will totally work to convince everybody'?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Those things are always funny...A couple of guys handed me one outside a comic shop, it was on the "evils of dungeons&dragons"...
I loved it.

There is a major problem with the theory of Evolution.

Computer simulations have proven that it would take 40 to 100 billion years for the simplest bacterium to randomly form out of the "primordial soup." However, science says our planet is only 4 billion years old. Life as we know it could not have "evolved" into existence in the timeframe science has alloted.I think I know what Triton 1 is talking about. I read that somewhere, too. "The Lost World" by Michael Crichton, I believe. Mike didn't quote a source, but I do know that if you search "problems with evolution" (in quotes) on Google you wind up with over 2000 hits, including hundreds of dot edu sites. When you have time, look it up.

There is a major problem with the theory of Evolution.

Computer simulations have proven that it would take 40 to 100 billion years for the simplest bacterium to randomly form out of the "primordial soup." However, science says our planet is only 4 billion years old. Life as we know it could not have "evolved" into existence in the timeframe science has alloted.I think I know what Triton 1 is talking about. I read that somewhere, too. "The Lost World" by Michael Crichton, I believe. Mike didn't quote a source, but I do know that if you search "problems with evolution" (in quotes) on Google you wind up with over 2000 hits, including hundreds of dot edu sites. When you have time, look it up.

:shock: and the majority (from what I scanned) seemed to be Christian based :shock:

Who would have thought? :shock:

I think I know what Triton 1 is talking about. I read that somewhere, too. "The Lost World" by Michael Crichton, I believe. Mike didn't quote a source, but I do know that if you search "problems with evolution" (in quotes) on Google you wind up with over 2000 hits, including hundreds of dot edu sites. When you have time, look it up.

Yes, sites run by (surprise surprise) creationists, rattling their cages with the same old brazenly dishonest arguments as Jack Chick. None that I looked at contained any problems with evolution found by actual scientists, and by 'scientists', I don't include such wackos as Kent Hovind. Nearly all these sites either don't even bother to examine the science, or quote the same outdated, long discredited and failed creationist arguments that have surfaced before.

There are no significant problems with the theory of evolution. A few mechanisms remain that no explanation has yet been found for, but this does not discredit the theory in general.

As for the dot edu sites, I didn't see any that were offering scientific arguments against evolution. They were either forum messages posted by creationists, sites disproving the alleged problems with evolution, creationist 'clubs', and other such irrelevant articles. One was even complaining about problems with a piece of software named Evolution.

There is a major problem with the theory of Evolution.

Your problem is with abiogenesis and not necessarily with evolution.

Computer simulations

What programmes were used? At what date was this done, and who did it?

have proven that it would take 40 to 100 billion years for the simplest bacterium

Unfortunately the simplest known bacteria today need not be the simplest bacterium that has ever formed, and almost certainly aren't. Nor does the first organism to form even need be a bacterium; they're simply the earliest known fossilised organism. The first self replicating organism could have been much, much simpler. The computer programme would only have been based on fallacious data.

to randomly form out of the "primordial soup." However, science says our planet is only 4 billion years old. Life as we know it could not have "evolved" into existence in the timeframe science has alloted.

I'll end with an articles from people far more intelligent and well educated than I:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

As for all those websites touting how wonderful creationism is:

A multitude of people all claiming the same thing does not necessarily imply correctness, and neither does it imply that any of these people know what they are talking about. The vast majority of scientists disagree with young-earth creationism, though many (in America, at least,) remain theists, which is far more suggestive than the beliefs of the general (American) public. The problem with creationists is the complete lack of evidence for their beliefs and the fact that their beliefs are immutable regardless of evidence.

And using evolution to disprove evolution is perfectly viable. If done correctly (which it almost never is,) then it would show how some facets of the theory are flawed because of its own principles.

Ah, Jack Chick. Dark Dungeons is my favorite (I still chuckle whenever I remember the girl sitting alone in a room and saying "I'm fighting the zombie." Her learning real magic upon her wizard/cleric attaining some level is hilarious, too. The only one in the same league (having been handed to me) is "The Doom Cookie." Although the "good people die if they don't love Jesus, even if they're nominally Christian, but a bad person who repents on theri deathbed is gaurenteed into heaven" is a particularly fascinating thing to hear him admit.
But, of course, the best moment in all of Chickdom is the rapture one where The Pope is riding a pale horse at the head of three other horsemen of the apocalypse.
The "Moon God" one was, at one point, strategically placed directly next to one where he recognizes the Pagan roots of Easter and the Christmas tree as a show of how Christianity can take in the ideas of others (even their god(s)) and make them holy, because it's just that good. That was a priceless moment of which I wish I had taken a screenshot.

I like evolution. The theory is useful in breeding animals, genetic engineering, and computer programming. If the creationist theory was useful we'd be using that in improving animals, programming (evolutionary programming) etc...

Arguing religion and evolution is missing the point of religion, which is god is love and hurts religion’s better points.

LOL! :lol: Wow, I'd been given one of that guy's 'tracts' in the street once, but I'd never seen that priceless D&D strip.

Evolution is the missing link in-of-itself to explain human existance, but just like everything else, if the majority doesn't believe in it, it'll always be argued against in debates like this.

http://www.skytowerpoet.net/pics/100_15.gif

The Deadlines of Tuesday Heights (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=skytowerpoet)

Evolution works and is useful. That's why it's still around.

There is a major problem with the theory of Evolution.

Computer simulations have proven that it would take 40 to 100 billion years for the simplest bacterium to randomly form out of the "primordial soup." However, science says our planet is only 4 billion years old. Life as we know it could not have "evolved" into existence in the timeframe science has alloted.

Wrong. Old news. Just in molecular midwives...

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zl.html

Speeds up reactions 1000 times.

I like evolution. The theory is useful in breeding animals, genetic engineering, and computer programming. If the creationist theory was useful we'd be using that in improving animals, programming (evolutionary programming) etc...

Arguing religion and evolution is missing the point of religion, which is god is love and hurts religion’s better points. Here here, as soon as Creationism begins to lead to medical breakthroughs, Advanced computer programs, or improvments to genetics, I'll put some more stock in it (of course... Hick would proably say all three of those things are 'Evil')

Obviously I do not actually belive that... But here is someone who does

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

I shall leave it to you to discuss the Mad Rambelings inside this incredable one-sided, close minded and disturbed website. Don't worry. He just some asshole trying to make a name for himself. He distorts the evidance so all of his fact seem true. I found the bit about the vegistal tail and pelvis to be quit funney. A human has no use for a tiny 9 bone tail that most of us can't even see.

Obviously I do not actually belive that... But here is someone who does

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

I shall leave it to you to discuss the Mad Rambelings inside this incredable one-sided, close minded and disturbed website. Don't worry. He just some asshole trying to make a name for himself. He distorts the evidance so all of his fact seem true. I found the bit about the vegistal tail and pelvis to be quit funney. A human has no use for a tiny 9 bone tail that most of us can't even see.

This guy knows so little about science and yet still feels he can comment on it.

Protons have positive charges, one law of electricity is LIKE CHARGES REPEL EACH OTHER. Since all the protons in the nucleus are positively charged, they should repel each other and scatter into space.

I mean, has he never heard of the nuclear force? The force that binds neutrons and protons together? Does he really think that with thousands of nuclear physicists all over the world they would think "Man, of course! like charges repel! it must be jesus holding everything together". He's so ignorant its not even funny.

What I don't get, is Why is it Science or Religion? Why can't he see Science through Relgion? Something like...

"Evolution may be real, But God 'Forced' Evolution to make humans.." Or,
"Understanding the universe brings you Closer to God, and isn't 'Disproving' him.." Or,
"The Dinosaurs were wiped out by an Asteriod, but God made it happen because he wanted to Start over and make man..."

-Ahems- The abover were all said by a Very Religious friend of mine who wants to be a scientest, I don't fully agree with him, but at least he can accept Both things... Unlike Chick,

"Evolution may be real, But God 'Forced' Evolution to make humans.." , Really? hmm.. Not sure what to feel about that, on one hand, glad he thinks Evolution is real, On other hand, well, I'd feel bad that were the best God could come up with...