More like the final step is to eliminate all the intelligent people. Then all the people period.

I was thinking the same thing. Intelligent people tend to live within their means and only have children they can support if they have any at all. Stupid people tend to produce in masses because that's the only way they would normally survive. We cater to stupid people, so the majority don't die off like they're supposed to. We really need to let natural selection take place or fix the education system and ween kids away from stupid parents.

I wonder what the superior race will be after humans kill themselves off. Assuming they don't take the planet with them.

Your English is great, esp. to be talking in philosophical terms. Philosophy is normally hard enough that English speakers have issues! And thank you for the compliment. Speaking of school, I have a degree in Philosophy, so I have to admit when my reasoning fails. I could have had a minor in Religion, but did not go through the paperwork.

On your points on 'good science', that is the scientific method. Science is always skewed by man's imperfections. Our perceptions are flawed, our reasoning can be skewed by ego, on and on. With that in mind, it is difficult for me to base my worldview on such an incomplete approach to the Truth.

Parts on the Miata, lots. For what? Fun. It's a more fun car now. Money? Too much. I don't have faith that it will start or run any given day; it either will or it won't. If everything is working it will, if something in the chain of events needed to get it started and keep it running is amiss, it won't. Simple.

How do I live? Easy, I just do. Just because I don't believe in the supernatural doesn't mean I have no emotion. ;)

Not an uncommon theory -------------> IDIOCRACY OPENING SCENE

heh sorry codes dont work here :(

Then that does not explain why you go through the effort of doing what you do on your car; surely you are not saying you spend countless hours working on it, so it WONT start, are you?


No, not at all. However, you -must- accept the idea that you have -some- modicum of faith. If you don't, there is absolutely no reason to get out of bed in the morning.

I work on it so that it will go faster and to maintain it. I really don't see your point. :hustler:

As for the second part, why? Why do I have to have faith? It's against everything I stand for. I get out of bed in the morning and go to work with every intention of keeping America safe, keeping my soldiers in line, and learning what I'm here to learn. I also have a wife and daughter to support. I have plenty to live for and plenty of reason to get out of bed in the morning.

Okay, fine. Then you have -faith- that it -will- go faster, the car starting is only a small part of that larger equation. You wouldn't do all of that, if you didn't believe, or have faith in the idea that it -would- go faster. Therefore, you, my boy, have faith. Not all faith necessarily has anything to do with religion. Or God. Or taxes.


Alrighty then, you then have faith in the idea that you can lead your soldiers in a manner befitting a person in the American Military, you must also have faith that your wife loves you, that your daughter loves you, and that you can help and support them in a way that demonstrates you return the sentiment. Faith is not always about religion, this is my argument, you irritating man. Faith extends from your emotional half, not reason. And reason without faith is pointless. IOW, you cannot have one without the other. That's it.

i wanted to open a strip club called "The church" just for controversy

T & A is a sort of religion, but it's redemptive qualities fade with age...

Ahh, I think I smell what you're cooking now.

Have you ever watched "Idiocracy" ... bad execution, scary idea O_o

No, but it seems I must watch it.

Honestly after all my years in school and hearing the lectures of science and evolution. I have found 1 big area of contradiction between science and evolution.

In my opinion the two are at odds with each other based solely on the objective of science. Science is designed with the purpose of exploring the world around us, finding order and laws in nature, and then experimenting with those obersvations and laws to benefit from them.

Evolution should not be considered as science for it is in the purpose of science that we find the contradictions. Evolution has never been observed and is based on the premise that nature came about through some form of random situation.
Evolution cannot have laws otherwise we should be able to predict the next step of evolution and see the exact progression from the supposed millions of years. If evolution was found to have laws then it would be at odds with its own definition of random changes based on environment and situation.
Evolution cannot be experimented with because of the lack of the 1st and
2nd phases of science.

I really don't care if you believe in God's creation or Evolution. Both cannot be seen in action or experimented with, however there are laws in nature and order therefore one would conclude through reason and an open mind that something or someone would have had to made those laws. You have to believe one or the other by faith.

Sigh, so much misunderstanding.

Let's get one thing straight - evolution is in no way "random" changes, and it IS observable.

"Random" changes - Evolution is simple, the strong survive, and the weak die. The strong survive to pass along the traits that made them successful to their children. Sometimes it's not even about strength, just about having favorable traits for the environment. I was in the butterfly museum at the UF-Gainesville campus when I saw a great example of evolution in action. There was a species of moth that, before the industrial revolution, would camouflage itself against things with its light brown body. As time wore on and the things it was landing on became darker (from the pollution), the darker of the offspring survived to mate and the species in that microclimate adopted a darker hue. Not observable? Imagine I'd taken the time to post pictures of two women, one butt-ugly and one gorgeous. Which one do you want to inseminate? Exactly. Observable. Next point.

No one had to make those "laws". They are there and have been since before there were beings sentient enough to try to understand them.

I'm sorry that I don't follow how 1 species of moth passing its genetic code onto its offspring is a sign or an explanation of evolution. Nothing new came from development except the same moth species with a different color.

This moth explanation has been taking place for years. The peppered moth is one for example. It was discovered that there were two variations of the moth, a light colored and a dark. The light started to die off as people began cutting down the white birch trees. The dark colored began to gain significant numbers. One might speculate that nature is selecting the darker colored species to survive. However, this is still far from evolution because both colors of moth are the same species.

Darawin even stated in his book and his writings that evolution must have taken drastic steps to ensure its survival. A color change would not even qualify as a drastic step. It's just an adaptation to help the species survive. If evolution is true and certain species are to die, all the moths and butterflys of the same species should be decreasing in numbers.

And to believe that laws make themselves is two steps back into the dark ages. When you see a painting, an invention, a well written letter, or a garden you don't assume that it has been there forever or that it is there because it chose to be. You know someone made it. That someone planned, worked, and found the correct way to assemble it.

The second Law of Thermodynamics even contradicts evolution. Evolution tries to teach that every step is towards a better goal and a more perfect creature. This Law proves that every goes from order towards more entropy.

What do you expect to happen? The moth to turn into a bird? Evolution is a long term change, something that takes hundreds or thousands of generations to really see even small changes. Things like color aren't major changes. Structure and size are.

This thread has really shined light on something I never realized. That being the fact that so many people still see evolution as only a theory, or false. It really blows my mind that people can't understand, or can't see how its real.

Really? You really don't see how multiple small adaptations over millions of years can result in evolution?

Funny how you're the one bringing up the dark ages. :giggle: Maybe we should go back to a simpler time, when (organised) religion taught us truths like the Earth is the center of the universe, is only 6,000 years old, and flat.

Attachment 203018

I understand that you believe that small steps proves evolution but really did you even read Darwin's books or any other books on the evolutionary process? Or do you only believe what the tour guide at the zoo says or what you see on the county museum wall?

The whole evolutionary process is about totally new species arising from pre-existing species who undergo drastic changes based on their environment and situations. All you have supplied is evidence that 1 species of moth can change color and pass its genes on. No new species were created. They are both the same moth.

I'm not trying to convince you to accept creation and reject evolution, but evolution has lots of holes in its theory and therefore should be classified as a theory and not as an exact science.