Beer is bad. Try drinking a ton of water.

Organized soda-drinking competitions. Find a Red Robin (or similar place with unlimited drinks), and get a group of at least ten people. Put the entry fee to $4, with a $15 prize. Boom, cools down the Earth (if that theory is correct), and you make money off it. And have a good time.

Apparently you have a hard time understanding what a myth is. I shall define for you: A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society.

There ya go. So the Bible is one big collection of myths, you see. Hope that clears things up.


Did you know a Catholic priest first came up with the Big Bang Theory?   

~Zoo

I came up with the theory that the world is entirely constructed to my specifications in order that I live a perfect life and have a wonderful time, and that everything here was truly a figment of my imagination, and that I was the only sentient thing in the universe - everyone else was actually controlled by me in order to give me people to talk to, problems to solve, etc.

It was quite a good theory except that I hated my life.

Anyway, who cares what a Catholic priest theorized about? Are you saying that, because he was a Catholic priest, that coming up with a secular theory makes it a Christian theory? Because it doesn't. Lately we've been finding out a lot about the unChristian things that Catholic priests have been doing...

Yeah, the individual can stray a lot.

Nope, just presenting the fact that it wasn't dreamed up by one of those crazy atheist scientists that creationists seem so worried about.



For a philosophical theory, it's not bad...in fact there are a few that are pretty close to that. i.e. We exist in a world of our own design and we're the only ones that are "real" in it.

But scientific theories are different. They are objective not subjective, and they are open to experimentation and peer review. In order to become a theory in the first place it has to endure a lot of scrutiny. The colloquial meaning of the word 'theory' more closely resembles a hypothesis.

~Zoo

The day after I hypothesized, I read "The Ultimate Egoist" by Theodore Sturgeon, and was amazed at what a sense of humor I had.

"I came up with the theory that the world is entirely constructed to my specifications in order that I live a perfect life and have a wonderful time, and that everything here was truly a figment of my imagination, and that I was the only sentient thing in the universe - everyone else was actually controlled by me in order to give me people to talk to, problems to solve, etc."

Those are fairly obviously untrue... unless... 

Hey Zoo, can we agree that Creationism is a philosophical theory while evolution is a scientific theory? Can we agree on SOMETHING here?

Yes, yes we can.

~Zoo

No. I view them both as philosophical and scientific. (Evolution's just weaker)

I have a seperate thread for this kind of stuff.

You have yet to explain how.

~Zoo

Simple! By the law of equal and opposite reactions. The law states that only the fittest (strongest) survive, so the opposite reaction is that it is a weak theory.

Nope. How are bunnnies cute? It sure ain't evolutionary. Why don't they have weapons?

They do - it is being rabbits! They breed like - well rabbits!

High-five on agreeing on something!

Seriously though, you cannot present evidence that we were created. You can only present evidence that we did not come about through evolution. That's why evolution is the scientific theory, and creation is the philosophical theory. One is verifiable and the other isn't.

That being said, I think there is some strong evidence against life coming into existence on its own. There is also strong evidence that there are many creatures from differing time periods that look a bit like each other, and seem to lead into the next creature. I don't know the reliability of that evidence. I also don't know how time worked in the Garden of Eden. But I haven't seen anything current to support that a species can change so much as to not be able to breed with prior members of it's species. There is evidence that they wouldn't WANT to, or would avoid doing it (after all, if you're equipped to live in cold weather, and another section of your species is equipped for warmer weather, you probably won't meet them anyway, and if you did, you would feel that the cold-weather ones are more suited to you anyway). But I haven't seen a case where it wasn't possible to breed them. Maybe there is one.

I believe in micro-evolution, the changing within a species that enables the species to thrive based on the environment.