Thats fine, all I'm saying is that we say morals and knowing what is right and wrong come from genes and society, and you say it comes from god. Either way we can choose to follow them or not. Either both of these arguments make us robots or both give us free will. You can't say god implants something within us to help us decide whats good and evil but its free will, but genes and society which do the same thing make us robots.
We believe god orginally gave us freewill. But then
adam disobeyed god and ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. We don't absoultly have to do all that is good.
And TechWins, you beat me to it! Sentaki, I gave the beginnings of proof for evolution, what happened to your end of the bargain? Yet again you provide no proof for creationism, only wrong assumptions about the points that I made in an attempt to dissuade evolution. I won't rehash what TechWins said because he did a pretty good job, but a couple of things:
What you are talking about is extinction, another feature of evolution. But when we think species B came from A, that means it evolved and became species B, so of course we won't see any more fossils of A! While there are many cases where one strand of a species breaks off and evolves while the others don't, most of the time evolution occurs to survive, in which case species B was better adapted to survival, and A dies off! Once again, like I said creationists are not happy unless every single fossil is found that shows every minute difference in changing from A to B.
We have fossils of species A, fossils of species B, fossils of species C. Speicies A lived for a period of time, then dissapers, then Speices B shows up and lives for a period of time, then it dissapears
You're right, this is evolution. Just because they aren't classified as different species yet (it takes a lot more time for a whole species to change than dogs have been around) doesn't mean that they aren't diffenent and evolution hasn't played a serious role on them. While all dogs have very common characteristics since they all evolved a awhile back from a common ancestor, all breeds have different traits and with the exception of human interference which created breeds that would not have survived in the wild on their own, the different dog traits help them survive the environment they live in currently: very thick coating for the wild dogs/wolves who live in the arctic, short fur and ability to go long times w/o water in the desert, etc. You are confusing natural evolution with human interference which creates bizarre dogs that wouldn't have survived natural evolution. If dogs breeded as fast as bacteria, we could simulate them evolving as well in a lab - not that I endorse in any way animal testing :D
I have a better example Dogs, look at all the breeds this is evolution right? Slight problem species have not changed.
Yeah, what does that mean and what did it have to do with what I said??
Or the Cookie Cutter theroy.
A thousand years compared the millinea that these species comparable to a day to human existance (actually much less than a day, but I dont want to do the math to figure out exactly how much! :D ) Are you willing to say that because we have no Roman archaelogical evidence dating to July 13th in the year 50 BC that they must not have existed on this day?? This argument doesn't even figure in how much harder it is to find fossils millions of years old compared to artifacts only 2000 years old! Another example of creationists using flawed logic that they would never use any where else. As for the second part of that statement, techwins stated it well!
There are litterly thousands of years witch have no fossil evidence not a reltivly short period of time. Second there are also periods of millions of years that the animal did not change at all.
I might have exagerated a bit with the San Diego cult, but the point I was trying to make is that EVERY religion has people who are willing to do for what they believe in. So the fact that it happens in christianity not only does NOT proove that it is true, but also cannot be considered solely a christian thing. Every religion has people converting to it, and every religion has people who risk their lives because of it.
Your missing my point entirly first of those people commited sucide, second after they all did who else wants to join? Yet Christinity is two thousand years old and people still convert even though it risk there lives.
Clyde said it best here, you are completely way off track by what that discovery was. Try reading an actualy science journal on the event before spouting out that it prooves anything - and when I mean read something on it, I DONT mean a christian article that is trying to use it to proove creationism. Read the journals from the people who actually took part in this discovery.
second Using newly calculated mitochondrial DNA mutation rate, scientists are able to back date the beginnings of the human species. New data indicates there was an "Eve gene," a common mother who was ancestral to all humans, who lived a mere 6,000 years ago
Will you stop avoiding the question? What does this mean? Just answer the question, do you or do you not believe you would be buddhist under those circumstances that I stated? And if so, do you or do you not believe you will not be admitted to heaven because of this? Answer this question instead of skirting it and show me all this proof of creationism you stated you had!
Mark 13:13 - Everyone will hate you because of me.
Mathhew 10:21 Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death