Evolution vs. Creation

[Dante Wodehouse]

I really wish you would analyse it. You'd stop being a creationist for a kick-off. Given that you understand neither mathematics nor biology and appear to have no knowledge at all of physics, I find it mind-boggling that you think there's any way at all you could attack the established science of evolution! Not to mention being able to "dismiss it as an idle fancy"

The 'foolish fancy' may have been excessive on my part, but you are being excessive as well. You assume that I have no grasp of scientific topics (which is like calling me an idiot, which is rude). You also assume that I am a creationist. I am uncertain as to what you mean, but if you mean being a Christian, you will be suprised to find that a great many scientists are Christian, and if you mean that I believe Genesis verbatum then you are incorrect. I am questioning that, just like I am questioning evolution. Established science is always being changed, evolving as it were, but you seem to be angry that I should question evolution, like the anger the inquisition had over heresy.

The Vatican spent over a hundred years, using the finest minds in christianity trying to understand what evolution means to god and religion.

They now accept evolution, but you're going to see it dismissed as an idle fancy.

Ok.

If the NAS does not dissuade me on a scientific issue, the Vatican certainly won't.

See, again you're missing the point. Science is refined by further generations. The science of evolution is being refined all the time. It is not going to be reversed in its tracks and proved wrong in its entirety. To suggest that the earth was created 6010 years ago is to negate all science, not just evolution - you do understand that, don't you?

It would mean that all physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology and every physical discipline ever known is completely and utterly wrong. I think YECs forget that - you're not just fighting evolution, you're also fighting the physical laws which say that The Flood can not have happened. You're saying that all known biology is completely wrong. You can't have it both ways.

And you, personally, are going to negate the past 500 years of science one afternoon. Does any of this sound a little odd?

Correct. I'm saying your notion is incorrect, because as shown above, in the face of 500 years of science versus your assertion, I'll stick with established science, thanks.

I didn't say the Earth was created 6010 years ago, nor did I say I was going to disprove evolution in one afternoon. I intend to find what is true, and so far have not heard very convincing things to the support of evolution. You have not given me any reason to believe what you believe, so why should I believe you. Also, Darwin wasn't alive 500 years ago, his theory is less than 200 years old.

And physicists, mathematicians, members of the NAS, Medical doctors and evolution scientists, yep.

The reason I won't give you evidence is precisely as I said - if you wanted to actually learn the truth, you'd try. You'd start by accepting that accepted science is almost always right, or very, very close to being right.

If I thought there was any chance that you'd accept actual scientific facts, I'd let you have them. Your discussion with others, where you are being shown some of these facts, doesn't encourage me that you have any intention of seeing anything which might contradict your notion.

Wrong again. New ideas hardly ever replace old ones. Things change over time as we learn more. What are combustion engines but an improved version of a lever, fulcrum and wheel combined with fire? What is your computer but a fancy abacus? The keyboard working on exactly the same principles as early printing presses. Again I reiterate, accepted science is often updated, but hardly ever proven to be incorrect. Even the "flat-earth" argument falls over. Given the primitive means of measurement, the earth was damn near flat and certainly flat enough to let people think it was flat all over. Once we realised it was round, we thought it was a sphere. That wasn't right either, but it was pretty close. We now know exactly what shape the earth is.

During the past 100 years, methods of identifying ages of substances found on this planet have become remakably accurate - well over 99% accuracy. That can sound like a lot when billions of years are considered, but it's minute. It may be improved to 99.9999999999% accuracy, but it will not be proven to be 100% wrong.

Darwinism is more than just science, it is Earth's history, and history is constantly being refuted, and even if it wasn't, why should I just accept something because others say so? I haven't believed things just because someone I respect told me to since I was 1, so why start now? You have given no reason why I should not search, but you have insulted me without any basis. Also, your reason for denying me evidence is stupid

**SIGH**

You need to realise that Genesis is a "just-so" story - a story made up to fit unknown problems. This is why sensible churches have given Genesis the complete swerve and accept that it's purely allegorical.

It has been well and truly refuted as any kind of fact.

Darwinian evolution has come a long way from Darwin, just as computers have come a long way in the past 30 years. A 1977 computer to run a single payroll schedule took up more floor space than a double bed. Now, you could run ten on your desktop PC at the same time as talking on Skype and writing at a forum, connected to the internet. Technology improves.

You still think that I am basing my claims on Genesis. I have given no reason for this. Technology improves, as do theories, but that doesn't mean that theories should be taken as fact.

Well, I do wish you the very best of luck, because as noted, if you genuinely seek answers, you'll find them alright. They won't do your beliefs any good, though.

Thank you, but the not doing my beliefs good is not necessarily true.

You also need to realise that the fossil record can never be complete. Only the minutest percentage of all animals which lived have been fossilised. Lack of a complete record speaks in favour of the evolutionary time-frame.

Read and enjoy.

Lack of a complete record by no means speaks in favor of an evolutionary time-frame. Where do you get this idea?

[hyperborean]

How come you cant belive in both? Thats what I would like to know. I belive in both

I believe that something divine created the universe. I don't believe that the divine created man as we see it today with the snap of his fingers.

This thread can go on forever because creationists spin the whole issue. They make it seem as if evolution has nothing supporting it, when if fact their theory is absolute myth. They attack evolution, forgetting that their own theory can never be proven.

I'm not the biggest evolution buff on the forum, but I have read about fossil records (paleontology), geographic distribution of species, and the evidence from molecular biology (proteins and molecules).

here are some good links: http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution

[Nightshade]

I believe that something divine created the universe. I don't believe that the divine created man as we see it today with the snap of his fingers.

Oh well we are half way to agreeing completly since I do sort of belive in evoloution I just belive the divine as you put it controls/created evolution.
But I do belive he could have and potentially did create man as we see him today if He wanted that way with the idea of snapping his fingers and thanks Ill look at that list.

[The Atheist]

The 'foolish fancy' may have been excessive on my part, but you are being excessive as well. You assume that I have no grasp of scientific topics (which is like calling me an idiot, which is rude). You also assume that I am a creationist. I am uncertain as to what you mean, but if you mean being a Christian, you will be suprised to find that a great many scientists are Christian, and if you mean that I believe Genesis verbatum then you are incorrect. I am questioning that, just like I am questioning evolution. Established science is always being changed, evolving as it were, but you seem to be angry that I should question evolution, like the anger the inquisition had over heresy.

I'm calling you a creationist because you believe in creation. Most christians I talk to are well aware that evolution has taken billions of years.

Also, your reason for denying me evidence is stupid

Disagree entirely.

If I thought there was any chance you'd read and understand it, I'd give you all the evidence you wish for. I don't believe that's going to happen and I'm not about to waste my valuable time finding out things which you're quite capable of finding yourself - if you had the desire to find them.

You still think that I am basing my claims on Genesis. I have given no reason for this. Technology improves, as do theories, but that doesn't mean that theories should be taken as fact.

Oh boy. Nobody's asking you to take the theory as fact. If you check the facts, current evolution theory is the only possible option.

Thank you, but the not doing my beliefs good is not necessarily true.

You could certainly retain a belief in god, but you'd lose all of your beliefs about evolution. I do realise that this is precisely why you won't go and check the facts - if you do, you will find that much of what you've been saying is nothing more than lies. Once you find that one of your beliefs is a lie, you'll lose your faith and you are scared of that happening. Faith works so much better with closed eyes.

Lack of a complete record by no means speaks in favor of an evolutionary time-frame. Where do you get this idea?

Very simply.

Fossils only form in very specific circumstances. Well in excess of 99% of all animals which have died did not die in those specific circumstances, so there will only ever be a tiny fraction of fossils to work with. Had the earth been created much later than the current estimate of ~4.5 bn yrs ago, then we would expect to find almost all of the bones of dead animals and we clearly haven't and aren't going to.

[The Atheist]

Why don't you do us all a favor: rather than tell us how ignorant you think we are, why don't you show us how knowledgable your comments imply you to be - because it really takes zero knowledge, ability or understanding to express how un-knowledgable you believe others to be. Walk the walk you appear to be talking and show us what you know that makes you so confident; telling us how lacking in knowledge we must be really accomplishes nothing of value. I see lots of dismissiveness pointed towards the assertions of other posters, but no "facts" or arguments to rebut them effectively.

I gave you a very good link which also links to further information. I gave you other details to follow up.

As I just said to the other creationist, I'm not about to waste a couple of days sorting evidence into approriate forms for you to read and dismiss.

If you genuinely want to find facts, there are sufficient around for you to find them

*edit*

Evolution will eventually be proven false (because Earth's Architect will show up and silence all argument on the matter ). To suggest that the roughly 1.7 million lifeforms on the earth developed out of a single cell is beyond any "fantasy" that the Bible may be accused of presenting and is easily as absurd as the Biblical literalist's insistence of a 6000 year-old earth.

Ridiculous assertion, unbacked by any evidence at all. As to god coming to earth, we've been waiting ~2000 years so far and he hasn't been, despite every relevant piece in the bible suggesting it would be "very soon".

No matter, once you're dead, there'll be another generation of people ready to buy the myth.

Not quite - just the parts that tell us that life came from non-life, that matter came out of nothing, that random chance designed the mind-numbing complexity of all living creatures. Those parts are wrong - but the rest - the stuff about gravity and colds and how earthquakes happen? That stuff's all right (as far as I've heard).

Yet if you accept that earthquakes happen as a result of tectonic plate movement, then you cannot believe a global flood happened - the science only works one way.

What "physical laws" say the flood could not have happened? Besides, if God is behind the flood (the Bible says He was) then so what? He created the physical laws; He can "bend" them when He wishes to accomplish His will (such things are called "miracles"). "All known" biology isn't wrong - just the parts that say life came from non-life and random chance took a single cell and morphed it into the hundreds upon thousands of forms of life now on the earth.

And that's exactly why I won't debate with you or find evidence for you to ignore.

You know the truth, but when in doubt, revert to, "god can change physics as he wants".

Absurd stuff. You believe a "just-so" story from 4000 years ago, but you can't accept actual science from last week.

No odder than people who claim as fact an unproven theory.

Another ridiculous assertion. The theory of evolution has been proven in as many ways as possible. As I said to you, it may well be refined, but it won't be proven wrong if you live to be a million.

500 years of science has not been directed towards the validation of evolution. The theory of evolution is not 500 years old. "Established science" is almost an oxymoron: it is "established" on many things at a fairly stable level; on others, its "establishment" is liable to be revised and "re-established."

I never suggested evolution was 500, I'm talking about science in general and as you're intending to refute all of it, it fits.

Your statement is ridiculous. Every aspect of accepted evolution science has been checked, tested by peers and is accepted fact. Your assertion that it isn't is completely incorrect.

I'm tired of this cop-out. Either you have evidence or you don't; either you have confidence in it or you don't. Quit bluffing and show your cards - because I'm starting to wonder.

See above. Show me one area where you don't revert to "goddidit" when you strike a problem and I'll get you the evidence, no trouble.

Your final sentence is a key one, because it reveals the presuppositional base that you're arguing from; note that you understand that one must first accept your presupposition about science in order for the assertions of evolution to make sense and seem plausible.

Absolute gibberish and 100% wrong.

This could be restated from my side of the coin like this: If you wish for me to "prove" Creation to you, I'll be happy to do so; first we'll need you to accept that 1) God exists and 2) that the Bible is His revelation of Truth.

Again, completely wrong. I can accept that and still see creationism as absurd, as do most christians.

Side note: I loved the qualifiers: "almost always right or very, very close to being right." That's awesome

Glad you see it as funny - being the exact opposite of the bible, which has been proven to be completely incorrect in many, many places.

The same could be said about you in terms of considering Creationism or Intelligent Design; the truth is, you are as deeply indoctrinated as the Christians here are.

I'm surprised you don't get sick of being completely wrong. I approached evolution with a completely open mind and arrive at agreement with current theory because it makes sense and has been worked on by some of the greatest minds on the planet.

It is christians who start with a pre-conceived notion, as you yourself have admitted. Please don't try to tar me with your brush - I rely on factual analysis. You rely on ridiculous assertion and tract-quoting.

Again - here you are retreating from the challenge; if you've got evidence, let's see it - quit bluffing.

See above.

Finally, notice again that you have revealed your suppositional requirements for the argument: see things from inside my frame and I'll give you evidence. You're a smart person, because you know, just like I know, that facts can only be considered inside a frame that gives them meaning. Without Naturalism firmly in place as your frame, you know that your evidence has no power.

Again you are so wrong it's laughable.

*edit*

As regards evidence - again, see above.

Facts are not subjective.

Clever but flawed logic. Notice how you "spun" the flat-earth problem by saying essentially "well, since it looked flat to them, it was flat, so science was right." The flat-earth believers were wrong because they based their "facts" on limited observation (they didn't have the entire picture, and were therefore speculating based on their physical observations to fill in the gaps - you know, like evolutionists are doing right now).

Be thankful this isn't a philosophy or logic paper, because you'd be heading into negative marks already. Go read what I wrote and talk about that rather than what you think I wrote.

I love it when people who know little if anything about the Bible tell believers what they need to do - that's pretty silly. Here: What you need to realize is that God wrote the book and it's for real. There: how effective was that? Are you "realizing" even now as you read? Why not?

I'm glad you posted that, because I'd bet any amount of money you like that my biblical knowledge is far superior to your own. You won't get off like that.

"Sensible" because they fit your world-view. Are they still sensible if they say Christ's resurrection was literal? Can a church be partially "sensible" and partially "deluded"?

Depends whether or not they try to dispute known facts.

Neat analogy, but not apt. Darwin's theory has become even less convincing and even adherents admit to some of the difficulties in the theory.

Lemme give you a tip - science has moved a long way from Darwin. That's another problem with creationists - thinking that Darwin is some kind of atheist god. He wasn't, he was a very clever scientist, but his work is somewhat outdated. Given the state of his instrumentation, he was abloody genius to have got as far as he did.

*edit*

The incomplete fossil record is one of the key pieces of evidence that is frustrating evolution's "triumph." Without it to confirm the speculations of evolutionists, the hypothesis of evolution remains speculative. When you're dealing with something you claim to have happened historically, you need more than speculation - you need to have some sort of corroboration - and without the fossil record, you're down a big one.

Here, you're again emphasising your comlplete lack of knowledge about actual evolution science.

Keep putting it that way, though, it's so much easier to assert than think.

And note my previous reply - the lack of fossil record is further proof of evolution being correct.

As to evolution's triumph over creationism, that battle has long since been won, which is why actual churches agree with it. The only dissenters are those few deluded people who listen to, and believe, charismatic preachers who stand and tell lies.

[Redzeppelin]

I gave you a very good link which also links to further information. I gave you other details to follow up.

Yes, and I read through it. I saw nothing in there that definitively proved anything. I saw lots of descriptions and graphs that suggested a line of developement - but a line that made sense if one proceeded from the supposition that evolution is true; otherwise, there are other explanations for similarities between creatures. Just because two species share a feature (like elbows, for instance) does not necessarily mean they had a common ancestor; it may also imply that a designer equipped both the same because it was an efficient and flexible design.

Here were my favorite parts of the lengthy (and boring) page you sent me to:


It is supposed, then, that the chordates evolved from tunicates
it was presumed that they were the feeding parts of some animal which
It is hard to say why, exactly, the early agnathans had such heavy bony armour on their heads in the first place
It is considered to be transitional between poroforms and true osteolepiforms
it is almost certain from their anatomy
Some of the most significant differences between them, such as warm blood and suckling of young, are not, of course, preserved in the fossil record.

As I just said to the other creationist, I'm not about to waste a couple of days sorting evidence into approriate forms for you to read and dismiss.

Then why bother replying at all? Didn't you already leave this discussion once before? Here (from post #1592):

I am now done with this discussion, so in the unlikely event that you do have a desire to learn, send me a PM and I will show you how to find those facts, but as I stated above, your constant refusal to look at evidence only as long as long as you posit "god" first isn't a search for evidence at all, it's a time-wasting ploy and I'm not about to waste more of my valuable time playing it. You're welcome to take that as a victory, as fundies usually do, but the victory is really in your admission that evidence only exists which accommodates god.

Cheers.

If you've got nothing to add in terms of proof to back up these refutations you think you're doing, why bother re-entering the conversation?

If you genuinely want to find facts, there are sufficient around for you to find them

I came here to hear the evolutionist position and challenge it. Since you seem to be standing on the "winning" side (judging by your rhetoric here), that puts you in the position of clarifying to all of us who remain confused as to why we ought to consider your position valid. You speak as if you know something, but then when pressed, you come up with nothing but brush-offs. That's not how debate works, my friend.

*edit*

Ridiculous assertion, unbacked by any evidence at all. As to god coming to earth, we've been waiting ~2000 years so far and he hasn't been, despite every relevant piece in the bible suggesting it would be "very soon".

The "evidence" in question - like the conclusive "evidence" that establishes the truth of evolution - will be revealed someday soon. I'm not worried about that. I'm not worried about the Bible's "very soon" - any more than I'm sure you're troubled by the words I bold-faced in navy-blue from the evolution page you sent me to.

No matter, once you're dead, there'll be another generation of deluded people ready to buy the myth.

Yes - but thankfully there'll be other Christians here to help them see the light.

Yet if you accept that earthquakes happen as a result of tectonic plate movement, then you cannot believe a global flood happened - the science only works one way.

Sure I can - see? I just did. God isn't confined by science.

And that's exactly why I won't debate with you or find evidence for you to ignore.

Then don't waste my time with these posts that do nothing but tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Give me some sort of real response rather than this repetitive dismissiveness.

You know the truth, but when in doubt, revert to, "god can change physics as he wants".

You're correct there: I do know the Truth. I just can't get you to see it.

Absurd stuff. You believe a "just-so" story from 4000 years ago, but you can't accept actual science from last week.

Sure I can - it just depends on the absurdity of the claim that last week's science is making.

Another ridiculous assertion. The theory of evolution has been proven in as many ways as possible. As I said to you, it may well be refined, but it won't be proven wrong if you live to be a million.

Nothing has been proven - lots of "evidence" has been amassed that has been interpreted to suggest results that fits the theory of evolution. From Dr. Lee Spetner (Ph.D, MIT):

"Random variations cannot lead to the large-scale evolution claimed by the neo-Darwinians...There is a lot of evidence for nonrandom [purposeful, therefore intelligent] variation."

From John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary (evolutionist scientists and authors of The Origins of Life:

"The first replicating molecules, whether nucleic acids or something simpler, could not have specified anything, and so could not be said to carry information. They are best thought of as replicating structures."

Overall, since you say evolution has been "proven in as many ways as possible," why don't you explain how these things have been proven to be true:

1) Life can come from non-life
2) Life can, by itself, bring about new forms of life
3) Eventually, animal life can develop into human life

As far as I know, evolutionists are still scrambling around trying to find enough evidence to make these outlandish claims seem true. Once their literature gets rid of the "could be" "maybe" "almost" "it is presumed" and all the other qualifiers that suggest that "were still making educated guesses" then maybe we'll have something worth considering.

I never suggested evolution was 500, I'm talking about science in general and as you're intending to refute all of it, it fits.

Perhaps you ought read the posts addressed to you more carefully - I don't believe anybody here intends to prove all of science wrong.

Your statement is ridiculous. Every aspect of accepted evolution science has been checked, tested by peers and is accepted fact. Your assertion that it isn't is completely incorrect.

At least that's what you say and would like us to believe. Tell me: how do you "check" an event that reportedly occurred billions of years ago? Because without verification of that event, all else is educated speculation.

See above. Show me one area where you don't revert to "goddidit" when you strike a problem and I'll get you the evidence, no trouble.

Well, what should I say if indeed, God did do it?

Absolute gibberish and 100% wrong.

Offer some argument or evidence to back up this unsubstantiated claim.

Again, completely wrong. I can accept that and still see creationism as absurd, as do most christians.

"Most Christians"? Really? And your statistics for this number come from where?

Glad you see it as funny - being the exact opposite of the bible, which has been proven to be completely incorrect in many, many places.

I've heard this one before. How does one "prove the Bible wrong"?

I'm surprised you don't get sick of being completely wrong. I approached evolution with a completely open mind and arrive at agreement with current theory because it makes sense and has been worked on by some of the greatest minds on the planet.

I'd get sick of being proven wrong if it happened with regularity (luckily, it hasn't occurred in this conversation yet, aside from claims to the contrary). Your denial is stunning: you more than likely went to school somewhere, and that school more than likely gave you textbooks that spoke of evolution as a given fact (despite all its holes, inconsistencies and unproven claims); you - my friend - grew up just as indoctrinated as I - but you refuse to acknowledge that; I at least will admit to that fact. Your so-called "open mind" was already conditioned by years of a naturalistic foundation that you now stand upon and that decides what evidence you find compelling.

Some of the greatest minds on the planet have pronounced evolution wrong too - so what?

It is christians who start with a pre-conceived notion, as you yourself have admitted. Please don't try to tar me with your brush - I rely on factual analysis. You rely on ridiculous assertion and tract-quoting.

Sorry - Christians don't have a lock on philosophical presuppositions - atheists have them too; the most clear-sighted IMO will admit such. You and I both select facts, sources and evidence that fits into our already established position.

Again you are so wrong it's laughable.

The feeling is mutual, trust me.

Mate, I seriously hope you grow up one day and look back at this stuff, because my seven-year old has a better knowledge of how science actually works than you do.

Bravo for him - but again, don't all parents think their kids are the best? I know I feel the same about my kids.

Facts are not subjective.

Facts, no; interpretations of said facts, absolutely.

Be thankful this isn't a philosophy or logic paper, because you'd be heading into negative marks already. Go read what I wrote and talk about that rather than what you think I wrote.

Well, I'm not sure what qualifies you as an expert on philosophy or logic - so I'll pass on the grade for now, thanks.

I'm glad you posted that, because I'd bet any amount of money you like that my biblical knowledge is far superior to your own. You won't get off like that.

"Knowing" (i.e. I've read it and know the factual contents) the Bible and understanding it (especially its spiritual ramifications) are two different things. Confusing the two is a serious mistake.

Lemme give you a tip - science has moved a long way from Darwin. That's another problem with creationists - thinking that Darwin is some kind of atheist god. He wasn't, he was a very clever scientist, but his work is somewhat outdated. Given the state of his instrumentation, he was abloody genius to have got as far as he did.

You originally brought up Darwin - not me. He was smart - he even predicted the flaws in his position that scientists are still trying to solve.

I wish you could do that.

And yet, somehow, we still manage to communicate.

Here, you're again emphasising your comlplete lack of knowledge about actual evolution science.

So you say.

And note my previous reply - the lack of fossil record is further proof of evolution being correct.

And how might that work?

As to evolution's triumph over creationism, that battle has long since been won, which is why actual churches agree with it. The only dissenters are those few deluded people who listen to, and believe, charismatic preachers who stand and tell lies.

"Long since won" eh? Hyperbole will get you no where. Evolution has not definitively proven anything. It makes the amature arguer's mistake of assuming that mounds of evidence can overwhelm an opponent into thinking that so much "evidence" must mean a solid argument. No such thing - sorry.

The only real "liars" in this argument are high-school textbooks.

[Scheherazade]

Reminder

Inflammatory comments will get you banned from the Forum temporarily / permanently.

Please discuss the subject matter, not each other.

[hyperborean]

I have to say that "The Atheist" concluded this debate in my eyes. As evolutionists provide factual evidence, creationists use the desperate "god did it" and the "god will prove you wrong".

The Atheist is open minded. He chooses not to believe in myths and he explores the mysteries of mankind using science. If only the rest of mankind would be more like him. Instead we have people concluding that a spirit is behind all the things we can't explain.

[Redzeppelin]

I have to say that "The Atheist" concluded this debate in my eyes. As evolutionists provide factual evidence, creationists use the desperate "god did it" and the "god will prove you wrong".

Debatable.

(The "God will prove you wrong" response is only silly if it isn't true. We've yet to establish that it's not.)

The Atheist is open minded. He chooses not to believe in myths and he explores the mysteries of mankind using science. If only the rest of mankind would be more like him. Instead we have people concluding that a spirit is behind all the things we can't explain.

Equally debatable.

"Open minded" appears to mean in your post "I agree with him." Not the criteria I would say that correctly identifies an "open mind."

[Virgil]

The Atheist is open minded. He chooses not to believe in myths

I'm not in this debate, but I thought those two sentences were funny. Complete contradictions. Before you jump on me, hyperborean, I believe in evolution.

[Redzeppelin]

I'm not in this debate, but I thought those two sentences were funny. Complete contradictions. Before you jump on me, hyperborean, I believe in evolution.

Good call, Virgil. I wish I'd caught that irony and pointed it out!

[hyperborean]

I did word it wrong, and put the two phrases in the same sentence. He is open minded in the sense that most atheists have already reevaluated the myths brought upon them by society.

def of open-minded: "Having or showing receptiveness to new and different ideas"

Christianity would be the old idea...evolution being the new one. You on the other hand show no receptiveness at all when it comes to evolution.

[Virgil]

I did word it wrong,

I'm only teasing you, hyper. Despite our diferences, you're OK in my book.

[hyperborean]

I'm only teasing you, hyper. Despite our diferences, you're OK in my book.

Glad to hear it

[Redzeppelin]

I did word it wrong, and put the two phrases in the same sentence. He is open minded in the sense that most atheists have already reevaluated the myths brought upon them by society.

def of open-minded: "Having or showing receptiveness to new and different ideas"

Christianity would be the old idea...evolution being the new one. You on the other hand show no receptiveness at all when it comes to evolution.

You have no idea what I'm open to - you assume. As a theory, evolution makes a certain amount of sense. However - just like the evolutionists/atheists who claim they need more "proof" to believe in God - I need some of the "gaps" in evolution filled before the theory seems reasonable to me. Either way - the Christian is less concerned with "fitting in" to the world's logic than he is in obeying God - entrance into heaven isn't granted because you were "right" all the time, or because you "knew" everything - it's based on your faith and your obedience.