Hehe, when I tried to edit the link above, I apparently triggered a spam filter.
Please ignore the link above btw
**You might have better luck google-ing 'Calvin Smith Creation Ministries Youtube'. Try to find his discussions on evolution, not the preaching videos.
Also(I do like to stir the pot) I do agree with natural selection, but it differs from evolution. The idea of evolution is the addition of genetic material(i.e. chimps turning into the modern homo sapien), not the subtraction of genetic material. All the mutation I've ever studied in Biology involved deletion of material. Therefore, I would consider it de-volution, if not anything else.
Let's think logically. In math, 2+2=4. If you want 5, you need to add one on the left side of the eq'n(I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm attempting to prove a point). If you don't add 1, you can't get 5. So the concept of chimps evolving into men is inconceivable(for me at least, but I'll keep an open mind regardless) if no external influence can add the genetic material to the chimps.
Also, you said 'Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life/existence'. However, through atheistic eyes(correct me if I'm wrong), no genetic progress would have been made if not for evolution. Earth world be nothing but assorted gases.
*Do note that I post on topics like these in order to better my own understanding. Don't get the wrong idea-I'm not trying to sound pretentious.
I understand that this might be out of date, but I wanted to comment anyways, as it is something I think about constantly.
I had views similar to yours, until I saw a presentation by Cal Smith(he's on youtube if you're curious) and it gave me a new perspective. Here's one of the points that he brought up:
Even the simplest of lifeforms is more complex than a modern house. To put it simply, you are more likely to have an isolated bundle of wood and steel turn into a house than you are to have organic matter randomly turn into a living organism.
You also make a point that religion is based on what you heard from others, and anyone who believes it is basing their thoughts purely on ideals that somebody forced into their head. The hypocrisy in this statement (no offense to you at all, as I greatly respect your views and opinions) is that many atheists based their evolution ideas on what they have been told. They seem to put unrelenting trust in scientists, although no evolutionist has actually witnessed the occurence of evolution(so evolution can't really be considered a science, as the scientific method is based on observing results, but that's another argument altogether).
*Note* I apologize if I'm repeating things that have already been said your 'complete evidence for evolution' article. I haven't taken the time to read all of the posts, but I will eventually. Perhaps it will give me more insight.
I'll make a new list sometime: 100 Greatest Artists That Weren't On The Rolling Stone Version(or something along those lines). I'll remember to put them on.
Yeah, I guess some of these bands probably couldn't be classified as underground anymore. I actually based most of this list on an old collection of underground metal of mine, so I guess at that time they might have still been considered underground.
"Black Music"? You think nobody should give a f.. about R&B anymore?
I think you're alone on this one.
Hehe, when I tried to edit the link above, I apparently triggered a spam filter.
Please ignore the link above btw
**You might have better luck google-ing 'Calvin Smith Creation Ministries Youtube'. Try to find his discussions on evolution, not the preaching videos.
Also(I do like to stir the pot) I do agree with natural selection, but it differs from evolution. The idea of evolution is the addition of genetic material(i.e. chimps turning into the modern homo sapien), not the subtraction of genetic material. All the mutation I've ever studied in Biology involved deletion of material. Therefore, I would consider it de-volution, if not anything else.
Let's think logically. In math, 2+2=4. If you want 5, you need to add one on the left side of the eq'n(I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm attempting to prove a point). If you don't add 1, you can't get 5. So the concept of chimps evolving into men is inconceivable(for me at least, but I'll keep an open mind regardless) if no external influence can add the genetic material to the chimps.
Also, you said 'Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life/existence'. However, through atheistic eyes(correct me if I'm wrong), no genetic progress would have been made if not for evolution. Earth world be nothing but assorted gases.
*Do note that I post on topics like these in order to better my own understanding. Don't get the wrong idea-I'm not trying to sound pretentious.
Try this one: Here
*By the way...I mostly go on this site during my spares in high school, and I use the school computer(my house currently has no internet connection). I can't get to youtube, as it is blocked out, so this link might not work. If it doesn't, and you're still curious, try google-ing 'Calvin Smith youtube'.
May the wind be at your back
I understand that this might be out of date, but I wanted to comment anyways, as it is something I think about constantly.
I had views similar to yours, until I saw a presentation by Cal Smith(he's on youtube if you're curious) and it gave me a new perspective. Here's one of the points that he brought up:
Even the simplest of lifeforms is more complex than a modern house. To put it simply, you are more likely to have an isolated bundle of wood and steel turn into a house than you are to have organic matter randomly turn into a living organism.
You also make a point that religion is based on what you heard from others, and anyone who believes it is basing their thoughts purely on ideals that somebody forced into their head. The hypocrisy in this statement (no offense to you at all, as I greatly respect your views and opinions) is that many atheists based their evolution ideas on what they have been told. They seem to put unrelenting trust in scientists, although no evolutionist has actually witnessed the occurence of evolution(so evolution can't really be considered a science, as the scientific method is based on observing results, but that's another argument altogether).
*Note* I apologize if I'm repeating things that have already been said your 'complete evidence for evolution' article. I haven't taken the time to read all of the posts, but I will eventually. Perhaps it will give me more insight.
Yeah, I researched him and couldn't find anything. If I can find anything substantial, I will include him on the list.
Her. Yeah, I didn't know that until I looked her up, and then it was too late to change.
I'll make a new list sometime: 100 Greatest Artists That Weren't On The Rolling Stone Version(or something along those lines). I'll remember to put them on.
This list inspired me to start listening to more EDM, Trance in particular. Great list.
I made a list titled 'list of electronic dance music genres', and it would be appreciated if you could post your suggestions.
Yeah, I guess some of these bands probably couldn't be classified as underground anymore. I actually based most of this list on an old collection of underground metal of mine, so I guess at that time they might have still been considered underground.
I understand. Personally, I don't believe alcohol is any safer, but it is more accepted.
I am still researching musicians who have died from drugs, and many of the deaths aren't specified to a certain drug, but I'll do my best.
Fair enough, but like it says, it according to muchmoremusic. I'll put him at 21, if you want
Hmmm...you're right, it was a tumor. He was known to be an alcoholic, however.
It will take a lot of research to organize the drug OD deaths into individual drugs, as many musicians used several drugs, but I'll look into it.
You know nothing about metal, and you're familar with Soilwork/Death/Sepultura/Opeth?
Yeah, I was debating putting Gerard Wey on here