Is the modern Bible an accurate representation of how you think the world should be governed?

A computer simulation is radically different from a cartoon animation, you understand that, right? An animation is drawn, while a simulation is a computer program that simulates something based on initial conditions. The simulation is not the only evidence of evolution, it's among the plethora of over evidence

Somehow you admit speciation and adaptation, yet you deny evolution for some reason? Why can you understand that species change over time, yet they don't change a lot over a lot of time?

Your point? A cartoon is nothing like a simulation. It's like comparing a painting to a scientific lab.

You can't go and say that Evolution is a hypothesis. It's a theory, there's no denying that.

As for believing life came from non-life, yes. But intelligence didn't arise suddenly, it took many generations of development of the brain to achieve the level of intelligence we posses. There's lots of evolutionary links between the fossil record with respect to the development of the brain.

God is very much so "magical". Magic is essentially anything that cannot be explained by science. You keep claiming that believing life arising from non-life is dumb after I keep explaining the method for how it might have happened, yet you ignore it.

Let's clear one thing up. Evolution is not a "belief", it's regarded as a theory, whether or not you buy into it.

Evolution can be simulated and it also happens in real life. The simulation acts as a good explanation and demonstration for evolution- it does nothing to reduce the credibility of my argument. I'm trying to say that the simulation of evolution reinforces the idea that it exists.

For the last time, you know evolution does not say that humans appeared from thin air- we're the result of 3.6 billion years of evolution- biological molecules to RNA world to multicellular organisms to tetrapods and vertebraes and land animals and mammals and primates and apes and with enough cranial development due to cooked food, finally Homo sapiens. You know what I'm saying. Stop denying it and using baseless assumptions.

Look, I know you're denying evolution because it implies nihilism, but what's so wrong with nihilism? Life doesn't have to have a meaning- life it whatever you make it to be. If you want to believe that there's an afterlife, whatever- but don't try to convince others that that afterlife exists when you have no proof besides "faith", which in my opinion is belief with a lack of evidence, yet you stare into the face of scientific fact.

Let's assume for a moment that God exists. How did he create life? Did he create RNA world billions of years ago? Did humans, animals, and the Earth suddenly arise not but 10,000 years ago? It seems nonsensical that no matter the method, some being would be able to make life magically appear. If there was an omniscient and omnipotent being, why would he create life? Desire comes from needs or wants- an omniscient and omnipotent would neither need nor want anything.

I think that the problem with religion is not the fact that there are too many of them, but the enforcement of close-mindedness that many religions propose. For some reason, it's a common trend that most religions have the "my way or the highway...to hell" mindset. Religion should be a topic of encouraged discussing, a branch of philosophy- however people have turned it into some sort of lifestyle.

In short, religion could be some much more, a way to discuss the nature of life, but close-mindedness prevents that.

"When you believe in evolution and/or atheism, you discredit yourself. Whining about your beliefs being called stupid does not help your credibility."

Source? Again, empty claim, no evidence. I've provided and explained how evolution works, and we have evidence through embryology, the fossil record, anatomical structures, and so on.

Evolution is simulated through a computer program, but the computer program is created by intelligent design. However, the actual process of adaptation and evolution that occurs is a pattern that results due to the program. The organisms in the simulation evolve because the ones with the highest evolutionary fitness are chosen to reproduce. It's not just a cartoon, it's a simulation. The only intelligent design is the creation of the program. You're saying that it's making a computer say what you want it to say, which is not true. That would be modifying the results of the program, which is not done.

If you had a program to make a ball to fall down a ramp, it's like saying you designed it to end at the bottom. The only things programmed were the ball, the ramp, and gravity- it's the process of gravity that results in the ball being at the bottom of the ramp.

Evolution is the same. We start with organisms, evolutionary pressure, genetic diversity, and then boom- evolution happens within the program, just like it does within real life. It has nothing to do with intelligent design. If the same starting factors could have arisen in nature, then it doesn't imply intelligent design.

I should also note that you mock so much the idea that humans suddenly poofed from monkeys (which is incorrect, we descended from great apes), yet you believe that humans appeared... out of thin air?

Life arose in an environment where many biological molecules and energy existed. It may be difficult to believe, but it's a lot better proposal than some great invisible force creating non-life from nothing.

Attempting to discredit people who reject your beliefs is necessary in desperation of keeping your lack of evidence for practically any of your beliefs from being exposed.

Anyone can use that argument.

We created self replicating programs. However, even though we created the program, it's the program itself that replicates itself and can simulate evolution. Saying that we created those programs though intelligent design os basically saying that God created evolution though intellegent design.

God created the universe in its entirety in six days. Considering he's supposedly omnipotent, I don't doubt that- I am confused as to why he didn't do it instantaneously, instead drawing in out for a week. One thing I do want to know. God is an omnipotent being. Why did God rest on the seventh day?

Also, you talk about pure, observable science often, yet creation of the universe in six days seems neither observable nor does it have practically any evidence to back the claim up besides hear-say.

I meant opposite of your ideals growing up. So, tell me why I need to be saved?

Correct, RNA world is just a hypothesis, but it's the most likely one. However, we can see scales to feathers based on the fossil record- it's a much better theory than spontaneous generation at creation, with species constantly dying until extinction.

Brainwashing? No way. I was taught critical thinking in my biology class as well, specifically the idea of extraordinary evidence for extraordinary ideas, which the theory of evolution has.

Huh, I'm opposite you then. Evolution makes more sense to me after Christianity was shoved down my throat at an early age. However, some things just don't make sense. I too believe in a God- a deist God who set the universe in order, therefore resulting in evolution.

So what do you believe in terms of universal creation?

So your argument against evolution is that people that believe in it are gullible and that it's a stupid thing to do? Nice use of evidence.

Lizards turning into birds? I've covered this. Lizards don't, nor never will, become birds, because they're already diverged from one another. Some reptiles diverged into modern day lizards, while others diverged into birds- dinosaurs are a transition for this, as scales began to become feathers. So no, a population of lizards will never "turn into" birds. Furthermore, I'm not sure how that argument is even relevant. Evolution accounts for the divergence of species into one another over time- it says nothing about a modern day species suddenly becoming another modern day species.

"and the Savior can save you from frying like an eternal monkey sausage"

This is the best metaphor I've ever heard.

Organisms are very limited in their ability to adapt because they can only work with the genetic code they have. They can't adapt because organisms as an individual do not evolve- POPULATIONS do. reproduction through generation produces natural selection, etc, etc, then you have adaption.

"Your slanders of my character here would maybe get you banned if this were my discussion. I ban people for bad manners. Are you another cry baby who comes to my discussions posting insults like you did here, and then when I ban you and take pleasure in the freedom of making you look stupid, you go off whining like a cry baby because I won't let you bully me around? Go have mommy change your diapers."

Pure hipocrisy right here. Calling people suckers/stupid, then complains about being insulted.

Morals are the basis of deciding social issues, such as gay marriage or abortion. It's the same as ethics. Gay marriage is based on morals. This being said, where do you get your source that gay marriage or just having non marital sex in general is inherently wrong?

You're not regulating me- I'm asking if you would given the chance.

This "perversion" you speak of is freedom of expression, speech, or whatever you would call it.

Explain to me how you regulating how people have sex is "moral"?

Where do you get your morals from?

I don't care how you feel qbout sex. If two consenting people want to have safe, sane, and consensual sex, then let them- thats not for you to decide.

Sex is primarily for reproduction, but it also provides for bonding between to people- gay people too, strengthening a relationship. In short, it's fun, private, and therefore harmless, so whatever your reasons are, you don't get to decide how other people have sex.

This video literally shows it to you. The adaptation of bacteria, which is evolution. If you're talking about macroevolution, I can't show it to you directly because it takes a really long time- but I can show you the fossil record with transitional fossils that provide evidence for macro-evolution.

Reptiles didn't suddenly morph into birds- there was a gradual transition, dinosaurs being the best example, who were reptiles with (most likely) feathers and had some species, such as those in Pterosauria who could fly- so the transition is shown. A modern day lizard will never turn into a modern day bird because divergence has already happened. Furthermore, individuals cannot evolve, populations do. So, given enough generations and some evolutionary pressure, the lizard would eventually change into a different species.

The relationship of changing allele frequencies is what explains this- as allele frequencies change when two populations are separated, they accumulate differences and diverge.