Human Evolution

[Corey777]

evoltion is a proven and genraly accepted, way in wich life eveolves, its can be proven countless ways, and explaisn innumrable things. Many poople would say thers abosulty no way evelition could be wrong

That is true, but you could have quite the opposite. I meen, how many people will say 2+2 does not equal 4?

Not too many.

How many people will question the theory of evolution?

Millions.

[Mentor]

That is true, but you could have quite the opposite. I meen, how many people will say 2+2 does not equal 4?

Not too many.

How many people will question the theory of evolution?

Millions.

your the first person ive ever met whos questioned it, most peopel who do question it tend to be the uneducated, who have no eveidnce to go on. wit hevince itd proven.

and with teh 2 + 2 = 3 argumnt, what does giev a number its value, think about it, why is teh word 2 assoited with tha value, could 2 not mean what you would call 1.5 ?

[Corey777]

your the first person ive ever met whos questioned it, most peopel who do question it tend to be the uneducated, who have no eveidnce to go on. wit hevince itd proven.

and with teh 2 + 2 = 3 argumnt, what does giev a number its value, think about it, why is teh word 2 assoited with tha value, could 2 not mean what you would call 1.5 ?

Must be a lot bigger in the UK or something. In Canada, there are so many people that do not believe it. And I get the feeling that you are implying I am dumb.

It could be called 1.5, but it still would represent 2, would it not? So therefor, saying 1+1 = 1.5, would be correct if the person specified 1.5 was 2 in their vocabulary

[Mentor]

Im not actaly imply anyones dumb, and te impliction wasnt at you, so dw.
Uneducted, you could be a genius, but without infpomation, you could only belive and make assumptison on what you know. wich was what i ment buy that parts as a reson for belife.
Uk as a whole is a far less religos contry than america, so many who may have folloed a religos belife, insted follow the athists, as they are the majority. i personly prefer to make my own opions on subjects, rather than just follow, but the the exstent of my knolage, eviltion is the only conclusion thats makes sence to me.


1.5 and 2 are simpley sqigles . they in them selves have no meaning, it is our landgawige wich asignes them meaings a values. otehr landgages have diffent simbles for the, like i think is is corect, teh number 7 (posibly teh wrong number) actaly means death in japonise... so the value signed to the squige, is therefore complty differnt to the value we asign.
you could easy swich teh values, to mean a differnt thing, and blive there interption is right over other people and stedfastly blive 2 + 2 = 3 .

[Corey777]

Im not actaly imply anyones dumb, and te impliction wasnt at you, so dw.
Uneducted, you could be a genius, but without infpomation, you could only belive and make assumptison on what you know. wich was what i ment buy that parts as a reson for belife.
Uk as a whole is a far less religos contry than america, so many who may have folloed a religos belife, insted follow the athists, as they are the majority. i personly prefer to make my own opions on subjects, rather than just follow, but the the exstent of my knolage, eviltion is the only conclusion thats makes sence to me.


1.5 and 2 are simpley sqigles . they in them selves have no meaning, it is our landgawige wich asignes them meaings a values. otehr landgages have diffent simbles for the, like i think is is corect, teh number 7 (posibly teh wrong number) actaly means death in japonise... so the value signed to the squige, is therefore complty differnt to the value we asign.
you could easy swich teh values, to mean a differnt thing, and blive there interption is right over other people and stedfastly blive 2 + 2 = 3 .

I am actually Canadian :p Still, I think the percentage of athiests are higher in the UK, even though the religions started there Lol.

And yes, they are only squiggles, but we have meenings for them and therefore teacvh them that way. But for people with different views on evolution, for there sakem, should hvae the oppurtunity for the teacher to explain evolution from a different point of view.

[Mentor]

the thing is, only one can truly be right. Every s**** of evince in exisnace says eviltion is correct, and for the bibel story, vertaly everything else in it has been proven wrong to teh point its imposible to fathm relsim, unless you still belive the earth is flat and the sky is a big dome of water?, even thogh we know the wor,d is far far older thant he bibel says, and mioilons of otehr spices before us were not mentioned, and astrouts ahve never incounded a big dome of water?

Also religoon started in bratain? teh church oif england staretd here, but thats jsut a branch of crisnity, wich started in whats now israil, wich was then both isral and juda. :/ and otehr reilosgn had difent starts? i dont know of any actal full religon thats started in braitin, exspet jedi nearly did, as so many people put it as a religon in teh cenus it nearly got deacled a real one.

[Corey777]

Actually I have never heard of the sky being a water dome and the Earth being flat (other than in science). Could you possibly give me the place in the bible where it says that?

Also, if it does, which somehow I doubt, this could be considered correct. Are clouds nothing but water?

[Mentor]

it ment the sky as its pigment is blue.
Its the christan creation story, genisis. we had to learn it for an rss exasm?

[Corey777]

Ohh I understand, Id better get crackin' on my bible :p

[Sketti]

I don't beleive in the religous start of the world. I beleive in the big bang theory where a load of gases were floating about and the exploded creating a load of rocks and life began. So to your question: Yes I beleive we started off as apes.