[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

I know you were responding to someone else however I feel like he will give a stereotypical Athiesm+ angry SJW response with a lot of profanity to your rational (at the very least in comparison to the rest of the anti-evolution arguments in this thread) points/arguments. Therefore I wish to jump the gun and address the points rather than attack your character like Iruinedyourday has been throughout the thread. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by Toofliss [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The THEORY of evolution still has many gaps. Theories have been proven wrong or had to be rewritten numerous times throughout history.

Pointing out that scientific theory is not always correct and that many theories have to be modified as new information is discovered doesn't discredit science, it simply describes the nature of science. As human understanding of our environment (the universe) grows, so does the need to find more answers to the new questions that arise. Growth in any form is simultaneously advantageous and problematic, whether it be how efficient lifeforms process the resources needed to sustain life (larger lifeforms require more work) or the logistics for an army/government to hold growing territory.

Originally Posted by Toofliss [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Until we can close the gaps and stop putting faith in the areas where we 'think' we know what happened, why is that taught as THE answer?

There is a distinct difference between a leap of faith (taking the word of an ancient book) and logically deducing a conclusion based on tangible, testable evidence. The latter is not faith. With faith, the book never changes, as time passes more of the book can be understood to misrepresent reality, one verse explicitly states that pi=3, another that every corner of the earth can be seen from one point high up, others tell you how to breed goats to have certain patterns of fur, yet another states that rabbits chew cud. With science, as time passes we toss away the incorrect data in favor of more plausible explanations.

I'm on the same page with Bill Nye when he says "If you show me a theory that better explains how life on earth got to where it is today than evolution does, give me the evidence. If the numbers check out, I'll be instantly convinced".

Originally Posted by Toofliss [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There are plenty of people who have put together evidence of a creator. Some super intelligent being that was able to put together the sandbox in which we currently live. Could I label it as the THEORY of creationism? Sure, there are some gaps. But just look past those, because with enough time we'll find what we need to fill in those gaps. In the meantime, just trust me - I'm really smart, and I'm a scientist.

This statement is malformed in the sense that it would be correct in a vacuum, however in the real world 99.99~% of those who believe creator myths don't believe that they are a theory, they believe them to be 100% the truth. Evolution however is the best possible explanation based on available evidence. Note that no part of evolution explains how life started, that's abiogenesis which among scientists is still heavily debated and there is no officially accepted prevailing theory, though the majority still understand that the primordial ooze hypothesis is the most plausible.

I'll say it another way. No reputable scientist will ever try to tell you that they know how life on earth began, no reputable scientist will tell you that evolution is 100% fact. If they do they are either a. full of it, or b. sick of saying "the most plausible explanation based upon tangible evidence available at this time" every time just to avoid some creationist going 'aha!'.

Originally Posted by Toofliss [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"Asking that creationism be taught in school is asking that the christian specific religion is taught in school, and asking for it to be taught in science class is asking for it to be taught in totally the wrong arena. "

Who said anything about that? Look at my past posts, I'm admitted that I'm not solid on my faith in being a Christian. And teaching Christianity isn't what I would ask for in science class. How certain are you that there wasn't some super intelligent thing/it that put all of this together? Is that really harder for you to believe than the random chance that all these observable laws in our sandbox just 'happen' to be? If you want to talk miraculous, that would be it -- just by chance, all of these laws work together to sustain this environment/life? That's the biggest coincidence I've ever been asked to swallow.

This is easy to understand yet at the same time hard for me to put into clear words but I'll do my best.
The universe has a series of laws, gravity, thermodynamics, physics, etc.. There is no evidence that the universe has ever had a different set of laws or that the laws can be or ever have been bent (in 15.6 billion years if you want to get technical).
Science does not try to explain why those laws are there, science only asks 'how do they work?'.
With 15.6 billion years to have gravity, thermodynamics, energy, matter, and all forms of physics doing whatever they have been doing, coupled with the vastness of space, Trillions of galaxies each containing trillions of stars, you cannot tell me that it took a miracle for a planet of the earth's size/compisition to orbit 1AU away from an orange/yellow star.
Even in our own solar system there is speculation that several frozen moons might contain subsurface oceans containing life.
You don't even need a planet our size orbiting the 'habitable zone' of a star, a large moon orbiting a gas giant could have the right ingredients for life.
Recently, just here on earth we found a type of bacteria that uses arsenic to build it's DNA/RNA unlike every other known lifeform on the planet.
All of those possibilities with our limited knowledge. You seem to be implying that the more we learn the less likely life will be found somewhere else when in fact the exact opposite is true.

I will thank you for not using the word 'random' though. Too many people misuse the word when they talk about the universe forming. The laws have been there for as long as the universe has existed, there is no such thing as random in astro-physics.

Originally Posted by Toofliss [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Little closer to the sun, little further away, little different climate...oops, no life and no Earth. We're just super lucky that it happened this way? We can observe gravity and many other natural laws. We take it for fact because time and time again we can test them and they behave the same way. Have you ever stopped to ask WHY they work this way? How fucking lucky for us! Pure coincidence.

This is another malformed question. As explained before, science doesn't ask nor care about 'why', it cares about 'how'.
Even more malformed is your begging "How fucking lucky for us". The earth is here, that's why we are here. Before you were born you didn't exist, you weren't some spirit in limbo thinking to yourself "oh boy, I hope I luck out and get born".

Originally Posted by Toofliss [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Maybe God is a bunch of aliens who are laughing their asses off watching us try to figure it out. Maybe The Matrix (movie) is right, maybe we're all just a computer program and none of this is real.

This ignores the spirit of the thread which is about religion (your example of advanced aliens would still make religion incorrect anyway).

Originally Posted by Toofliss [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But to honestly reflect on all of the perfection around us and say that it's impossible that some super intelligent thing created this setting -- I can't really believe that you're being honest with yourself if you can dismiss it that easily.

The universe may be beautiful, amazing, and wondrous but it's far from perfect. Entropy, black holes, gamma ray bursts, stars burning out, heck, even minor things like giant meteors hitting the planet wiping out most of the planet's life (circa 65mil years ago). Suffice to say, it's far from perfect... from the perspective of us fragile carbon-based lifeforms at least.

Originally Posted by Toofliss [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In fact, I find that more probable than mere coincidence. Many of my anti-God friends explain away so much by the term coincidence, but just how far can you go to think that this is all mere chance/luck?

Damnit, I thanked you too soon for not using 'random' and here you come with this chance/coincidence/luck stuff. These are concepts, they don't actually exist. Odds are based upon probability and variance, not luck or chance.

Also, your friends are wrong. Intelligence isn't a qualification to being an atheist, it's simply preferred. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by Toofliss [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I felt the need to reply to this part in particular. How many times and how many amazing laws must we uncover before we have enough proof that something beyond our comprehension must have come up with all of these laws. How arrogant are we as a species to think that there is nothing we can't comprehend. Nothing is too complex that we can't understand it. Don't get me wrong, I fully support constantly looking for explanations for the world in which we live but I've come to accept that we'll never fully understand it all.

This one seems out of character from your previous posts actually, you mentioned that you not only believe there is a higher power out there, but explicitly stated that you believe it's a christian one. I would argue that the arrogant one is one who has the audacity to choose one god over the plethora of other available gods when you have only faith to guide you.

I'd also like to point out that your assertion that we believe we will one day know everything is completely baseless. We will probably never know 'everything'. There are tons of concepts that are too complex to even begin to understand or so far away that we'll never reach them to be able to study them.

Originally Posted by Toofliss [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That along with what I see as overwhelming evidence for there being some greater being that put all of this together in perfect harmony leads me to believe in a creator. If I'm intellectually honest, I find that less of a stretch than some of the explanations currently found in science textbooks for the origin of life.

You have every right to have this belief.
The issue that arises is when you take a rational argument:
"I find intelligent design of some sort to be more plausible than abiogenesis and I'm going to hold my breath on speciation until I see a bit more evidence than what's already on the table"
and turn it into:
"Your theory isn't perfect so I know that evolution is bunk and that it was in fact Yehovah who did it. I also know that the afterlife is real and we will be punished if we don't follow Jesus's son's teachings".

If you can't see the problem with that, I honestly don't know what to tell you at that point.