Evolution is True Because Life Needs It

Nor does it try to. You do know what the ToE says, don't you? Or do you just know what your pastor or AIG says? Would you mind explaining, in detail, what this has to do with evolution and where in the theory of evolution it states "well here, in this part of the theory, something has to come from nothing"? "Perfect order" of the universe? Surely you jest. Pop quiz hot shot: how much of the universe is habitable? What percentage of earth is habitable? First post and you already elicit defeat. As I said to another creo poster: do they preprogram you guys at the christian factory with persecution complex? It's fucking ingrained in you lot. Define faith because your usage of the term is rather skewed if you think "accepting mounds and mounds of evidence and reality" to equate to faith. (hint: the google machine will give you the defintion but it's up to you to actually learn the word) funny thing about you creo's: you could give a shit about this life if there's no pearly gates whereas atheists actually DO care about this life because it's the only one we've got. Who's morals are fucked and meaningless now?

You do realize the big bang wasn't..actually...an...explosion, right?{abe}
upon further dissection of your posts, I will say that if you wish to preach or proselytize, use the faith and belief section please. Over there you can preach about your skydaddy all you want.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

What is the "HoE"? Nope. I look at the world around me and come to evidence based conclusions. It just so happens that those conclusions agree with science and scientists..ya know, people who know that sort of thing? Oh, you meant the ToE, right? And no, you obviously do NOT know what it says or is. Otherwise you would know that it doesn't stand to address origins in this sense. I don't give two flying cock fucks what your contention is. I told you once already: this is the science section of EvC, leave your stupid fucking beliefs at the door or take them to the faith and belief side. We debate evidence here, not fairy tales. Unless you've got some evidence for this god character that is pertinent to the subject of evolution, you should stop bringing it up. Try again pal. It is belief in something with disregard to evidence. No, we wouldn't be having a debate if there weren't ignorant people who believed in bronze age desert myths. You people ignore evidence and reality and prove it time and again.If, at any point you would like to bring some evidence to your argument, we are all ears. Less preachy and more evidence. This isn't your pulpit.

The others have poked this wide open, so I'll just address your first line: So is a wolf of the dog kind too? What of a fox? Coyote? Dingo? Are ALL of these just different "kinds" of dogs?

Ahh, but "kind" is their term so it is up to them to define it. What you are doing is called "making sense" using fact and evidence: something unfamiliar with creationists.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

If you can get creationists to agree with you, I'd be all for it. However, that would entail them dropping the use of kind which doesn't seem to be happening. There is no sense in evolutionists assuming they mean clade but say kind, especially since it is not up to us to define their terms.