Is there such a thing as a Christian?

Of course. Its in our nature. At some point in our lives, we are going to hurt and we're going to be hurt. I still don't think its a bad idea to attempt to live by the philosophy "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." I try to be conscious of the hurt I cause others, so that I can apologize and attempt to right a wrong. Forgiveness and repentance are big themes in Christianity as well. I find myself identifying with the more gentle aspects of Christianity.

I dont think violence in the form of self-defense is anything more than self -preservation. A person can't be held accountable for trying to survive, for this is animalistic nature. That is one thing thats always bothered me about Christianity: It places humans above animals, when we are actually one in the same. Actually, considering humans are the only species on earth that have problems living in harmony with their surroundings, I would go as far as to say we are inferior to other animals

I'm reading The Antichrist by Neitzsche right now, so the subject of self-preservation vs Christian principles is actually really interesting to me. I haven't gotten very far in the book, but from what I can tell the basic philosophy of it is that Christianity goes against our very basic instinctual nature in that the earth and its animals must constantly fight for survival, and by bringing such Christian ideals as Pity and Charity into the equation, we completely mess up the balance of the world and overpopulate. This is true enough, but it doesn't make me want to turn my back on these principles and step on everybody in my climb to the top of the food chain.

Hurting others for self-preservation is instinctual, but I also wonder if uniquely human traits such as pity and empathy are not instinctual also. I know Christianity as a whole likes to think that the religion is what instills these values in people and makes them better than animals. Thats obviously not true, but are those traits learned behavior or innate? One of my earliest memories is seeing my brother cry and feeling so bad because he felt bad. Was my empathy instinctual or something I picked up from my parents at a very early age?

 

oops I didn't read all the posts before I made my last post, I guess someone already touched on the philosophy of Nietzsche. I agree with your statement that altruism is a functional component of human evolution.

 

Altruism? What is altruistic about the recognition that in this world we exist for and with each other?

 

The truth sets us free, not our moral compass.

 

I don't agree that Bin Laden or company did that but I see what you're saying. Yes it is "bad" to most, but you have to get outside your own head for a moment. To them it was perfectly justified, therefore it was not wrong.

I agree. We can share common morals and wants, but they do not have to comprise one single set of morals for all to follow.

I don't think they do. I think they free up preconceived notions and the idea that there is always a right and wrong. Well, "right" in one situation can be "wrong" in another. Morality is the tool used by the individual. We are always in control of it, we always possess our own, how we choose to use it is up to us. It can be used for "evil/bad" or it can be used for "love/good." How we choose to use it is our choice, and it is ultimately the person using it who decides the the measure of it (good, bad, evil, etc.) If something is right to me but wrong to you, who is actually the "right" person in that argument? The person with whom most people would side? Or are they both right? I think perspectivism can help answer this,

"all ideations take place from particular perspectives. This means that there are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives in which judgment of truth or value can be made. This implies that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does not necessarily entail that all perspectives are equally valid"

Here is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You refer to Nietzsche's philosophy as "sociopathic" and to you that's what it is. I think you are wrong, but technically you are not wrong because that's what it is to you. Essentially we can both be right at the same time having different opinions on the same subject.

I'm not going to get deep into the Nazi's use of Nietzsche's philosophy. He knew well in advance it would be used for something terrible like that. The Nazi's adopted his philosophy largely because they didn't understand it. They used the term "god is dead" greatly out of context and on top of that they took his philosophy to be something greatly nihilistic, completely ignoring the fact that the motif to all of Nietzsche's writing is "passion in life". The ability to give a life completely devoid of any meaning a meaning as the way to live one's life in the way they see fit.

The Nazi's took this to mean life is pointless, there is no god, so we will be the rulers here on earth. One cannot control after their death what happens to their work. The Nazi's adopted Nietzsche's work on their own accord and used it out of context. It's as simple as that. Unfortunately it put a stain on the work of the greatest thinker of all time.

His work is ultimately about freedom, passion, and the individual. The individuals ability to give their own life meaning through their passions.


I'm sure you can see how something like the following quote can be taken out of context. It happens all the time to the bible.

 

Our moral compass can help us find truth. What is true to me may not be true to you, that doesn't mean either of us is wrong.

A christian can believe god's way is truth, someone else can think that's wrong. Who is right then? I say both. Truth for the most part is only ever that which is true to oneself.

 

If by moral compass you mean a sense of our own good functioning, then I agree with you. A mind without anxiety is wholly kind, that is what I mean by the truth sets us free.

 

Yes, and a person who possess a quiet mind is usually the master of themselves, hence they don't always get caught up on right and wrong, which can cause anxiety to begin with. If we are told we're wrong, or if we worry we are not doing what is right or not, we become anxious. If we assure ourselves that all is well, whatever we do is doing right by ourselves, then all is truly well and good. Regardless if someone tries to tell us otherwise.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3icBcr1_Tw"]YouTube- Drive-By Truckers - 'Never Gonna Change'

 

There seems to be a struggle between the view of the word moral implicating something we hold true as an individual or rather as a group. There is validity to both, with religion it can be seen as a group perspective, but interestingly enough still held by an individual. So there are going to be some differences even amongst the same denominations of Christianity. It seems historically accurate to think that many people will hold their behavior as right while others view it as wrong, but I contest to it all, seeing all Religious beliefs and moral views on a level more dreamt up than universal truth can be seen on. Depending on how persuaded against intuition we seem to be, we can rely on intuition to guide us. At least this is what I found in my experience, but that is just something one can call relative or entirely discredit.

So...No there are no Christians, just because in the end none will be "Christian" They will have acted and lived to completion the fruit of it, there will be no name for that, and eventually no name for nothing.

Religion can be a great tool in revealing our underlying being, but then again it can serve to spoil it, and guide your being with fabrications.

I do submit my opinion then that compassion is something found in animal instinct as much the fierce mechanism to survive.

I know this is very incoherent, as is my way, but I also want to add as a conclusion that...

There would then be no need to feel someone as a true Christian or what else if they were acting out of truth, but in that it can be found that Christianity as well as other religions serve as a path to your own true sense of being complete.

Bleh

 

Not every Christian is insightful as you are though. It is widely accepted that evolution is wrong, and gays should be shunned for doing something they like, or that people who don't want to live in the bible deserve eternal hellfire or death by the hands of a believer.

This is all in the face of human rights, logic, reason, millions of years of proof, complex and easily understandable data, rigorous testing and much, much more.

People can disregard logic because its not required to understand god.

To think, its actually possible to understand everything without understanding anything.

Humans are not the only animal who 'destroys' its own environment.

Off the top of my head i can think of elephants and Hawaiian pigs.

Also, I don't advocate a great deal of humanism towards (most) animals because, while they have pain and fear, it is equivalent to your computer alerting you that your processor is overheating.

They feel pain and fear but they don't experience its subjective qualities like we do. To a human, pain is experienced as a feeling that we don't like. In animals, its just a feeling they try and avoid so they can possibly reproduce. Insects are not complex enough to have an opinion about feelings.

Hurting others for self-preservation is not instinctual.

It could be if a child was raised in an institution that demanded that he did, but that is only the case these days because of religious families (and a lot of other stuff)

A father telling his son that God made the universe is essentially hurting him. Not only is he NOT explaining the universe to his child, he is multiplying variables unnecessarily (saying things exist when they don't, and distorting what it means to understand things).
On the other hand, a father explaining evolution is not advocating self-preservation, but is instead explaining empirical data, which changes all the time with our collective understanding.

The only truths that have to be preserved through lineage are historical facts. What is true in the universe is self evident.

Feelings aren't learned, they are built into your brain.

Evolution has been tuning our species for millions of years. Killers can be made because humans are so good at adapting, hence our food chain position on earth.

The few sentences above sound conflicting because this is a complex subject. It is in us to be social creatures, and to feel what other people feel because humans need other humans to survive.

 

As you keep mentioning evolution and science and seem to feel it gives you a strong footing for your position, I thought I would supply you with some quotes from individuals directly involved;

"The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove."
(Dr Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize winner and eminent evolutionist)

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."
(Dr A Fleishmann, Zoologist, Erlangen University)

"It is good to keep in mind ... that nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation of micromutations. Darwin's theory of natural selection has never had any proof, yet it has been universally accepted."
(Prof. R Goldschmidt PhD, DSc Prof. Zoology, University of Calif. in Material Basis of Evolution Yale Univ. Press)

"The theory of the transmutation of species is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency."
(Prof. J Agassiz, of Harvard in Methods of Study in Natural History)

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."
(Dr Ambrose Fleming, President, British Assoc. Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought)

"Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words."
(Lord Kelvin, Vict. Inst., 124, p267)

"We have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the views of conservative creationists."
(Evolutionist Edmund Ambrose)

"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."
(Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolutionist)

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it ... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution ... if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."
(Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist and mathematician, Cambridge University)

"It is easy enough to make up stories, of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."
(Luther D Sutherland, Darwin's Enigma, Master Books 1988, p89)

"Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond ... anything produced by the intelligence of man?"
(Molecular biologist Michael Denton, Evolutionist: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985) p 342.)

"When I make an incision with my scalpel, I see organs of such intricacy that there simply hasn't been enough time for natural evolutionary processes to have developed them."
(C Everett Koop, former US Surgeon General)

"Modern apes ... seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans ... is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."
(Lyall Watson, Ph.D., Evolutionist)

"Although bacteria are tiny, they display biochemical, structural and behavioural complexities that outstrip scientific description. In keeping with the current microelectronics revolution, it may make more sense to equate their size with sophistication rather than with simplicity ... Without bacteria life on earth could not exist in its present form."
(James A Shipiro, Bacteria as Multicellular Organisms, "Scientific America, Vol.258, No.6 (June 1988))

"Eighty to eighty-five percent of earth's land surface does not have even 3 geological periods appearing in 'correct' consecutive order ... it becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geologic periods."
(John Woodmorappe, geologist)

"That a mindless, purposeless, chance process such as natural selection, acting on the sequels of recombinant DNA or random mutation, most of which are injurious or fatal, could fabricate such complexity and organisation as the vertebrate eye, where each component part must carry out its own distinctive task in a harmoniously functioning optical unit, is inconceivable. The absence of transitional forms between the invertebrates retina and that of the vertebrates poses another difficulty. Here there is a great gulf fixed which remains inviolate with no seeming likelihood of ever being bridged. The total picture speaks of intelligent creative design of an infinitely high order."
(H.S.Hamilton (MD) The Retina of the Eye - An Evolutionary Road Block.)

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed."
(N.H.Nilson, famous botanist and evolutionist)

"None of five museum officials could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilised organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another."
(Luther Sunderland, science researcher)

"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, but it has spawned a science because it is distinguished by two factors which inflate its apparent relevance far beyond its merits. First, the fossils hint at the ancestry of a supremely self- important animal - ourselves. Secondly, the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. Hence the amazing quantity of literature on the subject ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man."
(John Reader, Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus? New Scientist Vol. 89, No.12446 (March 26,1981) pp 802-805))

"The evolutionist thesis has become more stringently unthinkable than ever before."
(Wolfgang Smith Ph.D.)

"The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation."
(Niles Eldridge, PhD., palaeontologist and evolutionist, American Museum of Natural History).
Darwin's Own Confession

"Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."
(Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters)

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
(Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, chapter "Difficulties")

"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp ... moreover, for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully."
(Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D., physicist and mathematician)

"As yet we have not been able to track the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present."
(Chester A Arnold, Professor of Botany and Curator of Fossil Plants, University of Michigan, An Introduction to Paleobotany (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1947, p.7)

"The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated."
(John Adler with John Carey: Is Man a Subtle Accident, Newsweek, Vol.96, No.18 (November 3, 1980, p.95)

"...most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favour of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true."
(Dr David Raup, Curator of geology, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago)

"Despite the bright promise that palaeontology provides means of 'seeing' Evolution, it has provided some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and palaeontology does not provide them."
(David Kitts, Ph.D. Palaeontology and Evolutionary Theory, Evolution, Vol.28 (Sep.1974) p.467)

"Hundreds of scientists who once taught their university students that the bottom line on origins had been figured out and settled are today confessing that they were completely wrong. They've discovered that their previous conclusions, once held so fervently, were based on very fragile evidences and suppositions which have since been refuted by new discoveries. This has necessitated a change in their basic philisophical position on origins. Others are admitting great weaknesses in evolution theory."
(Luther D Sutherland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition (Santee, California: Master Books,1988) pp.7-8)

"The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied in 'hard' science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds."
(Ludwig von Bertalanffy, biologist)

"Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified, or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical theory. I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: ... I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?"
(S Lovtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (London:Croom Helm, p.422))

"If one allows the unquestionably largest experimenter to speak, namely nature, one gets a clear and incontrovertible answer to the question about the significance of mutations for the formation of species and evolution. They disappear under the competitive conditions of natural selection, as soap bubbles burst in a breeze."
(Evolutionist Herbert Nilson, Synthetische Artbildung (Lund, Sweden:Verlag CWK Gleerup Press, 1953, p 174)

"In all the thousands of fly-breeding experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years, a distinct new species has never been seen to emerge ... or even a new enzyme."
(Gordon Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (New York: Harper and Row, 1983, pp 34, 38)

"The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."
(George Simpson, palaeontologist and Evolutionist)
Fossils

"As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record."
(Tom Kemp, Oxford University)

"The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools ... Clearly some refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated: if only they had the evidence..."
(William R Fix, The Bone Pedlars, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, p.150)

"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places."
(Francis Hitching, archaeologist).

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply."
(J.O'Rourke in the American Journal of Science)

"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of palaeontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation."
(Dr Gary Parker Biologist/palaeontologist and former ardent Evolutionist.)

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and palaeontology does not provide them."
(David Kitts, palaeontologist and Evolutionist)

"... I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm tree have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition."
(Dr Eldred Corner, Professor of Botany at Cambridge University, England: Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961, p.97))

"Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation."
(Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist/palaeontologist and former evolutionist)

"So firmly does the modern geologist believe in evolution up from simple organisms to complex ones over huge time spans, that he is perfectly willing to use the theory of evolution to prove the theory of evolution [p.128] ... one is applying the theory of evolution to prove the correctness of evolution. For we are assuming that the oldest formations contain only the most primitive and least complex organisms, which is the base assumption of Darwinism ... [p.127] If we now assume that only simple organisms will occur in old formations, we are assuming the basic premise of Darwinism to be correct. To use, therefore, for dating purposes, the assumption that only simple organisms will be present in old formations is to thoroughly beg the whole question. It is arguing in a circle. [p.128]"
(Arthur E Wilder-Smith, Man's Origin, Man's destiny: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1968, pp127-8)

"It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms they contain."
(R H Rastall, Lecturer in Economic Geology, Cambridge University: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol.10 (Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, p.168)

"I admit that an awful lot of that [fantasy] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now, I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we have a problem."
(Dr Niles Eldredge, Palaeontologist and Evolutionist)

Apparently it requires just as much blind faith to believe in evolution as commonly taught as it does to believe in Christianity.

please note the almost all of these people were ones who devoted great time and energy in support of evolutionary theory, and not Bible thumpers. The science just doesn't support it.

 

We could talk about why its a better idea than creationism if you'd like.

Or we could consider selective breeding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nmkj5gq1cQU"]YouTube- Meet the Super Cow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_selection

 

I personally am undecided on the whole deal. Never declared myself to be a creationist in the popular "Christian" sense.
But I am intelligent enough and understand the scientific process and what constitutes "good" science from bad to know that evolutionary theory just doesn't stand up too hard scrutiny. I have already done my homework and had my debates, and was completely open to any possibility. But the more I learned and studied the more apparent it became that evolution as commonly taught and accepted is comprised of mostly conjecture, guesswork and just plain bad science.

I am not interested in debating the topic, just thought you may want to do your homework a little more before you decide to hang your hat on a theory and cast ridicule on others that don't agree with it.

You don't have to be Christian or religious at all to not accept evolution, just intelligent and discerning enough to look at the facts and evidence.
As I pointed out, most of those quotes are from people who studied it and strove to validate it, they are just honest enough to admit it doesn't stand up to hard scrutiny, even Darwin himself.

 

Maybe we can all agree on conscious evolution since it's what we're now doing?

Let's make the best of all terms, and humour the ill back to health!

 

I quite enjoy your posts heeh2. You explain things in a simple manner.

This part however seems to have grey area. While I agree that insects probably don't have the mental capacity to have an opinion of, or a thought of pain outside of actually neurologically registering it, I'm not as sure about domesticated pets. I see that you wrote "most" (indicating you don't think that of all animals), I'm just noting something I have noticed. Domestic pets seem to take after humans much more than wild animals. I've often seen pets who seem to feel ridiculed, sad, longing, embarrassed, etc. I think they most likely have picked this up off of humans over the many years due to living in such close proximity. I noticed the same thing in my niece when she was a baby. If one responded a certain way, she learned to mimick that response in similar situations, even though she may not have actually felt the emotion behind the response.

That may be so, but to inflict pain for personal gain (hunting) is instinctual. We may simply not yet be far enough along the evolutionary ladder to completely "turn off" the inflicting pain switch when it comes to humans. It seems to be more of an "all or nothing" thing. One either inflicts pain when deemed necessary, or does not inflict pain at all. Most men who would hit or beat a woman or child would most likely also kill a cat or dog if they felt it was necessary.

I don't feel that statement is quite accurate. I don't think killers are made because humans are good at adapting. I think humans kill because it was and sometimes still is necessary for our own personal survival and the survival of our species. It's inborn. There are killers because the ability to kill is inherently human, necessary to an extent.

 

You may think it's a better idea, but that is not what science or scientific proofs are about.
You make statements implying that evolution is verified as fact when that is far from the reality.

Just by your thinking that selective breeding and natural selection or adaptation of a species to it's environment is the same as evolution just confirms that you do not understand the topic and maybe need to do more non-biased investigation and get an education about it.

Frankly there is nothing to debate, go investigate for your self. Look at both sides of the equation, even if it does conflict with your feelings about it.

First step is to remove it from a religious context and look at it from a purely scientific approach. Then you may be open to new ideas.

 

You bring the good stuff and I'll bring the sitar and star chart

 

I figured a person is a christian if they truely belive that jesus died for there sins becasue he was a pure sacrifice, Mary had him out of a virgin birth, and that He was the true son of God otherwise they are just like anybody else. I see it as more of a spirtuality thing not really a religion. I also belive its personal and not to be some kind of pyrimid scheme

 

Surviving is instinctual. The fact that surviving might require inflicting pain doesn't mean survival automatically includes doing that.

These things we have called feelings sometimes render killing "necessary". For example, the event in which conviction towards a belief (usually religious) are acted on.

The 9-11 attacks.
Preventing gay people from marrying.
Preventing white and black people from marrying.
The list goes on and on.....

People dont realize that your emotions are your own. We can share and transmit emotions mutually but I think we should regard our relationship with one another in a rational manner, not a biased emotional one.

Exactly how many scientific alternatives to evolution are there? Because I've never heard of one.