Ah, didn't even notice ^_^

Welcome back, Turpz ^_^

Agreed. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Go and tell the majority of Christians in the US who support evolution that they're not proper Christians, then :P

*post terminated*

Very good - this series is probably your most engaging, IMO. I like the idea, and you're clearly executing it exceptionally well. Looking forward to the next in the series!

Hog phrased it perfectly; a very enjoyable read.

Let the odds be ever in your favour :lol:

Nice interview... That paint does look pretty epic ^_^ Your video especially is of high quality, as always. Agreed.

This really is an exceptional series. Something that's going to remain very popular amongst the newspaper's readers, IMO ;) As for this particular article... great as always! Looking forward to the next one :P One thing: "Peacekeepers"? :rolleyes:

You're welcome, and that's good - this is very well-written (very few grammar mistakes), actually, even if the content could be worked on ^_^

Yep, those were the days *sighs reminiscently* ^_^ Congrats Sel!

You do know I actually support evolution, and I am an atheist? :lol: However, I think that those who are against evolution here (already.dead, DirtFighter, skitee) should be allowed to put forth religious arguments against evolution, and that is what all three of them have done. And as for "evolution vs. religion", both can work together - they're not mutually exclusive, as you pointed out. Yes, this topic should stay on the discussion of evolution, but thay discussion does involve religion to an extent, IMO. And we were not debating about the existence of God; those who disagreed with evolution put forth their own religious arguments, which is what led us to discuss these particular arguments in more detail.

OK, that makes sense. I personally don't have an issue with G having helped out here.

Well, from the first posts onwards (one of which was made by a moderator), religion was always going to be a key issue when discussing evolution. The two theories are just too closely intertwined. Agreed with all of the sentences I have quoted here. No one belief should be considered to be "blind", as you said.

Considering they're pretty much the same process on a different scale, I think that it is possible that too much distinction is being made by non-evolutionists between the two. I personally believe that the ability to reason/have free will is not something you either do or don't have. I think it works with a scale; monkeys actually do have some reasoning skills, greatly inferior to those of humans but superior to those of other animals. Other animals also share this limited ability to reason; it's just that humans are more evolved (ie further down the line) than other animals, and so our ability to reason and do what we wish is much greater than that of other animals, who operate largely on instinct. However, let's not forget that we do not operate entirely on reasoning ourselves. Occasionally, in life or death situations, instinct kicks in with us too as human beings (to fight or to flee?), whether right or wrong. How would you explain this lack of total free will, if we were created in God's likeness, and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (thus claiming free will)?

First Lieutenant.

Hichi won ok bro. Back on-topic ^_^

1. The perfection of the human body evolved over millions of years, from a simple life form to a more complex one. Same with science - it 'developed' over the course of evolution. Look at modern technology - how does one explain the apparent perfection of one of the world's few supercomputers? Because they were developed from the basics upwards. 2. Could you expand on what you mean specifically by this question? 3. Wikipedia on macro-evolution: "Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales." The sources for that last sentence include various well-supported books by scientists on the matter. Therefore, both types of evolution actually work under the same concepts. Also: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ 4. Take the example of a tree: At the base, the branches are connected - there is no clear distinguishment between them, just as it can be assumed that animals at that point could have had qualities of both mammals and reptiles. As you move up the branches, they separate as they become more complex, until you end up with completely separate branches. Animals towards the ends of the branches, assuming the progression along the branches of this tree represents the progression of time, do not have the properties of other branches, as they have distanced themselves from each other in becoming more complex. Travelling along the tree, in order to get from the tip of one branch to the tip of another, would be a much longer distance than getting from the base of one branch to another. In this way, as time has progressed, different classes of species have become both more complex and further apart.

Hmm... The points you make here are good ones. Looking back, though I believe my complaint to be valid, I probably did not make it in the correct way at some points. For example, I shouldn't have responded to his matchstick comment in the way I did. My apologies, Irontank.

Well this got a bit off-topic o.O

The content of this article is longer than previously, which is good. Also, I'm glad to see you haven't tried to go for half-humour, half-fact, and have stuck to one theme ^_^ However, the actual content fails to engage the reader. It's well-written, yes, but rather boring as an article. It contains some interesting snippets of info, but unfortunately, a lot of it is stuff that readers already know... so maybe this article would be something good to refer back to in a year in order to see what went on at this time, but it's not something I'd enjoy reading currently. TBH, that's kind of why I included the humour when I wrote the first few articles of this series; to make it all more interesting. I'm not sure the idea actually works very well without it. Just my opinion - overall, a decent but unremarkable article. It is an improvement on last time, though.

One twin sister ^_^

Well, I'm a bit confused why you say this now... since the last 7 pages are full of religion-based posts, and the discussion seems to have been going OK (with a couple of exceptions) :huh:

Great idea! Aha... This means we can draw our entries? Definitely going to enter, then ^_^

Great questions, good responses, very nicely laid out with quotes interspersed in picture form. Excellent article.