Radioactive dating is accurate. the rate of decay of a radioisotope is determined by its mass and a physical constant. because we know this we can then extrapolate a graph to what in other circumstances would be laughable, because for astrophysics to work in any way, our constants stay constant.

I often wonder what creationists want from a transitional fossil. It seems they will accept nothing less than the back half of a dinosaur attached to the front half of a chicken. It is also ridiculous to propose that we have a lack of transitional fossils. even if there was a shortage the percentage of organisms is so small that it still would not be a problem.

In regards to macroevolution, why choose a species as a cut-off point. Our definition of a species is a complete and total mess. One example for those who care enough to look it up is the scottish crossbill.

Age = 17

BMI = 17.6

height = 6'4

weight = 147lb

The big bang is a fact. we have enough data about the background radiation of the universe for this to be the logical explanation of the universe's origin. It is perfectly possible for it to occur with current models of physics, which will be able to explain even more when we get gravity to make sense with quantum physics. There was not a vacuum before the universe; in fact, there was the exact opposite, a plenum or singularity. The density was infinite, which, had it been a vaccuum, would have been zero. so there is no real similarity between the universe's origin and God creating ex nihilo. Genesis can only be understood to have any value if it is read symbolically, the only way for it tohave happened as described would be if God was deliberately tricking us.

Free will is not inherently in conflict with an omnipotent deity, he could choose to give us it, even though he is fully capable to do otherwise. An omniscient God is harder to reconsile, although one could argue that if one had infinite information, one could predict everything with 100% certainty, even though there is no force demanding it happen thusly.

Plato's ideology never really attracted me, but I find some appeal in the logicality of a first cause and prime mover. This logicalityiswhy Aquinas used Aristotle, not Plato, to defend Christianity.

[QUOTE="Mr_Mohawk"][QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

I don't think that's entirely correct. In the UK, we had stong female leaders in pre-christian civilisations. For example, Boudicca defeated the Romans! Elsewhere in the world, famous female rulers are common too.

The catholic faith has to change as more people can't relate to the religion. The changes made are an attempt to reverse the trend away from organised and oppressive religions in the west.

Why does the church not lead the way? After all, they are supposed to look after the moral welfare of their flock. Why fall behind and begrudgingly change because they have to or they'll just fade away.

Another interesting thing about catholics is their stance on evolution. There is no official acceptance, aside from the notion of a "discussion" and some strange non-committal quotes from vparious popes since the 1950s.

RationalAtheist

Catholics believe in evolution.:|

Perhaps you do, but not all catholics do. The catholic doctrine certainly does not include it.

You do not represent all catholics, so you speak only for yourself. Even catholics in the same community have different interpretations of biblical stories and religious supertitions.

Pope Pius XII(?) made it official catholic doctrine, so they are supposed to.

Would you have a link?

Until then, I say not true.

Humani Generis

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

I don't think that's entirely correct. In the UK, we had stong female leaders in pre-christian civilisations. For example, Boudicca defeated the Romans! Elsewhere in the world, famous female rulers are common too.

The catholic faith has to change as more people can't relate to the religion. The changes made are an attempt to reverse the trend away from organised and oppressive religions in the west.

Why does the church not lead the way? After all, they are supposed to look after the moral welfare of their flock. Why fall behind and begrudgingly change because they have to or they'll just fade away.

Another interesting thing about catholics is their stance on evolution. There is no official acceptance, aside from the notion of a "discussion" and some strange non-committal quotes from vparious popes since the 1950s.

rimnet00

Catholics believe in evolution.:|

Perhaps you do, but not all catholics do. The catholic doctrine certainly does not include it.

You do not represent all catholics, so you speak only for yourself. Even catholics in the same community have different interpretations of biblical stories and religious supertitions.

Pope Pius XII(?) made it official catholic doctrine, so they are supposed to.

[QUOTE="Samwel_X"][QUOTE="astiop"][QUOTE="Samwel_X"]

"Dr.Strangelove : Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb" is considerably funnier than all the films you listed. So too is Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

MattUD1

No love for the life of brian?

I always preferred Holy Grail. Despite Life Of Brian being a fantastically funny film.

As to the question, all the python films are excellent but in my opinion, the south park film has to win.

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"][QUOTE="greenprince"]
Yes, there were problems on the Southern states but The North also presented positive behaviours and was against sexism and racism. Is it a coincidence that themost influentialperson who was fighting against racism was black? and that the women who foughtfor their rights were Christians too.RationalAtheist

Most people at the time had relgion forced upon them. It was not so much of a free choice as it is today. Most people in Western civilisation were christians.

Darwin wrestled with his chritian princliples for 10 years after writing "the Origin of Species" for fear of offence, before deciding it was too important not to publish.

Darwin's agnosticism has nothing to do with evolution, he lost faith after witnessing the cruelty in nature and the death of his 10 year-old daughter.