Debate: Creation & Evolution IN GENERAL

[Mel Ardran]

What's your view on creation in schools?

I personally don't see why the schools can think they can add evolution in schools (which is still a theory, not a fact) but not add creation in.

My view is, why not, at least, put BOTH creation and evolution in schools, put the views and let the students accept what they find as true.

But you know WHY creation is not allowed in schools? For that very reason. If the facts are given, then most students would obviously choose creation! The "facts" aren't really Genesis... that is a leap of faith that I believe we must believe. The facts are in the world around us! All facts lead back to creation, though evolutions will not admit it... and I bet once I get to the actual facts, evolutions will close down their minds, and probably not even read. I don't care I'll post anyway.

Does it strike anyone as funny that evolutionist scientists hide info? There's one of the missing links (forgot the name) that the bones were proven false by evolutionists themselves. But even after the facts are given the school books STILL publish it as FACT!?

Also... if evolution were true... of organisms have gradually changed into other organisms over time then there would be MANY fossils of intermediate forms. But there is NOT! Not ONE has been found! The fossil record records fish and amphibians... but no half-fish, half-amphibian...

Another fact is the rock layers... there's different layers and evolutions try and put different dinosaur bones in different layers hoping to explain the Cretaceous, Jurassic, etc... but what they won't tell you is that in each layer usually you can find EVERY species... You can find "Jurassic" dinosaurs in the "Cretaceous" layer and vis versa .

Darwin himself said evolution "seems absurd in the highest degree."

Also another well known fact is that mutation usually makes an animal LESS likely to survive. Never do we find an animal with a mutation that is actually better off than if he were normal!

Here's a good read-up link:

www.konig.org/wc216.htm

[Laryn En'faal]

Personally, I believe Evolution should be taught in schools, with creation (and any other origin theories) as a side note. Let the individual choose which to believe. But to outright ban any of them is unnecessary IMO.

Don't know why I'm even gonna go through with this next part, since debating with you can be like debating with a taco (except the taco is never, ever wrong.)..

Does it strike anyone as funny that evolutionist scientists hide info?

Scientists don't hide info (except for top secret government stuff, but that's beside the point). They do however withhold their findings until they are actually reasonably sure they are correct. To find a smashed skull and immediately proclaim the discovery of a major missing link would be stupid.

There's one of the missing links (forgot the name) that the bones were proven false by evolutionists themselves. But even after the facts are given the school books STILL publish it as FACT!?

I believe you're thinking of "Piltdown Man". I have never, EVER seen a textbook that proclaims it to be an actual species. Excepting textbooks published between the announcement of the 'discovery' in 1912 and the time it was revealed to be a fake in 1953. Those books, of course, are long out of date and no longer used in schools.

Also... if evolution were true... of organisms have gradually changed into other organisms over time then there would be MANY fossils of intermediate forms. But there is NOT! Not ONE has been found! The fossil record records fish and amphibians... but no half-fish, half-amphibian...

Wrong. Plenty such intermediate organisms have been found. Take for example Archaeopteryx, which shares common physical features with both modern birds and dinosaurs. Evolution occurs over an incredibly slow period, with only the tiniest, often non-observable change between generations. It's not like they'd go straight from fish to half-fish to frog in three neat steps. As an example, take the modern lungfish. They are clearly fish, yet share some features with amphibians, such as the ability to live out of water, and fin lobes (very possibly an early predecessor to the leg). It is conceivably related to the earliest fish ancestors of amphibians. If it is not though, it appears to be undergoing the same evolutionary process. No, you are not going to see this happen by next week, but some day in the future its descendants might live exclusively on land.

Another fact is the rock layers... there's different layers and evolutions try and put different dinosaur bones in different layers hoping to explain the Cretaceous, Jurassic, etc... but what they won't tell you is that in each layer usually you can find EVERY species... You can find "Jurassic" dinosaurs in the "Cretaceous" layer and vis versa .

Wrong again. These time periods are BASED ENTIRELY on the distribution of fossils. To say that scientists have artificially categorized fossils into these preexisting groups is almost a paradox. If there was no fossil succession there would BE no geologic time periods. While you may find more primitive dinosaurs in higher (more recent) layers (these are descendants of the earlier species), you will basically NEVER find more modern dinosaur species in older rock layers. The only way you'd ever find a Tyrannosaurus skeleton in Jurassic sediments unless you dug a hole and buried it there yourself. (contrary to what the movies may tell you, Tyrannosaurus rex lived ONLY in the Cretaceous Period).

Darwin himself said evolution "seems absurd in the highest degree."

Find me the passage where Darwin supposedly says this, in full. It screams 'out of context' to me.

Also another well known fact is that mutation usually makes an animal LESS likely to survive. Never do we find an animal with a mutation that is actually better off than if he were normal!

Well, you got something halfway right here. Mutations usually DO make an organism less fit to survive. The key word there being "usually" If every mutation made an organism more fit, evolution would happen pretty much overnight.
Never? Just because you've never seen a mutation with a positive outcome doesn't mean they never happen. The negative mutations are much more noticeable IMO, because the organism often dies or shows some handicap. An organism with a beneficial mutation is likely to go on living as normal, and scientists are less likely to notice. These beneficial changes are TINY, which is another reason evolution is such an enormously slow process. It can take thousands of generations of improvements, and ten times that number of less beneficial or harmful mutations before the offspring would be considered a new species.



Heck, I'll go WAY out on a limb and say, what if they're the same thing?! AFAIK, the Bible doesn't say how God created the universe or any of the things on this planet. There's no "and then thou taketh three cups of carbon and addeth it to twelve cups of water, and baketh it unitl it is golden brown and hairy" or any such thing. Perhaps Creation occurred one slow step at a time. Of course, this requires accepting the whole seven-days thing as metaphor, so you'll just dismiss it.

Okay, I'm out of here now

[Laryn En'faal]

This, by the way, is the "Evolution & Creation in Schools" thread. If you want to refute my ideas, please make or dig up an "Evolutionism vs. Creationism" thread to do it in.

In other words, BACK ON TOPIC

[Mel Ardran]

laryn said:

I believe you're thinking of "Piltdown Man". I have never, EVER seen a textbook that proclaims it to be an actual species. Excepting textbooks published between the announcement of the 'discovery' in 1912 and the time it was revealed to be a fake in 1953. Those books, of course, are long out of date and no longer used in schools.

You may not have, but I have.

Wrong. Plenty such intermediate organisms have been found. Take for example Archaeopteryx, which shares common physical features with both modern birds and dinosaurs. Evolution occurs over an incredibly slow period, with only the tiniest, often non-observable change between generations. It's not like they'd go straight from fish to half-fish to frog in three neat steps. As an example, take the modern lungfish. They are clearly fish, yet share some features with amphibians, such as the ability to live out of water, and fin lobes (very possibly an early predecessor to the leg). It is conceivably related to the earliest fish ancestors of amphibians. If it is not though, it appears to be undergoing the same evolutionary process. No, you are not going to see this happen by next week, but some day in the future its descendants might live exclusively on land.

You have one example and that's all. You yourself tell me that evolution is not a "three step process" and goes slowly... but you cannot give me examples of a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 process. All you can give me is an animal that is similar (but not close enough to be a next process).

About the Archaeopteryx, if you look closely at the fossils, you can clearly see that it is a true bird, with completely "modern" flight feathers and hollow bones like most birds today. It did have some unusual features, such as a small breastbone, teeth, an elongated tail, and claws on its wings, but several birds, including some still alive today, share many of these features. The mere fact that Archaeopteryx possessed some unusual features does not prove that reptiles evolved into birds.

Another interesting fact is that in a cave where evolutionist scientists claim took thousands of years to produce the layers, during a fierce rain storm produced many MANY layers. That being evidence that a world-wide flood is possible...

Find me the passage where Darwin supposedly says this, in full. It screams 'out of context' to me.

THE QUOTE: From the Origin of Species, CHAPTER VI - DIFFICULTIES OF THE THEORY
"Organs of extreme Perfection and Complication. 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. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

Heck, I'll go WAY out on a limb and say, what if they're the same thing?! AFAIK, the Bible doesn't say how God created the universe or any of the things on this planet. There's no "and then thou taketh three cups of carbon and addeth it to twelve cups of water, and baketh it unitl it is golden brown and hairy" or any such thing. Perhaps Creation occurred one slow step at a time. Of course, this requires accepting the whole seven-days thing as metaphor, so you'll just dismiss it.

If God would tell us everything he did we wouldn't be able to understand it. God is so huge and vast that he gives us the Bible to reveal some things to us, but in the Bible is tells us that the bigger things we must wait until our arrival at heaven for us to be told.

Dis proofing the "missing links" of apes to human:

Australopithecus afarensis:
Evolutionists say a great deal about the possible upright posture of A. afarensis, but the fact is, some modern pygmy chimpanzees (Pan Paniscus) are also capable of walking upright! A. afarensis is clearly an extinct chimpanzee!

Australopithecus africanus (Taung skull):
The fossil record indicates that A. africanus cannot be man's ancestor, because at least a half--dozen fully human fossils have been found that are "older" (by evolutionist reckoning) that A. africanus... what does this say about this fossil? It's clearly a hoax!

Homo habilis:
Evolutionists themselves disagree with this one... it was smaller than "Lucy" (which was "reported" to be before Homo habilis). So apparently man got taller (at adult stage) then got smaller (at adult stage) then got taller miraculously again? I think not...

Java Man:
The skull is the same as a Gibbon and the leg bone (which was found 50 feet away) is like that of a human. Can you say "hoax"?

Neanderthal Man:
Is said to have possessed certain apelike features such as heavy brows, sloping foreheads, and stooping posture. Other Neanderthals were discovered in other countries and did not show the same stooped posture as the first skeleton; the stooped posture and some of the more "apelike" features of the first skeleton may have been caused by "rickets", a disease caused by a deficiency of Vitamin D. Scientists today now classify Neanderthals as 100% human...

Cro-Magnon Man:
Was later proofed to be the same as modern day humans... they just had a bigger brain... so I guess this is the "next step just found early..."

Evolution of man shows no real progress in it's THEORIES...

People say that it takes a lot of faith to believe in Creation. But it takes a LOT of faith (likewise) to believe in evolution which can ALWAYS be disproved someway or another.

In the long run Creation is more scientifically than Evolution.

[Dac Bailu]

I'd like to sincerely appologize to everyone for this hell that I have unleashed. I assure you that it was not my intention. I merely mentioned the word "evolution" and, well, this happened.

Now I fear there is no stopping him.. where will we find our savior?

You're our only hope Walter. Godspeed.

[Mel Ardran]

Discussions don't have to turn into "an unleashed hell". It can be a mere discussion. I, without hatred or vengeance told you the mere facts. And without defending them you just posted that ^

[Laryn En'faal]

You may not have, but I have.

So one out-of-date, wrong textbook still in use is enough proof that evolution is a hoax?

You have one example and that's all. You yourself tell me that evolution is not a "three step process" and goes slowly... but you cannot give me examples of a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 process. All you can give me is an animal that is similar (but not close enough to be a next process).

That is not a flaw of evolution. That's a flaw of me. I'm not a paleontologist. I can't name every species of bird ancestor that has ever lived. That doesn't mean there aren't MANY more known species that are more like birds or more like dinosaurs than Archaeopteryx. I'll have to go digging through National Geographic to find more. Second, to assume that we've discovered them all is the height of human arrogance.

About the Archaeopteryx, if you look closely at the fossils, you can clearly see that it is a true bird, with completely "modern" flight feathers and hollow bones like most birds today. It did have some unusual features, such as a small breastbone, teeth, an elongated tail, and claws on its wings, but several birds, including some still alive today, share many of these features. The mere fact that Archaeopteryx possessed some unusual features does not prove that reptiles evolved into birds.

Some dinosaurs shared these features, too. More and more fossil evidence is indicaing that a lot of theropod dinosaurs posessed feathers for part or all of their life. Just because Archaeopteryx is closer to birds than dinosaurs, does not mean that it is completely unrelated to dinosaurs. That's just jumping to a conclusion without all evidence.

Another interesting fact is that in a cave where evolutionist scientists claim took thousands of years to produce the layers, during a fierce rain storm produced many MANY layers. That being evidence that a world-wide flood is possible...

Just because one storm produces many layers of sediment doesn't mean they all do. And the numbers you give are nonexistant. If the storm produced, lets say, 57 distinct layers, and there were maybe 300 layers in the cave in total, that would fsvor your arguement. BUT, if the cave contains 12,000 sediment layers, it would favor mine. Something more specific than "a lot" is needed here.

THE QUOTE: From the Origin of Species, CHAPTER VI - DIFFICULTIES OF THE THEORY
"Organs of extreme Perfection and Complication. 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. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

To me, it sounds more like he's saying "If someone had just walked up to me on the street and said I was descended from a monkey, I'd say they were crazy. But the more closely you look at this idea, the mroe sense it makes". Now, I can't be 100% sure of this. I'd have to ask Darwin himself. As of right now he's not available for interview, so that'll have to wait

If God would tell us everything he did we wouldn't be able to understand it. God is so huge and vast that he gives us the Bible to reveal some things to us, but in the Bible is tells us that the bigger things we must wait until our arrival at heaven for us to be told.

He also gives us the ability to reason and learn things for ourselves. To believe that we should just meander through life assuming we can not know what the Bible does not tell us is a pretty lame idea. If that were the case, God could've given us the same level of intelligence found in cows. In my opinion, to say that we are not meant to (or at least try to) learn the deeper truths of the universe belittles us, and belittles God.

Dis proofing the "missing links" of apes to human:

Honestly, this is the part I was looking forward to...

Australopithecus afarensis:
Evolutionists say a great deal about the possible upright posture of A. afarensis, but the fact is, some modern pygmy chimpanzees (Pan Paniscus) are also capable of walking upright! A. afarensis is clearly an extinct chimpanzee!

Humans are capable of walking upright. Clearly, humans are chimpanzees!

But wait! Your line of thought goes even FURTHER off base! Today, I saw a squirrel sit upright at my bird feeder. Clearly, we are all actually squirrels!

Australopithecus africanus (Taung skull):
The fossil record indicates that A. africanus cannot be man's ancestor, because at least a half--dozen fully human fossils have been found that are "older" (by evolutionist reckoning) that A. africanus... what does this say about this fossil? It's clearly a hoax!

All that says is that Australopithecus is not a direct ancestor. Not that it's not related at all.

Homo habilis:
Evolutionists themselves disagree with this one... it was smaller than "Lucy" (which was "reported" to be before Homo habilis). So apparently man got taller (at adult stage) then got smaller (at adult stage) then got taller miraculously again? I think not...

Heh. Haha. That's how evolution works. Each generation is better adapted to its environment than previous generations. There is lots of food. Homonids can grow larger. The climate changes (and don't say that doesn't happen. It does. Even you speak of a global flood.), and there is less food. Homonids grow smaller. The climate changes again. There is more food. Homonids can grow larger again.

Just within the last thousand years, the average height of humans has increased by several inches, thanks to the abundance of food made available by the invention of agriculture. I'm 6' 2". I'm on the taller end of average. Six hundred years ago, I would have been considered a giant.

Java Man:
The skull is the same as a Gibbon and the leg bone (which was found 50 feet away) is like that of a human. Can you say "hoax"?

I'm not sure your evidence is correct (and I won't bother to research, since no amount of evidence will change your mind), but if it is, hoaxes happen. Remember Piltdown Man? And I'm sure people have made some pretty wacky religious claims and passed them off as the real Word of God. No field is immune to it.

Peking Man:

Yowch. I bow before this crushing weight of evidence. Clearly Peking Man is not actually a squirrel.

Neanderthal Man:
Is said to have possessed certain apelike features such as heavy brows, sloping foreheads, and stooping posture. Other Neanderthals were discovered in other countries and did not show the same stooped posture as the first skeleton; the stooped posture and some of the more "apelike" features of the first skeleton may have been caused by "rickets", a disease caused by a deficiency of Vitamin D. Scientists today now classify Neanderthals as 100% human...

Point? It's long been agreed upon by evolutionists that Neanderthals were not human ancestors. If anything, they shared a common ancestor with us. However, they were not human, either. They were a separate species, incapable of breeding with Homo sapiens. For whatever reason, they went extinct. We didn't. Sad, eh?

Cro-Magnon Man:
Was later proofed to be the same as modern day humans... they just had a bigger brain... so I guess this is the "next step just found early..."

Again, point? No evolutionist says Cro-Magnons were another species any more. At most, they were a distinct culture. They also may be your ancestors, so don't go around dissing them.

Evolution of man shows no real progress in it's THEORIES...

On the contrary. It shows PLENTY of progress, which you would see if you stopped hiding behind your Bible and took a good, serious look. Creationism, has had the same tired rhetoric for the last three thousand years.

People say that it takes a lot of faith to believe in Creation. But it takes a LOT of faith (likewise) to believe in evolution which can ALWAYS be disproved someway or another.

In the long run Creation is more scientifically than Evolution.

It does take a lot of faith to believe in Creation. If you think that it takes that much faith to believe in evolution, then you're only getting the filtered, censored, Fundamentalist-ammo version. Evolution can be proven just as easily as creation. More easily in fact, since pretty much every fact found by rational, genuine, non-crackpot scientists proves evolution correct.

Oh, and look up the scientific definition of 'theory'. I quote:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts.

Creationists ALWAYS seem to confuse 'theory' with 'hypothesis'. A hypothesis is unproven. In science use, a theory is proven, and is nearly equal to fact.

Does that mean evolution is right? No. It could be a bit off. It could be way off. BUT, the theory was refined through years of research and evidence. Creationism is based solely off of part of a single book that was written thousands of years ago by, well, no one even knows WHO wrote it. And don't say it's the Word of God. Even if it originally was, I have not yet seen one that was hand written by Him. Nor was it published by Him. So, people had a hand in making it. And people are fallible. I've admitted to this. Several times already, in this debate alone, I've pointed out that I don't know all of the facts, and that evolutionists have gotten a fact wrong here or there. We're only human. So are you. Yet you seem blinded by the glare of your aura of self-righteousness.

I'm going to end this here and now, because I could refute your claims until my fingers are completely worn off, and you'd just continue hiding from my terrible opposing views. This is the difference between science and fundamentalism. Scientists can admit that they are sometimes wrong. Fundamentalists are too well programmed in exactly how and what to think.

I'm looking forward to tomorrow, when I can debate this subject with my #1 friend, who is a very faithful Christian. Because with her, I can have a real debate. As in both of us are open to other possibilities.

I've tried to be tolerant. I've tried to be accepting. That's my policy in life. But I have to say this now:

You are the sort of person who gives all devout Christians a bad name. Whenever someone presents you with opposing views, you stuff your fingers in your ears and provide the rhetoric you have been provided with by others of your sort (which does NOT count as objective evidence). Worse yet, you try to turn EVERY conversation toward religion. Every trivial little thing. It gets old FAST. Suffice it to say, that if you were the first Christian someone ever met, they would probably come to disregard all Christians as fanatics. Please, just get it in your head that faith is individual. If somoene is going to accept Christ as their savior, it will happen because of something personal. No amount of preaching is going to make it happen.

It's not in my nature to be confrontational. Truly, I hate it. But I had to get this thing said so I could move on.

Go on a hike. Go camping. There IS something out there more true than the Bible; namely, the actual universe God has created. See it all for yourself, THEN rething your concepts. A thing itself is always ten times better than the description in a book.

[Mel Ardran]

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


Don't you tell me my God is a monkey. God said he created us in HIS image from the beginning of time. Evolution does not fit into that, therefor it is false.

[jmcmatt]

You proved his point, Mel.

Waldo, will you marry me?

[Jango Reiss]

melardran said:

Don't you tell me my God is a monkey.

(Person who edited my post originally was neither an admin nor a mod, so it was not proper for them to edit it)

[Mel Ardran]

laryn said:

You are the sort of person who gives all devout Christians a bad name. Whenever someone presents you with opposing views, you stuff your fingers in your ears and provide the rhetoric you have been provided with by others of your sort (which does NOT count as objective evidence). Worse yet, you try to turn EVERY conversation toward religion. Every trivial little thing. It gets old FAST. Suffice it to say, that if you were the first Christian someone ever met, they would probably come to disregard all Christians as fanatics. Please, just get it in your head that faith is individual. If somoene is going to accept Christ as their savior, it will happen because of something personal. No amount of preaching is going to make it happen.

It's not in my nature to be confrontational. Truly, I hate it. But I had to get this thing said so I could move on.

Go on a hike. Go camping. There IS something out there more true than the Bible; namely, the actual universe God has created. See it all for yourself, THEN rething your concepts. A thing itself is always ten times better than the description in a book.

Waldo, if there is something explicitly told to be the truth in the Bible, then someone comes claiming that the complete opposite is in the Bible then there is no discussion.

And yes, if this world sees Christians as normal and doesn't see them as fanatics then there is something wrong. Sinners should see a difference in Christians. That's what makes Christians... Christ-like. Christ told us to be different, not blend in. They gave Christ a hard time.

Sad thing is, Christians today expect a bed of roses leading to heaven. They think all their problems will stop once their saved.

Mat 8:22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

Jesus emphasizes on leaving everything (every sin, every outside-of-the-Bible belief behind). We must follow Christ completely. Not half-heartedly.

They crucified Jesus, they stoned Stephen, Paul, do I expect any better than do have people give me a few ugly words? I think not. I am not going to leave the debate for a while.

[jmcmatt]

melardran said:

I am not going to leave the debate for a while.

Get back on topic or leaving the debate won't be your choice.

The debate is about Evolution and Creation in Schools, not how Jesus was different and so are you.

[Jango Reiss]

jmcmatt said:

melardran said:

I am not going to leave the debate for a while.

Get back on topic or leaving the debate won't be your choice.

The debate is about Evolution and Creation in Schools, not how Jesus was different and so are you.

This. I'll be forced to temporary ban you if you keep dragging every debate thread off topic.

[Mel Ardran]

jmcmatt said:

melardran said:

I am not going to leave the debate for a while.

Get back on topic or leaving the debate won't be your choice.

The debate is about Evolution and Creation in Schools, not how Jesus was different and so are you.

... One post... one measly post telling what I said... and you threaten to ban me because I'm off topic! I made the thread! It's my debate, my thread, and you're telling me I'm off topic because one post of talking about Jesus? Jesus has something to do with Creation you know! You can't make a thread about every topic in the world... some topics can actually branch out a little. Like Creation can branch out to the life of Jesus!

[jmcmatt]

That one post was off topic. If you want to debate something, make a specific thread for it. Just because you made the thread doesn't mean you can talk about whatever you wish.

Arguing about it is dragging everyone else off topic, so your one off-topic post leads to many others. If you feel the need to drag every topic onto your religion, make a catchall thread that you can link to when you feel the urge rising, and keep the rest of the debate threads clean.