Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Cap on February 21, 2007, 05:01:35 PM
-
If we chose to execute all murderers or take away abortion, which would you choose? It's a life either way and either way it is thinning out the US population.
I prefer to kill those who are on death row or serving life but then again, I have a punitive nature about me.
-
anyone that has been proven beyond any doubt to have commited murder, execute them. saddam style.
there is nothing an unborn child has done to deserve to die.
-
anyone that has been proven beyond any doubt to have commited murder, execute them. saddam style.
there is nothing an unborn child has done to deserve to die.
I totally agree. How can amnesty international support these things and then the same hippy liberal minded people say that a woman should be able to kill her unborn child? Damn, maybe I should move to India because if I want to kill my wife, they just don't care. ;D
-
Apples and oranges.
Murderers are independent biological organisms capable of sustaining their own lives.
Legally abortable fetuses are parasitic biological organisms incapable of life without the support of a host organism. [They're also usually too small to see with the naked eye. ::) ]
I would express a hope that this will help. But I know it won't. :)
-
Apples and oranges.
Murderers are independent biological organisms capable of sustaining their own lives.
Legally abortable fetuses are parasitic biological organisms incapable of life without the support of a host organism. [They're also usually too small to see with the naked eye. ::) ]
I would express a hope that this will help. But I know it won't. :)
You call a baby a 'parasite', and yet still expect to be taken seriously in this debate?
Or do you already realise you won't be?
-
Apples and oranges.
Murderers are independent biological organisms capable of sustaining their own lives.
Legally abortable fetuses are parasitic biological organisms incapable of life without the support of a host organism. [They're also usually too small to see with the naked eye. ::) ]
I would express a hope that this will help. But I know it won't. :)
So you wouldn't liken abortion to genocide? According to your position about parasitic leeches, can we exterminate all those who leech of us workers and collect welfare? They cannot sustain themselves without aid. How about the starving people around the world that receive aid? They are leeches. Without you 5 dollar/month contribution they would die. It is a rough analogy but it fits.
-
So you wouldn't liken abortion to genocide? According to your position about parasitic leeches, can we exterminate all those who leech of us workers and collect welfare? They cannot sustain themselves without aid. How about the starving people around the world that receive aid? They are leeches. Without you 5 dollar/month contribution they would die. It is a rough analogy but it fits.
Yes, once we decide who lives and who dies in this matter the line becomes blurred in a number of forms.
-
Yes, once we decide who lives and who dies in this matter the line becomes blurred in a number of forms.
The Jews were considered leeches, but hey they were "unwanted". :'(
-
The Jews were considered leeches, but hey they were "unwanted". :'(
Once you describe a child in the womb as a 'parasite', the next step - assessing an adult human as such - is not far away. The difference is the child cannot defend itself.
-
Yes, once we decide who lives and who dies in this matter the line becomes blurred in a number of forms.
Oh brother.. I think everyone can distinguish a fetus from a fully formed human being.
-
Oh brother.. I think everyone can distinguish a fetus from a fully formed human being.
You would agree that a foetus is a 'parasite'? Or is it just my posts you disagree with?
-
You call a baby a 'parasite', and yet still expect to be taken seriously in this debate?
I don't expect to ever be taken seriously by you, Bruce. So why not have some fun in the meantime? :)
But I did fully expect that my use of an unsentimental scientific term would would put you fetus-fetishists in a tizzy. After you take a moment to fan yourself to a state of relative calmness, let me refer you to the American Heritage Dictionary...
parasite - NOUN: 1. Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/52/P0065200.html
Conservatism's well-documented antipathy to scientific fact aside, do you actually disagree with any of that?
And if not, what exactly about my use of the word put your panties in a bunch? It didn't show deference to your tender feelings about the fetus?
Well, what can I tell you, Bruce? If you want to morally equate a microscopic agglomeration of cells with Anne Frank, no force on earth will be able to stop you.
But don't expect me to take you seriously.
-
You would agree that a foetus is a 'parasite'? Or is it just my posts you disagree with?
It lives off mommy so technically it is a parasite. ;)
-
It lives off mommy so technically it is a parasite. ;)
Lives off my taxes via welfare=parasite.
-
It lives off mommy so technically it is a parasite. ;)
It's not, but thanks for clearing up for me that you are another member not to take seriously on this debate.
-
I don't expect to ever be taken seriously by you, Bruce. So why not have some fun in the meantime? :)
But I did fully expect that my use of an unsentimental scientific term would would put you fetus-fetishists in a tizzy. After you take a moment to fan yourself to a state of relative calmness, let me refer you to the American Heritage Dictionary...
parasite - NOUN: 1. Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/52/P0065200.html
Conservatism's well-documented antipathy to scientific fact aside, do you actually disagree with any of that?
And if not, what exactly about my use of the word put your panties in a bunch? It didn't show deference to your tender feelings about the fetus?
Well, what can I tell you, Bruce? If you want to morally equate a microscopic agglomeration of cells with Anne Frank, no force on earth will be able to stop you.
But don't expect me to take you seriously.
The sorry truth is I want to take you seriously - but you confirm for me that you have already awarded me that same distinction by responding to my post at length - even if you are totally misguided.
-
Lives off my taxes via welfare=parasite.
I agree. Maybe the worst parasites of all. >:(
-
I agree. Maybe the worst parasites of all. >:(
See, we don't disagree on everything. 8)
-
One thing is for sure, abortion is one hell of a debate topic and everyone has an opinion. Of course, this board is no different.
While the term parasite is cold and unfeeling and certainly not a term I would ever use I don't think anyone can actually disagree with the fact that it's scientifically correct.
I wonder if this issue would be as intense if Religion was completely taken out of the equation, I know it can't ever be but I don't think people's opinions would be as polarizing if it were.
In my opinion it comes down to one simple fact and that is it's no one's business what a woman does with her body up until the time when law recognizes the fetus as an individual. I don't like abortion, in fact I find the idea of vacuuming out the fetus to be repugnant but that doesn't mean it's my place to tell a woman she can't do it.
-
The sorry truth is I want to take you seriously - but you confirm for me that you have already awarded me that same distinction by responding to my post at length - even if you are totally misguided.
In your reply to Camel Jockey, you repeat your insistence - as usual, without any supporting material - that a fetus is not a parasite.
I await your reasoned explanation of why a legally abortable fetus does not meet the American Heritage Dictionary's biological definition of a parasite.
Or are you going to try to weasel out of this by claiming that the American Heritage Dictionary is a left-wing rag? :)
-
In your reply to Camel Jockey, you repeat your insistence - as usual, without any supporting material - that a fetus is not a parasite.
I await your reasoned explanation of why a legally abortable fetus does not meet the American Heritage Dictionary's biological definition of a parasite.
Or are you going to try to weasel out of this by claiming that the American Heritage Dictionary is a left-wing rag? :)
Care to join me in The Cage, so that we may adequately debate this? Consider that a challenge.
In the mean time, take a look at this definition:
Parasitism is one version of symbiosis ("living together"), a phenomenon in which two organisms which are phylogenetically unrelated co-exist over a prolonged period of time, usually the lifetime of one of the individuals.
Shall I go on?
-
Lives off my taxes via welfare=parasite.
You might want to get used to a lot more people living off your taxes if abortion is ever banned.
-
In my opinion it comes down to one simple fact and that is it's no one's business what a woman does with her body up until the time when law recognizes the fetus as an individual.
Simple enough for people who actually believe in individual liberty. But conservatives - pious lip service to the contrary - believe in nothing of the kind.
They're concerned about their own liberties, of course - particularly keeping their money at liberty from the IRS.
But the idea of a woman being at liberty to enjoy sex without the fear of unwanted pregnancy, a man being at liberty to unwind with a a pipe full of marijuana, or a country being at liberty not to allow us access to their resources, fills their power-craving hearts with blind hatred.
Hope this helps.
-
Shall I go on?
No, thank you. :)
Instead, please respond to my simple request to dispute the definition offered by my commonly-referenced [and linked] source - rather than trying to create a smokescreen with your obscure [and unlinked] one.
-
From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary.
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/parasite (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/parasite)
-
No, thank you. :)
Instead, please respond to my simple request to dispute the definition offered by my commonly-referenced [and linked] source - rather than trying to create a smokescreen with your obscure [and unlinked] one.
Thank you, a simple admission of error would not go a stray, however.
Here's my link, read away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite)
-
Just on that note, I'll take on any challengers for The Cage on this topic (babies = parasites).
-
Thank you, a simple admission of error would not go a stray, however.
Here's my link, read away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite)
Ah, Bruce - don't ever change. Your intellectual dishonesty is what makes this place special.
Er, you rely on Wikipedia for your indictment of world leaders?
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=124201.msg1776183#msg1776183
-
There is a ton of information stating both sides of the parasite issue. The most logical one at least to me is that a fetus isn't a "perfect parasite" because it's not an invader. This point can be argued either way without any clear winner.
Exactly how nutrients are exchanged between mother and fetus is not understood. In the past it was viewed as a host-parasite relationship, with the fetus in the role of the parasite, taking whatever nourishment it required from the host mother. But recent research has shown that the fetus is not a perfect parasite. The fetus is sometimes more affected than the mother by lack of nourishment, and there is a relationship between maternal weight gain and growth and development of the fetus.
http://www.childbirthsolutions.com/articles/pregnancy/eating4two/index.php (http://www.childbirthsolutions.com/articles/pregnancy/eating4two/index.php)
-
This issue needs leadership:
(http://i.pbase.com/g2/93/447193/3/66059260.GITUh453.jpg)
-
Ah, Bruce - don't ever change. Your intellectual dishonesty is what makes this place special.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=124201.msg1776183#msg1776183
Oh joy, you claim I display 'intellectual dishonesty' and then you link those two posts together. Just so you know - I don't use my Encyclopaedia Britannica to develop views regarding the Bush Administration’s Iraq Doctrine, either. Nor have I ever referred to a dictionary when contemplating the Venezuelan Socialist regime.
Get that?
-
Oh joy, you claim I display 'intellectual dishonesty' and then you link those two posts together. Just so you know - I don't use my Encyclopaedia Britannica to develop views regarding the Bush Administration’s Iraq Doctrine, either. Nor have I ever referred to a dictionary when contemplating the Venezuelan Socialist regime.
Get that?
bruce, your arguing with someone who used a dictionary to show his belief in what he believes is human life.
you would get more intellect from debating a stop sign.
HTH ;D
-
bruce, your arguing with someone who used a dictionary to show his belief in what he believes is human life.
you would get more intellect from debating a stop sign.
HTH ;D
You mean I can't look up 'abortion' in Webster's and then be able to define who gets killed and who doesn't? Curse this world, and its shades of grey!
-
Am I the only one on this site who supports abortion? Too many God-fearing douche bags on this board.
-
Am I the only one on this site who supports abortion? Too many God-fearing douche bags on this board.
BF, you're mother knew your future greatness and knew the almighty SF would strike her down in a hail of gun fire should should use that coat hanger.
-
Am I the only one on this site who supports abortion? Too many God-fearing douche bags on this board.
Why on earth would you 'support' killing a child? You might accept it, or understand it, but support?
And as for your 'God-fearing' comment, I'm agnostic, so you surely can't be talking about me.
-
BF, you're mother knew your future greatness and knew the almighty SF would strike her down in a hail of gun fire should should use that coat hanger.
hahahahahaha yes!
Why on earth would you 'support' killing a child? You might accept it, or understand it, but support?
And as for your 'God-fearing' comment, I'm agnostic, so you surely can't be talking about me.
I'm talking about you people who feel it's alright to tell women what they can and can't do with their body. I'd venture to say that an early child embryo/fetus is about as much of a human as a plant reproducing.
-
I'm talking about you people who feel it's alright to tell women what they can and can't do with their body. I'd venture to say that an early child embryo/fetus is about as much of a human as a plant reproducing.
You compare human children in the womb to a plant; I do not. A woman's body ceases to be solely hers when another's begins growing within it.
-
You compare human children in the womb to a plant; I do not. A woman's body ceases to be solely hers when another's begins growing within it.
It's still not yours. ;)
I compare the fact that fetus has absolutely no cognitive ability and isn't much more sophisticated than a plant embryo at that point in time.
-
It's still not yours. ;)
As I've said, a child is the property of no-one - you cannot possess a human being.
It's odd that you would question who a child belongs to in an attempt to justify killing it, as if this makes the decision more reasonable.
But to clarify, no women are currently carrying my children.
-
See BF is torn by the fact that penis puffers like DA and Bluto exist as a reason people have abortions. Don't worry BF, they were bastard children that were meant to grow up in the slums of Calcutta but their mothers sat on the toilet seat before Teh Shadow's did. ;D
-
See BF is torn by the fact that penis puffers like DA and Bluto exist as a reason people have abortions. Don't worry BF, they were bastard children that were meant to grow up in the slums of Calcutta but their mothers sat on the toilet seat before Teh Shadow's did. ;D
hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That was fucking gold.
-
It's not, but thanks for clearing up for me that you are another member not to take seriously on this debate.
The foster is a parasite.
That is a fact, not debatable. I don't understand why you're giving ribo shit for mentioning it? ???
Now, that a lot of us use the term parasite in different situations, always in a negative manner, that has nothing to do with how the term was used in this instance.
Look up parasite in any dictionary.
Lets discuss the topic at hand instead:
My stance on death penalty is clear: As long as there are innocent people on death row I don't think it's even up for discussion(a few days back, BB posted an article showing how 14 persons were cleared off death row from a project effort).
Because if you kill a man, and he is later found innocent, you cannot "un-kill" him.
As for death penalty in general: There is no evidence of death penalty having any benefits in crime fighting, as countries with death penalties to the letter have higher crime rates than countries without it.
So why have death penalty if it doesn't have any benefits?
The only sentencing that should be used are those that are most effective in keeping crime rates low and as few people as possible in prison IMO.
How that sentencing exactly should be, I don't know about. But I know that there should not be any consideration for the victims need for revenge. That is just ineffective and unrational.
You sometimes see slogans "Let him rott in prison" or how the general public is concerned with criminals having too good time in prison.
That's missing the point.
I think what should worry people, is that most people who goes to prison, returns to criminality when they get out.
And instead of locking everyone up forever, do whatever is needed to turn these persons into straight model citizens. ASAP.
If that means boot camp 24/7, then boot camp it is. Or if it means isolation cells, then that's what they should be put in. Or even if it means a relaxed form of imprisonment.
Whatever it takes, it has to be done.
-Hedge
-
Oh brother.. I think everyone can distinguish a fetus from a fully formed human being.
I'll offer up like I did in the other post. If our line is drawn where they can't sustain themselves. What about the week old babies that are thrown in dumpsters and the moms are charged with murder. Why is it different than abortion? All the arguments presented by cardio, camel jockey and others are contradictive.
-
The foster is a parasite.
That is a fact, not debatable. I don't understand why you're giving ribo shit for mentioning it? ???
Now, that a lot of us use the term parasite in different situations, always in a negative manner, that has nothing to do with how the term was used in this instance.
Look up parasite in any dictionary.
That's not Bruce's style. :)
Of course he could have made a simple regrouping statement like: "While Ribo's use of the term might have a narrow biological validity, its frequently perjorative connotations in everyday discussion were offensive to me and the many others who take the sanctity of life very seriously." Disposes in the introductory clause with the sticky matter of his having erroneously shot his mouth off, then puts the adversary back on the defensive by implying that they don't value human life. Neat, huh? :)
But Bush has never acknowledged a mistake, so why should Bruce? So out comes the smokescreen. Only in this case, Bruce reached for the Wikipedia - having forgotten that he had been against it before he had been for it. :)
Ah, I love the smell of self-ownage in the morning! ;D
-
As many of us have said... we do not consider something that looks like this -----> . a baby. If you walked past a dump and came upon a three day old baby and (.), and could only save one, which one would you choose? You know perfectly well what the answer is.
At this point in time, pretty much every civilized country in the world has endorsed the laws that guarantee a woman's freedom and individuality. Unfortunately, US women may find this law that ensures them autonomy over their bodies and destinies at risk in the future. If that happens, the ones with financial means will simply go to Canada to have abortions. The rest will just be screwed. Since there are over 1,000,000 abortions performed in the US every year, looks like at least half of those will end up being born into poverty, neglectful homes, to unfit mothers... or will simply get funneled into the welfare system... sounds like a plan!
-
That's not Bruce's style. :)
Of course he could have made a simple regrouping statement like: "While Ribo's use of the term might have a narrow biological validity, its frequently perjorative connotations in everyday discussion were offensive to me and the many others who take the sanctity of life very seriously." Disposes in the introductory clause with the sticky matter of his having erroneously shot his mouth off, then puts the adversary back on the defensive by implying that they don't value human life. Neat, huh? :)
But Bush has never acknowledged a mistake, so why should Bruce? So out comes the smokescreen. Only in this case, Bruce reached for the Wikipedia - having forgotten that he had been against it before he had been for it. :)
Ah, I love the smell of self-ownage in the morning! ;D
Not that I ever want to defend bruce but there is information out there that the mother/fetus relationship isn't a true parasitism. I agree that by any dictionary definition it is but I think so many people are offended by the accusation that a trend to discredit it was started.
-
Not that I ever want to defend bruce but there is information out there that the mother/fetus relationship isn't a true parasitism. I agree that by any dictionary definition it is but I think so many people are offended by the accusation that a trend to discredit it was started.
I think that conversation was pursued by those whose opinions on abortion were calmly, dispassionately and reasonably annhilated on another thread. ;)
-
At this point in time, pretty much every civilized country in the world has endorsed the laws that guarantee a woman's freedom and individuality.
What does that have to do with the United States? :)
We're still fighting against the theory of evolution, for God's sake.
-
What does that have to do with the United States? :)
We're still fighting against the theory of evolution, for God's sake.
Lol, so far you're still among the civilized! I hope reason perseveres...
-
What does that have to do with the United States? :)
We're still fighting against the theory of evolution, for God's sake.
Things have evolved, however they were created by a intelligent source
-
Not that I ever want to defend bruce but there is information out there that the mother/fetus relationship isn't a true parasitism. I agree that by any dictionary definition it is but I think so many people are offended by the accusation that a trend to discredit it was started.
Thank you, I think if anyone read the information I provided it would be made clear to them that a human baby is not a parasite.
Again, I will take anyone to The Cage on this one; RN has already forgone this opportunity and decided to use his time here acting foolishly (e.g. 'self-ownage').
I'll take the high road on this one, guys.
-
Again, I will take anyone to The Cage on this one; RN has already forgone this opportunity and decided to use his time here acting foolishly (e.g. 'self-ownage').
Foolish or not, documenting your hypocrisy concerning Wikipedia sources brought a little sunshine into my day. :)
I don't know what this "Cage" you keep beckoning people into is used for. But I'm sorry, Bruce - I don't swing that way.
-
Foolish or not, documenting your hypocrisy concerning Wikipedia sources brought a little sunshine into my day. :)
I don't know what this "Cage" you keep beckoning people into is used for. But I'm sorry, Bruce - I don't swing that way.
I posted on your little 'gotcha' Wikipedia claim, RN - do you have any response to that, or am I to assume you have been significantly persuaded of your inaccuracy?
The Cage, contrary to your homoerotic fantasy, is a forum for intelligent debate with an essay-style approach. I shall be facing down the might of Debussey in gladiatorial battle in this very theatre.
-
As many of us have said... we do not consider something that looks like this -----> . a baby. If you walked past a dump and came upon a three day old baby and (.)
That's what mm69 can't understand. He's comparing a comglomerate of forming cells to a fully formed macro oraganism.
-
Fetus/parasite...
I went to the exhibit "Bodies" when it came to NYC.
It was fascinating to say the least, exposing the muscles, ligaments, tendons, veins, blood vessels, organs of the human body. Some posed in real life action.
These were real people who had died, their bodies were preserved to be displayed to show the human body.
The embryos were jars in liquid, some of them were a few weeks old and no bigger than my pinky finger.
It does make one think about where life begins.
I still am pro choice.
Sandra
-
Fetus/parasite...
I went to the exhibit "Bodies" when it came to NYC.
It was fascinating to say the least, exposing the muscles, ligaments, tendons, veins, blood vessels, organs of the human body. Some posed in real life action.
These were real people who had died, their bodies were preserved to be displayed to show the human body.
The embryos were jars in liquid, some of them were a few weeks old and no bigger than my pinky finger.
It does make one think about where life begins.
I still am pro choice.
Sandra
The foetus/parasite argument piqued my interest because of the tendencies of some within this debate to dehumanise what is essentially a human baby. For me, it's worth debating.
Thanks for your post, Sandra.
-
Things have evolved, however they were created by a intelligent source
Oh brother.. ::) What evidence do you have of this "intelligent source"? We know things evolved from not only natural selection, but also fossil records and simple observations. We do not know whether an "intelligent source" created anything or not, or whether an "intelligent source" even exists..
I see you decided to take a page out mightmouse's book. ::)
-
I posted on your little 'gotcha' Wikipedia claim, RN - do you have any response to that, or am I to assume you have been significantly persuaded of your inaccuracy?
Are you referring to.... ?
Oh joy, you claim I display 'intellectual dishonesty' and then you link those two posts together. Just so you know - I don't use my Encyclopaedia Britannica to develop views regarding the Bush Administration’s Iraq Doctrine, either. Nor have I ever referred to a dictionary when contemplating the Venezuelan Socialist regime.
If so, the reason I didn't reply earlier was because I had no idea what you were talking about. :)
I supported my straightforward use of the word "parasitic" by referring to a commonly used American dictionary. When you disagreed with that usage, I invited you to dispute the dictionary definition. Obviously unable to do so, you instead tried to defend your convoluted use of the word by referring to a Wikipedia article - despite your having sneered at that source in one of our earlier jousts.
Are you going to claim that Wikipedia is sneerable when discussing politics but gospel when discussing science? ::)
-
The embryos were jars in liquid, some of them were a few weeks old and no bigger than my pinky finger.
It does make one think about where life begins.
I still am pro choice.
Sandra
HAHAHA and to think these pople think something the size of a pinky has the same rights as a fully formed human being. ::)
-
Until I saw that exhibit, I really ddn't give a growing fetus much thought in the first few weeks. I am a mother, so it is one thing to emotionally connect versus physically seeing your belly grow and the first kick.
Seeing the . form into a finger size being in a jar was eye opening.
Sandra
-
Are you referring to.... ?
If so, the reason I didn't reply earlier was because I had no idea what you were talking about. :)
I supported my straightforward use of the word "parasitic" by referring to a commonly used American dictionary. When you disagreed with that usage, I invited you to dispute the dictionary definition. Obviously unable to do so, you instead tried to defend your convoluted use of the word by referring to a Wikipedia article - despite your having sneered at that source in one of our earlier jousts.
Are you going to claim that Wikipedia is sneerable when discussing politics but gospel when discussing science? ::)
The quote you put from me above your diatribe answers your own inquiry. Try reading it.
-
Try reading it.
Did. Twice. Still made no sense. :)
-
Did. Twice. Still made no sense. :)
If I could take this mind and give its fortitude to your own, in an attempt to enlighten you, I would.
Until this enters the realms of possibility, you'll just have to live in brow-furrowed uncertainty.
-
If I could take this mind and give its fortitude to your own, in an attempt to enlighten you, I would.
Until this enters the realms of possibility, you'll just have to live in brow-furrowed uncertainty.
I'll give Bruce his well-deserved rest. :)
Can anyone else translate "I don't use my Encyclopaedia Britannica to develop views regarding the Bush Administration’s Iraq Doctrine, either. Nor have I ever referred to a dictionary when contemplating the Venezuelan Socialist regime." into something resembling a point?
-
I'll give Bruce his well-deserved rest. :)
Thank you.
-
Oh brother.. ::) What evidence do you have of this "intelligent source"? We know things evolved from not only natural selection, but also fossil records and simple observations. We do not know whether an "intelligent source" created anything or not, or whether an "intelligent source" even exists..
I see you decided to take a page out mightmouse's book. ::)
No me and mightymouse aren't on the same page. I consider myself a creationevolutionist. LOL I am a religious person but don't take the bible litterally I think the bible as alot of symbolism in it (especially the end of the world scenario) Anyway, when I look around I can't help but think of how complex everything is and how everything has it's place in the world and it seems to me that there would have to be some sort of intelligence used in the design of things. Did the whole world begin with Adam and Eve and the whole 7 day deal (look out for the lightning striking me down) I don't know. Obviously science proves the dinosaurs right? Were adam and eve here during that? I'll ask the big man when I get to heaven. In the end I just don't buy the Big Bang theory.