God vs. Science: The Inclusion of Creationism in School Textbooks?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well I'd love to stay and chat..but I must get going for now..apparently you all have nothing else to prove other than your ability to flood the chat board...this always done by the loosing side of a debate..to take away from your untruthful/illogical/rantings....for shame..oh well...

keep the faith 😇

As oposed to laughing at your own jokes and backing out of a debate?

Woooo, I hope you have a happy life with those blinkers your mom must have put on you at birth!

(Reaction;
"What, what? You mean they aren't a gift from God that were intelligently designed onto my face so I wouldn't be tempted by the antics of the satan-worshipping science-corrupting darwinist-bastards?!?!?!?! Nooooooooooooooooooooo!"😉

Who> I'm just wondering, How do you get internet connection in that cave you live in? How much does that cost?

A typical Who argument...
Fact: The sky is green! Any thoughts that its otherwise is based soly on faith and should be taught as such. I have proof at www.theskyisgreenbecausegodandisaidsosobelieveme.com
No leading scientist believes the sky is green, your crazy.
Oh and whatever argument you have is automaticly illogical becuase it might make some sence, but I still don't like it anyway.

OR, You could go outside and look up!

All you have to do to prove evolution is open your eyes. Look around. Breed Pea's like Mendel... Observe speciation like Darwin. Splice DNA like Watson and Krick (Sp??)
News Flash! Darwin was't the first that came up with something like evolution, He just wrote it down first and published it! Evolution is not based soly on Darwin's theroys. We discarded many of his theorys... As we did with other leading evolutionists.

Want my source?
Biology Fifth edition by Neil A Campbell from UC riverside, Jane B. Reece from Palo Alto California and Lawrence G. Mitchell from University of Montana, Published by Addison Wesley Longman, Inc Copyright 1999

Or in other words my AP Bio book....

That's one of the biology books I had last year when I took AP bio 😂

yay!!

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Questioning whether the Dalai Lama is an authority on Buddhism is equivocal to questioning whether the Pope is an authority on Catholicism, or a U.S. Supreme Court Judge is an authority on interpreting the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. Poe...you still have given no evidence supporting your claim...you can quote the funny little man with a red robe and hat all you want...and create all the illogical anologies you desire..however it still fails to discredit what has been labeled as a religion by dictionaries, encyclopedias, history books, the United States goverment, The British Government, The Tibetan Government, Indian Government and a multitude of other sources...

But again I respect your right to believe whatever you like, and as I have stated before, We all should be free to teach and interpret things however we want to, regardless of how foolish those interpretations might be.

il·log·i·cal adj. Contradicting or disregarding the principles of logic.

fal·la·cy n. A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.

“Illogical fallacy” is equivocal in redundancy to “erroneous mistake.”

Again you do need a bit of brushing up on your word usage..

A statement can be false, however, being false doesn't necessarily deem it to be illogical..

for example..I could say....

Adam Poe is a fool.

One could interpret that as a false statement, however, it doesn't necessarily have to be deemed illogical, because the the likelyhood of Adam Poe being a fool can be attributed to some type of logical argument. However if I stated....

Adam Poe is a wise fool.

This statement could be interpreted as being a false statement, as well as an illogical one. In other words, it would be an "illogical fallacy." The statement is illogical because the term wisdom can not be applied to the term fool, due to a fool representing a person lacking sound judgement, and the term "wise" describing a person having an abundance of it.

This following statement..in my opinion is both logical and valid,

Adam Poe is an intelligent fool.

Seeing as how intelligence can represent book knowledge and IQ, however, it doesn't always represent one's ability to formulate good judgements, and make sound decisions..vous comprenez?(French for do you understand)

Some examples of intelligent fools: an Idiot Savant, George Bush, and as mentioned in the example above..Adam Poe..😆

Where is the plentiful information you have provided to support Creationism? No one else seems to be able to find it. By all means, post it again for all to see.

Again, I don't feel as if I should have to re-post any information that is clearly available for all to obtain. Scanning through the thread is not very difficult, and would definately help yourself and others review just how poorly they've represented their arguments during this debate. However, if you don't feel like scanning through the thread, just go to the same place where you received all your other information, except this time..in the little search dialogue box..type in "Creationism" instead of "Evolution"...😆 😆

The truth does hurt; one who challenges the character of another does so because he cannot defeat his argument...

Or because the individual whose character is in question...has no true moral character, which in turn challenges the credibility of the argument he/she has presented....

I directly quoted the post that appears on page 14 of this thread in which you first provided a definition of Buddhism...

Except you neglected to include the entire definition, Specifically definition 2, which you have continuously referred to as the "primary definition" throughout this thread. You also have on many occasions neglected to mention that I included the link to the definition in question in the original post.

And you still wonder why your character is being challenged? Seriously bud..lying does not equate to good debating skills, and is definately a character flaw. Ask the Dalai Lama..I'm sure he'll agree...

and I also re-posted the link you provided from which you got your definition. A liar does not provide resources for others to investigate and corroborate his claims.

Refer to the above response..seriously hang it up bud...if you continue to to blatantly lie in the fashion that you are now..you'll never be able to achieve Nirvana...😆 😆

Nowhere in this thread or elsewhere have I stated that a dictionary definition is authoritarian. It is your argument however, that dictionary definitions are authoritarian. Therefore, I am exercising the philosophical Principle of Fidelity and holding you to your own argument:

If dictionary definitions are authoritarian, why did you selectively ignore the primary definition of Buddhism that does not define it as a religion in favor of a tertiary definition that does? Surely, if dictionary definitions are authoritarian, the primary definition would be correct, yet you chose to omit it because it contradicts your argument.

So to simplify things..once again you have nothing substantive to support your argument as to why Buddhism is not a religion.....🙄

Again..let me differ to the Authoritaritive opinion of Adam Poe by saying...

lexically stated by Adam Poe
The fact that this needs to be illustrated to you indicates that you are truly a world-class fool. 🙄

The Dalai Lama is an authority on Buddhism just as the Pope is an authority on Catholicism, and a U.S. Supreme Court Judge is an authority on interpreting the Constitution of the United States.

I never stated the Pope was the authority on Catholicism..to be honest with you..I really don't even believe him to be an authority on Christianity. However, the Pope is intelligent enough to realize what he practices is a religion, something the collective minds of Adam Poe and Dalai Lama have not figured out yet...

“I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms,” Stephen J. Gould.

And if wishes were fishes..the world would be an ocean..

Unfortunately Mr. Poe..there still wouldn't be enough water in the world to keep your wishful thinking a float...😆

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
Who> I'm just wondering, How do you get internet connection in that cave you live in? How much does that cost?

Well its dial up..which is almost prehistoric..😆😆

A typical Who argument...
Fact: The sky is green! Any thoughts that its otherwise is based soly on faith and should be taught as such. I have proof at www.theskyisgreenbecausegodandisaidsosobelieveme.com
No leading scientist believes the sky is green, your crazy.
Oh and whatever argument you have is automaticly illogical becuase it might make some sence, but I still don't like it anyway.
OR, You could go outside and look up!

Typical Evolutionary argument...

Even though Darwin was a racist and a bigot, and he was incredibly biased in his scientific hypothesis and conclusions, and there is no substantive evidence supporting the Macro Evolutionary theory...since the word "gene" and the word "mutation" is referenced in it..it should be excepted as a valid scientific theory...

Question: Can I also use my X-men, TMNT, Avengers and other comic books as legitimate evidence explaining exterestial life and mutations..after all..they do mention outer space, genes, and scientific stuff in those...😆 😆 😆

All you have to do to prove evolution is open your eyes. Look around. Breed Pea's like Mendel... Observe speciation like Darwin. Splice DNA like Watson and Krick (Sp??)

Yes everyday I look out the window I see dogs evolving into cats...lizards tranforming into birds..peas morphing into carrots and apples...🙄..Seriously though..has there ever been a case in history where some has witnessed one species of plant or animal evolving into another?(hint: This is a rhetorical question..I believe you know the answer)

News Flash! Darwin was't the first that came up with something like evolution, He just wrote it down first and published it! Evolution is not based soly on Darwin's theroys. We discarded many of his theorys... As we did with other leading evolutionists.

And with all the discarded/re-interpreted/re adjusted theories you came up with in order to fit into a more "scientific" mold...you still have nothing to validate "Macro Evolution" existing...very sad...very sad indeed...

Want my source?
Biology Fifth edition by Neil A Campbell from UC riverside, Jane B. Reece from Palo Alto California and Lawrence G. Mitchell from University of Montana, Published by Addison Wesley Longman, Inc Copyright 1999

Or in other words my AP Bio book....

So you believe in everything that's written in your Bio textbook..sounds a bit "theistic" to me...

How blind can you be?
I've REPEATADLY explained to you, Macro Evolution is not something to prove! Its a generalization. You can PROVE Micro Evolution. Want some real examples?

Here, spend some time here.
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/zoohons/lecture5/sld001.htm
And before you start saying shit like "Oh but I thought you couldn't cite webpages."
Its from a credited University, and its not a webpage, its a professer's lecture. One that has spent years researching and understanding exactly that.

Oh and about your comment about my textbook. There's a thing called sources in there. And descriptions of the people who wrote it and how they got their degree's. AND I can cross check it with the other textbook I have, and with the ones at my School AS well as with the stuff on the internet, who all got their material from different observations and sources. So yes, I think its ok to believe it, because its a compilation of observations that can be researched and replicated. You can't do that with the Bible....

I think whob is ignoring me 🙁

Even if you do believe in creationism because somebody else told you it's true - and if you are defining all the things as religion - then all these theories should be taught in Religous Studies, not a science class.

Also, I must say that the Pope is counted as the ultimate authority in the Catholic Church. As is the Dalai Llama for Buddhism. Looking at the Oxford English Dictionary I get this;

1. A state of life bound by moastic vows; the condition of one who is a member of a religous order; the religous life
2. A particular moastic or religous order ot rule: a religous house
3. Action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for, and desire to please, a divine ruling power; the exercise or practice of rites or observances implying this.
4. A particular system of faith and worship.
5. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obediance, reverance, and worship; the general mental and moral attitude resulting from this belief, with ref. to its effect upon the individual or the community; personal or general acceptance of this feeling as a standad of spiritual and practical life.
6. Devotion to some principle; strict fidelity or faithfulness; conscientiousness; pious affection or attachment.
7. The religous santion or obligation of an oath.

Possiby 6 could be applied to Buddhism. However, Buddhists, as far as I know, do not need to be faithful to anything, be pious towards anyone and hold no attachment to anything.

I personally hold a dictionary in book form as opposed to a website on which I could probably get the same definitions from putting 'define:' in Google.

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
How blind can you be?
I've REPEATADLY explained to you, Macro Evolution is not something to prove! Its a generalization.

Yes it is a generalization...and a poor one at that. The theory is about as scientific as an X-Men, Spider Man, or Avengers Comic book...

You can PROVE Micro Evolution.

You mean "Adaptation"...Micro Evolution is a foolish term..created by foolish men..to justify their Macro - Evolutionary "fairy tale" as being "scientific."

Want some real examples?

Here, spend some time here.
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/zoohons/lecture5/sld001.htm
And before you start saying shit like "Oh but I thought you couldn't cite webpages."
Its from a credited University, and its not a webpage, its a professer's lecture. One that has spent years researching and understanding exactly that.

I thought we couldn't site webpages...🙄 😆 😆
If you scan through the thread..you'll find that many of the examples myself and others have posted, are based on information taken from credited scientists...again take some time to re-read the thread...

Oh and about your comment about my textbook. There's a thing called sources in there. And descriptions of the people who wrote it and how they got their degree's. AND I can cross check it with the other textbook I have, and with the ones at my School AS well as with the stuff on the internet, who all got their material from different observations and sources. So yes, I think its ok to believe it, because its a compilation of observations that can be researched and replicated. You can't do that with the Bible....

So in other words..you believe everything that's posted in your AP Biology book is the truth...🙄 again..sounds a bit theistic to me..

Anyway...Scientists and archeologists have proven the Bible is very accurate in its historical record. Any credible website, history book, Archcheologist can tell you this...and since you are so keen on using websites..I'll go ahead and post a couple for you...

http://www.baseinstitute.org/

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/archeology.html(very good site..has many links to other sites compiled by "credited" Archeologists)

Back on topic..I have never stated that the bible must be used to validate the case as "Creationism" being taught in science textbooks....as I've stated many times before throughout this thread. Creationism could be taught as a "theistic principle"...lol...just like Darwinism..:wink: (note: do you see the irony in that statement..)

Or we could just classify them both as "scientific theories", and give them equal credo in science class. And as I've stated multiple times, parents could opt their child from the class if they choose not to have them participate in either topic.

Still ignoring me?

Originally posted by Trickster
I think whob is ignoring me

No I'm just getting flooded by one foolish post after another..it's hard to keep up...for a bunch of guys who have a lot of facts on your side, it's kind of funny how about 6 or 7 of you..have difficulty proving them as valid..to one little me...lol..😆😆

Even if you do believe in creationism because somebody else told you it's true -

I base my beliefs on what I read in books, websites, ...etc. And then after analyzing all the facts presented before me, I make an educated choice. Some things I choose to believe in may have more tangible evidence supporting them than others. And with those beliefs, I just use my FAITH to justify them.

All these theories should be taught in Religous Studies, not a science class.

To be fair..yes. Any theory followed with zeal..conscientous devotion and reverance, with little substantive "scientific" evidence..should be classified as a relgion, and could be taught with philosophy/religious studies. However, I'm not saying that either theory has to be excluded from science class..I'm just stating that their should be equality when applying both theories to science textbooks. It's not fair to teach one religion as truth, with the exclusion of another.

Also, I must say that the Pope is counted as the ultimate authority in the Catholic Church. As is the Dalai Llama for Buddhism. Looking at the Oxford English Dictionary I get this;

lol..If your so confident in your "definition" post a link to it where all can view it..(somehow..I don't think you will)

The Pope, Buddha, and Dalai Lama are just men to me....they have no authority over me..

Possiby 6 could be applied to Buddhism. However, Buddhists, as far as I know, do not need to be faithful to anything, be pious towards anyone and hold no attachment to anything.

Did you have a point in posting this? Seriously no one was debating Christianity as a religion..lol..you lost me their buddy....

I personally hold a dictionary in book form as opposed to a website on which I could probably get the same definitions from putting 'define:' in Google.

Good for you...unfortunately..you and others still haven't posted anything supporting Buddhism not to qualifying as a Religion...😆 😆 😆

Originally posted by whobdamandog
however it still fails to discredit what has been labeled as a religion by dictionaries, encyclopedias, history books, the United States goverment, The British Government, The Tibetan Government, Indian Government and a multitude of other sources...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Again, I don't feel as if I should have to re-post any information that is clearly available for all to obtain. Scanning through the thread is not very difficult, and would definately help yourself and others review just how poorly they've represented their arguments during this debate. However, if you don't feel like scanning through the thread, just go to the same place where you received all your other information, except this time..in the little search dialogue box..type in "Creationism" instead of "Evolution"...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So to simplify things..once again you have nothing substantive to support your argument as to why Buddhism is not a religion.....

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Even though Darwin was a racist and a bigot, and he was incredibly biased in his scientific hypothesis and conclusions, and there is no substantive evidence supporting the Macro Evolutionary theory...since the word "gene" and the word "mutation" is referenced in it..it should be excepted as a valid scientific theory...

If you want evidence of Macro Evolutionary theory: look at fruitflies
and once AGAIN but you simply are incapable of understanding it apperently since this is the umpteenth time I have to tell you this: Macro Evolution ISN'T standing on its own anymore, it's combined with Micro into the Great Synthesis 😆

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Seriously though..has there ever been a case in history where some has witnessed one species of plant or animal evolving into another?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I thought we couldn't site webpages

Good posting for you...unfortunately..you and only you still haven't posted anything supporting creationism to qualifying as a believable fact... 😆😆

Originally posted by yerssot
Since when does one link to an internet site count as prove ALL dictionaries, ALL encyclopedias, ALL history books, the US, British, Tibetan and Indian governements AND a multitude of other sources thinking the same?

Well I figured that any intelligent fool would have a dictionary/encyclopedia in their house, or have access to the library/bookstore, and government websites. However my friend I believe I've overestimated you..unlike Adam Poe, you aren't an intelligent fool...your just a complete fool..😆

Seeing as how I'm not in your house, and therefore not able to provide all the "proof" physically in front of you...my only option is to reference a website..of course..you could also do this yourself...by searching on "google".....but obviously this concept is very difficult for you..so I'll provide a few links to help you out...(note: none of these are geocities websites...🙄 )

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=buddhism%20(Dictionary.com)

http:http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Buddhism&x=9&y=18
(Webster's website..take note..this is the same definition found in Webster's dictionary..lol)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/002-5058575-4343247(links to buddhist religious books)

That's all I'm going to provide for now...if you need any additional assistance...go to the library and have one of the partons there assist you...

you have posted three links, two of which were of geocities and one to which silver already showed the faulty thinking of. Try again with your "proof"

Who the hell is silver?...lol..anyway...you've been given three sites..go do some research..and make a sound judgement based on what you read...

sounds exactly the same as I would say about you and creationism 😆

I've provided much evidence supporting my belief..whether you accept it or not is up to you.. You on the other hand...are basing your belief solely on your opinion and based on the opinions of a few intelligent fools...and one complete fools opinion...(note..the complete fool being yourself)

First things first: do decent research
Darwin's ideas got used for racist ideas, Darwin didn't do that himself.

Read Darwins "Origin of the Species"..look it up on Amazon's website and order the book..if you need help doing this..call the customer service number at the bottom of the page. 😆 😆 😆

If you want evidence of Macro Evolutionary theory: look at fruitflies
and once AGAIN but you simply are incapable of understanding it

Your a fool..who's basing your opinions on intelligent fools. However, even most intelligent fools know that the fruitfly experiment didn't prove evolutionary theory in the slightest....seeing as how the flies did not evolve into any other species of insect...😆:

apperently since this is the umpteenth time I have to tell you this: Macro Evolution ISN'T standing on its own anymore, it's combined with Micro into the Great Synthesis 😆

You can state it as many times as you want..however..the evidence will remain the same..as I've stated before..there is no evidence that relates any form of ADAPTATION(Micro-Evolution as the intelligent fools like to call it) to the concept of SPECIATION(Macro Evolution)

since evolution takes thousands of years, you know that is impossible.

Here's a little peice of advice for you..since your obviously misinformed and basing your opinions off of "second hand" information posted from others...fossils linked to humans have been found allegedly ranging over 200,000 years in age..and don't forget we are in the 21st century now..and much of what we have of recorded history spans over 3000 years. Don't believe me...check this link..(from national geographic..I know..I know..it's not a credible source...lol..😆 )

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0216_050216_omo.html

Now here's a question for you...

Why hasn't anyone in recorded history given an account of "Macro Evolution" taking place? Certainly there's been enough time in recorded history for it to happen..right?

But you rather believe in some mystical person high up in the skies who no one ever saw than facts ...

And you'd rather put your faith in the sensational fairytale of beasts transforming into to men...which again..has nothing scientific supporting it..

duh, of course you can. For once try to actually read and understand what someone replies: you can quote sites if they are from decent resources and creators. A geocities-site is pathetic...

I've given four sites in this post alone..and none of them has been from Geocities....Your tally on evidence is 0-0. So to take one from the book of the complete fool you haven't posted anything...

qualifying as a believable fact... 😆

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/334517.stm

link from bbc..oldest human writing dated over 3000 years..how come they didn't mention evolution in the text...lol😆😆

link to Tibetan Government Website..taken from the Dhali Lama Office in England(his holiness's office...lol)

http://www.tibet.com/index.html

Link to a descripion from his Holiness's website..referring to the RELIGION known as BUDDHISM..

http://www.tibet.com/WhitePaper/white7.html

Link to a description of "His Holiness"

http://www.tibet.com/NewsRoom/londonphoto1.htm

lol..I know..I know..the Tibetan Government's website is not a credible sorce..😆😆😆

Me thinks the debating on Buddhism classified as being a religion is gradually coming to an end...😆😆😆

link Explaining the US religious freedom act..which refers to Buddhism, Christianity...and other RELIGIONS..

http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2004/Sep/15-901347.html

Debate on Buddhism over..you all have proven nothing..other than the fact that you are fools...moving on...

(easier to reply without all the quotes)

please refrain from calling me names, lets keep this civilised. You don't want to hear that namecalling is defence cause you have no leg to stand on, right?

very fancy to show you can give links... but you did not answer the question. You gave ONE link and said ALL dictionaries, ALL encyclopedias,... agreed with that. It does not, it was one link to one site; not one that combined all their definitions.
from the three sites you gave, one is the overly used dictionary one that gives, as poe will say, as primary definition that it is not a religion. The third one isn't working even.
If you believe that a general encyclopedia will ever give you a clear definition, you're mistaken. Any decent university that enquires of you to properly document yourself on a document sees you using a "normal" encyclopedia will fail you immediatly. Why? cause there are specialised encyclopedias that are not considered vulgar, ergo better in use. Try using those and you'll be forwarded to works like:
Tulku, T., A brief history of Tibetan academic degrees in Buddhist philosophy, from: NIAS report series, part 43, Copenhagen, 2000.
Li, W., Chinese Buddhism: philosophy and theory, Münster, 1999.
Kalupahana, D., A history of Buddhist philosophy : continuities and discontinuities, Hawaii, 1992.
I can go on with giving you booktitles if you wish.

I keep calling her silver, used to be a part of her name... think it's Lana now or something. You know: yay heigh, you refuse to discuss evolution with her cause she shows you you have no proof what so ever ...
I have done some research yes, and those two sites you offered are rather poor for your point no? one says it's not a religion and the other does, indeed, but as said: get an encyclopedia that specialises in religion and philosophy. If you want, I can give you one that I use.

you have provided 3 sites of which 2 are geocities, that's not enough proof, that's shitty proof, please give more sites. if you are so keen on calling me a fool, read what you wrote: it goes the same way for you, so watch who you insult, it backfires on you.

Learn history, Darwin did NOT create eugenetics. Francis Galton did, he's Darwin's NEPHEW (or cousin, don't shoot me on this, we don't make a difference in those). If you can't agree on this you are just blabantly ignoring facts, making the discussion impossible for you can believe the sky is green eventhough people take you out and show you it's blue.

and as I have said: it takes thousands of years to get animals to evolve, fruitflies show that later generations can indeed change from their ancestors. For your understanding, btw, evolution is not going from a fruitfly to a musquito. Evolution is to adapt to the situation, not becoming an entirely new creature.

no evidence? oh please! I'll give you something you can't get past:
Tattersall, I., The Fossil Trail. How we konw what we think we konw about human evolution., Oxford, 1995.
Johanson, D and Edgar, B., From Lucy to Language., Johannesburg, 1996.
If you then still fail to see that changing can be explained by genes...

over 200 000 years??? seriously?? you agree with this? then the world didn't got created 6000 years ago huh? or does that "accidently" not come in your view of creationism?
Nice link, but I'm well aware of archaelogical events, thank you.

Why not? easy: biology did not become a subject one could study till around the 15-16th century and then it was even prohibited to cut open animals and humans to see how they worked from the inside.
closer to home it took till 1859 November 22 before his theory got published (upsetting Wallace and Lamarque in the process since they claimed they worked on the theory first) so it was in 1859 that theory got out, that's around 145 years ago... how do you think a human can see the entire evolution (if it already happens, cause as we all know the enviroment must change so the animal has to adapt) in such short span? that reminds me, if you want I can give a sample of the different animals on the galapagos islands that got him to think about his theory.

no, I do not. cause it doesn't go from beasts to humans. review evolution to get a better view on this.
you think now that you posted four (from which the amazon one isn't working to me) makes you think you actually posted proof of creationism??? the first two are about buddhism and are adressed above, the last one is just about finding an old fossil which kinda contradicts creationism no? so yet again: where's the proof?

Originally posted by yerssot
please refrain from calling me names, lets keep this civilised. You don't want to hear that namecalling is defence cause you have no leg to stand on, right?

very fancy to show you can give links... but you did not answer the question. You gave ONE link and said ALL dictionaries, ALL encyclopedias,... agreed with that. It does not, it was one link to one site; not one that combined all their definitions.
from the three sites you gave, one is the overly used dictionary one that gives, as poe will say, as primary definition that it is not a religion. The third one isn't working even.
If you believe that a general encyclopedia will ever give you a clear definition, you're mistaken. Any decent university that enquires of you to properly document yourself on a document sees you using a "normal" encyclopedia will fail you immediatly. Why? cause there are specialised encyclopedias that are not considered vulgar, ergo better in use. Try using those and you'll be forwarded to works like:
Tulku, T., A brief history of Tibetan academic degrees in Buddhist philosophy, from: NIAS report series, part 43, Copenhagen, 2000.
Li, W., Chinese Buddhism: philosophy and theory, Münster, 1999.
Kalupahana, D., A history of Buddhist philosophy : continuities and discontinuities, Hawaii, 1992.
I can go on with giving you booktitles if you wish.

Refer to the links above..please don't tell me the Tibetan and US Governments aren't authoratative/credible sources...Buddhism debate over...😆😆

Learn history, Darwin did NOT create eugenetics. Francis Galton did, he's Darwin's NEPHEW (or cousin, don't shoot me on this, we don't make a difference in those). If you can't agree on this you are just blabantly ignoring facts, making the discussion impossible for you can believe the sky is green eventhough people take you out and show you it's blue.

Never stated that Darwin created Eugenetics..Again..please read...Origin of the Species...

and as I have said: it takes thousands of years to get animals to evolve, fruitflies show that later generations can indeed change from their ancestors. For your understanding, btw, evolution is not going from a fruitfly to a musquito. Evolution is to adapt to the situation, not becoming an entirely new creature.

Refer to the National Geographic link above..Humans have been around for 1000's of years...and as I've stated before..evolution has not been recorded anywhere in the historical record...

over 200 000 years??? seriously?? you agree with this? then the world didn't got created 6000 years ago huh? or does that "accidently" not come in your view of creationism?

Again I've never stated to be a 7 day adventist..I believe the 7 days are metaphoric..representing 1000's of years...if you do some studying about Christian theology...you'll understand...

Why not? easy: biology did not become a subject one could study till around the 15-16th century and then it was even prohibited to cut open animals and humans to see how they worked from the inside.
closer to home it took till 1859 November 22 before his theory got published (upsetting Wallace and Lamarque in the process since they claimed they worked on the theory first) so it was in 1859 that theory got out, that's around 145 years ago... how do you think a human can see the entire evolution (if it already happens, cause as we all know the enviroment must change so the animal has to adapt) in such short span? that reminds me, if you want I can give a sample of the different animals on the galapagos islands that got him to think about his theory.

So in other wards..you have nothing historical to support your claim...😆😆😆...guess what...Creationism does!!!

Debate over..you haven't proven anything..other than your inability to debate...😆😆

no, I do not. cause it doesn't go from beasts to humans. review evolution to get a better view on this.
you think now that you posted four (from which the amazon one isn't working to me) makes you think you actually posted proof of creationism??? the first two are about buddhism and are adressed above, the last one is just about finding an old fossil which kinda contradicts creationism no? so yet again: where's the proof? [/B]

Re-read the thread..please..it's not that hard..and requires very little effort..