Evolution vs. Creation vs. Intelligent Design

[numerator-91]

I reckons there's probably an evolution thread somewhere out there in th e oblivion that is 'bullshit' but i figured I'd start one here for good measure.
What do you believe or think to be of life on earth, was it Evolution? Or Creation? Or was it Intelligent Design? Personall i say evolution, what i think is probaly the most defining proof of evolution is the eye. For those who are not familiar with the photoreceptor structure of the eye allow me to elaborate, on the inner most layer of the eye (the retina) houses some 130 million photoreceptor cells (rods & cones) and these cells are connected to the optic nerve via ganglion and bipolar cells. How does this favour evolution? Well the photoreceptor cells (rods & cones) sit behind the ganglion and bipolar cells. this means that when a light impulse travels through the eye and into the photreceptor cells it must pass the bipolar and ganglion cells then be electrochemically sent back into the bipolar and ganglions. This is what causes what is known as a 'blind spot' in that because the optic nerve is already at the back of the eye, no photoreceptors can be located there. Surely if there were some great omnipotent being that created life or dictated its progresion it would have taken a little more care with developing one of the main sensory organs. If the photoreceptor cells sat infront of the ganglion and bipolar cells they could be distributed across the whole eye and therefore no blindspot. There are many other more mainstream evolution ideas but i believe that to be one of the most condemning for creation and intelligent design.
Sorry if that was a bit long winded but it needed proper context. If you are unsure of anything i have just said tell me and i will try and better explain possibly with diagrams

[Nuba]

Evolution seems like a fine theroy but it sometimes seems to have some weakspots. For instance the creator of the Theory of Evolution Charles Darwin tried to back out of his own theory....probably under some pressure from the religious type...but lets not get into that. For me I seem to think that intelligent design would be the more logical way life came about. I once saw a movie and they demonostrated it like this. Take a part a watch and put all the peices into a box....shake the box all you like but the watch isn't going to assemble itself. Meaning that just because all the peices were there didn't mean it just happened....something had to kickstart it. I could be a diety or hell evolution could have actually happened and all those people believing in religion are just fools gathered together like bugs to a bug zapper.....who knows....

[c73]

Everything is to intricate and works together to perfectly to be the result of a chance bang in the universe. Just my opinion though.

[Shanx]

mmm...i do think that evolution has the most evidence but i dont know why i always think that there was a creator.. I dunno. Im not a religious person and i dont picture this being like in the bible or any of that stuff.

Personally, I sort of believe in both. but its kind of hard to explain in my view. I just take it that anything is possible and that you should never doubt any theory completely. Everything is a possibility because no one really knows for sure.

[Cannon D]

mmm...i do think that evolution has the most evidence but i dont know why i always think that there was a creator.. I dunno. Im not a religious person and i dont picture this being like in the bible or any of that stuff.

Personally, I sort of believe in both. but its kind of hard to explain in my view. I just take it that anything is possible and that you should never doubt any theory completely. Everything is a possibility because no one really knows for sure.

i agree with what he said

[SuperSkunk]

Evolution for sure. Just the thought of a god creating everything is irrational in my eyes.

Religion and all that jazz is a reason for the weak minded ones to hang under the banner of the manipulative ones.

[crazyassmetalhead]

you fucking idiots we were all made out of clay then god breathed into us and we became alive.............duh.

i actually like the ancient astronaut theory (or whatever it's called)
the one where aliens came to earth fucked the neanderthals into something smarter, taught them some shit, and made us their slaves (explains a lot of the origin stories and such) then left....... does explain some shit but theres no concrete proof

evolution obviously happens but i don't think life just catalyzed on its own, as for there being a creator......maybe, idk

[techtiger]

i have posted my fealings on this in one of the political threads... ill find it eventually

[Shanx]

i actually like the ancient astronaut theory (or whatever it's called)
the one where aliens came to earth fucked the neanderthals into something smarter, taught them some shit, and made us their slaves (explains a lot of the origin stories and such) then left....... does explain some shit but theres no concrete proof



oh yeah i forgot about this lol. yeah it seems a lot more logical than a creator i think.

[numerator-91]

Evolution seems like a fine theroy but it sometimes seems to have some weakspots. For instance the creator of the Theory of Evolution Charles Darwin tried to back out of his own theory....probably under some pressure from the religious type...but lets not get into that. For me I seem to think that intelligent design would be the more logical way life came about. I once saw a movie and they demonostrated it like this. Take a part a watch and put all the peices into a box....shake the box all you like but the watch isn't going to assemble itself. Meaning that just because all the peices were there didn't mean it just happened....something had to kickstart it. I could be a diety or hell evolution could have actually happened and all those people believing in religion are just fools gathered together like bugs to a bug zapper.....who knows....

the watch analogy is flawed in that your starting way too advanced and a watch bears no relevence on any lifeform, the watch parts will not join together because there is no reason for them to. they do mot need to metabolise and recycle organic material to continue their existence. after all a broken watch is a series of inanimate pieces that never have and never will be alive.
Q.E.D bitch

[Nuba]

My my what a temper you seem to have....perhaps I should dumb down the watch analogy for you to understand. OK the box is supposed to represent the oceans that life began in, and the watch peices are supposed to represent the chemicals and elements that were necessary for life to begain. Just because their present in the ocean doesn't mean that life is suddenly going to appear. Something had to come along and arange all the necessary components so that life would take place. If you sit down and think about it. Intelligant Design and Evolution tie in a little....because I. D. explains how it began while Evolution explains the path that life took to get to where they are now.

[A Deo et Rege]

Here are my views; short, and to the point.

I believe that life was created by what I like to call "The Grand Experiment." It is a mix of all three in that I believe God set in motion the series of events that led to the evolution of man. The reason I don't believe evolution is a viable means to the origin of life is because after reading countless books on evolution, and all encompassing theories; I have come to the conclusion that, as far as evolution is concerned, all of existence is based on a fluke of nature. That the only reason we are even here is because something went wrong, and it just so happened to produce life. How probable does that sound to you? Does it make sense that life, as far as biology is concerned, has a chance of 1 in a googolplex of ever coalescing into an organism that is the precursor to all of existence, and we just happen to get lucky. O_o

..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(

[ItsAPoorlyKeptSecret]

i say all are wrong and right at the same time but that they arent the only possibilities it could just be all tied into one bigger picture we have no way of ever seeing in our lifetime

[a2thae]

Everything is to intricate and works together to perfectly to be the result of a chance bang in the universe. Just my opinion though.

Hmm. You said essentially what Deo is saying.

I am leaning towards evolution mainly because of my agnostic viewpoint. There is a CHANCE that everything played out perfectly, and is--for the most part logically explainable. With religion, I just think that in some cases--if not all cases-- some people were on shrooms or something and made some shit up to explain shit they can't understand. ("Thor and his lightning bolts", "Giant spaghetti monster in the sky" enough said.)

[numerator-91]

My my what a temper you seem to have....perhaps I should dumb down the watch analogy for you to understand. OK the box is supposed to represent the oceans that life began in, and the watch peices are supposed to represent the chemicals and elements that were necessary for life to begain. Just because their present in the ocean doesn't mean that life is suddenly going to appear. Something had to come along and arange all the necessary components so that life would take place. If you sit down and think about it. Intelligant Design and Evolution tie in a little....because I. D. explains how it began while Evolution explains the path that life took to get to where they are now.

Let me dumb it down for you. the watch pieces aren't organic compounds. a watch wont come together because your going way to advanced way to fast. if you put a ball and a socket in a box and shake it around i reckon sooner or later it'll come together. however these are irrelevent because as stated before they are inaniment objects. bacteria didn't just suddenly spawn from early earth simple polypeptide chains formed and then slightly more complex chains until there where working protiens, these all came together and sure enough a few million years later we have a unicellular organism.

[Nuba]

In a way numerator you just proved my point. Things don't just happen by chance...some one some where has to set the events in motion for anything and everything to take place. The watch analogy was just a way to demonstrate that someone had to set everything in motion or in this case open the box and assemble the watch....it didn't just do it by itself.

[numerator-91]

i never said anything about chance, it happened as a series of progressing chemical reactions specifically carbon based compounds that eventually grew to be self sufficient. things were set in motion by said chemical reactions however from your steadfastly ignorant standpoint you remind me of a landover baptist

[Nuba]

Oh come on Numerator....If I were a baptist or any church goer....would I be sitting here talking about I.D. Hell no....I be accusing you all of devil worship....slamming you in the head with a big ass bible hoeing that by osmosis you'd learn some of the good stuff, and then once your unconscious I'd drag you to church and chain you to a pew and force you to listen to the preacher preaching his mind rotting sermons until you've become one of the collected. I'm just trying to explain my opinions so that you have some idea of it...instead of dismissing it like its totally irrelevant. Which it doesn't really matter to me in the long run....im just bored and have nothing better to do....but I think I'm going to go watch foamy now.

[numerator-91]

Oh come on Numerator....If I were a baptist or any church goer....would I be sitting here talking about I.D. Hell no....I be accusing you all of devil worship....slamming you in the head with a big ass bible hoeing that by osmosis you'd learn some of the good stuff, and then once your unconscious I'd drag you to church and chain you to a pew and force you to listen to the preacher preaching his mind rotting sermons until you've become one of the collected. I'm just trying to explain my opinions so that you have some idea of it...instead of dismissing it like its totally irrelevant. Which it doesn't really matter to me in the long run....im just bored and have nothing better to do....but I think I'm going to go watch foamy now.

some of that shit made me laugh pretty damn good.

[Buddha]

Pastafarianism

http://www.venganza.org/

[TotalAnarchyUK]

Religion is the biggest con of all time. When there is something that we can't explain some guy with an overactive imagination will explain it, and for some reason people believe it.

[thedragonforce]

I believe in creation but not exactly the "Christian" or "Jew" theory like i believe we were made then we evolved

[numerator-91]

Intelligent Design or "semi creation" is for all the pussies that aren't committed enough one way or the other about evolution or creation.

[Warpurlgis]

i go with deo on this one

[exial]

all theorys and beliefs are non important. none of them would be capable of ever truly undertanding life and its true purpose. we do not know how primitive our intelligence might be compared to smarter and more intelligent lifeforms. we draw up these idea and work so hard to believe them and the simple fact is we are incapable of ever understanding how life came about.
"to put it simply the truth of all creation is soo vastly complex and unimaginable that we are incapable of understanding how we came to be."
All im saying fellow anarchist is that maybe the truth of all/our creation is simply beyond our mortal understanding.

[A Deo et Rege]

Well put, but that doesn't mean we can't try......


..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(

[deathlord888]

nuba i am going to have to disagree with the whole watch thing

if you do keep shaking the box for ever and ever, eventually it will one time fall back into place.

so if you think how there are an infinite amount of planets out there it was bound to happen on one sooner or later, and it just happened to be this one.

i personally go with evolution.

[numerator-91]

as i have said before, the watch analogy is totally irrelevent and meaningless.

[exial]

Well put, but that doesn't mean we can't try......


..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(

yea but hopeless anyway. we can believe watever we choose to believe but in the end it wont change wat is. You ever heard the saying:
"You dont have to believe in something for it to exist."

[straightedgepunk123]

The question of how we got here is irrelevant, but I keep on coming back to it. I think evolution. Besides, the creationist argument is so full of holes it couldn't float on the "Great" Salt Lakes. First they say that life is so complicated that it can't have anything to do with evolution (they like to say chance, but as numerator pointed out, chance isn't the right word, since the amino acids had incentives to form proteins etc.) then their explantation comes from a two thousand year old book with a two sentence "description" of how everything (including life) started. I found a fantastic youtube author who can more deeply explain how I feel about this whole debate. Here's a link to his first video in a 24 part series (great stuff).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=istxUVBZD2s&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdEZTdOlGss&feature=related

[A Deo et Rege]

The question of how we got here is irrelevant, but I keep on coming back to it. I think evolution. Besides, the creationist argument is so full of holes it couldn't float on the "Great" Salt Lakes. First they say that life is so complicated that it can't have anything to do with evolution (they like to say chance, but as numerator pointed out, chance isn't the right word, since the amino acids had incentives to form proteins etc.) then their explanation comes from a two thousand year old book with a two sentence "description" of how everything (including life) started. I found a fantastic youtube author who can more deeply explain how I feel about this whole debate. Here's a link to his first video in a 24 part series (great stuff).

Well, any logical person would see that creationism has a bunch of holes in it, yet if you have read as many books and papers as I have on the subject of evolution you would find that it has quite a few holes as well.

..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(

[numerator-91]

and scientist are actually putting in a decent effoet to fill in those holes cos blind faith aint gonna do it.

[RAV]

There is the big difference between science and religion. Science tries to explain as best as possible the unexplainable, by rational means. Religion says if you don't accept it blindly you go to hell.

[straightedgepunk123]

There is the big difference between science and religion. Science tries to explain as best as possible the unexplainable, by rational means. Religion says if you don't accept it blindly you go to hell.

Well put! I think that is going to make a great slogan on a t-shirt when I walk around outside churches asking people why they believe.

[itismesaj]

It's time for a reality check:
Religion and Science are in two different domains. Science explains how, whereas religion explains why. Any scientist that tells you that religion is false is sadly misinformed, and any priest who tells you science is wrong is ignorant. You simply cannot prove one theory over another.

You cannot believe in evolution. It is a noticeable phenomenon that occurs in nature.

As for me, I am more interested in WHY than HOW. I already know how life exists. Animals have sex. Why does life exist? That's far more interesting in my book.

</reality check>

[Deetinator]

You can interpret why however you want. I believe in creation for a few reasons. Yes, God could have used evolution and Creation is just a metaphor (because what Israelis back then could understand modern science?) but I believe creation happened as described in the bible because the fossil record doesn't show any transitional beings and also because of the "living fossils" such as the coelanceth or however you spell it, that fish. It also displays creatures such as those in the act of molting and even dinosaurs fighting, which to me is proof of a global flood.

If all this was disproved and my Answers in Genesis buddies claimed they were wrong, this doesn't disprove Christianity to me, it would just change my view of origins. I try to be as open-minded as possible. And please no flame for my views. I'm simply expressing, not trying to cut others down :)

[A Deo et Rege]

That whole point of my forum is to educate--not fustigate.

You bring up some interesting points that most people overlook, and discredit because they go against the grain of tradition. I myself think that evolution is only part of the answer as to the how we got here, but as saj said, "I am more interested in why than how." It is much more interesting to know the reason for somethings existence, than it is the process that brought it into being.


..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(

[numerator-91]

You can interpret why however you want. I believe in creation for a few reasons. Yes, God could have used evolution and Creation is just a metaphor (because what Israelis back then could understand modern science?) but I believe creation happened as described in the bible because the fossil record doesn't show any transitional beings and also because of the "living fossils" such as the coelanceth or however you spell it, that fish. It also displays creatures such as those in the act of molting and even dinosaurs fighting, which to me is proof of a global flood.

If all this was disproved and my Answers in Genesis buddies claimed they were wrong, this doesn't disprove Christianity to me, it would just change my view of origins. I try to be as open-minded as possible. And please no flame for my views. I'm simply expressing, not trying to cut others down :)

holy hell! do you believe the earth is 6004 years old?

[Deetinator]

Yes, does that scare you? lol. You're pretty educated on this to know about Ussher. Again, I'm open-minded so that if I'm disproved I'll rethink my thoughts on creation and all that, but that still doesn't change my "why".

[numerator-91]

so your a fundamentalist? which branch of christianity?

[a2thae]

It's time for a reality check:
Religion and Science are in two different domains. Science explains how, whereas religion explains why. Any scientist that tells you that religion is false is sadly misinformed, and any priest who tells you science is wrong is ignorant. You simply cannot prove one theory over another.

You cannot believe in evolution. It is a noticeable phenomenon that occurs in nature.

As for me, I am more interested in WHY than HOW. I already know how life exists. Animals have sex. Why does life exist? That's far more interesting in my book.

</reality check>


The bold/underlined part: How are they misinformed? Religion has never been proven nor disproven. I myself am agnostic. I mean, kids on shrooms can make up shit about how the earth came to be etc...and people are dumb enough to believe it. I made my own religion in my town when I was 18, and had gathered some followers. I then told them I was bullshitting all of them, and slanderized them how they blindly believed. I think my religion had something to do with 1 god, only suffering or blessed with multi-personalities etc..

I'm not saying that all religion is false, only saying that at least some (if not most/all) of it is.

[Deetinator]

so your a fundamentalist? which branch of christianity?

Well, I'm more non-denominational, if that's what your asking, but I'd say my views most likely line up with Calvinism, like predestination and all that.

[straightedgepunk123]

Yes, does that scare you? lol. You're pretty educated on this to know about Ussher. Again, I'm open-minded so that if I'm disproved I'll rethink my thoughts on creation and all that, but that still doesn't change my "why".

So your saying, that despite fossils that have been carbon dated saying that there was life (even life, not just matter) far before 6004 years ago, you agree with a piece of literature that makes fanciful claims and has no basis in science, let alone reality? In answer to your why question, I can simply answer, Why not? Why should we deserve some reason in our extre***y miniscule existence? I personally don't think we should, based on our track record.

[itismesaj]

In response to a2thae, I was saying that you cannot use science to disprove religion. Or, let me be clearer: a belief in a Supreme Being.

In response to Deetinator, I believe you would be classified as a Puritan. Look up John Winthrop, and I think you'll find some connections to your own views.

In response to straightedgepunk, anything over 6000 years or so would not be eligible for credible carbon dating. At that point you'd be using some other source of dating. Just letting you know.

Deetinator:

You can interpret why however you want. I believe in creation for a few reasons. Yes, God could have used evolution and Creation is just a metaphor (because what Israelis back then could understand modern science?) but I believe creation happened as described in the bible because the fossil record doesn't show any transitional beings and also because of the "living fossils" such as the coelanceth or however you spell it, that fish. It also displays creatures such as those in the act of molting and even dinosaurs fighting, which to me is proof of a global flood.

You are answering how again. Creationism is how. Therefore I do not think it to be true. However, there is a reason we are here. That is why. I do not know why we are here, and I feel that when religion strays from the why it becomes stale and unreliable. The best religions that explain why are the ones found in the Orient. The Western religions focus too much on control for my liking.

[numerator-91]

i believe the older than 6000 year dating is the radio isotope dating shit

[A Deo et Rege]

In response to a2thae, I was saying that you cannot use science to disprove religion. Or, let me be clearer: a belief in a Supreme Being.

In response to Deetinator, I believe you would be classified as a Puritan. Look up John Winthrop, and I think you'll find some connections to your own views.

In response to straightedgepunk, anything over 6000 years or so would not be eligible for credible carbon dating. At that point you'd be using some other source of dating. Just letting you know.

Deetinator:

You are answering how again. Creationism is how. Therefore I do not think it to be true. However, there is a reason we are here. That is why. I do not know why we are here, and I feel that when religion strays from the why it becomes stale and unreliable. The best religions that explain why are the ones found in the Orient. The Western religions focus too much on control for my liking.

i believe the older than 6000 year dating is the radio isotope dating shit

Read this (Carbon Dating):

http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae403.cfm

..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(

[itismesaj]

Ah, thank you Deo. I was confusing half lives with total amount of C14. So, carbon dating is accurate for, say, a while :P.

[Comrade Hayden]

My own opinion is that if there is an intelligent creator, than said creator is probably more sophisticated than we could possible comprehend. Also, I doubt that if there is such a creator, that any of the religions or stories about an intelligent creator are true. There are so many theories, some of them seem crazy at first glance, but become more logical when you open your mind and consider them.

Scientology is ridiculous, but the theory that we could have been placed here by alien life, is not quite as ridiculous, depending on what you believe. Any religion is honestly ridiculous, but, if you look at the basic ideas behind them, they can make sense.

Who knows? Why worry about something that is impossible to prove one way or another?

[Xion904]

The thought of how life began shouldn't be thought of by any living thing. If we were brought here on this planet by some higher being then he wouldn't want us to burden ourselves with the question of how life began, he/she would want us to just enjoy life to the fullest until it's our time to go. And if we did just evolve from single celled creatures the we shouldn't think about it anyway because nature just wants us to get old have sex and then die to prevent our species from going extinct,so the question itself is pretty much not important to our existence anyway.

[drugfeind]

I think the people that saw all the weird stuff in religion may have been schitzophrenic.Or I also heard when people see ghosts it is from magnetic forces stimulating the brain which would cause even a large croud to see similar things. But a more inteligent lifeform than ourselves for example an alien could have came down and showed us some shit. Evolution definatly happens because we see it all the time with breeding strains of marijuana to dogs to the ecosystem and the changes that man makes to the world...i have an idea but i doubt it will ever happen but i think we should send a couple people to another planet that has oxygen and wait a couple thousand years and check up on them to see if they figured out how to survive and make shit outta scratch or if they totally evolved into smartass mutants, I think that would be cool ..i think i covered most of my opinions peace i need to blaze

[stewey]

im sorry but i will not beleive im made from a bunch of slime,there more science in a blade of grass than in a space shuttle.

[Buddha]

Pastafarianism!

[MrSoul]

With respect to Creationism: Prove it.

With respect to Intelligent Design: It's Creationism.

The only theory with actual proof: Evolution. Dig it.

[freetibet]

I'd say intelligent design because living things obviously evolve but the transition from bacteria to people would be impossible without a little guidance.

I mean who here actually believes that microorganisms evolved a circulatory, digestive, and nerve system at the same time? I'd say believing that takes more faith than belief in any God(s)

I know everyone has been taught since elementary school that our ancestors were amoebas but if you sit down and think about it intelligent design makes more sense than either of the other 2. Now it could have been aliens, gods, or some disembodied life force but something was tweaking DNA to be sure

[Palm3R]

Creationism...
I don't think that people don't or can't evolve, but then again that doesn't mean that's how it all started.
Evolution had to happen somehow, some people basically believe that against every odd, two things happened to come together, and those two things just happened to be compatible with each-other.
Maybe some believe that DID happen, but something had to have come in to existence somehow. something had to create it for that to happen in the first place.
I'm not saying evolution can't happen, because living things obviously DO evolve, but something had to have created everything before that for it to had happened in the first place. Is it so hard to believe that we had a little guidance from God?
I also believe in Eugenics. Some people think it's "immoral" but I think at this point in time, that's something that we need.

By the way, I don't hate all believers of I-D or darwinism, but I do hate people that just say "no, I don't like religion, it couldn't have happened" and have no reason for saying that. I hate little 13 year old trends that some people think will help them fit in better. If you hate religion, have a fucking reason for it, don't just jump on the band wagon.

EDIT*
freetibet, I kind of agree with you, but I'm not talking about intelligent design

[Buddha]

Pastafarianism!

[Turamarth4]

The problem with this entire argument is that no one side is really willing to entertain the possibilities of the other. A truly enlightened person can entertain an idea without accepting it. Until that point is reached, there will be no triumph in this.

Now, to my answer: I have heard several people say that creationism is true simply because it cannot be disproven. (I tend to lump "Intelligent Design" in with Creationism because the only difference in the two is mere semantics). The main problem that I see with this argument is that using failure to disprove as a proof positive is ridiculously dangerous for the believer himself. For instance, I cannot (and am not going to try) to disprove the existence of God. However, I can not come any nearer to disproving the existence of Zeus, or Odin, or Hare Krishna, or Brahma, or Lotan, or any other diety that has ever been conceptualized. Therefore, if failure to disprove can be used as proof positive, then (sorry Bible believers...dont shoot me) all of these other "divine beings" must be given the possibility to exist as well. Perhaps we should refine our thought process into a non-argumentative way of thinking and simply do what anarchists do: destroy. Tear down every ideology there is and rebuild it with what we know. Fix it with what we know works. If you cannot subject something to rigorous destruction and wind up with the same answer afterwards, I believe that it is not worth believing in the first place.

I personally hold the tenants of traditional darwinism to be the most correct answer as far as universal umbrella answers go. We know that everything is fundamentally made up of energy. This energy used to be condensed into a super-massive "blob" of energy at the center of the universe. After the big bang, the universe was filled with energy and everything was super-heated. It took millions of years for the universe to cool down enough to render quarks, gluons, etc. and even longer to render atoms and matter as we know it. To me, I simply cannot see how the Bible explains this adequately, but that is my personal opinion. I cannot begin to say why this happened, or what existence was like before this cosmic explosion took place. My mind is-sadly-irrevocably human, and as yet cannot comprehend the eternity that must have existed before we did.

[freetibet]

So you're saying you're a truly enlightened person because you thought about creationism for a second before saying it's as stupid as greek mythology?

riiiiiiiiiiiiight

oh and by the way you can disprove the existence of certain deities.

[Palm3R]

The problem with this entire argument is that no one side is really willing to entertain the possibilities of the other. A truly enlightened person can entertain an idea without accepting it. Until that point is reached, there will be no triumph in this.

Now, to my answer: I have heard several people say that creationism is true simply because it cannot be disproven. (I tend to lump "Intelligent Design" in with Creationism because the only difference in the two is mere semantics). The main problem that I see with this argument is that using failure to disprove as a proof positive is ridiculously dangerous for the believer himself. For instance, I cannot (and am not going to try) to disprove the existence of God. However, I can not come any nearer to disproving the existence of Zeus, or Odin, or Hare Krishna, or Brahma, or Lotan, or any other diety that has ever been conceptualized. Therefore, if failure to disprove can be used as proof positive, then (sorry Bible believers...dont shoot me) all of these other "divine beings" must be given the possibility to exist as well. Perhaps we should refine our thought process into a non-argumentative way of thinking and simply do what anarchists do: destroy. Tear down every ideology there is and rebuild it with what we know. Fix it with what we know works. If you cannot subject something to rigorous destruction and wind up with the same answer afterwards, I believe that it is not worth believing in the first place.

I personally hold the tenants of traditional darwinism to be the most correct answer as far as universal umbrella answers go. We know that everything is fundamentally made up of energy. This energy used to be condensed into a super-massive "blob" of energy at the center of the universe. After the big bang, the universe was filled with energy and everything was super-heated. It took millions of years for the universe to cool down enough to render quarks, gluons, etc. and even longer to render atoms and matter as we know it. To me, I simply cannot see how the Bible explains this adequately, but that is my personal opinion. I cannot begin to say why this happened, or what existence was like before this cosmic explosion took place. My mind is-sadly-irrevocably human, and as yet cannot comprehend the eternity that must have existed before we did.

Uhm... I just said that I have looked into all of them and look down on people who just side with one and not knowing what it is. Like when people say they hate religion even though they don't understand it.
Yeah, I've researched ID, and darwinism, but I stick with religion.
Also, God was before evolution, everyone keeps saying evolution started everything, but something had to have come before it...
I refuse to believe that everything that exists (in our solar system, and everything else in space) was compressed into something the size of a tiny marble and somehow that caused it to blow up and create Earth. How does that make sense? How do you get even a single galaxy the size of a marble, and even if that happened, how can that turn into a planet, or even an entire solar system?
and now, -contradicting their OTHER theory- they have a different theory, that millions of years ago (go figure), the Moon and Earth were one single chunk of molten materials floating in space, and as it rotated, Earth split from the moon and then they hardened forming giant rocks in space. "they" also say that The Earth is slowly rotating away from the Moon due the split (because of the angle and the rotation). Three things wrong with this theory:
1- They said that the Moon and Earth have two completely different matter contents right after they got done saying it split.
2- They said that they thing that's also why Moon spins around us, but if Earth detached from the Moon, it wouldn't even be in sight right now, it would've moved away.
3- they said the Earth split from the moon, so then they're saying that Earth actually revolves around the moon.
What does this have to do with the "big bang" theory? I think they make up new theories all the time, they constantly contradict other previous theories that the same people came up with.
I think they just sit there and make up new theories all of the time, because it's more money in their pockets, which is partially why I refuse to believe all of their theories are correct.
I never said religion and creationism can not be disproved (like you say), I just tend to believe that is what happened, and I think scientific theories have been disproved simply because they make up new stories all the time, contradicting their previous story that they made up.

[Buddha]

Pastafarianism!




x3
asdfghj

[Palm3R]

Pastafarianism!

ROFL
I don't care how intolerant this sounds... Why the fuck is there a church of the flying spaghetti monster!?!? XD

[Palm3R]

With respect to Creationism: Prove it.

With respect to Intelligent Design: It's Creationism.

The only theory with actual proof: Evolution. Dig it.

Yes, I double posted, get over it...

For one, Evolution has no proof at all.
(and I quote) "The only theory with actual proof:"
notice the word THEORY in there...

define:theory
"An unproven conjecture"

Actually, the only one right in your quote is "creationism." it hasn't been proven, but it also hasn't been disproved either. Darwinism has never been proven, because it's just a theory and has no supporting proof. (like I said in my post on the last page), they sit down and make up theories, because it's more money in their pockets. They don't prove it because they know it's something that they made up off of the top of their heads and it contradicts every other last theory they made.

Now, to fix your quote...

With respect to Creationism: not proven, nor disproved...

With respect to Intelligent Design: Not proven, nor disproved...

The only theory with actual proof: Nothing, because the word "proof" contradicts the word "theory."

There, now that's FACT.

[Buddha]

ROFL
I don't care how intolerant this sounds... Why the fuck is there a church of the flying spaghetti monster!?!? XD



This explains it. You should read it.:)


http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/


If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.



And a nice vid.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vgxLGe7JjE&eurl=http://www.venganza.org/

[techtiger]

Ok so most of you wont believe a word im about to say (and im not saying this is my belief im just simply telling a true story)

So i have a cousin that works for nasa, he is litterally a rocket scientist, what he does he cant say because he is classified, he works in one of those all white rooms that have to be steril and shit like that. Any ways over easter break he had a few too many beers and i started asking him question about space and shit like that, to make a long story short, this is basically what he told me, there was once life on mars and that the pyrimids that are on there are almost identical to the ones that are here on earth, and that a long time ago there "people" if you will, that were living on mars knew that there was going to be some sort of planet ending thing so they moved to the to the martian moon, simply because it was the nearest thing. from there they sent out parts of the planit to enhabit earth because of the over crowding that would have taken place if they were all on the moon.
He also was telling me that nasa has seen these "moon men" but wont reveil it simple because of the mass hysteria that would take place, i mean think about it millions of people base there entire life around a god and if they found out there wasnt one there would be chaose. He whent on to tell of a defense system that they have and that is the reason why all of the early things we sent to mars mysteriously stopped working, he explained that they were really distroyed and that now nasa just feeds the public bullshit so that they dont raise any red flags


just my lil story, take it or leave it

[freetibet]

i think your cousin just said that to freak you out...

and from what i understand pastafarianism is basically the religion of mocking religions. They are saying that God makes as much sense as a flying spaghetti monster so they pretend to "worship" it when in fact they are just making fun of theists.

it just sounds like a bunch of atheists too lazy to develop a real opinion to me...

[Palm3R]

i think your cousin just said that to freak you out...

and from what i understand pastafarianism is basically the religion of mocking religions. They are saying that God makes as much sense as a flying spaghetti monster so they pretend to "worship" it when in fact they are just making fun of theists.

it just sounds like a bunch of atheists too lazy to develop a real opinion to me...

Actually I think that's exactly what it is...

About the story, he was drunk and was probably trying to freak you out.
There also used to be life on Mars. There was bacteria there that was caused by humans. lol
as for your story, I think he was just messin' with you.

[techtiger]

im not saying i buy it, its just something kinda cool to think about. i mean it does have some plausalbility to it however far fetched it may seem

[Palm3R]

im not saying i buy it, its just something kinda cool to think about. i mean it does have some plausalbility to it however far fetched it may seem

Oh, that's different then. Yeah, I guess that is a weird story. lol
That'd be even more fucked up if it was all true and no one believed him. XD

[Buddha]

i think your cousin just said that to freak you out...

and from what i understand pastafarianism is basically the religion of mocking religions. They are saying that God makes as much sense as a flying spaghetti monster so they pretend to "worship" it when in fact they are just making fun of theists.

it just sounds like a bunch of atheists too lazy to develop a real opinion to me...

See the thing is there was evolution and creation. Science and faith. Faith is all butt-hurt because it's not taught to the nations children in schools, so they get creative. They invent intelligent design. Whatever no-matter BUT, they claim it is science SCIENSE. They invented it so they could put it in school. I'll say it again, intelligent design was invented so Christianity could be taught in schools.

This guy Bobby Henderson (concerned citizen) discovered pastafarianism. If ID gets taught as truth, as science he wants pastafarianism to get the same treatment. It's his god given right to try.

Prove me wrong.

[freetibet]

ok...

intelligent design doesn't have to be about Christianity. If Bobby Henderson wants to believe the force behind intelligent design is a bunch of pasta he can do that. There is no special treatment, it is simply pointing out the fact that complex life forms are too advanced to have happened accidentally. Nothing at all about Christ or god or anything supernatural in there.

[Buddha]

ok...

intelligent design doesn't have to be about Christianity. If Bobby Henderson wants to believe the force behind intelligent design is a bunch of pasta he can do that. There is no special treatment, it is simply pointing out the fact that complex life forms are too advanced to have happened accidentally. Nothing at all about Christ or god or anything supernatural in there.

I think you misunderstood that part, or I wasn't clear. It doesn't matter....


Anyway, I have to admit I never really looked into ID because i just assumed it was Christians trying to get Christianity taught in schools. So I googled it.

Intelligent design is the assertion that: "... certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3] The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.[4][5][6] Intelligent design's leading proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[7][8] believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[9][10] Advocates of intelligent design argue that it is a scientific theory,[11] and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.[12]
I believe that's pretty much what i said in my post. I feel less special now that I realize I wasn't the first person to to type out this argument.

[freetibet]

Even though the driving force behind making it legal is primarily christian, that doesn't mean you have to be christian to believe in intelligent design. It could be aliens, pasta, or Christ. It all depends on what you want to believe.

and its not like you must study intelligent design, it's just about making it an option to study it in school legally

[Buddha]

I'm trying to think of it like that but I cant. This is Christians trying to teach Christianity in school. That's the only thing this looks like to me. How did ID go from non-existent to totally acceptable as science in just a couple years? There is politics(Christianity) involved here, that's why.

[freetibet]

well didn't evolution go from non existent to acceptable science in just a few years?

and even if it is mostly politics, why do you feel so threatened by it? How would someone studying ID hurt you in any way?

[Buddha]

I don't know how long evolution took to become respected, I was hoping you didn't know either. lol


I hate how Christianity is by and far the accepted religion of the u.s. This ID is only gonna make it worse.

[numerator-91]

well didn't evolution go from non existent to acceptable science in just a few years?


Are you fucking serious? The origin of the Species was published about 150 years ago. Darwin and Wallace were houded for many, many years by the church to renounce their views. To this day it's still a hotly debated topic.

Read all my earlier posts, they give brilliant insight into the flaws of creation and intelligent design.

[freetibet]

Just because it wasn't accepted by everyone the day it started doesn't mean it doesn't fit into the category of 'a few years'. I assume you mean Catholicism by the church, and Catholicism oppressed other Christians too. So I don't know what your point was...

I'm sure I've read at least most of your posts on creationism and ID.

and just like I said to Buddha, people studying ID doesn't hurt you in any way so why keep it illegal to teach in school? Even if it is flawed its not like you have to study it. Its just about giving other people the chance to.

[Buddha]

Religion is'nt supposed to be taught in schools. ID is religion.

[Dr_gonzo33]

we are all the product of an astronomical anomaly. we are even lucky to be here, not saying that there isnt an intellgiant being behind it, because i like to think theres something greater than us

[Cuddles]

Just because it wasn't accepted by everyone the day it started doesn't mean it doesn't fit into the category of 'a few years'. I assume you mean Catholicism by the church, and Catholicism oppressed other Christians too. So I don't know what your point was...

I'm sure I've read at least most of your posts on creationism and ID.

and just like I said to Buddha, people studying ID doesn't hurt you in any way so why keep it illegal to teach in school? Even if it is flawed its not like you have to study it. Its just about giving other people the chance to.

intelligent design is religion. also!, it's scientifically unfounded, so it shouldnt be taught in school. if you can find scientific evidence that confirms ID, then ill be happy to let it be taught. there's no science behind it, tho....that's not to say it's wrong, but that's what's required for it to be taught in an academic environment. you can stick to teaching it in church, until you have that scientific backing....it's either that, or you allow it to be taught as history, which means teaching children about the history of multiple religions in one class, and not the beliefs of that history.

[freetibet]

have you researched ID at all? I for one have found it has lots of scientific backing. Like things being able to reproduce, the complicated nature of even the most simple life forms, etc

[Cuddles]

have you researched ID at all? I for one have found it has lots of scientific backing. Like things being able to reproduce, the complicated nature of even the most simple life forms, etc

complexity of organisms is not proof of intelligent design. and yes, i have, i wouldnt comment on a subject i knew nothing about, im not that stupid.

[freetibet]

I think its proof...

It shows that random chance would be incapable of creating such complex life. Either that or it would take much longer than the earth has been around for.

I mean the chances of all the parts necessary for a complex organism to live and reproduce evolving at the same time are astronomical. Things rarely mutate, and when they do it typically isn't beneficial to the organism.

[Cuddles]

I think its proof...

It shows that random chance would be incapable of creating such complex life. Either that or it would take much longer than the earth has been around for.

I mean the chances of all the parts necessary for a complex organism to live and reproduce evolving at the same time are astronomical. Things rarely mutate, and when they do it typically isn't beneficial to the organism.

bullshit.as ive said before, regardless of who you've been reading, the probability, in this very vast, and infinite universe, of one planet (na***y, earth) having the capability to sustain and evolve life, is very, VERY high. you're being nonsensical. just because, to you, it seems unlikely, does not mean that it is. also, probability does not work based upon how long something has existed. you're very, very wrong on that. a coin has a heads or tails 50/50 chance, regardless of what time of day you flip it (im simplifying, there are differences which are very minute and unnoticeable to humans, but they're that minute that it doesnt matter in my example.)

[Cannon D]

well there has to do be something out there cause i mean there was like a 1 in billion shot the world and everything would have been created the way it is now if it would have happened any different everything would have imploded or something laong those lines

[Cuddles]

well there has to do be something out there cause i mean there was like a 1 in billion shot the world and everything would have been created the way it is now if it would have happened any different everything would have imploded or something laong those lines

i realize you're not THE most brilliant person on this site, but one in a billion is actually a VERY high chance. now, the chances of the events which created our planet happening are probably more around 2 to the power of pi times one trillion (which, if you didnt know, is a very large number, meaning the chance isnt all that high) (also, yes, im making that number up, it's giving you a rough idea, tho, isnt it?) according to current human knowledge of how the universe works--HOWEVER! the universe is very vast, and the chances of just about everything happening will work out to be 1 eventually. and especially considering the number of events occurring in this universe at any given point, a very tiny chance of something happening becomes a very large chance of something happening quite quickly. plus, think about the abundance of matter, the chance of it colliding into eachother just the right way to create planets, then water, then life, then more complex life, seems fairly high to me.....maybe one particular particle might have a .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000001 or smaller chance of colliding in the proper way, but multiply that by the billions of billions of billions of billions of billions of particles that collide every milisecond, and you're pretty guaranteed that life would be created eventually on its own.

[superflysuperwhite]

so what you're saying is that some where in this vast universe where possibilities are endless... the easter bunny is real?

[Cuddles]

so what you're saying is that some where in this vast universe where possibilities are endless... the easter bunny is real?

who did you think killed your father? i mean, there were coloured eggs everywhere....

[Cannon D]

lol i get what ur saying. basically anything is possible. and if they collide differently we could be breathing methane and be green

[freetibet]

bullshit.as ive said before, regardless of who you've been reading, the probability, in this very vast, and infinite universe, of one planet (na***y, earth) having the capability to sustain and evolve life, is very, VERY high. you're being nonsensical. just because, to you, it seems unlikely, does not mean that it is. also, probability does not work based upon how long something has existed. you're very, very wrong on that. a coin has a heads or tails 50/50 chance, regardless of what time of day you flip it (im simplifying, there are differences which are very minute and unnoticeable to humans, but they're that minute that it doesnt matter in my example.)

So the chances of an organism evolving multiple systems, like digestive, reproductive, etc at the same time is very high? I find that hard to believe...

I can see how over a long period of time a bunch of monkeys might become people. I doubt bacteria would evolve into a fish over any space of time though. That is, unless there was something helping it along...

so what you're saying is that some where in this vast universe where possibilities are endless... the easter bunny is real?

comparing the Easter bunny to a creater (god, aliens, etc) is ridiculous... the Easter bunny, if he/she/it existed, would be a physical being. God on the other hand, is intangible.

The Easter bunny we know is a figment of our imaginations. God can be felt anytime, anywhere, and is obviously not made up.

The chances of aliens existing, considering the fact that we exist, is also quite high. So comparing them to something made up is also ridiculous.

[Cuddles]

So the chances of an organism evolving multiple systems, like digestive, reproductive, etc at the same time is very high? I find that hard to believe...

I can see how over a long period of time a bunch of monkeys might become people. I doubt bacteria would evolve into a fish over any space of time though. That is, unless there was something helping it along...

your statement about complexity of organisms: bullshit, organs develop out of necessity, not something pushing them along. organisms grow in complexity because one thing needs to be able to consume another in order to survive, and the best food source is something smaller than yourself, because you also need to reproduce to survive, and budding does not create much in the way of biodiversity, so your best bet is sexual reproduction, if you intend to survive for too long.....



comparing the Easter bunny to a creater (god, aliens, etc) is ridiculous... the Easter bunny, if he/she/it existed, would be a physical being. God on the other hand, is intangible.

The Easter bunny we know is a figment of our imaginations. God can be felt anytime, anywhere, and is obviously not made up.

he was not comparing the easter bunny to the creator, dumbass.

although, ive never felt god anywhere, so please, tell me how i can feel him. and dont give me that shit about believing, because there were times when i did believe (completely) in god (very short periods of time when i was younger), and i never once felt him/her/it. tell me your secret, and dont you dare say i have to believe.

[freetibet]

although, ive never felt god anywhere, so please, tell me how i can feel him. and dont give me that shit about believing, because there were times when i did believe (completely) in god (very short periods of time when i was younger), and i never once felt him/her/it. tell me your secret, and dont you dare say i have to believe.

Well, personally i like to sit cross legged for a while and try to empty my mind of everything. I try to do this until I forget why I was clearing my mind in the first place. I then try to open myself up to outside 'energy' I guess you could say. Then I try to see if I can communicate with the energy. Usually I refer to it as 'god' simply because that's what I learned to call it when I was younger. I have only very rarely felt like I've gotten any sort of distinct answer to anything. Usually i just feel very very relaxed and calm, like a baby might when its mother is holding it.

You could try that, but really everyone is different in how to best communicate with god. 'Believing' can certainly help, just like believing a medication will work for you can help. Belief by itself, however, is never enough.

I'm likely wasting my time typing this however, since your post seemed sarcastic rather than a genuine question.

edit*

your statement about complexity of organisms: bullshit, organs develop out of necessity, not something pushing them along. organisms grow in complexity because one thing needs to be able to consume another in order to survive, and the best food source is something smaller than yourself, because you also need to reproduce to survive, and budding does not create much in the way of biodiversity, so your best bet is sexual reproduction, if you intend to survive for too long.....

Yes things do evolve out of necessity, I don't think a more complex digestive system would be a necessity though. How would a micro-organism growing a digestive and reproductive track help it at all when it could just absorb its food and reproduce by splitting?

[Cuddles]

Well, personally i like to sit cross legged for a while and try to empty my mind of everything. I try to do this until I forget why I was clearing my mind in the first place. I then try to open myself up to outside 'energy' I guess you could say. Then I try to see if I can communicate with the energy. Usually I refer to it as 'god' simply because that's what I learned to call it when I was younger. I have only very rarely felt like I've gotten any sort of distinct answer to anything. Usually i just feel very very relaxed and calm, like a baby might when its mother is holding it.

You could try that, but really everyone is different in how to best communicate with god. 'Believing' can certainly help, just like believing a medication will work for you can help. Belief by itself, however, is never enough.

I'm likely wasting my time typing this however, since your post seemed sarcastic rather than a genuine question.

edit*



Yes things do evolve out of necessity, I don't think a more complex digestive system would be a necessity though. How would a micro-organism growing a digestive and reproductive track help it at all when it could just absorb its food and reproduce by splitting?

your first thing: meditation? meditation serves no purpose to me when trying to "communicate with god", it's meant to me as stress relief, that'll never do, gimme something else.

second thing: a more complex digestive tract would give the organism a better preparation for more thoroughly using the energy absorbed, as well as selectively deciding what portions of an item are best left as excrement. also, life did not necessarily only start as single celled, asexual creatures, some may have been sexual, and some may have eaten smaller organisms right from the start

[freetibet]

your first thing: meditation? meditation serves no purpose to me when trying to "communicate with god", it's meant to me as stress relief, that'll never do, gimme something else.

second thing: a more complex digestive tract would give the organism a better preparation for more thoroughly using the energy absorbed, as well as selectively deciding what portions of an item are best left as excrement. also, life did not necessarily only start as single celled, asexual creatures, some may have been sexual, and some may have eaten smaller organisms right from the start

1.
Well the meditation helps you to open your mind. You can't very well feel god if your mind is full of the days activities. You can't communicate with god using your body, so you have to make sure your mind is ready to receive the feelings brought be realizing god's presence. Meditating before hand might not be necessary for everyone who wants to communicate with god, but I have a feeling it would be necessary in your case.

Meditation is more about relaxation, like you said. What i recommended was more about opening up to god, allowing god to enter your mind. If all you were doing was meditating, you likely wouldn't be able to communicate with god. I probably shouldn't have mentioned the crossed legs part, that's kinda the cliche thing to do when you meditate. Try just sitting normal or laying down instead so you don't feel silly.

2.
I don't see how bacteria would evolve a digestive and reproductive tract. It wouldn't be beneficial for it to start growing intestines and a penis or something similar to those things. Especially since random mutation likely wouldn't make the entire track at one time.

The other part you mentioned about things being sexual/multi celled right from the start sounds a lot like ID. For those things to evolve it would either take a guiding hand, or things would have had to started out more complex than just bacteria.

Don't equate ID with god though. Even if you prove ID wrong don't assume god doesn't exist. And if ID is proved right don't assume god does exist.

[cstrikehero]

the creator of the Theory of Evolution Charles Darwin tried to back out of his own theory....probably under some pressure from the religious type...

He actually disclaimed his theory completely and became a christian.. when he couldn't prove it..

[freetibet]

I heard he was a christian studying theology beforehand, and later gave up theology, but remained christian.

[numerator-91]

He actually disclaimed his theory completely and became a christian.. when he couldn't prove it..

Your a fucking Idiot. He was a devout christian and even went to seminary school for a while, he couldn't really hack it and so he went off on his adventures on the beagle. When his youngest daughter died he denounced his faith as no God could possibly be so cruel to him. He never once renounced hs own work he simply refrained from spruiking it himself, he had Wallace for that. Darwin was a very shy and retiring fellow, he never liked confrontation and always had someone else doing the actual arguing in his place.

That sounds really disjointed but you get the picture.

[Cuddles]

1.
Well the meditation helps you to open your mind. You can't very well feel god if your mind is full of the days activities. You can't communicate with god using your body, so you have to make sure your mind is ready to receive the feelings brought be realizing god's presence. Meditating before hand might not be necessary for everyone who wants to communicate with god, but I have a feeling it would be necessary in your case.

Meditation is more about relaxation, like you said. What i recommended was more about opening up to god, allowing god to enter your mind. If all you were doing was meditating, you likely wouldn't be able to communicate with god. I probably shouldn't have mentioned the crossed legs part, that's kinda the cliche thing to do when you meditate. Try just sitting normal or laying down instead so you don't feel silly.

2.
I don't see how bacteria would evolve a digestive and reproductive tract. It wouldn't be beneficial for it to start growing intestines and a penis or something similar to those things. Especially since random mutation likely wouldn't make the entire track at one time.

The other part you mentioned about things being sexual/multi celled right from the start sounds a lot like ID. For those things to evolve it would either take a guiding hand, or things would have had to started out more complex than just bacteria.

Don't equate ID with god though. Even if you prove ID wrong don't assume god doesn't exist. And if ID is proved right don't assume god does exist.

1: you're misjudging me, believe it or not, i meditate somewhat frequently, and i generally can clear my mind without even seeming to try. and, regardless of how clear my mind is, i have never once FELT god.

2: i never said life started as bacteria. as well, not all single celled organisms are bacteria, as well, who're you to decide that everything's due to random mutation? did you ever consider that maybe, JUST maybe, the actual structure of dna (you know, that wonderous double helix structure that you're chocked full of?) promotes changes for the betterment of the being? i mean, certainly, the ability of rna to change on the fly has a decent impact on that ability to mutate non-randomly......or of viruses to change that rna...or of damage to the cell changing how its offspring appear....or thousands of billions of billions of ..you see where im going...there are many factors that you could not begin to fathom, dont chock them up to some guiding hand.

[freetibet]

1: you're misjudging me, believe it or not, i meditate somewhat frequently, and i generally can clear my mind without even seeming to try. and, regardless of how clear my mind is, i have never once FELT god.

2: i never said life started as bacteria. as well, not all single celled organisms are bacteria, as well, who're you to decide that everything's due to random mutation? did you ever consider that maybe, JUST maybe, the actual structure of dna (you know, that wonderous double helix structure that you're chocked full of?) promotes changes for the betterment of the being? i mean, certainly, the ability of rna to change on the fly has a decent impact on that ability to mutate non-randomly......or of viruses to change that rna...or of damage to the cell changing how its offspring appear....or thousands of billions of billions of ..you see where im going...there are many factors that you could not begin to fathom, dont chock them up to some guiding hand.

1.
So you do meditate often? Well then i'd say after meditating you try and open yourself up to feeling god around you. Don't think about talking to a man in the sky though, it won't work haha. I hate to say it, but belief might actually be part of the reason you're having trouble. If you are absolutely convinced there is no god, and are just trying to communicate with god so you can say you tried, you will never successfully feel god's presence.

2.
So you think the dna might be guiding the organism to evolve into something more complex? What do you think made the dna do that then? There are many factors to evolution, like you said, so who is to say one of those wasn't a guiding hand?

and don't you think the fact we can even have a debate about this shows ID is a legitimate theory (not fact, theory). I think if evolution is being taught, then ID should be allowed to be taught along side it. You don't have to, you just should have the option.

[Cuddles]

1.
So you do meditate often? Well then i'd say after meditating you try and open yourself up to feeling god around you. Don't think about talking to a man in the sky though, it won't work haha. I hate to say it, but belief might actually be part of the reason you're having trouble. If you are absolutely convinced there is no god, and are just trying to communicate with god so you can say you tried, you will never successfully feel god's presence.

2.
So you think the dna might be guiding the organism to evolve into something more complex? What do you think made the dna do that then? There are many factors to evolution, like you said, so who is to say one of those wasn't a guiding hand?

and don't you think the fact we can even have a debate about this shows ID is a legitimate theory (not fact, theory). I think if evolution is being taught, then ID should be allowed to be taught along side it. You don't have to, you just should have the option.

unfortunately, once again, you're misjudging me. im not "convinced there is no god", i just dont care whether there is. and as i said before, ive had complete belief before and never once felt god. as well, im a firm believer in qi, or the vital life force of all things, and that, i HAVE felt, and sometimes in the conditions that you're talking about, only i know it's a part of me/all living things/not a god, or godlike thing. it's just the energy that resonates in all matter, which is much more prominent in living things, as more happens in living things. i would never chock something like that up to god.

nothing "made the dna do that", it does it because of how it's constructed. it doesnt need a guiding hand, silly goose.

and no, i dont think the fact that we can have a debate about it shows that it's a legitimate theory. now, if you're saying it should be allowed as an elective--maybe at a collegiate level, but not in highschool, im sorry, too many people would take it solely for the purpose of credits (and as well, it could NOT be counted as a science credit, if you did have it in highschool, as once again, too many people would take it just for the easy credit, because it's a really absurdly easy subject to take.) and what about unintelligent design? ive had debates about that, but you wouldnt want that taught in schools.

[freetibet]

unfortunately, once again, you're misjudging me. im not "convinced there is no god", i just dont care whether there is. and as i said before, ive had complete belief before and never once felt god. as well, im a firm believer in qi, or the vital life force of all things, and that, i HAVE felt, and sometimes in the conditions that you're talking about, only i know it's a part of me/all living things/not a god, or godlike thing. it's just the energy that resonates in all matter, which is much more prominent in living things, as more happens in living things. i would never chock something like that up to god.

nothing "made the dna do that", it does it because of how it's constructed. it doesnt need a guiding hand, silly goose.

and no, i dont think the fact that we can have a debate about it shows that it's a legitimate theory. now, if you're saying it should be allowed as an elective--maybe at a collegiate level, but not in highschool, im sorry, too many people would take it solely for the purpose of credits (and as well, it could NOT be counted as a science credit, if you did have it in highschool, as once again, too many people would take it just for the easy credit, because it's a really absurdly easy subject to take.) and what about unintelligent design? ive had debates about that, but you wouldnt want that taught in schools.

a believer in qi? wtf is that? lol
Sounds like you do believe in god, you just don't like to call it that. You said, "it's just the energy that resonates in all matter". That sounds like god to me...

I don't think it should be a college class, I think it should be a high school class to be optionally taught alongside evolution.

Isn't unintelligent design what a regular course in evolution is about? If so, then yes I do want that taught in schools. I just want ID to be an option as well. Since it is scientifically plausible.

[Cuddles]

a believer in qi? wtf is that? lol
Sounds like you do believe in god, you just don't like to call it that. You said, "it's just the energy that resonates in all matter". That sounds like god to me...

I don't think it should be a college class, I think it should be a high school class to be optionally taught alongside evolution.

Isn't unintelligent design what a regular course in evolution is about? If so, then yes I do want that taught in schools. I just want ID to be an option as well. Since it is scientifically plausible.

as to the first thing: qi is vital energy, not god, it's a chinese belief, which i almost thought you might have heard of, but i guess you dont know much about other beliefs. and it's not god, and never will be.it's an energy that comes from within, whereas GOD, is a deity which has some control over all of humanity/matter/whoever the fuck and whatever the fuck it wants.

no, unintelligent design is unintelligent design. fsmism. http://venganza.org for example. i believe if you're going to go so far as to say that ID is a valid theory, then UD should be counted as one as well, and taught just as well.

[freetibet]

as to the first thing: qi is vital energy, not god, it's a chinese belief, which i almost thought you might have heard of, but i guess you dont know much about other beliefs. and it's not god, and never will be.it's an energy that comes from within, whereas GOD, is a deity which has some control over all of humanity/matter/whoever the fuck and whatever the fuck it wants.

no, unintelligent design is unintelligent design. fsmism. http://venganza.org for example. i believe if you're going to go so far as to say that ID is a valid theory, then UD should be counted as one as well, and taught just as well.

do you mean chi? That's not fair tricking me by using 'Q's. I study lots of religion, but I'll admit I haven't studied all of them. Neither have you though, so I don't know why you would bring that up...

I just saw a bunch of spaghetti... where is this supposed UD?

If i remember right though, its about a stupid creator accidentally making things evolve right? Which is not a valid theory, since you couldn't accidentally make things evolve. That is what ID is about, that it would take a guiding hand for micro-organisms to become as complex as they are now. A intelligent guiding hand too, since an unintelligent creator would not be capable of making things evolve to their current complexity.

edit*
if you're going to bring FSM into this, i think i'm entitled to this:

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

I haven't seen it, but I heard its good.

[Cuddles]

ben stein is an idiot.

as well, unintelligent design is just as valid a 'theory' as ID is.

[freetibet]

Well whoever thought up the flying spaghetti monster was an idiot, so i figured i'd show an idiot from the other side, lol.

and no, UD is not just as valid of an opinion. I just showed you its some of its flaws and that it has no scientific base. It was just a joke made up to try and say ID has no scientific base when it actually does. That is why nobody is serious about UD but the number of ID supporters are steadily growing.

[Cuddles]

STOP SAYING THINGS THAT HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC OR STATISTICAL BASIS, IT'S FUCKING OBNOXIOUS.

ud is in fact just as valid an opinion, it requires a creator, whether that creator created intentionally is all it brings into question. the references to the flying spaghetti monster, and such silly nonsense is just to reaffirm that they're trying to show how silly ID is. i did not see any flaws being shown. where did you do that?

[freetibet]

If i remember right though, its about a stupid creator accidentally making things evolve right? Which is not a valid theory, since you couldn't accidentally make things evolve. That is what ID is about, that it would take a guiding hand for micro-organisms to become as complex as they are now. A intelligent guiding hand too, since an unintelligent creator would not be capable of making things evolve to their current complexity.

That is what I said

here are some sites about ID:

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idmovement.htm
http://www.origins.org/articles/bradley_existenceofgod.html
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/evidence-for-intelligent-design.htm

[ArcaneMethods]

Personally I think there would have to be a creator. Everything just flows to smooth for it to happen by chance.

[itismesaj]

Personally I think there would have to be a creator. Everything just flows to smooth for it to happen by chance.

Why? Why, why, why? Why can't a logical series of events of events occur, stemming from cause and effect? Why does there have to be someone orchestrating it? Why can't the universe handle stuff like that on its own?

I am no atheist or agnosticist by any means, but to just ASSUME that the universe can't be perfect on its own is ridiculous.

[freetibet]

Why can't the universe handle stuff like that on its own?

Because the universe handling things on its own would mean the universe could think. Which would mean the universe is God. So if the universe handled things itself, then there is a God.

[itismesaj]

I am not arguing whether God exists or not. I happen to be a Pantheist. What I am arguing, however, is that the Universe (and, by extension, all things that happen within it) is not driven by some man behind a curtain. It is driven due to a logical series of cause and effect.

[freetibet]

I am not arguing whether God exists or not. I happen to be a Pantheist. What I am arguing, however, is that the Universe (and, by extension, all things that happen within it) is not driven by some man behind a curtain. It is driven due to a logical series of cause and effect.

I figured your religious beliefs were something like pantheism, panentheism, agnosticism, etc

and the universe obviously isn't directed by some man behind a curtain. It isn't too far fetched though to think that all those causes and effects are being driven by some sort of energy though.

[itismesaj]

That point I might be willing to concede, given the fact that everything (in my book) is connected anyway.

[GaMeRbOt]

Dinosaurs are not in the Bible. That is all.

[Warpurlgis]

Dinosaurs are not in the Bible. That is all.

Neither are alot of lifeforms that exist

[GaMeRbOt]

My point being, if "God" told Moses to write the book of Genesis, wouldn't he want Dinosaurs to be included?

[Warpurlgis]

Why didnt god write it himself

[exial]

Why didnt god write it himself

AHAHAHA.. im guessing from the "Holy Books" that god is incapable of writing anything that is within our power to see. Translated: We would automatically believe in God if we witnessed gods handwriting lol..

[methtownblue]

God didn't write the Bible, but He DID fax every page of it into the minds of the Christian men who would soon write it. jk

[exial]

God didn't write the Bible, but He DID fax every page of it into the minds of the Christian men who would soon write it. jk

You will burn in hell for that statement!! :D

[methtownblue]

Fine with me, because I could get away from the cold right about now. Also I could get a sexy tan. Sign me up!

[exial]

Alright. I signed you up. If anyone else wants to be on the list let me know.

[Warpurlgis]

ha dumb cunt you dont even know me

[methtownblue]

83 posts and was a moderator; not too shabby. I still find her to be a pest though.

[fly2pluto]

i was a damn good moderator, and The Anarchist liked me

[methtownblue]

Place emphasis on the was part, and you will understand that that is the past tense. Therefore, you are just a shadow of your former self. Get out before you do even more harm than good.

[exial]

i was a damn good moderator, and The Anarchist liked me

lol. no shit.

[N0M4N]

i think the most logical explanation is the evolution theory, because if there is a god, he's an ass. if i would be god, i'd change a lot of things in the world.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

You know, everything about this thread pisses me off, right down to the title: Creationism and Intelligent Design are the same fucking thing! Don't listen to me though, look into the court case that literally ruled that one is just a rebranding of the other. Fuck 'em.

[drugfeind]

if there is a god im sure hes much smarter than u and he has a plan that he is following through with not just doing something that would make us feel better .. he most likly wants to weed out all the peices of shit like u so only the good people get in..for all we know were just something that god is doing for fun

[followalong]

i never said anything about chance, it happened as a series of progressing chemical reactions specifically carbon based compounds that eventually grew to be self sufficient. things were set in motion by said chemical reactions however from your steadfastly ignorant standpoint you remind me of a landover baptist

Not chance? You still have to go back to the chemical reaction stage, and it doesn't work either way. There either has to be chance or direction. And direction doesn't just happen.
How did they survive before they became self-sufficient? By the chemical reactions? What caused them to be precise and controlled enough to sustain life? It doesn't work. Take for instance irreducibly complex system. You seem to be intelligent, most likely more so than I, so I'll assume you know where I'm going. Look at cilium, its made up of 200 protein parts, and are complicated molecular machines. And it is irreducibly complex. Take one part away and it ceases to function. This just fell into place, these "non-functional parts" knew to assemble themselves to survive while they were surviving?
Flagellum is another one. Its quite complicated, yet irreducibly complex. It has many parts, but if one is removed it ceases to function. And on top of that these molecular machines know when to move, when to stop, when to turn, where to go for food, light or whatever it needs. Who told it, it just knew?
What about the intra cellular transport system? Have a look into that. A cell has compartments like roms in a house. I can name them and explain why they are relevent if need be. But the point is cells are always getting rid of old stuff and manufacturing new stuff that are designed to work in one "room of the cell" but not the other. It wasn't by chane that it assembled a certain way. And how do they get from room to room within the cell? I know, do you? Its not just because. I can go on, but I'm certain I'll be responded to with insults to my intelligence and explanations that get around the point and never address the question. Prove me wrong please. I just gave a very sketchy, basic idea of why some things could not have just developed over time. If they are irreducibly complex now, what were they then when they could not function? They simply would die.

[drugfeind]

this guy seems smarter than a fifth grader :P

[Akhyll]

I vote for evolution, to me it's the most logical, or the least false, as you want.
A omniscient, omnipotent, universal form of life who create the universe ? Sound like a blond joke to me.

[followalong]

I vote for evolution, to me it's the most logical, or the least false, as you want.
A omniscient, omnipotent, universal form of life who create the universe ? Sound like a blond joke to me.

Really? Care to elaborate on how it is "most logical" or "least false"?
In my opinion it takes much more faith to believe in an evolutionary process than in a Creator. In fact when science is done in honesty it points away from the natural and towards somthing greater. Biologist Jonathan Wells states, "If it does not fit the evidence, it MUST be reevaluated or abandoned- otherwise it is not science, but myth." This is a statement made concerning the fact that Darwinian evolution must be continually compared with the evidence. And it just doesn't add up. The scientist that so harshly and fiercly push evolution have made it a matter of denying the thought of a Supreme Being, rather than science being done correctly. In science, you should go where the data leads. Yet we see theory pushed as fact, and college level text books still publishing things that are proven and factual to now be known as false, such as the miller exp., the embryo's, and others.

Anthropologist Mar**** Schlitz states, "I would take the position of a radical empiricist, in that I am driven by data, not theory."

Biochemist Franklin M. Harold states, "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

I could go on, but my point is most scientist see it as a matter to stop "religion", not further science, and in that, many problems arise.
"I am all in favor of a dialogue between science and religion, but not a constructive dialogue. One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for an intelligent person to be religious, then atleast to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment." Physicist Steven Weinberg.

I am open to truth, it seems most are not, or that truth is somthing determined by the individual, not by data, or facts.

[TotalAnarchyUK]

I go with Evolution as it seems more logical than intelligent design and definatly more logical than creationism.

[followalong]

I go with Evolution as it seems more logical than intelligent design and definatly more logical than creationism.

How? The untrue textbooks? The theory's that have little to no data to support them? Science done correctly point's beyond the natural, and that's where faith in evolution and theory takes precidence.

[TotalAnarchyUK]

The evolutionary theory has more data and evidence than intelligent design and creationism.

[followalong]

Absolutly not. Very typical response though. Most "evolutionist" (for lack of a better term), when confronted with real data will turn the debate into a mud pit, or they really don't understand what they believe either?

Many scientist today concede that although they will not entertain the idea of a creator, they have no data that holds water as to how life began and that supports darwinian evolution. Just because your college professer, assuming half of you are out of high school, told you we came from soup in no way means we did. I am ready and open to debate, and share scientific facts outside of theology. Iv yet to read a post where someone gives me data, not theory, of why evolution is more logical?

[Cashis Clay]

Lets here some scientific facts then.

[Xon]

followalong does have a good point. I have yet to see anyone post anything that resembles a scientific post on why evolution is correct.

If you have one, post it then.

[TotalAnarchyUK]

Well firstly followalong, how do you think life began?

Absolutly not. Very typical response though. Most "evolutionist" (for lack of a better term), when confronted with real data will turn the debate into a mud pit, or they really don't understand what they believe either?

Show me this data that proves that creationism and intelligent design is more logical than evolution.

Many scientist today concede that although they will not entertain the idea of a creator, they have no data that holds water as to how life began and that supports darwinian evolution. Just because your college professer, assuming half of you are out of high school, told you we came from soup in no way means we did. I am ready and open to debate, and share scientific facts outside of theology. Iv yet to read a post where someone gives me data, not theory, of why evolution is more logical?

The darwinian evolutionary theory is virtually dead in regards to how life came to be and has many flaws when put under scruteny. Darwins theory was a basic understanding of evolution formed in the Origin of Species, and many of his ideas in the book where correct such as natural selection.
http://fishinsects.suite101.com/article.cfm/evolution_and_the_peppered_moth

Nearly all scientists accept that the modern evolutionnary synthesis is how life began and the best account of evolution.

All evolutionary phenomonena can be explained in a way consistent with modern genetics and observational evidence of naturalists. Observing nature is key to understanding how life came to be. There is much evidence in nature that supports evolution.

There is no other scientific explanation that can account for all the patterns observed in nature, only non scietific explanations that involve a miraculous force, such as a creator.

Evidence for evolution is supplied in the world around you, nature, fossils and bacteria.

[Xon]

And yet if you have intelligent design, then all of that still makes since.

[TotalAnarchyUK]

Intelligent design requires a "force" to still guide the evolution.

There is no evidence for this "force"

[Xon]

Not true. And intelligent design just means that an intelligence designs the world. Not "guide" it. Once set in motion, nothing is needed at all.

[TotalAnarchyUK]

Yeah but there would still need to be something to set it in motion.

And theres no evidence to suggest that there is, or was something that designed us.

[Xon]

Besides that fact that scientist can't even create life?

And the intelligent designer would of course set the design in motion.

[TotalAnarchyUK]

The designer would have to exist in order to design :)

[Xon]

Yup. You are correct in that.

[lem0nz4all]

History is bullshit, the world was created the moment I was born and its going to end the moment I die, if I even die.

[Xon]

There goes our nice conversation.

[followalong]

Well firstly followalong, how do you think life began?

Well, the big bang very closely resembles the Genesis account, so that would be my answer. And I do not agree with the other fellow, God didn't just set us in motion and take a seat. He is in controll of His creation.
As for a young or old earth? I won't debate as I think it's irrelevant to the issue at hand. And I'm on the fence.

Show me this data that proves that creationism and intelligent design is more logical than evolution.

Read my earlier post, and from here I'll give it my best. To me, it absolutly is.



The darwinian evolutionary theory is virtually dead in regards to how life came to be and has many flaws when put under scruteny. Darwins theory was a basic understanding of evolution formed in the Origin of Species, and many of his ideas in the book where correct such as natural selection.
http://fishinsects.suite101.com/article.cfm/evolution_and_the_peppered_moth


Right, and other theory's are just that..theory's.

Nearly all scientists accept that the modern evolutionnary synthesis is how life began and the best account of evolution.

Its the best explanation they can come up with to make evolution work in light of recent evidence. "Nearly all scientist"? Do you know them all?

All evolutionary phenomonena can be explained in a way consistent with modern genetics and observational evidence of naturalists. Observing nature is key to understanding how life came to be. There is much evidence in nature that supports evolution.

Again, untrue. There are explanations given to support a theory, but that does not make them true. It is idea put behind idea, trying to make pieces fit that do not fit.

There is no other scientific explanation that can account for all the patterns observed in nature, only non scietific explanations that involve a miraculous force, such as a creator.

Right, "scientific explanation". But if the scientific method fails to produce true answers then it must be changed. And that is what we are dealing with today.

Evidence for evolution is supplied in the world around you, nature, fossils and bacteria.

What evidence in fossils? There is much, much more against than for according to the fossil record. Cambrian explosion, lack of transitional fossils, to name two.
Michael Denton says this: "...The universal experience of paleontology is that while the rocks have continually yielded new and exciting, even bizarre forms of life, what they have never yielded is any of Darwin's myriads of transitional forms. Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing origin. The intermediates have remained as elusive as ever and their absence remains, a century later, one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record."

The spotted moth is a common and weak example, sorry. Ill address it further later, it's late and I'm tired.

Bacteria you mentioned also. Like Flagellum? Its irreducibly complex, it is an extre***y efficient molecular machine. I can go into detail if need be. And mutations and immunity in bacteria only proves micro evolution, which we do see in nature, not macro, which we do not as far as Im concerned.
Within micro, we have several species of dog, but they are all dog. We have no record or indication that a dog was ever anything but a dog. Bacteria may change, but it is still bacteria. Nature shows us complexity and intelligence, those are not produced by chance or selection without a selector? If you say "nature" did the selecting, then nature must have a mind. I look forward to your response.

[TotalAnarchyUK]

Edit: Creatonists seem to spend there time trying to pick holes in evolution. In your posts I have yet to see any evidence for creationism, rather you just trying to just debunk evolution

Well, the big bang very closely resembles the Genesis account, so that would be my answer. And I do not agree with the other fellow, God didn't just set us in motion and take a seat. He is in controll of His creation.
As for a young or old earth? I won't debate as I think it's irrelevant to the issue at hand. And I'm on the fence.

The big bang does not closely resemble the genesis account. According to Genesis the earth, plants and animals where created before the sun, moon and stars. This does not fit the ti***ine of the big bang. How could plants survive before the creation of the sun?

Nearly all scientists accept that the modern evolutionnary synthesis is how life began and the best account of evolution.

Its the best explanation they can come up with to make evolution work in light of recent evidence. "Nearly all scientist"? Do you know them all?

Its common knowledge that evolution is the accepted theory on how life began. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html
As you can see in the image, the USA is strangly less accepting of evolution then many other countries.

Niel Cambell wrote in his 1990 biology textbook 'Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.'

Evolution is both theory and fact. It can be observed in populations of living organisms over time as fact and as how life started as theory.

Alot of biologists and scientific organisations such as the National Academy of Science (US) are pushing for evolution to be seen as fact.

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.

There is no other scientific explanation that can account for all the patterns observed in nature, only non scietific explanations that involve a miraculous force, such as a creator.

Right, "scientific explanation". But if the scientific method fails to produce true answers then it must be changed. And that is what we are dealing with today.

So you suggest we look at the origin of life from a faith perspective and ignore the massive amount of scientific evidence avialable to us?

Evidence for evolution is supplied in the world around you, nature, fossils and bacteria.

What evidence in fossils? There is much, much more against than for according to the fossil record. Cambrian explosion, lack of transitional fossils, to name two.
Michael Denton says this: "...The universal experience of paleontology is that while the rocks have continually yielded new and exciting, even bizarre forms of life, what they have never yielded is any of Darwin's myriads of transitional forms. Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing origin. The intermediates have remained as elusive as ever and their absence remains, a century later, one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record."

Darwins theory on evolution is dead. Elements and ideas from it form some of the modern evolutionary theory. Darwin had very little resorces avialable to him then that we have now that confirm evolution is happening.

The spotted moth is a common and weak example, sorry. Ill address it further later, it's late and I'm tired.

I look forward to your answer to that.

Bacteria you mentioned also. Like Flagellum? Its irreducibly complex, it is an extre***y efficient molecular machine. I can go into detail if need be. And mutations and immunity in bacteria only proves micro evolution, which we do see in nature, not macro, which we do not as far as Im concerned.
Within micro, we have several species of dog, but they are all dog. We have no record or indication that a dog was ever anything but a dog. Bacteria may change, but it is still bacteria. Nature shows us complexity and intelligence, those are not produced by chance or selection without a selector? If you say "nature" did the selecting, then nature must have a mind. I look forward to your response.

Evolutionary pathways supported by natural selection and evolution have been identified for Flagellum. http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.htmlhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html The type three secretion system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_three_secretion_system is a simplified sub set of flagellum components.

I look forward to your response.

[Xon]

Sorry to interrupt your argument, just wanted to say a few things.

Edit: Creatonists seem to spend there time trying to pick holes in evolution. In your posts I have yet to see any evidence for creationism, rather you just trying to just debunk evolution

The fact is, people who believe in evolution decided not to see this evidense for creation. If you want a picture, look around you. The world is so complex, it could not have happened at random. It is impossible. And to believe such is just a way for many people to ignore God. That is all evolution is. Scientists trying to find a way to ignore God.


The big bang does not closely resemble the genesis account. According to Genesis the earth, plants and animals where created before the sun, moon and stars. This does not fit the ti***ine of the big bang. How could plants survive before the creation of the sun?

Because God can do anything and supported the life of everything.



Nearly all scientists accept that the modern evolutionnary synthesis is how life began and the best account of evolution.

Its common knowledge that evolution is the accepted theory on how life began. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html
As you can see in the image, the USA is strangly less accepting of evolution then many other countries.

Niel Cambell wrote in his 1990 biology textbook 'Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.'


I know quite a few scientists that are creationists and others that aren't and still don't believe in evolution. (Except Micro Evolution since I figure this debate is on Macro) And if you look at United States, less than 50% believe in evolution and about the same amount know that it is false. Granted, this is only of adults and not scientists, the fact is as you can see by this chart, people who have been raised being taught evolution believe in it. They don't need proof, they believe blindly.

Evolution is both theory and fact. It can be observed in populations of living organisms over time as fact and as how life started as theory.

The only fact of evolution I have ever seen is with Micro evolution. I have never seen a fact or ever a reasonable excuse for Macro. Only just assumptions and ideas to try and back up evolution.

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.

Again, I have yet to see a true observation of Macro evolution, if you find one, let me know.


There is no other scientific explanation that can account for all the patterns observed in nature, only non scietific explanations that involve a miraculous force, such as a creator.

So you suggest we look at the origin of life from a faith perspective and ignore the massive amount of scientific evidence avialable to us?


There is no massive amount of data, only ideas and the imaginations of scientists trying hard to bring up stuff that might help the evolution case so that they won't have to admit that there is a God.

Anyway, the rest is meh, I don't have the time right now.

I look forward to what you think TotalAnarchyUK

[TotalAnarchyUK]

Sorry to interrupt your argument, just wanted to say a few things.

Not at all mate, everyones input is valid.

The fact is, people who believe in evolution decided not to see this evidense for creation. If you want a picture, look around you. The world is so complex, it could not have happened at random. It is impossible. And to believe such is just a way for many people to ignore God. That is all evolution is. Scientists trying to find a way to ignore God.

I depends what you see as evidence. It is possible that life started as chance, when you consider the billions of stars and trillions of planets that at least one of them managed to form life.

Because God can do anything and supported the life of everything.

There is no evidence that a god does, or ever did exist. Without evidence of his existence there is a good reason to doubt the entire creation theory. If there was no creator, then there was no creation.

I know quite a few scientists that are creationists and others that aren't and still don't believe in evolution. (Except Micro Evolution since I figure this debate is on Macro) And if you look at United States, less than 50% believe in evolution and about the same amount know that it is false. Granted, this is only of adults and not scientists, the fact is as you can see by this chart, people who have been raised being taught evolution believe in it.

Well statistics mean absolutley nothing to the individual. 1 in 3 people are supposed to be affected by cancer but yet some people lost entire family to it. You may know a few creation supporting scientists but genrally most belive that life was formed by evolution.

They don't need proof, they believe blindly
There is proof of evolution.
There is absolutley no evidence that we where created by a creator. So maybe it is creationists who belive blindly.

The only fact of evolution I have ever seen is with Micro evolution. I have never seen a fact or ever a reasonable excuse for Macro. Only just assumptions and ideas to try and back up evolution.

That is still one more fact than has ever been giving about creatonism.
And infact, there is large list of transitional fossils avialable on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

There is no massive amount of data, only ideas and the imaginations of scientists trying hard to bring up stuff that might help the evolution case so that they won't have to admit that there is a God.

You only reinforce my statement earlier that creationists are just picking holes in evolution without supporting there own theory. I cannot understand why you can try and debunk evolution, then say we where created by god when you have aboslutly no evidence of that ever happening.

Show me data that can be analyzed, compared and read that can show that god had a hand in the creation of life. I have shown you data for evolution. Show me data for creationism.

Thanks for the input Xon.

[Xon]

I depends what you see as evidence. It is possible that life started as chance, when you consider the billions of stars and trillions of planets that at least one of them managed to form life.


Except the fact that even though scientist "know" how it happened they can not reproduce it. They can't even assemble the most basic thing.


There is no evidence that a god does, or ever did exist. Without evidence of his existence there is a good reason to doubt the entire creation theory. If there was no creator, then there was no creation.


You last statement shows that without a creator, there is no creation. Well we are the creation, the earth, the stars. Must be a creator somewhere.


Well statistics mean absolutley nothing to the individual. 1 in 3 people are supposed to be affected by cancer but yet some people lost entire family to it. You may know a few creation supporting scientists but genrally most belive that life was formed by evolution.


True, and I would agree. Because of the circles I travel, I know more non evolutionists than evolutionists (besides college)


There is proof of evolution.
There is absolutley no evidence that we where created by a creator. So maybe it is creationists who belive blindly.


Faith. I do not have the information although I wish I did for proof. I could barely understand it when it was presented to me. (Some 6-8 years ago) But I will say this. Creationists fit the world around them around God. They believe in a creator so the things they see and experience reinforce that. Creationist do rely on faith, because that is something we have. We poke holes in evolution so it won't hold water because we believe/know it to be untrue. But it is impossible to prove creationism to an unbeliever. (well, maybe not impossible, but the basic characteristics needed to understand and believe that creation is true aren't there.) Evolutionists also believe. That is why they defend their view so avidly. If they new it to be the truth, undeniable and infallible, they would not be so gunhoe to push it on everyone. The fact is, and evolutionist have to believe, nay to have faith in evolution. There are enough of these 'holes' made by creationists that the only thing to fill them up with is faith.


That is still one more fact than has ever been giving about creatonism.
And infact, there is large list of transitional fossils avialable on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils


Wikipedia = anyone can post here


You only reinforce my statement earlier that creationists are just picking holes in evolution without supporting there own theory. I cannot understand why you can try and debunk evolution, then say we where created by god when you have aboslutly no evidence of that ever happening.

Show me data that can be analyzed, compared and read that can show that god had a hand in the creation of life. I have shown you data for evolution. Show me data for creationism.

Thanks for the input Xon.

Again, both creationists and evolutionist rely on faith or belief in their ideas. You don't solely rely on facts because there aren't enough to give a true basis on which to stand.

Note: the data for creationism I do not completely comprehend. I have had things shown to me such as the expanding universe and such that points to a time when where created but I can neither replicate it or remember it. I will try to find some more info. But for those that believe in creation, that does not matter in our lives so much as others who need to have an explanation on where they came from. Evolutionists are trying so hard to not believe in God, they will do anything to make him not real.

[TotalAnarchyUK]

Except the fact that even though scientist "know" how it happened they can not reproduce it. They can't even assemble the most basic thing.

It is beyond our current technolgical means. It would be highly ignorant to suggest that just because we cannot do something now we could not in the future.

You last statement shows that without a creator, there is no creation. Well we are the creation, the earth, the stars. Must be a creator somewhere.

No, your twisting words here Xon. Ill explain this more simply.

1, There is no evidence of a god.
Without any evidence of a god, it is fair to assume that he does not exist.

2, As god is the supposed creator, and god does not exist, then obviously he did not create the universe.


Faith. I do not have the information although I wish I did for proof. I could barely understand it when it was presented to me. (Some 6-8 years ago) But I will say this. Creationists fit the world around them around God. They believe in a creator so the things they see and experience reinforce that. Creationist do rely on faith, because that is something we have. We poke holes in evolution so it won't hold water because we believe/know it to be untrue. But it is impossible to prove creationism to an unbeliever. (well, maybe not impossible, but the basic characteristics needed to understand and believe that creation is true aren't there.) Evolutionists also believe. That is why they defend their view so avidly. If they new it to be the truth, undeniable and infallible, they would not be so gunhoe to push it on everyone. The fact is, and evolutionist have to believe, nay to have faith in evolution. There are enough of these 'holes' made by creationists that the only thing to fill them up with is faith.

Faith is the only thing that drives creationists. Evolutionists have evidenece to back up there theories. Scientific evidence. What scientific evidence does creationism have? Nothing

I challenge anybody to show me evidence that we where created and not evolved. Empirical evidence.

Definition of empirical evidence
Empirical research is research that bases its findings on direct or indirect observation as its test of reality.

Evolutionists are trying so hard to not believe in God, they will do anything to make him not real.

You talk as if God is proven, and that he is scientifically confirmed as existing.
The only proof you have is your own faith. Which is not proof at all.

[Xon]

Okay, I found this article and think it will help explain what I was trying to say but clearly did not.

I know you are probably going to be like, well this is just another bible thumper or something to that effect. But actually read what this guy is saying.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

"Over the years, many people have challenged me with a question like:
‘I’ve been trying to witness to my friends. They say they don’t believe the Bible and aren’t interested in the stuff in it. They want real proof that there’s a God who created, and then they’ll listen to my claims about Christianity. What proof can I give them without mentioning the Bible so they’ll start to listen to me?’
Briefly, my response is as follows.
Evidence
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
Past and present
We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.
However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.
Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.
On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.
Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.
Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.
That’s why the argument often turns into something like:
‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’
‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’
‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’
‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on.
These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.
It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.
I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.
It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.
However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions—i.e. starting beliefs.
As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’
However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.
What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think...."

[TotalAnarchyUK]

Okay, I found this article and think it will help explain what I was trying to say but clearly did not.

I know you are probably going to be like, well this is just another bible thumper or something to that effect. But actually read what this guy is saying.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

"Over the years, many people have challenged me with a question like:
‘I’ve been trying to witness to my friends. They say they don’t believe the Bible and aren’t interested in the stuff in it. They want real proof that there’s a God who created, and then they’ll listen to my claims about Christianity. What proof can I give them without mentioning the Bible so they’ll start to listen to me?’
Briefly, my response is as follows.
Evidence
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
Past and present
We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.
However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.
Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.
On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.
Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.
Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.
That’s why the argument often turns into something like:
‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’
‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’
‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’
‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on.
These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.
It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.
I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.
It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.
However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions—i.e. starting beliefs.
As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’
However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.
What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think...."

That was all very cleverly worded but pretty much bullshit.

True we have the same facts, but evolution has evidence that it happened. Creationism does not.

I dont know how I can make this clearer.

Show me empirical evidence that we were created

[Xon]

Okay, well, apparently you did not understand what the entire page was about. Same empirical evidence. But for the creationists, God created it that way. With the "appearance" of evolution or whatever you call it. Evolutionists, take that same empirical evidence and say, since we don't believe in God, this is how it happened. You understand now what I am saying. There is nothing that I can show you to prove that the universe was created.

Just one question, where did all this stuff that we were created from, come from?

[TotalAnarchyUK]

Okay, well, apparently you did not understand what the entire page was about. Same empirical evidence. But for the creationists, God created it that way. With the "appearance" of evolution or whatever you call it. Evolutionists, take that same empirical evidence and say, since we don't believe in God, this is how it happened. You understand now what I am saying. There is nothing that I can show you to prove that the universe was created.

Just one question, where did all this stuff that we were created from, come from?

I know both theorys come to the same conclusion. At the end of both theorys is the life we see today.

I dont question that we are here. I question how we got here. An issue that the text I read doesnt address.

But evolution has empirical evidence that life has evolved over time from more simple life forms with succesive and progressive changes.

Christianitys version of Creationism tells us that dinosaurs didnt exist, fossils are lies, and we were "created". There is no evidence of this.

[drugfeind]

It is so complex no human mind can explain it so we are all beleiving blindy. One of the few things that we cannot explain. Maybe God created some things and then they developed or evolved into different things.

[Xon]

Actually, if you knew your creationism, you would realize that one: Dinosaurs and dragons did exist, they are in the old testament, fossils explain how smart our God is and the great flood, and we were "created" in God's image.

Apparently, you have yet to realize anything else I am talking about since I turned it into a philosophical debate and not a "can you measure this" debate since for the latter, I can do nothing.

[TotalAnarchyUK]

Actually, if you knew your creationism, you would realize that one: Dinosaurs and dragons did exist, they are in the old testament, fossils explain how smart our God is and the great flood, and we were "created" in God's image.

Care to show me anything that backs up this?

I bet you think Noah managed to fit all the dinosaurs onto his ark aswell? What happened to the dinosaurs after the flood? The flood is total bullshit.

Geochronolgy is a science of determining the age of rocks and fossils by different techniques. These techniques indicate that the Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old(That is a scientific fact.) and that strata (layers of rock) were gradually deposited over thousands of years and not laid down during the "flood" 6000 years ago.

Apparently, you have yet to realize anything else I am talking about since I turned it into a philosophical debate and not a "can you measure this" debate since for the latter, I can do nothing.

So you are openly addmitting that creationism has no scientific basis and you can only argue with me in philosophical terms?

[Xon]

Care to show me anything that backs up this?

Its in there. You have to know where and what you are looking for though. I had to show my 7th grade science teacher when I told her that the bible had dragons in it and well, yeah. It does. You might want to clarify exactly what you meant by asking me to back up my statement. It could mean a hundred different things. Or 4.


I bet you think Noah managed to fit all the dinosaurs onto his ark aswell? What happened to the dinosaurs after the flood? The flood is total bullshit.


Wow. Okay, not all of the dinosaurs. Do you really think me an idiot? They died out one by one like other creatures in the past. Animals have been going extinct for a while now if you didn't know. Actually, the flood explains a lot of things if you knew about somethings. Like trilobites for example. Or why that in Nevada there is a certain mineral deposit that in under the ground that can only have come from a ocean flood and to get there, it would have had to have covered the whole world. There is a lot more evidence to back up the flood. One other thing before I forget, ever ancient civilization had a record of a flood covering the earth. How do you explain that?


Geochronolgy is a science of determining the age of rocks and fossils by different techniques. These techniques indicate that the Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old(That is a scientific fact.) and that strata (layers of rock) were gradually deposited over thousands of years and not laid down during the "flood" 6000 years ago.


God in his infinite wisdom could have easily created the world like that.


So you are openly admitting that creationism has no scientific basis and you can only argue with me in philosophical terms?

The historical facts (like the flood) in the Bible can be backed up with scientific facts. But all you would see is evolution.

[Cashis Clay]

Xon's blowing smoke.

[TotalAnarchyUK]

Its in there. You have to know where and what you are looking for though. I had to show my 7th grade science teacher when I told her that the bible had dragons in it and well, yeah. It does. You might want to clarify exactly what you meant by asking me to back up my statement. It could mean a hundred different things. Or 4.

Dragons are a integral part of many countries culture. St Georges dragon, the chinese dragons. But they are not real, they are myths and legend. The bible is just one text, and dragons is mentioned, but it is obscure and has no scientific basis.

Wow. Okay, not all of the dinosaurs. Do you really think me an idiot? They died out one by one like other creatures in the past. Animals have been going extinct for a while now if you didn't know. Actually, the flood explains a lot of things if you knew about somethings. Like trilobites for example. Or why that in Nevada there is a certain mineral deposit that in under the ground that can only have come from a ocean flood and to get there, it would have had to have covered the whole world. There is a lot more evidence to back up the flood. One other thing before I forget, ever ancient civilization had a record of a flood covering the earth. How do you explain that?

So who decided which dinosaurs to take? Why is there nothing in the bible that mentions dinosaurs?

Heres another fact for you, millions of years ago, the earths continents did not look like they do now, they had shifted, oceons moved. And some areas that are above water now werent always. Sediments can be picked up and deposited.

As for other ancient civilizations, religion is not an original thing, many elements are copied from other religions. The flood? Sounds familiar to the babylonian gilgamesh epic.

The logistics of it are insane, how could ancient civilizations possible determine that a flood was worldwide? They had not the technology nor the time to travel the world.

The flood also defies the water cycle. If there was a flood, where did all that water go, it cant just dissapear can it?

God in his infinite wisdom could have easily created the world like that.

You accept scientific fact like mineral deposites to help your point, but as soon as scienctific fact disagrees with your religion all you have to say is, God did it.

The historical facts (like the flood) in the Bible can be backed up with scientific facts. But all you would see is evolution.

The great flood is in no way historic fact, or a scientific fact and you would struggle to find any man of science who isnt a bible thumper to agree with you.

[Xon]

Dragons are a integral part of many countries culture. St Georges dragon, the chinese dragons. But they are not real, they are myths and legend. The bible is just one text, and dragons is mentioned, but it is obscure and has no scientific basis.

I was just pointing out the fact that you don't know your Bible as well as you like to think.



So who decided which dinosaurs to take? Why is there nothing in the bible that mentions dinosaurs?

Again, two of every unclean animal. That means two of everything living at the time.


Heres another fact for you, millions of years ago, the earths continents did not look like they do now, they had shifted, oceons moved. And some areas that are above water now werent always. Sediments can be picked up and deposited.

If you read the bible you would know that it talks about the time when the earth split apart and moved. The flood could have easily been before this and therefore the logistics, quite capable.


As for other ancient civilizations, religion is not an original thing, many elements are copied from other religions. The flood? Sounds familiar to the babylonian gilgamesh epic.

Like I said, every civilization has a story about a great flood. Something like that and the re-occurrence of such throughout civilizations can only mean that a great flood took place.


The logistics of it are insane, how could ancient civilizations possible determine that a flood was worldwide? They had not the technology nor the time to travel the world.

? Yet the Mayans had a calendar more exact than ours till recently. You don't know how advanced ancient civilizations were.


The flood also defies the water cycle. If there was a flood, where did all that water go, it cant just dissapear can it?

Actually, if you read how life was like before the flood you would realize that the water cycle was different. But it still worked.


You accept scientific fact like mineral deposites to help your point, but as soon as scientific fact disagrees with your religion all you have to say is, God did it.

You really are so stuck on your ways and ideas that you don't see the bigger picture. God can do anything which allows for an explanation of everything.



The great flood is in no way historic fact, or a scientific fact and you would struggle to find any man of science who isnt a bible thumper to agree with you.

I did not say it was a "scientific fact". Only, that it happened. A man of science isn't going waste his time on a flood. An archeologist might.

[TotalAnarchyUK]

I was just pointing out the fact that you don't know your Bible as well as you like to think.

I havent read the bible and have no intrest in it because it is simply a book, nothing to suggest that it is anything other than an exaggerated version of jesus life with myths and legends added into it. It is a work of fiction.

Again, two of every unclean animal. That means two of everything living at the time.

The bibke says that the ark was 450 feet long and 50 feet wide. You think that a ship that small could carry 2 of every single animal? There have been millions of species that have come and gone exstinct over the years. They could not all possibly fit in even the largest ship we have today.

If you read the bible you would know that it talks about the time when the earth split apart and moved. The flood could have easily been before this and therefore the logistics, quite capable.

It couldof but it wasnt. I suggest you look us pseudoscience and this list of subjects viewed as pseudoscience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience#Reli gious_and_spiritual_beliefs

Like I said, every civilization has a story about a great flood. Something like that and the re-occurrence of such throughout civilizations can only mean that a great flood took place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_myth

Notice the word myth. :)


Yet the Mayans had a calendar more exact than ours till recently. You don't know how advanced ancient civilizations were.

I know we are more advanced now then they have ever been.

Actually, if you read how life was like before the flood you would realize that the water cycle was different. But it still worked.

Is fluctuated somewhat over time but has never raised so much that it would be seen as a great flood. The surface of the earth is huge to have it covered in enough water to consititute a flood would require more water than than our atmosphere would of physically been able to hold.

God can do anything which allows for an explanation of everything.

I have no intrest in debating with someone who will not accept scientific fact and instead of logic and reason simply says "god can do anything, so it must of be true".

I did not say it was a "scientific fact". Only, that it happened. A man of science isn't going waste his time on a flood. An archeologist might.

Scientific fact is the only fact. Look up the defenition of fact. If something happened it is a scientific fact. Saying that something happened then saying it isnt a scientific fact is a severe contridiction and completly undermines your argument.

[Xon]

And yet evolution is not a fact, but a theory. And many, many theories are wrong and have been proved wrong. Evolution itself has to many holes to hold water and therefore can not be counted as true.

So neither of us will give, and neither of us will give up our side.... What are we to do...

Sorry, I don't really have time right now to answer your previous comments. I will sometime though if you still want me too.

[TotalAnarchyUK]

And yet evolution is not a fact, but a theory. And many, many theories are wrong and have been proved wrong. Evolution itself has to many holes to hold water and therefore can not be counted as true.

So neither of us will give, and neither of us will give up our side.... What are we to do...

Sorry, I don't really have time right now to answer your previous comments. I will sometime though if you still want me too.

I would like you to comment them actually, since I have made some valid points that you should address.

Evolution is both fact and theory.

[Cashis Clay]

You guys have no idea what your talking about.

[TotalAnarchyUK]

You guys have no idea what your talking about.

Enlighten me then jessie.

[Cashis Clay]

It's Jesse you illiterate fuck.

[Cadaver Dog]

Whatever, Jessy.

[TotalAnarchyUK]

It's Jesse you illiterate fuck.

No I think its Jessie.

Haha jessies a girls name.

[Cashis Clay]

wow clever.

[Cashis Clay]

So you want me 2 be a girl or something? You want me 2 be your e-girlfriend?

[Xon]

Okay, here I go again.....

I havent read the bible and have no intrest in it because it is simply a book, nothing to suggest that it is anything other than an exaggerated version of jesus life with myths and legends added into it. It is a work of fiction.

If it is such a work of fiction, then why are all the historical facts correct. Many many things have been proved that happened in the Bible actually did happen in the real world. It is more than just a fiction.



The bibke says that the ark was 450 feet long and 50 feet wide. You think that a ship that small could carry 2 of every single animal? There have been millions of species that have come and gone exstinct over the years. They could not all possibly fit in even the largest ship we have today.

If you understood more about it, yes it could. And its not 2 of every animal, just ever species or something like that. I can't remember and am too tired to look it up but I know it does work out.


It couldof but it wasnt. I suggest you look us pseudoscience and this list of subjects viewed as pseudoscience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience#Reli gious_and_spiritual_beliefs

Bah, this is just another thing to try and say, "The bible isn't real." You should really use something else for references than wikipedia.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_myth

Notice the word myth. :)


Again, you might try something different than wikipedia.


I know we are more advanced now then they have ever been.


Yes, but I was saying the Mayans were more advanced than we were 200 years ago.


Is fluctuated somewhat over time but has never raised so much that it would be seen as a great flood. The surface of the earth is huge to have it covered in enough water to consititute a flood would require more water than than our atmosphere would of physically been able to hold.


I was actually talking about a different water cycle completely. Not the rise and fall of water levels. And again, if the all the continents were one big mass, flooding it would be easy.


I have no intrest in debating with someone who will not accept scientific fact and instead of logic and reason simply says "god can do anything, so it must of be true".


If you actually knew me, you would realize that I am one of the most rational and logical people you will probably ever meet. Just saying.


Scientific fact is the only fact. Look up the defenition of fact. If something happened it is a scientific fact. Saying that something happened then saying it isnt a scientific fact is a severe contridiction and completly undermines your argument.

Then you undermined your argument already by saying evolution is a fact. Therefore its a stalemate.

[TotalAnarchyUK]

So you want me 2 be a girl or something? You want me 2 be your e-girlfriend?

Your offering to be my girlfriend? Mate you are fucked up!

[TotalAnarchyUK]

If it is such a work of fiction, then why are all the historical facts correct. Many many things have been proved that happened in the Bible actually did happen in the real world. It is more than just a fiction.

That is a very foolish statement to make. The bible is mostly fiction with many borrowed elements. There are few actual facts in the book and If you can, prove me wrong.


If you understood more about it, yes it could. And its not 2 of every animal, just ever species or something like that. I can't remember and am too tired to look it up but I know it does work out.

It doesnt work out. Even if noah managed to get all the species succesfully onto the ark, where would he store the food required to feed them all for a year? The Ark myth is bullshit and doesnt stand up to scrutiny.

Bah, this is just another thing to try and say, "The bible isn't real." You should really use something else for references than wikipedia.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

Yes, but I was saying the Mayans were more advanced than we were 200 years ago.

And? Whats your point?

I was actually talking about a different water cycle completely. Not the rise and fall of water levels. And again, if the all the continents were one big mass, flooding it would be easy.

6000 years ago when the flood supposadly happened, the continents looked almost identical to how they are now. The continents where together millions of years ago collectivly called pangea. But since the world is only apperantly 10000 or so years old there never was a pangea was there?


If you actually knew me, you would realize that I am one of the most rational and logical people you will probably ever meet. Just saying.

I find that hard to belive as saying "god can do anything, so it must of be true" is niether rational or logical.

Then you undermined your argument already by saying evolution is a fact. Therefore its a stalemate.

Evolution is a scientific fact. Creationism isnt even a fact at all.

http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html and have a look at the table underneath the section "How can you recongnise pseudoscience"

[Cashis Clay]

Did I type those words or did you...Hmmmmmmmmmm??????

[louix858]

all those strong belivers in religion, inteligent desighn and evolution. what produed either god, the inteligense and the being which evolved? we may never know and none can possably anser me as to what made god or y he/she/it exists ! you cannot expalin how this inteligent desighn came about nor can any of you tell me what produced the being that evoved or the thing that produced that! we may never know y we exist and many have forght and died tring to enfoce there view on otheres! and what was the point? we all die the same ! weathere or not we belive in god , inteligent desighn or evolution! who knows it could be a mix of all three! u could still not tell me what made that mix or what started it off! we live differntly but die the same who are we to question the lives of otheres and the way they live or what they belive in! any of you give me one just anser to that! i am 16 i am an atheaset i do not know y i am here and i dont much care if i find out when im dead i will find out when im dead if i dont i aint goner be bothered!! but while im alive i will lead my life the way i see fit and i will not question how otheres lead theres! what would i gain?! what would you gain? from that? go on just try and logicaly dissmiss my argument!!!

[Xon]

Okay, first off louix. Learn how to speak grammatically and spell correctly. If I hadn't been used to reading 4th graders papers I would have no fucking clue as to what you were talking about.....

Other than that, let me start by saying this. You have a point....

Evolution is trying to scientifically prove how we as humans were created. They have no way to tell us how it all began though. Just guesses and theories.

Creationists explain how we got here by say "God created us" and that is how they explain our origin.

The fact is, evolutionists can not prove how man was created. Never will be able too either. Creationists on the other hand, since they rely on faith in the Bible, will never be able to scientifically prove that God created the earth. You have to have faith in that and believe.


To TotalAnarchyUK. I am tired of debating over this question. I don't think either of us will change sides. Sorry for the let down. If you would like to debate something else, you can guess what side of the fence I am on. Just let me know. It was nice to finally debate with someone who was not a complete idiot or didn't now how to bloody think. So, I look forward to debating with you later on.

[louix858]

yes my speling and grammer is very bad it is not throu ignorance but abilaty, i would use the computers spell check BUT it is very old! and just locks up if i do when i get back to my decent computer i will spell check everything also bad spelling and grammer runs thou my family and dont im thick or that i am being lazy becuase i did an hell of lot of extra classes, i also spent about 6 years leaning spanish just to get a C grade.

the main point of my argument was that we spend to much time fighting and questioning otheres over there religion or the way they live there lives whats the point?! on the whole atlest i got tht point across to someone. its so anoying when no1 understands my wirting and dissmiss me as an idiot.

[Xon]

The point is, this is a debate, so we are debating. I don't think anyone is going to change his or hers view on it. We are just trying to one up each other and prove our side.

[louix858]

hey i can but try, i my self belive in evolution as it posses the most scientific facts which can be proven, this is my personal belief, i have no problem with religion or inteligent deisgn or any othere beliefs for that matter, what i cannot stand however is andwhen people try and enfoce there belief on some one else, this is very imoral and always ends wrongly i.e. cults and mass suicide (wheathere the belives whant it or not!) what i am saying is, to those people who just dissmiss othere views as stupid but do not retern a valid and inteligent argument instead people like cashis clay have ago at otheres for simple not having the same views as he/she/it dose and even when asked to he/she/it ignored the question altogether!! my point was in the end it dont matter what you belive in, none of us will ever be able to completly explan are origens and reasons (if there are any) for existing. so rather than have ago at otheres like cashis clay has why dont you contribute your own argument and be an active part of this debate! i am not trying to have a go at you (cashis clay) i just want you to be a part of this debat and post an inteligent reply. im not here to piss anyone off just to share my views and see how people react to my way of thinking. im 16 and the only time i get any inteligent convosation or debate is on this website! i am in effect surounded by morrons!!!! so to avoid my brain rotting away please make your own agument so i can try and pick holes in it. thank you.

[Cashis Clay]

omg stop wasting your time.

[louix858]

omg stop wasting your time.

i am very diapointed in you, i was expecting somthing a litel better than that you have ago at othere veiws but u still do not brodcast your own. go on please do, i am egar to see what YOU think. come on put us all out of are missery. by not posting an inteligent and well thort out repli you are insinuating that you do not have the capacity to do so, so go on prove us wrong!

[Cashis Clay]

I do not want 2 waste my time. Like I just said. You are making valid points don't get me wrong. But this shits been going on for like a week. Just finish it.

[TotalAnarchyUK]

I do not want 2 waste my time. Like I just said. You are making valid points don't get me wrong. But this shits been going on for like a week. Just finish it.

You dont want to waste your time? So your saying that the time you would spend writing out a valid answer is a waste? Spending your time taking shit to people constantly is a waste.

Youve just proved your own hypocrisy and idiocy.

[Cashis Clay]

First off you don't get it. Second the reason that you don't get it is because your so dumb 2 see that i'm not critizing your point rather than i'm saying this shit isn't worth your time 2 keep going back in forth for weeks. And third for somebody 2 insult somebody elses intelligence, you should at least spell your shit right. Holy shit it looks like a 10 year old was writing that.

[Cashis Clay]

I'm a very enlightened Individual mother fucker! So i'm going 2 keep doing what I do bitch. And theres not a god damn thing you can do about it.

[a2thae]

I'm a very enlightened Individual mother fucker! So i'm going 2 keep doing what I do bitch. And theres not a god damn thing you can do about it.

If you don't contribute to this section its quite easy to delete your posts from it and ban you from it.

And louix, make ONE fucking grammatically correct post, just show me you can do it. I agree with cashis, when he says it looks like a fucking 10 year old writes your posts.

[louix858]

Im a stupid fuck, and I can't make a grammatically correct post because im 10 years old.

right this is out of order! i didnt NOT type the above! come on! hows that fair when i put up my deffence and you just change it to what you want?!

[a2thae]

OP is "original poster". Not using grammar makes you look like a stupid 10 year old kid trying to show he has intelligence over a forum. The lack of ability to spell is NOT genetic, show me a webpage which shows that being a horrible speller is a genetic condition and I'll believe you. Until then you're just an idiot.

[Xon]

Im a stupid fuck, and I can't make a grammatically correct post because im 10 years old.

And yet earlier you said you had great ideas or knew what you were talking about or something to that tune. Yet you can't spell. A2thea has a point. If you can't spell, its because you have learned. Meaning you are just dumb.

[louix858]

hang on a sec i didnt type that! come on this aint fair m8! let me put up my deffence

what right do you have to change what i say?!!!! now then my bad spelling is not becuse i am dumb! okay m famaly has a history of it! and despite that most of my famaly have/had there own buisness i have dyslexyer so do most of my famaly it is a genetinc contidition here is a artical done by the times on it

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article5006527.ece

i am not thick. i am predicted an A in maths and science however i am also predected a C in spanish and english! i cannot do langwiges! i can do enginering thou i have compleated a first diploma of manufactoring engineering at distinction level (= 2x A+ GCSE grades) i have an IQ of 44% above the average. if you dont think i am an enginer cheack my picture album for some of the things i have made i have yet to upload a picture of the off road go kart of mine which i produced for my resistant project i am predicted a B for my reistant folder i am no idiot and i do not talk about things i do not know. the person you are making me out to be is very far from the truth i am going to save this post in case he decides to change it again! why did you change it? what right do you have to change my deffence?!!!!! this is completly out of order!!!!!

[exial]

dude you are new and gullible. Your posts will change according to a2thae's whim

[louix858]

whys he not been removed from mod?!!!!!!

[Xon]

whys he not been removed from mod?!!!!!!

Are you a complete idiot.... Do you even know what mods do?

[louix858]

xon rather than keep calling me an idiot why dont you see things from my point of view? the person you keep making me out to be is not who i am at all!

now tis is about the only proper forum site that i have been on so therhe are alot of things i ve not come across before and thing i do not fuly understand, i cant not see that by not knowing cirtain things brands me an idiot in your book, there will be things you do not know that i do and vise versa. dose this make you an idiot? NO! so hy do you brand me one?

i was under the asumption that moderators are selfected by the ***** to whatch over a perticular forum and keep it "clean" as in they deleate posts as they see fit.

going on that i think my question was just. please show me how im wrong if i am.

[exial]

lol, lets not start flaming louix. Its cashis that is in need of flaming

[Xon]

yeah sure exial... I don't need to waste my time....

[louix858]

xon come on man you call me an idiot but you do not explain why! And you have avoided my entire attempt at defending my self please answer me as to how I am an idiot and how you justify that. Please read my posts where I try to show you my point of view and dignify me with a reply.

[Cashis Clay]

Your an idiot cause you can't spell...nuff said.

[TotalAnarchyUK]

hang on a sec i didnt type that! come on this aint fair m8! let me put up my deffence

what right do you have to change what i say?!!!! now then my bad spelling is not becuse i am dumb! okay m famaly has a history of it! and despite that most of my famaly have/had there own buisness i have dyslexyer so do most of my famaly it is a genetinc contidition here is a artical done by the times on it

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article5006527.ece

i am not thick. i am predicted an A in maths and science however i am also predected a C in spanish and english! i cannot do langwiges! i can do enginering thou i have compleated a first diploma of manufactoring engineering at distinction level (= 2x A+ GCSE grades) i have an IQ of 44% above the average. if you dont think i am an enginer cheack my picture album for some of the things i have made i have yet to upload a picture of the off road go kart of mine which i produced for my resistant project i am predicted a B for my reistant folder i am no idiot and i do not talk about things i do not know. the person you are making me out to be is very far from the truth i am going to save this post in case he decides to change it again! why did you change it? what right do you have to change my deffence?!!!!! this is completly out of order!!!!!

Dude you got to make a go kart for your resistent materials project? I got to make a guitar. Epic fail!

Dyslexia is a real condition and quite well known and does make things like spelling and anything to do with visual speech difficult. Not cool to take the piss out of him for it, especially as hes tried to explain it you.

[exial]

^ Agreed. Louix is kool, and if he spells a few.... alot of words wrong it doesn't make a difference since he still gets his pioint across. So Cashis, shutup. :cool:

[a2thae]

How old are you louix?

[Xon]

Wow... I actually agreed with some of what he was saying when he first came on and shit like that, but now... damn... I just enjoy making him mad.

[Cashis Clay]

Did any1 not realize that lou and graham are the same exact fucking person?

[a2thae]

They haven't shared IPs yet. But then again its prolly possible.

[louix858]

Cash I am not graham! Why do you think that? Because I agree with him? Cash how dose agreeing with someone make me that person?
And xon I was/am new and instead of accepting that you seemed to have ago at me for getting a few things wrong which I have now learnt and I have admitted to, if I don’t know it I am going to ask no matter how stupid you think I am for asking about something you would perceive of common knowledge, I will still ask. xon I think you won of the more intelligent people on here and I have come to respect you yet you still do not show me the decency to reply to my posts in which I my defend name, when I try and explain this to you ignore the post and focus on something irrelevant to it and continue to think of me as an idiot, I am not and I will not back down from it. How dose my age affect what you think of me a2thae? I am 16 and I am no idiot give me just argument that I am one. I am not here to try and piss anyone off (cashis has already got that covered) just to take part in a few debates and learn a few things, perhaps show off a few things I have made and maybe have abit of fun while i am at it. If someone asks a question I think I know the answer to I am still goner have a go at answering it no matter what you think of me. So cut me some slack here; I have admitted to my bad spelling and I have tried much harder to get that right but my grammar will still be poor and I apologies for that.

[Cashis Clay]

I am 2 crunk 2 debate. but you make it so obvious that you 2 are the same. like I can prolly go 2 ppl online right now and graham will prolly be online right when you get online.

[louix858]

What? How many times? I am not graham. I have two computers at two house (split family) and I use both for this website so every Thursday and Sunday (and a few random days as well) you will see may IP address change, but I use the same name every time louix858 it’s the same as my xbox360 live name same as my hotmail same as any other username I have ever used! And cash how the hell is it obvious we are the same? This is another one of your wind-ups

[exial]

louix isnt graham. Thats a stupid observation, and it has nothing to do with this thread. So can you boons move this pointless debate somewhere else?

[Cashis Clay]

wow exial. Don't put your 2 cents in if you haven't took the time 2 research this. Your just ignorant.

[exial]

Cashis i have more of a life then tracking down member with different accounts. I believe your the ignorant one, claiming Graham is both members, ive spoken personally 2 both members, so i do believe i feel justified when i say Graham and Louix are not the same people.

[louix858]

(im drunk so take any thing i see with a pinch of salt) cashis i am not fiking graham u wanker!!!!!!!!! u want proff? add me me on msn or xbox and ill show u, my name for xbox is louix858 and on msn is the same louix858@hotmail.co.uk i will show u on msn then all u
need 2 do is see graham on msn'. oh shit im fuking hammered!

[Cashis Clay]

You are the same ppl it's so obvious it's not even funny.

[louix858]

fuke u add me on msn the i will ho on fuking webcam and show u!1!

[Cashis Clay]

so what that wont prove shit ive never seen graham.

[louix858]

wel l u can then go on his msn and see him !!! u fuking tw@!

[graham4877]

so what that wont prove shit ive never seen graham. go on my profile on hear and look at photo's?

[Cashis Clay]

You maybe able 2 fool the other idiots on this forum but you are most definatly not fooling me sorry.

[exial]

Hahaha just ignore cahsis hes just fucking with you :D

[Cashis Clay]

exial you truly are fucking dumb.

[exial]

Hahaha, ur ignorance and commitment amazes me dumfuck! :D

[Cashis Clay]

atleast there is entertainment out of flaming you. But I am not going 2 argue over this. Fact is I know graham and lou are the same person end of discussion.

[graham4877]

You maybe able 2 fool the other idiots on this forum but you are most definatly not fooling me sorry.
Year that's right cashis clay you can not fool a fool? + if you had taken the time to have a bit crack win me you would know who is who . Not like i give a fuck!!!! grammar from a yank ha ha ha. as will talk (gordy) to you or is it Geordie? the only one who worry's about grammar is a little sad school kid witch most of you's are.............

[exial]

ok, thank you for letting us all know ur opinion, it just happens mine is contradictory to yours.

[graham4877]

exial you truly are fucking dumb. i think you will find you are mr gay

[exial]

i think you will find you are mr gay

That is Cashis... Cashis Gay :D

[louix858]

You maybe able 2 fool the other idiots on this forum but you are most definatly not fooling me sorry.


the othere idiots? you are thee idiot!

[Cashis Clay]

sure sure.

[GhostExodus]

6000 years.

[Xon]

This thread has gone to shit, someone close it...

[exial]

We need Deo back moderating this group..

[a2thae]

I should probably write some rules for this forum if deo's dead or something.

[louix858]

xon is right enough of all this crap with clay and a2tha, let get on with what we where originally here for, here is was my last post relevant to this topic:

All those strong believers in religion, intelligent design and evolution. What produced either god, the intelligence or the being, which evolved? We may never know and none can possibly answer me as to what made god or y he/she/it exists! You cannot explain how this intelligent design came about nor can any of you tell me what produced the being that evolved or the thing that produced that! We may never know y we exist and many have fought and died trying to enforce there view on others! And what was the point? We all die the same! Weather or not we believe in god, intelligent design or evolution! Who knows it could be a mix of all three! U could still not tell me what made that mix or what started it off! We live differently but die the same who are we to question the lives of others and the way they live or what they believe in! Any of you give me one just answer to that! I am 16 I am an atheist I do not know y I am here and I don’t much care if I find out when I am dead I will find out when I am dead if I don’t I aunt goner be bothered!! But while I am alive I will lead my life the way I see fit and I will not question how others lead there’s! What would I gain? What would you gain? From that? Go on just try and logically dismiss my argument!!!

(yay spellings so much better now I got it to fuking work)

[GhostExodus]

well bro i just so happen to have food for thought for you.

This isn't based on my own opinion. I myself used to be atheist until something changed my life forever.
"QUOTE" What produced either god, the intelligence or the being, which evolved?

If something produced God, that would mean that something else was before God. Then we would be analysing that figure as well. Science tells us everything that has a beginning has an end. However if that was the case let's take evolution for example: The big bang theory. All these pieces of rock and such soaring thru out the galaxy aimlessly, and then all of a sudden they apparently all collide with one another. Thats not the question. If everything that has a begging has an end, then where did those pieces of gargantuan rocks just come from? Absolutely nothing could not just create something. Even if we had started out as micro organisms forming from bodies of water, what created the water? The veggitation? The climate and gravity that is absolutely perfect? And if it was the big bang why did only one planet out of our entire galaxy produce life? Why not the moon too? Scientific theorys never stay the same, they always change when new theories are born.



Revelation 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."


Where did God come from? Revelations 4:8 says And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, LORD God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.


Just that statment alone says that He has no beginning, and as no end. Everything on earth and above the earth is governed by time. Which in that case means here everything on earth and everything above the earth has a beginning and an end, but God which is eternal has no beggining or end.


A number of sceptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical, just like ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’

So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: ‘If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?’ In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning:

1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.1
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

It’s important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause. In addition, Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time—God is ‘the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’ (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn’t have a cause.

In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.

* 1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
* 2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.

If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy—the ‘heat death’ of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.

Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause—no-one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement, if the police didn’t think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house. Also, the universe cannot be self-caused—nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.
In Summary

*

The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.
*

It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.
*

The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.
*

God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.



In answer to your statment "enforce views on others" Nobdoy is enforcing views on others. Enforcing is a pretty strong word.
The command that God gives his children (followers) is to spread the good news (gospel) of the ressurection of Jesus Christ and the salvation and hope for eternal life to every corner of the earth. In just hearing the message, the message of salvaion is to call others to repentance. Repentance from what? The fact that Gods standards are far different than ours. That He has a law thats always been here. And because we don't care to even read them let alone live them brings out our sinful nature. But the whole point of sacrificing His most valuable posession, we people shredded Jesus's body to ribbons and then nailed Him on a cross and blamed him for things He never even did. But no religion poses such a great sacrifice than to give His own life up, taking your blame to Himself so that you throu beliving and living for Him would be bla***ess in the eyes of God. We are commanded not to judge others. We were never given the right to. That right only belongs to God. He is obviously far for complex then we can imagine, even since we can't even get a single clone perfected thru stem cell research. So imagining creating the moon to shed light on the earth durring night, and the sun to not only shed light to govern the day but also to bring forth harvest, and to allow veggitation to grow, theres more to life than what we see. Its what we don't see that is where the truth is.

[TotalAnarchyUK]

Without evidence of god it is logical to assume that he does not exist. Surely if a god created the universe there would be at least one shred of scientific evidence supporting creationism. But there isnt.

[louix858]

ghost applying that is all true, I have one other point to make

why would/did god make us?

what possible reason could he have to create us? what reason posses him to do such a thing? it is completely possible that he dose exist. it is also entirely possible that this god is nothing more than an illusion

Side note: if anyone here believes in power prayer just watch this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YymNb-pr-Pc (all the way through)

[Palmer]

Louix,

That's not the same thing because that's not really all there is to it. It's onesided and shows that praying will give you everything in life when that's simply not the case- and just for the record the bible is entirely symbolic, it doesn't mean that all of that physically happened, it is symbolic to life lessons...
Saying that There should be scientific evidence- well, there isn't scientific evidence of what really happened in terms of the world starting and evolving. So with that logic, it's "logical" to assume that nothing happened with us, we just appeared here with no force or origin of anything.

For one, most people that say things like this are hateful towards any other group possible except other races, yet will hate on anyone else that's different and assume it's okay just because it's not a race. What I'm getting at is most people like this are some of the biggest hypocrites, because assuming all religious people are like that is inaccurate.

"coincidence" is a word used by people that don't understand something... There is no such thing as "coincidence" aside from it being in the English language; if something happens, it was caused by something- saying "coincidence" in the video shows that he is a hypocrite himeself since he also said it all happens because of something else.

If I said "it's impossible for people to evolve" [which I don't believe] then it's the same concept. I just stated something of your opinion and nothing more.

Lastly, Evolution and Creationism go hand in hand believe it or not. You could believe that God created the big bang (assuming you believe that) or you could believe that God created all of this and didn't create people initially, but things evlolved and adapted and turned into a walking human, etc...
Believing "darwinism" doesn't mean you can't be religious. that was a rumor started in the early 1900s. People evolving is a fact, but it doesn't mean that you can't believe in a religion.

Which brings me back to what I stated earlier. "...there isn't scientific evidence of what really happened in terms of the world starting and evolving. So with that logic, it's "logical" to assume that nothing happened with us, we just appeared here with no force or origin of anything."
No one really knows the very first anything in terms of life in general.

I personally believe that people adapt, not evolve- how often do you see a giraffe with a sort neck? you don't becuase they eat things from trees so the ones with the short neck gene die off. They have adapted; but I'm also religious (obviously).

[TotalAnarchyUK]

Lastly, Evolution and Creationism go hand in hand believe it or not. You could believe that God created the big bang (assuming you believe that) or you could believe that God created all of this and didn't create people initially, but things evlolved and adapted and turned into a walking human, etc...
Believing "darwinism" doesn't mean you can't be religious. that was a rumor started in the early 1900s. People evolving is a fact, but it doesn't mean that you can't believe in a religion.

Evolution and creationism are not very alike. The theory of evolution is based on scientific fact, empherical data and repeatable observations which support the theory.

Creationism is based on psuedoscience and has no scientific evidence supporting it.

[louix858]

palmer you say coincides is a word used by people who do not understand something yet It appears you do not understand the meaning of coincidence

I believe coincidence means that one events happening did not directly effect the chances of another event happening

for example my ability to spell dose not directly effect my intelligence, just as praying dose not directly effect the chances of something happening.

However it can effect things indirectly for example; say you where praying to win the lottery and as a result of you praying to win the lottery you left the church at a different time and you where then struck by some inspiration of what numbers to pick for the for the lottery as a result of leaving the church at a different time, (say you see somthing you would not nomaly see simply as a result of this and it inpires you to add the number 8) you pick therse numbers and win. If you are an intelligent person you will see that god did not answer your pray, merely by coincidence you where struck with inspiration for different numbers for the lottery as a result of leaving the church at a different time simply because you spent this time praying. God did not answer your prayers it was meerly a result of the time used to prayer. thus it was coincidence.

[Xon]

Louix, believing as such that you do with coincidence, would mean that you believe things are random. And nothing is random.

Aside from that, I have not heard a valuable deniable statement against GhostExodus's lengthy but very well thought out paragraph. (I may have misread some statements or missed something, if I did, point me to it.)

Ghost has clearly showed that we had a beginning, and showed that you have to have something to create something. Where did the first something come from? I am interested to hear anyone's rebuttal on that.

Without evidence of god it is logical to assume that he does not exist. Surely if a god created the universe there would be at least one shred of scientific evidence supporting creationism. But there isnt.

That is an untrue. Its like saying that, "I have never seen a dog, so therefore a dog does not exist." Also, why would there have to be one shred of scientific evidence? If God created the world, such an awesome power as that could have easily made no shred of evidence available for the unbelievers to not see.

[a2thae]

Evolution and creationism are not very alike. The theory of evolution is based on scientific fact, empherical data and repeatable observations which support the theory.

Creationism is based on psuedoscience and has no scientific evidence supporting it.

However they don't contradict one another. You can have them exist at the same time...

[GhostExodus]

My only reply to "where did the first something came from" is what i learned from the ancient manuscripts. God who was, Who is, and Is to Come. Thats not the only statement i know right off the bat. Things that come from something has an end. Take the stars for example, they over great lengths of time burn out. So anything that has a beginning is also governed by time, and not by eternity.

[a2thae]

My only reply to "where did the first something came from" is what i learned from the ancient manuscripts. God who was, Who is, and Is to Come. Thats not the only statement i know right off the bat. Things that come from something has an end. Take the stars for example, they over great lengths of time burn out. So anything that has a beginning is also governed by time, and not by eternity.

That's not entirely true. I believe something left undisturbed by other forces in space isn't governed by time. Nothing will happen to it.

[GhostExodus]

Going back to everything that has a beginning, where did the first something come from? Something can be just happen without something ELSE creating it, and then looking at the something ELSE where did that come from? Which would be a never ending cycle of irrational hypothesis's.

The only explanation I can find is Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.


And all that stuff.

Apart from space and time, here on earth, if we can come to a unified conclusion where the planet earth came from, and what caused the earth to have life in the mannor that it does, we can begin to understand where we are going.

Every species on the planet seem's to have a mission. Each species tends to work together, herd together and mate together and are unified together.

Ever since mankind began to rationalize things according to his own reasoning, is the reason why most of us can't even fathom that God exists, or that demons play mankind like puppets on strings, and why it would matter according to historical documents that God gave His only son to redeem mankind to be reconciled back to Him like things were in the very beginning (genesis 1:27) God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.