Science vs. Creation

[PerpetualImperfexion]

Is the scientific explanation for our existence not just as unprobabilistic as the religious explanation?

The Big Bang: While the universe is expanding and therefore suggests that the universe began as a singularity, we weren't there to see it. Also its origins are questionable (who's to say that this singularity wasn't put in place by a god?).

Evolution: It happens over the course of millions of years and is therefore difficult to observe. Also {insert well worded suggestion of god-guided evolution here}.

Creation: Impossible to be scientifically proven or disproven.

[Korashk]

Short answer, no.
Long answer, nooooooooope.

Mainly because the Big Bang and evolution both have evidence. The notion that it takes millions of years is a misconception. Evolution takes as long as it takes. For plants and insects, and rodents it often doesn't take long at all.

The fact that creationism can't be falsified is a bad thing, not a point in tis favor.

[PerpetualImperfexion]

Short answer, no.
Long answer, nooooooooope.

Mainly because the Big Bang and evolution both have evidence. The notion that it takes millions of years is a misconception. Evolution takes as long as it takes. For plants and insects, and rodents it often doesn't take long at all.

The fact that creationism can't be falsified is a bad thing, not a point in tis favor.

But creationism doesn't require evidence. It simply is. Evolution and the big bang rely on astronomically unlikely things to occur.

Natural selection makes sense, but it doesn't explain where DNA came from, where cellular structure came from, why cells divide the way they do. These things all would have had to occur by chance because if an organism didn't have them in the first place it would have died/failed to reproduce.

There is no scientific explanation as to where the singularity came from. It simply was (much the same a deity simply is, without beginning).

[Vocabulous]

But creationism doesn't require evidence. it simply is.
ok what. no. normally i try to avoid arguements because i usualy lack the knowledge of the topic beong discussed to make an informed decision, but this, i dont even know. theories and beliefs require proof in order for their existance to be recognized. what you just said is the worst arguement for anything ever. congrats.

[Gigablue]

The Big Bang: While the universe is expanding and therefore suggests that the universe began as a singularity, we weren't there to see it. Also its origins are questionable (who's to say that this singularity wasn't put in place by a god?).

We weren't there to see it, but we can infer its existence. We have the cosmic microwave background radiation, which remains as a result on the Big Bang, as just one of many lines of evidence.

There are many things that we don't observe directly, yet we can reasonably infer. For example, in particle accelerators, we rarely actually see the particle we are looking for, instead we have to infer its existence from its decay products. The Big Bang can be inferred in the same way.

Evolution: It happens over the course of millions of years and is therefore difficult to observe. Also {insert well worded suggestion of god-guided evolution here}.

Evolution doesn't take millions of years. Speciation may take a long time, though even it doesn't take millions of years. Evolution, the change in gene frequency in a population over time, can be quite fast depending in the length of each generation. For example, we have documented the evolution of complex new traits in bacteria in short amounts of time. There was a study done a few years ago in which E. coli grown in culture developed the ability to metabolize citrate (which doesn't seen all that impressive, but is a major change, since one of the defining characteristics of E. coli is it's inability to metabolize citrate) in only 20 years. Evolution is obviously slower in animals with longer generations, but it can still be observed and tested.

Creation: Impossible to be scientifically proven or disproven.

Creation is up falsifiable. But there are infinitely many unfalsifiable claims that can be made about the origin of the universe. There is no reason to pick one creation story over another. Furthermore, no creation story has predictive power. They can explain old observations, but no creation story can predict what we will observe in the future. Science can.

Natural selection makes sense, but it doesn't explain where DNA came from, where cellular structure came from, why cells divide the way they do. These things all would have had to occur by chance because if an organism didn't have them in the first place it would have died/failed to reproduce.

That would be like dismissing the theory of gravity because it doesn't explain the origin of DNA. The theory of natural selection doesn't address the origin of life, so that isn't a valid criticism. It only deals with the change in organisms and populations once life has arisen.

We don't know exactly how life arose, though we have many good hypotheses. Given time, we may be able to test them and create life from non life in a lab. Furthermore, just because we don't know exactly where life came from doesn't mean we can say god did it. You can't fill the gaps in science with theology.

There is no scientific explanation as to where the singularity came from. It simply was (much the same a deity simply is, without beginning).

We don't have a fully developed theory of how it arose, but we have hypotheses and models. The singularity could have come about from nothing, as a result of quantum processes. It wouldn't have required any energy input, and it fits with the current laws of physics.

[Stronk Serb]

Religious explanations are for those who blindly follow them and were used to explain the unexplainable, now we have scientific facts which are explaining more and more of the universe.

[Korashk]

But creationism doesn't require evidence. It simply is.
http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/signaturepics/sigpic28224_1.gif

Evolution and the big bang rely on astronomically unlikely things to occur.
Likelihood has basically no significance in science. It doesn't matter how rare an event is, because evidence that they occurred exists.

Natural selection makes sense, but it doesn't explain where DNA came from, where cellular structure came from, why cells divide the way they do.
As gigablue stated, those concepts are not explained by the theory of evolution via natural selection because that's not what the theory is about.

[PerpetualImperfexion]

We weren't there to see it, but we can infer its existence. We have the cosmic microwave background radiation, which remains as a result on the Big Bang, as just one of many lines of evidence.

There are many things that we don't observe directly, yet we can reasonably infer. For example, in particle accelerators, we rarely actually see the particle we are looking for, instead we have to infer its existence from its decay products. The Big Bang can be inferred in the same way.



Evolution doesn't take millions of years. Speciation may take a long time, though even it doesn't take millions of years. Evolution, the change in gene frequency in a population over time, can be quite fast depending in the length of each generation. For example, we have documented the evolution of complex new traits in bacteria in short amounts of time. There was a study done a few years ago in which E. coli grown in culture developed the ability to metabolize citrate (which doesn't seen all that impressive, but is a major change, since one of the defining characteristics of E. coli is it's inability to metabolize citrate) in only 20 years. Evolution is obviously slower in animals with longer generations, but it can still be observed and tested.



Creation is up falsifiable. But there are infinitely many unfalsifiable claims that can be made about the origin of the universe. There is no reason to pick one creation story over another. Furthermore, no creation story has predictive power. They can explain old observations, but no creation story can predict what we will observe in the future. Science can.



That would be like dismissing the theory of gravity because it doesn't explain the origin of DNA. The theory of natural selection doesn't address the origin of life, so that isn't a valid criticism. It only deals with the change in organisms and populations once life has arisen.

We don't know exactly how life arose, though we have many good hypotheses. Given time, we may be able to test them and create life from non life in a lab. Furthermore, just because we don't know exactly where life came from doesn't mean we can say god did it. You can't fill the gaps in science with theology.



We don't have a fully developed theory of how it arose, but we have hypotheses and models. The singularity could have come about from nothing, as a result of quantum processes. It wouldn't have required any energy input, and it fits with the current laws of physics.

image (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/signaturepics/sigpic28224_1.gif)


Likelihood has basically no significance in science. It doesn't matter how rare an event is, because evidence that they occurred exists.


As gigablue stated, those concepts are not explained by the theory of evolution via natural selection because that's not what the theory is about.

I took a shot and i missed. That was fun though (not really).

[Eat33]

Where did God come from then? The scientific explanation has the evidence and makes sense...

[tovaris]

Evolution is extremly easy to prove and observe.
The theories of universe being a bit more conplex and harder to prove but that is due to our own lack of knjwlage.

Besides creation falls apart by itself, if everything had to have been created, who created the creator?

[darthearth]

ok what. no. normally i try to avoid arguements because i usualy lack the knowledge of the topic beong discussed to make an informed decision, but this, i dont even know. theories and beliefs require proof in order for their existance to be recognized. what you just said is the worst arguement for anything ever. congrats.

image (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/signaturepics/sigpic28224_1.gif)
I don't think the OP was attempting to make an argument, merely pointing out that the Universe could have been created 5 minutes ago with all of our memories in place....stuff like that.

Is the scientific explanation for our existence not just as unprobabilistic as the religious explanation?

The Big Bang: While the universe is expanding and therefore suggests that the universe began as a singularity, we weren't there to see it. Also its origins are questionable (who's to say that this singularity wasn't put in place by a god?).

Evolution: It happens over the course of millions of years and is therefore difficult to observe. Also {insert well worded suggestion of god-guided evolution here}.

Creation: Impossible to be scientifically proven or disproven.



Science can never ultimately explain our existence, because the Universe must have a transcendent cause. A transcendent cause is incomprehensible to us by definition of transcendent. Science can only attempt to describe in mathematics and certain concepts like particles, energy and forces what we observe - a causal chain. This does nothing for an ultimate explanation.

But what do you mean by "creation" here? Something like the 6 day creation specifically? But given current information, it seems probable that there was a Big Bang and subsequent evolution of the universe. I question whether we can assign a numeric probability to something like a special creation, how might one do that when the Creator would be transcendent, and thus not subject to our reason? Same reason we can't really extend our logic to the origins of a transcendent because such property lies outside the Domain of Discourse. See my Transcendent cause to the Universe thread (especially as augmented by user Bleid's comment #32): http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=197693

But in short we say the scientific version is more probable because we have evidence indicating it is so and there is no other information we have that would lead us to a different conclusion. Like if we were somehow to discover a god-like being who enjoys creating universes directly with everything in place while making it seem like it was evolutionary, that would be new information and hence change our probability expectation. We must accept that our information could be very limited.


We don't have a fully developed theory of how it arose, but we have hypotheses and models. The singularity could have come about from nothing, as a result of quantum processes. It wouldn't have required any energy input, and it fits with the current laws of physics.

The term "nothing" is disingenuous, the quantum fluctuation field is most definitely something. "Nothing" should be understood to be absolute non-existence, not a quantum vacuum.

Where did God come from then? The scientific explanation has the evidence and makes sense...

The ultimate cause (God in this case) must be necessarily existent as far as our logic and reasoning holds, if not, the problem of infinite regression ensues.

[Gigablue]

Science can never ultimately explain our existence, because the Universe must have a transcendent cause. A transcendent cause is incomprehensible to us by definition of transcendent. Science can only attempt to describe in mathematics and certain concepts like particles, energy and forces what we observe - a causal chain. This does nothing for an ultimate explanation.

But what do you mean by "creation" here? Something like the 6 day creation specifically? But given current information, it seems probable that there was a Big Bang and subsequent evolution of the universe. I question whether we can assign a numeric probability to something like a special creation, how might one do that when the Creator would be transcendent, and thus not subject to our reason? Same reason we can't really extend our logic to the origins of a transcendent because such property lies outside the Domain of Discourse. See my Transcendent cause to the Universe thread (especially as augmented by user Bleid's comment #32): http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=197693

But in short we say the scientific version is more probable because we have evidence indicating it is so and there is no other information we have that would lead us to a different conclusion. Like if we were somehow to discover a god-like being who enjoys creating universes directly with everything in place while making it seem like it was evolutionary, that would be new information and hence change our probability expectation. We must accept that our information could be very limited.

The universe doesn't need a cause. Causality applies to everything in the universe, but it doesn't have to apply to the universe itself. The universe isn't really an object, simply the set of all things that exist. Just because every element of a set has a certain property, such as causality, does not mean that the set has the same property. Causality may not even make sense when applied to the universe.

[darthearth]

The universe doesn't need a cause. Causality applies to everything in the universe, but it doesn't have to apply to the universe itself. The universe isn't really an object, simply the set of all things that exist. Just because every element of a set has a certain property, such as causality, does not mean that the set has the same property. Causality may not even make sense when applied to the universe.

So you accept that every element has causality? Then there must be a beginning because one cannot traverse an infinite set of causes. If there is a beginning there is an ultimate transcendent cause because nothing can arise out of nothing (complete non-existence). This is straightforward.

[Gigablue]

So you accept that every element has causality? Then there must be a beginning because one cannot traverse an infinite set of causes. If there is a beginning there is an ultimate transcendent cause because nothing can arise out of nothing (complete non-existence). This is straightforward.

The universe isn't an element. It's the set. The set doesn't have the same properties as it's elements. Everything in the universe needs a cause, but the universe itself doesn't necessarily need one.

[Srom]

I actually do believe in Creation that God made the earth in 6 days. It's actually make sense that a higher being created the earth and was the one that caused the earth to spring forth into existence. If God wasn't there then the earth wouldn't be here and we wouldn't be here.

Evolution suggests we evolved from single celled organism into what we are today. But how can a single cell evolve into more cells if there is just one cell? And how did it all start? Evolution doesn't give a clear explanation of how it all began. All it says is that we started off of single celled organism and there was no great cause to start it off. When I think of Evolution I think of micro evolution and macro evolution.

Micro evolution exists because we see that in natural selection that the fittest survive adapt to the environment and pass on their traits. They make a new species but it's still the same animal but they don't have the same thing as the other animal. For example, let’s take a set of animals who are adapted to a cool climate. Suddenly there is a drought in the area that separates the cool climate ones and the others that stayed behind to pass on their traits to be able to adapt to the hotter climate. All they created is a new species that can adapt to the hotter climate but we didn't create a different animal of some sort. It's still the same animal except now it can be in a hotter climate. That is why there we don't see any evidence of Macroevolution because Macroevolution is making a fish evolve over time into a cow or other bigger animals.

Also evolution says that life came from non-life basically spontaneous generation. This has been disproved by a scientist who was actually testing spontaneous generation. Louis Pasteur didn’t believe in spontaneous generation and what he did in his experiment is he took a nutrient broth and put it in a curved neck flash and he waited over a year to see if anything would come out of it and nothing happened. So after the year he broke off the curved flask and the day after he broke it, it was full of life. Pasteur actually put an end to the idea of Spontaneous generation.
So evolution requires spontaneous generation and which has been disproved (spontaneous generation) then evolution is actually isn’t true.

[Camazotz]

I actually do believe in Creation that God made the earth in 6 days. It's actually make sense that a higher being created the earth and was the one that caused the earth to spring forth into existence. If God wasn't there then the earth wouldn't be here and we wouldn't be here.

Evolution suggests we evolved from single celled organism into what we are today. But how can a single cell evolve into more cells if there is just one cell? And how did it all start? Evolution doesn't give a clear explanation of how it all began. All it says is that we started off of single celled organism and there was no great cause to start it off. When I think of Evolution I think of micro evolution and macro evolution.

Micro evolution exists because we see that in natural selection that the fittest survive adapt to the environment and pass on their traits. They make a new species but it's still the same animal but they don't have the same thing as the other animal. For example, let’s take a set of animals who are adapted to a cool climate. Suddenly there is a drought in the area that separates the cool climate ones and the others that stayed behind to pass on their traits to be able to adapt to the hotter climate. All they created is a new species that can adapt to the hotter climate but we didn't create a different animal of some sort. It's still the same animal except now it can be in a hotter climate. That is why there we don't see any evidence of Macroevolution because Macroevolution is making a fish evolve over time into a cow or other bigger animals.

Also evolution says that life came from non-life basically spontaneous generation. This has been disproved by a scientist who was actually testing spontaneous generation. Louis Pasteur didn’t believe in spontaneous generation and what he did in his experiment is he took a nutrient broth and put it in a curved neck flash and he waited over a year to see if anything would come out of it and nothing happened. So after the year he broke off the curved flask and the day after he broke it, it was full of life. Pasteur actually put an end to the idea of Spontaneous generation.
So evolution requires spontaneous generation and which has been disproved (spontaneous generation) then evolution is actually isn’t true.

I don't think you understand what evolution is.

[Srom]

ok what. no. normally i try to avoid arguements because i usualy lack the knowledge of the topic beong discussed to make an informed decision, but this, i dont even know. theories and beliefs require proof in order for their existance to be recognized. what you just said is the worst arguement for anything ever. congrats.


Creationism is that God created the earth in 6 days.

[Srom]

I don't think you understand what evolution is.

I do understand what evolution is.

[Gigablue]

I actually do believe in Creation that God made the earth in 6 days. It's actually make sense that a higher being created the earth and was the one that caused the earth to spring forth into existence. If God wasn't there then the earth wouldn't be here and we wouldn't be here.

Do you actually have any evidence. What makes the biblical creation story more believable than any other myth system. There are many unfalsifiable claims, and there isn't a way to find which, if any, is true. Why is the Christian creation story better than the Hindu, Aztec, Ancient Greek, etc?

Micro evolution exists because we see that in natural selection that the fittest survive adapt to the environment and pass on their traits. They make a new species but it's still the same animal but they don't have the same thing as the other animal. For example, let’s take a set of animals who are adapted to a cool climate. Suddenly there is a drought in the area that separates the cool climate ones and the others that stayed behind to pass on their traits to be able to adapt to the hotter climate. All they created is a new species that can adapt to the hotter climate but we didn't create a different animal of some sort. It's still the same animal except now it can be in a hotter climate. That is why there we don't see any evidence of Macroevolution because Macroevolution is making a fish evolve over time into a cow or other bigger animals.

Micro vs macro evolution is a false dichotomy. There is no difference between the two. Macro evolution is just micro evolution taking place over a larger period of time.

All evolution is is the change in gene frequency in a population over time. Given that, you can have different traits develop over time. You can have small adaptations, such as adapting to a warmer climate, but you can also have more dramatic changes, given enough time.

If you can have change within a species, why can't you have enough change such that it becomes a different species? At some point, you can say that there is a clear enough difference between populations that they can be considered different species. There isn't anything restricting the degree of evolution.

Also evolution says that life came from non-life basically spontaneous generation. This has been disproved by a scientist who was actually testing spontaneous generation. Louis Pasteur didn’t believe in spontaneous generation and what he did in his experiment is he took a nutrient broth and put it in a curved neck flash and he waited over a year to see if anything would come out of it and nothing happened. So after the year he broke off the curved flask and the day after he broke it, it was full of life. Pasteur actually put an end to the idea of Spontaneous generation.
So evolution requires spontaneous generation and which has been disproved (spontaneous generation) then evolution is actually isn’t true.

Evolution talks about the change in species once they already exist. It doesn't talk about how life got here. To say evolution is wrong because it doesn't explain the origin of life is like saying gravity is wrong because it doesn't explain the origin of life. Evolution doesn't try to explain the origin of life.

Spontaneous generation is false, but that doesn't mean that life never came from non life. We have a pretty good idea of how it happened. Basic chemicals can react to produce simple organic compounds. These can react to give more complex macromolecules. Lipids can self assemble to form primitive cell membranes. RNA, which could self polymerize, could have replicated itself. Once you have replication and heredity, which can come from natural chemical processes that we know occurred on the early earth, you can have natural selection.

[darthearth]

The universe isn't an element. It's the set. The set doesn't have the same properties as it's elements. Everything in the universe needs a cause, but the universe itself doesn't necessarily need one.

The universe is composed of a sequence of events. It cannot have always existed because one cannot traverse an infinite sequence of events (all events prior to the present). You talk like the universe is an independent entity of its events and it is not, like you said, it is the entire set of sequential events. The term "universe" is just what we humans use to describe this series of sequential events. A series that must have had a beginning due to the impossibility of traversing an infinite number of events.

If you want to continue to claim that somehow the set of causal sequential events does not itself need a transcendent cause, you must give a valid and sound logical argument.


Spontaneous generation is false, but that doesn't mean that life never came from non life. We have a pretty good idea of how it happened. Basic chemicals can react to produce simple organic compounds. These can react to give more complex macromolecules. Lipids can self assemble to form primitive cell membranes. RNA, which could self polymerize, could have replicated itself. Once you have replication and heredity, which can come from natural chemical processes that we know occurred on the early earth, you can have natural selection.

I wouldn't go so far as to say we have a good idea of how it might have happened. I haven't seen any good theory of abiogenesis yet. They seem to have difficulty going past the lipid ball phase don't they?

[Miserabilia]

The fact that the universe expandes isn't the only evidence for a big bang.
There is also the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is even stronger evidence.
As for evolution, I know you can't proove that evolution occured without guide from god; it's just that godly guidance has never been proven,
and evolution HAS been proven.

And yes, you can always say that something can't completely proove it; well, you can't proove anything at all, anyway.
We are all stuck in the Phaneron, all we know is created in our brain by our senses so ar we really sure of anything at all? No.

We just have to go by what we know.
And I'm a little sick of the "You can't proove god does NOT exist" argument.

The universe is composed of a sequence of events. It cannot have always existed because one cannot traverse an infinite sequence of events (all events prior to the present). You talk like the universe is an independent entity of its events and it is not, like you said, it is the entire set of sequential events. The term "universe" is just what we humans use to describe this series of sequential events. A series that must have had a beginning due to the impossibility of traversing an infinite number of events.

If you want to continue to claim that somehow the set of causal sequential events does not itself need a transcendent cause, you must give a valid and sound logical argument.



I wouldn't go so far as to say we have a good idea of how it might have happened. I haven't seen any good theory of abiogenesis yet. They seem to have difficulty going past the lipid ball phase don't they?

Not knowing completely how something happened is something we will always have to suffer. It is incredibly difficult to find out how something as complicated as a proces like life exactly evolves, but so easy to point a finger at a god.
I see the convenience.
But not the facts.
I find it a little hard to beleive that some divine being that somehow exists and somehow has some influence on this world,
somehow helps life evolve from the first life to a few steps further, but stops there.
It seems to me like that's just filling in the gap of what we don't know with a god, something that has always been done in the history of human knowledge.

[Vocabulous]

Creationism is that God created the earth in 6 days.

I am aware of this.

[Lovelife090994]

Creationism is that God created the earth in 6 days.

I am more of a Creationist like many of the alumni from my high school. We kept it quiet though and did of course learn about evolution. Evolution is something I skeptical on because I fail to grasp how evolution started from random events that worked out in our favor. Things seem too perfectly planned and arranged if you ask me. That is my look at it. To any who have something to say. of course I will answer you, just don't sing of insults of my response will go flat and silent.

[Gigablue]

I am more of a Creationist like many of the alumni from my high school. We kept it quiet though and did of course learn about evolution. Evolution is something I skeptical on because I fail to grasp how evolution started from random events that worked out in our favor. Things seem too perfectly planned and arranged if you ask me. That is my look at it. To any who have something to say. of course I will answer you, just don't sing of insults of my response will go flat and silent.

Evolution isn't random. That is one of the biggest misconceptions about it. Mutations are inherently random, but evolution is about more than just mutations. Selection is key to evolution. Without selection, which by it's very nature is non random, there could be no evolution.

Consider a mutation that confers disease resistance. The mutation itself occurred due to a random copying error in the DNA. But what follows is not random. That individual will be more likely to survive an epidemic, and thus more likely to have children, passing along the mutation. Also, consider another, equally random mutation, that increased the risk of death from infection. That individual will be more likely to die and less likely to pass along the mutation.

As shown above, evolution isn't random. It relies on randomness to provide it with raw material, then it pick whatever works best.

Things look planned only in hindsight. We can look back at the past and everything looks like it was supposed to lead to us. However, we have the bias of knowing what the result of evolution has given. If we didn't have that bias, there would be no apparent design.

[Miserabilia]

I am more of a Creationist like many of the alumni from my high school. We kept it quiet though and did of course learn about evolution. Evolution is something I skeptical on because I fail to grasp how evolution started from random events that worked out in our favor. Things seem too perfectly planned and arranged if you ask me. That is my look at it. To any who have something to say. of course I will answer you, just don't sing of insults of my response will go flat and silent.

That is an old and unrealistic idea of evolution.
Genetic mutations are, in fact, random. Not random as in they don't have a cause; it's just hard to predict and in general there is just a small chance of it happening.
They occur sometimes when a new organism is born; just a slight slight change in DNA. (This can all be prooven)

This slightly different organism undergoes natural selection; for milions and milions of years, the "children" of that organism will have the same sligh mutations as that organism.
If the mutation works in it's adventage (maybe it will run faster, or have a colour that makes it hide in the background) it will survive, and therefore it's descendants will survive too.

This goes on for so long, that eventually you will see organisms that are perfectly adapted to their envirement.
Evolution itself can be prooven with several arguments;

- Old bones. The many many fossiles and bones of creatures that don't exist now, and that look like for example half fish half landcreature; the step in between the evolution from sea to land.

- Bacteria. Bacteria evolve much quicker then large organisms. They die and reproduce extremely fast.
When antibacrteria has been found against them, it kills them at first.
But after a while, the entire bacteria species becomes immume!
They evolved.
The bacteria with better reseliance against the antibacteria survives, the others die out.
This happens all the time and there is easily evidence for this, by the fact that this happens all the time in the medical world.

- Human "races".
If you do not beleive in evolution, or atleast genetic mutation and natural selection, what do you think of the different human fenotypes?

Why do you think that people that live in warmer areas have brown hair and dark eyes and a darker skin, while people that live in colder areas have light hair , often blue eyes and a ligt skin?
Even tho we are still the same species, this is, in fact, a type of evolution.
If you were to move somewhere where the climate is completely different, eventually your great great great great great grandchildren will be of a smiliar skin and hair colour, because climate causes these genetic mutations.



-

So, in short:
evolution is like finding an extremely perfectly round rock in the river.
You may think, this rock looks perfectly round, like it was ment to be round.
Surely, it couldn't just have started to look like that by coincidence?
But the truth is, the flow of the river around the rock slowly slowly slowly shapes it rounder.
So even tho the rock used to be a different shape, we can now look at the rock and think that it was designed that way.

[Lovelife090994]

Evolution isn't random. That is one of the biggest misconceptions about it. Mutations are inherently random, but evolution is about more than just mutations. Selection is key to evolution. Without selection, which by it's very nature is non random, there could be no evolution.

Consider a mutation that confers disease resistance. The mutation itself occurred due to a random copying error in the DNA. But what follows is not random. That individual will be more likely to survive an epidemic, and thus more likely to have children, passing along the mutation. Also, consider another, equally random mutation, that increased the risk of death from infection. That individual will be more likely to die and less likely to pass along the mutation.

As shown above, evolution isn't random. It relies on randomness to provide it with raw material, then it pick whatever works best.

Things look planned only in hindsight. We can look back at the past and everything looks like it was supposed to lead to us. However, we have the bias of knowing what the result of evolution has given. If we didn't have that bias, there would be no apparent design.

That is an old and unrealistic idea of evolution.
Genetic mutations are, in fact, random. Not random as in they don't have a cause; it's just hard to predict and in general there is just a small chance of it happening.
They occur sometimes when a new organism is born; just a slight slight change in DNA. (This can all be prooven)

This slightly different organism undergoes natural selection; for milions and milions of years, the "children" of that organism will have the same sligh mutations as that organism.
If the mutation works in it's adventage (maybe it will run faster, or have a colour that makes it hide in the background) it will survive, and therefore it's descendants will survive too.

This goes on for so long, that eventually you will see organisms that are perfectly adapted to their envirement.
Evolution itself can be prooven with several arguments;

- Old bones. The many many fossiles and bones of creatures that don't exist now, and that look like for example half fish half landcreature; the step in between the evolution from sea to land.

- Bacteria. Bacteria evolve much quicker then large organisms. They die and reproduce extremely fast.
When antibacrteria has been found against them, it kills them at first.
But after a while, the entire bacteria species becomes immume!
They evolved.
The bacteria with better reseliance against the antibacteria survives, the others die out.
This happens all the time and there is easily evidence for this, by the fact that this happens all the time in the medical world.

- Human "races".
If you do not beleive in evolution, or atleast genetic mutation and natural selection, what do you think of the different human fenotypes?

Why do you think that people that live in warmer areas have brown hair and dark eyes and a darker skin, while people that live in colder areas have light hair , often blue eyes and a ligt skin?
Even tho we are still the same species, this is, in fact, a type of evolution.
If you were to move somewhere where the climate is completely different, eventually your great great great great great grandchildren will be of a smiliar skin and hair colour, because climate causes these genetic mutations.



-

So, in short:
evolution is like finding an extremely perfectly round rock in the river.
You may think, this rock looks perfectly round, like it was ment to be round.
Surely, it couldn't just have started to look like that by coincidence?
But the truth is, the flow of the river around the rock slowly slowly slowly shapes it rounder.
So even tho the rock used to be a different shape, we can now look at the rock and think that it was designed that way.

To both of you, I do indeed understand mutations and when benefitial genes are passed down, that makes sense. I however still see humans as one race, different looking but same no less. However for creation itself I prefer to look to my faith for that. For "how" on some things yes I do look to science.

[Harry Smith]

To both of you, I do indeed understand mutations and when benefitial genes are passed down, that makes sense. I however still see humans as one race, different looking but same no less. However for creation itself I prefer to look to my faith for that. For "how" on some things yes I do look to science.


If you want evidence of evolution then just look at the whale- why would a whale which is based in the sea solely need a hipbone?

[saea97]

However for creation itself I prefer to look to my faith for that. For "how" on some things yes I do look to science.

If you "prefer" to look to your faith, then that's fine. But don't pretend it's because of a shortcoming in the evolutionary explanation. It's because you WANT your creation story to be true, regardless of what science indicates.

[darthearth]

I am more of a Creationist like many of the alumni from my high school. We kept it quiet though and did of course learn about evolution. Evolution is something I skeptical on because I fail to grasp how evolution started from random events that worked out in our favor. Things seem too perfectly planned and arranged if you ask me. That is my look at it. To any who have something to say. of course I will answer you, just don't sing of insults of my response will go flat and silent.

What about evolutionary creationism (evolution through Divine providence)? Wouldn't this make the most sense with current information? That is what I have settled upon. Do you think this idea cuts the muster and satisfies the shortcomings of atheistic evolution?

If you "prefer" to look to your faith, then that's fine. But don't pretend it's because of a shortcoming in the evolutionary explanation. It's because you WANT your creation story to be true, regardless of what science indicates.

The big shortcoming of evolution as of now is the failure to completely demonstrate abiogenesis and non-intelligently guided evolution from primordial soup to conscious us. To us theists (without materialism blinders), it is an obvious and stark shortcoming. All the evolutionists can say is that the fundamental reasoning just all scales up. Well, SHOW this. It hasn't happened yet. This is why some may "look" to different things for now and they shouldn't be denigrated for that.

And no, it's not an apparent design because we just happen to see the result of the evolution. That argument doesn't even make sense. It doesn't matter what we see along the past evolutionary line, the end result looks obviously designed due to its complexity. Again, it is up to the atheistic evolutionist to demonstrate completely the non-intuitive conclusion that there was no intelligent involvement whatsoever in the creation of our highly complex bodies.

[Lovelife090994]

If you "prefer" to look to your faith, then that's fine. But don't pretend it's because of a shortcoming in the evolutionary explanation. It's because you WANT your creation story to be true, regardless of what science indicates.

That's not it at all. I look to my faith for what kickstarted Creation.

[Lovelife090994]

What about evolutionary creationism (evolution through Divine providence)? Wouldn't this make the most sense with current information? That is what I have settled upon. Do you think this idea cuts the muster and satisfies the shortcomings of atheistic evolution?



The big shortcoming of evolution as of now is the failure to completely demonstrate abiogenesis and non-intelligently guided evolution from primordial soup to conscious us. To us theists (without materialism blinders), it is an obvious and stark shortcoming. All the evolutionists can say is that the fundamental reasoning just all scales up. Well, SHOW this. It hasn't happened yet. This is why some may "look" to different things for now and they shouldn't be denigrated for that.

And no, it's not an apparent design because we just happen to see the result of the evolution. That argument doesn't even make sense. It doesn't matter what we see along the past evolutionary line, the end result looks obviously designed due to its complexity. Again, it is up to the atheistic evolutionist to demonstrate completely the non-intuitive conclusion that there was no intelligent involvement whatsoever in the creation of our highly complex bodies.

Atheistic Evolution has shortcomings? I am slightly lost on what you are saying. Was this directed to me or others?

[LouBerry]

Is the scientific explanation for our existence not just as unprobabilistic as the religious explanation?

The Big Bang: While the universe is expanding and therefore suggests that the universe began as a singularity, we weren't there to see it. Also its origins are questionable (who's to say that this singularity wasn't put in place by a god?).

Evolution: It happens over the course of millions of years and is therefore difficult to observe. Also {insert well worded suggestion of god-guided evolution here}.

Creation: Impossible to be scientifically proven or disproven.

I don't really know enough about any theory to argue it, but I think any of them are possible. Kind of like you said, however things got set in motion, I think it's entirely plausible that God started it.

[darthearth]

Atheistic Evolution has shortcomings? I am slightly lost on what you are saying. Was this directed to me or others?

The first part was directed to you. Not the second. We have definitive evidence that evolution occurred, if one accepts the evidence and accepts that evolution has occurred, was it really able to produce bodies as complex as ours without divine guidance? Evolutionists have not demonstrated abiogenesis and evolution completely without intelligent guidance. I just think that a God-guided evolution rather than a special 6 day creation or something is the best position to have as of now, I was asking you if that all makes sense to you. I am an evolutionary creationist, you said you looked to creationism, the question I have is what sort of creationism do you look to and why since we can have a God-guided evolution producing our bodies (and this process satisfies the evidence for evolution we have while still preserving creationism).

[Lovelife090994]

The first part was directed to you. Not the second. We have definitive evidence that evolution occurred, if one accepts the evidence and accepts that evolution has occurred, was it really able to produce bodies as complex as ours without divine guidance? Evolutionists have not demonstrated abiogenesis and evolution completely without intelligent guidance. I just think that a God-guided evolution rather than a special 6 day creation or something is the best position to have as of now, I was asking you if that all makes sense to you. I am an evolutionary creationist, you said you looked to creationism, the question I have is what sort of creationism do you look to and why since we can have a God-guided evolution producing our bodies (and this process satisfies the evidence for evolution we have while still preserving creationism).

Evolution is a theory. Until definitive proff is brought up to me I will not follow it. For scientific and academic purposes I will learn it but I won't accept it. I agree that if evolution is real then God or another if one desires could have played a part in that. Maybe evolution is how God or say another if you must did it. However forgive my ignorance. I know not the definition of "abiogenesis" although I may know what it means.

[Korashk]

Evolution is a theory. Until definitive proff is brought up to me I will not follow it.
Being a theory is as proven as a concept can possibly get. If a theory doesn't convince you then I don't understand how you believe in anything.

At least learn very basic scientific concepts before you dismiss a hundred years of evidence and proof.

[Gigablue]

What about evolutionary creationism (evolution through Divine providence)? Wouldn't this make the most sense with current information? That is what I have settled upon. Do you think this idea cuts the muster and satisfies the shortcomings of atheistic evolution?

It isn't impossible, but it isn't necessary. Evolution can happen by natural selection, without divine guidance. The basic principle of natural selection is almost self evident. There is no evidence for divine intervention, nor is there any need to resort to it an an explanation. It isn't impossible, but it isn't necessary. Furthermore, there is no way to test it. You cannot devise any test that would separate evolution by natural means from divinely guided evolution. We can apply Occam's razor and discard the hypothesis that makes the unnecessary assumption.

The big shortcoming of evolution as of now is the failure to completely demonstrate abiogenesis and non-intelligently guided evolution from primordial soup to conscious us. To us theists (without materialism blinders), it is an obvious and stark shortcoming. All the evolutionists can say is that the fundamental reasoning just all scales up. Well, SHOW this. It hasn't happened yet. This is why some may "look" to different things for now and they shouldn't be denigrated for that.

Abiogenesis will likely be shown in the near future. It hasn't been shown yet due to technological limitations. We can't show exactly what happened on the early earth, but we have good hypothesis, and the predictions they make seem so far to be true.

We can't replicate the exact process in which primordial soup lead to us, since the timeframe is prohibitive. It took almost 4 billion years. There is no way to replicate that, other than running a 4 billion year long experiment. We can test, and have tested many predictions of evolution. Evolution is consistent with the fossil record and with DNA evidence, to sane only a few tests. To actually replicate the whole course of events is impossible, but we have done the next best thing.

I'd also like to point out that creationists haven't a shred of evidence. Show me that divine guidance played a role in evolution. At least give some plausible mechanism. The fact that evolutionary biology still has a few gaps to fill does not mean that theism is automatically true.

And no, it's not an apparent design because we just happen to see the result of the evolution. That argument doesn't even make sense. It doesn't matter what we see along the past evolutionary line, the end result looks obviously designed due to its complexity. Again, it is up to the atheistic evolutionist to demonstrate completely the non-intuitive conclusion that there was no intelligent involvement whatsoever in the creation of our highly complex bodies.

The hallmark of design is simplicity, not complexity. When designing something, the designer takes out as many unnecessary components, and tries to remove as many points of failure as possible. The fact that life is so complicated, redundant and prone to failure shows that we were not designed. Evolution is a bottom up process, with no regard for the future and with no end goal. It focuses on what works, not on the ideal. If we were designed, the designer was horrendously incompetent.

Evolution is a theory. Until definitive proff is brought up to me I will not follow it. For scientific and academic purposes I will learn it but I won't accept it. I agree that if evolution is real then God or another if one desires could have played a part in that. Maybe evolution is how God or say another if you must did it. However forgive my ignorance. I know not the definition of "abiogenesis" although I may know what it means.

Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is a phenomenon. It is the process of genetic change within populations over time. It has been documented in nature and in the lab. It is a phenomenon in the same way that gravity is, and it is about as certain to biologists as gravity is to physicists.

Natural selection is a theory. It provides a mechanism to explain a documented phenomenon. It was a hypothesis when it was first proposed by Darwin, and as repeated tests failed to disprove it, it gradually attained the level of theory, the highest level it can reach. It is also a fact within science.

[Lovelife090994]

Being a theory is as proven as a concept can possibly get. If a theory doesn't convince you then I don't understand how you believe in anything.

At least learn very basic scientific concepts before you dismiss a hundred years of evidence and proof.

How so again? I fail to see where this helps or has to do with me. You can't simulate millions or thousands of years of changes in species yet so until then it is still theory. Not abad one, just ne I don't believe in. Like I said, I know it ad of it but I do't accept it.

[saea97]

How so again? I fail to see where this helps or has to do with me. You can't simulate millions or thousands of years of changes in species yet so until then it is still theory. Not abad one, just ne I don't believe in. Like I said, I know it ad of it but I do't accept it.

Why is your Biblical creation story (which at best is an awful hypothesis) preferable to evolution? If you're discarding evolution because of lack of evidence, or shortcomings, or questions raised or any other consideration, you should, by the same basis, be throwing creationism out a thousand times over.

"Still theory" is meaningless in the sense you're trying to convey it. You've been told what a theory means. Theistic creation is a long, long way away from attaining the status of a theory. If you ask an atheistic evolutionist to demonstrate millions of years of evolution by natural selection, I ask you to demonstrate your God and the mechanisms by which he caused evolution.

[darthearth]

It isn't impossible, but it isn't necessary. Evolution can happen by natural selection, without divine guidance. The basic principle of natural selection is almost self evident. There is no evidence for divine intervention, nor is there any need to resort to it an an explanation. It isn't impossible, but it isn't necessary. Furthermore, there is no way to test it. You cannot devise any test that would separate evolution by natural means from divinely guided evolution. We can apply Occam's razor and discard the hypothesis that makes the unnecessary assumption.

You have no justification for your definitive claim that it is unnecessary. Please prove your claim. If you cannot, stop making inappropriate definitive statements. I say that we don't know if it is necessary or not, to show that it is unnecessary, one MUST demonstrate abiogenesis and evolution from primordial soup to conscious us without intelligent guidance. The burden of proof is with the non-intelligently guided position due to the complexity of our bodies. This is evident. It only becomes evidently unnecessary if it can be demonstrated to be unneeded.

Abiogenesis will likely be shown in the near future. It hasn't been shown yet due to technological limitations. We can't show exactly what happened on the early earth, but we have good hypothesis, and the predictions they make seem so far to be true.

This is nothing more than your belief.

We can't replicate the exact process in which primordial soup lead to us, since the timeframe is prohibitive. It took almost 4 billion years. There is no way to replicate that, other than running a 4 billion year long experiment. We can test, and have tested many predictions of evolution. Evolution is consistent with the fossil record and with DNA evidence, to sane only a few tests. To actually replicate the whole course of events is impossible, but we have done the next best thing.

One can at least attempt a computer simulation. Isn't this how it is done? Yes, I think it is. All so far have FAILED. Again, no justification for your assertion that divine guidance is unnecessary.

I'd also like to point out that creationists haven't a shred of evidence. Show me that divine guidance played a role in evolution. At least give some plausible mechanism. The fact that evolutionary biology still has a few gaps to fill does not mean that theism is automatically true.

It can be shown if it is found that environmental conditions must be manipulated intelligently to produce conscious us from primordial soup. Yes, you have to explain consciousness too. Further reason your claim that divine intervention is unnecessary is premature at best, more likely in my opinion to be absolutely wrong. One possible mechanism would be non-random mutations. And I see absolutely no route for any materialistic explanation of consciousness. I believe God-guided evolution with non-physical spirits inhabiting the body and interpreting information in the neural networks of the brain is the most reasonable stance at this time considering all of these things.

The hallmark of design is simplicity, not complexity. When designing something, the designer takes out as many unnecessary components, and tries to remove as many points of failure as possible. The fact that life is so complicated, redundant and prone to failure shows that we were not designed. Evolution is a bottom up process, with no regard for the future and with no end goal. It focuses on what works, not on the ideal. If we were designed, the designer was horrendously incompetent.

And the space shuttle was not complex? This is beyond the pale! Try again. To look at our marvelous and complex bodies and say that if they were designed the designer was horrendously incompetent is outrageous. I'm sure at best you can name off just a few tangential things but in general you would have to ignore the bulk of our biology. Please elucidate how we are entirely composed of Rube Goldberg machines that unguided evolution would suggest, I doubt you will find many. Where are all of our extraneous, unnecessary and redundant parts that are supposed to be the basis of our next stage of evolution? I can't even think of any right off hand and they should definitely be present within a population of over 7 billion shouldn't they? And if you can name just one or two, that is not convincing, there should be myriads across the entire world population.

Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is a phenomenon. It is the process of genetic change within populations over time. It has been documented in nature and in the lab. It is a phenomenon in the same way that gravity is, and it is about as certain to biologists as gravity is to physicists.

Natural selection is a theory. It provides a mechanism to explain a documented phenomenon. It was a hypothesis when it was first proposed by Darwin, and as repeated tests failed to disprove it, it gradually attained the level of theory, the highest level it can reach. It is also a fact within science.

I agree here.

[Gigablue]

You have no justification for your definitive claim that it is unnecessary. Please prove your claim. If you cannot, stop making inappropriate definitive statements. I say that we don't know if it is necessary or not, to show that it is unnecessary, one MUST demonstrate abiogenesis and evolution from primordial soup to conscious us without intelligent guidance. The burden of proof is with the non-intelligently guided position due to the complexity of our bodies. This is evident. It only becomes evidently unnecessary if it can be demonstrated to be unneeded.

The evolutionary explanation is doing a very good job of explaining the origin of life. It isn't perfect, but we have filled in all the major gaps. At this point, all we have to do is to add more detail, but the big picture is all there.

Evolutionary biology is making steady progress. There is no reason to think that we will hit insurmountable obstacles that will undermine the very nature of evolution. If you were to go back many years, creationists would have said that there is no way unguided evolution could explain all this, and yet it has. Extrapolating into the future, it is very likely that the explanatory power of evolution will increase.

Let's look at what would be added if we assumed divinely guided evolution. It would add a small bit to explanatory power, the we will likely acquire anyways, if science continues to progress. At the same time, it would add new, unnecessary assumptions. It would be a gross violation of Occam's razor.

One can at least attempt a computer simulation. Isn't this how it is done? Yes, I think it is. All so far have FAILED. Again, no justification for your assertion that divine guidance is unnecessary.

Computers have been very poor until very recently. However, we have run simulations of many key aspects of evolution. We have simulated how basic molecules formed from the primordial soup. We have simulated the self replication of early RNA and the formation of lipid bilayers. We have simulated the evolution of single cell organisms. At the other end, we have simulations of how consciousness may have arisen. Complex behaviours can emerge out of very simple simulations.

It can be shown if it is found that environmental conditions must be manipulated intelligently to produce conscious us from primordial soup. Yes, you have to explain consciousness too. Further reason your claim that divine intervention is unnecessary is premature at best, more likely in my opinion to be absolutely wrong. One possible mechanism would be non-random mutations. And I see absolutely no route for any materialistic explanation of consciousness. I believe God-guided evolution with non-physical spirits inhabiting the body and interpreting information in the neural networks of the brain is the most reasonable stance at this time considering all of these things.

You have to prove your claims. You first have to prove a deity or other designer. Even if we grant that, prove how they manipulated the primordial soup. Don't just say that they did, give a detailed account of they precise pathways used. We have that much knowledge with the evolutionary explanation. If you want to overturn it, you need at least an equal body of evidence.

Show that non-random mutations occurred. Or at least, give a way that they could have occurred. We know a lot about how random mutations arise from flaws in the proteins involved in DNA replication, exposure to certain chemicals, ionizing radiation, etc. In many cases, we know the molecular pathways involved, the genes implicated, how protein structure and function are changes, etc. Show that there is the same level of evidence for non-random mutations.

You say that you see no mechanism for materialist consciousness, but neuroscience disagrees with you. We don't fully understand how the brain created consciousness, but we know that it does, and we know some of the mechanism. We know that certain drugs can disable consciousness. We know that if you deactivate certain brain regions, consciousness is altered. We have massive evidence that the brain creates consciousness. If you want to overturn that, you either have to show that it is all wrong, or give an equal level of evidence showing non-materialist consciousness.

You say that there are spirits inhabiting the nervous system, and yet you accuse me of going beyond the evidence. You have to prove that those spirits exist. Before that, you would have to suggest a possible mechanism within the framework of reality. There is no precedent, nor is there a known mechanism. You would also have to devise an experiment that would separate the hypothesis that the brain creates consciousness through naturalistic means from the hypothesis that a spirit in the brain creates consciousness. If you cane come up with an experiment, then that hypothesis becomes unfalsifiable, beyond the realm of science, and is dismissed by Occam's razor.

And the space shuttle was not complex? This is beyond the pale! Try again. To look at our marvelous and complex bodies and say that if they were designed the designer was horrendously incompetent is outrageous. I'm sure at best you can name off just a few tangential things but in general you would have to ignore the bulk of our biology. Please elucidate how we are entirely composed of Rube Goldberg machines that unguided evolution would suggest, I doubt you will find many. Where are all of our extraneous, unnecessary and redundant parts that are supposed to be the basis of our next stage of evolution? I can't even think of any right off hand and they should definitely be present within a population of over 7 billion shouldn't they? And if you can name just one or two, that is not convincing, there should be myriads across the entire world population.

The space shuttle was complex, but if it had been designed by evolution, it would have been much more complex. Suppose you started with a basic airplane, and wanted to use the principles of evolution to acquire something capable to space flight. This would mean incremental change, often producing very little advantage. The plane that flew the highest would be selected, reproduced, and tweaked randomly to try to produce a better plane. After millions of iterations, you would end up with something capable to space flight, but it would be absurdly complicated.

Now consider humans designing the space shuttle. They have a clear goal to achieve. They have knowledge of thermodynamics, orbital mechanics, structural engineering, material science, etc. They don't have to make incremental changes, they can do whatever they want. They can plan ahead and build exactly what needs to be made. There is a certain base level of complexity necessary, but anything beyond that is indicative of bad design.

As for the problems within us, they are numerous. Why do we have such complicated DNA. Much of our DNA doesn't serve any apparent function? We have pieces of retroviral DNA that is inactivated, but still present. We have introns, which are spliced out or mRNA when making proteins. Experiments have been done in other species where the seemingly useless DNA was removed, and the animals were phenotypically indistinguishable from controls. Why would a designer add useless material? However, from the point of view of evolution, the makes sense. Much of the DNA used to serve some function, but it was made unnecessary. There was no selective pressure to get rid of it, so it simply stayed.

There are many other examples of unnecessary complexity, but I won't name them all. I could name all the vestigial structures and traits and only be scratching the surface. The fact that there are any such traits discredits intelligent design. Why would a designer include such features? The more complexity, the more points of possible failure. If the designer chose to include so much useless DNA, they are surely incompetent. It is much more likely that modern humans came from natural, non-intelligent forces.

[darthearth]

The evolutionary explanation is doing a very good job of explaining the origin of life. It isn't perfect, but we have filled in all the major gaps. At this point, all we have to do is to add more detail, but the big picture is all there.

Evolutionary biology is making steady progress. There is no reason to think that we will hit insurmountable obstacles that will undermine the very nature of evolution. If you were to go back many years, creationists would have said that there is no way unguided evolution could explain all this, and yet it has. Extrapolating into the future, it is very likely that the explanatory power of evolution will increase.

Agree, except you throw in the term "unguided" prematurely. We don't know this yet.

Let's look at what would be added if we assumed divinely guided evolution. It would add a small bit to explanatory power, the we will likely acquire anyways, if science continues to progress. At the same time, it would add new, unnecessary assumptions. It would be a gross violation of Occam's razor.

You cannot claim it will ever be only a "small bit". We do not know this yet.

Computers have been very poor until very recently. However, we have run simulations of many key aspects of evolution. We have simulated how basic molecules formed from the primordial soup. We have simulated the self replication of early RNA and the formation of lipid bilayers. We have simulated the evolution of single cell organisms. At the other end, we have simulations of how consciousness may have arisen. Complex behaviours can emerge out of very simple simulations.

Complex behaviors are not consciousness. I do not know of a definitive simulation of primordial soup to a single cell organism. Please give a reference. Please also give a reference to what you claim are simulations of how consciousness may have arisen. This is hard to believe as consciousness is not even a material phenomena or complex behavior, it is awareness.

You have to prove your claims. You first have to prove a deity or other designer. Even if we grant that, prove how they manipulated the primordial soup. Don't just say that they did, give a detailed account of they precise pathways used. We have that much knowledge with the evolutionary explanation. If you want to overturn it, you need at least an equal body of evidence.

I'm not looking to overturn anything. Whatever we find scientifically constrains the method a God would have used. If it can be demonstrated intelligent guidance is unnecessary that's fine too, the thing is we cannot conclude that right now.

Show that non-random mutations occurred. Or at least, give a way that they could have occurred. We know a lot about how random mutations arise from flaws in the proteins involved in DNA replication, exposure to certain chemicals, ionizing radiation, etc. In many cases, we know the molecular pathways involved, the genes implicated, how protein structure and function are changes, etc. Show that there is the same level of evidence for non-random mutations.

It could only be shown if a complete demonstration of abiogenesis and evolution cannot achieve conscious us without intelligent environmental manipulation. Possible mechanisms for non-random mutation are non-random ionizing radiation and non-random copying errors (and such).

You say that you see no mechanism for materialist consciousness, but neuroscience disagrees with you. We don't fully understand how the brain created consciousness, but we know that it does, and we know some of the mechanism. We know that certain drugs can disable consciousness. We know that if you deactivate certain brain regions, consciousness is altered. We have massive evidence that the brain creates consciousness. If you want to overturn that, you either have to show that it is all wrong, or give an equal level of evidence showing non-materialist consciousness.

No, neuroscience does not disagree with me. Disrupted information flow is not the altering of consciousness itself, just what that consciousness perceives. The confusion between consciousness and the information consciousness is able to access is very prevalent in these discussions. I could take a pill that makes me think I am a frog. This is not altering my consciousness, only the information my consciousness accesses. Yes, you can alter things such that what is conscious will not perceive any information (this is called unconsciousness), but this is not touching whatever entity is conscious, only the information that entity perceives (in this case none).

You say that there are spirits inhabiting the nervous system, and yet you accuse me of going beyond the evidence. You have to prove that those spirits exist. Before that, you would have to suggest a possible mechanism within the framework of reality. There is no precedent, nor is there a known mechanism. You would also have to devise an experiment that would separate the hypothesis that the brain creates consciousness through naturalistic means from the hypothesis that a spirit in the brain creates consciousness. If you cane come up with an experiment, then that hypothesis becomes unfalsifiable, beyond the realm of science, and is dismissed by Occam's razor.

First of all one can't use Occam's razor to dismiss something that is not known to be unnecessary. Just because something may be unfalsifiable does not mean Occam's razor is relevant at all. Spirits would be a hypothesis, their effect might be found in the unexplainable altering of quantum potentials within the brain. Some researchers are looking for this effect, it is calculated to be almost unmeasurable though. There is no materialistic path for awareness itself, because the only things that are material are not aware (atoms and force fields). Even if material components were aware, the awareness would be in itself a non-material property, same problem remains.


The space shuttle was complex, but if it had been designed by evolution, it would have been much more complex. Suppose you started with a basic airplane, and wanted to use the principles of evolution to acquire something capable to space flight. This would mean incremental change, often producing very little advantage. The plane that flew the highest would be selected, reproduced, and tweaked randomly to try to produce a better plane. After millions of iterations, you would end up with something capable to space flight, but it would be absurdly complicated.

Yes, so where are the Rube Goldberg machines?

Now consider humans designing the space shuttle. They have a clear goal to achieve. They have knowledge of thermodynamics, orbital mechanics, structural engineering, material science, etc. They don't have to make incremental changes, they can do whatever they want. They can plan ahead and build exactly what needs to be made. There is a certain base level of complexity necessary, but anything beyond that is indicative of bad design.

Yes, so where are all the extraneous and needless parts within us that NEVER served a purpose? Where are the overly complicated biological systems that have no evolutionary necessity at any stage of our evolution?

As for the problems within us, they are numerous. Why do we have such complicated DNA. Much of our DNA doesn't serve any apparent function? We have pieces of retroviral DNA that is inactivated, but still present. We have introns, which are spliced out or mRNA when making proteins. Experiments have been done in other species where the seemingly useless DNA was removed, and the animals were phenotypically indistinguishable from controls. Why would a designer add useless material? However, from the point of view of evolution, the makes sense. Much of the DNA used to serve some function, but it was made unnecessary. There was no selective pressure to get rid of it, so it simply stayed.

There are many other examples of unnecessary complexity, but I won't name them all. I could name all the vestigial structures and traits and only be scratching the surface. The fact that there are any such traits discredits intelligent design. Why would a designer include such features? The more complexity, the more points of possible failure. If the designer chose to include so much useless DNA, they are surely incompetent. It is much more likely that modern humans came from natural, non-intelligent forces.

Everything you mention was apparently useful at some point in our evolution. The designer would have included such features because they were necessary at some stage of the evolutionary design. Again, how much of us was NEVER used in our evolution? Non-intelligently guided evolution should have lots of that stuff, shouldn't it?

[Miserabilia]

Agree, except you throw in the term "unguided" prematurely. We don't know this yet.



You cannot claim it will ever be only a "small bit". We do not know this yet.



Complex behaviors are not consciousness. I do not know of a definitive simulation of primordial soup to a single cell organism. Please give a reference. Please also give a reference to what you claim are simulations of how consciousness may have arisen. This is hard to believe as consciousness is not even a material phenomena or complex behavior, it is awareness.



I'm not looking to overturn anything. Whatever we find scientifically constrains the method a God would have used. If it can be demonstrated intelligent guidance is unnecessary that's fine too, the thing is we cannot conclude that right now.



It could only be shown if a complete demonstration of abiogenesis and evolution cannot achieve conscious us without intelligent environmental manipulation. Possible mechanisms for non-random mutation is non-random ionizing radiation and non-random copying errors (and such).



No, neuroscience does not disagree with me. Disrupted information flow is not the altering of consciousness itself, just what that consciousness perceives. The confusion between consciousness and the information consciousness is able to access is very prevalent in these discussions. I could take a pill that makes me think I am a frog. This is not altering my consciousness, only the information my consciousness accesses. Yes, you can alter things such that consciousness will not perceive any information (this is called unconsciousness), but this is not touching whatever entity is conscious, only the information that entity perceives (in this case none).



First of all one can't use Occam's razor to dismiss something that is not known to be unnecessary. Just because something may be unfalsifiable does not mean Occam's razor is relevant at all. Spirits would be a hypothesis, their effect might be found in the unexplainable altering of quantum potentials within the brain. Some researchers are looking for this effect, it is calculated to be almost unmeasurable though. There is no materialistic path for awareness itself, because the only things that are material are not aware (atoms and force fields). Even if material components were aware, the awareness would be in itself a non-material property, same problem remains.




Yes, so where are the Rube Goldberg machines?



Yes, so where are all the extraneous and needless parts within us that NEVER served a purpose? Where are the overly complicated biological systems that have no evolutionary necessity at any stage of our evolution?



Everything you mention was apparently useful at some point in our evolution. The designer would have included such features because they were necessary at some stage of the evolutionary design. Again, how much of us was NEVER used in our evolution? Non-intelligently guided evolution should have lots of that stuff, shouldn't it?

"Yes, so where are all the extraneous and needless parts within us that NEVER served a purpose? Where are the overly complicated biological systems that have no evolutionary necessity at any stage of our evolution?



Everything you mention was apparently useful at some point in our evolution. The designer would have included such features because they were necessary at some stage of the evolutionary design. Again, how much of us was NEVER used in our evolution? Non-intelligently guided evolution should have lots of that stuff, shouldn't it?"


what?
There is literlay no point for us humans today to still have 98% unneeded DNA (look it up), tails (we still got 'em), third eyelids (we still got em') and an appendix.
Why do you think we still have those?
God was just like yea why not let's let humans keep that shiz just to be safe, yaknow in case they ever spontaniously need to evolve working reptile eyes and full tails.

Ya I don't think so.

[DarkOmega]

dude cmon ,,,there is no man in the sky creating everything and everybody ..

[drew6]

Science and evolution require the similar level of faith that is required to believe that God is involved in the process.

Evolution is used as evidence, but it has absolutely HUGE holes in it that require so much faith.

1. What caused the big bang? All inorganic matter and energy were created that instant and eventually there was a lifeless planet earth.

2. Where did the organic material come from on Earth? What was the first life form? How did that occur? Where's the science that can replicate that process?

The problem with arguing that evolution "proves" anything has that fundamental flaw. Evolutionists will show us how a fish developed crude feet and became amphibious or how apes developed into beings that walked up right. Great. Wonderful, but you skipped the most important very first step. EVOLVED from WHAT?

If people are going to claim that evolution is the way to go, then show me the evolution of life as in:

1. Where did the organic matter come from?
2. What was the first life form?
3. Because it's "science" and a fact, forming life should be repeatable where's the proof it's repeatable?


Science offers us no answers to those questions in a similar way that people who believe in God has some involvement, can't prove he exists.

We have people who believe in only science skipping over billions of years of evolution from the time the first form of life was created to an ape like creature. Please fill that gap to prove that scientists aren't taking just as big a leap of faith as do people who believe God was involved.

The problem with people who rely on science is that THEY want proof of Godly influence when they themselves have these absolutely HUGE holes that their science can't prove.

[Harry Smith]

Science and evolution require the similar level of faith that is required to believe that God is involved in the process.

Evolution is used as evidence, but it has absolutely HUGE holes in it that require so much faith.

1. What caused the big bang? All inorganic matter and energy were created that instant and eventually there was a lifeless planet earth.

2. Where did the organic material come from on Earth? What was the first life form? How did that occur? Where's the science that can replicate that process?

The problem with arguing that evolution "proves" anything has that fundamental flaw. Evolutionists will show us how a fish developed crude feet and became amphibious or how apes developed into beings that walked up right. Great. Wonderful, but you skipped the most important very first step. EVOLVED from WHAT?

If people are going to claim that evolution is the way to go, then show me the evolution of life as in:

1. Where did the organic matter come from?
2. What was the first life form?
3. Because it's "science" and a fact, forming life should be repeatable where's the proof it's repeatable?


Science offers us no answers to those questions in a similar way that people who believe in God has some involvement, can't prove he exists.

We have people who believe in only science skipping over billions of years of evolution from the time the first form of life was created to an ape like creature. Please fill that gap to prove that scientists aren't taking just as big a leap of faith as do people who believe God was involved.

The problem with people who rely on science is that THEY want proof of Godly influence when they themselves have these absolutely HUGE holes that their science can't prove.

Huge holes? I assume your talking about the fossil gap- which exists because we haven't be able to dig up and examine very single fossil in the world meaning that we don't have 100% proof of each stage of evolution.

It's almost as if your saying they're is a hole in evolution so God must be right, that's like saying since the first plane could only fly 40 feet we might as well try and fly using our wings.

Life came from the ocean as single cell organism developed into carbon dioxide breathing life forms, the very nature of our atmosphere shows how life has changed on the planet.

If you believe in creationism which you most likely do please tell me why God created a whale with a hipbone?

[drew6]

Huge holes? I assume your talking about the fossil gap- which exists because we haven't be able to dig up and examine very single fossil in the world meaning that we don't have 100% proof of each stage of evolution.

It's almost as if your saying they're is a hole in evolution so God must be right, that's like saying since the first plane could only fly 40 feet we might as well try and fly using our wings.

Life came from the ocean as single cell organism developed into carbon dioxide breathing life forms, the very nature of our atmosphere shows how life has changed on the planet.

If you believe in creationism which you most likely do please tell me why God created a whale with a hipbone?

You replied to my post, so let's stay on track:

If people are going to claim that evolution is the way to go, then show me the evolution of life as in:

1. Where did the organic matter come from?
2. What was the first life form?
3. Because it's "science" and a fact, forming life should be repeatable where's the proof it's repeatable?


Harry you quickly make the leap from one cell to other forms of life, but where did that one cell come from? That's a HUGE hole that requires as much faith as people who believe in God.

I don't claim to be a creationist. I didn't say that. I'm pointing out that the scientists have big holes and you just posted a fine example of being like those scientists who want to skip over how we went from a plant of only inorganic material to let's fish.

Science or you; can't claim science is the right answer if in the very first stage you can't explain some simple things, like:

1. Where did the organic material come from?
2. Where did the water come from?
3. Where did the first cell come from?

Those are very, very basic things. I'm TOTALLY giving you everything in evolution from the first fish that was on land up to your mom and dad. I'm totally throwing you a freebie with the missing link.

What I won't give you and science is how Earth went from only inorganic material up to and including the fish.

You don't even have to go as advanced as the fish. Just some basic sea life.

The issue is with how it got started on Earth and that's a big, big hole for science to fill.

See how even you skipped all that and went right to the whale hip bone?

You skipped over the first billion years and I'm handing you so much on a platter from an evolution stand point, but you just have to admit that science requires just as much faith as people who think God was involved. Otherwise, if you don't admit to using faith, then science must prove the questions I asked and they can't and that's billions of years of incredible things going on.

The world would freak if we found a simple micro organism on Mars, yet to my knowledge science can't answer how life and cells were formed here. We can't gloss over going from a lifeless Earth to an Earth with life and start at fish, frogs, apes etc. It's too big of a leap.

[Lovelife090994]

Why is your Biblical creation story (which at best is an awful hypothesis) preferable to evolution? If you're discarding evolution because of lack of evidence, or shortcomings, or questions raised or any other consideration, you should, by the same basis, be throwing creationism out a thousand times over.

"Still theory" is meaningless in the sense you're trying to convey it. You've been told what a theory means. Theistic creation is a long, long way away from attaining the status of a theory. If you ask an atheistic evolutionist to demonstrate millions of years of evolution by natural selection, I ask you to demonstrate your God and the mechanisms by which he caused evolution.

You do reaize not everyone is both atheistic and an evolutionist. I am neither.

[Harry Smith]

You replied to my post, so let's stay on track:

If people are going to claim that evolution is the way to go, then show me the evolution of life as in:

1. Where did the organic matter come from?
2. What was the first life form?
3. Because it's "science" and a fact, forming life should be repeatable where's the proof it's repeatable?


Harry you quickly make the leap from one cell to other forms of life, but where did that one cell come from? That's a HUGE hole that requires as much faith as people who believe in God.

I don't claim to be a creationist. I didn't say that. I'm pointing out that the scientists have big holes and you just posted a fine example of being like those scientists who want to skip over how we went from a plant of only inorganic material to let's fish.

Science or you can't claim science is the right answer if in the very first stage you can't explain some simple things, like:

1. Where did the organic material come from?
2. Where did the water come from?
3. Where did the first cell come from?

Those are very, very basic things. I'm TOTALLY giving you everything in evolution from the first fish that was on land up to your mom and dad. I'm totally throwing you a freebie with the missing link.

What I won't give you and science is how Earth went from only inorganic material up to and including the fish.

You don't even have to go as advanced as the fish. Just some basic sea life.

The issue is with how it got started on Earth and that's a big, big whole for science to fill.

See how even you skipped all that and went right to the whale hip bone?

You skipped over the first billion years and I'm handing you so much on a platter from an evolution stand point, but you just have to admit that science requires just as much faith as people who think God was involved. Otherwise, if you don't admit to using faith, then science must prove the questions I asked and they can't and that's billions of years of incredible things going on.

The world would freak if we found a simple micro organism on Mars, yet to my knowledge science can't answer how life and cells were formed here. We can't gloss over going from a lifeless Earth to an Earth with life and start at fish, frogs, apes etc. It's too big of a leap.

I thank you very much for being so kind as to tossing me some nice easy questions, I'll have to put my A in Biology to good use. I certainly don't have all the answers. One thing you need to understand is that there will always be gaps in knowledge and understanding- hence why we haven't nuclear fission or other marvels. It's like a massive jigsaw piece.

The first cell has nothing to do with evolution. I believe in the theory that animals and organisms evolve over millions of years.

My understanding however as I stated before was that the world was made up of nearly 100% Nitrogen, this was because of volcanic activity which sent water vapour into the air, as the earth's temperature and climate changed this lead to oceans being formed. These oceans spawned life through the amino acids which were present, some claim that other random events helped spawn the growth of these building blocks such as lighting strikes. These amino acids then developed into single cell bacteria's who feed off the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and so the chain continues.

Your correct though- scientists don't have a calendar which accounts for every day of this missing 'million' years your talking about. I'm sure if you talked to someone much more knowledgeable than me than you'd be able to get the full answers but as I said by knowledge is at best shaky

[saea97]

You do reaize not everyone is both atheistic and an evolutionist. I am neither.

I realize that. Thanks for the non sequitur answer. I asked you why you felt so compelled to discard evolution on the grounds of unconvincing evidence, yet believe your unsubstantiated holy stories. The answer "because I'm a theist" doesn't justify the apparently conscious and unbiased choice you've made.

[Gigablue]

1. Where did the organic material come from?

There was carbon on the early earth. It was in the form of simple organic compounds like methane, and inorganic compounds like carbon dioxide. Simple compounds like these can combine to form complex organic molecules like amino acids and even nucleic acids given enough time and energy. The early earth was very hot, so reactions would have had enough energy.

You may be wondering about where the basic elements came from. They were formed by the star that intimately exploded, giving rise to the cloud of gas and dust that became the solar system. The lighter element, including things like carbon and oxygen, were formed by fusion, and the heavier elements, everything past iron up to uranium, were formed in the supernova.

2. Where did the water come from?

Water can form easily from the oxidation of hydrogen. There has been ample hydrogen in the universe since the Big Bang. Oxygen arose from nuclear fusion in stars. Given some initial activation energy, the reaction can proceed, giving water.

The water here on earth came mainly from comets. There were far more comets in the early solar system, and heavy bodies like the earth readily attracted them. The ice on the comets melted, giving most of the water on earth today.

3. Where did the first cell come from?

The first cell likely started out as RNA. Basic nucleic acids could have formed from the primordial soup. These nucleic acids can act as templates for their own replication, and the complementary nature of base pairs, combined with the polymer nature of nucleic acids mean that the RNA could have replicated. It wouldn't have been very efficient, and there would have been errors, but the basic replication was there. Once you have some form of replication, evolution can take over, giving us the diversity of life we have today. Other cell structures arose later on in the billions of years it took for cells to evolve. Lipid bilayers can self assemble, and likely enveloped the proto-cells. Organelles required millions, if not billions, or years to evolve.

[Lovelife090994]

I realize that. Thanks for the non sequitur answer. I asked you why you felt so compelled to discard evolution on the grounds of unconvincing evidence, yet believe your unsubstantiated holy stories. The answer "because I'm a theist" doesn't justify the apparently conscious and unbiased choice you've made.

Just because I am a theist does not mean I am wrong. Who knows? You act like I threw evolution away. It may be, but I chose to go to my beliefs of how everything came to be. I believe that evolution may be how God did it, over time versus in an instant but I don't hold that. I believe what is here, has been.

[drew6]

I found this to be illuminating, It's a BBC documentary called Life is Impossible.
And it has the world's leading scientists discussing possible ways life started on Earth. At times, they poke holes in each other's theories and all admit, we just don't know and it's a huge gap in man's understand of how life began here.

At 5:37 they discuss why methane wasn't present as they used to think since around 1955. Since then, through the space programs, they've learned there wasn't a methane atmosphere, so the primordial soup that required methane and was heated and maybe lightning is no longer a possibility.

It's an interesting documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE7cf3ADZJU

This initial phase of how life formed is crucial to buying into the rest of evolution because there has to be something provable and repeatable for it to truly be science. I have no problem with saying science has shown us evolution, but it's only shown part of it. We need not concern ourselves with "the missing link" and questions of the more complex organisms until we know how the first living cells were created from non-living material. I think man can connect the dots from some very simple organisms to something moderately complex etc., but going from no life to life is to big a leap for the experts who've been studying it for years and they realize that without, it leave a big gaping hole in getting to the point of discussing natural selection and evolution.

btw, the documentary is just over 49 minutes long and I enjoyed it. I need to see if they've made any recent progress. I looked up one of the professors and he died years ago, so if I see something more current, I'll post it.

-d

[saea97]

Just because I am a theist does not mean I am wrong. Who knows? You act like I threw evolution away. It may be, but I chose to go to my beliefs of how everything came to be. I believe that evolution may be how God did it, over time versus in an instant but I don't hold that. I believe what is here, has been.

I know all of that. I know that you chose your beliefs over science. All that I'm asking you is why you found your faith to be a more reasonable explanation than the scientific one, which you have stated was not satisfactory to you because of holes and raised questions.

[Lovelife090994]

I know all of that. I know that you chose your beliefs over science. All that I'm asking you is why you found your faith to be a more reasonable explanation than the scientific one, which you have stated was not satisfactory to you because of holes and raised questions.

I chose to go to my faith on it because that is what I was taught and what I chose to go by. No one was forcing me to it nor forcing me to believe in evolution. I know of evolution, I had to else I'd have failed Biology. I do know how evolution works it's theories, the gamut. However, I still believe as a Creationist, I won't be swayed, not even at a threat.

[Silicate Wielder]

But creationism doesn't require evidence. It simply is. Evolution and the big bang rely on astronomically unlikely things to occur.

Natural selection makes sense, but it doesn't explain where DNA came from, where cellular structure came from, why cells divide the way they do. These things all would have had to occur by chance because if an organism didn't have them in the first place it would have died/failed to reproduce.

There is no scientific explanation as to where the singularity came from. It simply was (much the same a deity simply is, without beginning).

Actually, we now know where DNA came from, it evolved from RNA, and if I remember correctly RNA forms in liquids such as water when under the right conditions. when DNA is created it can turn into a cromosome which in turn leads to the eventual formation of a cell, it is not too far to to say that a single cell can divide and multiply into a more advanced organism, after years or centuries of evolution you are left with a complex organism such as say a monkey which evolved to being a land creature at one point in evolution.

And perhaps there is more to this than just a big bang, perhaps the universe itself is something that defies our understanding of everything, perhaps before the universe existed what we refer to as scientific laws did not exist, even including the ones that we do not know of as laws or even have clues about yet, thus allowing anything to happen. so perhaps despite a %0 chance of existing some entity whether it's a 'god' or 'single item' or anything of the sort suddenly popped into existence, it then became unstable and exploded, creating a barrier that contains our universe which is forecver expanding.

And after what would be considered to be just a few seconds considering how long the universe has existed it developed a spout which looped back and entered in some other spot, and extended to the center where the big bang happened, meaning the universe would be a paradox, and the only reason this happened is because nothing is preventing it on the outside, no rules apply.

The problem with explaining the cause of the universe scientifically in my opinion is because you have to take in facts and make up logical sounding theories. and then build up apon that to the point of where life originated from, and how evolution came from. just work from the roots up.

This would also be true for religious explainations.

[Eurasian guy]

Is the scientific explanation for our existence not just as unprobabilistic as the religious explanation?

The Big Bang: While the universe is expanding and therefore suggests that the universe began as a singularity, we weren't there to see it. Also its origins are questionable (who's to say that this singularity wasn't put in place by a god?).

Evolution: It happens over the course of millions of years and is therefore difficult to observe. Also {insert well worded suggestion of god-guided evolution here}.

Creation: Impossible to be scientifically proven or disproven.

I did a 22 page assignment on Creation VS Evolution this year for Human biology. And the big bang and evolution and under the same lines kind of. Scientists can actually recreate the big bang in a lab, just a MUCH smaller version of it, but the reason why it is still called the big bang theory is because scientist still don't know how the big bang was caused because when scientist do it, they use tools etc. The scientific approach to our evolution is much more compelling then a religious point of view.

Between humans and Chimps, we have a 98% DNA sequence similarity. Also our species as hominins are very very similar. If you take a look at transition fossils from old world primates to our species from Homo Neanderthal, Homo Erectus, Australopithecus africanus to the Homo Sapiens (us) You'll notice changes in an order such as position of the foremen magnum, dental arcade, reduction in canine teeth size due to diet, quadrupedal to bipedal locomotion, cranial capacity, vestigial organs etc I could probably keep going but i think you get the idea. Where as when religion was founded they didn't have scientists to find facts, they wrote in a book what they though was right and told to them from God. Now the reason we can't disprove religion is because simply science is as advanced yet to prove everything, and religion doesn't go a long the lines of facts. More or less just statements.

I got a very good grade on my assignment, marked by my Human Biology teacher which is a professor and doctor in more then 2 fields. But it's very heavy reading and uses a lot of scientific terms.


But for me, i was Christian. But now i find it too hard to believe with what I've learnt. When science can at least give me some evidence and religion can't, i tend to believe facts.

[Eurasian guy]

Actually, we now know where DNA came from, it evolved from RNA, and if I remember correctly RNA forms in liquids such as water when under the right conditions. when DNA is created it can turn into a cromosome which in turn leads to the eventual formation of a cell, it is not too far to to say that a single cell can divide and multiply into a more advanced organism, after years or centuries of evolution you are left with a complex organism such as say a monkey which evolved to being a land creature at one point in evolution.

And perhaps there is more to this than just a big bang, perhaps the universe itself is something that defies our understanding of everything, perhaps before the universe existed what we refer to as scientific laws did not exist, even including the ones that we do not know of as laws or even have clues about yet, thus allowing anything to happen. so perhaps despite a %0 chance of existing some entity whether it's a 'god' or 'single item' or anything of the sort suddenly popped into existence, it then became unstable and exploded, creating a barrier that contains our universe which is forecver expanding.

And after what would be considered to be just a few seconds considering how long the universe has existed it developed a spout which looped back and entered in some other spot, and extended to the center where the big bang happened, meaning the universe would be a paradox, and the only reason this happened is because nothing is preventing it on the outside, no rules apply.

The problem with explaining the cause of the universe scientifically in my opinion is because you have to take in facts and make up logical sounding theories. and then build up apon that to the point of where life originated from, and how evolution came from. just work from the roots up.

This would also be true for religious explainations.

I'm sorry, but did you actually study human biology because i did for 3 years and what you're saying is completely generalised and not in order.

I stopped reading after you said "cromosome" (which i think you mean Chromosomes) turn into DNA BHAHAHAHHA. Each chain of the double helix is made up of repeating units called nucleotides. A single nucleotide is composed of three functional groups: a sugar, a triphosphate, and a nitrogenous base, this new double helix is wrapped around histone proteins to give it it's 3 dimensional structure. Then later on it forms Chromosomes.

And i'm not even gonna start talking about everything else you said. LOL especially about the cells =P that made me laugh a bit.

But seeing as you're only 15, i don't really expect you to know this. But you should at least not post things without doing your homework kiddo.

[darthearth]

I did a 22 page assignment on Creation VS Evolution this year for Human biology. And the big bang and evolution and under the same lines kind of. Scientists can actually recreate the big bang in a lab, just a MUCH smaller version of it, but the reason why it is still called the big bang theory is because scientist still don't know how the big bang was caused because when scientist do it, they use tools etc. The scientific approach to our evolution is much more compelling then a religious point of view.

Between humans and Chimps, we have a 98% DNA sequence similarity. Also our species as hominins are very very similar. If you take a look at transition fossils from old world primates to our species from Homo Neanderthal, Homo Erectus, Australopithecus africanus to the Homo Sapiens (us) You'll notice changes in an order such as position of the foremen magnum, dental arcade, reduction in canine teeth size due to diet, quadrupedal to bipedal locomotion, cranial capacity, vestigial organs etc I could probably keep going but i think you get the idea. Where as when religion was founded they didn't have scientists to find facts, they wrote in a book what they though was right and told to them from God. Now the reason we can't disprove religion is because simply science is as advanced yet to prove everything, and religion doesn't go a long the lines of facts. More or less just statements.

I got a very good grade on my assignment, marked by my Human Biology teacher which is a professor and doctor in more then 2 fields. But it's very heavy reading and uses a lot of scientific terms.


But for me, i was Christian. But now i find it too hard to believe with what I've learnt. When science can at least give me some evidence and religion can't, i tend to believe facts.

I believe science just discovers how God has organized things.

[Eurasian guy]

I believe science just discovers how God has organized things.

According to The bible, the earth is around 7 thousand years old. Carbon 14 dating can be used to date fossils over 60,000 years ago accurately due to it's half life of the amount of radio active isotopes it takes to decay. Not to even mention argon dating or potassium dating techniques. The earth is to be dated to be approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
And how can it be how God organised things? In the bible it says, Genesis 2:7 Then the Lord God formed a man[a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Genesis 2:19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

THIS implies, Humans were created first before animals were. But evolution states that humans evolved from lower primates and has a lot of evidence to support it. Now from a Christian point of view, it says the bible is the word of God and God is truth. Therefore the bible is the truth. If science proves that one thing in the bible is wrong, it makes the whole bible disproved... Or it definitely goes against each other. So how can God organise this? with out changing whats in the bible.


I was a Christian for a very long time. Until i became educated and now the bible seems kind of a fairy tale to me.

[Miserabilia]

Science and evolution require the similar level of faith that is required to believe that God is involved in the process.

Evolution is used as evidence, but it has absolutely HUGE holes in it that require so much faith.

1. What caused the big bang? All inorganic matter and energy were created that instant and eventually there was a lifeless planet earth.

2. Where did the organic material come from on Earth? What was the first life form? How did that occur? Where's the science that can replicate that process?

The problem with arguing that evolution "proves" anything has that fundamental flaw. Evolutionists will show us how a fish developed crude feet and became amphibious or how apes developed into beings that walked up right. Great. Wonderful, but you skipped the most important very first step. EVOLVED from WHAT?

If people are going to claim that evolution is the way to go, then show me the evolution of life as in:

1. Where did the organic matter come from?
2. What was the first life form?
3. Because it's "science" and a fact, forming life should be repeatable where's the proof it's repeatable?


Science offers us no answers to those questions in a similar way that people who believe in God has some involvement, can't prove he exists.

We have people who believe in only science skipping over billions of years of evolution from the time the first form of life was created to an ape like creature. Please fill that gap to prove that scientists aren't taking just as big a leap of faith as do people who believe God was involved.

The problem with people who rely on science is that THEY want proof of Godly influence when they themselves have these absolutely HUGE holes that their science can't prove.

Where did the organic material come from on Earth? What was the first life form? How did that occur? Where's the science that can replicate that process?

first life form (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=198690) (also how it occurs)

the science that can replicate that process? (http://news.illinois.edu/news/11/0330cell_zaidaluthey-schulten_elijahroberts.html)

science that can replicate that process (http://www.livescience.com/673-virtual-virus-simulation-entire-life-form.html)

replicate that process (http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130906/srep02606/fig_tab/srep02606_F4.html)

that process (http://gizmodo.com/5927666/first-ever-complete-computer-model-of-a-cell-produced)

process (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/5322903/Mystery-of-how-life-on-Earth-began-solved-by-British-scientists.html)

1. Where did the organic matter come from?
2. What was the first life form?
3. Because it's "science" and a fact, forming life should be repeatable where's the proof it's repeatable?


1. Where did the organic matter come from?
2. What was the first life form?

previous links.

Because it's "science" and a fact, forming life should be repeatable where's the proof it's repeatable?

How about in the artificial life that has been created, and all the computer simulations of the first ever life? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1279988/Artificial-life-created-Craig-Venter--wipe-humanity.html)

The problem with people who rely on science is that THEY want proof of Godly influence when they themselves have these absolutely HUGE holes that their science can't prove.

Oh yes, filling dem holes up with a supernatural being that lives in clouds makes sooo much more sense, and we can totally see that what people used to say was caused by god really was! Like you know, how god created the earth in seven days thats like so legit!Thanks for the englithment bro.
No thank you.

[Silicate Wielder]

I'm sorry, but did you actually study human biology because i did for 3 years and what you're saying is completely generalised and not in order.

I stopped reading after you said "cromosome" (which i think you mean Chromosomes) turn into DNA BHAHAHAHHA. Each chain of the double helix is made up of repeating units called nucleotides. A single nucleotide is composed of three functional groups: a sugar, a triphosphate, and a nitrogenous base, this new double helix is wrapped around histone proteins to give it it's 3 dimensional structure. Then later on it forms Chromosomes.

And i'm not even gonna start talking about everything else you said. LOL especially about the cells =P that made me laugh a bit.

But seeing as you're only 15, i don't really expect you to know this. But you should at least not post things without doing your homework kiddo.

Actually I did a bit of rushed research, but yeah I just skimmed through it and misunderstood some or alot of things.

[darthearth]

I'm sorry, but did you actually study human biology because i did for 3 years and what you're saying is completely generalised and not in order.

I stopped reading after you said "cromosome" (which i think you mean Chromosomes) turn into DNA BHAHAHAHHA. Each chain of the double helix is made up of repeating units called nucleotides. A single nucleotide is composed of three functional groups: a sugar, a triphosphate, and a nitrogenous base, this new double helix is wrapped around histone proteins to give it it's 3 dimensional structure. Then later on it forms Chromosomes.

And i'm not even gonna start talking about everything else you said. LOL especially about the cells =P that made me laugh a bit.

But seeing as you're only 15, i don't really expect you to know this. But you should at least not post things without doing your homework kiddo.

I feel the need to point out that the user said DNA can turn into a chromosome, not chromosomes turn into DNA. Just a check on that.

And regarding science discovering how God has organized things, it simply means the Bible shouldn't be taken as a literal inerrant text. Things like the creation story and the flood are more likely to be mythical/symbolic than actual Earth history. It's the interpretation of the Bible that needs to be adjusted. One can believe in the resurrection of Christ just fine while believing and accepting all of science (as the resurrection is understood to be supernatural, not in contradiction to science).

[Gigablue]

And regarding science discovering how God has organized things, it simply means the Bible shouldn't be taken as a literal inerrant text. Things like the creation story and the flood are more likely to be mythical/symbolic than actual Earth history. It's the interpretation of the Bible that needs to be adjusted. One can believe in the resurrection of Christ just fine while believing and accepting all of science (as the resurrection is understood to be supernatural, not in contradiction to science).

But why bother? You haven't shown any evidence in support of your god's existence. It isn't impossible, but there simply isn't any evidence, and in many cases, people make unfalsifiable, untestable claims. Attacking evolution and the Big Bang theory won't prove that your god exists, let alone played a role in creation.

[darthearth]

But why bother? You haven't shown any evidence in support of your god's existence. It isn't impossible, but there simply isn't any evidence, and in many cases, people make unfalsifiable, untestable claims. Attacking evolution and the Big Bang theory won't prove that your god exists, let alone played a role in creation.

Why bother?

I know more than you. God has shown me things because I have had faith in Him. I've had personal contact. I have a deep personal relationship with Christ. You haven't because you refuse any evidence that is not scientific (that is "testable" and "falsifiable"). Yes, there is a large amount of evidence, you just want a particular type to satisfy you. I will say no more about this evidence, for it should be clear to you. As Jesus said, this generation seeks a sign and one will not be given it. You are supposed to have faith, this is simply God's WILL. Hopefully you will realize these things sooner, if not you will realize this after your physical body dies.

[Sir Suomi]

Why bother?

I know more than you. God has shown me things because I have had faith in Him. I've had personal contact. I have a deep personal relationship with Christ. You haven't because you refuse any evidence that is not scientific (that is "testable" and "falsifiable"). Yes, there is a large amount of evidence, you just want a particular type to satisfy you. I will say no more about this evidence, for it should be clear to you. As Jesus said, this generation seeks a sign and one will not be given it. You are supposed to have faith, this is simply God's WILL. Hopefully you will realize these things sooner, if not you will realize this after your physical body dies.

Oh boy, it appears he's trapped in the corner, and using the, "You don't understand my religion, you shouldn't rely on proven facts and instead go with blind faith in a deity who I have no reliable evidence on, oh and by the way you're going to go to hell if you don't love God, because apparently he's the most egotistical individual to have ever have existed."

Brilliant.

[darthearth]

Oh boy, it appears he's trapped in the corner, and using the, "You don't understand my religion, you shouldn't rely on proven facts and instead go with blind faith in a deity who I have no reliable evidence on, oh and by the way you're going to go to hell if you don't love God, because apparently he's the most egotistical individual to have ever have existed."

Brilliant.

I'm not trapped in a corner, atheists are just trapped in an empiricist box. But yes, I will enjoy just sitting back to watch all the fish flailing about on the shore. :D

[saea97]

I'm not trapped in a corner, atheists are just trapped in an empiricist box. But yes, I will enjoy just sitting back to watch all the fish flailing about on the shore. :D

If it were true that atheists were trapped in an empiricist box, how would they get out? Are we supposed to be compelled by YOUR personal contact with God? Or how about your arguments for an entirely deistic, non-interventional, spaceless, timeless, untestable, unfalsifiable God? They don't compel me either, and even if they did, they certainly wouldn't lead me to the Christian belief system, with all its baggage of resurrections and miracles.

[Bleid]

If it were true that atheists were trapped in an empiricist box, how would they get out?

By being rational enough to consider that it is possible for evidence to exist that isn't experimentally testable.

Are we supposed to be compelled by YOUR personal contact with God? Or how about your arguments for an entirely deistic, non-interventional, spaceless, timeless, untestable, unfalsifiable God? They don't compel me either, and even if they did, they certainly wouldn't lead me to the Christian belief system, with all its baggage of resurrections and miracles

Simply because you do not understand or know if something is intervening or not does not imply that it is not intervening. It would be silly to say otherwise.

It's entirely possible that every and all physical laws are acts and interventions of a deity. We are not in possession of enough knowledge to exclude this, so this whole "non-interventional" part is not based on valid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity) reasoning.

Similarly, it is not necessarily unfalsifiable, nor untestable. If you'd like to explain to me why you believe it is unfalsifiable or untestable, I would be happy to consider what you have to say - even though I suspect that your response will contain a similar issue to the one about your claim of "non-interventional."

[Eurasian guy]

I feel the need to point out that the user said DNA can turn into a chromosome, not chromosomes turn into DNA. Just a check on that.

And regarding science discovering how God has organized things, it simply means the Bible shouldn't be taken as a literal inerrant text. Things like the creation story and the flood are more likely to be mythical/symbolic than actual Earth history. It's the interpretation of the Bible that needs to be adjusted. One can believe in the resurrection of Christ just fine while believing and accepting all of science (as the resurrection is understood to be supernatural, not in contradiction to science).

I'm sorry but you're actually wrong, i quote his statement below. He did actually say DNA turning into Chromosomes.
"when DNA is created it can turn into a cromosome"

Nope, the word of God is said to be the absolute truth. You cannot have mythical crap in a book that was said to be absolute truth. Maybe when the "prophets" wrote the bible, people would of believe them then because no one could prove it, they didn't know what DNA was, or carbon dating, or fossils either.

Changing the interpretation of the bible, is like changing the interpretation of the law. You can't do it. The thing is, God didn't write the bible. People did. And there is no proof of these events. So if they wanted to say that Jesus rised from the dead they can, they can also say he grew wings from the fallen Angels in egypt and flew to heaven. It doesn't really matter. If people wrote it and it's not to be taken literal. Then i don't choose to believe it, when i have literal facts and evidence showing otherwise. And this isn't just one 17 year old saying i believe this because i think it is true. I did research into both. I read the bible, i went to church, youth ministries, and human biology class.

[Miserabilia]

Look at it this way.
Religious people are stuck in there little religion box just as much atheist are stuck in there little atheism box.

Religious person : "You just can't beleive what you don't see because you are stuck in your little atheism box and can't see past anything non-spiritual!"

Atheist person: "You just want to keep beleiving what you want to beleif because you are stuck in your little religion box and can't see the facts!"


See how they are both wrong?

Atheist people are wrong because not everything they conclude is a fact, and religious people have there reasons to beleive what they beleive too.

Religious people are also wrong, because just because you think you can talk to angels, doesn't mean everyone can by opening up to the religious world.


And to be honest, even tho both sides are in some way wrong, I continue to be atheist.
Why?
Because I like to base my view on the world based on what I can show others.
I can show others evidence of something.
A religious person can not show other their personal contact with god.

*This is not bashing on their religion, it's just that I don't want to beleive in something when I know I can't proove it's existence to others.*

[darthearth]

..............I stopped reading after you said "cromosome" (which i think you mean Chromosomes) turn into DNA.......


...........when DNA is created it can turn into a cromosome....


I'm sorry but you're actually wrong, i quote his statement below. He did actually say DNA turning into Chromosomes.
"when DNA is created it can turn into a cromosome"

That's right he did say that, which makes me RIGHT not WRONG. Obviously in your comment #57, which is quoted at top, you incorrectly stated that the user claimed chromosomes turn into DNA, the user's actual comment is quoted next. The comment was: "when DNA is created it can turn into a cromosome"

Nope, the word of God is said to be the absolute truth. You cannot have mythical crap in a book that was said to be absolute truth. Maybe when the "prophets" wrote the bible, people would of believe them then because no one could prove it, they didn't know what DNA was, or carbon dating, or fossils either.

Changing the interpretation of the bible, is like changing the interpretation of the law. You can't do it. The thing is, God didn't write the bible. People did. And there is no proof of these events. So if they wanted to say that Jesus rised from the dead they can, they can also say he grew wings from the fallen Angels in egypt and flew to heaven. It doesn't really matter. If people wrote it and it's not to be taken literal. Then i don't choose to believe it, when i have literal facts and evidence showing otherwise. And this isn't just one 17 year old saying i believe this because i think it is true. I did research into both. I read the bible, i went to church, youth ministries, and human biology class.

Literal facts and evidence showing otherwise? Otherwise than what? Are you just talking about the creation story and flood? Or are you throwing in the resurrection too? If your throwing in the resurrection I would be very interested in these new facts you have discovered that clearly show it did not happen.

I found this to be illuminating, It's a BBC documentary called Life is Impossible.
And it has the world's leading scientists discussing possible ways life started on Earth and at times, they poke holes in each other's theories and all admit, we just don't know and it's a huge gap in man's understand of how life began here.

At 5:37 they discuss why methane wasn't present as they used to think since around 1955. Since then, through the space programs, they've learned there wasn't a methane atomsphere, so the primordial soup that required methane and was heated and maybe lightning is no longer a possibility.

It's an interest documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE7cf3ADZJU

This initial phase of how life formed is crucial to buying into the rest of evolution because there has to be something provable and repeatable for it to truly be science. I have no problem with saying science has shown us evolution, but it's only shown part of it. We need not concern ourselves with "the missing link" and questions of the more complex organisms until we know how the first living cells were created from non-living material. I think man can connect the dots from some very simple organisms to something moderately complex etc., but going from no life to life is to big a leap for the experts who've been studying it for years and they realize that without, it leave a big gaping hole in getting to the point of discussing natural selection and evolution.

btw, the documentary is just over 49 minutes long and I enjoyed it. I need to see if they've made any recent progress. I looked up one of the professors and he died years ago, so if I see something more current, I'll post it.

-d

I watched the video and it was very informative. I followed up with a little research and realize that the video is still very much where things sit. It doesn't look like the responses you received took the content of the video into consideration. Obviously we really just don't know how life started on the Earth, it does remain a "hole" in our understanding. Your point that atheistic evolutionists just have to have faith in the view that no intelligent intervention was necessary is valid. Most theists like me do not want to rush to premature conclusions and are open to either possibility (either intelligent intervention or no intelligent intervention), which is the most rational and appropriate stance at this point.

[Eurasian guy]

That's right he did say that, which makes me RIGHT not WRONG. Obviously in your comment #57, which is quoted at top, you incorrectly stated that the user claimed chromosomes turn into DNA, the user's actual comment is quoted next.



Literal facts and evidence showing otherwise? Otherwise than what? Are you just talking about the creation story and flood? Or are you throwing in the resurrection too? If your throwing in the resurrection I would be very interested in these new facts you have discovered that clearly show it did not happen.


Nooo, he said Chromosomes turn into DNA, i said DNA turns into chromosomes. Lol, he even admitted it. And i have no idea what you're talking about in this care with you're right or wrong??? I'm not talking to you about this lol, as far as I'm concerned i haven't been disproved at all in anything.

Literal facts showing otherwise against biblical reference. If one thing is disproved, then it is all disproved. If you try to twist everything and say it's not taken literal, then i can prove that the tooth fairy is real to you and everything you say against it i can say it's not literal. Like the tooth fairy doesn't take your tooth, the parents do under the holy tooth fairy spirit. Lol if were talking about the bible i've read it all, read trough many science evolution text books, and many others that back up evolution that MAKE SENSE and can be PROVEN. Do you think it's weird that the bible does not make any reference to things before it's time such as dinosaurs and mammoths? If the bible was written by God through prophets, I'm sure they would've made reference to at least one proper thing thing before their time.

Science can't disprove the bible COMPLETELY yet, but the bible can't disprove anything so far. I think it's funny how people seem to ramble on about this acting like they were there when the bible was written, or have the future knowledge. If you believe one thing and you do research on it, it's gonna be biased when you talk to me about it. I went into this as a Christian, left an Atheist. There's a difference between reading a text book, and actually physically seeing it yourself. I've looked at so many primate skulls, disected so many organs and seen the similarities with human organs (heart, kidney, Liver, pancreas, bone, brain, uterus, stomach, placenta) then gone even deeper into glands, such as the adrenal gland, pineal gland, hypothalamus, anterior and posterior pituitary gland, the infundibulum that connects them, the 4 thryroid glands, ovaries and testes. Then even deeper into that, the hormones they create and use, epinephrine, norepinephrine, insulin and glucagon in the beta and alpha cells of the islet of langerhans, oxytocin, thyroid stimulating hormone, cortisol, Luteinising hormone, Follicle-stimulating hormone, Prolactin, Growth hormone, Melanocyte-stimulating hormone, Adrenocorticotrophic hormone and thats just off the top of my head. Then i can go even deeper into the positive and negative feed back loops and the molecular level required to create hormones from their chemical protein structure. All the DNA codons, anti codons, introns and exons, triplets and bass pairs. The Quaternary structure of the polypeptide amino acid chain after protein synthesis in the ribosomes of the cells. I can talk about the the similarities in dementia such as Parkinson or Alzheimers disease in primates and humans, about how it's caused by pieces of the coding being removed causing nurofibulary tangles and the beta amyloid plaques being released in the brain due to the change in it's molecular structure now being approximately 41 amino acids in it's polypeptide chain.

And you might be asking me, why did i type all this up? Well, glad you asked. Because i'm not some retard who does quick research on this internet or watched a YouTube video and thinks he knows what he is doing. I spent 3 years in a classroom being taught by doctors and being marked strictly under WACE exam techniques to make sure i know what I'm talking about. You can go a head and look up everything i said if you want and try to see if I'm wrong, but the difference between me and most of the people on this forum is i actually understand everything I'm saying or anything someone could say about biology on this forum. But if you want to keep debating on this pointless topic, you either can't handle loosing or you're one of those kids who thinks they know everything. Because to be 100% honest i can't be bothered with this topic anymore. I've done copious amounts of research and written scientific journals and papers on it from BOTH sides. So please do you're research on BOTH sides before debating to people. Because you may think you know the bible but most Christians don't. But i do. That's what i get for graduating from a Christian College.

[Bleid]

Literal facts showing otherwise against biblical reference. If one thing is disproved, then it is all disproved.

Completely invalid reasoning. What you're doing here is known as arguing from composition, which is fallacious.

(Specifically known as the Fallacy of Composition)

as far as I'm concerned i haven't been disproved at all in anything.

Looks like you can add one to your list.

Science can't disprove the bible COMPLETELY yet,

A contradiction, as well. Considering what you said in the first quote above.

[AlexOnToast]

Look, neither sides of this argument look like they're going to be persuading the other, so why keep going on exchanging big long paragraphs? It's just going to perpetuate the conflict. For the record, I believe in the provable, the evidential and the observable, all of which constitute Science. But I'm not going to bother arguing, because the religeous argument always just boils down to faith, which is personal.
I'm going to chance being a dumb blonde here and ask if we can't all just enjoy the life our lives and try to avoid conflict for once?

[Bleid]

]But I'm not going to bother arguing, because the religeous argument always just boils down to faith, which is personal.

There are plenty of religious arguments that are not based on faith. You've seen only a select few, poor arguments, if you think that's all there are.

[Eurasian guy]

Completely invalid reasoning. What you're doing here is known as arguing from composition, which is fallacious.

(Specifically known as the Fallacy of Composition)



Looks like you can add one to your list.



A contradiction, as well. Considering what you said in the first quote above.

No it's not. it's perfectly reasonable to say if one thing is isn't real it's all not real considering the magnitude of the bible. I still don't see it.

[britishboy]

Science all the way however religion or any other theory does no harm.

[devinprater]

Okay, my view. This may start out about creationism/big_bangism, but it may fan out, so sorry if I start, um, rambling. So we all think God is smart and all-knowing, all-powerful, and existent everywhere. For like, the last few thousands of years, we all believed that. Then good ol' science comes along and dared to suggest that we could actually find out things. "oh, my, cat! The Earth isn't the center of the universe after all! How terrible of God to do this," and all other insults to science must have rang out, but it still survives. Religion still survives. But notice this. When scientists say something, everyone believes them. Why? Because at least 50% or them have found that experiments arried out have the same effect each time. That's one of the things science is about, finding out truth through the same results of repetition. But religious people can't even determine whole-heartedly if God created the Earth in six days or six thousand years, or 66000 years and so on. So really, no wonder people are running to science. Instead of praying that God cure a person's headache, they take a pill or listen to a brainwave entrainment file, or meditate. At least two of the three are very much proven to work. But the Bible, because of historical reasons mainly, has been proven to be something special, but when we pray to God, nothing much seems to happen. People don't start speaking in tongues , ancient languages. People can't heal the blind, cure deceases, all that. There are many theories on this though. Some say we don't have enough faith. They say tech has dulled us down. But goodness, the people of old trusted in all sorts of gods, so I don't see much validity in that point. They say we have to have a little spirituality, that is, meditation and all sorts of other things. Others say we pray to the wrong God. Even in the Bible it says there are angels and demons everywhere. So, why couldn't a demon possess someone to write the original Hebrew and greek manuscripts and such? If a demon of the New testament can make someone speak and move, surely they have enough control of the mind and body to force a person to write. Also some say we've been reading the Bible all wrong in the first place. A part of me that wants to just be on the safe side of spirituality wants to lean towards that view and just call it done. But through my fear of the unknown and yet excitement of it, drives me to seek the truth.

[Human]

Is the scientific explanation for our existence not just as unprobabilistic as the religious explanation?

The Big Bang: While the universe is expanding and therefore suggests that the universe began as a singularity, we weren't there to see it. Also its origins are questionable (who's to say that this singularity wasn't put in place by a god?).

Evolution: It happens over the course of millions of years and is therefore difficult to observe. Also {insert well worded suggestion of god-guided evolution here}.

Creation: Impossible to be scientifically proven or disproven.

Evolution and Adaptation can be seen over weeks to months... Why do you think there are new strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria? Because the ones born with resistance survived and passed on their genes - basically evolution.

You're also oversimplifying the whole idea of the big bang, and there are many problems with saying 'god put it there' because why would god need a big bang if he is all-powerful?

In my opinion, there is no 'science vs religion'. Science is science, and religion is religion. I personally think there is a very clear distinction and I don't think they mix well together in most cases. Science relies on facts for a start and evidence, I haven't seen many mathematical equations describing god yet.

[Cpt_Cutter]

Science all the way however religion or any other theory does no harm.

But it does do harm.

Every person born who is raised not to believe the thing that is far more likely to be true sets the advancement of society back that bit further. There is a reason that we don't teach children to fear witches or that the earth is flat. If someone was born in a house where they were free to choose whatever they wanted, they may go on to discover something amazing, whereas if they're raised to believe "Science isn't real, God created the world and there was a flood that covered the earth e.t.c" then the likelihood of them going into that career is infinitely smaller, and humanity as a whole benefits less.


I feel this same situation would take place in all aspects of life if we were raised and told that we had the free choice of beliefs when we hit 18. I would bet any money that due to the way the world progresses and thoughts progress that if that happened both Religion and conservatism would see a major drop in numbers.

[CosmicNoodle]

Well one theory is (One i subscribe too). Is that after trillions of trillions of years of existence the universe simply stops expanding, entropy and gravity wins and it falls back in on itself becoming one singularity, ergo creating a new big bang. The problem with this is it has the same problem, but puts us one step back.

Also the thought that a we could be nothing more that an experiment done by scientists "Gods". Scientists who came to the peak of society and undertook the Goliath of all experiments (I dislike this one, far to insane for even me)

There are millions of thorys, none can be proven or disproven. Also, I am an Athiest (I dont like identifying as that, makes me fell like part of an angry cult) So simply cant bring myself to believe in a god/creator/scientist in the sky.

[Gigablue]

Well one theory is (One i subscribe too). Is that after trillions of trillions of years of existence the universe simply stops expanding, entropy and gravity wins and it falls back in on itself becoming one singularity, ergo creating a new big bang. The problem with this is it has the same problem, but puts us one step back.

Also the thought that a we could be nothing more that an experiment done by scientists "Gods". Scientists who came to the peak of society and undertook the Goliath of all experiments (I dislike this one, far to insane for even me)

There are millions of thorys, none can be proven or disproven. Also, I am an Athiest (I dont like identifying as that, makes me fell like part of an angry cult) So simply cant bring myself to believe in a god/creator/scientist in the sky.

We used to think that the universe would collapse back on itself, but the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe changed that. The currently accepted model is that the universe will have a heat death, in which entropy is maximized, and no more work can be done.

Also, there aren't millions of theories, at least not in science. If a hypothesis can't be tested, it never gets anywhere near the level of theory. Unfalsifiable hypotheses are not even worthy of consideration.

[Bleid]

Well one theory is (One i subscribe too). Is that after trillions of trillions of years of existence the universe simply stops expanding, entropy and gravity wins and it falls back in on itself becoming one singularity, ergo creating a new big bang. The problem with this is it has the same problem, but puts us one step back.

Wouldn't say it puts you one step back so much as it doesn't extend far enough.

Consider I explain to you all of the physical world in an afternoon - this does not imply that you have an explanation for the wherefore of the physical world.

Even provided with a complete understanding of the reason for the ways the physical world works (complete and utter comprehension for all of the studies of our sciences to their fullest extent), we still have no explanation for why there is a physical world.

It would be ludicrous to justify the physical world through question-begging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question) or circular reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning).

No it's not. it's perfectly reasonable to say if one thing is isn't real it's all not real considering the magnitude of the bible. I still don't see it.

Fallacy of composition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition).

You can say that it's reasonable all you like - however, the study of reason itself - logic - disagrees with you entirely. So, just know that in truth, that's irrational reasoning.

[Eurasian guy]

Wouldn't say it puts you one step back so much as it doesn't extend far enough.

Consider I explain to you all of the physical world in an afternoon - this does not imply that you have an explanation for the wherefore of the physical world.

Even provided with a complete understanding of the reason for the ways the physical world works (complete and utter comprehension for all of the studies of our sciences to their fullest extent), we still have no explanation for why there is a physical world.

It would be ludicrous to justify the physical world through question-begging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question) or circular reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning).



Fallacy of composition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition).

You can say that it's reasonable all you like - however, the study of reason itself - logic - disagrees with you entirely. So, just know that in truth, that's irrational reasoning.

Oh, excuse me. I didn't know you're 17 and you speak on the behalf of all Logic and Reason. Go take you're Wiki links somewhere else where you're opinion actually matters.

[Bleid]

Oh, excuse me. I didn't know you're 17 and you speak on the behalf of all Logic and Reason. Go take you're Wiki links somewhere else where you're opinion actually matters.

And now you attack the person instead of their argument. Ad hominem fallacy. That is also irrational reasoning.

You can add another one to your list of topics on which you've been shown to be incorrect.

Further, I don't speak on behalf of logic and reason - logic and reason speaks on behalf of itself and I merely informed you of the particulars. Also, if you need explanation as to why any of those are examples of irrational reasoning, I will gladly provide you with why.

[Eurasian guy]

And now you attack the person instead of their argument. Ad hominem fallacy. That is also irrational reasoning.

You can add another one to your list of topics on which you've been shown to be incorrect.

Further, I don't speak on behalf of logic and reason - logic and reason speaks on behalf of itself and I merely informed you of the particulars. Also, if you need explanation as to why any of those are examples of irrational reasoning, I will gladly provide you with why.

I attacked you??? Lol. Didn't know it hurt you that bad. All i said was a sarcastic joke =P. No i can't because i haven't been shown to be incorrect. Well then, you falsely informed me then. Because you informing me that I'm incorrect when i don't and others don't think I am sounds like false informing to me.

Well then, provide me with more reasons Oh Great One of the 17 years of age. Show me your life experiences and lessons of your teenage hood. if you couldn't tell that was a joke too. I've actually finished all of High School and I'm in University now. So you can send me more replies but i have better thing to do then waste my time replying on this thread WHICH I KNOW I AM CORRECT with what i stated BECAUSE I've done my homework. Literally. I am pretty sure i am more qualified then ANYONE on this forum in this topic because i spent years learning Biology, Human Biology and was a full on Christian. I did countless assessments on human evolution. Assignments on Creation Vs Evolution which i typed up 22 pages. And if you didn't know, that's over 10,000 words. And i doubt others on this forum have done the same.

Lol, you know. If I analyse you. I'd say you don't like losing arguments. You try to make yourself seem smarter then you actually are on online forums by using uncommon English words that some people may not understand. Well i did the highest English level possible in Australian schools so i guess your words don't intimidate me at all.

I want you to disprove my thesis and statements that i've studied and posted. Rather then going after me. This isn't poker. This is a debate. You don't play the man. you play the argument. If you want to go after me. Fine. Post your credentials and academic records online and i will too. We can compare our grades, certificates, diplomas, and scholarships.

If you can't be bothered with any of it, then don't do it. Because to be honest. I can't be bothered at all coming back to this thread. It's just a waste of my time. I thought my opinion would be appreciated here because i'm one of the very few who actually studied this for years.

[darthearth]

I attacked you??? Lol. Didn't know it hurt you that bad. All i said was a sarcastic joke =P. No i can't because i haven't been shown to be incorrect. Well then, you falsely informed me then. Because you informing me that I'm incorrect when i don't and others don't think I am sounds like false informing to me.

I think you are incorrect, which I pointed out earlier, and that you are being irrational when you say everything that is in the Bible must be false because one certain thing is false. I'm sure everyone else would agree with me on both counts.

Well then, provide me with more reasons Oh Great One of the 17 years of age. Show me your life experiences and lessons of your teenage hood. if you couldn't tell that was a joke too. I've actually finished all of High School and I'm in University now. So you can send me more replies but i have better thing to do then waste my time replying on this thread WHICH I KNOW I AM CORRECT with what i stated BECAUSE I've done my homework. Literally. I am pretty sure i am more qualified then ANYONE on this forum in this topic because i spent years learning Biology, Human Biology and was a full on Christian. I did countless assessments on human evolution. Assignments on Creation Vs Evolution which i typed up 22 pages. And if you didn't know, that's over 10,000 words. And i doubt others on this forum have done the same.

Well, none of this was about biology now was it?

Lol, you know. If I analyse you. I'd say you don't like losing arguments. You try to make yourself seem smarter then you actually are on online forums by using uncommon English words that some people may not understand. Well i did the highest English level possible in Australian schools so i guess your words don't intimidate me at all.

I'm glad you have learned English so well and big words don't intimidate you, although I see no argument that Bleid has lost.

I want you to disprove my thesis and statements that i've studied and posted. Rather then going after me. This isn't poker. This is a debate. You don't play the man. you play the argument. If you want to go after me. Fine. Post your credentials and academic records online and i will too. We can compare our grades, certificates, diplomas, and scholarships.

If you can't be bothered with any of it, then don't do it. Because to be honest. I can't be bothered at all coming back to this thread. It's just a waste of my time. I thought my opinion would be appreciated here because i'm one of the very few who actually studied this for years.

Aren't all of your previous statements about biology (besides the fossil stuff in post #56) and how the body works irrelevant to the Science vs. Creation debate? Yes, you pointed out similarities of systems, but this debate is about how life came about not how it currently operates. Now if you were to mention transposons and DNA evidence for evolution that would be a different story. Like if you said something like this:

"finding the same transposon in the same chromosomal location in two different organisms is strong direct evidence of common ancestry, ...",

that definitely would have been relevant.

And I guess the transposon here might be called a DUPLICATE.

coughJosh Schlactercough

[Eurasian guy]

I think you are incorrect, which I pointed out earlier, and that you are being irrational when you say everything that is in the Bible must be false because one certain thing is false. I'm sure everyone else would agree with me on both counts.



Well, none of this was about biology now was it?



I'm glad you have learned English so well and big words don't intimidate you, although I see no argument that Bleid has lost.



Aren't all of your previous statements about biology (besides the fossil stuff in post #56) and how the body works irrelevant to the Science vs. Creation debate? Yes, you pointed out similarities of systems, but this debate is about how life came about not how it currently operates. Now if you were to mention transposons and DNA evidence for evolution that would be a different story. Like if you said something like this:

"finding the same transposon in the same chromosomal location in two different organisms is strong direct evidence of common ancestry, ...",

that definitely would have been relevant.

And I guess the transposon here might be called a DUPLICATE.

coughJosh Schlactercough

"The bible is so sacred that if one thing is disproved. It disproves it completely". Yes, that was my original statement and i still stand by it. I have asked countless non Christians and they all agree with me. EVERY ONE OF THEM. Maybe i was just getting lucky with the people i asked. But at least Atheists don't have a biased POV, because Christians don't like to say that there might not be a God, because it's the same as denying God. Like in the bible when Jesus told his disciples that he would be denied by all of his followers around the table. And if the bible is disproved in some areas why would you still believe the others? I would if it wasn't such a sacred document and said to be the complete truth. The word of God. So if it the complete truth it means to me that it is all the truth. You can't have false things in it then. So if i find one thing wrong. Then it's the complete truth. Therefore God is not truth. Hence the word of God isn't truth.

Yes my parts are about Biology, because i actually know it. How are they relevant to Science vs. Creation?? Hmm i don't know. I thought Biology was science? I did talk about how life came about in the opinion of evolution. Maybe you're not reading my posts. Look up vestigial organs, transition fossils, founders theory, migration, cultural and social barriers in relation to evolution. There is DNA evidence for evolution. Between humans and Chimpanzees we share 98% of the same DNA. And that 2% difference is what separates us from them. 2% is a lot, and not only that look at epigenetic factors, those change our characteristics with out even altering our DNA sequence cause different phenotypes while our genotypes are the same.

Look up a phylogenetic tree on primates. It'll explain it better then i am. It shows you the sequence in which primates evolved in time, and the similarities they have. Make sure you find a detailed one.

And btw, i think your opinions biased on your beliefs so it doesn't matter to me if you think I'm right or not. And don't get me wrong, i am not denying the existence of God. I am saying that I believe Christianity's God to be real. After being a Christian for so long, being prayed for, reading my bible, praying twice a day, going to church and not even having the smallest glimpse of if God's real. Where i can easily look in a science text book and find some answers. You tell me which one seems more promising.

The transposon?? are you calling me a bacterial DNA segment with out a complimentary strand? LOL, please learn how to use biology terms in the right place :) And yes, i am Josh Schlacter. But that's not my real name. I did that as a joke but I couldn't turn my name back. So i just made a new account. Nothing wrong with that at all.

And i'm not trying to have a go at anyone. I just came here to state my opinion haha. Had no idea it was gonna turn into a debate. But i guess people here are hungry for that sort of thing.

Let me ask you a few personal questions and you gotta be completely honest.


Are you Christian?
How long have you been a Christian?
Have you read your Bible completely?
How often do you read your bible?
Are your parents Christian?
Have you learnt about Evolution properly (not just a term in class)?
Have you put as much research into Evolution as you have Christianity?
Does evolution make sense to you? Or could it be possible to you?
Do you believe in God, or do you believe that there may be a God?
Why do you not believe evolution, or why do you not believe God?
How many close encounters have you had with God, that is no doubtfully him. And i'm talking about him not a miracle that could of happened by chance?

[Bleid]

I attacked you??? Lol. Didn't know it hurt you that bad.

You also can't go from, "He said I attacked him," to "It hurt him that I said that." Good try, though. More erroneous reasoning. It didn't hurt me at all, in any way.

The point is, I presented you with reasoning as to why you are wrong, and all you could come up with in your response is to bring up things about me.

This is by definition, ad hominem. Attacking a person in debate rather than their argument. This is one example of fallacious reasoning.

Let me know when you decide to address the actual content of what I say, rather than provide us with your biases and prejudices about my character.

All i said was a sarcastic joke =P. No i can't because i haven't been shown to be incorrect. Well then, you falsely informed me then. Because you informing me that I'm incorrect when i don't and others don't think I am sounds like false informing to me.

Oh, I didn't realize it was a joke. Probably because it wasn't a good one.

And others do think you're incorrect - every logician that has ever lived or will ever live, and anyone whom studies reason or even has a passing interest in being rational will tell you that you most certainly are incorrect. It's verifiable even by logical proof that what you presented holds the form of fallacy.

Well then, provide me with more reasons Oh Great One of the 17 years of age. Show me your life experiences and lessons of your teenage hood. if you couldn't tell that was a joke too. I've actually finished all of High School and I'm in University now. So you can send me more replies but i have better thing to do then waste my time replying on this thread WHICH I KNOW I AM CORRECT with what i stated BECAUSE I've done my homework. Literally. I am pretty sure i am more qualified then ANYONE on this forum in this topic because i spent years learning Biology, Human Biology and was a full on Christian. I did countless assessments on human evolution. Assignments on Creation Vs Evolution which i typed up 22 pages. And if you didn't know, that's over 10,000 words. And i doubt others on this forum have done the same.

"More qualified"

More fallacious reasoning. This time it's an argument from accomplishments.

Someone isn't correct simply because of something they accomplish. This is most clearly the case with you, as we can see here by your repeated use of specious reasoning in the things you've been saying, despite your university education.

Lol, you know. If I analyse you. I'd say you don't like losing arguments. You try to make yourself seem smarter then you actually are on online forums by using uncommon English words that some people may not understand. Well i did the highest English level possible in Australian schools so i guess your words don't intimidate me at all.

More red herrings and fallacious attempts to avoid the content of what I'm saying and bring me into question instead. I suggest treating your opponent's arguments as the subject of your retorts, rather than acting as though they themselves have anything to do with validity of reasoning.

And what uncommon English words do I use? I don't think I've been flaunting any sort of extensive vocabulary here.

I want you to disprove my thesis and statements that i've studied and posted. Rather then going after me. This isn't poker. This is a debate. You don't play the man. you play the argument. If you want to go after me. Fine. Post your credentials and academic records online and i will too. We can compare our grades, certificates, diplomas, and scholarships.

I'm not playing the man, nor your thesis. I saw you present some quite awful reasoning to someone else, and so, I pointed it out. That is my engagement in this debate. Then you proceeded to avoid that and talk about me, rather than acknowledge the flaw in your reasoning. Almost as though you have no genuine retort for it.

If you can't be bothered with any of it, then don't do it. Because to be honest. I can't be bothered at all coming back to this thread. It's just a waste of my time. I thought my opinion would be appreciated here because i'm one of the very few who actually studied this for years.

Don't run away so soon. I can go through in great detail on the points I made and demonstrate in as many ways as you'd like as to the issues in your reasoning that I claim are there. I'll take as long as you need.

[Eurasian guy]

You also can't go from, "He said I attacked him," to "It hurt him that I said that." Good try, though. More erroneous reasoning. It didn't hurt me at all, in any way.

The point is, I presented you with reasoning as to why you are wrong, and all you could come up with in your response is to bring up things about me.

This is by definition, ad hominem. Attacking a person in debate rather than their argument. This is one example of fallacious reasoning.

And i didn't have time to dobule check this either, I typed it in 5 minutes.

Let me know when you decide to address the actual content of what I say, rather than provide us with your biases and prejudices about my character.



Oh, I didn't realize it was a joke. Probably because it wasn't a good one.

And others do think you're incorrect - every logician that has ever lived or will ever live, and anyone whom studies reason or even has a passing interest in being rational will tell you that you most certainly are incorrect. It's verifiable even by logical proof that what you presented holds the form of fallacy.



"More qualified"

More fallacious reasoning. This time it's an argument from accomplishments.

Someone isn't correct simply because of something they accomplish. This is most clearly the case with you, as we can see here by your repeated use of specious reasoning in the things you've been saying, despite your university education.



More red herrings and fallacious attempts to avoid the content of what I'm saying and bring me into question instead. I suggest treating your opponent's arguments as the subject of your retorts, rather than acting as though they themselves have anything to do with validity of reasoning.

And what uncommon English words do I use? I don't think I've been flaunting any sort of extensive vocabulary here.



I'm not playing the man, nor your thesis. I saw you present some quite awful reasoning to someone else, and so, I pointed it out. That is my engagement in this debate. Then you proceeded to avoid that and talk about me, rather than acknowledge the flaw in your reasoning. Almost as though you have no genuine retort for it.



Don't run away so soon. I can go through in great detail on the points I made and demonstrate in as many ways as you'd like as to the issues in your reasoning that I claim are there. I'll take as long as you need.

Erroneous ad hominem fallacious retorts retorts specious

Why not? And the idea wasn’t to hurt you. Your reasoning is invalid to me. You’re reasoning to me is fallacious. And I’m attacking you by ad hominem. I’m simply stating that I have credentials in this area so I should be taken more seriously, so when I say things they are correct. It’s like a Human Biology student trying to attack a doctor. Obviously people would believe the doctor because he has credentials. I don’t see It as a debate. I see it more of a court hearing in a sense.
“Let you know when I decide to address the actual content of what i say, rather than provide us with your biases and prejudices about my character.”
I’m sorry but I clearly posted many posts on the science vs creation thread relating specifically to the science and creation topics. If you want to pick out 1 thing out of all my posts on here. Then accuse me with that, go ahead. But you should really go for a whole argument rather than settling on a small mishap. How am I biased? About you’re character??? Does that even make sense? And if you meant biased on my posts. I assume you I’m not. I’m not saying one thing is real and one isn’t I’m saying my opinion , I’m not trying to prove I’m right. I just stated my opinions on the thread because I thought they’d value the opinions of someone who studied this. It’s up to them if they want to accept or deny what I’ve stated. By you replying to me and accusing me of being erroneous and ad hominem, using fallacious reasoning, saying that my logic is unlogical and is attacking me personally and to accuse me of this true or not, you are being a hypocrite.
Eg.
“Oh, I didn't realize it was a joke. Probably because it wasn't a good one.”
“every logician that has ever lived or will ever live, and anyone whom studies reason or even has a passing interest in being rational will tell you that you most certainly are incorrect.”
“More erroneous reasoning.”
You do realise that you’re using inclusive language saying ““every logician that has ever lived or will ever live, and anyone whom studies reason or even has a passing interest in being rational will tell you that you most certainly are incorrect.” Are you that up yourself that you think you have the same mind as every philosopher? How on earth do you seriously think that EVERY philopher/logician would agree with you. Wow, can you stop attacking me now, and prove me wrong with what I said in my ORIGINAL scientific posts, because they were the only posts I was generally relating to the thread; And now I will be Ad hominem. You are very annoying; I hate talking to you and seeing you in my notifications because you always seem to make me have to waste my time debating over a pointless topic. Do you not realise we both have way better things to do with our time then debate on a thread. If you want to add me on Skype and talk about this. Then by all means. Do it, my details are on my account. We can talk over Skype discussing this.
No of course someone isn’t simply correct because of something they’ve accomplished. But they are simply more correct if they’ve studied the content. Because it does mean that they’ve learnt the content and is more correct then someone who hasn’t studied. Classic example, an A student gets better grades then a D student because he/she studies more.

How’s about you stop accusing me of not answering your content, and answer mine for once. I’ve answered your content a lot more then you’ve answered mine. Sigh* hypocrisy.

That’s because you don’t have anything to do with the reasoning. You, yourself are not qualified to say if my facts are true or not. And even if my reasoning is flawed which I don’t think it is. What does it have to do with the fact at all about my original scientific posts? Tell me what am I trying to reason?

I don’t plan on running away. I’ll stay in this to the end. But rather then posting thread after thread. Can we do it in real time because I’m very busy. How does you writing a report in junction with mine. Because I’d rather spend my time doing other things. Which your posts are keeping me from right now. True example. I’m meant to be at a friend’s house right now at a BBQ. But instead I have to finish this post.
And I shouldn’t have to prove myself to be correct to you or in that matter anyone. My brother said to me last night. “It’s not sciences responsibly to disprove religion, it’s religion’s responsibility to prove themselves”
My Skype is Oliverhallblack, message me on that as I won’t be on these forums much any longer. And we may even do a group chat with my non-existent philosophers and logicians.

Oh and by the way those word you wanted me to say. Erroneous, ad hominem, fallacious, retorts, specious. Although i know all these words. Others on the forum dont. And by the way, Ad honinem is a latin term.

[whoisme]

Look up vestigial organs, transition fossils, founders theory, migration, cultural and social barriers in relation to evolution. There is DNA evidence for evolution. Between humans and Chimpanzees we share 98% of the same DNA. And that 2% difference is what separates us from them. 2% is a lot, and not only that look at epigenetic factors, those change our characteristics with out even altering our DNA sequence cause different phenotypes while our genotypes are the same.

Look up a phylogenetic tree on primates. It'll explain it better then i am. It shows you the sequence in which primates evolved in time, and the similarities they have. Make sure you find a detailed one.



1- vestigial organs (http://evolutionfactormyth.blogspot.com/2013/03/can-so-called-vestigial-organs-be-proof.html)

2- transition fossils:
Even if we grant that every fossil looks the way it is reconstructed and that sequences demonstrating evolution really do exist, fossils cannot count as evidence for evolution. They can merely be consistent with evolutionary theory (which they aren’t!) — not evidence for the theory.
Why is this so?
No-one can know if any fossil is related. And because of this, we cannot know if one particular fossil evolved from another. If we cannot know that one particular fossil evolved from another, we cannot use them as proof that one fossil evolved from another (aka evolution)!


3- DNA evidence (http://evolutionfactormyth.blogspot.com/2013/04/human-chimp-dna-similarities.html)


4- Phylogenic tree:
Phylogenetic tree:
It's not "well supported, the opposite is true,
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/myht...mology_05.html (http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/myht_of_homology_05.html)

Do orthologous gene phylogenies really support tree-thinking?
Excerpt: We conclude that we simply cannot determine if a large portion of the genes have a common history.,,, CONCLUSION: Our phylogenetic analyses do not support tree-thinking.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15913459

How stands the Tree of Life a century and a half after The Origin? - Maureen A O'Malley - Eugene V Koonin - July 2011
Excerpt of Conclusion: The irrefutable demonstration by phylogenomics that different genes in general have distinct evolutionary histories made obsolete the belief that a phylogenetic tree of a single universal gene such as rRNA or of several universal genes could represent the “true” TOL.
http://www.biology-direct.com/conten...-6150-6-32.pdf (http://www.biology-direct.com/content/pdf/1745-6150-6-32.pdf)

[Eurasian guy]

1- vestigial organs (http://evolutionfactormyth.blogspot.com/2013/03/can-so-called-vestigial-organs-be-proof.html)

2- transition fossils:
Even if we grant that every fossil looks the way it is reconstructed and that sequences demonstrating evolution really do exist, fossils cannot count as evidence for evolution. They can merely be consistent with evolutionary theory (which they aren’t!) — not evidence for the theory.
Why is this so?
No-one can know if any fossil is related. And because of this, we cannot know if one particular fossil evolved from another. If we cannot know that one particular fossil evolved from another, we cannot use them as proof that one fossil evolved from another (aka evolution)!


3- DNA evidence (http://evolutionfactormyth.blogspot.com/2013/04/human-chimp-dna-similarities.html)


4- Phylogenic tree:
Phylogenetic tree:
It's not "well supported, the opposite is true,
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/myht...mology_05.html (http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/myht_of_homology_05.html)

Do orthologous gene phylogenies really support tree-thinking?
Excerpt: We conclude that we simply cannot determine if a large portion of the genes have a common history.,,, CONCLUSION: Our phylogenetic analyses do not support tree-thinking.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15913459

How stands the Tree of Life a century and a half after The Origin? - Maureen A O'Malley - Eugene V Koonin - July 2011
Excerpt of Conclusion: The irrefutable demonstration by phylogenomics that different genes in general have distinct evolutionary histories made obsolete the belief that a phylogenetic tree of a single universal gene such as rRNA or of several universal genes could represent the “true” TOL.
http://www.biology-direct.com/conten...-6150-6-32.pdf (http://www.biology-direct.com/content/pdf/1745-6150-6-32.pdf)

Transition fossils show patterns and trends of the related species. Such as reduction in canine size, reduction in sagital crest, reduction in supaorbital crest, more centralised foramen magnum, less prominant zygomatic arch, curvature from C shaped spine to S shaped spine to support bipedal locomotion and results in a more centralised foramen magnum. Also cranial capacity shows to be larger and more smooth to support evidence of a larger brain. Especially in specific areas of the brain such as the cerebral cortex which supports high orderly thinking.

Scientists found out which fossils came first by running actual dating techniques measuring the amount of radioactive isotopes in the bone and rocks around it. This is used to calculate the half life of the bone and can be thus giving it a time of death. And this way of dating fossils to an age is very accurate. When they find the age of the fossils, then they label them and arrange them in order or age. From the order it's been arranged in(date of death), they find the patterns in the fossils which show consistent changes to them in such a specific way. Patterns and trends posted above paragraph ^

Yes no one can know for sure if it's 100% true. But it is very promising, because it all works in a specific sequence changing in the same ways over time to suit its evolutionary needs.

Maybe they can't find the matching DNA of extinct primates. But they can find it from the ones alive today. Which has already been done. They compare the sequence of nucleotide bases. Cool fact. Did you know that because human DNA and Chimp DNA is so similar, a lot of diseases can be passed from Human to Chimp and vise versa. So if you had a cold, you can give the Chimp a cold. Same with AIDS, that's actually how some people think it started. Personally i don't know about the aids thing though.

[Bleid]

Why not? And the idea wasn’t to hurt you. Your reasoning is invalid to me. You’re reasoning to me is fallacious.

And I have no interest in what you personally consider fallacious unless it coincides with what is actually fallacious, and provably so.

And I’m attacking you by ad hominem. I’m simply stating that I have credentials in this area so I should be taken more seriously, so when I say things they are correct.

And this reasoning is atrocious.

Something is not rendered correct because an expert says it is.

If something is correct, then it is correct for a reason other than your personal testimony, expert or not.

It’s like a Human Biology student trying to attack a doctor. Obviously people would believe the doctor because he has credentials. I don’t see It as a debate. I see it more of a court hearing in a sense. “Let you know when I decide to address the actual content of what i say, rather than provide us with your biases and prejudices about my character.”
I’m sorry but I clearly posted many posts on the science vs creation thread relating specifically to the science and creation topics. If you want to pick out 1 thing out of all my posts on here. Then accuse me with that, go ahead. But you should really go for a whole argument rather than settling on a small mishap.

I have no interest in discussing human biology outside of the bedroom. Nor does human biology even have anything to do with the creationist idea of the world.
However, I noticed you made a huge flaw in your part of the discussion, and hence, I pointed it out. That was the beginning and end of my point. Then you tried ignoring that and bringing in something else that you said and seem to think I should be talking about that, for some strange reason.

How am I biased? About you’re character??? Does that even make sense?

Yes. Because you're making arbitrary assumptions such as
"you don't like to lose arguments" with no real basis behind what you're saying. This is known as a bias.

And if you meant biased on my posts. I assume you I’m not. I’m not saying one thing is real and one isn’t I’m saying my opinion , I’m not trying to prove I’m right. I just stated my opinions on the thread because I thought they’d value the opinions of someone who studied this.

Nah. Not talking about your posts on biology.

It’s up to them if they want to accept or deny what I’ve stated. By you replying to me and accusing me of being erroneous and ad hominem, using fallacious reasoning, saying that my logic is unlogical and is attacking me personally and to accuse me of this true or not, you are being a hypocrite.

I expected you to say this, which would also be poor reasoning.

Simply because you are the one providing the fallacious reasoning does not mean that I am attacking you when I point it out. It simply means that you are the one who gave this poor reasoning which I responded to.

However, to be speaking of you yourself and using that in my discussion is the fallacious part.

Take an example:

Person 1: "Bananas are yellow, therefore God exists."

Person 2: "Your reasoning makes no sense, there. Nothing about yellow bananas has anything to do with God existing."

Perfectly acceptable. No personal attack going on here. It's all about the reasoning of Person 1.

But if it went anything like:

Person 2: "You're just a teenager though and you provide wikipedia links."

Then that'd be personal attack and is thus, fallacious.

“Oh, I didn't realize it was a joke. Probably because it wasn't a good one.”
“every logician that has ever lived or will ever live, and anyone whom studies reason or even has a passing interest in being rational will tell you that you most certainly are incorrect.”
“More erroneous reasoning.”
You do realise that you’re using inclusive language saying ““every logician that has ever lived or will ever live, and anyone whom studies reason or even has a passing interest in being rational will tell you that you most certainly are incorrect.” Are you that up yourself that you think you have the same mind as every philosopher?

I don't recall saying I'm talking about philosophers, there. Notice the part where I said, "logician"?

And that is a fact. If you're a logician, you must agree that what you were reasoning is fallacious, because, as a matter of fact of logic, it is. And a logician is precisely one whom is well-versed in logic.


Just like if you said, "there's no such thing as a physical world to study."
I can go and say, "Every physicist will disagree with you there." And I would be correct.

How on earth do you seriously think that EVERY philopher/logician would agree with you.

Logician only*

But yes. I do seriously think that.

Wow, can you stop attacking me now, and prove me wrong with what I said in my ORIGINAL scientific posts, because they were the only posts I was generally relating to the thread;

No where was I attacking you - I was attacking your reasoning.

And the only reason this has gone on so long is because you keep trying to provide red herrings and draw this out.

And your poor reasoning IN your scientific posts was certainly relevant to the thread. It's silly to say otherwise.

It'd be like if I made a thread and I had an argument for the existence of unicorns and I had poorly-reasoned pseudo-scientific nonsense in it and you brought that up, then I said, "Wow, can you stop attacking me now and prove me wrong with what I said in my original scientific posts?"

And now I will be Ad hominem. You are very annoying; I hate talking to you and seeing you in my notifications because you always seem to make me have to waste my time debating over a pointless topic. Do you not realise we both have way better things to do with our time then debate on a thread. If you want to add me on Skype and talk about this. Then by all means. Do it, my details are on my account. We can talk over Skype discussing this.

I can message you on Skype. Certainly. I will now no longer expect you to respond on this thread because only now have I read this section of your post and know that it bothers you. I will also not take any lack of response as some sort of petty victory or otherwise, since I know now that I am annoying you, and I wouldn't want you to have to continue responding if it is annoying and bothering you.

No of course someone isn’t simply correct because of something they’ve accomplished. But they are simply more correct if they’ve studied the content.
I agree with this quote up until you say, "But they are simply more correct if they've studied the content."

That's still not correct.

Because it does mean that they’ve learnt the content and is more correct then someone who hasn’t studied. Classic example, an A student gets better grades then a D student because he/she studies more.

Yes, but it is not because they have studied that they get more than a D. It is that they provide the correct answers.

They may have correct answers due to their study, but this does not mean that it is the study that makes them correct in what they say. It is the reasons behind what they say that determines what is correct or not.

How’s about you stop accusing me of not answering your content, and answer mine for once. I’ve answered your content a lot more then you’ve answered mine. Sigh* hypocrisy.

No such hypocrisy. All I was doing was pointing out flawed reasoning. Nothing more.

That’s because you don’t have anything to do with the reasoning. You, yourself are not qualified to say if my facts are true or not. And even if my reasoning is flawed which I don’t think it is. What does it have to do with the fact at all about my original scientific posts? Tell me what am I trying to reason?

Your reasoning has everything to do with your posts because if it is not in order, then nothing you say holds any water in the first place.

I don’t plan on running away. I’ll stay in this to the end. But rather then posting thread after thread. Can we do it in real time because I’m very busy.
Of course.

How does you writing a report in junction with mine. Because I’d rather spend my time doing other things. Which your posts are keeping me from right now. True example. I’m meant to be at a friend’s house right now at a BBQ. But instead I have to finish this post.
And I shouldn’t have to prove myself to be correct to you or in that matter anyone.

And this is really the whole problem I have here. Of course you have to prove yourself correct. What else would you be doing? Giving long, drawn-out statements about how correct you must be because of some education, rather than providing actual reasons as to why?

My brother said to me last night. “It’s not sciences responsibly to disprove religion, it’s religion’s responsibility to prove themselves”

And if a scientist calls religion wrong then it must provide reasons as to why.*

Should be added there.

My Skype is Oliverhallblack, message me on that as I won’t be on these forums much any longer. And we may even do a group chat with my non-existent philosophers and logicians.

Fair enough.

Oh and by the way those word you wanted me to say. Erroneous, ad hominem, fallacious, retorts, specious. Although i know all these words. Others on the forum dont. And by the way, Ad honinem is a latin term.

I'm not aware of the vocabulary of everyone on the forum. Others on the forum may not know the word, "happiness" because they don't speak English as their first language. Doesn't mean it would be a problem for me to use it in a sentence.

[Bleid]

Double-post occurred accidentally after posting the previous.

Delete this.

[sqishy]

And I have no interest in what you personally consider fallacious unless it coincides with what is actually fallacious, and provably so.

And this reasoning is atrocious.

Something is not rendered correct because an expert says it is.

If something is correct, then it is correct for a reason other than your personal testimony, expert or not.



I have no interest in discussing human biology outside of the bedroom. Nor does human biology even have anything to do with the creationist idea of the world.
However, I noticed you made a huge flaw in your part of the discussion, and hence, I pointed it out. That was the beginning and end of my point. Then you tried ignoring that and bringing in something else that you said and seem to think I should be talking about that, for some strange reason.



Yes. Because you're making arbitrary assumptions such as
"you don't like to lose arguments" with no real basis behind what you're saying. This is known as a bias.



Nah. Not talking about your posts on biology.



I expected you to say this, which would also be poor reasoning.

Simply because you are the one providing the fallacious reasoning does not mean that I am attacking you when I point it out. It simply means that you are the one who gave this poor reasoning which I responded to.

However, to be speaking of you yourself and using that in my discussion is the fallacious part.

Take an example:

Person 1: "Bananas are yellow, therefore God exists."

Person 2: "Your reasoning makes no sense, there. Nothing about yellow bananas has anything to do with God existing."

Perfectly acceptable. No personal attack going on here. It's all about the reasoning of Person 1.

But if it went anything like:

Person 2: "You're just a teenager though and you provide wikipedia links."

Then that'd be personal attack and is thus, fallacious.



I don't recall saying I'm talking about philosophers, there. Notice the part where I said, "logician"?

And that is a fact. If you're a logician, you must agree that what you were reasoning is fallacious, because, as a matter of fact of logic, it is. And a logician is precisely one whom is well-versed in logic.


Just like if you said, "there's no such thing as a physical world to study."
I can go and say, "Every physicist will disagree with you there." And I would be correct.



Logician only*

But yes. I do seriously think that.



No where was I attacking you - I was attacking your reasoning.

And the only reason this has gone on so long is because you keep trying to provide red herrings and draw this out.

And your poor reasoning IN your scientific posts was certainly relevant to the thread. It's silly to say otherwise.

It'd be like if I made a thread and I had an argument for the existence of unicorns and I had poorly-reasoned pseudo-scientific nonsense in it and you brought that up, then I said, "Wow, can you stop attacking me now and prove me wrong with what I said in my original scientific posts?"



I can message you on Skype. Certainly. I will now no longer expect you to respond on this thread because only now have I read this section of your post and know that it bothers you. I will also not take any lack of response as some sort of petty victory or otherwise, since I know now that I am annoying you, and I wouldn't want you to have to continue responding if it is annoying and bothering you.


I agree with this quote up until you say, "But they are simply more correct if they've studied the content."

That's still not correct.

[QUOTE=ContinuingToLive;2661215]Because it does mean that they’ve learnt the content and is more correct then someone who hasn’t studied. Classic example, an A student gets better grades then a D student because he/she studies more.[QUOTE=ContinuingToLive;2661215]

Yes, but it is not because they have studied that they get more than a D. It is that they provide the correct answers.

They may have correct answers due to their study, but this does not mean that it is the study that makes them correct in what they say. It is the reasons behind what they say that determines what is correct or not.

No such hypocrisy. All I was doing was pointing out flawed reasoning. Nothing more.

Your reasoning has everything to do with your posts because if it is not in order, then nothing you say holds any water in the first place.

Of course.

And this is really the whole problem I have here. Of course you have to prove yourself correct. What else would you be doing? Giving long, drawn-out statements about how correct you must be because of some education, rather than providing actual reasons as to why?

And if a scientist calls religion wrong then it must provide reasons as to why.*

Should be added there.

Fair enough.

I'm not aware of the vocabulary of everyone on the forum. Others on the forum may not know the word, "happiness" because they don't speak English as their first language. Doesn't mean it would be a problem for me to use it in a sentence.

Just so you know, I didn't make any posts on this thread. None that have my name on all those quotes. Someone made a mistake with the quote names?

[Bleid]

Just so you know, I didn't make any posts on this thread. None that have my name on all those quotes. Someone made a mistake with the quote names?

Oh, that is strange. Almost like, because I was responding to both of you at once (two different threads on two different tabs), it cited you instead of him when I was breaking the quote into pieces. Interesting.

All fixed, now.
Very much thanks for bringing it to my attention. : )

[SecretlyKnown]

Fr Georges Lemaître formed the Big Bang Theory with the help of the Book of Genesis.

[sqishy]

Oh, that is strange. Almost like, because I was responding to both of you at once (two different threads on two different tabs), it cited you instead of him when I was breaking the quote into pieces. Interesting.

All fixed, now.
Very much thanks for bringing it to my attention. : )

Ah ok.

[darthearth]

"The bible is so sacred that if one thing is disproved. It disproves it completely". Yes, that was my original statement and i still stand by it. I have asked countless non-Christians and they all agree with me. EVERY ONE OF THEM. Maybe i was just getting lucky with the people i asked. But at least Atheists don't have a biased POV, because Christians don't like to say that there might not be a God, because it's the same as denying God.

Then all of those countless non Christians would be unreasonable and irrational. Atheists aren't biased? That is an utter joke given what I've seen on these forums. Many are steeped in materialism bias and are not rational at all when confronted with testimonial evidence of God. Christians don't like to say that there might not be a God because we know there is one through our personal relationship with Christ, not because we are afraid of anything. And no, my personal relationship is not empirically testable but nevertheless exists. I was technically saved when I was seven, but I have known God my whole life through my third eye that atheists I guess must not have.

Like in the bible when Jesus told his disciples that he would be denied by all of his followers around the table. And if the bible is disproved in some areas why would you still believe the others? I would if it wasn't such a sacred document and said to be the complete truth. The word of God. So if it the complete truth it means to me that it is all the truth. You can't have false things in it then. So if i find one thing wrong. Then it's the complete truth. Therefore God is not truth. Hence the word of God isn't truth.

If one thing is disproved you can't obviously take the Bible to be an infallible Word of God, and I don't. But why would Noah's flood not covering the highest mountain on Earth necessarily have to mean Jesus didn't give His Sermon on the Mount? That makes no sense. This isn't even arguable. Moving on.

Yes my parts are about Biology, because i actually know it. How are they relevant to Science vs. Creation?? Hmm i don't know. I thought Biology was science? I did talk about how life came about in the opinion of evolution. Maybe you're not reading my posts. Look up vestigial organs, transition fossils, founders theory, migration, cultural and social barriers in relation to evolution. There is DNA evidence for evolution. Between humans and Chimpanzees we share 98% of the same DNA. And that 2% difference is what separates us from them. 2% is a lot, and not only that look at epigenetic factors, those change our characteristics with out even altering our DNA sequence cause different phenotypes while our genotypes are the same.

You mentioned that something like the theorized big bang has been created in a lab (I'm guessing you're talking about the particle accelerators? But this is no evidence that 6 day Creation is false anyway), transitional fossils, vestigial organs and the 98% similarity in DNA thing (in post #56). However all of your biological discussion in post #72 didn't touch on evolution, only similarities of current biological systems. But how do the things you did mention discriminate between 6 day Creation and Evolution? Everything you said is consistent with a six 24 hour day creation by God. That is, the supposed vestigial organs may have some use that is currently unknown to us, there have been organs claimed to be vestigial only to find out later there was a use. One needs to say explicitly what organs are being talked about and defend the notion that a use will never be discovered for them to help at all with Creation vs. Evolution, you can't just say "then what are these for then?" and expect that to be distinguishing between the two. The 98% similarity in DNA could simply result from God's efficient work in creating us 6,000 years ago, it makes sense that life would have these similar things because everything operates in a similar way, this says nothing about how the systems specifically came about, just that they are similar. Supposed transitional fossils could be dismissed for a number of reasons, one being that you can only say they are transitional if you are already assuming there needs to be some transition. I could say that since God created things as they are 6,000 years ago, those fossils you bring up are just of another animal God made that died out or represent some modification of an animal made that we just happened across, but completely unrelated to us. It is actually the radiometric dating of things that is more relevant than the simple claim that a fossil is transitional. You have to establish age first and let the debate fall to the dating methods.

Look up a phylogenetic tree on primates. It'll explain it better then i am. It shows you the sequence in which primates evolved in time, and the similarities they have. Make sure you find a detailed one.

Again, one has to assume evolution to begin with to put things into a phylogenetic tree. Dating things must come first, that is how young Earth 6 day Creation vs. Evolution can be distinguished. And 6 day Creationists do have attempted arguments for the dating, but that is what needs to be discussed.

And btw, i think your opinions biased on your beliefs so it doesn't matter to me if you think I'm right or not. And don't get me wrong, i am not denying the existence of God. I am saying that I believe Christianity's God to be real. After being a Christian for so long, being prayed for, reading my bible, praying twice a day, going to church and not even having the smallest glimpse of if God's real. Where i can easily look in a science text book and find some answers. You tell me which one seems more promising.

I'm assuming you meant to say "unreal"? How can one pray twice a day if one doesn't have "the smallest glimpse of if God's real"? Were you praying something like "God I don't know if you exist, but ......"? Or did you think you believed, but you felt your prayers were not answered to your satisfaction and that made you disbelieve? This is off-topic though, it just seems perplexing.

The transposon?? are you calling me a bacterial DNA segment with out a complimentary strand? LOL, please learn how to use biology terms in the right place

I certainly hope this is just another one of your confusing "jokes". If you do not know that finding the same transposon in the same chromosomal location in two different organisms is one of the most important evidences of common decent you should have most certainly got a much lower mark on your 22 page paper.

And yes, i am Josh Schlacter. But that's not my real name. I did that as a joke but I couldn't turn my name back. So i just made a new account. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Yes, there is something wrong with it as you are not allowed to have two accounts on VT. READ the RULES. One of your accounts must be BANNED. You can change your username after 6 months I think, no reason to make a duplicate account. Should I flag this for you?

And i'm not trying to have a go at anyone. I just came here to state my opinion haha. Had no idea it was gonna turn into a debate. But i guess people here are hungry for that sort of thing.

You didn't realize this is a debate forum??

Let me ask you a few personal questions and you gotta be completely honest.

Some of these are off-topic.

Are you Christian?

Yes, most definitely.

How long have you been a Christian?

Technically (officially saved in church) when I was seven, but I've known God longer than that.

Have you read your Bible completely?

Much of it, but not completely.

How often do you read your bible?

Multiple times a week. But short, rather random selections mostly.

Are your parents Christian?

Yes.

Have you learnt about Evolution properly (not just a term in class)?

Have done most of my studying on my own, trying to form an opinion.

Have you put as much research into Evolution as you have Christianity?

Regarding matters of the Creation? Yes.

Does evolution make sense to you? Or could it be possible to you?

I have a tendency to believe right now that evolution was the process used by God to create life on Earth. I feel it is a God-guided process (see all of my former comments in this thread starting with post #11)

Do you believe in God, or do you believe that there may be a God?

I most definitely believe there is a God, just like I believe that the sky is blue.

Why do you not believe evolution, or why do you not believe God?

Right now I believe in evolution AND God. I do not believe that the Bible is God's literal infallible word, the creation story to me right now is largely a myth, but I acknowledge that it may be the case given God's infinite power however much I think it improbable. I simply believe that the scientific evidence points to a universe that is 14 billion years old and that evolution according to established physical laws seems to be an intended and universal method of creation.

How many close encounters have you had with God, that is no doubtfully him. And i'm talking about him not a miracle that could of happened by chance?

Since God is the very source of life, my whole life experience is a close encounter. I have logical objective thought, personal spiritual experiences and plenty of testimonies from others to assure myself in my religious view.

I did previously discuss one instance of a spiritual experience, see how the materialist atheists irrationally refuse the most straightforward explanation solely in order to preserve their presumptuous viewpoint: (but take note that this is COMPLETELY off-topic and I will discuss it no further here.)

http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=181452&page=4 (number #78 is where it starts, I stopped responding when it was obvious a serious effort by the materialists to objectively consider arguments for the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin were not going to be made because they would rather dismiss something out of hand without careful study if it threatens their belief system, which is lack of belief of course)

And I have never had a prayer go unanswered. But then again I don't pray for anything much, but when I do it is answered wonderfully.

[Miserabilia]

Then all of those countless non Christians would be unreasonable and irrational. Atheists aren't biased? That is an utter joke given what I've seen on these forums. Many are steeped in materialism bias and are not rational at all when confronted with testimonial evidence of God. Christians don't like to say that there might not be a God because we know there is one through our personal relationship with Christ, not because we are afraid of anything. And no, my personal relationship is not empirically testable but nevertheless exists. I was technically saved when I was seven, but I have known God my whole life through my third eye that atheists I guess must not have.



If one thing is disproved you can't obviously take the Bible to be an infallible Word of God, and I don't. But why would Noah's flood not covering the highest mountain on Earth necessarily have to mean Jesus didn't give His Sermon on the Mount? That makes no sense. This isn't even arguable. Moving on.



You mentioned that something like the theorized big bang has been created in a lab (I'm guessing you're talking about the particle accelerators? But this is no evidence that 6 day Creation is false anyway), transitional fossils, vestigial organs and the 98% similarity in DNA thing (in post #56). However all of your biological discussion in post #72 didn't touch on evolution, only similarities of current biological systems. But how do the things you did mention discriminate between 6 day Creation and Evolution? Everything you said is consistent with a six 24 hour day creation by God. That is, the supposed vestigial organs may have some use that is currently unknown to us, there have been organs claimed to be vestigial only to find out later there was a use. One needs to say explicitly what organs are being talked about and defend the notion that a use will never be discovered for them to help at all with Creation vs. Evolution, you can't just say "then what are these for then?" and expect that to be distinguishing between the two. The 98% similarity in DNA could simply result from God's efficient work in creating us 6,000 years ago, it makes sense that life would have these similar things because everything operates in a similar way, this says nothing about how the systems specifically came about, just that they are similar. Supposed transitional fossils could be dismissed for a number of reasons, one being that you can only say they are transitional if you are already assuming there needs to be some transition. I could say that since God created things as they are 6,000 years ago, those fossils you bring up are just of another animal God made that died out or represent some modification of an animal made that we just happened across, but completely unrelated to us. It is actually the radiometric dating of things that is more relevant than the simple claim that a fossil is transitional. You have to establish age first and let the debate fall to the dating methods.



Again, one has to assume evolution to begin with to put things into a phylogenetic tree. Dating things must come first, that is how young Earth 6 day Creation vs. Evolution can be distinguished. And 6 day Creationists do have attempted arguments for the dating, but that is what needs to be discussed.



I'm assuming you meant to say "unreal"? How can one pray twice a day if one doesn't have "the smallest glimpse of if God's real"? Were you praying something like "God I don't know if you exist, but ......"? Or did you think you believed, but you felt your prayers were not answered to your satisfaction and that made you disbelieve? This is off-topic though, it just seems perplexing.



I certainly hope this is just another one of your confusing "jokes". If you do not know that finding the same transposon in the same chromosomal location in two different organisms is one of the most important evidences of common decent you should have most certainly got a much lower mark on your 22 page paper.



Yes, there is something wrong with it as you are not allowed to have two accounts on VT. READ the RULES. One of your accounts must be BANNED. You can change your username after 6 months I think, no reason to make a duplicate account. Should I flag this for you?



You didn't realize this is a debate forum??



Some of these are off-topic.



Yes, most definitely.



Technically (officially saved in church) when I was seven, but I've known God longer than that.



Much of it, but not completely.



Multiple times a week. But short, rather random selections mostly.



Yes.



Have done most of my studying on my own, trying to form an opinion.



Regarding matters of the Creation? Yes.



I have a tendency to believe right now that evolution was the process used by God to create life on Earth. I feel it is a God-guided process (see all of my former comments in this thread starting with post #11)



I most definitely believe there is a God, just like I believe that the sky is blue.



Right now I believe in evolution AND God. I do not believe that the Bible is God's literal infallible word, the creation story to me right now is largely a myth, but I acknowledge that it may be the case given God's infinite power however much I think it improbable. I simply believe that the scientific evidence points to a universe that is 14 billion years old and that evolution according to established physical laws seems to be an intended and universal method of creation.



Since God is the very source of life, my whole life experience is a close encounter. I have logical objective thought, personal spiritual experiences and plenty of testimonies from others to assure myself in my religious view.

I did previously discuss one instance of a spiritual experience, see the how the materialist atheists irrationally refuse the most straightforward explanation solely in order to preserve their presumptuous viewpoint: (but take note that this is COMPLETELY off-topic and I will discuss it no further here.)

http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=181452&page=4 (number #78 is where it starts, I stopped responding when it was obvious a serious effort by the materialists to objectively consider arguments for the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin were not going to be made because they would rather dismiss something out of hand without careful study if it threatens their belief system, which is lack of belief of course)

And I have never had a prayer go unanswered. But then again I don't pray for anything much, but when I do it is answered wonderfully.

What you are saying seems very contradictory to me?
You beleive 6day creation but also in evolution?
/:

I wrote very detailed responses to everything you said but now I am just confused.
Please explain?

[darthearth]

What you are saying seems very contradictory to me?
You beleive 6day creation but also in evolution?
/:

I wrote very detailed responses to everything you said but now I am just confused.
Please explain?

When I was talking about 6 day creation, I was arguing for that point of view in order to clarify how the evidence may be interpreted differently based on presumption (either presuming evolution or creation), not saying that it actually was my view.

[Miserabilia]

When I was talking about 6 day creation, I was arguing for that point of view in order to clarify how the evidence may be interpreted differently based on presumption (either presuming evolution or creation), not saying that it actually was my view.

Oooooh okay that explains alot.
Anyway,
with my other thread,
doesn't that theoreticaly proove that a universe doesn't need to be created?
Something with a total mass/energy of zero isn't created because it doesn't really exist... yes it does...
/:

And you also talked about a "lack of proof of atheistic evolution".
But the proof doesn't lack at all, look at bacterias, an example I always use because they just evolve faster.
Do you think that observable bacteria evolution is somehow god-driven?
They certainly evolve, and they can technicaly do so without a god, so why would a god be needed?

[darthearth]

Oooooh okay that explains alot.
Anyway,
with my other thread,
doesn't that theoreticaly proove that a universe doesn't need to be created?
Something with a total mass/energy of zero isn't created because it doesn't really exist... yes it does...
/:

And you also talked about a "lack of proof of atheistic evolution".
But the proof doesn't lack at all, look at bacterias, an example I always use because they just evolve faster.
Do you think that observable bacteria evolution is somehow god-driven?
They certainly evolve, and they can technicaly do so without a god, so why would a god be needed?


I'm talking about the scale of atheistic evolution. As I have been saying all through this thread, it must be demonstrated that non-intelligently guided evolution can result in conscious beings as complex as us arising even in 4 billion years from chemical soup. It is not intuitive for that to be possible. I am open to the possibility, but I'm not going to accept atheistic evolution without proof it can be done. I don't believe any objective thinking person should automatically accept something so non-intuitive without definitive proof.

In addition to this, I am still waiting on atheistic evolutionists to explain the lack of neutral parts within us that never had a use in our evolutionary history that would supposedly be the basis for another stage of evolution. And where are the overly complex systems (Rube Goldberg machines) that would also result from non-intelligently guided evolution? They should be all over the place, not just a minor apparent overcomplexity here and there that resulted from previous stages of our evolution (when those over-complex parts might have had use). Consider the theory behind the development of a stomach, it started with an empty sac supposedly put in the right place by chance, but where are all the other empty sacs that were not put in the right place? Are there any empty sacs in today's simple organisms that would support the hypothesis? I know of none. But see my previous comments, I have already talked about this stuff extensively with no satisfactory response from the atheistic evolution defenders.

[Miserabilia]

I'm talking about the scale of atheistic evolution. As I have been saying all through this thread, it must be demonstrated that non-intelligently guided evolution can result in conscious beings as complex as us arising even in 4 billion years from chemical soup. It is not intuitive for that to be possible. I am open to the possibility, but I'm not going to accept atheistic evolution without proof it can be done. I don't believe any objective thinking person should automatically accept something so non-intuitive without definitive proof.

In addition to this, I am still waiting on atheistic evolutionists to explain the lack of neutral parts within us that never had a use in our evolutionary history that would supposedly be the basis for another stage of evolution. And where are the overly complex systems (Rube Goldberg machines) that would also result from non-intelligently guided evolution? They should be all over the place, not just a minor apparent overcomplexity here and there that resulted from previous stages of our evolution (when those over-complex parts might have had use). Consider the theory behind the development of a stomach, it started with an empty sac supposedly put in the right place by chance, but where are all the other empty sacs that were not put in the right place? Are there any empty sacs in today's simple organisms that would support the hypothesis? I know of none. But see my previous comments, I have already talked about this stuff extensively with no satisfactory response from the atheistic evolution defenders.

I am open to the possibility, but I'm not going to accept atheistic evolution without proof it can be done.

Development of neural networks isn't that stupid to accept.
First of all, it's a perfectly normal thing to arise through evolution,
I don't see why it couldn't.

Secondly, in an artificially sped up simulation of digital beings with neural networks they can easily evolve to understand their surroundings.

Consider the theory behind the development of a stomach, it started with an empty sac supposedly put in the right place by chance, but where are all the other empty sacs that were not put in the right place? Are there any empty sacs in today's simple organisms that would support the hypothesis? I know of none.

This is one of the worst, most ignorant things you could say as an apologist, and there is no better way to make your knowledge of biology seem more ignorant...

Because you see,
that is not how evolution works, as you would know if you knew anything about biology...

The whole point behind evolution is that every creature doesn't have to invent the wheel all over again... It's not like every creature had to develop random parts of skeleton untill they got it right...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bK5y3Lo5-3c/UUiHebSR9iI/AAAAAAAAD9k/vJF6o1k3Jis/s1600/Humpback%2BWhale%2BSkeleton.jpg

Whales have spines, so many animals have spines and a skeleton so similar to us.
Did they all have to put random parts everywhere untill they got it right?
No, because it does not work that way.

http://www.infovisual.info/02/img_en/028%20Skeleton%20of%20a%20frog.jpg

Now the skeleton of and amphibious creature. Still the same skeleton,
but smaller and slightly different in shape.

http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/264/7/7/seymouria_fossil_amphibian_by_rhabwar_troll_stock-d2z6734.jpg

http://thegraphicsfairy.com/wp-content/uploads/blogger/_CarNcodpCMA/TMhtoFmuKcI/AAAAAAAAJjo/IxYlKKoj7P0/s1600/fishskeleton-graphicsfairy009bw.jpg

The genes of every generation are passed on and can only mutate slightly.
A creature cannot just be born with suddenly having a stomach, just in the wrong place.

An organism can only have parts of it's parent(s), slightly altered. If this happens to be good for the organism, the slight mutation is passed on.
They may not have had a stomach like us yet, but something similar and smaller and simpler.

So I'm sorry, but if this is really your best argument to evolution, you should try harder.
If this was really a problem, a hole in evolution, don't you think evolutionairy scientist would be completely baffled by it?
Ofcourse not,
because they aren't,
because they have a a logical evolutionairy explanation for it.

[darthearth]

.......

This is one of the worst, most ignorant things you could say as an apologist, and there is no better way to make your knowledge of biology seem more ignorant...



You really missed the boat here. I'm talking about how the first stomach-like organ developed in very early microorganisms (look it up). And if there were mutations even then that created empty sacs, then why do we now apparently not have any empty sacs all over, as you would expect those types of mutations to continue throughout evolution, and I don't see how they would be selected against. And when I talk about neutral parts, I'm talking about parts (genetic based growths) that would specifically not have any reason to be selected against, truly neutral parts that might be used as a basis for another evolutionary step when another mutation is added to them to produce a positive, selected for effect. If evolution were non-intelligently guided, we should have lots of extra and useless things in us, and I'm not talking about vestigial organs either, those organs had a purpose at some point, I'm talking about the things that served no purpose but were carried along for the ride, that resulted from random mutation with no positive or negative effect. That's the kind of thing I'm getting at. Do you understand better now?

An organism can only have parts of it's parent(s), slightly altered. If this happens to be good for the organism, the slight mutation is passed on.
They may not have had a stomach like us yet, but something similar and smaller and simpler.

The neutral mutations will also be passed on, where are they?

[Gigablue]

You really missed the boat here. I'm talking about how the first stomach-like organ developed in very early microorganisms (look it up). And if there were mutations even then that created empty sacs, then why do we now apparently not have any empty sacs all over, as you would expect those types of mutations to continue throughout evolution, and I don't see how they would be selected against. And when I talk about neutral parts, I'm talking about parts (genetic based growths) that would specifically not have any reason to be selected against, truly neutral parts that might be used as a basis for another evolutionary step when another mutation is added to them to produce a positive, selected for effect. If evolution were non-intelligently guided, we should have lots of extra and useless things in us, and I'm not talking about vestigial organs either, those organs had a purpose at some point, I'm talking about the things that served no purpose but were carried along for the ride, that resulted from random mutation with no positive or negative effect. That's the kind of thing I'm getting at. Do you understand better now??

Your premise that we should have useless parts is fundamentally flawed. A mutation that codes for a useless anatomical part would be heavily selected against. Growing and maintaining an extra, completely useless part requires a significant amount of energy. If food is scarce, this could mean the difference between starvation and survival.

[darthearth]

Your premise that we should have useless parts is fundamentally flawed. A mutation that codes for a useless anatomical part would be heavily selected against. Growing and maintaining an extra, completely useless part requires a significant amount of energy. If food is scarce, this could mean the difference between starvation and survival.

No, I'm not talking about anything that would be so big as to have any significant effect on survival. A "neutral" growth.

[Gigablue]

No, I'm not talking about anything that would be so big as to have any significant effect on survival. A "neutral" growth.

In that case, we have lots of them. They're just very small and inconsequential. These small, neutral variations make up much of the genotypic and phenotypic variation within all species. Look up genetic drift. It shows how allele frequency can change without there being any selective pressure or advantage.

[Miserabilia]

You really missed the boat here. I'm talking about how the first stomach-like organ developed in very early microorganisms (look it up). And if there were mutations even then that created empty sacs, then why do we now apparently not have any empty sacs all over, as you would expect those types of mutations to continue throughout evolution, and I don't see how they would be selected against. And when I talk about neutral parts, I'm talking about parts (genetic based growths) that would specifically not have any reason to be selected against, truly neutral parts that might be used as a basis for another evolutionary step when another mutation is added to them to produce a positive, selected for effect. If evolution were non-intelligently guided, we should have lots of extra and useless things in us, and I'm not talking about vestigial organs either, those organs had a purpose at some point, I'm talking about the things that served no purpose but were carried along for the ride, that resulted from random mutation with no positive or negative effect. That's the kind of thing I'm getting at. Do you understand better now?



The neutral mutations will also be passed on, where are they?

I'm talking about how the first stomach-like organ developed in very early microorganisms (look it up). And if there were mutations even then that created empty sacs, then why do we now apparently not have any empty sacs all over, as you would expect those types of mutations to continue throughout evolution

Yes, except for that's not how nature works.
Think of arms and legs, they were once fins and those fins were once little stubs.
It's not like a cow was just a torso that spawned a leg on it's head.

Even on the smallest scale it doesn't work like that. Stomach sacks aren't spontaniously created, they aren't randomly created, they exist because of mutations in an already existing system.

Also, evolution is not a straight line, it's a tree,
so the line of creatures with random useless stomach sacks would die out and we would not be their descendants.

Extra stomachs would not be beneficial so they wouldn't reevolve later on.

nd I don't see how they would be selected against.

They cost extra nutrients, energy, and simply make the organism less efficient.

And when I talk about neutral parts, I'm talking about parts (genetic based growths) that would specifically not have any reason to be selected against, truly neutral parts that might be used as a basis for another evolutionary step when another mutation is added to them to produce a positive, selected for effect.

First of all, i don't beleive in orans being there for future evolution, since genes cannot magicaly predict the future.
A truly neutral part does not exist.

If evolution were non-intelligently guided, we should have lots of extra and useless things in us, and I'm not talking about vestigial organs either, those organs had a purpose at some point, I'm talking about the things that served no purpose but were carried along for the ride, that resulted from random mutation with no positive or negative effect.

Umm, no. It makes the organism less efficient.
If you had an extra ear on your leg, it wouldn't really help you would it?
It would just cause extra energy and get in the way.

The same counts on a small scale.

These useless mutations occur on a small scale, but are not effecient so they don't survive.
The ingelligent guidance behind evolution is not a god, it's natural selection itself, it's the fact that useles mutations are useless, and therefor do not survive more than other organisms.

PS:
we do have these mutations on a small scale, that's what most of the DNA probably is.

[Zenos]

people act like theres the two theories are imcompattable.


Now lets say some God or Gods and Goddess created the earth and every thing in it right,whose to say said God or Gods and Goddesses did not create the basic more primitive life forms upon this earth and in the seas and the air and they evolved over the aeons into the lifeforms that are on earth now.

[Aajj333]

Pastafarians believe the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster and you cant disprove that. It seems just as likly as any other nonscientific theory.

[Gamma Male]

This debate is ridiculous. Without Yggdrasil to hold up the Earth, it would've fallen into the void long ago.

Atheists 0-1 Nordic pagans. :D

[Korashk]

Pastafarians believe the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster and you cant disprove that. It seems just as likly as any other nonscientific theory.
Yes, that would be the point.

[Miserabilia]

people act like theres the two theories are imcompattable.


Now lets say some God or Gods and Goddess created the earth and every thing in it right,whose to say said God or Gods and Goddesses did not create the basic more primitive life forms upon this earth and in the seas and the air and they evolved over the aeons into the lifeforms that are on earth now.

People act like what two theories are incompattable?

[Zenos]

People act like what two theories are incompattable?

Evolution and Creationism

[Aajj333]

Yes, that would be the point.

Glad to know we are on the same point

[Miserabilia]

Evolution and Creationism

Those are compatible, they are called progressive creationists.

[Zenos]

Those are compatible, they are called progressive creationists.



yeh but too many people want to keep it locked into a this versus that kind of dichotomy!

[Harry Smith]

yeh but too many people want to keep it locked into a this versus that kind of dichotomy!

This is because the religious right in America refuse to endorse evolution in any way

[Zenos]

This is because the religious right in America refuse to endorse evolution in any way

Not so,I remember on a Catholic program on the telly( and yes catholic are Christians..just putting that out there seeing a some think they are not) that talked about the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution of species including humans.

Dude why and mean why every time I say something on here it's America this and America that out of you? It's not just in America either you know? So stop making America the magic denier of everything ! The thing is more Americans then you think do not go to church or even crack a bible open,despite the BS claims on Religious programming here that claims more Americans are go to church.For once mainstream media is right,more Americans are either giving up on religion totally,or are switching to other religons!

Nothing in this tread has to do a flaming thing with the USA! How about getting off of this America this and America that trip you are on and just keep the thread about the topic???

save a lot of BS if you would try to do that and stop dragging the usa into it every time!

[Harry Smith]

Not so,I remember on a Catholic program on the telly( and yes catholic are Christians..just putting that out there seeing a some think they are not) that talked about the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution of species including humans.

Dude why and mean why every time I say something on here it's America this and America that out of you? It's not just in America either you know? So stop making America the magic denier of everything ! The thing is more Americans then you think do not go to church or even crack a bible open,despite the BS claims on Religious programming here that claims more Americans are go to church.For once mainstream media is right,more Americans are either giving up on religion totally,or are switching to other religons!

Nothing in this tread has to do a flaming thing with the USA! How about getting off of this America this and America that trip you are on and just keep the thread about the topic???

save a lot of BS if you would try to do that and stop dragging the usa into it every time!

aha calm down dear.

It's pretty well documented just how powerful the religious lobby is in America for a western country-I'd even argue that 50% of the republican party's main leadership is made up of religious nut cases such as Huckabee and Jindal

[Zenos]

aha calm down dear.

It's pretty well documented just how powerful the religious lobby is in America for a western country-I'd even argue that 50% of the republican party's main leadership is made up of religious nut cases such as Huckabee and Jindal


Yeh well the republican party from what my dad said was infiltrated in the 90'sby religious nutters. Not that religion in and of itself is bad.It had done lots of good for people,just as there are people that have twisted it to their ends,and sadly it it the one that twisted it everyone keeps bringing up as the prime example of said religion.

[darthearth]

Those are compatible, they are called progressive creationists.


yeh but too many people want to keep it locked into a this versus that kind of dichotomy!

Just to clarify to both of you that progressive creation is not evolution, it is the belief that God created animals in their present form at different times throughout Earth's billions of years long history (its proponents accept an old Earth). It is evolutionary creation or theistic evolution that seek compatibility between the two. This is what I am currently. Present day bodies are too "clean" for a non-intelligently guided evolutionary process. Atheistic evolution would be a very messy process, I see no significant mess in our bodies. The energy argument is wholly unconvincing as even if the mess were 10% of body weight I still don't see it affecting survival significantly. (In my previous comments I was not talking about genetic drift and things like eye color, but things that could be the start of new body function or morphology, the beginning of new body plans, such as the "stubs" mentioned.)

[CharlieHorse]

I would even go as far to consider religious belief to be a mental disorder.

[darthearth]

I would even go as far to consider religious belief to be a mental disorder.

I'm religious, do I therefore have a mental disorder? Perhaps you can read my Transcendent Cause of the Universe thread and point out how my logical argument for monotheistic panentheism (that is both sound and valid) results from a mental disorder.

[CharlieHorse]

I'm religious, do I therefore have a mental disorder? Perhaps you can read my Transcendent Cause of the Universe thread and point out how my logical argument for monotheistic panentheism (that is both sound and valid) results from a mental disorder.

A mental disorder can range from a slight personality disorder to being a homicidal maniac. I did not specify how religious belief is defined on any scale. Honestly it depends on the person, and what beliefs they have, and how they think.

[Miserabilia]

I'm religious, do I therefore have a mental disorder? Perhaps you can read my Transcendent Cause of the Universe thread and point out how my logical argument for monotheistic panentheism (that is both sound and valid) results from a mental disorder.

I still don't know what exactly your transcendent cause is.
It seems you're just using Kalam, but more complexely.
Explain in a way of... well I forgot the english name but like (X,Y therefore Z) way what your exact theory is, and why it is theoretical proof of god outside of this universe...

Because to me it still seems the same as Kalam, which is in many ways just wrong.

[StoppingTime]

A mental disorder can range from a slight personality disorder to being a homicidal maniac. I did not specify how religious belief is defined on any scale. Honestly it depends on the person, and what beliefs they have, and how they think.

So then any belief that anyone has, according to you, can be classified as a "mental disorder" as it "depends what beliefs they have, and how they think."

...Well except for the fact that that isn't how one defines a mental disorder, of course.

[CharlieHorse]

So then any belief that anyone has, according to you, can be classified as a "mental disorder" as it "depends what beliefs they have, and how they think."

...Well except for the fact that that isn't how one defines a mental disorder, of course.

it's a stretch i know, but in some cases it is a legitimate interpretation.

[Zenos]

I would even go as far to consider religious belief to be a mental disorder.

And the same could be said about atheism as well.

But I think a person has the RIGHT to their beliefs as to believe in a religions teachings are not.

have to examined the teachinsg of any religion in depth,...as in the ir holy texts not what some modern day Rabbi,preacher or Cleric is saying?

Theres lots in them that are good basic teachings that everyone should apply to each other because they actually make the person a better person for putting them into practice in their life.

their teachings that keep people who apply them form acting like beasts in the wild.

[Miserabilia]

And the same could be said about atheism as well.

But I think a person has the RIGHT to their beliefs as to believe in a religions teachings are not.

have to examined the teachinsg of any religion in depth,...as in the ir holy texts not what some modern day Rabbi,preacher or Cleric is saying?

Theres lots in them that are good basic teachings that everyone should apply to each other because they actually make the person a better person for putting them into practice in their life.

their teachings that keep people who apply them form acting like beasts in the wild.

You don't need religion for that.
Also, atheism is the original state, it's not a beleif.

Religion is a beleif.
As an atheist, you simply don't beleive in that beleive.
Therefore it cannot be concidered a mental disorder.

Also, you can't just take the good parts out of books that are also filled with instructions to stone to death, torture, and threatens people to burn in eternity.

[Zenos]

You don't need religion for that.
Also, atheism is the original state, it's not a beleif.

Religion is a beleif.
As an atheist, you simply don't beleive in that beleive.
Therefore it cannot be concidered a mental disorder.

Also, you can't just take the good parts out of books that are also filled with instructions to stone to death, torture, and threatens people to burn in eternity.

No religious belief is one of two things:

1) A conscious Choice for most of us, or

2) an indoctrination in the case of other.

I chose to follow the beliefs and teachings of Druidism..so it's not a mental problem.

But then it could be said that the constant claim that religion is a mental disorder could be a disorder of it's own!( you know calling peeps crazy before you get called crazy..lol)

[Lovelife090994]

I would even go as far to consider religious belief to be a mental disorder.

I'm sorry but this cannot be. By this definition everyone on Earth who believes in something or nothing is insane.

[Korashk]

yeh but too many people want to keep it locked into a this versus that kind of dichotomy!
It is a this versus that dichotomy because one side is wrong and they're trying to force government to allow public schools to teach children their lies.

Evolution is what happens and creationism is a lie that religious people indocrinate children with. Don't even start with the bullshit about how creationists sometimes believe that god created the first thing and it evolved from there. That falls under the umbrella of theistic evolution.

[Zenos]

It is a this versus that dichotomy because one side is wrong and they're trying to force government to allow public schools to teach children their lies.

Evolution is what happens and creationism is a lie that religious people indocrinate children with. Don't even start with the bullshit about how creationists sometimes believe that god created the first thing and it evolved from there. That falls under the umbrella of theistic evolution.


theistic evolution is still a form of evolution,you just don't want to se it as an equally valid form to any other seeing as it presupposes a creator entity of some sort which calls for a more open mind.

[Gigablue]

Atheistic evolution would be a very messy process, I see no significant mess in our bodies. The energy argument is wholly unconvincing as even if the mess were 10% of body weight I still don't see it affecting survival significantly. (In my previous comments I was not talking about genetic drift and things like eye color, but things that could be the start of new body function or morphology, the beginning of new body plans, such as the "stubs" mentioned.)

Having 10% of body weight be useless would have a massive impact on survival. Even having 1% or less would be sufficient for natural selection to act against it. When resources are abundant, having useless body parts wouldn't be a problem, but when resources are scarce (something which happens very frequently), any useless body parts would be a huge detriment. Given the millions of generations over which natural selection can act, these extraneous structures would be heavily selected against.

[Miserabilia]

No religious belief is one of two things:

1) A conscious Choice for most of us, or

2) an indoctrination in the case of other.

I chose to follow the beliefs and teachings of Druidism..so it's not a mental problem.

But then it could be said that the constant claim that religion is a mental disorder could be a disorder of it's own!( you know calling peeps crazy before you get called crazy..lol)

I actually never said religion was a mental disorder.
I just said atheism wasn't either, and that it couldn't be.

[CharlieHorse]

I'm sorry but this cannot be. By this definition everyone on Earth who believes in something or nothing is insane.

Nobody is born religious. Kids are taught the myths as fact, which warps their mind into a belief that they call faith.

[Miserabilia]

Nobody is born religious. Kids are taught the myths as fact, which warps their mind into a belief that they call faith.

I aggree. I don't think it's a mental disorder, though.

It's more like a mental trauma, that they can never get rid of.

[Lovelife090994]

I aggree. I don't think it's a mental disorder, though.

It's more like a mental trauma, that they can never get rid of.

Nobody is born religious. Kids are taught the myths as fact, which warps their mind into a belief that they call faith.

These opinions are too one-sided and biased. To me the closer to a disorder is the idea that all religion is out to get you. Myths? What is myth to you is the faith of another. And besides I do not feel traumatized as a Christian nor was I born Christian. To be religious is up to you and it is not wrong to live in a religious family. The only mind warping I see is where many atheists think themselves above enough to criticize another's religion. I am not the most religious nor do I know of every religion but I'd never criticize one's religion, call it a myth, or call them mental.

[CharlieHorse]

These opinions are too one-sided and biased. To me the closer to a disorder is the idea that all religion is out to get you. Myths? What is myth to you is the faith of another. And besides I do not feel traumatized as a Christian nor was I born Christian. To be religious is up to you and it is not wrong to live in a religious family. The only mind warping I see is where many atheists think themselves above enough to criticize another's religion. I am not the most religious nor do I know of every religion but I'd never criticize one's religion, call it a myth, or call them mental.

this seems all legitimate to a degree.
Yes of course the idea is opinionated.
I am sorry if i offended you by calling it a myth or a mental disorder, but it's just the only logical way to describe it in the grand scheme of things.
There's nothing wrong with it. People will be people regardless.
Should we get back on topic?

[Lovelife090994]

this seems all legitimate to a degree.
Yes of course the idea is opinionated.
I am sorry if i offended you by calling it a myth or a mental disorder, but it's just the only logical way to describe it in the grand scheme of things.
There's nothing wrong with it. People will be people regardless.
Should we get back on topic?

But of course we can get back on topic. I am more of a Creationist and have received much grief over it. I digress, not many are Creationists be it Christianity's Genesis or in their own religion, but I feel in this world with all types of people and beliefs. That if one is creationistic then let them be. There is enough fighting in the world over skin that should we be fighting over the story of origins?

For some it is to faith and for others it is not to faith but to knowledge. Both can be deemed right. I understand, ignorance is dangerous, people must learn, we need education, and we will never all get along and agree, but why not come half way? Be it with science or religion I feel we should be together. A wise man once said that sciene without religion is flawed but that religion without science is
flawed as well. I do not see them as independent. Humans are spiritual emotional beings and I think we all need faith of some sort. It can be religion, creationsism, spirituality you name it. I am not offended. I have never been one to act to deep on offense. I just wish some could come to agreement be it fully or middle ground when possible. Which do I see as right is not right to others because we all have slight bias to our beliefs believing they are right since we hold them. Perhaps all stories of creation play on the same thing with different interpretations no?

[Miserabilia]

These opinions are too one-sided and biased. To me the closer to a disorder is the idea that all religion is out to get you. Myths? What is myth to you is the faith of another. And besides I do not feel traumatized as a Christian nor was I born Christian. To be religious is up to you and it is not wrong to live in a religious family. The only mind warping I see is where many atheists think themselves above enough to criticize another's religion. I am not the most religious nor do I know of every religion but I'd never criticize one's religion, call it a myth, or call them mental.

I don't mean all christians and other religious are traumatized, i'm talking about the ones that have to suffer doctrine their entire childhood

[Korashk]

theistic evolution is still a form of evolution,you just don't want to se it as an equally valid form to any other seeing as it presupposes a creator entity of some sort which calls for a more open mind.
I wasn't criticizing theistic evolution (even if it's only marginally more coherent than creationism). I was criticizing the notion that creationism and theistic evolution are the same thing.

Theistic evolution isn't a form of evolution. It actually has nothing to do with evolution at all. It's just a term.

[Zenos]

I aggree. I don't think it's a mental disorder, though.

It's more like a mental trauma, that they can never get rid of.

Depends on the type of religion they are brought up in.

I mean come on hell fire and damannation would f with anyones mind at a young age.

[Sydneyy]

Um I'm more intrigued by the thought of being created cuz I believe we were made for a purpose. Plus evolution makes no sense. Why are the monkeys not evolving anymore?? Idk.

[Gigablue]

I believe we were made for a purpose.

Why? If you have any evidence, I'd like to hear it's so far, I haven't seen any proof that we have a purpose.

Plus evolution makes no sense. Why are the monkeys not evolving anymore?? Idk.

I don't think you know what evolution really is? All evolution is is the change in gene frequency in a population over time. That's it. Monkeys are still evolving. They are changing as a result of selective pressures in the environment. Basically all species currently are evolving to some degree. Even large, stable populations like humans haven't stopped evolving completely. We are still changing as a result of the environment.

The reason that we don't really notice monkeys evolving is that evolution is slow. Very slow. It can take hundreds of thousands of years for small changes to build up and cause significant change. It is easier to recognize evolution in the past than in the present.

If you are asking why monkeys aren't evolving into humans, that also has an explanation. Humans didn't come from modern monkeys. We came from monkeys that lived millions of years ago. At some point, the populations divided. One branch evolved extensively, becoming the monkeys we see today. The other branch changes even more, becoming the apes. Both branches split many times, giving us many different monkey and ape species. Humans split off from other apes about 8-10 million years ago.

Modern monkeys cannot and will not evolve into humans. They have undergone millions of years of evolution since our common ancestor with them, just like we have. In the same way that humans will not evolve into monkeys, monkeys will not evolve into humans.

[Kurgg]

I believe myself that God created world, but not like it is being told in the Bible. I believe that God started the evolution.

[Ethe14]

I believe god created the universe but then that begs the question who made him. That's is the issue if there is no god than science and nature will just create things themselves. We know how planets and stars are formed but to have them we need a sun and other things already in place, which makes me wonder how they got there. And that part I believe that maybe god made.

[Miserabilia]

Um I'm more intrigued by the thought of being created cuz I believe we were made for a purpose. Plus evolution makes no sense. Why are the monkeys not evolving anymore?? Idk.

"Evolution makes no sense"

No, you just don't understand it.
Judging by what you just said I doubt you even know how it works.
First of all, it's a very slow process, secondly, it's not like humans as we are now, are the grandchildren of monkeys that exist now.

There was a different type of animal, that evolved into humans through a very long period of time.
And that same type of animal may have developed into an urang oetang.

Evolution is a tree, not a straight line :)

I believe myself that God created world, but not like it is being told in the Bible. I believe that God started the evolution.

Lots of people do. But do you have a reason for it?


I believe god created the universe but then that begs the question who made him. That's is the issue if there is no god than science and nature will just create things themselves. We know how planets and stars are formed but to have them we need a sun and other things already in place, which makes me wonder how they got there. And that part I believe that maybe god made.

We know how planets and stars are formed but to have them we need a sun and other things already in place

You don't need "a sun" for planets and stars to form.
You know the sun is just a star right?
I don't think I'm sure what you even mean.

which makes me wonder how they got there

Wel, from the big bang on, all matter and energy started expanding outwards, no sorry, the universe started expanding, and the matter and energy started moving outwards, and there stars are formed and gas clouds, and planets, all because of gravity.

[Kurgg]

Lots of people do. But do you have a reason for it?
I am an agnostic theist; I don't know for sure if there's a God, but I believe on Him. Evolution has more proofs than creationism, and Bible, even though it is God's word, is written by humans.

[JohnJack]

You replied to my post, so let's stay on track:

If people are going to claim that evolution is the way to go, then show me the evolution of life as in:

1. Where did the organic matter come from?
2. What was the first life form?
3. Because it's "science" and a fact, forming life should be repeatable where's the proof it's repeatable?


Harry you quickly make the leap from one cell to other forms of life, but where did that one cell come from? That's a HUGE hole that requires as much faith as people who believe in God.

I don't claim to be a creationist. I didn't say that. I'm pointing out that the scientists have big holes and you just posted a fine example of being like those scientists who want to skip over how we went from a plant of only inorganic material to let's fish.

Science or you; can't claim science is the right answer if in the very first stage you can't explain some simple things, like:

1. Where did the organic material come from?
2. Where did the water come from?
3. Where did the first cell come from?

Those are very, very basic things. I'm TOTALLY giving you everything in evolution from the first fish that was on land up to your mom and dad. I'm totally throwing you a freebie with the missing link.

What I won't give you and science is how Earth went from only inorganic material up to and including the fish.

You don't even have to go as advanced as the fish. Just some basic sea life.

The issue is with how it got started on Earth and that's a big, big hole for science to fill.

See how even you skipped all that and went right to the whale hip bone?

You skipped over the first billion years and I'm handing you so much on a platter from an evolution stand point, but you just have to admit that science requires just as much faith as people who think God was involved. Otherwise, if you don't admit to using faith, then science must prove the questions I asked and they can't and that's billions of years of incredible things going on.

The world would freak if we found a simple micro organism on Mars, yet to my knowledge science can't answer how life and cells were formed here. We can't gloss over going from a lifeless Earth to an Earth with life and start at fish, frogs, apes etc. It's too big of a leap.

Evolution is explainable on a cellular level that is much less complex than the creation of the first living organism. Therefore, we can effectively explain evolution without knowing exactly how cells formed because we do know that cells did in fact form. You say "some simple things", but you know very well it's not a simple thing, it may be a simple question, but there is no simple answer. What there is a simple answer for is evolution. By the way water, H2O, yeah that would be from Hydrogen and Oxygen bonding :)

[Professor Moopicorn]

Where did God come from then? The scientific explanation has the evidence and makes sense...

This is the thing people can't get there head around when it comes to creation. God has always been here because he is God. He does not need a creator because he is God. Also, when you say where did God come from, you should also think about where the "Big Bang" came from. If everything in the entire universe was created from an explosion, where did the explosion come from? I know I'm only young and may not know much at the moment but my science teacher is always telling us that "something can not come from nothing " and "you can't make something out of nothing". If the Big Bang theory was true, that is implying that all of existence was created from nothing. The only way to create something from nothing would be with God because he does the impossible.
Another thing is how our planet and our solar system managed to be formed with the perfect conditions to sustain life. It is literally a one In 1000000000000000000000000000000000 chance of that happening without any guidance by God. There is no life on any other near-by planets but life thrives on ours just by chance. And all life on earth could not have evolved from bacteria or whatever. One thing that always gets me is how people say that we descended from apes. But there is still apes that haven't evolved yet. Why didn't they all evolve? And that's the same with every other thing on earth! It just doesn't make sense.
And one more thing. How did humans end up experiencing love? We are the only creatures on earth that experience "true" love. In the bible it also says that we are the only creatures created in Gods image. He planted the love in us. And with your theories and such, there is just no way that only humans could experience such emotions. Love is more than just a bunch of chemicals mixed together. Love is connection on a spiritual level!

I could probably go on for ages but it's 3:30 at night here and I'm tired.

[Cpt_Cutter]

On a less conflict filled note, we can all least marvel at the fact that we as a species are now intelligent enough to argue with each-other about something that happened 4 billion years ago and that we are basically intelligent enough to be conversing about our own origins.

[Miserabilia]

This is the thing people can't get there head around when it comes to creation. God has always been here because he is God. He does not need a creator because he is God. Also, when you say where did God come from, you should also think about where the "Big Bang" came from. If everything in the entire universe was created from an explosion, where did the explosion come from? I know I'm only young and may not know much at the moment but my science teacher is always telling us that "something can not come from nothing " and "you can't make something out of nothing". If the Big Bang theory was true, that is implying that all of existence was created from nothing. The only way to create something from nothing would be with God because he does the impossible.
Another thing is how our planet and our solar system managed to be formed with the perfect conditions to sustain life. It is literally a one In 1000000000000000000000000000000000 chance of that happening without any guidance by God. There is no life on any other near-by planets but life thrives on ours just by chance. And all life on earth could not have evolved from bacteria or whatever. One thing that always gets me is how people say that we descended from apes. But there is still apes that haven't evolved yet. Why didn't they all evolve? And that's the same with every other thing on earth! It just doesn't make sense.
And one more thing. How did humans end up experiencing love? We are the only creatures on earth that experience "true" love. In the bible it also says that we are the only creatures created in Gods image. He planted the love in us. And with your theories and such, there is just no way that only humans could experience such emotions. Love is more than just a bunch of chemicals mixed together. Love is connection on a spiritual level!

I could probably go on for ages but it's 3:30 at night here and I'm tired.

od has always been here because he is God. He does not need a creator because he is God.

Why can't people just say that about the universe? The universe doesn't need a cause.
So god isn't needed.

Also, when you say where did God come from, you should also think about where the "Big Bang" came from.
Isn't "god" the answer most people give to that.
If everything in the entire universe was created from an explosion, where did the explosion come from?
Doesn't matter. It may perfectly well come from nothing at all.

"something can not come from nothing " and "you can't make something out of nothing".
Common misconception.

SOmething in our universe cannot come from nothing.
That's all we know.
We can't apply that to the universe itself.

Another thing is how our planet and our solar system managed to be formed with the perfect conditions to sustain life. It is literally a one In 1000000000000000000000000000000000 chance of that happening without any guidance by God.
Right, now think of the amount of planets there are out there.
By chance there has to be a planet with intelligent life; and that happens to be us.

How did humans end up experiencing love?

Emotion, primal emotion. Animals feel love too.
Love is in several shapes, but in essence it's about reproduction, love for a partner and love for your offspring.

there is just no way that only humans could experience such emotions

That's because animals experience it tooo.

[Gigablue]

God has always been here because he is God. He does not need a creator because he is God.

Isn't that a bit presumptuous. How do you know that? I have no doubt that you sincerely believe it, but if you want other people to believe it as well, you need evidence. Assertions without evidence are of little value in a debate.

Also, when you say where did God come from, you should also think about where the "Big Bang" came from. If everything in the entire universe was created from an explosion, where did the explosion come from?

The Big Bang wasn't an 'explosion' the the typical sense of the word. It was an explosion of space and time. Explosion is the word that we use for it, but it doesn't really describe what happened.

I know I'm only young and may not know much at the moment but my science teacher is always telling us that "something can not come from nothing " and "you can't make something out of nothing". If the Big Bang theory was true, that is implying that all of existence was created from nothing.

The wasn't 'nothing' before the Big Bang, but there wasn't anything remotely similar to what we think of. Descriptions of the conditions before the Big Bang are still hypothetical right now, and are only possible through mathematical models. It may not even make sense to talk about 'before' the Big Bang, since time as we know it didn't exist.

You can't make something out of nothing, but you can make nothing out of nothing. It may sound odd to call the universe 'nothing' but that is exactly what we think happened. To use a mathematical analogy, it would be like taking 0 and changing it into +1 and -1. You haven't violated any laws of physics, you have seem to have made something out of nothing.

The only way this would work is if the energy content of the universe were equal to zero, and this seems to be the case. The positive energy in the universe, such as mass, electromagnetism, etc., seems to be balanced the the negative energy, gravity. If the net energy of the universe is zero, then no laws of conservation would have been broken in making it.

Thus, the universe could have arisen from a quantum fluctuation in whatever preceded it. Quantum fluctuations happen very frequently in seemingly empty space, creating particle-antiparticle pairs which promptly annihilate. The universe could quite possibly be the same thing on a much larger scale.

The only way to create something from nothing would be with God because he does the impossible.

Once again, I ask you to ask how you know this. Why should I accept this? I there were evidence for this, I would believe it, but it have yet to see any.

Another thing is how our planet and our solar system managed to be formed with the perfect conditions to sustain life. It is literally a one In 1000000000000000000000000000000000 chance of that happening without any guidance by God.

If earth were not suited for life, we wouldn't be here to talk about it. There is a selection bias, in that on planets with life, it is possible to comment on how fantastically rare the whole thing seems, but on lifeless planets, there is no one there to say anything.

I would like to know how you arrived at that number. Also, when you consider the size of the universe, and the number of planets, even something that rare is likely to happen many times.

There is no life on any other near-by planets but life thrives on ours just by chance.

Every planet in our solar system other than earth is unsuitable for life. Mercury and Venus are too hot, everything else is too cold. It is possible that moons such as Europa and Enceladus may have life on them, but we don't really know. It is also possible that planets outside of the solar system may have life, but we haven't been there, so we can't say for sure.

And all life on earth could not have evolved from bacteria or whatever.

Why not? The gradual accumulation of changes over billions of years can produce quite striking results.

One thing that always gets me is how people say that we descended from apes. But there is still apes that haven't evolved yet. Why didn't they all evolve?

We didn't evolve from modern day apes. We share a common ancestor with them. Millions of years in the past, we split from our nearest common ancestor with chimpanzees. One branch became us, one branch became chimpanzees and bonobos. Before that, we split with our common ancestor with gorillas. One branch eventually led to our common ancestor with chimpanzees, the other to gorillas. This branching continues billions of years into the past. The apes around today have evolved. They are as evolved as we are, just in different ways.

We are the only creatures on earth that experience "true" love.

Are we? We don't really know what other animals experience. It's possible that we are, but it's possible that other animals experience love similarly to us.

Love is more than just a bunch of chemicals mixed together.

We have no reason to think that. As best we can tell, all of human consciousness is a mixing of chemicals. There is a very strong correlation between brain chemistry and consciousness. We have no need to hypothesize anything more.

[MrClutch2016]

I find it hard to believe in any sort of religion mainly because at the time that the Bible and other religious books and philosophy's were being thought of the vast majority of people thought the world was flat. People will believe in anything that gives them hope and explanations for the unknown.

[Professor Moopicorn]

Look, I'm just going to stay off this thread from now on. Ovbiously, you people just don't understand what I'm trying to say. Being Christian is more than just finding something to believe in. If you are truly Christian, you will know it. It's very hard to explain. You can feel God watching over you, keeping you safe. There is so much more to being Christian than you guys think. I may not be able to prove that God is real, but I know in my heart that he is. I don't have any evidence that would satisfy you but I think the stories of the bible should be evidence enough. I pray that one day you would look into Christianity a bit more and see how fulfilling it can be. There's nothing like having a relationship with God.

[Lovelife090994]

Look, I'm just going to stay off this thread from now on. Ovbiously, you people just don't understand what I'm trying to say. Being Christian is more than just finding something to believe in. If you are truly Christian, you will know it. It's very hard to explain. You can feel God watching over you, keeping you safe. There is so much more to being Christian than you guys think. I may not be able to prove that God is real, but I know in my heart that he is. I don't have any evidence that would satisfy you but I think the stories of the bible should be evidence enough. I pray that one day you would look into Christianity a bit more and see how fulfilling it can be. There's nothing like having a relationship with God.

Keep your faith brother. Some people never come to Reason nor do they feel satisfied by explanations.

[Miserabilia]

I find it hard to believe in any sort of religion mainly because at the time that the Bible and other religious books and philosophy's were being thought of the vast majority of people thought the world was flat. People will believe in anything that gives them hope and explanations for the unknown.

My thoughts exactly. People used to think god caused weather occurances, and waves and clouds and the sun and the moon and stars; peopel use gods to fill the gaps of their knowledge of the world.

Look, I'm just going to stay off this thread from now on. Ovbiously, you people just don't understand what I'm trying to say. Being Christian is more than just finding something to believe in. If you are truly Christian, you will know it. It's very hard to explain. You can feel God watching over you, keeping you safe. There is so much more to being Christian than you guys think. I may not be able to prove that God is real, but I know in my heart that he is. I don't have any evidence that would satisfy you but I think the stories of the bible should be evidence enough. I pray that one day you would look into Christianity a bit more and see how fulfilling it can be. There's nothing like having a relationship with God.

I guess I just don't have that connection with god then?
And what about other religions, they all say the same thing as you just did, do they all actualy worship the same gods? What about polytheistics?

(Btw how is the bible evidence for anything, it's a collection of stories)

Then again I think what you said is a good thing, you raelly explained it well I guess, about just beleiving and not needing any reason to besides whatever reason you feel for yourself.

[tovaris]

Um I'm more intrigued by the thought of being created cuz I believe we were made for a purpose. Plus evolution makes no sense. Why are the monkeys not evolving anymore?? Idk.

all animals on the planet are evolving, thats how new species happen.

[Stronk Serb]

Um I'm more intrigued by the thought of being created cuz I believe we were made for a purpose. Plus evolution makes no sense. Why are the monkeys not evolving anymore?? Idk.

They are with every new generation. They are evolving slower because they had no need until recently. We are evolving too. We evolved from nomming bananas in a cave to the de-facto ruler or the world. How? Brain power and superior strategies.

[KingLiam]

There are huge pieces of evidence to back up both evolution and the Big Bang in things such as carbon dating and experiments being made at the LHC at Cern. However there is literally no evidence that can back up creationism by God or any other mystic fat guy sitting on a cloud.

[Emerald Dream]

There are huge pieces of evidence to back up both evolution and the Big Bang in things such as carbon dating and experiments being made at the LHC at Cern. However there is literally no evidence that can back up creationism by God or any other mystic fat guy sitting on a cloud.

Please do not post in threads with more than two months of inactivity. :locked: