Human evolution vs Creationism

[Jaskalas]

Evolution is by design, end of story. :beer:

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Duwelon

1) Darwin himself said that for his theory to be true, it would require millions of transitional fossils. WHere are they? Is your lack of proof, proof?
2) Any four year old during the dark ages could tell you that there is "something" about us that transmits traits from one generation to another. It didn't take evolution to come along and explain it. DNA is real science.
3) You seem to think that we'd only have learned about DNA because of evolution. That's just simply creating your own history. It's much easier to come up with a theory about something like DNA by looking at father and son.

1) Again, no he doesn't claim that evolutions claim that humans evolved from a banana. You're side stepping like crazy here. You posted one debate (which i'm listening to now), but there are many that leave highly educated college professors stupified, flustered, etc, because they can't back up their claims with hard evidence.
2) Got any objective sources for your point?

1.) Darwin himself said a lot of things that turned out to be wrong. His work was the basis for evolutionary theory, not the final word. The very basis for your question betrays a lack of understanding of the basic concepts at issue here. Since evolution is an ongoing process every fossil is a transitional fossil.
2.) Re-read what I wrote, not only did evolution predict a method of transmission, but it predicted an imperfect one, one that would give rise to mutations.
3.) I in no way stated that knowledge of evolution was required for the discovery of DNA. What I said was that evolution stated the existence of such a thing in advance of our knowledge of it.

1.) How many debates of his am I supposed to post? Any objective person listening to that trash will hear that the professor is not flustered or stupefied due to Hovind's foolproof arguments, but he is exasperated at Hovind's incoherence and ignorance of the subject he's supposed to be debating him on.
2.) Of course I have objective sources for my point. It's called science. You don't believe science that contradicts your dogma however, so what's the point?

1) You keep making this accusation, but it's always wrong. Tell me, once and for all, what did I demonstrate exactly, in context, that I don't know what the theory of evolution is? Just name one example from this thread.
2) That's neither here nor there. A kid born without a finger predicts the same thing.
3) So did a father and son's resemblence to each other.

1) "That trash", you listed one, which after listening to it was pretty boring. Google his other debates which are actually videos of him debating college professors. They refuse to debate with him now because they know it makes them look bad.
2) Nice cop out. I believe in science, that is actually demonstrable, provable. Your attempts to paint things as real science that are not real science is severely lacking in judgement.

Text

I liked the part where you used logic and reason to come to your conclusion.

Logic and reason have been presented to you in this thread, and others, but you refuse to absorb it.

If you are unable to understand the simple concepts about evolution that are show here, then you are too stupid to know how to use a computer.

Given that you are posting on a forum the only conclusion to come to is that you are a troll.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Evolution is by design, end of story. :beer:

Design evolves unless restrained by those who fear change.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
duwelon must be from the south. rural south. lol. This thread delivers the lulz

I always wonder how these kinds of people think. It's so weird. My kids will never be indoctrinated into some religion such as this and I am thankful my parents weren't this way with me.

Carry on.

Now the trolling is in full force. It's stupid posts like this that make these kinds of threads unfruitful. The anti-religious on here have nothing but ad homenum and other cowardly attacks at their disposal when their logic and reason fail them. At least eskimospy puts up some kind of struggle before he resorts to this crap.

We had a good discussion going, why didn't you keep responding? Found you had no truth to back yourself up? Will that make you repent? No, of course not, it will lead you to attack, like a good cornered evolutionist.

Actually I was on the phone and not too worried about what you have to say lol. ta ta

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
duwelon must be from the south. rural south. lol. This thread delivers the lulz

I always wonder how these kinds of people think. It's so weird. My kids will never be indoctrinated into some religion such as this and I am thankful my parents weren't this way with me.

Carry on.

Now the trolling is in full force. It's stupid posts like this that make these kinds of threads unfruitful. The anti-religious on here have nothing but ad homenum and other cowardly attacks at their disposal when their logic and reason fail them. At least eskimospy puts up some kind of struggle before he resorts to this crap.

Hehe, right, ignore those of us who support religion, real religion, and find creationism to be absurd.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Duwelon

1) Darwin himself said that for his theory to be true, it would require millions of transitional fossils. WHere are they? Is your lack of proof, proof?
2) Any four year old during the dark ages could tell you that there is "something" about us that transmits traits from one generation to another. It didn't take evolution to come along and explain it. DNA is real science.
3) You seem to think that we'd only have learned about DNA because of evolution. That's just simply creating your own history. It's much easier to come up with a theory about something like DNA by looking at father and son.

1) Again, no he doesn't claim that evolutions claim that humans evolved from a banana. You're side stepping like crazy here. You posted one debate (which i'm listening to now), but there are many that leave highly educated college professors stupified, flustered, etc, because they can't back up their claims with hard evidence.
2) Got any objective sources for your point?

1.) Darwin himself said a lot of things that turned out to be wrong. His work was the basis for evolutionary theory, not the final word. The very basis for your question betrays a lack of understanding of the basic concepts at issue here. Since evolution is an ongoing process every fossil is a transitional fossil.
2.) Re-read what I wrote, not only did evolution predict a method of transmission, but it predicted an imperfect one, one that would give rise to mutations.
3.) I in no way stated that knowledge of evolution was required for the discovery of DNA. What I said was that evolution stated the existence of such a thing in advance of our knowledge of it.

1.) How many debates of his am I supposed to post? Any objective person listening to that trash will hear that the professor is not flustered or stupefied due to Hovind's foolproof arguments, but he is exasperated at Hovind's incoherence and ignorance of the subject he's supposed to be debating him on.
2.) Of course I have objective sources for my point. It's called science. You don't believe science that contradicts your dogma however, so what's the point?

1) You keep making this accusation, but it's always wrong. Tell me, once and for all, what did I demonstrate exactly, in context, that I don't know what the theory of evolution is? Just name one specific example from this thread. See, you're trying to form another ad homenum attack with the basis that nothing I say is true because something I said isn't true. It's a flawed strategy, but I bet you can't even produce one example. Don't put words in my mouth either, post something specific that I said that was demonstrably false.
2) That's neither here nor there. A kid born without a finger predicts the same thing.
3) So did a father and son's resemblence to each other.

1) "That trash", you listed one, which after listening to it was pretty boring. Google his other debates which are actually videos of him debating college professors. They refuse to debate with him now because they know it makes them look bad.
2) Nice cop out. I believe in science, that is actually demonstrable, provable. Your attempts to paint things as real science that are not real science is severely lacking in judgement.

You have stated in this thread and in others that evolutionists believe in the creation of life from non-life. This is flatly false. As has been explained to you probably dozens of times at this point, evolution makes no claims to the origin of life.

As for kids being born without fingers predicting the imperfect transmission of heredity through generations, you only think that now because you know how heredity is transmitted. That's like saying that an apple falling clearly shows the existence of gravity. Easy for us to say now, not so easy to say before Newton.

I don't know why I bother with you, you always just trot out the same tired, ignorant arguments. It's not that you're dumb, you're just utterly blinded by religious fanaticism that has prevented you from objectively viewing reality. I really shouldn't get annoyed with you and insult you, I should pity you.

 

[Moonbeam]

"I should pity you."

No you shouldn't. You should present your truth dispassionately and be open to other points of view. His blindness can't alter the truth any more than your pity can. You argued well and that's enough. I think he can't see because he fears being damned. If so, it's just a fact. He will get past his fear or he won't. My opinion, anyway.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Duwelon

1) Darwin himself said that for his theory to be true, it would require millions of transitional fossils. WHere are they? Is your lack of proof, proof?
2) Any four year old during the dark ages could tell you that there is "something" about us that transmits traits from one generation to another. It didn't take evolution to come along and explain it. DNA is real science.
3) You seem to think that we'd only have learned about DNA because of evolution. That's just simply creating your own history. It's much easier to come up with a theory about something like DNA by looking at father and son.

1) Again, no he doesn't claim that evolutions claim that humans evolved from a banana. You're side stepping like crazy here. You posted one debate (which i'm listening to now), but there are many that leave highly educated college professors stupified, flustered, etc, because they can't back up their claims with hard evidence.
2) Got any objective sources for your point?

1.) Darwin himself said a lot of things that turned out to be wrong. His work was the basis for evolutionary theory, not the final word. The very basis for your question betrays a lack of understanding of the basic concepts at issue here. Since evolution is an ongoing process every fossil is a transitional fossil.
2.) Re-read what I wrote, not only did evolution predict a method of transmission, but it predicted an imperfect one, one that would give rise to mutations.
3.) I in no way stated that knowledge of evolution was required for the discovery of DNA. What I said was that evolution stated the existence of such a thing in advance of our knowledge of it.

1.) How many debates of his am I supposed to post? Any objective person listening to that trash will hear that the professor is not flustered or stupefied due to Hovind's foolproof arguments, but he is exasperated at Hovind's incoherence and ignorance of the subject he's supposed to be debating him on.
2.) Of course I have objective sources for my point. It's called science. You don't believe science that contradicts your dogma however, so what's the point?

1) You keep making this accusation, but it's always wrong. Tell me, once and for all, what did I demonstrate exactly, in context, that I don't know what the theory of evolution is? Just name one specific example from this thread. See, you're trying to form another ad homenum attack with the basis that nothing I say is true because something I said isn't true. It's a flawed strategy, but I bet you can't even produce one example. Don't put words in my mouth either, post something specific that I said that was demonstrably false.
2) That's neither here nor there. A kid born without a finger predicts the same thing.
3) So did a father and son's resemblence to each other.

1) "That trash", you listed one, which after listening to it was pretty boring. Google his other debates which are actually videos of him debating college professors. They refuse to debate with him now because they know it makes them look bad.
2) Nice cop out. I believe in science, that is actually demonstrable, provable. Your attempts to paint things as real science that are not real science is severely lacking in judgement.

You have stated in this thread and in others that evolutionists believe in the creation of life from non-life. This is flatly false. As has been explained to you probably dozens of times at this point, evolution makes no claims to the origin of life.

As for kids being born without fingers predicting the imperfect transmission of heredity through generations, you only think that now because you know how heredity is transmitted. That's like saying that an apple falling clearly shows the existence of gravity. Easy for us to say now, not so easy to say before Newton.

I don't know why I bother with you, you always just trot out the same tired, ignorant arguments. It's not that you're dumb, you're just utterly blinded by religious fanaticism that has prevented you from objectively viewing reality. I really shouldn't get annoyed with you and insult you, I should pity you.

Let me explain again, there are different definitions of evolution that we're talking about.

I realize that the theory of evolution doesn't explain origins of life. I realize that the theory of evolution doesn't explain origins of life. I have a habit of assuming that people like you who preach evolution also believe in some form of origin theory like the big bang, or the like.

If you believe in both evolution and the big bang(without a creator), you must also conclude that the non-living matter became living at some point in time. Given your own posting history I think it's safe to say you believe in some form of big bang theory, and therefore must also believe that non-life gave way to life(Without a creator). Does a mineral turning to a living tissue fit the encylopedia description of evolution? No, but if a bird can rise over millions of years from a non bird, we have to logically ask, where did the first living cell come from? Since the theory of evolution as it concerns biology doesn't answer this, we have to look outside of the theory. The big bang theory half assedly solves the matter problem, but we still have no scientific evidence that shows a rock produced a non-rock. That's what I do, look beyond the theory of evolution. Most times that i post something that isn't line for line something out of a text book, you keep getting hung up on it and try to use it as a basis for ad hominem attacks on my understanding.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Let me explain again, there are different definitions of evolution that we're talking about.

I realize that the theory of evolution doesn't explain origins of life. I realize that the theory of evolution doesn't explain origins of life. I have a habit of assuming that people like you who preach evolution also believe in some form of origin theory like the big bang, or the like.

If you believe in both evolution and the big bang(without a creator), you must also conclude that the non-living matter became living at some point in time. Given your own posting history I think it's safe to say you believe in some form of big bang theory, and therefore must also believe that non-life gave way to life(Without a creator). Does a mineral turning to a living tissue fit the encylopedia description of evolution? No, but if a bird can rise over millions of years from a non bird, we have to logically ask, where did the first living cell come from? Since the theory of evolution as it concerns biology doesn't answer this, we have to look outside of the theory. The big bang theory half assedly solves the matter problem, but we still have no scientific evidence that shows a rock produced a non-rock. That's what I do, look beyond the theory of evolution. Most times that i post something that isn't line for line something out of a text book, you keep getting hung up on it and try to use it as a basis for ad hominem attacks on my understanding.

Because you attempt to refute evolution by attacking elements of science that are not evolution. You also seem to be confusing the definition of ad hominem. That would be when you attack the person instead of the idea; I'm attacking you and the idea as one, because my problem with your ideas is your ignorance of basic facts.

I do believe that abiogenesis is the most likely explanation for the origin of life. It's certainly orders of magnitude more likely then a sky fairy suddenly poofing into existence. That's neither here nor there though, because my acceptance of the overwhelming evidence supporting one theory (evolution) is in no way reliant upon the validity of another theory (abiogenesis).

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Let me explain again, there are different definitions of evolution that we're talking about.

I realize that the theory of evolution doesn't explain origins of life. I realize that the theory of evolution doesn't explain origins of life. I have a habit of assuming that people like you who preach evolution also believe in some form of origin theory like the big bang, or the like.

If you believe in both evolution and the big bang(without a creator), you must also conclude that the non-living matter became living at some point in time. Given your own posting history I think it's safe to say you believe in some form of big bang theory, and therefore must also believe that non-life gave way to life(Without a creator). Does a mineral turning to a living tissue fit the encylopedia description of evolution? No, but if a bird can rise over millions of years from a non bird, we have to logically ask, where did the first living cell come from? Since the theory of evolution as it concerns biology doesn't answer this, we have to look outside of the theory. The big bang theory half assedly solves the matter problem, but we still have no scientific evidence that shows a rock produced a non-rock. That's what I do, look beyond the theory of evolution. Most times that i post something that isn't line for line something out of a text book, you keep getting hung up on it and try to use it as a basis for ad hominem attacks on my understanding.

Living, non-living, big deal. It's not the grand thing that people make it out to be. We're comprised of a bunch of elements which are by themselves nonliving. Certain groups of chemicals are able to sustain a continuous reaction; certain conglomerations of nonliving elements are able to continue to ensure that the conglomeration remains in a certain state, one which we call "life."

You don't look far enough beyond evolution.
Go back farther in time, before the first cells, to organic molecules floating in a vast ocean.

Groups of molecules have been discovered which are capable of metabolizing other molecules; these groups are also capable of synthesizing new units of themselves from metabolized parts. This was shown in an issue of Scientific American some years ago, I wish I knew the exact one. It was essentially a molecule which mimicked some of the behaviors of life - a "transitional species" if you want to call it that, to take us from nonliving elements to life-like molecules.

These molecules, through continual interactions in the oceans, were able to increase in complexity. Yes, increase in complexity. Oh no, those pesky laws of thermodynamics dictate constant decay! How is this possible?
Oh, right, energy input. Chemical energy and of course solar energy.
Bigger and bigger self-replicating molecules could form over time, eventually conglomerating into what could be called "cells." Quite primitive by our standards, but each one would be a self-contained form, able to satisfy our (arbitrarily-assigned) requirements for "life."

That's the other interesting thing: What is "Life" anyway? It's not like we were handed some dictionary which gave us a definition of life. We came up with it. We defined what things are "alive." Are metabolizing, self-replicating molecules alive?
Similar to this is the term "species." Always there is talk of, "I don't see one species evolving into another, therefore evolution is bunk."
"Species" is an arbitrary differentiation created by humans. If we'd defined things differently, a person from Africa could be a different species than one from Europe. We've already seen life forms adapt. Bacteria adapt to new drugs. If we'd defined "species" differently, that right there would be a new species, formed right before your very eyes.
Instead, the term is sufficiently broad that a human doesn't live long enough to be able to watch one animal turn into something significantly different. That's the only limitation. Yet genetic adaptation happens all the time. Heck, you probably ate a product of unnatural selection today: There was probably some corn product in something you ate. We did what nature does, though for different ends: Selecting those with desirable traits. In nature, things with undesirable traits within their habitat will be more likely to die off, or otherwise be unable to procreate. Traits which enable survival are passed on. Our selection with maize was to keep those plants, and thus genes, which provided larger yields. Maize, one species of grass, was turned into a different one. It wasn't through any crazy genetic manipulation in a lab, but only through our selection of those with traits we wanted.

There's speciation for you. The fact that humans were the ones doing the selection, rather than natural processes, is irrelevant.




Always present too with the "God started everything," is the problem: What started God?
The usual answer is that God simply always existed. Alright, so if God can be exempt from our laws of causality, why can not the Big Bang singularity also be exempt? It's theorized that energy, space, and time all erupted from the singularity. There was no "before" as we would be able to describe it. Causality as we know it may well not have existed. As Stephen Hawking put it, asking "What came before the Big Bang?" is like asking "What's south of the South Pole?"
It's as far south as you can get while still remaining confined to the geometry of the globe. If you want to know what's before the Big Bang, you'd need to leave the confines of our space and time. As yet, we lack that capability.

To suggest that God does have that ability to go outside of space and time simply circles back around:
How do you know this? It's in the Bible.
How do you know the Bible's accurate? The Bible says so.
Yet somehow, this is not circular logic.

 

[WHAMPOM]

When you do not know the answer, "God did it!" keeps the Shaman from hunting for his own food. It's all a con from the beginning.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Let me explain again, there are different definitions of evolution that we're talking about.

I realize that the theory of evolution doesn't explain origins of life. I realize that the theory of evolution doesn't explain origins of life. I have a habit of assuming that people like you who preach evolution also believe in some form of origin theory like the big bang, or the like.

If you believe in both evolution and the big bang(without a creator), you must also conclude that the non-living matter became living at some point in time. Given your own posting history I think it's safe to say you believe in some form of big bang theory, and therefore must also believe that non-life gave way to life(Without a creator). Does a mineral turning to a living tissue fit the encylopedia description of evolution? No, but if a bird can rise over millions of years from a non bird, we have to logically ask, where did the first living cell come from? Since the theory of evolution as it concerns biology doesn't answer this, we have to look outside of the theory. The big bang theory half assedly solves the matter problem, but we still have no scientific evidence that shows a rock produced a non-rock. That's what I do, look beyond the theory of evolution. Most times that i post something that isn't line for line something out of a text book, you keep getting hung up on it and try to use it as a basis for ad hominem attacks on my understanding.

Because you attempt to refute evolution by attacking elements of science that are not evolution. You also seem to be confusing the definition of ad hominem. That would be when you attack the person instead of the idea; I'm attacking you and the idea as one, because my problem with your ideas is your ignorance of basic facts.

I do believe that abiogenesis is the most likely explanation for the origin of life. It's certainly orders of magnitude more likely then a sky fairy suddenly poofing into existence. That's neither here nor there though, because my acceptance of the overwhelming evidence supporting one theory (evolution) is in no way reliant upon the validity of another theory (abiogenesis).

Now I don't understand ad hominem... you're just great. Your inability to look outside the box isn't my problem. This was a thread about evolution vs creationism, my whole point of not believing evolution is the premise that it's impossible without a creator or abiogenesis.

We've never witnessed a rock producing a non-rock, nor even know how it would be possible, so you have to admit that a creator is a viable theory as well. We've never witnessed a fish producing a non-fish, or a dog a non-dog. Evolution is unprovable, has a rich history of liars publishing lies in textbooks and having unanswered questions such as transition fossils, bones, whatever.

I believe: an intelligent creator created the world we know, and it's our privilege to learn about it and use real knowledge, science for our good.

You seem to believe: a big bang, or some other origin of matter theory gave birth to time, space and matter. If at least some of the universe wasn't already alive, rocks became non-rocks and over millions of years we evolved into the planet and universe we are today.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Let me explain again, there are different definitions of evolution that we're talking about.

I realize that the theory of evolution doesn't explain origins of life. I realize that the theory of evolution doesn't explain origins of life. I have a habit of assuming that people like you who preach evolution also believe in some form of origin theory like the big bang, or the like.

If you believe in both evolution and the big bang(without a creator), you must also conclude that the non-living matter became living at some point in time. Given your own posting history I think it's safe to say you believe in some form of big bang theory, and therefore must also believe that non-life gave way to life(Without a creator). Does a mineral turning to a living tissue fit the encylopedia description of evolution? No, but if a bird can rise over millions of years from a non bird, we have to logically ask, where did the first living cell come from? Since the theory of evolution as it concerns biology doesn't answer this, we have to look outside of the theory. The big bang theory half assedly solves the matter problem, but we still have no scientific evidence that shows a rock produced a non-rock. That's what I do, look beyond the theory of evolution. Most times that i post something that isn't line for line something out of a text book, you keep getting hung up on it and try to use it as a basis for ad hominem attacks on my understanding.

Living, non-living, big deal. It's not the grand thing that people make it out to be. We're comprised of a bunch of elements which are by themselves nonliving. Certain groups of chemicals are able to sustain a continuous reaction; certain conglomerations of nonliving elements are able to continue to ensure that the conglomeration remains in a certain state, one which we call "life."

You don't look far enough beyond evolution.
Go back farther in time, before the first cells, to organic molecules floating in a vast ocean.

Groups of molecules have been discovered which are capable of metabolizing other molecules; these groups are also capable of synthesizing new units of themselves from metabolized parts. This was shown in an issue of Scientific American some years ago, I wish I knew the exact one. It was essentially a molecule which mimicked some of the behaviors of life - a "transitional species" if you want to call it that, to take us from nonliving elements to life-like molecules.

These molecules, through continual interactions in the oceans, were able to increase in complexity. Yes, increase in complexity. Oh no, those pesky laws of thermodynamics dictate constant decay! How is this possible?
Oh, right, energy input. Chemical energy and of course solar energy.
Bigger and bigger self-replicating molecules could form over time, eventually conglomerating into what could be called "cells." Quite primitive by our standards, but each one would be a self-contained form, able to satisfy our (arbitrarily-assigned) requirements for "life."

That's the other interesting thing: What is "Life" anyway? It's not like we were handed some dictionary which gave us a definition of life. We came up with it. We defined what things are "alive." Are metabolizing, self-replicating molecules alive?
Similar to this is the term "species." Always there is talk of, "I don't see one species evolving into another, therefore evolution is bunk."
"Species" is an arbitrary differentiation created by humans. If we'd defined things differently, a person from Africa could be a different species than one from Europe. We've already seen life forms adapt. Bacteria adapt to new drugs. If we'd defined "species" differently, that right there would be a new species, formed right before your very eyes.
Instead, the term is sufficiently broad that a human doesn't live long enough to be able to watch one animal turn into something significantly different. That's the only limitation. Yet genetic adaptation happens all the time. Heck, you probably ate a product of unnatural selection today: There was probably some corn product in something you ate. We did what nature does, though for different ends: Selecting those with desirable traits. In nature, things with undesirable traits within their habitat will be more likely to die off, or otherwise be unable to procreate. Traits which enable survival are passed on. Our selection with maize was to keep those plants, and thus genes, which provided larger yields. Maize, one species of grass, was turned into a different one. It wasn't through any crazy genetic manipulation in a lab, but only through our selection of those with traits we wanted.

There's speciation for you. The fact that humans were the ones doing the selection, rather than natural processes, is irrelevant.




Always present too with the "God started everything," is the problem: What started God?
The usual answer is that God simply always existed. Alright, so if God can be exempt from our laws of causality, why can not the Big Bang singularity also be exempt? It's theorized that energy, space, and time all erupted from the singularity. There was no "before" as we would be able to describe it. Causality as we know it may well not have existed. As Stephen Hawking put it, asking "What came before the Big Bang?" is like asking "What's south of the South Pole?"
It's as far south as you can get while still remaining confined to the geometry of the globe. If you want to know what's before the Big Bang, you'd need to leave the confines of our space and time. As yet, we lack that capability.

To suggest that God does have that ability to go outside of space and time simply circles back around:
How do you know this? It's in the Bible.
How do you know the Bible's accurate? The Bible says so.
Yet somehow, this is not circular logic.

You're right, it takes faith. The difference is, I know my faith is a religion, but people who believe in evolution think theirs is science and completely ignore the prerequisites that make it impossible. Neither can be proven at will, but one is tax funded.

 

[Moonbeam]

We have a feeling, a longing, a desire, a certainty, that life should be good. But for good to exist then so must evil. For there to be a good that is known from evil there must be absolute truth for good and evil can't be relative. For there to be absolute good, God must exist.

This is the delusion of duality.

But the truth is always some third way. There is no good and evil. They are opposite sides of the same coin and one and the same. Good and evil are the product of thought and time in the form of past memory. Good and evil are dead. They exist as a result of abstraction produced in the mind by thinking with words. The meaning of words in in memory, what we bring from the dead past.

Good and evil disappear when WE ARE, when thought comes to an end and we awaken into BEING. There is only the NOW. The mind awake in the now is undivided. Duality can't exist when the mind is wholly filled with Being Here. To BE Here fully is to be full of Love. There is only Love. Are you breath?

 

[Moonbeam]

"You're right, it takes faith. The difference is, I know my faith is a religion, but people who believe in evolution think theirs is science and completely ignore the prerequisites that make it impossible. Neither can be proven at will, but one is tax funded."

------------

"but people who believe in evolution think theirs is science and completely ignore the prerequisites that make it impossible."

What does this mean. It makes no sense to me. What does 'think their's is science mean, they believe evolution is science?

"completely ignore the prerequisites that make it impossible" What the hell does that mean. What prerequisites what impossibility.

You don't make much sense.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

If you believe in both evolution and the big bang(without a creator), you must also conclude that the non-living matter became living at some point in time.

Absolutely false.

No, but if a bird can rise over millions of years from a non bird...

That isn't how evolution works, retard. Get an education before you criticize something just because your pastor told you it's the work of the debbil.

I'll give you a hint: Nested Hierarchy. Now go do your homework.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

We've never witnessed a rock producing a non-rock, nor even know how it would be possible, so you have to admit that a creator is a viable theory as well.

It isn't a theory until it makes a substantial number of testable predictions which are verified by experiment and not explainable by theories which already exist, moron. So, no, your pet god hypothesis does not even sniff the heels of viable theories.

We've never witnessed a fish producing a non-fish, or a dog a non-dog.

That isn't how evolution works, idiot. Read a fucking book.

Evolution is unprovable, has a rich history of liars publishing lies in textbooks and having unanswered questions such as transition fossils, bones, whatever.

Evolution has been "proven" inasmuch as any scientific theory can be proven. Evolutionary theory is more complete than even quantum theory, dumbass. Fucks sake.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Can't compete with Duwelon's doublethink.

 

[KIRBYEE]

.

 

[Vic]

Creationism is an insult to God.

 

[Red Dawn]

Even if one believes the theory of Evolution is bunk it doesn't mean that Creationism is the answer, just the opposite in fact as it's much more preposterous than Evolution. Sheepherders have nothing on Scientists.

 

[brandonb]

Originally posted by: KIRBYEE
I find these Internet-"debates" funny. For a few years have I followed these and I've never seen any evidence for creationism or ID. It's always the same; "Evolution is wrong", "The Bible says...", "Something came out of nowhere", "Organisms are too complex", "Random mutations can't have led to this..." etc. Attacking evolution doesn't make creationism or ID any more credible.

Where is that bloody creator or designer? Can we see him? Somehow know he/it exists?

It's hard to believe that so many believe this creationism or ID. 40 per cent here believe that there is a god and 25 per cent don't accept the theory of evolution. What are these people thinking?

:heart:

But there is evidence of creationism or ID. Its called human life. I see it in myself, others around me, and even on the TV (but its rare).

Not that most people care, but there is nothing in the bible to to confirm or deny creationism or evolution. The only thing it says is Adam and Eve were created in God's image. They had 2 sons, Cain and Abel, and Cain killed Abel and went to hang out with some barbarians over the hills.

That indicates: People existed on this planet before Adam and Eve. God created the universe. He eventually created Adam and Eve in his image. FYI, God's image is not human form, its referred to many times in the bible and his form is Love. The love that is in us all has been given to us by God. Its something unique to humans, according to the Bible.

Now, evidence you say? Can you prove animals love each other? What is love, giving yourself completely to another being. Love and selfishness are opposites of one another. Survival of the fittest? Isn't that selfishness? Did things evolve and survive by loving one another or being selfishness and being the most ruthless? Do lions share their food with other animals because they love them? Humans will share their food with others, even if they might go hungry themselves.

So my question being is, why do humans love? Where did love come into play during evolution? When did it turn from survival of the fittest turn to lets love one another? Do single cell lifeforms love?

Its my opinion God created the universe (or big bang) and created our laws of science, and created love in Adam and Eve which have been passed down through the generations in humans. Thats the only two things I believe God created. I also believe in Evolution, Big Bang, and other scientific wonders, because there is evidence there to support it, and there is no evidence to disprove anything on either side of it. ID(God) and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Vic]

In a universe where anything can happen, everything does.

 

[KIRBYEE]

.

 

[Vic]

I did it.