Poll: Creation vs Evolution

[JupiterJones]

The temperature of heaven can be rather accurately computed. Our authority is the Bible, Isaiah 30:26 reads, Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold as the light of seven days. Thus, heaven receives from the moon as much radiation as the earth does from the sun, and in addition seven times seven (forty nine) times as much as the earth does from the sun, or fifty times in all. The light we receive from the moon is one ten-thousandth of the light we receive from the sun, so we can ignore that. With these data we can compute the temperature of heaven: The radiation falling on heaven will heat it to the point where the heat lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received by radiation. In other words, heaven loses fifty times as much heat as the earth by radiation.

Blue,
Wonderful post. Some problems though. You are misreading a bit, the NIV has a better translation. "The Moon will shine like the sun, adn the sunlight will be seven times brighter, like the light of seven full days." So you would go with seven times as much radiation as the earth plus one for the moon. Total of eight times, not fifty times. Secondly, why do you think this is talking about heaven? Lastly, as I understand it the people in Hell will be under a great deal of pressure. Wouldn't that raise the boiling point?

Don

 

[Nefrodite]

and thanks again for not including an agnostic option.


If the laws of science indicate that all systems tend toward chaos and entropy

dude, stop it with the entropy, its usage in creationist arguement has been twisted and shown to be faulty, yet it never dies.

, or was it front-loaded so that the laws of science would take care of it?

you make it sound like god would not understand or be capable of creating a universe in we could use "science" to make sense of things.



Humans fell from grace... Humans used to be like other creatures, but now they are different. Sounds like evolution to me!


yup to be truely cruel you need the brain capacity think about what another person/animal is thinking, to see through their eyes. really small children lack
this ability.


It had a beginning. Probably all of us believe in cause and effect. That leads to a logical problem with the beginning of the universe. What caused it? A
lot of people believe that an eternal supernatural power is the most reasonable explanation for the universe beginning.


well theres the possibility that there was no beginning. there is no requirement besides the limits of our minds why there must be a cause.


Why can't the flaming stop?? Who the hell cares the you think? I post it 'cause I have nothing better to do at the moment. With two people telling each
other to go to hell, and neither of them taking either's advice, the flame war goes no where.
But for the record, I'm pro-creation, pro-Christianity, and anti-atheism/evolution. Oh, and if you believe in God, HOW the HELL can you believe in
Evolution?! The two theories contradict each other to an incredible extent.

Thats all you ever post in evolution threads. perhaps you can't or won't examine your beliefs out of fear of what you might find, or perhaps just laziness.
if a thread puts to rest some misconceptions, then it is worth it.


Since, from an evolution perspective, humans took millions of years to evolve to what they are today, how come they've accelerated in their intelligence
so quickly over the last, say, 5000 years?


this is where cultural evolution exceeds biological evolution. imagine yourself in a small group of wandering hunters or whatever. your life is spent
trying to survive in its most basic form, you don't know anything about the concepts of money, or even the wheel. making a good stone tool is not easy,
figuring out how to make metal weapons without modern science.. that takes a lot of time, and a lot of luck. don't kid yourself the people back then(within
reason) were smart as you or me, most of what we know is built from the knowledge discovered by those before us. btw our large brains are from social
requirements that lead our evolution, the ability to invent was probably a side effect.


"Evolution is not so much a modern discovery as some of its advocates would have us believe. It made its appearance early in Greek philosophy, and
maintained its position more or less, with the most diverse modifications, and frequently confused with the idea of emanation, until the close of ancient
thought. The Greeks had, it is true, no term exactly equivalent to " evolution"; but when Thales asserts that all things originated from water; when
Anaximenes calls air the principle of all things, regarding the subsequent process as a thinning or thickening, they must have considered individual beings
and the phenomenal world as, a result of evolution, even if they did not carry the process out in detail. Anaximander is often regarded as a precursor of the
modem theory of development. He deduces living beings, in a gradual development, from moisture under the influence of warmth, and suggests the view that men
originated from animals of another sort, since if they had come into existence as human beings, needing fostering care for a long time, they would not have
been able to maintain their existence." The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

if you know anything about evolution, you'd know that natural selection is not equivalent to things originating from water or air being the principle of all
things.



Paul tells us (professing christians) to reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine; for the time will come when they will not endure
sound doctrine (doctrine found in the word of God) ; but shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. Professing christians
(myself included) must be mindful of the fact that Satan is the god of this world, who appears as an angel of light to deceive even the very elect, and to
cast doubt on the Word of God.

and an all powerful god would allow "satan" to exist? seems rather silly or cruel.


man these threads just turn into religion bashing...

always the victim, must like it.


But Hey that makes sence because my beef would be with the 20 "Practicing Christians" that believe in evolution. Sounds like Church goers that are
"Practicing Posing Christians" Sorry folks I respect your right to answer that question in anyway but if that is your answer you cannot be a "Practicing
Christian" there is no "Christian" arguement to be made there. just the atheist arguement. So at least the Atheists are being true to their beliefs or lack
there of.

only your literal interpretation of the bible is correct, oh great arrogant one, enlighten us. but as ussual you just leave without explaining or supporting
your views.


Won't you feel stupid if Saint Peter pulls out a printout of this thread, when you arrive at the gates of heaven... lol...

of course that works both ways, i'm sure you and i would both feel rather silly if Zeus greeted us. then again we could be in the matrix, or god could look at creationists and slap em silly for not using the brain he gave em.



A)"The gradual process of development or change" as in I am different from my parents
and not
B)"The theory that all forms of life originated by descent from earlier forms" Webster's Dictionary 1997 SAA
Or

ok after 10 thousand generations you'd think there would be some rather interesting changes right? but ofcourse you think the world hasn't been around long
enough for anything. just look at how we bred the variety of dogs from wolves, the livestock we have that can no longer survive in the wild.


Or for that matter any definition that contradicts the literal word of God.

just a question, so god looks just like a man then, no boobies, has a pecker, nads, and hair since we are made in his "literal" image. literal you say.
literal is also depressing if you think about it. he would literally have all the faults we have, good? not really.


the whole idea put forth by modern evolution nuts is that little changes have made RANDOMLY

changes aren't entirely random if only the "good" traits are selected for by the environment.


And considering that all races currently extant are the offspring of Noah's sons, the word of God is in total agreement with the scientific fact that the
gene pool of a population of organisms (man for eg.) changes over time.


ok your digging yourself a hole now. from a small group of people these small changes created all the races of people we see today in 5000 years? Thats
mighty fast evolution. since you also believe in the ark, explain how all the millions of species we know about today got onto that boat.

<< As of now there is NO scientific evidence to prove that one species/kind of animal is capable of producing another species/kind of animal (eg. if you
breed to different types of dog you will get a dog that is genetically different from both it's parents but is none the less still a dog. You can't breed two
types of dog and get a cat.) >>

your example is wrong. speciation occurs when the changes become so radical that no offspring/pregnancy can occur. while not a true example, but vivid, two
dogs, one chiwawa and one greatdane. mate them? you'd kill the chiwawa if it were on the recieving end, and even if you artificially inseminated, it would
die from the pregancy.


The statement made in the Christian text (the bible) by Jesus Christ "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
John 14:6, necessarily implies that only the bible contains the entire truth, and that all other religious texts are false. (note, that it is God that says
the bible is true and that all other religions are false, not me as you imply)

hehe of course, many religions say that, how else would they get you to join them. you must believe without question.. so all other faiths must be wrong.


A change that does not enable the organism to better reproduce cannot employ natural selection. Therefore, the Angler Fish would have to basically
generate it unique features as a whole in order to outperform it's ancestors. This involves way too much genetic material.


just because you don't understand the steps that were required to create something doesn't mean that it had to happen all at once. another thing, genetic
information seems to work in packets, which is why its so easy for scientists to grow an extra leg out of a flys head. imagine if they had to genetically
engineer that leg from scratch. it just doesn't work that way.

<< The application here is that inorganic material is, in effect, a closed system. While it can certainly heat up, there is no mechanism to USE this

external energy. Therefore inorganic material cannot become more complex, at least not at the level needed to generate life. >>


Inorganic material is a closed system? Has no mechanism to use external energy?

yup some people repeat it like it came from the bible, it has been discredited time and time again. pseudo science sounds good, ever wonder why we have so many informercials and suppliment type products? but that doesn't matter for people who work to further creationism. why do they do it? because it works.. their target audience generally doesn't have the scientific background to know any better. perhaps they think the ends justify the means, a few lies to save souls is a good thing.


Please specify which 'sacred' texts you are referring to in questioning my familiarity with them, as I am unaware of any such 'sacred' texts which equal the historic, scientific, and prophetic accuracy of the bible.


actually since you are the englightened one you should list the world religions and why each one is invalid.



we are potentially headed for a paradigm shift to Intelligent Design Theory.

whos telling you this? the discovery institute? people looking for evidence for a inquestionable conclusion? hah, care to tell us about the "work"?


Are you familiar with the idea of "irreducible complexity" concerning living organisms?

yes basically it says that there are some questions you can never answer. this is a crock based on ignorance, just because we don't know how something happened yet doesn't mean there wasn't a way for it to happen. i've heard arguements for things like eyes and other things, but theories explaining steps in advancement from very to complex exist.


It's an ellequantly simple idea, but I don't find it convinving for two reasons: fossil records and original cell life production. It's like looking at a watch in a field and saying that rock pressure and extreme conditions eventually built it. And, cells are a lot more complex than watches.

and the alternative? btw your analogy is horrid, watches don't evolve or have sex.. or anything. they can't even clone themselves. i'm not sure what you analogy has to do with evolution at all.

1) God says that creatures will be produced "according to their kinds", which seems to imply certain permanent characteristics.
2) The creation account shows humans being very different than all other creatures when they were created. Not at all what evolution would claim.
3) The narration of Adam and Eve flows right into the account of Noah, then Abraham, then the rest of the Old testament. There's not a break that says "Now that we're done with a fairy tale, let's get on to Israel's history."
4) You'll have a hard time reconciling the creation of Eve.

if you take everything in the bible that literally then yes its basically impossible to explain without magic.

 

[lebe0024]

The watch isn't an analogy of evolution. It's an anology of the spontanious formation of a prokaryotic cell. After all, proteins don't reproduce themselves.

 

[petrek]

In re "Would you like a list of the failed prophecies of the bible?"

Yes, one will do.

Dave

 

[lebe0024]

<< if you take everything in the bible that literally then yes its basically impossible to explain without magic. >>



I try to remain faithful to any text by exegetically studying it. "What was the authors original intent?" The authors main intent was to show God's role in creating the world. Now, there's a lot in the bible that's not meant to be taken literally, like Jesus' parables for instance. I would even argue that the book of Job was intended as a fictional (debated) drama to communicate God's role in the face of suffering. The problem with most skeptic scholars (like the ones from your infidel site, Nephro) is that they're poor textual interpreters. They see Jesus' claim to be the Son of Man, and say "Oh, see, he's claiming to be the Son of Man, not the Son of God." They don't put themselves in the shoes of a 1st century Jew, who would know that Jesus was claiming to be the Son of Man from Daniel. He was claiming Messiahship.

I believe the Universe is not an eternal, closed system. I believe in a Creator who is both Transcendent of his creation, and involved in his creation. I believe in a sovreign Creator, not magic.

 

[petrek]

Nefrodite, being that an agnostic is one who holds that the existance of anything beyond material phenomena cannot be known and this thread is discussing scientific theories and the word of God your presence here is odd. If you have serious questions you would like to address please do so, and I'm sure someone involved in the discussion will try to answer them. If, however your reason for posting in this thread is of a spurious nature (which it appears to be from your above post in which you take quotations out of there obvious context ), I probably speak for everyone involved in this discussion when I say don't bother posting again.

Sincerely
Dave

 

[Nefrodite]

The watch isn't an analogy of evolution. It's an anology of the spontanious formation of a prokaryotic cell. After all, proteins don't reproduce themselves.


another example of the irriducable complexity arguement. i don't think you want me to cut and past this, so link instead. "Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go). "

 

[Nefrodite]

ok, how about a more recent definition of agnostic


ag·nos·tic (g-nstk)
n.

One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

and lebe, i didn't post any infidel link in this thread. maybe you have a long memory i don't know. and if i ever did, it has nothing to do with my sig which was added after 9/11.

 

[petrek]

Much appreciated.

Dave

 

[lebe0024]

Nephrodite, I read the artical. It was really intelligent, however:

1) The quote you gave is not in the linked artical provided.
2) The linked artical isn't addressing the origin of life, it's merely from a web site called talkorigins.
3) (I also have this problem with everything else you link) The author is bitter. Despite Behe's book's profound impact on the popular audience and evolutionist, you're author would rather spit in his face and use the word "ignorance."

"Most science books for popular audiences focus on the frontiers of knowledge: what do we know, what does it suggest, and where is it likely to take us. In contrast, I would characterize Behe's book as an exposition of the Frontiers of Ignorance: what do we not know, and how can we blind ourselves with that lack of knowledge.

Indeed, that is the whole thesis of Behe's book."
If the shoe doesn't fit.
4) Simply coming up with unconvincing far-fetched examples for how a few specific things might be reducably complex is not a sufficient answer. One of Behe's ponits is that the Universe is full of irreducable complexity.
Behe's Mouse Trap Defended

 

[tarzanx]

Oh, and if you believe in God, HOW the HELL can you believe in
Evolution?! The two theories contradict each other to an incredible extent.

John 14:6, necessarily implies that only the bible contains the entire truth, and that all other religious texts are false. (note, that it is God that says the bible is true and that all other religions are false, not me as you imply)

I've been following this discussion from the start and think it's amazing how many intellligent arguments I have seen from both sides.

I've have always been in doubt about what to believe. Is there a God? What is God.
There's is only a few things that I'm pretty sure about. God is not a supernatural being sitting someplace watching us. It is rather some kind of human spirit that lives inside us all and keeps us going. It seems very easy to see that old texts like the bible are somewhat outdated even though the points made in them maybe still are relevant in our time. But how can anyone in in the 21st century still believe that Evolution does not occour??? and live their lives as if every word in the bible were true. 'God' didn't write that book. Man did. Or maybe God is man?? Why not start thinking for one self instead of being the slave of some old prophecies.

After the reading the definition on an 'agnostic' I seems like that is just what I am. How can we be sure that there is no socalled God? It seems unlikely, but I would still give it a 0.000000001% chance.

The only thing that one can be sure of is skepticism. But in the case of Evolution the evidence is so overwhelming that I cannot be dismissed as false.
Unfortunately I don't have enough expert knowledge to participate in the scientific parts of the discussion. But I still haven't seen any good arguments from the 'Believer' side that would make ME a believer in Creation and 'God' as the bible describes him. It's something that the unenlightened people in the middle ages believed in (and appearantly still to this day)

 

[JupiterJones]

But in the case of Evolution the evidence is so overwhelming that I cannot be dismissed as false.

What evidence is so overwhelming?

 

[OUdejavu]

I want an option for all those who are not satisfied with ANY of the current explanations of how we got here which would include biogenesis!!!!!!!!!
I think that would better accomodate the true agnostics here....

BTW Nephrodite, I think Behe's irreducible complexity argument applies very well to the question of how life moved from asexual to sexual reproduction. It seems to me to require two interdependent changes to occur independently and simultaneously. If you see it in a different light, please enlighten me.....

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You know I am getting fed up with the attitudes I see here on both sides. The Christians claim a point of view, and the athiests another. I wouldn't be at all surpised if they are both right to a certain degree. And now the chastisement portion of the post. Christians- If you believe in creationism, fine. Just don't try to justify it scientifically. It isn't going to work. And the athiests- Your religion is getting tiresome too. Yes I say religion, because you profess to have CERTAIN knowlege that God doesn't exist. And many try to show that science proves that. Science is your Bible, and if anything doesn't fit into your conception of what science is, that consitiutes heresy. Science is a TOOL, a method of uncovering the proveable. Everyone ought to know by now that it was shown some time ago that any formal system will contain unprovable truths. Science cannot make ANY statement about those. At least we agnostics do not (for the most part) buy into the hypocracy of certain knowlege. Rant over.

 

[exp]

<< What evidence is so overwhelming? >>



*sigh* Here we go again. Since you have acknowledged "microevolution", as you call it, to be true I assume the only evidence you seek regards "macroevolution". I posted this link (to an index of observed instances of speciation) before in response to petrek's skepticism over speciation, but not surprisingly he has chosen to ignore it. Please try to do better. Here is another link as well.

 

[Harvey]

<< Man created God in his own image >>

I believe the original quote was from George Bernard Shaw, who said (as close as I can recall),

"God created man in his own image, and man, being a gentleman, returned the compliment."

 

[lebe0024]

An amusing exaple of the need for all the parts of a complex organic system to be put in place at once is pointed by Robert Kofahl and Kelly Segraves in their book The Creation Explanation: A Scientific Alternative to Evolution.. They describe the "Bomardier beetle," which repels enemies by firing a hot charge of chemicals from two swivel tubes in its tail. The chemicals fired by this beetle will sponaniously explode when mixed together in a laboratory, but apparently the beetle has an inhibitor substance that blocks the explosive reaction until the beetle squirts some of the liquid into its "combustion chambers," where an enzyme is added to catalyze the reaction. An explosion takes place and the chemical repellent is fired at a temperature of 212F at the beetles enemies. Kofahl and Segraves rightly ask whether any evolutionary explanation can account for this amazing mechanism. "Before this defensive mechanism could afford any protection to the beetle, all of its parts, together with the proper explosive mixture of chemicals, plus the instinctive behavior required for its use, would have to be assembled in the insect. The partially developed set of organs would be useless."

In this case, of course, the amusing question is, What would happen if the explosive chemical mixture developed in the beetle without the chemical inhibitor?

The passage above was take from Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology.

 

[exp]

There are many mistakes in the Bible, and we need only one to call its accuracy into question. For Christians that need not necessarily put a damper on its message or make its teachings any less relevant, but it does mean that everyone should think for themselves. If God truly gave us brains I assume he meant for us to use them.

Personally, I thought this site was a pretty good read. I only skimmed through a few sections, but the "errors" and "contradictions" pages contain some undeniable mistakes from the Bible. I found the science-related ones to be especially amusing since history is now repeating itself thousands of years later (w/ this ridiculous backlash against evolution). The "failed prophecies" section, OTOH, I thought was pretty weak and could be debunked.

 

[petrek]

Actually exp, it's not that I ignored to comment about it. It's that it didn't prove anything that hadn't already been established. How do experiments showing a fly producing a fly, a beetle producing a beetle, corn producing corn etc. differ from what God said:

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth"Genesis 1:11

"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind" Genesis 1:21

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so" Genesis 1:24

or how does it prove that two dogs can produce a cat, a most preposterous notion, yet one that is stated over and over again as a fact, day in and day out.

Dave

PS The reason I hadn't responded yet is because I haven't had a chance to get some current sources I wanted to use in my reply ( school textbooks, nature programs, university texts, etc ) to expose evolution for what it is, an unproven theory that is being stated as fact over and over again, in a blatent attempt to decieve the world, through the repetition of a lie, that God does not exist.

 

[rahvin]

<<The following is from the US Food and Drug Administration. >>

It's interesting that you failed to answer my question, and in fact included a direct quote saying evolution is responsible for anti-biotic resistance. Had you answered my question completely you would have stated that bacteria have variations in DNA because of random mutations. Being that they reproduce from assexual fission the variance in the population is a direct result of mutation. That mutation coupled with environmental preasure induces evolution of species. And as such you just proved everything I've been saying. Thank you for playing, have a bannana.

<<Yes you can. I have already done so, possessing degrees in Mathematics and Biology.>>

Sure you do.

<<Yes, we can say that. Especially since I didn't say everyone attacks. I said that every scientist who is advancing new thought is attacked by his peers., and contextually I was speaking of paradigms. (You can look paradigm up at www.webster.com). Try to read a bit more carefully.>>

I read perfectly fine, the problem is you don't bother to re-read your posts and see that you are saying something other than you intend. I suggest that if you intend to speak methaphorically that you say as such in your post. Speaking clearly in open forums on the internet is difficult and in time you will pick it up, you need more practice.


<<Oh, can you point me to it. And don't include any college that is religiously based and funded. Also don't include any institutions that are funded and staffed by religious organizations.

Oh...you mean like Harvard and Duke? Both of these fine schools have religious origins. >>

Thank you for demonstrating your lack of reading comprehension skills, I will make a note of it for future reference. You really should consult that websters dictionary site you keep listing for definitions of "based" and then contrast it against "origin"s. You should also notice the sentence structure I used included the word AND, this is an important word you may need to look that one up too.

 

[exp]

<< Actually exp, it's not that I ignored to comment about it. It's that it didn't prove anything that hadn't already been established. How do experiments showing a fly producing a fly, a beetle producing a beetle, corn producing corn etc. differ from what God said:

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth"Genesis 1:11

"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind" Genesis 1:21

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so" Genesis 1:24" >>



But that is precisely the point. These experiments are not about "a fly producing a fly", etc. They are about a fly producing a DIFFERENT species of fly. I would not expect you to read all of those papers I linked to (we all have lives outside ATOT, right? ) but you might try one or two. Reish's experiment with polychaetes is a classic example (I think you can find details in Weinberg's 1992 paper). He took polychaetes from one locale and grew them under different environmental conditions than the original population. After a long time (decades, I think, but I could be wrong) specimens from two natural locations plus the population originally founded by Reish were randomly interbred and it was found that only Reish's polychaetes were unable to reproduce with specimens from the other populations. How would you explain this phenomena if not by evolution? Or are you using a different definition of "species" not based upon interbreeding?



<< or how does it prove that two dogs can produce a cat, a most preposterous notion, yet one that is stated over and over again as a fact, day in and day out. >>



You are exagerrating. Two dogs never have produced a cat directly. In fact, AFAIK cats and dogs are not directly descended from each other at all. They merely share a recent common ancestor that may have appeared quite different from either of them. The mutations responsible for their divergent evolution accumulated over many thousands of generations.



<< PS The reason I hadn't responded yet is because I haven't had a chance to get some current sources I wanted to use in my reply ( school textbooks, nature programs, university texts, etc ) to expose evolution for what it is, an unproven theory that is being stated as fact over and over again, in a blatent attempt to decieve the world, through the repetition of a lie, that God does not exist. >>



My fellow deceivers and I await your return with bated breath.

 

[lebe0024]

<< The mutations responsible for their divergent evolution accumulated over many thousands of generations. >>


But not gradually. Because of the current fossil record, evolutionist now fall back on "punctuated equilibrium." This basically means that organisms don't change for millions of years (in accordance with fossil records), and then *poof*, new organism. There's nothing gradual at all about our fossil record.

 

[exp]

<< But not gradually. Because of the current fossil record, evolutionist now fall back on "punctuated equilibrium." This basically means that organisms don't change for millions of years (in accordance with fossil records), and then *poof*, new organism. There's nothing gradual at all about our fossil record. >>



Punctuated equilibrium is not saltational. In fact, not only is PE a gradual process but it does not preclude phyletic gradualism in any way whatsoever. We don't know exactly how many generations it took for dogs and cats to fully diverge from their ancestor but it was undoubtedly a gradual process, regardless of which mechanism you describe it with (PE or PG). Either way, two individuals from the ancestral species did not "*poof*" give birth to dogs instantaneously while another pair produced cats.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Entropy doesn't hurt the case for evolution. Generally entropy increases. Key word there is generally. Sometimes entropy can decrease but it increases more than it decreases. It's like how the universe is expanding. Generally everything is moving farther away from everything else but things can get closer to each other.

Remember guys: An infinite amount of monkeys given an infinite amount of time will go on to write all of Shakespeare's works.

 

[Zwingle]

<< << I'm an atheist and hence we evolved >> >>



I agree.....we have evolved and are still evolving.....we are getting smarter....that is why religion is dying....those that have evolved and are smarter do not believe in the existence of creationism....or god for that matter. Then there are those over zealous christians that have devolved.

The mind is a terrible thing to waste on religion.