creationist belief: God exists. Why? Because the Bible says. Weak proof.
If there is a God, then y were there many religions before Judism and Christianity that didn't believe in The God? Ppl who believe in God believe the Earth is round and goes around the sun, yet the church was against that idea. Shouldn't someone who believes the Bible, belive all of it?
What's preventing evolution from becoming a law? In think I asked this already, but its buried way back.
As long as we live in a world where culturally accepted delusions can flourish that’s the way of things. Why do you think we have the UFO-mania today? Because our society accepts that people believe in things without any evidence what so ever.
There are scientists who believe in God and think of the Bible as a guide, not as something to be taken literally. Fine.
But how ANYONE can think the Earth and the Universe is 6000 years old is completely beyond me. Why is it so important to these people? They end up lying to themselves and others in their desperate attempt at creating proof of something which cannot BE proven.
Why?
ok, because you dont want to believe in god, i see. atheists.
Also, it's not because we don't want to believe in God, it's because we don't believe God (or any god, not just the Christian one) can exist.
I have nothing against atheists, but I actually classify myself as an agnostic of sorts. I used to be Christian, until I realized how little sense most of it made, and how hypocritical the people in my church were. For some reason, though, I still want to believe that there is some "higher power". Just that it's not the Christian god.
Originally posted by The Omega
Agent Elrond> Oh, I see… 🙂
About this 3x^3-2x^2+6x-5i+(2i-3x^xi)=4i^-i+ln(2xi)
It’s ONE equation with two unknowns. So you must either specify one of them or gimme another equation, otherwise it can’t be solved.The Force> Ay! After four months you did it! Let’s see what you have there…
(Five minutes later) Oh, so you start out by first repeating your posts and mine. Okay…1) Your first question asked for proof of macro-evolution. I supplied you with that proof. You have not been able to refute that proof – you have not given proof of Creation. Nor that Genesis 1 is the true story.
2) You point out that living beings are complex. And ask how they could evolve from lesser complex organisms. I show you that nature also has quite a lot of organisms, that show features of appallingly bad design. This is because evolution via natural selection cannot construct traits from scratch; new traits must be modifications of previously existing traits. This is called historical constraint.
So what do you mean “if we messed it up”? Do you say that humans have changed Gods design in pre-history, or…? 😄
And the locust is an example of appallingly bad design, had it been designed by any intelligence consciously working towards it. Again:
In human males, the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, a gland very prone to infection and subsequent enlargement. This blocks the urethra and is a very common medical problem in males. Putting a collapsible tube through an organ that is very likely to expand and block flow in this tube is not good design. Any moron with half a brain (or less) could design male "plumbing" better! So, proof it wasn’t designed.(P.S.: You are aware that you’re just chanting, right? I show you bad male plumbing, and you say it’s perfect because God created it. Come ON!!! If us humans can see it could’ve been made better, then surely a divine and omnipotent God should’ve made that installation better, don’t you think?)
3) WHAT??? 😆 So are you saying GOD created the fossils????? Or what are you trying to say with” Well when we find a fossil, we don’t have to make up a story from something that we’ve already read.”
4) ”Who cares how primitive the thing is, the point is that you say that life came about by random processes, you’ve got to be an ignorant redneck to think like that.” Gah, are you blind???? Scientists don't claim that cells and multi-cell creatures came into being through random processes! Why are you claiming that I claim the directe opposite of what I wrote???
5) Geologists learn of the chemical composition of Earth earlier on in the planets history by studing deposit-layers in the soil. And you are – btw – NOT proving Creationism. I have a question: Are you saying there was no ice-ages? If God created the Earth so nothing can change, how come we have computers and climate changes. God didn’t create those, so how can we change ”Gods creation” if HE created it that way? Is his creation so flawed, that we can change it?
6) Nah! You’re avoiding the reply. If you say (who’s the ”he” you’re referring to??) I should recognise DESIGN in nature, due to it’s complexity, it means I can recognise it against something which is disorderly and NOT designed. Does that mean God didn’t create EVERYTHING – as everything is NOT orderly and ”designed”? About DNA: It simply shows that DNA is complex. Nothing more – nothing less.
7) Yes, I read your question. Did you read my answer? There is NO protein which can ONLY be created by DNA.
8) Mutation! You DO know what mutation is, right? And you do accept that it happens, right? Or do I need to point to, say, Hiroshima. Mutation there is due to radioactivity. The Earth is being bombarded by cosmic radiation, which create slow mutation over time. Some mutations turn out to help a species survive.
9) “When he said arrowhead”? He? What “he”? Aren’t you YOU anymore? No, I do not see an arrowhead being made randomly. I see humans make them. I can recognise them as being made by intelligent beings, as the REST of the world isn’t. If you say, that I should see humans as being designed by someone, you’re saying that the rest of the Universe is not, or what? You want me to see design against a disorderly background, right? But if the background is disorderly, it was clearly not designed by ANYONE, right? 😄
“but did you know were made out of the same elements as dirt, i.e. God made us from the dust of the ground.” No, I didn’t. Prove that, will ya?10) YOU :”If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least 30 moons revolve backwards?”
ME: ”What three planets are you talking about? Are you talking about axis-rotation? That, say, Uranus spins around it’s “equator”? What’s wrong with that? It’s not a scientif puzzle. Impact with asteroids can force a planets spin to change. If some god created the solar-system, why the mess?”
YOU: ”Woah, how is the solar system a mess? Seriously I see nothing wrong with it, if you were God how would you fix the solar system? Why do you say it’s jacked up? And also you didn’t answer the question.”
I did answer your question. See the ”asteroid collison??” 😉 And if The Solar System was intelligently designed, why the mess with three planets spinning differently? Why not complete and perfect order? Are you asking ME, how I would fix the Solar System if I was God? 😄 Shouldn’t God KNOW that???11) Chunk of missing land??!?!? Uhrm, erosion happens, sorry to break it to you. The Moon wasn’t created yesterday, you know? Well, if you think what highly educated astronomers around the world research is BS, tell me what makes you an expert on whether or not they’re wrong?
12) What?!? 😆 Don’t tell me you think LIFE was created in the Big Bang. Gah! Go google. Search Big Bang – read up on it. You want ME to redo Big Bang? INSIDE the Universe? Well… First you give me proof of Creationism. You’ren ot really helping your case here. You’re just trying to yell at evolution, astronomy and physics.
Big Bang is a consequence of Albert Einsteins General Theory of Relativity (his theory for gravity). This theory is one of the most tested and accepted theories of the 20th Century. Or are you saying that ”science is wrong”? For example – Without Relativity GPS wouldn’t work. Now, if General rel is correct, then the logical deductions we make from it must also be correct. One of the earliest was the prediction of Black Holes. Although it took more than 50 years from the prediction until we actually found one.
So yes – 13,6 billion years ago Big Bang. You must understand some basic concept of quatum mechanics to grasp the 0=1-1. If you’re willing to listen, I’ll be willing to tell you. The Solar system formed 4,5 billion years ago. Things change – go out and watch the tides, look what tornados can do, Earth-quakes, volcanic eruptions.
The face of the planet is in constant change – Looks like God can’t really make up his mind, huh?13) You ask how stars evolve, right? Are you asking me how the first stars formed, what the life of a star is like, or what? The oldests stars (the once formed first) were ”lighter” than the younger stars (stars created later in the timespan of the Universe). This is a proven fact. During billions of years and supernoavs gallore, we began to get heavier elements in the Universe. You want me to list the exact processes? Processes which we can reproduce in accelerators.
14) I’ll wait another few months then 😉
15) WHAT guy are you talking about? YOU were the one bringing in bacterias. Do you just copy/paste stuff without doing ANY research? You brought it up. It’s your obligation to tell me what you’re talking about. And ”THAT” guy was obviously the one mentioning old bacteria.
16) What, again? Why do you post stuff you can’t even back up??? Don’t you see a glaring problem in your argumentation by now? You simply copy some stuff that you agree with, but you’ve never even taken the time to find proof???
17) What bits and pieces of the ark? Where? Who says it’s from the ark? A Creationist, or the scientific community in general? Proof, please? Links, please?
18) Ah! You’re avoiding he question again. Who did this recalculation? How was it done?
19) I’m not suppose to guess your answer here. We could be ”martians”. Elements are not indigenous to Earth. Do you accept this fact?
20) Do you call, say, weather completely random? The winds in the air of the atmosphere move due to the laws of physics. They are not random.
DONE?
You haven’t given us one single bit of the promised proof of creation. You’re not DONE. You haven’t even begun yet.Darth> Oh, I didn’t see you took care of some of the answers. Well, we’re in stereo then 😄
even thouhgh i said that i've throwm in the towel i have to tell you that those questions i got were from a website, i read them over and then copied and pasted them, just to tell you i'm better at logic and philosphy, i'm not so much a scientist, but i do know what i believe, and even if you don't see anything i say to prove that God is real, as proof that he exist, then why don't you step into Christian shoes and find out yourself.
Originally posted by Darth Revan
Eezy, it's been far longer than two minutes, and you still haven't convinced me that the carbon decay rate has changed, which would explain that the world is conceivably as young as 12000 years. Or that a gas planet can be formed in under a century.Why would God bother waiting a couple hundred million years between species? That's a waste of time. God is perfect, or so most Christians would claim. He wouldn't dawdle around doing nothing for hundreds of millions of years. And oh yeah, I thought the planet was only a few thousand years old?
Education isn't strict enough today? Just because we don't have to pray and learn about God in school, education isn't strict enough? That's a load of bullshit if I ever saw one.
As for the kangaroos, do you know the story about how there used to be one supercontinent, and it gradually broke up and the pieces drifted away? Australia was one of the first pieces to break off and float away. Hence their seemingly "out of date" reproductive systems. While mammals were evolving from reptiles, a lot of kangaroos moved over to one part of the big continent, and it broke off, and they were stranded in the middle of the ocean, and all the kangaroos everywhere else died off. Simple. Or, you could believe the aborigine (sp?) myth about why kangaroos are so funny looking...
"i think your incontrovertibleness is a result of todays brainwashing,
not enough biologists have doubts of evolution
(In fact, i met some evolution specialists and they or some said the more the scientists know about evolution the less they believe it... okay you wont believe me that, will you)"Oh, I get it. I refuse to believe in a six thousand year old storybook just because Reverend Gary told me to, and I'm the one who's brainwashed? Do you realize how hippocritical that sounds? I believe in evolution because there is solid proof backing it up, not because I'm brainwashed. I have researched both. Don't believe me, look earlier in the thread, around page 10 I think. I emailed a Creation "scientist" with a bunch of questions about Creation, including the big one, what proof is there of Creation. He wrote back to me with a bunch of bull about how I was wrong about who first came up with the scientific method. (which I mentioned VERY briefly in my email) You can still read it, if you want, but it only further proves my point about how there is no proof of Creation--which is why Creationists tend to sidetrack, and try to prove that evolution is false rather than Creation is true.
actually kangaroos didnt exist when it still was pangea or so.
and well i refused that the earth would be only a few thousand years old, i think. thats not very credible ... 😬
well, there is no very great clue for Creation, but neither for Evolution.
After all it's only a not proven theory. There IS no evidence!
All that you call evidences are interpretations of clues! they could also be misinterpreted!
and I've read several books about the thing, books by evolutionists and by creationists.
the evolutionists seem to need to point at the wrongness of creation.
its the only branch of science which needs that, isnt it?
why are evolutionists this empiric? there are doubts of evolution, but you all try to call it a fact!
The Force> But why do you blindly accept something from, a web-site which a few forumites can refute?
Fine, you know what you BELIEVE in. I know that science works. Nothing you have said this far has proven that the Universe was created by any deity. All you have done is try to attack evolution ¡V and you have failed at that, whether you accept this or not. If you are ¡V as you say ¡V good at logic, you must see that fact.
Why must I step into Christian shoes? Can¡¦t you prove Creationism unless I believe what you do? Then are you saying that Creationism can only be believed ¡V it cannot be proven?
Eezy45> You are wrong. For the gigazillionth time: Creationism is an unproven hypothesis. Evolution is a proven theory. In science theory means more than the daily use of the word. It means it has stood the test of the scientific method.
You can keep repeating and chanting ¡§evolution is not proven¡¨ for as long as you like. Evolution, and the proof of evolution won¡¦t go away. It just becomes tiresome to listen to.
In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms. Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.
* All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritablility, catalysis, and metabolism.
* Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
* Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
* Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
* The fossils appear in a chronological order showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years, and inconsistent with sudden creation.
* Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
* Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestors but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
* Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, whales and many snakes develop hind limbs as embryos which are reabsorbed before birth.
* The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. This consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
* Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
* The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70%, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
* When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
* The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
* Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
* Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
* Speciation has been observed. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
* The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.
Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about 80 million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also occurs in fruiting plants and fruit flies. [Benner et al. 2002]
The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.
Want more: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
¡§the evolutionists seem to need to point at the wrongness of creation.¡¨ Only in the heads of Creationists. The aim of evolution is, as a branch of science, to determine how a certain part the universe (namely life) works by use of the scientific method.
soory, i didn't read this all, but there are actually people here wh don't believe in evolution............. 😑 ( no offence ) i'm not an atheist, andi do believe in some kid of higher force, like natural powers or something, haven't quite figured that out yet , and that's probalby something you can only believe, but there is proof for evolution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and about the bible, you must realize that it was written so long ago, that so many things in there are just based on habits, like the not eating pork thing with jews... that's just because they carried a lot of deseases with them in those days! and if you stick to the believes of the bible how can you ever learn something new....
el-pirate>EXACTLY!!!! And sadly, yes, there are people who don't believe in evolution.... 😕
eezy45>I know kangaroos themselves didn't exist when it was all one big landmass... Their ancestors, which would in the future evolve into kangaroos, were the ones who did it. All the ones who didn't move to Australia, everywhere else in the world, died off, and Australia was the only place where they evolved into their modern state.
Actually, I've never seen an evolutionist point at the wrongness of Creation, unless it was to a Creationist whom they were trying to prove wrong. There is no need to use the point of Creation being totally without support/evidence to explain why evolution is true.
How did language occur? See, when we were still primitive ape-men, we made little noises (like, well, apes do) to communicate with each other. As we became more intelligent, these noises became gradually more complex, until eventually we were speaking primitive language...
Originally posted by The Omega
Eezy45> You are wrong. For the gigazillionth time: Creationism is an unproven hypothesis. Evolution is a proven theory. In science theory means more than the daily use of the word. It means it has stood the test of the scientific method.
You can keep repeating and chanting ¡§evolution is not proven¡¨ for as long as you like. Evolution, and the proof of evolution won¡¦t go away. It just becomes tiresome to listen to.
you know something? the only thing you say is it is proven.
WHERE THE HELL IS THE ****ING PROOF THAT ANNIHILATES ALL DOUBTS?
oh and, well yeah you cant prove creation...
because the natural laws existing today were created by god too -
The best argument is that the big bang could only have worked if the energy AND materia existed before...
See Einstein's famous formula E= M * C².
so the energy in the big bang would have been in this little "dot in the nothingness".
and - if the universe was created with the Big Bang, were has the materia been before then?
Originally posted by The Omega
Eezy45> “as little as a few hundred years.” Not less than a 100 years.And go read this http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html and THEN claim we all descended from 30 women.
About the so-called polystrate fossils. You do know that those claims are SO outdated it hurts? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
Mutation does a LOT more than stabilise generations. It can give rise to new traits in a species -–and there is evidence. What is the evidence that God created anything I may ask?
”NOT over time, see, men exist like 15.000 years, right?” Wrong, humans have existed for millions of years. We evolved through homo erectus to como sapiens and that took a very long time.
”why did the romans look exactly the same as we do?” Because evolution takes a little longer than 2000 years. And we have changed. Europeans have gotten taller – on an average over the pats centuries.Agent Elrond> Oh, the imaginary unit? Okay, and what were we talking about again? 🙂
this "evidence" says that we change within a race, not TO another.