Originally posted by Chibi Boy
Why talk in scientific language? The moment doesn't call for it.
And back to what Shakyamunison said about LOOKS, Ploar Bears look alot like Bears even though they are in completely different environments.
Originally posted by Chibi Boy
"Frankly I don't need your "facts" published by a Church group that concludes with an advertisement telling me to buy their books, I've studied both molecular genetics and evolution."
You say you don't need them but I bet you can't pull out some magic reason against anything they said, that's probably why you said you didn't need them in the first place.
Originally posted by Chibi Boy
But then I could say your conclusion to the non-existance of a god to be incorrect.
Let's point out the things which science cannot explain so one would have to say it was luck.
1. The moon position
2. The likeness between all the animals on earth, even animals in antarctica have eyes when it would be more usefull without incase snow gets inside them.
3. We have the only known planet to hold life, as aliens would have visited ages ago and left messages if the universe was million-billions of years old.
4. Mars would have life:
They still would evolve to adapt to Mars atmosphere, just as we did here when earth began as A LARGE BALL OF LAVA.
5. If the universe was million-billions of years old there would have been life here before which also would have left signs of life existing before.
1. The moon's position is explanable. I'm not a physicist. Ask one.
2. 🤨 Stupid assumption
3. 🤨 Stupid assumption
4. Assumes that life once existed on Mars. Eve under the assumption that life existed on Mars fails to comprehend that evolution does not dictate that something always survives. If the resulting environment cannot sustain any life, extinction occurs. Assumes life formed
5. Even with your lack of scientific knowledge surely you've heard of dinosaurs.
Originally posted by Chibi Boy
or supposedly as science has proved.
"Scientific method or process is considered fundamental to the scientific investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence. Scientists use observations, hypotheses and deductions to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories. Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns out to be correct, the theory survives. Any theory which is cogent enough to make predictions can then be tested reproducibly in this way. The method is commonly taken as the underlying logic of scientific practice. A scientific method is essentially an extremely cautious means of building a supportable, evidence-based understanding of our natural world."
Scientists go to great lengths to ensure that they do not bias their experiments. It's pure egoism to assume that the processes of science are designed purely to disprove your particular religious beliefs. If theories, that happen to conflict with your religion, are shown to have substantial physical evidence and are accepted by the wider scientific community do not accuse scientists of an elaborate and sinister conspiracy to try and disprove your god.
I study neuroscience to gain a better understanding of and contribute to the knowledge about the human brain, which I'd hope will one day be of used to advance research into the neurodegenerative disorders. Oh wait no... you're right, the only reason I study neuroscience is to learn more about the brain to disprove your god. 🙄
Many cling to Big Bang purely because they don't want to acknowledge your god? The egoism just keeps on coming.
You proclaim your opinion-based generalisation as a statement of fact. You presume far too much if you presume to know others motives.
I accept "Big Bang" theory because current evidence supports this theory. Current evidence supports other models too, but Big Bang is currently the most widely accepted and this likely has nothing to do with scientists vindictively refusing "to acknowledge the existence of a creator". Imo the vast majority simply wish to advance human knowledge. When there is physical evidence and reproducible experiments to show the existence of a creator, then mayhaps I'll support the existence of a creator. But thus far there is none.
theories that can be repeated best they can...and sames goes for evolution...It's still missing something...The big bang doesn't explain everything either....AND even though the Newtonian beliefs of everything working like machinery has been disproved, and leaning towards the quantum physics area...some cling to the old scientific theories as though they were addictions...too comfortable with it to look for their answers in a new field.
Originally posted by debbiejo
theories that can be repeated best they can...and sames goes for evolution...It's still missing something...The big bang doesn't explain everything either....AND even though the Newtonian beliefs of everything working like machinery has been disproved, and leaning towards the quantum physics area...some cling to the old scientific theories as though they were addictions...too comfortable with it to look for their answers in a new field.
Again there's a certain sense of dramatic irony when someone arguing that the world is only 7000yo proclaims that scientists are always clinging to old theories, no?
This page was the funniest :lol 😂 because it just so happens that evolution states that life can evolve ANYWHERE and that bacteria can survive ANYWHERE, as certain bacteria has been found in extreme surroundings such as antartica. How'd life evolve into surviving 'The Ice Age' when it happend so fast? Ooops I forgot, nobody can still explain where all these things which evolved came from in the first place, and you know what? If someone said to you, someone you really trust, said that god had spoken to them you'd believe them much heasier than the fact that we came from nothing, the whole beginning of evolution doesn't start according to evolution, life just couldn't appear from NOTHING. God made life from dirt of the earth, scientists have proven that humans are made out of the same things as, guess what? DIRT.
Life didn´t appear from nothing... in the first day God.... just kidding... first for what is know, few seconds after the Big Bang, there was just very energetic particles which can´t form atoms, then when a long time passed, energy levels lowered enough to form the first simple atoms, the hydrogen. From hydrogen, came the other elements when it was burned by nuclear fusion in stars nucleus, then those elements formed more complex molecules, until they finally formed the first aminoacids. Scientists have found nebulas of aminoacids in space. From aminoacids there came proteins, and every other type of organic molecules like DNA, and them come the more simple forms of life that existed in earth, from here evolution toke care until now. Cool ! That is like the scientific Genesis. But it doesn´t mean in my opinion that God doesn´t exist.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
Life didn´t appear from nothing... in the first day God.... just kidding... first for what is know, few seconds after the Big Bang, there was just very energetic particles which can´t form atoms, then when a long time passed, energy levels lowered enough to form the first simple atoms, the hydrogen. From hydrogen, came the other elements when it was burned by nuclear fusion in stars nucleus, then those elements formed more complex molecules, until they finally formed the first aminoacids. Scientists have found nebulas of aminoacids in space. From aminoacids there came proteins, and every other type of organic molecules like DNA, and them come the more simple forms of life that existed in earth, from here evolution toke care until now. Cool ! That is like the scientific Genesis. But it doesn´t mean in my opinion that God doesn´t exist.
Hi Atlantis001
Good narrative...
When I read the above I can't help but think that the universe is alive. Therefore, life will always come from life. There is no beginning to look for. Life did not come from death, life came from God and God has always been. The bible was written by people who did not understand the workings of God or the universe; to take the bible literally is to miss the point.
Originally posted by Chibi Boy
This page was the funniest :lol 😂 because it just so happens that evolution states that life can evolve ANYWHERE and that bacteria can survive ANYWHERE, as certain bacteria has been found in extreme surroundings such as antartica. How'd life evolve into surviving 'The Ice Age' when it happend so fast? Ooops I forgot, nobody can still explain where all these things which evolved came from in the first place, and you know what? If someone said to you, someone you really trust, said that god had spoken to them you'd believe them much heasier than the fact that we came from nothing, the whole beginning of evolution doesn't start according to evolution, life just couldn't appear from NOTHING. God made life from dirt of the earth, scientists have proven that humans are made out of the same things as, guess what? DIRT.
Take thermophilic bacteria and see if they survive in Antarctica, fool. How many times do I have to say it before it registers. Evolution does not dictate something always survives.
If someone I really trusted said to me they met a leprechaun and stole his pot of gold, then when I asked him to show me proof of the gold he said he has none would I believe him? No.
Dirt? Yes I'm a living mudmonster. What's the protein, carbohydrate and lipid content of this "dirt". Try again.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
Life didn´t appear from nothing... in the first day God.... just kidding... first for what is know, few seconds after the Big Bang, there was just very energetic particles which can´t form atoms, then when a long time passed, energy levels lowered enough to form the first simple atoms, the hydrogen. From hydrogen, came the other elements when it was burned by nuclear fusion in stars nucleus, then those elements formed more complex molecules, until they finally formed the first aminoacids. Scientists have found nebulas of aminoacids in space. From aminoacids there came proteins, and every other type of organic molecules like DNA, and them come the more simple forms of life that existed in earth, from here evolution toke care until now. Cool ! That is like the scientific Genesis. But it doesn´t mean in my opinion that God doesn´t exist.
I'm afraid to say that we aren't like protein, we actually need the stuff to survive, unless we are made to eat our relatives then no.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Take thermophilic bacteria and see if they survive in Antarctica, fool. How many times do I have to say it before it registers. [b]Evolution does not dictate something always survives.If someone I really trusted said to me they met a leprechaun and stole his pot of gold, then when I asked him to show me proof of the gold he said he has none would I believe him? No.
Dirt? Yes I'm a living mudmonster. What's the protein, carbohydrate and lipid content of this "dirt". Try again. [/B]
Evolution indicates that a human could turn into a fish. does that sound realistic? I get the point of evolution not dictating something alwys survives, but it seems to me that it dictates the freezing coldness of antartica would be no different to a cloudy weathered forest.
"If someone I really trusted said to me they met a leprechaun and stole his pot of gold, then when I asked him to show me proof of the gold he said he has none would I believe him? No."
The difference between gold and someone being talked to is that words happen once, but gold stays there.
"Dirt? Yes I'm a living mudmonster. What's the protein, carbohydrate and lipid content of this "dirt"."
Do you think they would have included the tiny bits? And have you still forgotten the rest of the things that the Bible has pointed out which even science has proven right?
Originally posted by Chibi Boy
You have even less proof that a god would exist than I do. The so-called god of yours would have contacted us and told us about him and what to call him etc. Yet you're the only one who just today thought the idea.I'm afraid to say that we aren't like protein, we actually need the stuff to survive, unless we are made to eat our relatives then no.
[b]Evolution indicates that a human could turn into a fish.
does that sound realistic? I get the point of evolution not dictating something alwys survives, but it seems to me that it dictates the freezing coldness of antartica would be no different to a cloudy weathered forest."If someone I really trusted said to me they met a leprechaun and stole his pot of gold, then when I asked him to show me proof of the gold he said he has none would I believe him? No."
The difference between gold and someone being talked to is that words happen once, but gold stays there."Dirt? Yes I'm a living mudmonster. What's the protein, carbohydrate and lipid content of this "dirt"."
Do you think they would have included the tiny bits? And have you still forgotten the rest of the things that the Bible has pointed out which even science has proven right? [/B]
Hi Chibi Boy
How are you doing?
I've read your posts closely and have come to the conclusion that you are very young and still in school. I am surprised that you will stand up to all of the older people here. However, you do not have a good enough understanding of the scientific process. You will learn this in collage. The things you argue are illogical and just end up back where they begin. If you keep an open mind about things, I think you will do well in life. Have a good day my friend.
It's nice to know someone has figured out my age, but yet I can't leave more people to the wrong answer, and i feel it is my duty to try explaining the right answer. Remember that all this about evolution started as just a random theory, as many people see Christianity. Look at Einsteins theory of relativity, the people thought it was mad then, they figured out the truth in the end.