Originally posted by Shakyamunison
sithsaber408 why, if the limit on text size is 10000, did you post this in 4 post?Do you thing that if you brake up your thread post into 4 parts, it will look like people give a dam about this?
My bad. I thought it was a 1000 post limit. 😮 😮 😮
As for your other question.... I just thought this would be fun. I have no "agenda".
Just as you probably have no "answers" to these questions.
Why....? Evolution, (like Christianity) is a theory, an unprovable one.
Both take faith to believe in, due to enough evidence for belief, but not enough for proof.
(Personally I think apes would be offended to think that we descended from them) 😄
Originally posted by BackFire
Perhaps no one is participating because people have discussed this to a ridiculous degree over the past few months in several other threads, and we're sick of making the same points over and over.
Your points are.....
You prove the Dr. wrong by.....
"God scares me. He cant be real."
"It just evolved, so there."
"It was a cosmical mix of.....damn. I don't know WHO, HOW, WHY, WHERE, or WHAT could have caused the big bang."
"Evolution/the big bang feels better than God. At least I can live my sh*tty life the way I want to."
Or did I miss a genuine scientific explanation. 😉
I agree with the doctor. Convert me to evolutionism if its true.
I've seen people healed of disease (my father-in-law, mother), drug addiction(myself), and physical disablility (in my church), by the power of God, given to them through faith in Jesus Christ. 🙂
I'll take what I can see over the BS reasons of evolution that Darwin himself says is folly....(as I posted earlier)
"To suppose that the human eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."-CD 😎
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Your points are.....You prove the Dr. wrong by.....
"God scares me. He cant be real."
"It just evolved, so there."
"It was a cosmical mix of.....damn. I don't know WHO, HOW, WHY, WHERE, or WHAT could have caused the big bang."
"Evolution/the big bang feels better than God. At least I can live my sh*tty life the way I want to."
Or did I miss a genuine scientific explanation. 😉
I agree with the doctor. Convert me to evolutionism if its true.
I've seen people healed of disease (my father-in-law, mother), drug addiction(myself), and physical disablility (in my church), by the power of God, given to them through faith in Jesus Christ. 🙂
I'll take what I can see over the BS reasons of evolution that Darwin himself says is folly....(as I posted earlier)
"To suppose that the human eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."-CD 😎
You've just attempted, in an incredibly sloppy, lazy, idiotic, and flawed manner, to put several statements into my mouth which I've never said, insinuated or thought.
You've made some statements that can't be proven, or even argued in any logical way, to be true. Can you prove that belief in god healed these people and it wasn't simply coinicidence? Can you even argue it based on more then "It's just what I believe"?
I can't convert you to evolution because it's not a religion. It's a scientific theory, nothing more, nothing less. Believing it or not doesn't change the fact that it holds more scientific validity than creationism.
What can you see about the things you've described. You can't see god, you can't see Jesus, you can't see angels and you don't know that the belief in god is responsible for curing these people. It's probably simply what you want to believe, and as such you're going to simply accept "god did it" as a reason without any evidence.
Also, I'm skeptical that Darwin even said that. It's just a blind statement you've posted in quotations, without any source, and if he did say that, it's probably been taken out of context by people who have the agenda of demonizing the evolutionary theory in a logically flawed attempt at giving their religious beliefs validity, which is obviously what you are trying to do with this thread, which is funny since you claim to have no agenda. I don't think God appreciates your lies.
Dictionary Definitions:
Fact- n. "Something that actually exists or has occurred."
Evolution-n. "The theory that all forms of life originated by descent from earlier forms." [Theory]
Creation-n "God's bringing the world into existence" [Fact]
So clean up my sloppy counterpoints with your tight-knit ones.
Can you prove the theory of evolution(can anyone?) or is it easier for you to take that on faith, than think that there really is a God out there.
Oh, Darwin did say that, as did Gallup, the statician said" that the human body, with all it's functions, would just happen is a statistical monstrosity."
Google it. 😄
Holy Hell, this is the worst argument against evolution I've ever read on this site.
I never said Evolution was fact. I said it was a theory, a scientific one. That doesn't detract from it's scientific validity though. Science is based on theories that can't be proven. Gravity, is a theory. Evolution can't be proven factually. That doesn't mean that it's the same as creationism. There is scientific evidence to support evolution while there is none to support creationism.
God creating the world is not fact, as you well know. Again, just a lazy attempt at giving your beliefs validity.
"Google it." Yeah, because google is the ultimate authority on all things. If I google it it will just take me to some biased website trying to invalidate evolution by some "quote" from Darwin that again, was probably taken out of context.
Oh one more for you, Steven Hawking, considered by many to be the best-known scientist since Albert Einstein, said:
"The Universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it would not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn't combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn't form the heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on..."
Sounds like the Lord intelligently designed the earth for us in a very specific way doesn't it.....
Originally posted by BackFire
Holy Hell, this is the worst argument against evolution I've ever read on this site.I never said Evolution was fact. I said it was a theory, a scientific one. That doesn't detract from it's scientific validity though. Science is based on theories that can't be proven. Gravity, is a theory. Evolution can't be proven factually. That doesn't mean that it's the same as creationism. There is scientific evidence to support evolution while there is none to support creationism.
God creating the world is not fact, as you well know. Again, just a lazy attempt at giving your beliefs validity.
"Google it." Yeah, because google is the ultimate authority on all things. If I google it it will just take me to some biased website trying to invalidate evolution by some "quote" from Darwin that again, was probably taken out of context.
Evolution invalidates itself.
I hope for your sake that I'm wrong.
🙁
Oh one more for you, Steven Hawking, considered by many to be the best-known scientist since Albert Einstein, saidehh to be the most intelligent not best known
Sounds like the Lord intelligently designed the earth for us in a very specific way doesn't itno it just sounds like the universe was intelligent designed for us, doesnt say anything about a creator in form of a lord/god/supreme being.
If I ever find the first person who decided that quoting a bunch of random people qualified as a valid argument, I'm going to beat him up. Unless he's bigger than me. Or dead; it would be sort of redundant if he's already dead.
Ohh, a statistician doesn't support evolution! Well ****, if being able to run chi-square tests doesn't qualify one to comment on biological theories, I don't know what does!
As for Steven Hawkings, that's just the anthropic principle; nothing to do with evolution. Not that an astrophysicics is significantly more qualified to talk about evolution than a statistician.
Originally posted by BackFireIndeed.
Don't worry, you are.
If you actually think that one quote inaccurately quoted and taken out of context proves that Darwin thought the work he devoted most of his life to was folly than you're a moron. If you think creationism is a scientific theory, then you have no idea what a scientific theory actually is, and you're a moron. If you state that "God created the universe" is fact, then you have no place in any sort of factual debate, and you're a moron.
Stephen Hawkings is an agnostic.
Seems a trend that "Creationists" always resort to distorting quotes out of context to try and prove some kind of point.
Your quote.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
The Originof Species, Charles Darwin, 1872
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.
Originally posted by BackFire
Also, I'm skeptical that Darwin even said that.
Indeed. Darwin has often been said to have recanted his findings and conclusions on his death bed. This is not, I REPEAT, NOT the case. Darwin never turned coat in the final moments of his life. This is a blatant lie that has been propogated by the fanatically religious in our society.
Furthermore, I don't understand a person who, in one post, proclaims to have no "agenda" to turn around in his/her next post to argue the point. Maybe you are playing Devil's Advocate, but that will only get you in more trouble than you can handle.
If you want some of my pubic hair, you can just ask.
Tch tch tch. Charles Darwin would be spinning in his grave if he knew how some of his words were so taken out of context. Or maybe not, he seemed to know full well that many would object to his theories, no matter how much evidence he found to support them.
1.) WHERE did the universe come from?2.) WHERE did matter come from?
3.) WHERE did the LAWS of the universe come from (gravity,inertia, etc.)?
4.) HOW did matter get so perfectly organized?
5.) WHERE did the ENERGY come from to do all the organizing?
And I mean, really, these questions don't even deal with the same scientific field as evolution.
Still, go to any university or place of significant research that deals with this, and you'd discover any one of these questions have huge amounts of scientific study around them that has produced in some cases perfectly sound answers, or at the very least perfectly plausible theories with enough evidence to be able to say "this is a plausible theory."
Then if you like change the questions around and ask people where did God come from? (etc) - um, ah, nowhere. He kind of always existed. Always. And he just willed everything into being. Yeah, sure there's no proof, but it seems far more believable then all that scientific evidence yes? (Hahahahahahahahaha)
If you want some of my pubic hair, you can just ask.
Don't know about others, personally I'd only ask for them if they were made from spun gold or something.
Originally posted by Gregory
Ohh, a statistician doesn't support evolution! Well ****, if being able to run chi-square tests doesn't qualify one to comment on biological theories, I don't know what does!As for Steven Hawkings, that's just the anthropic principle; nothing to do with evolution. Not that an astrophysicics is significantly more qualified to talk about evolution than a statistician.
Those arguments are not about evolution itself, their arguments are valid since they concern their area of study. The statistician said in other words that something so complex as the human body with all its functions is extremely improbable, which is statistics, and Stephen Hawking is not even talking about evolution. There are many ways to view evolution, a biologist argument is only relevant if it concerns evolution in a biological standpoint, and not all of it involves just biology.
But I think that the fact of all the complexity of the human body being a "statistical monstruosity" does only mean that there is some order like in in the genes, and molecules of DNA that governs evolution, its not a ramdom thing, and there is no need to discard it. In fact other statistical studies show that evolution is highly probable.