See, your search for undeniable proof is completely being your undoing. As I explained, science is NOT about undeniable proof- you are locked into as mindset where it should be. But it IS based on evidence, and faith is not. If you are really making equivalent the beliefs of religion and the evidence-supported facts of science after everything that has been said here, then you are simply blinding yourself to all reason. You say we don't know. Well, it is a complex area and no-one knows all of it, for certain. But there is lots and lots and lots we DO know, have obersved evidence of, and are uncovering more of as time goes by! The evidence exists- all there is for creationism is a lack of evidence. Enough to make- for example- a coherent, useful and relevant factually based theory to be taught as science in schools- unlike creationism, which should only be taught in faith-based lessons, not as science. The day we start teaching things as science purely because a lot of people WANT it to be true- as with creationism- instead of there being a load of scientific evidence to support it- such as Big Bang Theory and Evolution- is a step back to the Dark Ages.
Why should I have to proof the universe was not created by a supreme being? What, exactly, is my interest in that? Even assuming I was a hardocre scientist? Scientist deal with evidence supported facts. Until someone puts forward facts showing that the Universe was PERHAPS created by such a being- FACTS, not just beliefs, then there is no more point trying to disprove that then there is trying to disprove that it was made by a sandwich toaster named Gerald.
Provide evidence that a supreme being DID create the universe and then we can work on refuting or supporting that if necessary. Without such evidence, such an idea is just totally irrelevant.
There is EVIDENCE for the big bang. A ton of it. We are talking about it over and over and over. You have NO evidence for Creationism. How much more clear do we have to make this?
We don't tell you that you are absolutely, definitively WRONG to believe what you believe- but the fact is, you take that on faith, not evidence. Science takes things on evidence. I am not necessarily going to stand here and say evidence is good and faith is bad- but I am going to stand here and say that in the rational application of evidence and logic, the same processes that have created the modern world and all technology- in short, in everything that is meant by science- evolution and the big bang is supported, creationism and a supreme being is not.
There is no way you can put Evolution and Creationism on the same scientific level- Evolution is far better supported in all relevant scientific areas
That is why one is rejected and the other accepted- I cannot put it more simply than that.
I would happily go a step further and say- Creationism is not science. Evolution is.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Mar 23rd, 2004 at 07:50 PM
Gender: Male Location: Dreaming...Or am I living...
I completly Agree Ush,
I Hat eto seem like going around in circles, but As Omega said there IS a way to make some thign out of nothing, and it has been reproduced. When you take energy, wich is nothing and have it collide with other energy, you get 2 substances form nothing, Matter and Anti-matter. thus something from nothing. this is not a theroy, it HAS been proved, thus not it has become a theroum, or a thery that has been proved. Also Big-Band may not have been what casues teh Universe, it is just the most widly accepted theroy, this may not accually be what happened.
We have been given all the evidence of creationism already, we are only to open are eyes and grasp the scope hat is unmeasurable. Perhaps sciences greatest problem is that it possible dare i say it Cannot Prove God created the anything because he only left his word that IS absolute. There are many things that we cannot explain, and science can never explain. Only speculation and assumption. History it self is based on annuals and writtings that can be absolutely false.
The One Part 2>
”Where did the materials that caused the Big Bang come from? That is all I want to know.”
Try, once again, to read my reply where I elaborate on the fact that 0=1-1. What part of this simple equation do you not understand?
“If humans evolved from apes, wouldn't that mean the apes that didn't evolve or evolved more slowly would be more likely to become extinct?”
Once again: When a species acquires a specific trait (such as, say, high intelligence) it is because it is advantageous to said species. What is advantageous to ONE species for its survival is not necessarily advantageous to ANOTHER species for its survival. If you look at our closets relatives, chimpanzees, the have a highly developed ability to climb trees. We, homo sapiens, do not. We have a highly developed intelligence, chimpanzees do not.
Don’t make the mistake of looking at a trait and only that, ask yourself WHY it evolved in that particular species.
If you believe God created the Universe offer me some proof: You make the assertion, hence the burden of proof rests on you.
Tptmanno1> It is not so, that energy is NOTHING. On the contrary. But energy is NOT matter. I think that what you refer to is how a foton (the particle that carries the energy of the electromagnetism), can transform itself into an electron and a positron (both matter particles). Hence matter has arisen from no matter.
Raventheonly> ” We have been given all the evidence of creationism already.” Where?
” History it self is based on annuals and writtings that can be absolutely false.” So you admit that the Bible may also be absolutely false?
__________________ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
-Voltaire
"That includes ruining Halloween because someone swallowed a Bible."
"I just thought you were a guy."
"... Most guys do."
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Omega The One Part 2>
“If humans evolved from apes, wouldn't that mean the apes that didn't evolve or evolved more slowly would be more likely to become extinct?”
Once again: When a species acquires a specific trait (such as, say, high intelligence) it is because it is advantageous to said species. What is advantageous to ONE species for its survival is not necessarily advantageous to ANOTHER species for its survival. If you look at our closets relatives, chimpanzees, the have a highly developed ability to climb trees. We, homo sapiens, do not. We have a highly developed intelligence, chimpanzees do not.
Don’t make the mistake of looking at a trait and only that, ask yourself WHY it evolved in that particular species.
I understand what you are saying. This is what is I am asking. For example, you have two species of apes that are very similar. If the two apes were all exposed to the same changes in environment, wouldn't they evolve the similarly? I would think there would be a need to develop intelligence to avoid being wiped out by the smarter apes.
If you believe God created the Universe offer me some proof: You make the assertion, hence the burden of proof rests on you.
As I have stated before, I do not believe in something without undeniable proof. It cannot be proven that God did create the universe nor can it be proven that God did not create the universe. If we discover undeniable proof that everything that has occured since before the beginning of the universe has a concrete scientific explanation, there still is no proof that God doesn't exist. The existence of God will be proven when (He, She, It) chooses to prove it... if (He, She, It) does exist at all.
Raventheonly> ” We have been given all the evidence of creationism already.” Where?
” History it self is based on annuals and writtings that can be absolutely false.” So you admit that the Bible may also be absolutely false?
I disagree with the above statement. Accepted history is always based in some truths. The Bible cannot be entirely false, because there are events that are backed up by other sources. Whether or not the specific stories are literal or metaphoric is another debate that we are not allowed to get into.
For example, there was a mass exodus of slaves from Egypt and surrounding territories. Jesus was definitely a real person. The tribes of Israel were real and did constantly fight wars. Crucifixion was performed by the Romans during that time period. Those are just off the top of my head.
It is foolish to say that only one trait is a main trait, to say that is to ignore all the specialized attributes of an animal, all traites are eqaully important for selective advantage says that only the best will succeed. How can anyone deny that any bit of increased intellegence is not an advantage? I would like to see the level of intellegence any animal had in the so called beginning of life.
Yes, i admit that nothing is ever for certain. Not even the words i type or read can be for certain. But according to the rules science abides, the Bible can be completely true, can you deny the possiblity? Yet enough evidence says as prior posts point out that there are many truths which qualify it as a reliable annual of events in history. Truely there have been enough studies equal to or greater then that of evolution to qualify Creation as a theory to. Can you deny this possibility?
The fact is that the Bible have borrowed stories from other mythologies which is a common thing among the different mythologies.(an example Just like with the tale of atlantis, in Norse mythology it is called Ygdrasil but that came later on ) That the bible put in its tales with the written history at that time is normal as well. Doesnt make the bible right though.
What about those creature that are instinct, no mention of any sorts like that in the bible. Why is that?
I have a little theory about that . It goes something like this:
when they MADE up the stories of the bible they had no knowledge of the all life of the past, so they missed out that kind of important little detail about the entire creation process.
the example mentioned is of how mythologies borrow from each other, and the example is NOT about the bible, I know, but just to get it cleared if any one was gonna argue that particular point ...............................
The_One_Part2> Why should the smarter ape wipe out the not so smart ape? If they didn't live in the same area, didn't have the same diet, or didn't infringe on each others habitats what would be the use?
What do you mean "accepted history?" There is zero proof Jesus existed. He's part of Christian history, not of secular history. What other sources backs up the Bible? One thing is an occurence which both Jewish, Greek and Roman writers scribble on ancient paper, such as floods, volcanic eruptions and names of Kings. No contemporary Roman or Greek writers mentions Jesus with a single word.
Raventheonly> What are you talking about? We ARE talking about intelligene now, that is the subject. Why suddenly talk baout other traits as well?
For the xth time: That one trait is advantageous to ONE species doesn't mean it is to others for their SURVIVAL as a species. You cannot look at just one indiviual, you must look at the species as a whole. What good what increased intelligence do for, say, ants? They're doing pretty fine without it. Since the way ants work now is advantageous to their survival, nature doesn't need to go into higher IQ for ants.
COULD the Bible be true? After 2000 years there is still no evidence that Jesus lived, no evidence a divine being created it all 6000 years ago, so I'd said creatinists and fundamental Christians have had more than enough time to supply us with proof.
"Yet enough evidence says as prior posts point out that there are many truths which qualify it as a reliable annual of events in history."
WHAT evidence? One thing is that The Bible mentions, say, some pharao that we know has lived. You can find the same pharao mentioned in other texts as well. That means only one thing: SAID pharao probably existed. It doesn't make the letter of the Bible true.
__________________ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
-Voltaire
"That includes ruining Halloween because someone swallowed a Bible."
"I just thought you were a guy."
"... Most guys do."
Gender: Male Location: Huntington Beach, California
I agree with The Omega about the whole proof that Jesus exsisted arguement...but i have one question that i don't know the answer to, so i hope someone could shine some light on the subject for me.
Why do we live in 2004? What was so significant 2004 years ago that we changed the way we count years? it went from BC to AD...but why? and in 1 AD...did the people at the time consider it 1 AD?
guess that's more than one question, but it's all the same subject.
Omega> Before i can give proof for the account of creation, i need to establish the reason why we believe that God exists, that's al i need, and since your a mod omega i'll need your permission. I it's a no, then we might as we'll end the thread here with just pointless arguing, not debating.
Link> B.C. means before Christ, A.C. means after Christ and A.D. mean Anno Domini.
The reason we switched was because of Jesus's death. Which ended the B.C. time period.
also, is TheOnePart2, the only other person on my side right now?
__________________
Made by the awesome transforming Hegemon
Don't mess with The Force, because I ownz you. -The Force
Gender: Male Location: Huntington Beach, California
I know WHAT BC and AD stand for...
and i know that AD switched it because of jesus's death. Thanks for your input Force.
I guess that question was more directed at Omega since she she stated that there is zero proof Jesus exsisted. In modern times its generally accepted that 2004 years ago Jesus died...but do you think people in 1 AD started counting upwards right after Jesus died? or do you think it became a trend that caught on a couple of years later. awww crap...i dunno what i'm thinking.
KMC Community Forums
Mar 23rd, 2004 07:41 PM
