HugATree

Most popular questions aren't about evolution at all, like "where did life come from?" Evolution is seen in genetics, bone and organ structure. If someone hasn't seen evolution, they either haven't looked, or don't want to.

I had a quick look, its these people who babble pseudo-science that give the general population misinformed views about things like evolution.

By this logic religions don't exist,they're all relationships. Christianity is very much a religion, I suggest you get a dictionary. Now lets throw in a Muslim, take a guess where the Atheist and Christian are going?

Sooner or later someones going to retaliate to the Lebenese gang violence.

This thread should've never been created, but he wanted me to reply here anyway.

Creationism rests on "God did it". This is not science and never will be, gods definition makes him unfalsifiable, and using the god doesn't have to follow science claim won't help your case. By using god you're required to prove his existence as you are making a positive claim. If this fallacy was a valid argument anyone could say the easter bunny, tooth fairy, imaginary friend, etc. exists.

His arguments were either outright lies, or recycled "evidence" that has been explained. His arguments had no credit to begin with, why should I have to got through every one because some people like ignoring todays science? YouÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re arguments only disprove his IF science backs you up, something that has not been proven here. Nope. You're shifting the burden of proof, I'm not require to disprove lies and assumptions. The burden of proof falls on the one making the positive claim. If he claims evolution says matter becomes alive, He is required to show evidence for this claim, evolution nevers says this so therefore its a lie. Why should I? He was arguing with evolution, evolution does not explain how the world came around. He was also arguing for Creationism, as am I. Are you biased against the theory of Creationism so much that you would rather believe nothing than to believe in the most logical conclusion? Where is the scientific evidence for creation? Attempting to disprove evolution won't prove creation by default. It never will be a theory, if creationism is anything its an unproven hypothesis. People call evolution a theory, yet several times the theory has been changed to fit with the facts. Each time a scientific theory is changed it moves back to the hypothesis stage. The theory of Creationism has been around since about 4,000 B.C., yet the same theory is still valid, even more so in some cases. Nothing in science is 100% certain, scientific theories get improve based on more research. The "theory" of creationism does not hold up to scientific standards, therefore its not valid. Why does it have to come from anywhere? You believe that there was always energy just floating around? Floating around where? Space was created with the big bang, even space itself contains quantum particles. "I can't work it out, God did it." Why would the eternal existence of energy be any more likely than the eternal existence of God? Or do you yourself have trouble working it out? Energy is proven, your god of gaps isn't. See why creationism isn't science? Scientific theories must be falsifiable. A good gap filler isn't he? God is the original cause. All the other theories are made up by man to try to fill the gap that is made when God is taken out. Prove it. You clearly haven't a clue what a scientific theory is. Nice to see your creation "science" rejects science whenever it pleases. The only scientific explanation for a beginning is a cause that is not bound by scientific laws: God. Like above, prove it. I too can make up answers in my head, but they aren't valid if they can't be backed up. Do creationists have trouble reading? Evolution doesn't explain how life formed, or how the universe formed. Did I say evolution? I said scientists. Did you have a problem reading? Yes you did, you claimed to list the errors of evolution. Obviously its just scientists you don't like. I've looked at answersingenesis.org before, they are generally anti-science. Many of their claims aren't scientific and appears to be invented in their heads, provide the bible doesn't reject it. A funny one is they claim dead animals and plants should continue to live because they're getting energy from the sun, you can't get anymore ignorant towards science than that. HereÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s whatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s on that list: 1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast 2. Comets disintegrate too quickly 3. Not enough mud on the sea floor 4. Not enough sodium in the sea 5. The EarthÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s magnetic field is decaying too fast 6. Many strata are too tightly bent 7. Injected sandstone shortens geologic ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâagesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ 8. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâagesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ to a few years 9. Helium in the wrong places 10. Not enough stone age skeletons 11. Agriculture is too recent 12. History is too short 1. The model was flawed, it was a computer simulation that didn't take into account the gravity of the surrounding stars. 2. Just the existence of the Kuiper Belt has refuted this. And that was over 50 years ago. 3. Strawman argument, much sediment never reaches the ocean floors. Some continental slopes can accumulate several kilometers of sediment. 4. Again like 3 you're assuming the rate is constant. Using this reasoning, if its snowing 1 inch an hour and the snow is 4 feet deep the earth is only 2 days old. 5. The earths magnetic field strengthens and weakens. 6. This argument states the strata had to be soft which is wrong as thick layers of sediment create high pressures allowing tight bends. This claim ignores water is incompressible, so soft sediment under pressure would cause eruptions even in a young earth. 7. Completely false. Unconsolidated sediments are not solidified by only pressure, they require chemical cementing agents. 8. Halos explained http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm 9. Helium is produced by radioactive decay. I really don't know what this claim proves. 10. Nope. Not if you take into account even bone breaks down in most soil types. Only one victim of roman crucifixion has ever been found, does that mean only one person has ever been crucifed by your reasoning? 11. This is human behaviour, this doesn't prove the earth as young. 12. Like 11 its human behaviour, not a valid way of dating the earth. Been refuted years ago, they must be scientific then. Which scientific principles has it broken? The only group pulling out assumptions are creationists. How can you call creationism science when all you've proven is it uses a god of gaps? Weren't you just calling it a scientific theory? It fails to even come close. The principles listed above. And what gaps? One of the major factors in science is for the theory to be falsifiable, saying god does what you can't prove means creation will never be scientific.

By that reasoning the vedas scriptures are also fact, just believing doesn't mean asserting it as fact will make it fact.

Scientific theories are explanations of the evidence supported by the evidence, they are falsifible. Religious "theories" aren't even that, they are stories.

The PC if you can call it one, or the Xbox

As we will see the faulty assumptions are invented by creationists because they can't conform to the scientific method. Wrong. Thats abiogenesis. Been observed. As much a creative power as a hole in the ground has thats filled with water. If some animals dont fit the environment its likely going to die. What science books have you been reading? What you're describing has nothing to do with science or evolution. Has nothing to do with evolution. Order and chaos are subjective, science deals with the objective. All I've seen in your post so far is dishonesty, this seems to be a trend in creation "science", if things don't go your way spread as much false information about your opposition. Evolution is very much a science, I wonder if creationists know what science is since creation science is just religion pretending to be science. Logical fallacies are hardly reasonable.

Thinking along those lines - that there must have been a beginning - and if a God was responsible, then I'd infer that that God must have always been existant and outside the realm of this universe, an 'all powerfull being' as some people say. The cause and effect rule has to have started from somewhere (otherwise we would never get to today) and the cause of that beginning must be exempt from this rule if it is to make any logical sense (imo at least). :) Tricky aint it? :P The first cause argument contradicts itself. If some things don't apply to the rule, why does the big bang need to? The point is is that it contradicts itself. And if the Big Bang is a scientific theory, then it has to be said that it is scientifically possible for particles to appear out of nowhere. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a scientific theory. Some quantum particles do this. Anyway the big bang theory doesn't say nothing existed before it, therefore something doesn't need to "appear" out of no where, if the energy in some form or another has always existed.

Thinking along those lines - that there must have been a beginning - and if a God was responsible, then I'd infer that that God must have always been existant and outside the realm of this universe, an 'all powerfull being' as some people say. The cause and effect rule has to have started from somewhere (otherwise we would never get to today) and the cause of that beginning must be exempt from this rule if it is to make any logical sense (imo at least). :) Tricky aint it? :P The first cause argument contradicts itself. If some things don't apply to the rule, why does the big bang need to?

Seeing as there is no real scientific evidence for god I guess that makes it easier. When is the god of gaps credible? The big bang doesn't explain it well enough, therefore god exists. That isn't evidence, thats a logical fallacy. Scientific theories are explanations of the evidence, sounds like you shouldn't be in physics classes if you can't grasp science.

How does anyone choose to be raped?

Thats a flawed anology, the cars existence has no impact on the womans life or body. The only ones trying to enforce their decisions are the pro-lifers. Thats why in some countries the decisions are felt up to the women, not pro-lifers who'd rather she be forced to have the child.

These are nothing short of assumptions, a God could have a completely different plan to what you just described. I never asked what your understanding was, I asked what makes your understanding anymore valid than some elses. In other words exactly what every other religion is doing.

How does the existing of a God make your understanding any clearer? If there is a God why would he like your belief anymore?

Why insist on taking away the woman's choice? If you're ever in that situation, you go do that.

Atheist is someone who doesn't believe in supreme being(s). Matter is a form of energy, and energy can't be created or destroyed. Or make people use circular logic.

well you absolutely know nothing. If you knew anything about how the bible explains heaven you would know it isnt like church. Church isnt a MUST for christians its just a place where you can go to learn more about your faith and have fellowship with others that share your beliefs. I know I'd be surrounded with people like you. That is torture.

Knowing doesn't make your argument anymore verifible, knowing is a mental process. Church is just a sampler for the real torture in heaven. I wasn't embarressed when I believed in God, nor am I embarressed I woke up out of the fantasy world.

Christianity claims to be the successor of Judaism. Although from the perspective of many jews, christianity is blasphemy, contradicting and takes their scriptures out of context, or mis-quotes them.

If God created time, then we can say that He exists outside of its influence. You only have a "beginning" or "end" within time, so God just was. It's tough to think about, but pretty reasonable too. This is just a rip off most scientific theories. Anyway the big bang theory doesn't claim it came from nothing, its very unlikely even impossible there was a point when nothing existed.