Anesthesia Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 I strongly disagree... i think science can only explain soo much, then there is God. Lots of early scienctists that have found the most complex arrangement of biology and chemistry believed there was no answear to where these complexities came from, but God. Some suggested aliens, but thats a whole other thread... By that rationale, the world USED to be flat until we proved it otherwise. Knowledge is constantly expanding and proving things wrong, the only difference is that religion tries to bend itself around reality so it can still look credible to those not willing to investigate things thoroughly enough. Just because you don't know something YET doesn't mean it was done by god. As for the theory of evolution v. the theory of creation - just because they are both theories doesn't mean one can't be more right than the other, or hold more water than the other. A theory with no evidence whatsoever isn't as valid as a theory with evidence to suggest it is sound. Evidence to support evolution = neanderthal bones, fossils showing the evolution of early animal forms, basically anything you get taught at school between ages 5-11. Some people are changed by being a moderator. I wouldn't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryptic Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 For the time being, there is no explanation for many things.... I dont care what anyone says, there are questions that will never be answeared. In Khazakstan we say God, Man, Horse, Dog, then Woman, Rat and small cockroach..M.A.D 4 Lyfe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apinagez Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Not to mention that there are many things in this world that could not have possibly ever come from natural selection. Organisms so complex that it would have taken trillions of years of natural selection to create them. Thanks for respecting my opinion, yours is respected as well :) Only point that makes no sence is: how do you know it would take trillions of years instead of billions (as it supposedly took)? I usually don't distinguish things that take 500 years from things that take 2000 years... ^The most disturbing signature on Tip.it^Last.fm|HELLY KAYLA!|Oh the mehagurtz!|#Siencemakers"they care less about their spelling mistakes then I." - Lionheart"apinagez... let me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anesthesia Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 That is true, but from a logical standpoint it is a fallacy to just say "If we don't know the answer, god did it". Some people are changed by being a moderator. I wouldn't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatsilverwyrm Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 That is true, but from a logical standpoint it is a fallacy to just say "If we don't know the answer, god did it". That works though, but only in bad situations. Why did my brother die? "God hates you." Why was Bush Jr. born? "God is a spiteful jerk." :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barihawk Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Not to mention that there are many things in this world that could not have possibly ever come from natural selection. Organisms so complex that it would have taken trillions of years of natural selection to create them. Thanks for respecting my opinion, yours is respected as well :) Only point that makes no sence is: how do you know it would take trillions of years instead of billions (as it supposedly took)? I usually don't distinguish things that take 500 years from things that take 2000 years... That was just a poorly made up example. A true example would be a plant only 60,000 years old and more complex than animals that have been on the planet for "millions of years". Also, natural selection really must not work well since the Crocodile has identical to its ancestors from millions of years ago. I mean...if humans evolved from monkeys in that time, why havent Crocs? I do believe in Micro-evolution (entirely different concept) in which we adapt slightly to our environments. This is what Darwin tought. Macroevolution (man from monkey) came from Darwin's assistant, Thomas Huxley. So Darwinists are really not Darwinists...they are Huxleyists. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatsilverwyrm Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Nobody, except those ill-informed, think humans evolved from monkies. We came from an ape-like creature that was the common ancestor to modern apes (Gorillas, Chimps, Ourangutans) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwarfie76 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Also, natural selection really must not work well since the Crocodile has identical to its ancestors from millions of years ago. I mean...if humans evolved from monkeys in that time, why havent Crocs? Evolution is a force that shapes an organism toward a best fit within it's ecological niche. Crocodiles are already pretty well suited to theirs, there is no evolutionary reason why they would evolve. Much in the same way as if you threw a rock in a river... erosion would pretty soon make your jagged rock a nice smooth round shape. But once it was already round, erosion won't have much effect on it. Evolution, like erosion, is a process of refinement, not a progression through any predefined steps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barihawk Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 But still, why did the molecules of the primordial ooze develop into huge organisms like us? If you look at other water planets (such as Mars, which had water for billions of years), the organisms never advanced beyond that...microbacterial organisms. What was so different between Mars and Terra? Both had similar surface climates and environments billions of years ago. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatsilverwyrm Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 But still, why did the molecules of the primordial ooze develop into huge organisms like us? If you look at other water planets (such as Mars, which had water for billions of years), the organisms never advanced beyond that...microbacterial organisms. What was so different between Mars and Terra? Both had similar surface climates and environments billions of years ago. Did they? I think you need to do your research. We've found evidence of water on mars, but so-far, as far as I know, have no real evidence of life of any kind, even plants. Nor do we have any real proof of what the climate used to be like. Earth, amongst other things (water, etc.) is the perfect distance from the sun for lifeforms like us. Not too hot, not too cold. That played a distinct role in our development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwarfie76 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 But still, why did the molecules of the primordial ooze develop into huge organisms like us? I don't believe there is (or was) a "why". It just worked out that way. If you look at other water planets (such as Mars, which had water for billions of years), the organisms never advanced beyond that...microbacterial organisms. Who's to say that they never advanced? As far as anyone knows there might be a wealth of fossilised creatures buried beneath the martian soil - to say nothing of the millions of other earthlike planets in the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barihawk Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 I don't believe there is (or was) a "why". It just worked out that way. Thats almost like saying that if you can't explain it, God did it. Which basically puts the both of us at a stalemate. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwarfie76 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 I don't believe there is (or was) a "why". It just worked out that way. Thats almost like saying that if you can't explain it, God did it. Which basically puts the both of us at a stalemate. Indeed it does. Both are matters of faith. You have faith that there is a God, I have faith that there isn't. Neither of us can provide conclusive evidence to support our beliefs. You can say "Who created the universe then?" and I can reply with "Well who created God?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barihawk Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Well, I could say that God is infallible and omnipotent and was just there, but thats also a matter of faith :P. Exactly as I said...no way to prove there is a God until we die, no way to prove there is not a God in life. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyPurpleCrayon Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 I strongly disagree... i think science can only explain soo much, then there is God. Lots of early scienctists that have found the most complex arrangement of biology and chemistry believed there was no answear to where these complexities came from, but God. Some suggested aliens, but thats a whole other thread... By that rationale, the world USED to be flat until we proved it otherwise. Knowledge is constantly expanding and proving things wrong, the only difference is that religion tries to bend itself around reality so it can still look credible to those not willing to investigate things thoroughly enough. Just because you don't know something YET doesn't mean it was done by god. As for the theory of evolution v. the theory of creation - just because they are both theories doesn't mean one can't be more right than the other, or hold more water than the other. A theory with no evidence whatsoever isn't as valid as a theory with evidence to suggest it is sound. Evidence to support evolution = neanderthal bones, fossils showing the evolution of early animal forms, basically anything you get taught at school between ages 5-11. Rofl, talk about being hostile. You're acting like one of the biggest jerks ever. I believe in God, as I am a Christian, and that is what us Christians believe. Faith to me as far more superior than fact, and anything else for that matter. I think that God and my religion can be backed up by many things: us, living, breathing, the world, etc. I don't really need people like you guys saying otherwise, or even agreeing with me. I believe it, and no one can really [ever] change it. Here is my "Scientific Basis" :roll: Lmao. The Universe is expanding, and it couldn't have started from nothing. We all know you can't make something out of nothing, (Here is the chance for someone to argue with the least important part of my entire post). Faith. Sarcasm. Irony. That's why I believe. :P Ghost: I am prejudice towards ignorance, so that would explain why I appear to be so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete_the_Viscous Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Edit -- you know I'm not even going to get into this, people just... gah. (For the record, mine was an "in theory agnostic, in practice atheist" (a la H.P. Lovecraft) post). deviantart account Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralinre Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 I don't believe there is (or was) a "why". It just worked out that way. Thats almost like saying that if you can't explain it, God did it. Which basically puts the both of us at a stalemate. Indeed it does. Both are matters of faith. You have faith that there is a God, I have faith that there isn't. Neither of us can provide conclusive evidence to support our beliefs. You can say "Who created the universe then?" and I can reply with "Well who created God?" Well, as I've said before, something must be eternally existent. Because there is something here now, and because nothing can come from nothing, something must always have existed. The only two choices are the natural world (or an impersonal something) or the supernatural world (God). The problem lies in figuring out which one is more likely. (Personally, I believe that the Judeo-Christian God is the eternal reality.) As for evolution, I see the theory as more of devolution. Life went from tiny, prokaryotic bacteria that could provide their own food through chemo- or photosynthesis and could live in almost any environment on earth to an organism that can't go three minutes without oxygen or a few days without food or water. Now that's what I call progress. :P "In so far as I am Man I am the chief of creatures. In so far as I am a man I am the chief of sinners." - G.K. Chesterton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Nobody, except those ill-informed, think humans evolved from monkies. We came from an ape-like creature that was the common ancestor to modern apes (Gorillas, Chimps, Ourangutans) The problem with this is that we weren't around then to observe it. History does not exist in the present, it exists in how we interpret past data. A few "intermediate" fossils (some of which are faked; now WHY a world that's supposedly drowning in all of these intermediate fossils would have people faking these "abundant" fossils is beyond me) cannot be proven to actually come from "intermediate species" since there are not very many of them. Other fossil evidence, such as the Cambrian Explosion, which shows a sudden massive explosion of fossils within an extremely short period of time, undermines fossil evidence as a whole. Fossils were the one thing Darwin said would make or break evolution, and Could someone provide me with a link showing the so called "irrefutable" fossil evidence out there? I'm not talking a fossil or two, I need a comparison on intermediate fossils compared to existing life forms, amount found, etc. I just can't see it out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatsilverwyrm Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Edit -- you know I'm not even going to get into this, people just... gah. (For the record, mine was an "in theory agnostic, in practice atheist" (a la H.P. Lovecraft) post). I think I'm done too, this topic has been beaten to liche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwarfie76 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Could someone provide me with a link showing the so called "irrefutable" fossil evidence out there? I'm not talking a fossil or two, I need a comparison on intermediate fossils compared to existing life forms, amount found, etc. I just can't see it out there. One could ask the exact same questions about God. Lack of evidence is not an argument for the opposing idea unless that opposing idea has some evidence of it's own to back it up. The amount of scientifically verifiable evidence in favour of evolution outweighs the amount of scientifically verifiable evidence in favour of a supernatural creator by several thousand orders of magnitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barihawk Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Good job Insane, I could not have said that any better. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Could someone provide me with a link showing the so called "irrefutable" fossil evidence out there? I'm not talking a fossil or two, I need a comparison on intermediate fossils compared to existing life forms, amount found, etc. I just can't see it out there. One could ask the exact same questions about God. Lack of evidence is not an argument for the opposing idea unless that opposing idea has some evidence of it's own to back it up. I believe I linked you to the cambrian explosion. That's definitely positive evidence for an opposing idea. I wasn't saying evolution wasn't a valid theory, I was just saying that there isn't enough evidence to support it yet. There isn't any other way to show that there isn't any evidence other than, showing that there isn't enough evidence. I think you were reading into my motives too much. Moreover lack of evidence is definitely evidence against the theory IF the theory states that there is evidence. There is proof for God's existence, already shown by Astra (nothing can come from nothing, therefore something has to have existed), but it's philosophical - clearly science cannot be used to prove the non-scientifical. And if you're a fan of the scientific method being the only way to determine truth - then try testing hte scientific method by the scientific method :P it's a self-refuting claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete_the_Viscous Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 ...temptation... too... great... Why can something not come from nothing? First of all, if it's possible for God to exist, (which I'm not contending) surely it's possible also for things to simply spring into existance. ...and now I must cease looking at this thread, for my own good. deviantart account Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 ...temptation... too... great... Why can something not come from nothing? First of all, if it's possible for God to exist, (which I'm not contending) surely it's possible also for things to simply spring into existance. ...and now I must cease looking at this thread, for my own good. It defies the laws of casuality - you can never get more out of hte conclusion than is in the premise. If nothing is in the premise, then you cannot get anything more than nothing in your conclusion. It's like saying 0 + 0 = a universe. It just doesn't work. God, by definition never "came" into existence, so God isn't something "coming" from nothing, because God never came. Of course it's convenient, but it's convenient because in my opinion, it's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwarfie76 Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I believe I linked you to the cambrian explosion. That's definitely positive evidence for an opposing idea. The cambrian explosion is in no way evidence for the "god put it there" theory. If that was not what you were suggesting then yes, I have misread your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts