Back to the beginning

[warri0r45]

I know most christian's aren't fundamentalist creationsists either, but frankly I don't see how they can't be. Evolution and Religion do not go hand-in-hand and never could, so it's either one side or the other. There literally is no middle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fundamentalists are zealots and will firstly try and force thier views on you and secondly not tolerate or accept science or logical argument. Not every christian is a fundamentalist, thank god.

[Ambassadar]

Once again. This isn't about Christianity. It is about if there is a higher being that created the Universe or not and what can we observe in the realm of physics back our thoughts. . That's it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are plenty of other threads to go to if you want to talk about other stuff. Another thing I notice all ya'll keep saying in your Christian rants are just opinions. Many keep acting like Christians ignore science or aren't logical. Then prove my logic wrong from my original post. I am open to any logical insights you may have on it. Otherwise go post on another thread that is more focused on what you want to discuss.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

warri0r45 wrote:

 

 

 

That's because these fundamentalist creationists you see build thier evidence around a conclusion i.e. they pick and choose what facts suit thier conclusion and nothing else.

 

 

 

Once again an opinion with no facts to back it up. This OT forum is never going to get anywhere until people back opinions with facts. That is the only way for educational positive dialogue to take place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways I am still researching quantum physics looking for an answer to a question I have regarding the quantum vacuum effect. I'll get back to the discussion in a bit...

[crimsonking]

I know most christian's aren't fundamentalist creationsists either, but frankly I don't see how they can't be. Evolution and Religion do not go hand-in-hand and never could, so it's either one side or the other. There literally is no middle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution and religion can easily go together, only the creationists are stopping this from happening, evolution has all the evidence mounted against creationism, though the creationists are apparently too blind to see whats right in front of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's because these fundamentalist creationists you see build thier evidence around a conclusion i.e. they pick and choose what facts suit thier conclusion and nothing else.

 

 

 

Once again an opinion with no facts to back it up. This OT forum is never going to get anywhere until people back opinions with facts. That is the only way for educational positive dialogue to take place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would like to see some solid facts come from creationists then, cause the only things I have heard from their mouths are the tiny flaws within the theory of evolution, they have not once given any sort of evidence to back up any of the constant dribble coming out of their mouths.

[Tigra00]

I'd love to see how evolutionists have "all the evidence mounted against them"?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution has TONS of evidence. It's an entire theory because there is so much evidence. Religion has no evidence, they're just stories.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're right though, creationists are the reason evolution doesn't work with creation, but that's not the only reason. The biggest reason is that God apparently snapped his fingers and everything popped up - as it is today. We know that to not be true due to fossil records.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If this discussion is really about "Was there a creator?" as Ambassador says, then I can quickly shut this discussion down by saying "No. And if you believe there was, PROVE IT." Because I can easily prove that there was no creator by using facts, and more importantly, common sense to go with those facts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...Has any religious person EVER posted evidence here? No. They just say their god exists and that is that.

[Ambassadar]

If this discussion is really about "Was there a creator?" as Ambassador says, then I can quickly shut this discussion down by saying "No. And if you believe there was, PROVE IT."

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am attempting to do that. I notice you haven't pointed out a single flaw in my line of logic. Please point it out if you see it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because I can easily prove that there was no creator by using facts, and more importantly, common sense to go with those facts.

 

 

 

Prove there wasn't a creator of the universe using facts then. I'm waiting. Thanks for implying I don't have common sense. Weak arguments usually involve personal attacks like this. How about backing up your opinions?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...Has any religious person EVER posted evidence here? No. They just say their god exists and that is that.

 

 

 

And you obviously didn't read my first post if you are making this comment. If you did read it then go back and read it again because you didn't understand it if you are saying this.

[crimsonking]

I'd love to see how evolutionists have "all the evidence mounted against them"?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution has TONS of evidence. It's an entire theory because there is so much evidence. Religion has no evidence, they're just stories.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're right though, creationists are the reason evolution doesn't work with creation, but that's not the only reason. The biggest reason is that God apparently snapped his fingers and everything popped up - as it is today. We know that to not be true due to fossil records.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If this discussion is really about "Was there a creator?" as Ambassador says, then I can quickly shut this discussion down by saying "No. And if you believe there was, PROVE IT." Because I can easily prove that there was no creator by using facts, and more importantly, common sense to go with those facts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...Has any religious person EVER posted evidence here? No. They just say their god exists and that is that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I meant to say was that evolution has all the evidence mounted up against creationism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Though you can't prove a creator exists, you can't really disprove it, I say this thread can be answered with plausible but not proven.

[warri0r45]

 

 

 

warri0r45 wrote:

 

 

 

That's because these fundamentalist creationists you see build thier evidence around a conclusion i.e. they pick and choose what facts suit thier conclusion and nothing else.

 

 

 

Once again an opinion with no facts to back it up. This OT forum is never going to get anywhere until people back opinions with facts. That is the only way for educational positive dialogue to take place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm. It's not so much an opinion as a valid observation of the method through which fundamentalist creationists gather thier evidence to support thier original conclusion (i.e. there is a god and were were created by his hand). Now logic and a basic understanding of science would tell us we don't gather evidence to support a conclusion; thats incredibly biased. What we usually do is gather evidence presented by nature and come to a conlusion afterwards. Read over what I've typed slowly and with care and you will realise that it's not biased opinion nor does it need facts to back it up.

[Ambassadar]

I reread what you said and I do sorta agree with your defense of it. I think my comment about opinions was more directed at this quote you made

 

 

 

fundamentalists are zealots and will firstly try and force thier views on you and secondly not tolerate or accept science or logical argument.

 

 

 

My apologies for not being clearer with that originally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not so much an opinion as a valid observation of the method through which fundamentalist creationists gather thier evidence to support thier original conclusion.

 

 

 

I dont want this to slip into an evolution debate so to respond I am going to merely say do you think I did this on my original post?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now logic and a basic understanding of science would tell us we don't gather evidence to support a conclusion; thats incredibly biased. What we usually do is gather evidence presented by nature and come to a conlusion afterwards.

 

 

 

This is unrelated to the original topic but I will say that in the steps of the scientific method hypothesis comes before experimentation. After experimentation you re-analyze it and see how it compared to your original hypothesis.

[warri0r45]

I reread what you said and I do sorta agree with your defense of it. I think my comment about opinions was more directed at this quote you made

 

 

 

fundamentalists are zealots and will firstly try and force thier views on you and secondly not tolerate or accept science or logical argument.

 

 

 

My apologies for not being clearer with that originally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not so much an opinion as a valid observation of the method through which fundamentalist creationists gather thier evidence to support thier original conclusion.

 

 

 

I dont want this to slip into an evolution debate so to respond I am going to merely say do you think I did this on my original post?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now logic and a basic understanding of science would tell us we don't gather evidence to support a conclusion; thats incredibly biased. What we usually do is gather evidence presented by nature and come to a conlusion afterwards.

 

 

 

This is unrelated to the original topic but I will say that in the steps of the scientific method hypothesis comes before experimentation. After experimentation you re-analyze it and see how it compared to your original hypothesis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bold 1: It's been a little while since I read the original post, but no, you don't come across that way at all. I can easily tell a fundamentalist from a conservative by thier persona, even on the internet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bold 2: Your right, we do originally form a hyothesis as to what we think will happen or as an explination of nature, but a hypothesis is completely different to a conclusion. What I'm trying to say is that fundamnetalist creationists say I have come to this conclution, not becuase my hypothesis is correct, but because this is the position I want to defend for my own non-scientific reasons. It's basically the opposite to saying I have come to this conclusion because my hypothesis was strengthened by the experimentation i did or evidence that became apparant to me, which is a much more sound and non biased way to achieve knowlege.

[Tigra00]

Ambassador, whatever you say doesn't matter for this simple fact:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Bible says everything was snapped into existence. We *know* this is not true. We KNOW it. It is 100% factual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the word of an infalible God is therefore falible, why do you believe it? Do you completely deny that it is obvious that creatures lived thousands of years before we were here, or what? And heck, there were even earlier humans than us!

[Ambassadar]

The Bible says everything was snapped into existence. We *know* this is not true. We KNOW it. It is 100% factual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Explain to me how the universe wasn't snapped into existence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As to the rest this thread is not about evolution.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

If Atheism was true

 

 

 

All matter and energy(which would include the Universe) would be infinitely old because it would never have had a beginning(a creation).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Says who? If anything the fact that our universe seems to have expanded from a point would suggest that it did have a beginning. Nothing is stopping the universe from having a creation because anything previous to creation doesn't have any relevance to us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The big bang wouldn't be a beginning because according to the theory the matter and energy for the whole universe was already in existence prior to the bang but just in a super compressed black hole sorta way and possibly in some other form before that. In effect the energy in the universe has always been a fixed definable constant. The energy in the universe now is the same as the amount in the universe 10 trillion years ago(or as far back as you want to go with it).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not explicitly stated that the universe was always in that state, only that it was in a similar state before inflation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If Atheism was true then there is a finite amount of matter and energy in existence(including alternate universes or different dimensions if they exist because there is a set amount of energy in those as well).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The laws of physics apply only to our universe, there is nothing stopping other universes from having non-fixed energies or any other bizarre behaviour.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the universe was never created from scratch then what this really means is that all matter in existence is infinitely old. It never had a beginning. It was always there in some form or fashion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think even the big bang theory assumes that the universe was created from scratch, just that a universe was created.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THEORY of creationism

 

 

 

 

 

 

urrgh

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Newton's first law says energy is neither created nor destroyed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not exactly true but lets assume so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If a God didn't create the Universe then all energy has had to be in existence for eternity. That means the energy surrounding us today has been around for an infinite number of years already.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which is pure speculation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When I look at the second law of thermodynamics I see a glaring problem arise. If this energy has been around for that long and it can only go to a lower energy state with time in a closed system then why can I see stars? Why am I even here? Shouldn't the whole universe have already digressed into some kind of dead burned out shell of itself ? If all energy is infinitely old then it should be impossible that I am here today or that the sun is still burning. Since that isn't the case then it would appear that at some point the Universe had to be created. This means there has to be a God or Creator.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All that energy was trapped in a degenerate state until inflation, like you stated above (a blackhole like ball).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only way I can get around this in my mind without admitting to myself there is a creator or God of some sort is to say maybe our Universe isn't the only one. Maybe there are other dimensions that somehow transferred their energy to ours. If that was the case and those dimensions or universes weren't created by a God then we run into the same problem again. What created those Universes? And thus we run into a circular argument with no way out. This Universe created this one which created that one on and on and on. The only conclusions that can be reached going this route are either:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. There must be an infinite number of universes that bumped into each other because if there is a set number of universes even if it is billions of them eventually all that energy in all those universes would stabilize at it's lowest form and because of that our universe couldn't exist as it does now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. The scientific Laws of Thermodynamics that can be reproduced 100% of the time in any situation aren't true and we should ditch them in favor of a mere theory that cannot be proven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Somewhere, somehow, sometime, there was a God or creator that created everything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusions from faulty assumptions and speculation ahoy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thus we get down to the crux of the issue. Every viewpoint requires a leap of faith.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course it's a leap of faith, but what do you prefer; A model based on some reasonable assumptions which is working towards reproducing the current universe or the words of a few thousand year old wise men.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's hard to have discussions around complex scientific theories because I doubt anyone here knows enough to really understand every aspect of the theory. You really need to have done a post-graduate course in astrophysics to have a comprehensive understanding of the big bang theory. When the majority of the forum hasn't even passed a high school level of physics or science in general (it gets vastly more complex, believe me) discussions often fill up full of faulty logic, understanding and plain ignorance.

[Ambassadar]

Nice response Death_By_Pod. Note to everyone else. This is exactly the type discussion I was looking for. He wasn't just like "You are wrong." He was like "I disagree and then listed his reasons."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Says who? If anything the fact that our universe seems to have expanded from a point would suggest that it did have a beginning. Nothing is stopping the universe from having a creation because anything previous to creation doesn't have any relevance to us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where did the energy come from then? Are you telling me something can be created from nothing?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not explicitly stated that the universe was always in that state, only that it was in a similar state before inflation.

Again, where did the energy come from that was in that state if that is the case?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The laws of physics apply only to our universe, there is nothing stopping other universes from having non-fixed energies or any other bizarre behaviour.

 

 

 

1. It isn't known if there are other universes.

 

 

 

2. It isn't known how the physics of such universes would be if they existed.

 

 

 

3. That being the case this statement is a huge assumption.

 

 

 

4. I covered this when I gave as one of my potential final options that the second law of thermodynamics is not always true. If it doesn't work in another Universe then it wouldn't always be true. In other words we agree that this would have to be one of the potentials of what could be since it cannot be proven or disproven at this point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think even the big bang theory assumes that the universe was created from scratch, just that a universe was created.

 

 

 

I don't understand your point. I never said the Big Bang assumed the universe was created from scratch. To me the Universe is the energy contained in the Universe so when I made this statement I was referring to it in energy terms. I dunno if that answers what you were getting at so if I am still missing your point please explain it to me a bit more please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THEORY of creationism

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

urrgh

 

 

 

Theory: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

 

 

 

Are you saying this isn't a hypothesis?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not exactly true but lets assume so.

 

 

 

So how would you define the first law?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which is pure speculation.

 

 

 

All science is speculation until proven. Explain to me how logically what I said on this point didn't make sense and give me a better alternative.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All that energy was trapped in a degenerate state until inflation, like you stated above (a blackhole like ball).

 

 

 

And the second law says without an outside energy source it would have stayed in a degenerate state for eternity. What is the outside source of energy?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusions from faulty assumptions and speculation ahoy.

 

 

 

I think it is still a bit early in our discourse for either of us to brand the other one as full of faulty assumptions. Let the assumptions speak for themselves. If you can prove them wrong or I can prove yours wrong then only that will show if they are faulty or not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course it is speculation. Everything Stephen Hawkins comes up with is speculation as well. Unless the beginning of the Universe can be reproduced to observe it first hand anything anyone ever says about it is speculation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course it's a leap of faith, but what do you prefer; A model based on some reasonable assumptions which is working towards reproducing the current universe or the words of a few thousand year old wise men.

 

 

 

I already said what I preferred. I prefer the option that I think a God created the Universe. To me that makes more sense than randomly saying "Some other Universe that might exist(entirely possible but as of now it is just speculation based off of some math and some assumptions when observing some particles since we don't understand what is happening with them) might have different laws of physics(absolutely no proof at all on this) and those laws might make it possible for energy to be created from nothing(2nd law of thermodynamics would be wrong... If you are so science driven though why would you be just tossing out laws of science when they bothered you?) and then that energy might somehow come into our Universe(Once again a big leap of faith that might be possible but no first hand evidence) to keep things working." Is this what you consider a reasonable assumption? Compared to this I feel like my assumption is just as reasonable or more so. Granted that is just my opinion. Other people may think the alternative is more attractive but that is fine. It's not like there is some dictatorship that will execute someone for disagreeing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's hard to have discussions around complex scientific theories because I doubt anyone here knows enough to really understand every aspect of the theory.

PhD doctorates of Physics don't really understand every aspect of theories. That shouldn't stop people from discussing it amongst themselves. It is interesting stuff.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When the majority of the forum hasn't even passed a high school level of physics or science in general (it gets vastly more complex, believe me) discussions often fill up full of faulty logic, understanding and plain ignorance.

 

 

 

I agree with this but does education make intelligence? No, it merely allows it to be harnessed better. I would still like to hear what people have to say even though there is a good chance I have a further level of education.

[Tigra00]

 

The Bible says everything was snapped into existence. We *know* this is not true. We KNOW it. It is 100% factual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Explain to me how the universe wasn't snapped into existence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As to the rest this thread is not about evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, you explain to me how life WAS. That's the question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See how you are? You'll use science when it fits your beliefs, and say forget the rest. So science thinks the Universe blew up from a tiny point, thus you could call it "snapping into existence...", but after that, you believe it was all God from there, even though evidence says otherwise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How does that even work in your mind? Science is right where your beliefs fit, and the rest is just made up?

[Locke]

 

 

The Bible says everything was snapped into existence. We *know* this is not true. We KNOW it. It is 100% factual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Explain to me how the universe wasn't snapped into existence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As to the rest this thread is not about evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, you explain to me how life WAS. That's the question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See how you are? You'll use science when it fits your beliefs, and say forget the rest. So science thinks the Universe blew up from a tiny point, thus you could call it "snapping into existence...", but after that, you believe it was all God from there, even though evidence says otherwise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How does that even work in your mind? Science is right where your beliefs fit, and the rest is just made up?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who is to say God wasn't doing the initial snapping? What evidence do you have that points to or away from anything metaphysical? I have yet to see any scientific evidence that does nothing except explain the physical world. Do you know of physical evidence that gives hints about a metaphysical world that I haven't seen? If it is one's belief that God created the world, doesn't that mean he created what science studies? Therefore, could you not say that science is merely studying what God's actions?

[Keep_It_Real]

I heard these cool facts, they came from a famous atheist scientist(SP)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He said 2 things, first, the chances that a SINGLE cell orgaisn, SINGLE CELL let me remind you. would be like 100,000 blind people solving a rubics cube at the same time. It's also like taking a watch apart, putting it in a bag, shaking it, and it goes togthet perfect.

[Ambassadar]

No, you explain to me how life WAS. That's the question.

 

 

 

This thread isn't about life. It is about the universe. The only bearing life has on this discussion is to show that energy hasn't degraded to it's lowest state yet. All I am doing is walking through the steps I see logically of how the Universe came into existence and I feel one of the options has to be there is a God. I listed some other options as well. Why does it tick you off so badly I made a God option. Do you think we shouldn't explore that possibility at all? Isn't that kinda close minded? If you can't prove there isn't a God then that option should stay on the table. So once again the burden falls on you to fulfill your claim.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See how you are? You'll use science when it fits your beliefs, and say forget the rest.

 

 

 

Actually it's because if I start talking evolution then this thread becomes pointless because it will blow up into so many topics that it will be impossible to cover everything. This thread is about the creation of the Universe. The evolution threads are so muddled and all over the map not to mention a giant flame fest that I don't think any productive discussion could come from continuing those threads. Once this thread has run it's course I might do one with some thoughts/observations on evolution if you want and if it is ok with the Mods. Until then please let's stay on topic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Bible says everything was snapped into existence. We *know* this is not true. We KNOW it. It is 100% factual.

 

 

 

All I did was say if you KNOW this then tell me how you know it. Educate me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...but after that, you believe it was all God from there, even though evidence says otherwise.

 

 

 

Also I would like to point out once again you are making generalized comments like "evidence says otherwise" without actually showing me evidence. If you have all this evidence like you claim repeatedly then show it to us. I would like to see it.

[warri0r45]

I heard these cool facts, they came from a famous atheist scientist(SP)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He said 2 things, first, the chances that a SINGLE cell orgaisn, SINGLE CELL let me remind you. would be like 100,000 blind people solving a rubics cube at the same time. It's also like taking a watch apart, putting it in a bag, shaking it, and it goes togthet perfect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Therer are two things wrong here. Firstly, use some logic. Do you really think the first unicellular oranism assebled itself in perfect working order? Thats a ludicrous assumtion to make and my bet is that it was a more gradual process i.e. amino acids join, protiens are formed, protiens intertwine and form structures, nucleic acids form and regulate the protiens etcetera etcetera. As for the watch example, it's basically a terrible analogy. Why? firstly the pieces of a watch are rediculously bigger than anything on a biochemical scale (such as cells, organic molecules etc) and the watch was already made before it was broken down. Do you really think, If i detonate a stick of dynamite inside my gut, that I can put myself back together? It's just a shock tactic argument to sway the weak minded, sorry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And ambassadar, have a look at this site: Understanding Evolution. I reccomend you start at the evolution 101 section, it explains the concepts behind evolution clearly. Make sure you take some time to read through it though, theres a bit to get through and a basic knowlege of genetics may help, if you don't have so already.

[Ambassadar]

*Beep Beep Beep*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Red warning lights go off*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time out. Not an evolution debate. There is another thread for that. Thanks.

[warri0r45]

If you have all this evidence like you claim repeatedly then show it to us. I would like to see it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was just trying to help out and point out the old and outdated arguments of the guy above.

[heart_of_ink]

Ok, here's an end to the argument, in easy, managable steps of thought-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. People have argued over whether the chicken came before the egg.

 

 

 

2. If you believe in god, then the chicken came before the egg, since god obviously created chickens to produce eggs. If you are an atheist, then the egg came before the chicken, because there would have to be a final non-chicken, possessing similar qualities to the chicken, without actually being a chicken. It would mate with another almost-chicken, and their genes would mix to make our common chicken. Still with me?

 

 

 

3. Think carefully about the question. It's asking which came first. Not the ultimate, very very very first egg/chicken, but which will come first in a logical patten.

 

 

 

4. All chickens come from eggs. A chicken embryo is not a chicken, it is a collection of cells which will then differentiate to produce all of the parts of a chicken. In the early stages, the embryo is very similar to that of a lizard.

 

 

 

5. Since all chickens were eggs before chickenhood, it goes egg -> chicken -> egg -> chicken -> egg -> chicken.

 

 

 

6. Work backwards. The egg is coming before the chicken. Since we are going by the principals of hybridization and genetic engineering, this means that god does not exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh crap, that's conflicting with my beliefs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, you can thank me later :thumbsup: .

[Tigra00]

It's not my job to educate you, Ambassador. How about taking Biology 101? Reading a book besides the Bible? Anything?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no proof that God didn't snap the Universe into existence. Infact, that's science's theory too, basically. That is exploded from a tiny point. That's pretty much snapping into existence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, life on Earth, which is said to also be created by God, all at once, has been proven to NOT be factual in that sense. Meaning, that for the last 150-ish years, we've known that there were animals on this Earth far before us. There were even previous species of humans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, unless you're going to argue that God snapped life into existence, THEN we evolved, it's pretty futile on your part. I don't care what this thread is about. You seemingly enjoy dodging questions by saying "That's not what this is about...", so what? Go off-topic and answer a question.

[Locke]

Meaning, that for the last 150-ish years, we've known that there were animals on this Earth far before us. There were even previous species of humans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You've only known that for the last 150-ish years? Christians have known that man came after the other animals for thousands of years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know what else is interesting? Dr. Michio Kaku, one of the co-founders of string theory, has recently said it looks as though humans evolved from a single man and woman. That also seems to fit the Christian belief, from what I know of it.

[warri0r45]

 

Meaning, that for the last 150-ish years, we've known that there were animals on this Earth far before us. There were even previous species of humans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You've only known that for the last 150-ish years? Christians have known that man came after the other animals for thousands of years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know what else is interesting? Dr. Michio Kaku, one of the co-founders of string theory, has recently said it looks as though humans evolved from a single man and woman. That also seems to fit the Christian belief, from what I know of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just becuase something is older dosen't mean it's more true. I think you'd agree our knowlege and capacity as a human race has been far greater in the past 150 years than in biblical times. And just because someone is of great stature, does not mean what they say is true. Who would you trust regarding matters of evolution? A biologist or a theoretical physicist? What background does Dr. Kaku have in biology and the evolutionary theory?, I'm not familiar with him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I don't doubt the fact that humans evolved from a very small number of people. I recently saw a program that gives the idea that modern humans evolved from a catastrophic event that limited pre-modern human populations to the order of a few thousand. In other words, this event was supposedly the ultimate example of natural selection, leaving only the smartest and strongest alive which was the catalyst for the evolution of the human race.

[Tigra00]

 

Meaning, that for the last 150-ish years, we've known that there were animals on this Earth far before us. There were even previous species of humans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You've only known that for the last 150-ish years? Christians have known that man came after the other animals for thousands of years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know what else is interesting? Dr. Michio Kaku, one of the co-founders of string theory, has recently said it looks as though humans evolved from a single man and woman. That also seems to fit the Christian belief, from what I know of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm very curious how two verses automatically equals "thousands of years". There is no time context there at all. It isn't even implied that it was later, it's just written afterwards. Either way, from what we know, it seems to be millions of years, not thousands. And again, either way, early man were NOT apes, they were human that were nowhere near our current "image", so...