I don't understand how evolution is such a controversial topic..

  • 111 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for starwarsgeek112
starwarsgeek112

3472

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 starwarsgeek112
Member since 2005 • 3472 Posts
I mean.. it just kind of seems pretty obvious that everything has to change at some point. I don't see how it is somehow against God to believe it. I believe in evolution, but I still consider myself to be a christian. Oh well this'll probably start some debate.. or not be noticed at all. oh well.
Avatar image for Hellraiser3899
Hellraiser3899

10060

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#2 Hellraiser3899
Member since 2005 • 10060 Posts
I don't see whats wrong with believing in both or really why anybody argues about it on the internet.
Avatar image for DivergeUnify
DivergeUnify

15150

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 DivergeUnify
Member since 2007 • 15150 Posts
Guys, my history teacher went to Jamestown, Newyork a few months ago and went to local churces and asked their position on evolution. He said all of them said they believe evolution to some extent as there is too much evidence supporting it, and that they believe that the bible is symbolicaly true, but not factually.
Avatar image for OfficialJab
OfficialJab

3249

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 OfficialJab
Member since 2005 • 3249 Posts
I don't understand why they have to be conflicting either. Can't 'god' have thought up evolution and had it apply to all his creatures? What's so wrong about that?
Avatar image for quiglythegreat
quiglythegreat

16886

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 quiglythegreat
Member since 2006 • 16886 Posts
Because some people are going to Heaven, unlike you, who has clearly not accepted the teachings of Christ, our lord and savior.
Avatar image for Greedo_What
Greedo_What

756

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#6 Greedo_What
Member since 2007 • 756 Posts
Because some people are going to Heaven, unlike you, who has clearly not accepted the teachings of Christ, our lord and savior.quiglythegreat
Ohmagudnuzudidnotjustsaydat!
Avatar image for artichoke
artichoke

2271

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#7 artichoke
Member since 2006 • 2271 Posts
Most people accept micro evolution but not macroevolution. As in we think the idea of a fish turning into a bird pretty ridiculous.
Avatar image for sca321
sca321

1903

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 sca321
Member since 2003 • 1903 Posts
Guys, my history teacher went to Jamestown, Newyork a few months ago and went to local churces and asked their position on evolution. He said all of them said they believe evolution to some extent as there is too much evidence supporting it, and that they believe that the bible is symbolicaly true, but not factually.DivergeUnify
Why did he have to go Jamestown, NY to do that?
Avatar image for MronoC
MronoC

4113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#9 MronoC
Member since 2005 • 4113 Posts
exactly, you can not deny that sometimes irregular mutationsdo happen, and it's certainly not absurd to think that in some situations in the past that these mutations aided survival, meaning the mutated lived on longer, allowing them to reproduce, causing the change to spread throughout the species. It's just logic.
Avatar image for quiglythegreat
quiglythegreat

16886

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 quiglythegreat
Member since 2006 • 16886 Posts
Most people accept micro evolution but not macroevolution. As in we think the idea of a fish turning into a bird pretty ridiculous. artichoke
Aye, I think everyone finds that ridiculous, however most of the time no one is talking about such a thing.
Avatar image for PrimordialMeme
PrimordialMeme

1279

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 PrimordialMeme
Member since 2007 • 1279 Posts

Anybody with education knows evolution is real. The basis of evolution - survival of the fittest and natural advantages through genetic mutation are both observable facts we have on earth.

The problem is that some people are fundamentalists. They believe that some ancient book said to inspired by god is PERFECT and therefore evolution must be false. Sad because the bible is full of some wicked ideas, anybody with a modern sense knows its mostly bronze age barbarism in writing.

Avatar image for MronoC
MronoC

4113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#13 MronoC
Member since 2005 • 4113 Posts

Because some people are going to Heaven, unlike you, who has clearly not accepted the teachings of Christ, our lord and savior.quiglythegreat
:lol: good one...

...wait, are you being serious?

Avatar image for Hellraiser3899
Hellraiser3899

10060

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#14 Hellraiser3899
Member since 2005 • 10060 Posts
Christianity is full of **** So are Christians. **** em all.droge085
I agree with this guy... wait, no I don't. What the hell is even going on.
Avatar image for starwarsgeek112
starwarsgeek112

3472

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 starwarsgeek112
Member since 2005 • 3472 Posts
[QUOTE="artichoke"]Most people accept micro evolution but not macroevolution. As in we think the idea of a fish turning into a bird pretty ridiculous. quiglythegreat
Aye, I think everyone finds that ridiculous, however most of the time no one is talking about such a thing.



Who knows a fish could've turned into a bird through many millions or billions of years. ;)
Avatar image for quiglythegreat
quiglythegreat

16886

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 quiglythegreat
Member since 2006 • 16886 Posts
[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="artichoke"]Most people accept micro evolution but not macroevolution. As in we think the idea of a fish turning into a bird pretty ridiculous. starwarsgeek112
Aye, I think everyone finds that ridiculous, however most of the time no one is talking about such a thing.



Who knows a fish could've turned into a bird through many millions or billions of years. ;)

that's not a fish turning into a bird. It's not like some female fish was all a sudden like 'oops, I pooped a bird. Must be Satan's doing'.
Avatar image for Wilfred_Owen
Wilfred_Owen

20964

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 34

User Lists: 0

#17 Wilfred_Owen
Member since 2005 • 20964 Posts
Because complaining is cool and the new high them kids get into now.
Avatar image for quiglythegreat
quiglythegreat

16886

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 quiglythegreat
Member since 2006 • 16886 Posts
Because complaining is cool and the new high them kids get into now.Wilfred_Owen
It's a shame because now it's easier to get, cheaper to buy, and more potent than ever. I feel sorry for all high schoolers.
Avatar image for starwarsgeek112
starwarsgeek112

3472

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 starwarsgeek112
Member since 2005 • 3472 Posts

[QUOTE="Wilfred_Owen"]Because complaining is cool and the new high them kids get into now.quiglythegreat
It's a shame because now it's easier to get, cheaper to buy, and more potent than ever. I feel sorry for all high schoolers.

I feel sorry for myself. :(

Avatar image for Silver_Dragon17
Silver_Dragon17

6205

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#20 Silver_Dragon17
Member since 2007 • 6205 Posts
Some Christians believe that it directly contradicts Genesis, and then all of Christianity. However, and scholar will tell you the exact opposite.
Avatar image for Whicker89
Whicker89

18919

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#21 Whicker89
Member since 2004 • 18919 Posts
I believe in both, God and Evolution
Avatar image for artichoke
artichoke

2271

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#22 artichoke
Member since 2006 • 2271 Posts

Anybody with education knows evolution is real. The basis of evolution - survival of the fittest and natural advantages through genetic mutation are both observable facts we have on earth.

The problem is that some people are fundamentalists. They believe that some ancient book said to inspired by god is PERFECT and therefore evolution must be false. Sad because the bible is full of some wicked ideas, anybody with a modern sense knows its mostly bronze age barbarism in writing.

PrimordialMeme

There's no proof of evolution. There's evidence but no proof. Creation also has evidence.

Avatar image for Def_Jef88
Def_Jef88

17441

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#23 Def_Jef88
Member since 2006 • 17441 Posts
Most people accept micro evolution but not macroevolution. As in we think the idea of a fish turning into a bird pretty ridiculous. artichoke
All macroevolution is is microevolution over and over.... :|
Avatar image for greenprince
greenprince

3332

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#24 greenprince
Member since 2006 • 3332 Posts
whats with the hate on Christians? Its like you guys never heard of Catholics, Liberal Christians or any other person who believes in God and evolution.
Avatar image for Silver_Dragon17
Silver_Dragon17

6205

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#25 Silver_Dragon17
Member since 2007 • 6205 Posts

Anybody with education knows evolution is real. The basis of evolution - survival of the fittest and natural advantages through genetic mutation are both observable facts we have on earth.

The problem is that some people are fundamentalists. They believe that some ancient book said to inspired by god is PERFECT and therefore evolution must be false. Sad because the bible is full of some wicked ideas, anybody with a modern sense knows its mostly bronze age barbarism in writing.

PrimordialMeme

:lol:

Oh, if people would only look at what they bash. . .:roll:

Avatar image for _Marisa_
_Marisa_

12204

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 _Marisa_
Member since 2003 • 12204 Posts
The only dumb belief is the belief that someone else's beliefs are dumb.
Avatar image for Hellraiser3899
Hellraiser3899

10060

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#27 Hellraiser3899
Member since 2005 • 10060 Posts
The only dumb belief is the belief that someone else's beliefs are dumb._Marisa_
I like that. :)
Avatar image for Greedo_What
Greedo_What

756

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#28 Greedo_What
Member since 2007 • 756 Posts
whats with the hate on Christians? Its like you guys never heard of Catholics, Liberal Christians or any other person who believes in God and evolution.greenprince
What? Catholics? You do know they are the ones that started Christianity and used it to gain political power way back when, right?
Avatar image for Silver_Dragon17
Silver_Dragon17

6205

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#29 Silver_Dragon17
Member since 2007 • 6205 Posts

[QUOTE="greenprince"]whats with the hate on Christians? Its like you guys never heard of Catholics, Liberal Christians or any other person who believes in God and evolution.Greedo_What
What? Catholics? You do know they are the ones that started Christianity and used it to gain political power way back when, right?

I don't know where you've been, but the history section is thattaway.:arrow:

Avatar image for mig_killer2
mig_killer2

4906

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 mig_killer2
Member since 2007 • 4906 Posts
because they take authority as truth rather than truth as the authority
Avatar image for _Marisa_
_Marisa_

12204

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31 _Marisa_
Member since 2003 • 12204 Posts
[QUOTE="_Marisa_"]The only dumb belief is the belief that someone else's beliefs are dumb.Hellraiser3899
I like that. :)



Thanks :P I made it up :lol:

But it seems to be the only logical conclusion :P
Avatar image for PrimordialMeme
PrimordialMeme

1279

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32 PrimordialMeme
Member since 2007 • 1279 Posts

There's no proof of evolution. There's evidence but no proof. Creation also has evidence. artichoke

Microevolution is proven. Macroevolution is well evidenced in the fossil records we have, but obviously humans aren't alive long enough for macroevolution to be observed during the blip of time we are on this planet.

There is zero credible evidence pointing to a creator of the universe.

Avatar image for artichoke
artichoke

2271

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#33 artichoke
Member since 2006 • 2271 Posts

[QUOTE="artichoke"]Most people accept micro evolution but not macroevolution. As in we think the idea of a fish turning into a bird pretty ridiculous. Def_Jef88
All macroevolution is is microevolution over and over.... :|

What I'm saying is that no matter how many small changes happen to that fish they will never be enough to turn it into a bird. It's species will stay the same.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#34 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts
Meh I have no problem with creationism, as LONG as its not taught in schools and science classes.. Leave the way thigns are now..
Avatar image for starwarsgeek112
starwarsgeek112

3472

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35 starwarsgeek112
Member since 2005 • 3472 Posts

[QUOTE="Greedo_What"][QUOTE="greenprince"]whats with the hate on Christians? Its like you guys never heard of Catholics, Liberal Christians or any other person who believes in God and evolution.Silver_Dragon17

What? Catholics? You do know they are the ones that started Christianity and used it to gain political power way back when, right?

I don't know where you've been, but the history section is thattaway.:arrow:

Yeah get your facts straight.

Avatar image for mig_killer2
mig_killer2

4906

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#36 mig_killer2
Member since 2007 • 4906 Posts

[QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="artichoke"]Most people accept micro evolution but not macroevolution. As in we think the idea of a fish turning into a bird pretty ridiculous. artichoke

All macroevolution is is microevolution over and over.... :|

What I'm saying is that no matter how many small changes happen to that fish they will never be enough to turn it into a bird. It's species will stay the same.

we've seen speciation
Avatar image for Def_Jef88
Def_Jef88

17441

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#37 Def_Jef88
Member since 2006 • 17441 Posts

[QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="artichoke"]Most people accept micro evolution but not macroevolution. As in we think the idea of a fish turning into a bird pretty ridiculous. artichoke

All macroevolution is is microevolution over and over.... :|

What I'm saying is that no matter how many small changes happen to that fish they will never be enough to turn it into a bird. It's species will stay the same.

Wrong buddy. Many animals have speciated. One example being the galapagos turtles. Go read about it...
Avatar image for mig_killer2
mig_killer2

4906

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 mig_killer2
Member since 2007 • 4906 Posts
[QUOTE="artichoke"]

[QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="artichoke"]Most people accept micro evolution but not macroevolution. As in we think the idea of a fish turning into a bird pretty ridiculous. Def_Jef88

All macroevolution is is microevolution over and over.... :|

What I'm saying is that no matter how many small changes happen to that fish they will never be enough to turn it into a bird. It's species will stay the same.

Wrong buddy. Many animals have speciated. One example being the galapagos turtles. Go read about it...

that was speciation? I thought that was just microevolution:? EVEN MORE PROOF OF EVOLUTION:D
Avatar image for Def_Jef88
Def_Jef88

17441

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#39 Def_Jef88
Member since 2006 • 17441 Posts
[QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="artichoke"]

[QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="artichoke"]Most people accept micro evolution but not macroevolution. As in we think the idea of a fish turning into a bird pretty ridiculous. mig_killer2

All macroevolution is is microevolution over and over.... :|

What I'm saying is that no matter how many small changes happen to that fish they will never be enough to turn it into a bird. It's species will stay the same.

Wrong buddy. Many animals have speciated. One example being the galapagos turtles. Go read about it...

that was speciation? I thought that was just microevolution:? EVEN MORE PROOF OF EVOLUTION:D

When two groups are no longer capable of mating, due to many small changes through micro-evolution, speciation has occurred.
Avatar image for starwarsgeek112
starwarsgeek112

3472

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40 starwarsgeek112
Member since 2005 • 3472 Posts
Meh I have no problem with creationism, as LONG as its not taught in schools and science classes.. Leave the way thigns are now..sSubZerOo


I have no problem with it either, but I just don't understand how the concept of evolution goes against that. We could be created, but I don't get why people don't think that it's possible that the creator thought it was suitable to tweak the creation?
Avatar image for mig_killer2
mig_killer2

4906

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41 mig_killer2
Member since 2007 • 4906 Posts
[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="artichoke"]

[QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="artichoke"]Most people accept micro evolution but not macroevolution. As in we think the idea of a fish turning into a bird pretty ridiculous. Def_Jef88

All macroevolution is is microevolution over and over.... :|

What I'm saying is that no matter how many small changes happen to that fish they will never be enough to turn it into a bird. It's species will stay the same.

Wrong buddy. Many animals have speciated. One example being the galapagos turtles. Go read about it...

that was speciation? I thought that was just microevolution:? EVEN MORE PROOF OF EVOLUTION:D

When two groups are no longer capable of mating, due to many small changes through micro-evolution, speciation has occurred.

I know what speciation is, but I was not aware that those turtles could not interbreed
Avatar image for Def_Jef88
Def_Jef88

17441

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#42 Def_Jef88
Member since 2006 • 17441 Posts
[QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="artichoke"]

[QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="artichoke"]Most people accept micro evolution but not macroevolution. As in we think the idea of a fish turning into a bird pretty ridiculous. mig_killer2

All macroevolution is is microevolution over and over.... :|

What I'm saying is that no matter how many small changes happen to that fish they will never be enough to turn it into a bird. It's species will stay the same.

Wrong buddy. Many animals have speciated. One example being the galapagos turtles. Go read about it...

that was speciation? I thought that was just microevolution:? EVEN MORE PROOF OF EVOLUTION:D

When two groups are no longer capable of mating, due to many small changes through micro-evolution, speciation has occurred.

I know what speciation is, but I was not aware that those turtles could not interbreed

well, the more ya know. ;)
Avatar image for Silver_Dragon17
Silver_Dragon17

6205

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#43 Silver_Dragon17
Member since 2007 • 6205 Posts

There is zero credible evidence pointing to a creator of the universe.

PrimordialMeme

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13)

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14)

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall... be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (15)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17)

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God - the design argument of Paley - updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25)

Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26)

Avatar image for PrimordialMeme
PrimordialMeme

1279

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#44 PrimordialMeme
Member since 2007 • 1279 Posts

^

:lol:

I hope you weren't trying to present that as evidence. None of that is proof, its respect for the unknown. As an agnostic, it is the view I share (Einsteinian view) that is that the universe is so mesmerizing we cannot RULE OUT the possiblity of a god. But again none of that is specific evidence of anything supernatural.

Avatar image for quiglythegreat
quiglythegreat

16886

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#45 quiglythegreat
Member since 2006 • 16886 Posts
The only dumb belief is the belief that someone else's beliefs are dumb._Marisa_
I reject. If someone believes that everyone is below them, I'm going to say 'that's freaking stupid, get help'. I'm no fan of cultural relativism.
Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#46 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts
Silver your point fails your falling into a simplistic fallacy called begging the question.. You went from point A to C.. Basically your poitn is Life is complex in many ways thus god made it.. Please tell every one here how life can be classified as complex or perfect? We have no such description except only in mathmatics.. How can the observed "perfection/complexitiy" be linked to god.. You have yet to give a single shred of evidence or REALISTIC condition that fits the premise to meet the conlcusion.. Now I am not saying god doesn't exist.. But you can not logically argue it by trying to use emperical evidence that does not exist or is based on pure speculation.
Avatar image for Silver_Dragon17
Silver_Dragon17

6205

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#47 Silver_Dragon17
Member since 2007 • 6205 Posts

Silver your point fails your falling into a simplistic fallacy called begging the question.. You went from point A to C.. Basically your poitn is Life is complex in many ways thus god made it.. Please tell every one here how life can be classified as complex or perfect? We have no such description except only in mathmatics.. How can the observed "perfection/complexitiy" be linked to god.. You have yet to give a single shred of evidence or REALISTIC condition that fits the premise to meet the conlcusion.. Now I am not saying god doesn't exist.. But you can not logically argue it by trying to use emperical evidence that does not exist or is based on pure speculation.sSubZerOo

How's this?

  1. strong nuclear force constant
    if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
    if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
  2. weak nuclear force constant
    if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
    if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
  3. gravitational force constant
    if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
    if smaller
    : stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
  4. electromagnetic force constant
    if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
    if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
  5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
    if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
    if smaller
    : all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
  6. ratio of electron to proton mass
    if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
    if smaller: same as above
  7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
    if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
    if smaller: same as above
  8. expansion rate of the universe
    if larger: no galaxies would form
    if smaller
    : universe would collapse, even before stars formed
  9. entropy level of the universe
    if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
    if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
  10. mass density of the universe
    if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
    if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
  11. velocity of light
    if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
  12. age of the universe
    if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
    if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
  13. initial uniformity of radiation
    if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
    if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
  14. average distance between galaxies
    if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
    if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
  15. density of galaxy cluster
    if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
    if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
  16. average distance between stars
    if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
    if smaller
    : planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
  17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
    if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
    if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
  18. decay rate of protons
    if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
  19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
  20. ground state energy level for 4He
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
    if smaller
    : same as above
  21. decay rate of 8Be
    if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
    if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
  22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
    if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
    if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
  23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
    if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
    if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
  24. polarity of the water molecule
    if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
    if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
  25. supernovae eruptions
    if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
    if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
  26. white dwarf binaries
    if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
    if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
    if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
    if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
  27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
    if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
    if smaller: no galaxies would form
  28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
    if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
    if smaller: same result
  29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
    if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
    if larger
    : same result
  30. mass of the neutrino
    if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
    if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
  31. big bang ripples
    if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
    if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
  32. size of the relativistic dilation factor
    if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
    if larger
    : same result
  33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
    if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
    if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
  34. cosmological constant
    if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars
Avatar image for quiglythegreat
quiglythegreat

16886

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#48 quiglythegreat
Member since 2006 • 16886 Posts
The improbability fo the existence of life is hardly a compelling argument against evolution.
Avatar image for Silver_Dragon17
Silver_Dragon17

6205

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#49 Silver_Dragon17
Member since 2007 • 6205 Posts

The improbability fo the existence of life is hardly a compelling argument against evolution.quiglythegreat

I'm not arguing against evolution.:|

Avatar image for DivergeUnify
DivergeUnify

15150

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#50 DivergeUnify
Member since 2007 • 15150 Posts
[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"]Guys, my history teacher went to Jamestown, Newyork a few months ago and went to local churces and asked their position on evolution. He said all of them said they believe evolution to some extent as there is too much evidence supporting it, and that they believe that the bible is symbolicaly true, but not factually.sca321
Why did he have to go Jamestown, NY to do that?

He didn't go specifically for that but I guess it was something on his mind.