This topic is locked from further discussion.
Because some people are going to Heaven, unlike you, who has clearly not accepted the teachings of Christ, our lord and savior.quiglythegreatOhmagudnuzudidnotjustsaydat!
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.DivergeUnifyWhy did he have to go Jamestown, NY to do that?
Most people accept micro evolution but not macroevolution. As in we think the idea of a fish turning into a bird pretty ridiculous. artichokeAye, I think everyone finds that ridiculous, however most of the time no one is talking about such a thing.
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.
Christianity is full of **** So are Christians. **** em all.droge085I agree with this guy... wait, no I don't. What the hell is even going on.
[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. quiglythegreatAye, I think everyone finds that ridiculous, however most of the time no one is talking about such a thing.
[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. starwarsgeek112Aye, I think everyone finds that ridiculous, however most of the time no one is talking about such a thing.
Because complaining is cool and the new high them kids get into now.Wilfred_OwenIt'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.
[QUOTE="Wilfred_Owen"]Because complaining is cool and the new high them kids get into now.quiglythegreatIt'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. :(
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.
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:
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.greenprinceWhat? Catholics? You do know they are the ones that started Christianity and used it to gain political power way back when, right?
[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_WhatWhat? 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:
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.
[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_Jef88All 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.
What? Catholics? You do know they are the ones that started Christianity and used it to gain political power way back when, right?[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
I don't know where you've been, but the history section is thattaway.:arrow:
Yeah get your facts straight.
All macroevolution is is microevolution over and over.... :|[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
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 speciationAll macroevolution is is microevolution over and over.... :|[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
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...[QUOTE="artichoke"]All macroevolution is is microevolution over and over.... :|[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
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...[QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="artichoke"]All macroevolution is is microevolution over and over.... :|[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
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...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
[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="artichoke"]All macroevolution is is microevolution over and over.... :|[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
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...[QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="artichoke"]All macroevolution is is microevolution over and over.... :|[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
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...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)
^
: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.
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.
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?
The improbability fo the existence of life is hardly a compelling argument against evolution.quiglythegreat
I'm not arguing against evolution.:|
[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.sca321Why did he have to go Jamestown, NY to do that?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment