Please tell how my thinking contradicts what is in the bible. With all honestly, you can freely pick apart my postt I will not look for evidence to support my post, I do not feel I need defend it. Not because I can not because I am sure my search would prove fruitful. But if I quote the bible you will say I am shoving religion at you, which is something I do not like to do to people and if I quote science you will say I am taking it out of context. And I honestly have no wish to engage in a conversation with you about my religious beliefs, I will get niether of us anywhere.
Where in the Bible does it say evolution happened? And now, you're assuming what I'm going to say, which is an intellectual dead end.
Neither of us will be successful in convincing the other.
Two things, though. One, Evolution is not merely defined in the biological sense, as you presume, I gave you two definitons - One, social and One, bioogical. Two, because we evolve to match our environments how does that contradict creationism? Explain this to me, because I take scriptures quite literally. But I, honestly, do not see a contradiction. God created man, he never said man would not adapt and change, we are still human and that has not changed. But because I have pigment, and another is pale there can no God, only natural selection? Explain, please.
I know there are more definitions to evolution, but yes in the biological sense, there is only one. The bible says that God created man from dirt, and woman from a man's rib. You could believe that God created evolution to form the variety of species, but using scriptures is silly, in the fact that they authors didn't know what natural selection was.
What I do not get is people, who do not believe in God, often use science as a means to denounce the belief of God. However, science is not strutured to disprove God. It is established to understand life.
Exactly.
Except with regard to the several theories of how the world or universe was created, the most popular of which is the big bang, I believe. That in itself creates another Mystery what created the big bang (or the Hot dense substance that exploded and is expanding)
Nothing exploded... it was expansion. Well, there were explosions during the period where hydrogen clouds covered most of the universe.
For the sake of argument, look up Quantum Physics.
What does this have to do with evolution?
clayron
If creationists want creation taught in school, then...
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="clayron"]Blank face* I do not know. I read it as you were being hostile to the belief in God, and suggesting that science and philosophy would counter that belief. But, would you mind clarifying, for those....of...us....who....dont.....understand.....what....you....were....trying....to....say. *Realizes he is alone*I implied that creationism is neither philosophy or science. Then I said that it was absolutely (as in completely) useless. :? Oh, I miss read your post. I disagree with you whole heartedly, but hey, that what this thread is about.
DeeJayInphinity
[QUOTE="clayron"]Had I gone ahead and quoting any part of the bible, what would you have said? If I had quoted science, namely quantum physics, what would you have said? I have been in discussions such as these before, as I assume you have, and most people follow a pattern (Both those attacking christianity and defending it - that is why I refuse to pursue any evidence, it is always the same.) I will quote something and you will deny it, and vice versa. There is no point to it because it would lead to, as you put, an intellectual deadend.Please tell how my thinking contradicts what is in the bible. With all honestly, you can freely pick apart my postt I will not look for evidence to support my post, I do not feel I need defend it. Not because I can not because I am sure my search would prove fruitful. But if I quote the bible you will say I am shoving religion at you, which is something I do not like to do to people and if I quote science you will say I am taking it out of context. And I honestly have no wish to engage in a conversation with you about my religious beliefs, I will get niether of us anywhere.
Where in the Bible does it say evolution happened? And now, you're assuming what I'm going to say, which is an intellectual dead end.
Neither of us will be successful in convincing the other.
Two things, though. One, Evolution is not merely defined in the biological sense, as you presume, I gave you two definitons - One, social and One, bioogical. Two, because we evolve to match our environments how does that contradict creationism? Explain this to me, because I take scriptures quite literally. But I, honestly, do not see a contradiction. God created man, he never said man would not adapt and change, we are still human and that has not changed. But because I have pigment, and another is pale there can no God, only natural selection? Explain, please.
I know there are more definitions to evolution, but yes in the biological sense, there is only one. The bible says that God created man from dirt, and woman from a man's rib. You could believe that God created evolution to form the variety of species, but using scriptures is silly, in the fact that they authors didn't know what natural selection was.
What I do not get is people, who do not believe in God, often use science as a means to denounce the belief of God. However, science is not strutured to disprove God. It is established to understand life.
Exactly.
Except with regard to the several theories of how the world or universe was created, the most popular of which is the big bang, I believe. That in itself creates another Mystery what created the big bang (or the Hot dense substance that exploded and is expanding)
Nothing exploded... it was expansion. Well, there were explosions during the period where hydrogen clouds covered most of the universe.
For the sake of argument, look up Quantum Physics.
What does this have to do with evolution?
zakkro
Had I gone ahead and quoting any part of the bible, what would you have said? If I had quoted science, namely quantum physics, what would you have said? I have been in discussions such as these before, as I assume you have, and most people follow a pattern (Both those attacking christianity and defending it - that is why I refuse to pursue any evidence, it is always the same.) I will quote something and you will deny it, and vice versa. There is no point to it because it would lead to, as you put, an intellectual deadend.The problem with the bible is the fact that you interpret anything in any way, so using it isn't really evidence for anything. The origin of the universe has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. I do not bash Christians, I only bash fundamentalists. >_>
clayron
[QUOTE="clayron"] Had I gone ahead and quoting any part of the bible, what would you have said? If I had quoted science, namely quantum physics, what would you have said? I have been in discussions such as these before, as I assume you have, and most people follow a pattern (Both those attacking christianity and defending it - that is why I refuse to pursue any evidence, it is always the same.) I will quote something and you will deny it, and vice versa. There is no point to it because it would lead to, as you put, an intellectual deadend.The problem with the bible is the fact that you interpret anything in any way, so using it isn't really evidence for anything. The origin of the universe has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. I do not bash Christians, I only bash fundamentalists. >_> I can not argue there. The theory of evolution is hit or miss. I personally do not believe in the random evolution of the Macro-evolution theory (That attempts to explain how man came to be), but Micro-Evolution makes perfect sense, to me, at least. But some are completely against it, I believe it because they do not truely understand how diverse evolution really is.
zakkro
People have interpreted passages in the bible in some ridiculous ways. I know a guy who says the bible advises a man to beat his wife. I also heard a person say the bible believes heterosexuality (Yes) is completely against God's whim. Crazy, huh? But those people seek to use the bible to justify there own actions. I
Personally, strive to understand the bible how it is meant to be understood, and I will admit it is difficult, and on my own I have taken things out of context, only to have to reread a passage to getter a better understanding of where I went wrong or to be educated by someone more knowledgable than I. I believe, much like a fundamentalists, that the rules of God should be adhered to (I am not a radical as they were), but unlike them I do not think people should be intolerant of others, and expect everyone to be perfect, we are not. I attempt to accept everyone (Christian or Otherwise), I honestly could care less about someone's religious affiliation, its a personal decision.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr6uvUNJLww&feature=related
Here, I dont want to say too much, so everyone if you dont want to be ignorant, watch something like this. But I will say that evolutionist are dead wrong, it is not really science
EVERYONE watch the whole thing, honestly I can agree that creationism does not need to be taught in schools. But why should evolution, it is so vague, and wrong in itself.
This guy says what I am trying to say. Intelligent design should be taught.
Creationist know that you have to have faith in god, I am a creationist because of what I know, not because of what I don't know. Evolution have the biggest misconception of creationist ever, they think that everything we say is null because we say god created us, which is just athiesm. I looked at probably at least hundreds of facts before I chose christianity.
everyone read this, this is basically everything I am trying to say.
I have to say the evolutionist basically is sayying "why should I have to defend it?" Hmmmmm interesting, just because he does not believe in god, does not invalidate god.
lol http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&feature=related
Oh I know that evolutionist often dont look at the evidence of creationist, I know many of you will bash without even knowing what I say, because you are super biased against the concept of god.
Really... this is going nowhere. Evolution is science, how? Becuase we used the scientific method. That's how it became a theory. Creationism, though, there's no evidence for it. None. Did any creationist use the scientific method? No, they simply use their faith as if it constitutes as fact. If you want creationism to be taught in the science cIassroom, then go through the scientific method to do so.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr6uvUNJLww&feature=related
Here, I dont want to say too much, so everyone if you dont want to be ignorant, watch something like this. But I will say that evolutionist are dead wrong, it is not really science
EVERYONE watch the whole thing, honestly I can agree that creationism does not need to be taught in schools. But why should evolution, it is so vague, and wrong in itself.
This guy says what I am trying to say. Intelligent design should be taught.
Creationist know that you have to have faith in god, I am a creationist because of what I know, not because of what I don't know. Evolution have the biggest misconception of creationist ever, they think that everything we say is null because we say god created us, which is just athiesm. I looked at probably at least hundreds of facts before I chose christianity.
everyone read this, this is basically everything I am trying to say.
I have to say the evolutionist basically is sayying "why should I have to defend it?" Hmmmmm interesting, just because he does not believe in god, does not invalidate god.
SegaGenesisfan
[QUOTE="SegaGenesisfan"]Really... this is going nowhere. Evolution is science, how? Becuase we used the scientific method. That's how it became a theory. Creationism, though, there's no evidence for it. None. Did any creationist use the scientific method? No, they simply use their faith as if it constitutes as fact. If you want creationism to be taught in the science cIassroom, then go through the scientific method to do so.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr6uvUNJLww&feature=related
Here, I dont want to say too much, so everyone if you dont want to be ignorant, watch something like this. But I will say that evolutionist are dead wrong, it is not really science
EVERYONE watch the whole thing, honestly I can agree that creationism does not need to be taught in schools. But why should evolution, it is so vague, and wrong in itself.
This guy says what I am trying to say. Intelligent design should be taught.
Creationist know that you have to have faith in god, I am a creationist because of what I know, not because of what I don't know. Evolution have the biggest misconception of creationist ever, they think that everything we say is null because we say god created us, which is just athiesm. I looked at probably at least hundreds of facts before I chose christianity.
everyone read this, this is basically everything I am trying to say.
I have to say the evolutionist basically is sayying "why should I have to defend it?" Hmmmmm interesting, just because he does not believe in god, does not invalidate god.
zakkro
And may I add again that evolution HAS BEEN PROVEN? Its not like Darwin said, "Ergh, those Christians, I'll get back at them." Instead, he found a lot of different forms of life, began thinking about it, and developed a theory based on it. And that theory has been tested and proven.
No, actually they are distinctly different. Macro-Evolution (major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa) believes that modern day organisms started from single celled organisms. Whereas, micro-evolution (minor evolutionary change observed over a short period of time) is more along the lines of environmental adaption - quoting the example I gave in a previous post. Both are considered forms of evolution, but the type of evolution is remarkably distinct.To believe in micro evolution and not macro evolution is silly... they both work on the same principles, the only difference being time scale.
I think going about the Bible like that is still a bad idea... only my opinion, though.
zakkro
OK thanks for letting us know.TheHimura
...and that's pretty much where this topic should've ended
Ugh. Time scale, my friend, time scale. Little changes over time, become big changes when you compare current species to where they originated. zakkroBut, macro envolves complete transition from one species to another. Human can not evolve in such a manner, we can change over time but not as drastic as macro suggests.
[QUOTE="11Marcel"]While evolution is just a theory (but a very likely one), we also have pretty convincing scientific proof that what the bible says is wrong. Christians tend to hold on to the belief that earth is less than a million years old (or the life on earth) yet it's easy to test the age of anything holding carbon. That isn't saying creationism is bogus, but the christian view on the earths history is also wrong.
There are scientist who are creationist with a reason though. Here in holland there's a biology professor who's creationist after doing lots of calculations. He calculated the chance that live was formed out of nothing, or out of several aminoacids to be pretty much infinately small.
FatMan1945
Now that is a scientist I would like to meet!
The depressing thing about most atheists is that they do not have a clue when it comes to evolution. There is a reason why many brilliant people still believe in Creationism. While Creationism may be far-fetched, so is Evolution. What is more believable; We were created by an omnipotent Deity, or we all came from cosmic dust. One we have no proof in, the other we also have no proof in. Which is why I find it ironic that Atheists call us brainwashed sheep, while they will glady accept anything that a scientist tells them.
Also, while there is no TANGIBLE proof that Creationism is correct, there is also no TANGIBLE proof that Evolution is correct. It all comes down to this:
Pick your poison.
wow, so much stupidity in one post, it hard to take in. Lmao at evolution having anything to do with cosmic dust. And evolution has TONS of evidence, while creationism has... er... the bible? Some biology proffesor and his crazy "calculations"?
[QUOTE="zakkro"]Ugh. Time scale, my friend, time scale. Little changes over time, become big changes when you compare current species to where they originated. clayronBut, macro envolves complete transition from one species to another. Human can not evolve in such a manner, we can change over time but not as drastic as macro suggests.
No, it doesn't. Here's a good explanation between micro and macro. Micro is essentially looking at one branch in the "tree of life", though it is more like a tumbleweed than a tree. Macro involves the things above that level, which is basically looking at the tree of life zoomed outwards, as said in the description. Like I said, little changes over time can look like huge changes when you compare one species to another, depending on how far apart they were.
[QUOTE="zakkro"]No, actually they are distinctly different. Macro-Evolution (major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa) believes that modern day organisms started from single celled organisms. Whereas, micro-evolution (minor evolutionary change observed over a short period of time) is more along the lines of environmental adaption - quoting the example I gave in a previous post. Both are considered forms of evolution, but the type of evolution is remarkably distinct.To believe in micro evolution and not macro evolution is silly... they both work on the same principles, the only difference being time scale.
I think going about the Bible like that is still a bad idea... only my opinion, though.
clayron
You just dont get it. These minor adaptations add up. Over the time scale in question, namely MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of years, billions of these small adaptations evolve a creature, extremely slowly, into a more sophisticated and adapted one.
[QUOTE="clayron"][QUOTE="zakkro"]No, actually they are distinctly different. Macro-Evolution (major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa) believes that modern day organisms started from single celled organisms. Whereas, micro-evolution (minor evolutionary change observed over a short period of time) is more along the lines of environmental adaption - quoting the example I gave in a previous post. Both are considered forms of evolution, but the type of evolution is remarkably distinct.To believe in micro evolution and not macro evolution is silly... they both work on the same principles, the only difference being time scale.
I think going about the Bible like that is still a bad idea... only my opinion, though.
smarb001
You just dont get it. These minor adaptations add up. Over the time scale in question, namely MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of years, billions of these small adaptations evolve a creature, extremely slowly, into a more sophisticated and adapted one.
Whoa dude!!! Where did you come from? Wait your turn.Update: Refer to my most recent posts.
I'm a Christian, and let me say, Creationism and the Bible do NOT belong in a public school class room.
Its not science, Evolution is.
I can't stand how some Christian sects want to go into public schools and have the Bible be mandatory reading and Creationism taught AS A SCIENCE. If people believe in it, thats fine, if they want their kids to learn about the Bible, thats fine, but just don't bring it into the public education system.
[QUOTE="FatMan1945"][QUOTE="11Marcel"]While evolution is just a theory (but a very likely one), we also have pretty convincing scientific proof that what the bible says is wrong. Christians tend to hold on to the belief that earth is less than a million years old (or the life on earth) yet it's easy to test the age of anything holding carbon. That isn't saying creationism is bogus, but the christian view on the earths history is also wrong.
There are scientist who are creationist with a reason though. Here in holland there's a biology professor who's creationist after doing lots of calculations. He calculated the chance that live was formed out of nothing, or out of several aminoacids to be pretty much infinately small.
smarb001
Now that is a scientist I would like to meet!
The depressing thing about most atheists is that they do not have a clue when it comes to evolution. There is a reason why many brilliant people still believe in Creationism. While Creationism may be far-fetched, so is Evolution. What is more believable; We were created by an omnipotent Deity, or we all came from cosmic dust. One we have no proof in, the other we also have no proof in. Which is why I find it ironic that Atheists call us brainwashed sheep, while they will glady accept anything that a scientist tells them.
Also, while there is no TANGIBLE proof that Creationism is correct, there is also no TANGIBLE proof that Evolution is correct. It all comes down to this:
Pick your poison.
wow, so much stupidity in one post, it hard to take in. Lmao at evolution having anything to do with cosmic dust. And evolution has TONS of evidence, while creationism has... er... the bible? Some biology proffesor and his crazy "calculations"?
Actually Evolution DOES have something to do with cosmic dust. Of course we are going into the realm of the big bang theory, but it is hard to explain one without the other. And Evolution doesn't have a 'ton' of evidence. While Creationism may also have no direct evidence, it still lives strong do to the lack of evidence trying to dismiss it. Lastly, you will believe anything Charles Darwin says, and call him a genius, yet if a scientist goes against Darwin's equations, then his calculations are considered 'crazy'?
PS: How can my post hold stupidity if it is composed of mostly opinions?
[QUOTE="clayron"][QUOTE="zakkro"]Ugh. Time scale, my friend, time scale. Little changes over time, become big changes when you compare current species to where they originated. zakkroBut, macro envolves complete transition from one species to another. Human can not evolve in such a manner, we can change over time but not as drastic as macro suggests.
No, it doesn't. Here's a good explanation between micro and macro. Micro is essentially looking at one branch in the "tree of life", though it is more like a tumbleweed than a tree. Macro involves the things above that level, which is basically looking at the tree of life zoomed outwards, as said in the description. Like I said, little changes over time can look like huge changes when you compare one species to another, depending on how far apart they were. I typed something really well thought out, but then I refreshed my page before I submitted. GS habit. So to sum it up. I do not believe that we evolved from single celled organisms. I do believe we have evolved (I prefer to say adapted) since God created us.
I don't know why you guys took me seriously
It is clearly stupid, but it's just meant as a trivial argument for the creationists, I mean, they already teach that garbage in the church.
I really do not like it when people equate atheism with evolutionism, atheism just means you do not believe in a celestial, higher power that created everything.
but being created from a spec of dirt is anymore plausible?yea my science teacher last year was big on the whole "evolution" thing...like im gonna believe we came from a spec of water that later turned into a frog,than an ape,so on so forth.
it just the athiest version of things thats all.
atony12
Everything sounds bad and wrong when you generalize and deride it.
Evolution means that organisms start to adapt to their environments overtime, usually changing their body structure, nature, etc.
Evolution never really tried to prove how everything was created, while it has tried with the big bang theory, it was only because the creationists have been proven wrong with scientific evidence, so they decided to set their standards impossibly high by asking to prove how the earth was created.
Like all sciences, knowledge is gained over time, you can't have and absolute amount of information when it comes to biology, its not like the alphabet, its like the numbers, infinite.
So with evolution, its slowly back tracking and gaining information about the past. Plate tectonics, the Ice ages, the dinosaurs, these are plausible reasons for evolution.
Evolution is still young, the scientists are still learing more, and when you give them an extreme challenge like "prove how the earth was made." thats just unfair.
[QUOTE="FatMan1945"][QUOTE="11Marcel"]While evolution is just a theory (but a very likely one), we also have pretty convincing scientific proof that what the bible says is wrong. Christians tend to hold on to the belief that earth is less than a million years old (or the life on earth) yet it's easy to test the age of anything holding carbon. That isn't saying creationism is bogus, but the christian view on the earths history is also wrong.
There are scientist who are creationist with a reason though. Here in holland there's a biology professor who's creationist after doing lots of calculations. He calculated the chance that live was formed out of nothing, or out of several aminoacids to be pretty much infinately small.
smarb001
Now that is a scientist I would like to meet!
The depressing thing about most atheists is that they do not have a clue when it comes to evolution. There is a reason why many brilliant people still believe in Creationism. While Creationism may be far-fetched, so is Evolution. What is more believable; We were created by an omnipotent Deity, or we all came from cosmic dust. One we have no proof in, the other we also have no proof in. Which is why I find it ironic that Atheists call us brainwashed sheep, while they will glady accept anything that a scientist tells them.
Also, while there is no TANGIBLE proof that Creationism is correct, there is also no TANGIBLE proof that Evolution is correct. It all comes down to this:
Pick your poison.
wow, so much stupidity in one post, it hard to take in. Lmao at evolution having anything to do with cosmic dust. And evolution has TONS of evidence, while creationism has... er... the bible? Some biology proffesor and his crazy "calculations"?
I just saw I'm being chain quoted...Anyways, this professor isn't doing "crazy calculations". He's actually one of the professors at the worlds #47 university (doesn't sound like much? It's the best in our country anyways, and you can be he knows what he's talking about). The basis for the calculation was pretty much that if some random amino acids come together, and they are sparked to "life", that doesn't mean they can produce anything that will bring something to the table. It have to be very specific amino acids to fuse together. Anyways, I don't think you should be the one calling any calculations "crazy". Also, there's no "proving" evolution worked or works the way we think. We've only got clues which make it more likely to be true.
If creationists want creation taught in school along with evolution. Then evolution should be taught in the churches.mish55
just a quick question, do u think that just by chance the sun is just far enough away from the earth that it warms us perfectly and doesnt burn us, or that theres oil, and minerals in the earth that we need to survive, do u think that just all happend? by some miracle the earth started rotating around the sun? and created its self? how can u not belive in god, u know how delicate the earth is how every thing has to be just perfect, ozone layer, gravity, oxygen, distance from the sun, plants to eat for life, water to drink, all just happend? no it was created
[QUOTE="mish55"]If creationists want creation taught in school along with evolution. Then evolution should be taught in the churches.bytgames
just a quick question, do u think that just by chance the sun is just far enough away from the earth that it warms us perfectly and doesnt burn us, or that theres oil, and minerals in the earth that we need to survive, do u think that just all happend? by some miracle the earth started rotating around the sun? and created its self? how can u not belive in god, u know how delicate the earth is how every thing has to be just perfect, ozone layer, gravity, oxygen, distance from the sun, plants to eat for life, water to drink, all just happend? no it was created
:lol: There are millions of billions of planets in the universe. Chances are that at least one of them will have the right conditions for life.
[QUOTE="bytgames"][QUOTE="mish55"]If creationists want creation taught in school along with evolution. Then evolution should be taught in the churches.Funky_Llama
just a quick question, do u think that just by chance the sun is just far enough away from the earth that it warms us perfectly and doesnt burn us, or that theres oil, and minerals in the earth that we need to survive, do u think that just all happend? by some miracle the earth started rotating around the sun? and created its self? how can u not belive in god, u know how delicate the earth is how every thing has to be just perfect, ozone layer, gravity, oxygen, distance from the sun, plants to eat for life, water to drink, all just happend? no it was created
:lol: There are millions of billions of planets in the universe. Chances are that at least one of them will have the right conditions for life.
hell, we still haven't completely ruled out life in our solar system yet...like im gonna believe we came from a spec of water that later turned into a frog,than an ape,so on so forth.
atony12
Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant to whether it's true. Also, a minor point: we didn't come from apes; we share a common ancestor with them.
Keep this creationist crap in churches. It does not belong in school.
I cannot believe that some people still say 'it's not true' or 'it's only a theory', given the stupid amount of evidence for Evolution. It beggars belief.
[QUOTE="bytgames"][QUOTE="mish55"]If creationists want creation taught in school along with evolution. Then evolution should be taught in the churches.Funky_Llama
just a quick question, do u think that just by chance the sun is just far enough away from the earth that it warms us perfectly and doesnt burn us, or that theres oil, and minerals in the earth that we need to survive, do u think that just all happend? by some miracle the earth started rotating around the sun? and created its self? how can u not belive in god, u know how delicate the earth is how every thing has to be just perfect, ozone layer, gravity, oxygen, distance from the sun, plants to eat for life, water to drink, all just happend? no it was created
:lol: There are millions of billions of planets in the universe. Chances are that at least one of them will have the right conditions for life.
Yeah, there are many planets. However, the question is not about earth only. Even if the mass of hydrogen and helium would have varied, the universe we know would not have existed. Same can be said about the strong and weak nuclear forces and other such things, which if woud have varied even slightly, universe as we know it would not have existed. The answer to this is the multi-verse theory, which explains the possibility and existence of parallel universes and is purely hypothetical.
[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="bytgames"][QUOTE="mish55"]If creationists want creation taught in school along with evolution. Then evolution should be taught in the churches.MFaraz_Hayat
just a quick question, do u think that just by chance the sun is just far enough away from the earth that it warms us perfectly and doesnt burn us, or that theres oil, and minerals in the earth that we need to survive, do u think that just all happend? by some miracle the earth started rotating around the sun? and created its self? how can u not belive in god, u know how delicate the earth is how every thing has to be just perfect, ozone layer, gravity, oxygen, distance from the sun, plants to eat for life, water to drink, all just happend? no it was created
:lol: There are millions of billions of planets in the universe. Chances are that at least one of them will have the right conditions for life.
Yeah, there are many planets. However, the question is not about earth only. Even if the mass of hydrogen and helium would have varied, the universe we know would not have existed. Same can be said about the strong and weak nuclear forces and other such things, which if woud have varied even slightly, universe as we know it would not have existed. The answer to this is the multi-verse theory, which explains the possibility and existence of parallel universes and is purely hypothetical.
...so? That's like tossing a coin 10 times, and deciding on the basis of the fact that the chance of whatever the outcome is is 1 in 1024, that it can't be a coincidence. You're looking at it with hindsight; had things played out differently, life could still form, but in a different way.
OK thanks for letting us know.TheHimura
This.
[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="bytgames"][QUOTE="mish55"]If creationists want creation taught in school along with evolution. Then evolution should be taught in the churches.Funky_Llama
just a quick question, do u think that just by chance the sun is just far enough away from the earth that it warms us perfectly and doesnt burn us, or that theres oil, and minerals in the earth that we need to survive, do u think that just all happend? by some miracle the earth started rotating around the sun? and created its self? how can u not belive in god, u know how delicate the earth is how every thing has to be just perfect, ozone layer, gravity, oxygen, distance from the sun, plants to eat for life, water to drink, all just happend? no it was created
:lol: There are millions of billions of planets in the universe. Chances are that at least one of them will have the right conditions for life.
Yeah, there are many planets. However, the question is not about earth only. Even if the mass of hydrogen and helium would have varied, the universe we know would not have existed. Same can be said about the strong and weak nuclear forces and other such things, which if woud have varied even slightly, universe as we know it would not have existed. The answer to this is the multi-verse theory, which explains the possibility and existence of parallel universes and is purely hypothetical.
...so? That's like tossing a coin 10 times, and deciding on the basis of the fact that the chance of whatever the outcome is is 1 in 1024, that it can't be a coincidence. You're looking at it with hindsight; had things played out differently, life could still form, but in a different way.
Not necessarily. If there would be variation in strong and weak nuclear forces, for instance, atoms and molecules would not have formed at all. Similarly, if the gravitational forces had been slightly weaker, fusion would not have taken place and consequently, elements such as carbon etc. would not have formed. If electromagnetic forces would be weaker, atoms would not have formed. If gravitational to electomagnetic force ratio in stars would have varied, then the different types of stars seen could not have formed.
cosmologist Paul Davies explains: "If gravity were very slightly weaker, or electromagnetism very slightly stronger, (or the electron slightly less massive relative to the proton), all stars would be red dwarfs. A correspondingly tiny change in the other way, and they would all be blue giants" (His italics; my underline). (Ref. P. Davies, cited above, '82, p.73)
And the list continues. Like I said, this can only be explained through multiverse theory, which is purely hypothetical.
1. There is no way of telling if this is the only way universes can form.Not necessarily. If there would be variation in strong and weak nuclear forces, for instance, atoms and molecules would not have formed at all. Similarly, if the gravitational forces had been slightly weaker, fusion would not have taken place and consequently, elements such as carbon etc. would not have formed. If electromagnetic forces would be weaker, atoms would not have formed. If gravitational to electomagnetic force ratio in stars would have varied, then the different types of stars seen could not have formed.
cosmologist Paul Davies explains: "If gravity were very slightly weaker, or electromagnetism very slightly stronger, (or the electron slightly less massive relative to the proton), all stars would be red dwarfs. A correspondingly tiny change in the other way, and they would all be blue giants" (His italics; my underline). (Ref. P. Davies, cited above, '82, p.73)
And the list continues. Like I said, this can only be explained through multiverse theory, which is purely hypothetical.
MFaraz_Hayat
2. This is no way of telling if life would only be possible using these laws. If they were different, maybe we wouldn't be around, but intelligent life might be able to form. We were designed to fit this planet by evolution because it has no other choice.
3. Have you calculated the odds of each of those laws forming? It's hard to know if they are dependent on each other.. for example, if x property is proportional to y property, the chances of this particular universe forming increase.
4. Your idea of a creator is equally as hypothetical as the multiverse hypothesis.
5. We have absolutely no idea how the laws of the universe are determined. Perhaps they are handed down by the overseeing nature and they are equal in every single universe ever created?
What you're saying is basically akin to me digging a hole on the ground with a shovel, filling it with water, and then saying that the water was created to fit that hole. It wasn't, it simply adapted to the shape of the hole. The same is for humans, ants, bears, etc.
[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]1. There is no way of telling if this is the only way universes can form.Not necessarily. If there would be variation in strong and weak nuclear forces, for instance, atoms and molecules would not have formed at all. Similarly, if the gravitational forces had been slightly weaker, fusion would not have taken place and consequently, elements such as carbon etc. would not have formed. If electromagnetic forces would be weaker, atoms would not have formed. If gravitational to electomagnetic force ratio in stars would have varied, then the different types of stars seen could not have formed.
cosmologist Paul Davies explains: "If gravity were very slightly weaker, or electromagnetism very slightly stronger, (or the electron slightly less massive relative to the proton), all stars would be red dwarfs. A correspondingly tiny change in the other way, and they would all be blue giants" (His italics; my underline). (Ref. P. Davies, cited above, '82, p.73)
And the list continues. Like I said, this can only be explained through multiverse theory, which is purely hypothetical.
DeeJayInphinity
2. This is no way of telling if life would only be possible using these laws. If they were different, maybe we wouldn't be around, but intelligent life might be able to form. We were designed to fit this planet by evolution because it has no other choice.
3. Have you calculated the odds of each of those laws forming? It's hard to know if they are dependent on each other.. for example, if x property is proportional to y property, the chances of this particular universe forming decrease.
4. Your idea of a creator is equally as hypothetical as the multiverse hypothesis.
5. We have absolutely no idea how the laws of the universe are determined. Perhaps they are handed down by the overseeing nature and they are equal in every single universe ever created?
What you're saying is basically akin to me digging a hole on the ground with a shovel, filling it with water, and then saying that the water was created to fit that hole. It wasn't, it simply adapted to the shape of the hole. The same is for humans, ants, bears, etc.
My response was only directed towards Funky_LLama's assumption, that even in parallel universes life would have existed. This is not neccessarily true.
You comment about evolution was quite unclear. Let me remind you, evolution is not about the origin of life. I am saying, that if the gravitational forces would have varied (in any manner) then fusion would not have taken place. Consequently, elements such as Carbon etc. would be non-existent. This means that organic matter would be non-existant. Infact, the only remaining elements would be Hydrogen and Helium and none other.
What are you talking about in point 1? I didnot say anything about how universe came into existence.
Your point 4 is correct (from an atheists point of view).
In point 5, you are already assuming that there are many universes.
I didn't assume anything, dude. Point four is the same from all points of view. The problem is that some choose to ignore the fact. ;)My response was only directed towards Funky_LLama's assumption, that even in parallel universes life would have existed. This is not neccessarily true.
You comment about evolution was quite unclear. Let me remind you, evolution is not about the origin of life. I am saying, that if the gravitational forces would have varied (in any manner) then fusion would not have taken place. Consequently, elements such as Carbon etc. would be non-existent. This means that organic matter would be non-existant. Infact, the only remaining elements would be Hydrogen and Helium and none other.
What are you talking about in point 1? I didnot say anything about how universe came into existence.
Your point 4 is correct (from an atheists point of view).
In point 5, you are already assuming that there are many universes.
MFaraz_Hayat
My comment is not about evolution creating life. Notice when I said "we"? That's me referring to humans, not life itself. Anyway, the comment still stands. This universe does not appear designed, it appears as if it simply does what it is supposed to do.
And I'm saying that we have no idea how the properties are determined, so the statement "if x, y--if b, z" is based on an assumption you're making. The first assumption is that the rules can vary. Your next assumption is that you know which ones can vary. Your next assumption is that they can vary wildly. Your next assumption is that you know how the variants determine the output of a universe.
Point 1 refers to the determination of the properties. If universes are all created with the same properties, then we have no choice and you have no argument.
Point 5 is not assuming anything. It states that we don't know enough to stand behind any of the statements you've made.
[QUOTE="SegaGenesisfan"]Actually the problem here is creationism is never taught in schools only evolution, which is actually a religion because it is a worldview, and a religion because you have to be believe in it.
Evolution is not and never was a religion.
Creationist actually use science for the reasons why evolution is wrong, plus evolution is not real science, at best it is a theory. But I like to say it is just athiest coming up with a religion of non belief. Nice try athiest, you tried to brainwash me, but it didnt work. But it worked on my family sadly, they all think they came from monkeys.:? funny, the tourist guide said the rocks were 750,000 years old.. Why? Because she said someone else said they were, no real reason. But observing you can tell the change is much more rapidly as there is a lot of water dripping around, the rock is soft like you could take parts off easily.
Creationists using science to debunk evolution is laughable at it's most credible form. Evolution is one of the most widely-accepted theories in the scientific community and is considered to be pure, hard fact. This is because there is nothing currently known or available that defers the fact that organisms evolve / adapt over time. Nothing that creationists have ever displayed to counter the existance of evolution has been proven correct, and so evolution, as it stands, is a fact. Plain and simple.
Also, humans didn't evolve from monkeys, we just share a common ancestor. Get it right or don't talk at all.
Doesnt it concern you that the real bible is never taught ever, while other things are taught in place? I say have both be in the same place, both be taught, and watch evolution get crushed by the creationist argueing with *gasp* science! By the way the t-rex was a herborvore, cant do much with those tiny arms, sorry if I misspelled it
Evolution is in no way threatened by the "science" thrown at it left and right by creationists, because creationists don't know what they're talking about more than half the time. The so-called "science" they try to shove down people's throats as fact are usually little scriptures and passages found within their holy book or some fairy tale told by their priest. If the creationists used actual science to debunk evolution, it always ends up being wrong or a fallacy of some sort.
Oh, and T-Rex was a carnivore. Those puny arms of theirs were not required for use by the predator as it was more adapted to the life of a scavenger, feasting off the dead bodies of deceased dinosaurs, since the creatures couldn't run that fast at all. Their teeth also are a clear indicator that it didn't chew on leaves for a living.
Creationist have set up debates with evolutionist believers, funny how the evolutionist dont show up, but they love to teach it to kids who dont know much information yet. But I agree dont allow catholics to teach kids, that is a dangerous game that led to world war 1 & 2.
The facts about life should be teached by scientific literates who have an advance knowledge of the subject at hand, backed up by use of the scientific method used by all *serious* scientists around the world. Creationists have no place in the ****oom, at all.
-Jiggles-
prove to me that the t rex was a carnivore u cant prove it just because it has sharp teeth , it lived way before any human, so no one knows. and no evolution isnt fact get an encylpedia
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment