How can evolution be responsible for a universe of complexity?

[Eli]

If you're asking this question, you don't have even a basic understanding of how it works.

In a nutshell, though, that is just how our universe seems to work. Simple things combine to form more complex things more or less on their own, or with the influence of other substances that exist in our universe.

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: Arkitech
From time to time I read some of the threads here on evolution and in those numerous posts I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to how complex life can evolve from simple life. What disturbs me even more about evolutionary theory is that there is no concrete evidence of life currently evolving that can be studied or used as a reference. I've mentioned this before in previous discussions and the common answer is that it takes millions of years for changes to take place. But this always bugged me because if it takes that amount of time to evolve or adapt to an environment then life would perish before it had a chance to acclimate to its current surroundings.

Another interesting thought is how tightly integrated the planet and its occupants are. Think about the animal and plant relationship. Plants give off life sustaining oxygen, they provide food, nutrients and vitamins which help sustain the animal life. In turn animals breathe out carbon dioxide which the plants need, animal waste also nourishes the soil which plants use for survival. It's hard to believe that this complex relationship came into existence by chance or evolution. There are probably thousands or even millions of similar relationships of this type that exist that scientists and researchers are not even aware of, how can evolution explain these things? Did all life on Earth evolve at the same time? Did all current mammals living today evolve from the same source? What about insects, reptiles, trees, bacteria, etc..? There is a staggering amount of unique life forms on the Earth, did they all come into existence by sheer chance?

I'm not creating this post for the intent of flaming anyone's personal beliefs, but I enjoy discussions of all type and that's what I'm looking for now. Just an intelligent discussion on what you've learned and what you believe.

you can't comprehend how it could have happened, therefore it must be God's fault.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: Chronoshock

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: shocksyde
Anyone who simply claims "someone must have designed it" is weak-minded, in my opinion.

There was a mention of disease earlier. I know of a mental disease that billions of people have that is seemingly incurable.

Let's say for the sake of your argument that God and religion are mere products of the imagination. And to continue in this line of thought let's assume that evolution is more than just a theory, this would lead us to ask several questions.

1. If life evolved on Earth into what it is today, how did the Earth come into existence?

2. Was the Earth and the universe always here? Or did it arrive by means of a chance encounter of certain elements and matter?

3. Going with the supposition that universe was born from random events and materials, where did these things come from?


Hopefully you see the direction that I'm headed in. Even if a person believes soley in science there is a point where you will encounter questions that can'nt be answered through scientific data and analysis. Personally I believe in God and the bible, I realize that this is a very unpopular stance these days. My belief system requires a certain amount of faith which is not so far removed from the faith many have in science to explain the unknown and make sense of what is not easily understood. I think it's a weak minded person who ridicules others because of a different belief.

Science and religion are not incompatible belief systems and it's disappointing for you to think so. There are a number of religious people at my school (MIT) and they both believe in God and in scientific theory. As someone mentioned, science is the explanation for how and for some, God is the explanation of why. For atheists such as myself, there is no reason why. This universe exists. If it didn't exist then we wouldn't be here to question it; that is, if the question was "why does it exist when it could just as well not exist?" the answer is that if it didn't, you couldn't ask the question. The same reasoning can be applied to this galaxy, the earth, and human life. To rephrase "why did life appear on Earth instead of on X?" because if it didn't, then you couldn't ask that. The question is meaningless. The "why" behind your questions is meaningless as any answer suffices, and thus everyone is perfectly free to assign their own value to it. The confusion arises when one takes the reason behind the "why" and applies it to the "how."

To put this in more of a religious light, God wishes to hide his presence through scientific explanations. If he were to make His presence known plainly, there would be no need for faith and without that religion breaks down. So He uses phenomena as a way of convincing the unbelievers there is nothing more, and the true believer enjoys salvation or whatever it is religious people are supposed to get for being faithful.

I think you might have misunderstood the intent of that statement. I was'nt slamming people who believe in science, I believe in science myself. My point of contention is basically with the big bang theory, I believe that God created Earth and its inhabitants. And while I don't entirely discount evolution (life is proven to change and adapt) I just don't support the notion that one form of life morphs and changes into another type.

And you still demonstrate that you believe science and religion to be incompatible.

It depends on a person's beliefs. If they simply believe in a god as a neutral entity then I would have no problem. Neutral in the sense that they believe such a thing exists alone considered to a belief in god corresponding to the associated dogma. Basically, you believe in a god or gods but you don't necessarily believe in the dogma that a certain group follows.

See that's the reason why science and god are not contradictory. "Why?" is a philosophical problem when taken to the utmost extent. "Why does this thing behave the way it does?"and on and on and on. Science can answer how to the best of its ability. Now science cannot prove that there is no god because no experiment can be devised.

Basically, god cannot be proved/disproved. Religious claims and dogma cannot be dis proven either because they all relate to god. However, religious claims about history, and their explanations can.

So if the bible says something happened a couple thousand years ago, scientists may have the ability to suggest what actually happened if in fact it is contradictory. Ala the evolution debate.

You might as well believe that god created the big bang. Answer to your problems if your god is "neutral".

Really, not to be offensive, but I don't think you "can" believe it, if you consider yourself to be a believer.

I'm interested in your response to this.

There is no logic in saying that you believe in micro-evolution and not macro-evolution. Both these terms are misnomers to be exact. It's just evolution. You purport that science has not adequately explained evolution to you how species can evolve? If you don't deny the logical steps and don't deny the logical experiments, then how exactly can you logically deny evolution? You really can't.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: PowerEngineer

Originally posted by: Arkitech
Not really. In early human history (this is debateable if you don't believe in the bible) the lifespan for people were much longer than what it is today. This changed obviously over time and the lifespan for people was much shorter due to lack of knowledge in medicine and science.

Now that's the problem...

What we loosely refer to as science is really the scientific thought process that seeks to provide the best possible (and simplest) explanation of the physical facts that we have in front of us. The best explanation often changes as new facts are discovered. It doesn't matter to "science" what we would like to be true or how we think reality should work (just ask Einstien about quantum physics!). The scientific explanation does NOT have to pass any religious litmus test or win a popular vote. It is what it is -- the currently best possible "scientific" explanation of what happened and how it happened.

There's no convincing physical evidence that the ages given in the Old Testiment are accurate (sorry Eric Hovind). Biblical "truth" (not supported by independent phyical facts) can't be added to the physical facts if you want to the resulting explanation to be "science". Belief in the bible is hardly debateable to the true believers.

If you prefer to believe in creation or "intelligent design" based on the bible or on your inner sense of what's "right", you're welcome to do so. Know, however, that your choice to do so is a religious or philosphical one. It is NOT the "scientific" choice.

apparently someone doesnt pay attention to their archeology... there is more supporting evidence for the stories of the old testament, than there is evidence supporting evolution.

 

[shocksyde]

Originally posted by: sao123
apparently someone doesnt pay attention to their archeology... there is more supporting evidence for the stories of the old testament, than there is evidence supporting evolution.

I'm calling MASSIVE BS on that one. Are you claiming that the writings of the people who started the religion are fact? You've got to be kidding.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: PowerEngineer

Originally posted by: Arkitech
Not really. In early human history (this is debateable if you don't believe in the bible) the lifespan for people were much longer than what it is today. This changed obviously over time and the lifespan for people was much shorter due to lack of knowledge in medicine and science.

Now that's the problem...

What we loosely refer to as science is really the scientific thought process that seeks to provide the best possible (and simplest) explanation of the physical facts that we have in front of us. The best explanation often changes as new facts are discovered. It doesn't matter to "science" what we would like to be true or how we think reality should work (just ask Einstien about quantum physics!). The scientific explanation does NOT have to pass any religious litmus test or win a popular vote. It is what it is -- the currently best possible "scientific" explanation of what happened and how it happened.

There's no convincing physical evidence that the ages given in the Old Testiment are accurate (sorry Eric Hovind). Biblical "truth" (not supported by independent phyical facts) can't be added to the physical facts if you want to the resulting explanation to be "science". Belief in the bible is hardly debateable to the true believers.

If you prefer to believe in creation or "intelligent design" based on the bible or on your inner sense of what's "right", you're welcome to do so. Know, however, that your choice to do so is a religious or philosphical one. It is NOT the "scientific" choice.

apparently someone doesnt pay attention to their archeology... there is more supporting evidence for the stories of the old testament, than there is evidence supporting evolution.

as in some natural disaster ocurred and people wrote it down? If you are talking superhuman monsters, then... no I doubt it.

 

[Gothgar]

peanut butter

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: shocksyde

Originally posted by: sao123
apparently someone doesnt pay attention to their archeology... there is more supporting evidence for the stories of the old testament, than there is evidence supporting evolution.

I'm calling MASSIVE BS on that one. Are you claiming that the writings of the people who started the religion are fact? You've got to be kidding.

Well, as you can tell by previous posts, I am a strong Atheist. But some events in the Bible ARE historically recorded, or explainable by normal means.

Like Moses and the Red Sea. Well, technically , not the Red Sea as there is controversy if there was a typ when recording the Bible originally. But the water splitting is indicative of a pre-tidal wave, which then killed the people who were going across it.

There probably WAS a big flood of some kind, indicated in Noah's Ark, but its most likely just a localized heavy flood.

Lots of Bible stories are probably just like stories of Egyptian Gods,created to explain a natural event thats unexplainable.

 

[b2386]

I haven't kept myself up to date on these things, but have scientists developed a theory for the origin of the universe?

 

[shocksyde]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Well, as you can tell by previous posts, I am a strong Atheist. But some events in the Bible ARE historically recorded, or explainable by normal means.

Like Moses and the Red Sea. Well, technically , not the Red Sea as there is controversy if there was a typ when recording the Bible originally. But the water splitting is indicative of a pre-tidal wave, which then killed the people who were going across it.

There probably WAS a big flood of some kind, indicated in Noah's Ark, but its most likely just a localized heavy flood.

Lots of Bible stories are probably just like stories of Egyptian Gods,created to explain a natural event thats unexplainable.

Where is there evidence of the whole Moses thing? I'm not going to take hearsay as proof on something that ridiculous.

Noah's flood is stated as globe-wide. Bold-faced lie, there.

It's all just so absolute fantasy it's impossible to get over it. Yeah, yeah, that's where the "faith" comes in.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: sao123
apparently someone doesnt pay attention to their archeology... there is more supporting evidence for the stories of the old testament, than there is evidence supporting evolution.

I'm usually tolerant of other people's beliefs, which is why I've tried to engage the OP in a discussion about the subject rather than flaming him (and I think the discussion has gone rather well). That said, what the fuck are you talking about? You're so far off the map with this claim that you've passed beyond completely absurd into certifiably insane. Having faith is one thing, but claiming there is more evidence that there was a flood that destroyed the world save for two of every animal because some man built a giant boat, or that a man raised his arms high and the waters of the Red Sea parted to accomodate him, or that the Garden of Eden exists, than there is that evolution exists (depite it being observed in lab tests)... I'm afraid I'm going to need to see some sources. Otherwise, this is a steaming pile of bullshit and you should be ashamed for having the gall to write it.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: antyler

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy


Now let me ask you a question. Suppose God created everything: Where did God come from? Was he (for lack of a better pronoun) created by something else? Did he always exist? The same questions that you ask about the origins of the Universe apply to the origins of God. The simple answer is that we will probably never know in either case. You are absolutely correct; we should not ridicule others because of different beliefs, unless those beliefs are obviously false (I'm not implying that your belief is wrong, but be fair, if someone said they personally created the Universe, wouldn't you ridicule them?).

That's a fair question. From my studies of the bible (I know a lot of people here believe its a work of fiction) God is described as alpha and omega. I clearly don't have any physical evidence that supports or refutes this which is why faith is needed when it comes to religion. However like I mentioned before a certain amount of faith is needed when considering the big bang theory, so there are some similarities in the two.

what you say is logical. Consider this though. I personally believe the Bible to be the written word of God. IE basically God telling people what to write, and they wrote it for him. (very basic way to say that). We do still need faith to believe in the things that are written about in the Bible of course, and to believe in God himself requires faith.

Where though, did the Big Bang theory come from? Can it be traced back to a human, coming up with the entire thing? It may be easier for someone to believe in the Big Bang theory, but i personally choose to believe the Word of God for the account of creation.

Someone looked at the data concerning the Universe, realized that everything converged at one point if they ran the universe backwards, and voila, the Big Bang

ID isn't "simple" at all. It's just a way to simply ignore the question. If the ID supporter really began to think about it, they'd be just as overwhelmed with wrapping their head around it.

Which is the reason why Occam's razor was invented. It doesn't just say the simplest is true. It says the reject the theory that is the most complex. God is inherently the most complex thing that can exist, and so, should be rejected from scientific experiements

occams razor only applies when both theories explain the phenomena and are supported by evidence but one is simpler. In this case, there is NO evidence that god created the universe, so occams razor isn't even applied. Just as a technicality....

either way, god is just an explanation for those who can't understand there doesn't have to be a purpose behind the universe.

 

[TestedAcorn]

You can't believe in evolution yet you can believe a magic man in the sky?

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: shocksyde

Originally posted by: sao123
apparently someone doesnt pay attention to their archeology... there is more supporting evidence for the stories of the old testament, than there is evidence supporting evolution.

I'm calling MASSIVE BS on that one. Are you claiming that the writings of the people who started the religion are fact? You've got to be kidding.

There is an overwealming amount of secular archaeological which proves the writings of the old testament are true...
Just to name a few...

The "mythical" Hittites...
Egyptian Bricks wthout Straw...
Jericho...
the Damascus monument commemorating victory over the king of Israel & the house of david.
Lachish Ostraca fragments corroborating the historicity of the Babylonian captivity.
Joseph shaving controversy...
Assyrian Kings Libraries corroborate all 39 kings of ancient israel mentioned in the bible.
Thutmose IV was the successor to Amenhotep (Amenophis) II though he was not the heir or firstborn, corroborates the Egyption firstborn destruction curse.

these are just a few of the well known ones... but there are tens of thousands of examples of modern archaeology which agree with the stories of the bibles old testament.

 

[amicold]

Originally posted by: bsobel
Changes take place constantly, we see genetic mutation all the time. It can take a very long time for those changes to substantially modify something so we recognize it as distinct from its line.

Bingo. I'm not 100% on course with evolution but I don't believe in any religious "beginning of the world" stories either. Something as simple as the lack of wisdom teeth in some people born in the last ~20 years would be an example.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: shocksyde

Originally posted by: sao123
apparently someone doesnt pay attention to their archeology... there is more supporting evidence for the stories of the old testament, than there is evidence supporting evolution.

I'm calling MASSIVE BS on that one. Are you claiming that the writings of the people who started the religion are fact? You've got to be kidding.

There is an overwealming amount of secular archaeological which proves the writings of the old testament are true...
Just to name a few...

The "mythical" Hittites...
Egyptian Bricks wthout Straw...
Jericho...
the Damascus monument commemorating victory over the king of Israel & the house of david.
Lachish Ostraca fragments corroborating the historicity of the Babylonian captivity.
Joseph shaving controversy...
Assyrian Kings Libraries corroborate all 39 kings of ancient israel mentioned in the bible.
Thutmose IV was the successor to Amenhotep (Amenophis) II though he was not the heir or firstborn, corroborates the Egyption firstborn destruction curse.

these are just a few of the well known ones... but there are tens of thousands of examples of modern archaeology which agree with the stories of the bibles old testament.

Some of the Bible is based on actual places, people, and events. That does not mean that everything in it is fact.

 

[Chronoshock]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: shocksyde

Originally posted by: sao123
apparently someone doesnt pay attention to their archeology... there is more supporting evidence for the stories of the old testament, than there is evidence supporting evolution.

I'm calling MASSIVE BS on that one. Are you claiming that the writings of the people who started the religion are fact? You've got to be kidding.

There is an overwealming amount of secular archaeological which proves the writings of the old testament are true...
Just to name a few...

The "mythical" Hittites...
Egyptian Bricks wthout Straw...
Jericho...
the Damascus monument commemorating victory over the king of Israel & the house of david.
Lachish Ostraca fragments corroborating the historicity of the Babylonian captivity.
Joseph shaving controversy...
Assyrian Kings Libraries corroborate all 39 kings of ancient israel mentioned in the bible.
Thutmose IV was the successor to Amenhotep (Amenophis) II though he was not the heir or firstborn, corroborates the Egyption firstborn destruction curse.

these are just a few of the well known ones... but there are tens of thousands of examples of modern archaeology which agree with the stories of the bibles old testament.

Some of the Bible is based on actual places, people, and events. That does not mean that everything in it is fact.

Precisely, no one is arguing about the history of human civilization, we are arguing about an omnipotent entity. None of what sao mentioned confirms the presence of god or contradicts current scientific knowledge.
The bible says the earth is only 6000 years old. It is a scientific fact that it is older. The bible is not to be taken literally. A lot of the language is archaic/poetic and can be interpreted in many different ways.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: sao123
There is an overwealming amount of secular archaeological which proves the writings of the old testament are true...
Just to name a few...

The "mythical" Hittites...
Egyptian Bricks wthout Straw...
Jericho...
the Damascus monument commemorating victory over the king of Israel & the house of david.
Lachish Ostraca fragments corroborating the historicity of the Babylonian captivity.
Joseph shaving controversy...
Assyrian Kings Libraries corroborate all 39 kings of ancient israel mentioned in the bible.
Thutmose IV was the successor to Amenhotep (Amenophis) II though he was not the heir or firstborn, corroborates the Egyption firstborn destruction curse.

these are just a few of the well known ones... but there are tens of thousands of examples of modern archaeology which agree with the stories of the bibles old testament.

Now we're getting somewhere. However, even if the Bible has real places and people in it, that does not mean that everything in the Bible is 100% accurate. Earlier examples posted included the Garden of Eden, the parting of the Red Sea and the Flood. Are these events verifiable in the archaeological record? Absolutely not. You have taken a sample of Biblical stories that are supported by evidence and built an argument that because some are true, everything in the Bible is irrefutable. This is demonstrably false, and poor argumentation on your part.

And given that this thread discusses evolution, the primary reason the Bible is brought in at all is for the seven day creation and the Garden of Eden, neither of which are supported by the archaeological record. Everything else is irrelevant to this discussion. Do you really think we're debating whether Thutmose IV was the heir to Amenhotep?

 

[Vic]

I didn't read the thread. The answer to the OP's question is the scientific principle of emergence.

 

[hans030390]

Originally posted by: shocksyde
Anyone who simply claims "someone must have designed it" is weak-minded, in my opinion.

Really? Perhaps I believe that, though (not saying I do...I'm personally a Christian, but I don't think the whole evolution vs ID argument is really THAT important to my beliefs, because I could see God getting us to this point any way he chooses really). Would you call me weak-minded, then?

I wouldn't call myself "weak-minded" if I believed that, nor would I say that to someone who's sided towards evolution. Both, I believe, have very valid points and very valid holes. I think the only weak-minded person is one who isn't open to both sides, is too biased, etc. It's fine choosing a side you find to be "true", and I respect that, but I also believe you must keep an open mind.

Originally posted by: pontifex
how can one being create all those different creatures, plants, etc?

I believe you don't have the right idea of what God would be...he's beyond a "being", outside of what any human could fully understand or grasp. To him, creating the universe, time, everything we know, would have been nothing. No human can truly grasp the concept of "God", and I believe you're having trouble with that because you're trying to fit "him" into an understandable human thought.

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Also, read this

Read the comments below. You'll find a link to Behe's response to that. Behe's a pretty intelligent, reputable guy from what I've read, and I respect his ideas/research (though I'm sure many will just laugh at him, but I suppose anyone could do that to someone trying to support evolution). This article on Dailytech was by far anything that "proved" evolution.

Originally posted by: So
Evolution is a fact...

Um...no? Evolution is a theory. Well, microevolution has more or less been observed and proven to be true, but macroevolution is just a theory based on how people explain the origin of life/species based on the evidence found in application to their theory (microevolution also being tied in with that). Evolution (as in macro) has not, and never will be solid "fact" until we can observe first hand the evolution we are trying to prove (purely natural and random). Yes, that may be millions of years, but calling it a "fact" because "everyone believes it!" is a pretty poor excuse. I respect it if you believe it to be true, but not when it's called a scientific fact (and the bandwagon effect does not make it so either). Accept it as a theory you believe to be true, and believe that based on personal, logical analysis and research (please). Also, keep an open mind, and be respectful towards those who may believe differently (even if they have done zero research...).

Sorry, I'm not directing that just at you...it can apply to anyone.

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Arkitech
Not really. In early human history (this is debateable if you don't believe in the bible) the lifespan for people were much longer than what it is today. This changed obviously over time and the lifespan for people was much shorter due to lack of knowledge in medicine and science.

As far as illnesses go again this is a point that can be argued since many diseases in centuries past were undocumented. However with such a large population of people on the planet right now, one can logically assume that the breeding ground for new and unusual diseases is fertile. Also since people can easily move from one part of the earth to another it's easier to spread infections than ever before.

While I have no problem with religion, be careful about turning to texts that are thousands of years old for your scientific data. The human lifespan was not "much longer than what it is today" at any point in recorded history. Why on Earth would the human lifespan start long then drop off unexpectedly, then rise again as we learned more about medicine?

You'd be surprised how accurate Biblical text can be historically (post-flood). The book "Evidence for Christianity" is pretty detailed as to how and why Biblical text, even if thousands of years old, has proven to be very historically reliable and how we likely have a relatively unaltered version of the text today. If it's reliable post-flood, perhaps pre-flood is reliable?

To answer your question as to how life could be longer and then suddenly drop off, I'll have to go to a Christian theory (obtained from the book "In Six Days" by Chuck McGowen...I recommend reading it, though I can't say everything is perfect. It's interesting, at least). Before the flood, there was a sort of layer of water in the Earth's atmosphere (I believe Venus has something similar...I could be wrong, but it's completely possible). The author mentioned that if you study our current atmosphere, there's an area where water could have been located. The earth also had a different land "layout". Basically, with the water layer and the condition of the earth during the pre-flood time, the climate, weather, etc. provided perfect living conditions for humans (a sort of tropical environment, I believe). The water layer added extra protection to the earth/climate (especially against certain harmful rays), allowing people to live much longer. The flood then happened (water fell from the sky, water came from under the ground, reshaping the land, etc)...and then...yeah. That's all I have to say there.

Now, that's me just trying to remember what the book said. I know it's not perfect, and I know it might sound a bit crazy, but I promise the book did a much better job explaining than I did. Of course, I'm not saying that's the truth...I'm just saying that's one "answer" based on a Christian derived theory. Like I said, though, I think Christians should focus more on their personal relationship with God/Christ and worry less about evolution/ID...both could work, God can do what he wants. I don't think that's really what's important to him, so long has one believes he is the creator (in whatever way he felt like doing it).

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Which is the reason why Occam's razor was invented. It doesn't just say the simplest is true. It says the reject the theory that is the most complex. God is inherently the most complex thing that can exist, and so, should be rejected from scientific experiements

Isn't it a bit silly to limit God to a sort of "law" than humans created? "Even though you have a bit more wisdom and power than us, you're just way too complicated for our brains...so we're leaving you out."

I don't think it's so much that God is overly complex...In a way, God is very simple (at least to me), but at the same time completely unfathomable to the human mind.

Originally posted by: shocksyde

Originally posted by: sao123
apparently someone doesnt pay attention to their archeology... there is more supporting evidence for the stories of the old testament, than there is evidence supporting evolution.

I'm calling MASSIVE BS on that one. Are you claiming that the writings of the people who started the religion are fact? You've got to be kidding.

I'd say you haven't done a whole lot of research trying to disprove what the Bible says (as far as historical accuracy, not the religion/faith). Once again, try "Evidence for Christianity". You'll find plenty of good, dry info in there. I've heard of many archeologists, or people in some similar field, trying to ultimately disprove "stories" written in the Bible. They want to just disprove the Bible in general...yet, many end up finding that the Bible matches up so well, that they can't help but believe its historical accuracy.

Actually, when it comes to the New Testament (especially Jesus, his death, the resurrection, etc), even MORE people find it difficult trying to disprove it. Seriously, go do all of the research you can (with an open mind...research both sides), and you may just find that the whole "messiah" thing is actually much more provable/true than you may have thought before. And THAT'S they key part of Christianity (not evolution/ID...psh). Based on my research/readings (quite a bit, actually), I'm convinced that Jesus is who he said he was. That is my strongest "defense/argument" to my beliefs, nothing else (though other things are interesting, for sure).

To the OP, I likely won't be wandering back through here...don't have a whole lot of time to get into big discussions. Thought I'd just leave what I could. If you have any questions, let me know. I enjoy one on one discussions and may be able to offer some interesting reading material for you.

Just one last word...I find it really hard to trust anyone's word who flat out denies either evolution or ID, especially if you make disrespectful remarks/comments towards those theories/beliefs. No matter how confident you are, and no matter how much knowledge you have, you'll never sound credible if you can't keep an open mind or at least be very respectful toward others. Some of you are just making comments that don't help anyone but your ego and "smarts".

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: b2386
I haven't kept myself up to date on these things, but have scientists developed a theory for the origin of the universe?

Yes, it's called the Big Bang.

 

[Vic]

If the principle of emergence holds true infinitely, then 'God' is the universe itself.

Consider, the 100 billion neurons in your brain are each unaware of the human consciousness it consists of. That's a perfect example of emergence.

 

[thecrecarc]

It really depends on what you define as "God". Would an alien species millions of years more advanced than ours that figured out interdimensional travel and is able to bend space and time be classified as god? If not, what classifies "God"? If true, what DOESN'T classify as "God"?

 

[manlymatt83]

I agree.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: sao123
There is an overwealming amount of secular archaeological which proves the writings of the old testament are true...
Just to name a few...

The "mythical" Hittites...
Egyptian Bricks wthout Straw...
Jericho...
the Damascus monument commemorating victory over the king of Israel & the house of david.
Lachish Ostraca fragments corroborating the historicity of the Babylonian captivity.
Joseph shaving controversy...
Assyrian Kings Libraries corroborate all 39 kings of ancient israel mentioned in the bible.
Thutmose IV was the successor to Amenhotep (Amenophis) II though he was not the heir or firstborn, corroborates the Egyption firstborn destruction curse.

these are just a few of the well known ones... but there are tens of thousands of examples of modern archaeology which agree with the stories of the bibles old testament.

Here I will insert the Forrest Gump argument: much of the Forrest Gump story is based in truth, but that doesn't mean Forrest Gump was real.

Originally posted by: hans030390
Um...no? Evolution is a theory.

You lose points for inappropriate mixing of the scientific usage of "theory" and the colloquial usage. It pretty much negates your argument from that point when you start it off with a fallacy.