Scientists Call Fish Fossil the 'Missing Link'

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dnuggett

Diamond Member
Sep 13, 2003
6,703
0
76
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Wow, reading comprehension and spelling own you. Re-read the post, this time slow down and take a deep breath. I know it's hard to read correctly, but try this statement again:

"I am interested in knowing why God could not have set that Big Bang in motion."

I did not make the statement that he did. It is my belief, yes. But I am not holding you to prove me wrong. I am asking you why it is not a possibilty.

You state once again that replacing God with cheese is acceptable and makes sense to do. Hell you even try to make a logical argument for doing so. It's gets a good laugh, but once again answer this question :

Putting on the twisted alien42 logic hat: Can I replace Big Bang with gigantic fart? Or is there more to it than that ?
no one has said that god could not have started the big bang. that is not something that is provable in science, however, so science is not concerned with it. you could not, however, replace the big bang with a giant fart, because while we may not know anything about what happened previous to the big bang (or, more specifically, why it happened), we do know a lot about what happened afterward. so, yes, is god a possibility? yes. but so is cheese. neither can be proven. and neither can be disproven.

but you can always prove anything by going outside of the system, and references to god are always going outside of the system.


This is where you and I differ logically. God is not out of the system, the system is defined quantifiably by man, and made possible by God's work. The last part of that statement is difficult to quantify or prove, or for some to even consider. I readily admit that.

Are you even going to tell me that with all the scientific knowledge and advancement, it can't be disproven that cheese did not start the Big Bang? Are you saying this seriously?
 

Trevelyan

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2000
4,077
0
71
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Originally posted by: cheapgoose
wait, so god might have started the big bang?

what happened to that 7 days of creation thing? or did that evolve into something else.

I'm being serious here, too lazy to research, someone please sum up creationism in a few words. no need for an essay, just wanna know what people are trying to teach kids in the south.

If you really want to see where the majority of work in creationism is going on, check this website out: http://www.answersingenesis.org

Almost all of the arguments put forth by evolutionists are misunderstood on this website.
fixed

name one, just one
2nd thermodynamics.

What claim specifically about the 2nd law of thermodynamics does this website make that you disagree with?
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,974
140
106
Text

Many researchers see gars as a link between the scientific research of today and what has evolved from a primitive past. Gars can breathe both air and water, which is one of the reasons they are still around today. Unfortunately, we cannot be as optimistic about their future.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
Originally posted by: dnuggett
This is where you and I differ logically. God is not out of the system, the system is defined quantifiably by man, and made possible by God's work. The last part of that statement is difficult to quantify or prove, or for some to even consider. I readily admit that.

Are you even going to tell me that with all the scientific knowledge and advancement, it can't be disproven that cheese did not start the Big Bang? Are you saying this seriously?

i don't think any information about how the big band was lit off survived the big bang. i might be wrong on this. but if i am right, and no information about it survived, then it cannot be disproven.

god may very well have set up the rules of the game. the constants, rules of physics, everything, may have been set up. or it may not have been. but there is no information left by any creator that gives that information in an independently verifiable fashion. but so far, all the arguments about god did this or god did that are not provable. they are merely conjecture, and mostly the result of our own incomprehension. that is what i mean by going out of the system (which is a logical thing, in logic anything can be proven by going outside of the logical system, but that would defeat the purpose of the system to begin with. trying to defeat science by saying god did it is the same way)
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
What claim specifically about the 2nd law of thermodynamics does this website make that you disagree with?

Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesn?t apply to open systems.
first off, no serious scientist claims that (or even any educated layperson). ultimately, the universe is a closed system. the local solar system is a very good approximation of a closed system as far as energy transfer is concerned.

and anyway, it is always the creationists using the argument that evolution violates the 2nd law, and them always being smacked down when it is pointed out that any ability to collect energy into something useful on earth is because of a lot of entropy in the sun (or a little nuclear entropy, whichever the case may be given the atomic age) [though i will admit i have seen some people try to counter this argument by claiming the second law doesn't apply in some fashion or another. debunking a wrong argument such as that, though, is not poking a hole in evolution]. this guy is trying to turn the argument on its head. it is the creationists that are wrong in their interpretation of the 2nd law, not the other way around.

his second response paints the target around the arrow hit. life is only complex because we think it is so, not because it is complex or has to happen in a specific fashion. and life only appears ordered because, again, we think it is so. keep in mind that the human brain is the best pattern recognition device ever created. it will put patterns onto random chains all by itself (that is what sequence questions in IQ tests rely on). maybe the most apt example is the old cliche of 1000 monkey on 1000 typewriters. eventually one will type something that has some secondary meaning to a person. but it isn't any less random or any more ordered than anything any other monkey types.
 

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
50,419
8
81
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: dnuggett
This is where you and I differ logically. God is not out of the system, the system is defined quantifiably by man, and made possible by God's work. The last part of that statement is difficult to quantify or prove, or for some to even consider. I readily admit that.

Are you even going to tell me that with all the scientific knowledge and advancement, it can't be disproven that cheese did not start the Big Bang? Are you saying this seriously?

i don't think any information about how the big band was lit off survived the big bang. i might be wrong on this. but if i am right, and no information about it survived, then it cannot be disproven.

god may very well have set up the rules of the game. the constants, rules of physics, everything, may have been set up. or it may not have been. but there is no information left by any creator that gives that information in an independently verifiable fashion. but so far, all the arguments about god did this or god did that are not provable. they are merely conjecture, and mostly the result of our own incomprehension. that is what i mean by going out of the system (which is a logical thing, in logic anything can be proven by going outside of the logical system, but that would defeat the purpose of the system to begin with. trying to defeat science by saying god did it is the same way)
Exactly.

 

SparkyJJO

Lifer
May 16, 2002
13,357
7
81
:roll:

seriously, where do they come up with these ages, 375 million years? Pull them out of their butts or something?
 

kogase

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2004
5,213
0
0
Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
:roll:

seriously, where do they come up with these ages, 375 million years? Pull them out of their butts or something?

I'm sure you have been told before, and even if I tell you now and if anyone else on this board tries to tell you it will be dismissed just as hurriedly as you dismissed it before.
 

dnuggett

Diamond Member
Sep 13, 2003
6,703
0
76
Originally posted by: Eli
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: dnuggett
This is where you and I differ logically. God is not out of the system, the system is defined quantifiably by man, and made possible by God's work. The last part of that statement is difficult to quantify or prove, or for some to even consider. I readily admit that.

Are you even going to tell me that with all the scientific knowledge and advancement, it can't be disproven that cheese did not start the Big Bang? Are you saying this seriously?

i don't think any information about how the big band was lit off survived the big bang. i might be wrong on this. but if i am right, and no information about it survived, then it cannot be disproven.

god may very well have set up the rules of the game. the constants, rules of physics, everything, may have been set up. or it may not have been. but there is no information left by any creator that gives that information in an independently verifiable fashion. but so far, all the arguments about god did this or god did that are not provable. they are merely conjecture, and mostly the result of our own incomprehension. that is what i mean by going out of the system (which is a logical thing, in logic anything can be proven by going outside of the logical system, but that would defeat the purpose of the system to begin with. trying to defeat science by saying god did it is the same way)
Exactly.


I am certainly not trying to defeat science. I am merely saying the science that is known by man and the ideas or discoveries created or found by man of the "system" that governs us is the result of intelligent design. The information left by the creator is there but remains unaccepted by some, and misunderstood by many more. Therefore it is unaccepted by some who do not have this thing called "faith" however you define it. On the other hand to others that do accept it, it is infallible truth.

There are many things throughout our lives that will remain unproven until we die, but yet we see and feel them everyday. We accept them as intelligence, love and a host of other words. None of them are proven, not because of the limits of man but because they cannot be proven.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
Originally posted by: dnuggett
I am certainly not trying to defeat science. I am merely saying the science that is known by man and the ideas or discoveries created or found by man of the "system" that governs us is the result of intelligent design. The information left by the creator is there but remains unaccepted by some, and misunderstood by many more. Therefore it is unaccepted by some who do not have this thing called "faith" however you define it. On the other hand to others that do accept it, it is infallible truth.

There are many things throughout our lives that will remain unproven until we die, but yet we see and feel them everyday. We accept them as intelligence, love and a host of other words. None of them are proven, not because of the limits of man but because they cannot be proven.

you're trying to attribute a higher purpose to simple chemical processes. it's the same thing as determining what a cloud looks like. also, lack of understanding is not evidence of anything other than a lack of understanding. remember, 500 years ago it was perfectly logical and reasonable to determine that god must be pushing the stars across the skies, because how else could they possibly move?
 

mercanucaribe

Banned
Oct 20, 2004
9,763
1
0
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Originally posted by: Falcon39
To be fair, fossilisation requires very specific parameters that are met very rarely - the odds of something being fossilised are extremely slim so only a very tiny amount of the history of the Earth can be found in the fossil record. Still we have managed to turn up some pretty eyebrow-raising stuff, including what was mentioned in this article.

This doesn't make any sense. Okay, why do you think that a certain species is alive today? Because the species that came before it, its ancestors, all survived for millions of years. Evolution predicts that the most fit will survive and its beneficial genes will spread throughout the population (think about the moth example).

So, that means the ancestors of a species... all of them in the long chain, would almost certainly have to existed in large numbers! This is the demand of gradualism. If not, then the species would almost certainly have died off, and not passed on its beneficial genes, slowly allowing for evolution.

So where are these vast amounts of intermediate fossils? One is not enough... we should find them ALL THE TIME. They should be ABUNDANT! We're talking millions of years of breeding, the species slowly adapting to the environment, and the ancestors of modern-day species being in abundance (because they were the most fit). Where is the record of this???

But we don't find that AT ALL. Instead, we have only a few example to give, a handful of hardly convincing transitional forms, many of them analogous to the modern-day platypus.

You say that the reason is because its very unlikely that anything is fossilized. Well to that I'll respond with this:

"Furthermore, it is an integral part of the theory that each form is successful, that is, each ?successive approximation? has a survival or reproductive advantage over its predecessor, or else it would not become established and give rise to subsequent forms. Therefore there is no reason whatever for the ?end forms? to have more chance of fossilization than the ?intermediates?. Sampling errors (which includes the ?poverty of the record? argument) are random, and while they could account for occasional or sporadic gaps, they may not be used as an excuse for systematic gaps."

Species usually stay the same for very long periods of time, and a general change occurs in their genotype and phenotype during periods when conditions change Combine that with the low chance of fossilization, and you have your explanation for "gaps". And even in cases of gradual evolution, gaps are inevitable.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
of course, one of the most annoying tenents of any creationist argument is their expectation for how complete not only fossilization should be but how complete human exploration of such should be. we've only been looking for fossils for maybe 100 years. and there aren't that many people doing it. not only that, but it only happens in a very few areas where the geological formations allow such exploration to happen relatively inexpensively (scientific grants being what they are). obviously we haven't looked everywhere, otherwise major fossil announcements wouldn't happen every month or so. and of course, the more fossils are found, the smaller the 'gaps' become. but you'll never see a creationist acknowledge this limitation.
 

yhelothar

Lifer
Dec 11, 2002
18,409
39
91
I see a lot of anti-evolutionists here claiming there are very few transitional types. I don't know where they got their information from, but it's most likely from a religion backed source. But if you've taken a biology class or two, and really studied about all the different species, and how they evolved through time, you would realize that ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL FORMS. Anti-evolutionists often confuse evolution to having species that are in-between that hasn't completed their form yet. This is false, and is not followed by anyone in the science. All species are intermediate and are transitional.
The "very limited" fossil record has shown a logical evolution of species - fishes, to amphibians that dwell between water and land, then full land reptiles - simple plants with no stems or seeds(algae), to simple plants with stems but no seeds(ferns), to fully developed shoots and stem systems with seeds(trees). These are just two examples of how species have logically evolved through time, with each species being a transitional form to the next. You don't see amphibians showing up in the fossil record before fishes. You don't see trees showing up in the fossil record before algae. But instead, all evidence has showed that species have progressed in small transitional steps. The entire study of evolution is FILLED with mountains upon mountains of such evidence.
And here creationists are contending that there are no transitional forms? Well answer this, how many of these creationists actually have studied biology? How many people that have actually studied biology and deny evolution? I dare you to find me one. Even the Pope accepts evolution as a fact.
If you really understand how evolution works, there really isn't any question whether or not it took place.
 

iamaelephant

Diamond Member
Jul 25, 2004
3,816
1
81
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Originally posted by: Falcon39
To be fair, fossilisation requires very specific parameters that are met very rarely - the odds of something being fossilised are extremely slim so only a very tiny amount of the history of the Earth can be found in the fossil record. Still we have managed to turn up some pretty eyebrow-raising stuff, including what was mentioned in this article.

This doesn't make any sense. Okay, why do you think that a certain species is alive today? Because the species that came before it, its ancestors, all survived for millions of years. Evolution predicts that the most fit will survive and its beneficial genes will spread throughout the population (think about the moth example).

So, that means the ancestors of a species... all of them in the long chain, would almost certainly have to existed in large numbers! This is the demand of gradualism. If not, then the species would almost certainly have died off, and not passed on its beneficial genes, slowly allowing for evolution.

So where are these vast amounts of intermediate fossils? One is not enough... we should find them ALL THE TIME. They should be ABUNDANT! We're talking millions of years of breeding, the species slowly adapting to the environment, and the ancestors of modern-day species being in abundance (because they were the most fit). Where is the record of this???

But we don't find that AT ALL. Instead, we have only a few example to give, a handful of hardly convincing transitional forms, many of them analogous to the modern-day platypus.

You say that the reason is because its very unlikely that anything is fossilized. Well to that I'll respond with this:

"Furthermore, it is an integral part of the theory that each form is successful, that is, each ?successive approximation? has a survival or reproductive advantage over its predecessor, or else it would not become established and give rise to subsequent forms. Therefore there is no reason whatever for the ?end forms? to have more chance of fossilization than the ?intermediates?. Sampling errors (which includes the ?poverty of the record? argument) are random, and while they could account for occasional or sporadic gaps, they may not be used as an excuse for systematic gaps."

This is a very common argument put forward by creationists who don't understand evolution. What you don't realise is that there is no such thing as an intermediate species. Every species ever discovered, including species still alive today, could be considered intermediate. Just because the fossil record is broken and disjointed, and admittedly somtimes ambiguous, doesn't mean that other species didn't exist but fail to be fossilised. As I already stated, the parameters for fossilisation are very specific and above all extremely rare.
 

blahblah99

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 2000
2,689
0
0
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Originally posted by: Falcon39
To be fair, fossilisation requires very specific parameters that are met very rarely - the odds of something being fossilised are extremely slim so only a very tiny amount of the history of the Earth can be found in the fossil record. Still we have managed to turn up some pretty eyebrow-raising stuff, including what was mentioned in this article.

This doesn't make any sense. Okay, why do you think that a certain species is alive today? Because the species that came before it, its ancestors, all survived for millions of years. Evolution predicts that the most fit will survive and its beneficial genes will spread throughout the population (think about the moth example).

So, that means the ancestors of a species... all of them in the long chain, would almost certainly have to existed in large numbers! This is the demand of gradualism. If not, then the species would almost certainly have died off, and not passed on its beneficial genes, slowly allowing for evolution.

So where are these vast amounts of intermediate fossils? One is not enough... we should find them ALL THE TIME. They should be ABUNDANT! We're talking millions of years of breeding, the species slowly adapting to the environment, and the ancestors of modern-day species being in abundance (because they were the most fit). Where is the record of this???

But we don't find that AT ALL. Instead, we have only a few example to give, a handful of hardly convincing transitional forms, many of them analogous to the modern-day platypus.

You say that the reason is because its very unlikely that anything is fossilized. Well to that I'll respond with this:

"Furthermore, it is an integral part of the theory that each form is successful, that is, each ?successive approximation? has a survival or reproductive advantage over its predecessor, or else it would not become established and give rise to subsequent forms. Therefore there is no reason whatever for the ?end forms? to have more chance of fossilization than the ?intermediates?. Sampling errors (which includes the ?poverty of the record? argument) are random, and while they could account for occasional or sporadic gaps, they may not be used as an excuse for systematic gaps."

EVERY living substance alive today had to spawn from a parent, agreed? Whether they reproduce asexually, sexually, or by cloning themselves, they have HAD to spawn from a parent(s). More specifically, the offspring's DNA comes from their parent(s). This is true whether you go back 1,000 years, or a million years, or a billion years. If you agree with that statement then you can read on, otherwise there's no point.

Now, imagine if each offspring held his parent(s) hands, and his parent(s) held their parent(s) hand, and so forth, all the way down the lineage to the very beginning of life. Can you traverse the lineage to get to two different species without having to jump? Of course there are going to be systemic gaps in the lineage, only because the human species haven't found any evidence yet in the form of fossils, but that does not mean that they do not exist.

But by definition, every living substance have had to spawn from a parent or two parents, otherwise you wouldn't be here reading this. Therefore, those systematic gaps exists only because we havn't found the evidence, perhaps it physically exists, perhaps it doesn't.

The point is that each offspring in the species immediately before and after these "gaps" MUST HAVE BEEN CREATED FROM PARENT(S).
 

yhelothar

Lifer
Dec 11, 2002
18,409
39
91
Originally posted by: Falcon39
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Originally posted by: Falcon39
To be fair, fossilisation requires very specific parameters that are met very rarely - the odds of something being fossilised are extremely slim so only a very tiny amount of the history of the Earth can be found in the fossil record. Still we have managed to turn up some pretty eyebrow-raising stuff, including what was mentioned in this article.

This doesn't make any sense. Okay, why do you think that a certain species is alive today? Because the species that came before it, its ancestors, all survived for millions of years. Evolution predicts that the most fit will survive and its beneficial genes will spread throughout the population (think about the moth example).

So, that means the ancestors of a species... all of them in the long chain, would almost certainly have to existed in large numbers! This is the demand of gradualism. If not, then the species would almost certainly have died off, and not passed on its beneficial genes, slowly allowing for evolution.

So where are these vast amounts of intermediate fossils? One is not enough... we should find them ALL THE TIME. They should be ABUNDANT! We're talking millions of years of breeding, the species slowly adapting to the environment, and the ancestors of modern-day species being in abundance (because they were the most fit). Where is the record of this???

But we don't find that AT ALL. Instead, we have only a few example to give, a handful of hardly convincing transitional forms, many of them analogous to the modern-day platypus.

You say that the reason is because its very unlikely that anything is fossilized. Well to that I'll respond with this:

"Furthermore, it is an integral part of the theory that each form is successful, that is, each ?successive approximation? has a survival or reproductive advantage over its predecessor, or else it would not become established and give rise to subsequent forms. Therefore there is no reason whatever for the ?end forms? to have more chance of fossilization than the ?intermediates?. Sampling errors (which includes the ?poverty of the record? argument) are random, and while they could account for occasional or sporadic gaps, they may not be used as an excuse for systematic gaps."

This is a very common argument put forward by creationists who don't understand evolution. What you don't realise is that there is no such thing as an intermediate species. Every species ever discovered, including species still alive today, could be considered intermediate. Just because the fossil record is broken and disjointed, and admittedly somtimes ambiguous, doesn't mean that other species didn't exist but fail to be fossilised. As I already stated, the parameters for fossilisation are very specific and above all extremely rare.

Very well said. It is true that the fossil record shows many gaps. But the fossil record has also unconvered vast amounts of evidence that shows transitions between species over time.
The gaps, in comparison to the vast amounts of evidence, is like 20 missing pieces in a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle. You can still see the whole picture despite having 20 pieces missing - and that picture in this case, is the undeniable observations that have painted a clear picture that evolution exists.
 

dguy6789

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2002
8,558
3
76
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Originally posted by: dguy6789
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Originally posted by: dguy6789
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Originally posted by: Falcon39
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Originally posted by: thehstrybean
Listen, as a Christian I can't accept evolution. God created the world, universe, and everything in it. Some Christians will say that God created one species and allowed it to evolve. I don't see Genesis as saying anything like this. That's just my belief.

Listen, as a Christian I accept some type of evolution. God started the world, and put it on it's course. Genesis says that. No one has been able to prove or disprove that.


<<<Silently waits for the "Big Bang" morons to come out.

It is your right to disbelieve Big Bang but calling some of the smartest, most well educated and renouned men on the planet "morons" is going to far. Big bang isn't just some idiotic theory put in place by some pimply teen in his basement - it is an extremely robust theory that explains a hell of a lot about the universe in it's current state. I'm not going to try to convert you to believe in it, but I think calling people like Carl Sagan, Brian Greene, Roger Penrose, Edwin Hubble and even Albert Einstein "morons" says more about you than it does about them.

No, not really. I am interested in knowing why God could not have set that Big Bang in motion. Why that could not be creationism in and of itself? All the so called intelligent people you listed would say that can't be. Yet they can't say what is either.

Is that intellegence on their part, or an avid ignorance of something that they dont' get because they can't "prove" it? I don't know the answer to that question. Sounds like you think you have it figured out better than I do.


Instead of telling you why God could not have created the big bang and induced creationism, why don't you tell me why a big block of cheddar cheese couldn't have created the universe. When you can answer that, you have answered your own question.


Wow. Just wow. That's the best you have? You reduce it to that? :laugh: Actually I expected that, that type of comment usually happens at least once or twice in a conversation like this.


If we go that route let's just call that Big Bang a giant fart from another dimension eh? Is that fair to say?

As expected. You cannot seem to grasp the idea that the question I asked you was the exact one that you ask of us with cheese in place of god. That should not change the answer in any way.

Once again, you ask us to tell you why god could not have created the big bang. I then ask you to tell me why a block of cheese could not have created the big bang. The point of this is to show you that your question is rediculous.

You cannot walk up to a person and say "X created you, me, and the entire universe, prove me wrong" That is just rediculous.

Wow, reading comprehension and spelling own you. Re-read the post, this time slow down and take a deep breath. I know it's hard to read correctly, but try this statement again:

"I am interested in knowing why God could not have set that Big Bang in motion."

I did not make the statement that he did. It is my belief, yes. But I am not holding you to prove me wrong. I am asking you why it is not a possibilty.

You state once again that replacing God with cheese is acceptable and makes sense to do. Hell you even try to make a logical argument for doing so. It's gets a good laugh, but once again answer this question :

Putting on the twisted alien42 logic hat: Can I replace Big Bang with gigantic fart? Or is there more to it than that ?


While your direct statement is different, the meaning is the same. Rather than saying "X created the me, you and the universe", you are saying, "why couldn't X have created the universe"? You are assuming that X exists in the first place. Everyone knows what happens when you assume.

Creationists have a pre conceived goal when they go looking for evidence on their position. That goal is to prove that their story is correct. They only want to look at and admit data that is for their cause. Should they find any evidence that says otherwise, "oh it is god just testing my faith"

Evolutionists FIRST look for evidence, then based on that evidence, they create a theory. That is the difference. Evolutionists have a reason for their theory, and Creationists have to find a reason for their theory.

As to your other statement, could the big bang not be a big bang at all? Yes, it is quite possible. While it would be illogical to assume a fart caused it all(no more illogical than assuming a higher being caused it), it could be possible.

I have a question for you. Why do you believe in whatever religion you believe in? What makes your religion valid and others false?
 

xSauronx

Lifer
Jul 14, 2000
19,582
4
81
Originally posted by: dguy6789
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Originally posted by: dguy6789
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Originally posted by: dguy6789
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Originally posted by: Falcon39
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Originally posted by: thehstrybean
Listen, as a Christian I can't accept evolution.

Listen, as a Christian I accept some type of evolution.

It is your right to disbelieve Big Bang but calling some of the smartest, most well educated and renouned men on the planet "morons" is going to far.

No, not really. I am interested in knowing why God could not have set that Big Bang in motion.

Instead of telling you why God could not have created the big bang and induced creationism, why don't you tell me why a big block of cheddar cheese couldn't have created the universe. When you can answer that, you have answered your own question.


Wow. Just wow. That's the best you have? You reduce it to that? :laugh: Actually I expected that, that type of comment usually happens at least once or twice in a conversation like this.

As expected. You cannot seem to grasp the idea that the question I asked you was the exact one that you ask of us with cheese in place of god. That should not change the answer in any way.

Wow, reading comprehension and spelling own you. Re-read the post, this time slow down and take a deep breath. I know it's hard to read correctly, but try this statement again:

"I am interested in knowing why God could not have set that Big Bang in motion."


While your direct statement is different, the meaning is the same. Rather than saying "X created the me, you and the universe", you are saying, "why couldn't X have created the universe"? You are assuming that X exists in the first place. Everyone knows what happens when you assume.

Creationists have a pre conceived goal when they go looking for evidence on their position. That goal is to prove that their story is correct. They only want to look at and admit data that is for their cause. Should they find any evidence that says otherwise, "oh it is god just testing my faith"

Evolutionists FIRST look for evidence, then based on that evidence, they create a theory. That is the difference. Evolutionists have a reason for their theory, and Creationists have to find a reason for their theory.

As to your other statement, could the big bang not be a big bang at all? Yes, it is quite possible. While it would be illogical to assume a fart caused it all(no more illogical than assuming a higher being caused it), it could be possible.

I have a question for you.b Why do you believe in whatever religion you believe in? What makes your religion valid and others false?

Quotes edited for brevity, its ridiculous how long you people let this stuff get :p

The answer to the last bolded statement, and in my opinion to all the bolded statements, is that *most* people are raised religious (again, in my opinion, its brainwashing) and just believe what theyre told because its what theyre told. Not all, but most. Many more who convert later in life, do so during some emotion duress, or at a point where they dont know what to do, and take whatever a religious person says as fact without checking up on it.

I was raised a christian, it never made sense to me, but i tried, did this and that and the other thing, believed all the bull because its what i was told for 20 years. Then i actually *read* the bible, and looked at facts one day, and quit going to church, and quit believing.

Ive met people who believed in god and jesus and the bible, and had *never read the book*. Ever. Not more than a cursory glance in church, at most, when someone told them to turn to a chapter and verse. Educated people, smart people, who *never read the book*, nevermind having an open mind if they get to it, which is the hardest part, to challenge your beliefs. Alot of people that *do* read it, are already religious and convinced its entirely true and factual. I would imagine the same would go with other religions like islam or hinduism, however, my experience has only been with the christian faith. Ive lived in eastern north carolina all of my life, we have baptists, pentecostals, church of god and a few catholics: so much for variety :)

Weve all seen videos, read arguments, maybe even gone through books about the creationist point of view, alost of us here on AT disagree with it, and some chrsitian even disagree with the 6-day creation story and believe in evolution, but that god started it all.

The thing is, however, that people who are *raised* on certain beliefs, even beliefs that ARE NOT religious, have a strong tendency to just believe what theyre told and never bother really looking into it later. Think of all the things, things that arent remotely religious, that youre parents told you as a kid, that you probably never gave much thought to for quite some time.

I was 15 or 16 before i started to think about my religion, and didnt really look into it seriously until i was 20. And up to that point, i used, and believed almost all of the arguments that christians here are using to deny anything except a 7-day creation by an omnipotent god. I *knew* the earth was 6000 years old and created by god and that jesus died. I didnt believe it, i *knew* it as though it was an indisputable fact.

Thats what I got for being raised around close-minded people who believed in things that they couldnt see or prove, but believed just because some book, or someone who believed in that book, told them it was so.

I wanted truth, though, after hearing alot of explanations and claims of evidence and finally actually looking into it with an open mind, im no longer religious (im agnostic, and apathetic more than anything) and am shocked at some of the things i used to treat as fact.
 

yhelothar

Lifer
Dec 11, 2002
18,409
39
91
Sauron, I'm glad you were able to finally pull through and start to look at things at an objective point of view.
Sadly, very few people are able to look at things objectively, and judge it without any biases or feelings, and just reason with it.
Additionally, most people do not care for reasonings behind things. They like to have an authority to give them the word on what is factual and what is right. They do not rely on their own reasoning, but rather take people's words for things, because they are supposedly an "authority" on it.
I have had many debates with many people. In most debates, it always ends up with the other party continuously quoting a book, without even understanding what the book says. They cannot reason with it, but just claim that the book is right, and you can't possibly know more than the book, rather than to objectively look at the reasonings, and explain why the reasonings are logical fallacies.
For example, I once argued with my friend that hydrogen atoms contain one proton and one electron. My friend quickly told me that I was wrong, as he claimed that the hydrogen atom has one neutron also. He said that the book defined an atom as a particle containing protons, neutrons, and electrons. Thus, he claimed that all atoms must have all three components. When I clearly showed him that hydrogen atoms only have one proton and one electron, he just consistently quoted the book, saying the book can't be wrong without even really understanding what the book said. Uncoincidently, he's also a devout christian and believes all non-religious people are immoral.

 

skace

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
14,488
7
81
Originally posted by: dnuggett
I am certainly not trying to defeat science. I am merely saying the science that is known by man and the ideas or discoveries created or found by man of the "system" that governs us is the result of intelligent design. The information left by the creator is there but remains unaccepted by some, and misunderstood by many more. Therefore it is unaccepted by some who do not have this thing called "faith" however you define it. On the other hand to others that do accept it, it is infallible truth.

There are many things throughout our lives that will remain unproven until we die, but yet we see and feel them everyday. We accept them as intelligence, love and a host of other words. None of them are proven, not because of the limits of man but because they cannot be proven.

Just remember, man not only came up with the terms love, faith and intelligence but also invented the idea of god. Without man, god does not exist.
 

alien42

Lifer
Nov 28, 2004
12,867
3,297
136
Originally posted by: Falcon39
Originally posted by: dnuggett
No, not really. I am interested in knowing why God could not have set that Big Bang in motion. Why that could not be creationism in and of itself? All the so called intelligent people you listed would say that can't be. Yet they can't say what is either.

Is that intellegence on their part, or an avid ignorance of something that they dont' get because they can't "prove" it? I don't know the answer to that question. Sounds like you think you have it figured out better than I do.

Einstein was a christian, so are a great many cosmologists. None of them have ever said that God didn't do it - God is completely irrelevent in science. God is impossible to disprove or test. Science deals with how nature works, regardless of whether or not there is a God behind it.

einstein was not a christian and here are a few of his quotes to support that.

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man." (Albert Einstein)

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." (Albert Einstein)
 

Chadder007

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,560
0
0
Originally posted by: Eli
Originally posted by: Chadder007
Well this fish here can walk on land too and has a basic lung.....and its alive today. So how does this prove anything?
http://www.nbc4.com/News/1534300/detail.html

Because you clearly know more than the scientists doing the actual research. :p

Meh....scientists change their view of if Coffee or Eggs are good or bad for you at least once a year. You have to have a lot of faith in science now a days. :p