Scientists Call Fish Fossil the 'Missing Link'

[Crono]

"A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ?Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don?t believe in God.? I answered him, ?Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don?t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don?t know if you?re making correct statements or even whether you?re asking me the right questions.?

The young man looked at me and blurted out, ?What was that book you recommended?? He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations ?such ?reasoning? destroys the very basis for reason." - Taken from here

:laugh:

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Chadder007
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.

Sometimes I question if gravity even exists. Oh wait, yes it does, just tested it.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

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?

You don't have to try to do that. It's pretty damn obvious to all but the most narrow minded. It's not anything like determining what a cloud looks like. Clouds are easily modeled and created. AI is no where near even close to being reliable or good.


Back to my point, there are a host of things you accept everyday that you cannot prove. If you want to call intelligence a chemical reaction go right ahead. Just remember a lack of understanding is not evidence of anything other than a lack of understanding.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: Chadder007
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.

Sometimes I question if gravity even exists. Oh wait, yes it does, just tested it.

When you're done testing evolution, let me know. I'll give you an A+ for testing gravity, but I'm gonna have to give you an incomplete for macro evolution. Maybe a C+ or B- for micro. And 5 extra points on your next exam if you can do an experiment on gravity involving chucking a pc out a window...

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: dnuggett



Back to my point, there are a host of things you accept everyday that you cannot prove. If you want to call intelligence a chemical reaction go right ahead. Just remember a lack of understanding is not evidence of anything other than a lack of understanding.

That's something you creationists need to keep in mind.

 

[xSauronx]

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.

see, faith is the problem here. you believe things because certain people convinced you that a certain book is infallible. thats it. if nobody had *ever* told you that, if youd never seen the bible, but had seen the koran, youd believe *that*. If you had been raised a hindu or a buddhist or a sikh or anything else, THAT is what youd believe. its what MOST people would believe.

not because it makes sense. not because theres *any* test you can do to prove one over the other, but because you had it stuffed into your head, or you were having some problems one day and someone said "here try jesus!" and instead of seeing if it made sense, you went for it.

it doesnt make sense, thats why there SO many religions that ALL believe they have THE answer.

then, once you get into each religion, you find that many have, what, in christianity at least, is referred to as a "denomination", but you may prefer sects. baptists, pentecostals, presbyterians, catholics all hav edifferent views and "interpretations" of the same books! sunni and shiite muslims are a nother good example, as are the different forms of buddhism. people latch onto what theyre brought up in, or move to, maybe, a different sect that reflects some of their different ideologies.

so, you think god made everything. muslims think allah did it. and hindus believe something different entirely. and youd all say how much these particular beliefs had done this and that in your lives.

its nice, neat, even interesting on some levels. but fact? no. like you said, its faith "however you define it" which, i think, is commonly defined as believing in something you cant prove. religious people would be alot better off, believeing what they want to believe, but not arguing their faith as fact, which doesnt get them anywhere with people who underdstand the difference, and isnt even necessary to convert or convince those who do not.

 

[thehstrybean]

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.

My only real problem with the Big Bang is where the matter that formed the universe came from. It's hard for me to figure this one out. That's just me. I believe that God made the matter and then exploded it.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Crono
When you're done testing evolution, let me know. I'll give you an A+ for testing gravity, but I'm gonna have to give you an incomplete for macro evolution. Maybe a C+ or B- for micro. And 5 extra points on your next exam if you can do an experiment on gravity involving chucking a pc out a window...

Funny man, my point was that you can knock evolution but the second you start knocking science in general you are showing a terrible lack of intelligence.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: skace

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.

They came up with the terms, not the acutal feeling or emotion. Just because you call something by a name doesn't mean you now created it.

Your theory is very poor in logic. Man also invented the idea of evolution, did they not? Are trying to tell me if man hadn't inventeed this idea, than it wouldn't have existed? Evolution happened way before man, and way before man invented the term.

Man came up with the term shark, dinosaur, mountain, you name it. So do you mean to tell me that without man a shark or mountain does not exist?

 

[arcenite]

Originally posted by: xSauronx

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.

see, faith is the problem here. you believe things because certain people convinced you that a certain book is infallible. thats it. if nobody had *ever* told you that, if youd never seen the bible, but had seen the koran, youd believe *that*. If you had been raised a hindu or a buddhist or a sikh or anything else, THAT is what youd believe. its what MOST people would believe.

not because it makes sense. not because theres *any* test you can do to prove one over the other, but because you had it stuffed into your head, or you were having some problems one day and someone said "here try jesus!" and instead of seeing if it made sense, you went for it.

it doesnt make sense, thats why there SO many religions that ALL believe they have THE answer.

then, once you get into each religion, you find that many have, what, in christianity at least, is referred to as a "denomination", but you may prefer sects. baptists, pentecostals, presbyterians, catholics all hav edifferent views and "interpretations" of the same books! sunni and shiite muslims are a nother good example, as are the different forms of buddhism. people latch onto what theyre brought up in, or move to, maybe, a different sect that reflects some of their different ideologies.

so, you think god made everything. muslims think allah did it. and hindus believe something different entirely. and youd all say how much these particular beliefs had done this and that in your lives.

its nice, neat, even interesting on some levels. but fact? no. like you said, its faith "however you define it" which, i think, is commonly defined as believing in something you cant prove. religious people would be alot better off, believeing what they want to believe, but not arguing their faith as fact, which doesnt get them anywhere with people who underdstand the difference, and isnt even necessary to convert or convince those who do not.

Amen

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: thehstrybean

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.

My only real problem with the Big Bang is where the matter that formed the universe came from. It's hard for me to figure this one out. That's just me. I believe that God made the matter and then exploded it.

That makes no sense logically. Based on your understanding of physics, you assume the matter has to come from somewhere that you can comprehend, yet you attribute it to God, who would be beyond scientific understanding.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: xSauronx

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.

see, faith is the problem here. you believe things because certain people convinced you that a certain book is infallible. thats it. if nobody had *ever* told you that, if youd never seen the bible, but had seen the koran, youd believe *that*. If you had been raised a hindu or a buddhist or a sikh or anything else, THAT is what youd believe. its what MOST people would believe.

not because it makes sense. not because theres *any* test you can do to prove one over the other, but because you had it stuffed into your head, or you were having some problems one day and someone said "here try jesus!" and instead of seeing if it made sense, you went for it.

it doesnt make sense, thats why there SO many religions that ALL believe they have THE answer.

then, once you get into each religion, you find that many have, what, in christianity at least, is referred to as a "denomination", but you may prefer sects. baptists, pentecostals, presbyterians, catholics all hav edifferent views and "interpretations" of the same books! sunni and shiite muslims are a nother good example, as are the different forms of buddhism. people latch onto what theyre brought up in, or move to, maybe, a different sect that reflects some of their different ideologies.

so, you think god made everything. muslims think allah did it. and hindus believe something different entirely. and youd all say how much these particular beliefs had done this and that in your lives.

its nice, neat, even interesting on some levels. but fact? no. like you said, its faith "however you define it" which, i think, is commonly defined as believing in something you cant prove. religious people would be alot better off, believeing what they want to believe, but not arguing their faith as fact, which doesnt get them anywhere with people who underdstand the difference, and isnt even necessary to convert or convince those who do not.

Wow, the same thing can be said about science.

Some believe that this one thing occured and think they can prove it. Then someone else comes along and has a different theory. Yet another in the scientific community has a different idea. Most of which never gets fully ironed out. Almost everything you said above about religion and differing opinions can be said about science.

Are you saying that every scientist agrees with each other, or do some hold different ideas and opinions? Your science seems just as "confused" (as you put it) as anyone's religion. Differing opinions or beliefs on a topic do not de facto mean the whole thing doesn't make sense as you like to try to illustrate. If that were true, science is screwed.

The whole arguement that I believe something because I was told it is moronic. Were you not told about evolution? Science? Math? How else did it originally get to you?

I have no interest in converting anyone here. Your decisions are yours to make.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: thehstrybean

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.

My only real problem with the Big Bang is where the matter that formed the universe came from. It's hard for me to figure this one out. That's just me. I believe that God made the matter and then exploded it.

That makes no sense logically. Based on your understanding of physics, you assume the matter has to come from somewhere that you can comprehend, yet you attribute it to God, who would be beyond scientific understanding.

Why does that make God beyond comprehension? Because he cannot be explained by science, he is now incomprehensible? You must go through life clueless to a lot if you only can comprehend what science can explain.

 

[thehstrybean]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: thehstrybean

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.

My only real problem with the Big Bang is where the matter that formed the universe came from. It's hard for me to figure this one out. That's just me. I believe that God made the matter and then exploded it.

That makes no sense logically. Based on your understanding of physics, you assume the matter has to come from somewhere that you can comprehend, yet you attribute it to God, who would be beyond scientific understanding.

Now you are trying to prove God with science. God is something that science cannot explain. It is outside the realm of scientific observation.

 

[dnuggett]

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. 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?

Why do you believe in whatever scientific theories you believe in? What makes the ones you believe in right and the other opinions or theories false? Most likely it is because you believe the things you do becasue they have become clear to you.

 

[Crescent13]

LMFAO!!!!! Fish evolving into things that walk on land?!?!?!?!? WTF!! This whole evolution thing is really starting to get crazy. IMO something created everything. That's it. If something wanted walking things on land, It would have put walking things on land, not fish that would eventually evolve to things that walk on land. That Something could be God, some alien life form, etc.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: Smartazz

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Time to dig through the bible to find obscure passage that could explain this

Are you serious? Evolution is not a theory, we just have to say it is, we have evidence of evolution, why can't people accept evolution and be religous at the same time, I know some people are, but there are still others who can't, it's odd.

QFT.

I believe the Bible is inerrant in its original form and that we should interpret the Bible literally whenever possible, but I don't see any problem with scientific theory and the Bible. I see that there are things that we have interpretted wrong or taken too literally, for both science and religion, but the two are not mutually exclusive. It still puzzles me why that is today, especially since the Church was one of the biggest supporters of science before. Even evolution was regarded by some of the scientist who were Christian as a glimpse into how creation was done, but then it became an issue of fundies versus evolutionist later on. :roll:

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: Smartazz

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Time to dig through the bible to find obscure passage that could explain this

Are you serious? Evolution is not a theory, we just have to say it is, we have evidence of evolution, why can't people accept evolution and be religous at the same time, I know some people are, but there are still others who can't, it's odd.

QFT.

I believe the Bible is inerrant in its original form and that we should interpret the Bible literally whenever possible, but I don't see any problem with scientific theory and the Bible. I see that there are things that we have interpretted wrong or taken too literally, for both science and religion, but the two are not mutually exclusive. It still puzzles me why that is today, especially since the Church was one of the biggest supporters of science before. Even evolution was regarded by some of the scientist who were Christian as a glimpse into how creation was done, but then it became an issue of fundies versus evolutionist later on. :roll:

So so true, I don't see why they have to be mutually exclusive either. The only good reason for this are the die hards that don't want to accept one or the other. They can and do co-exist side by side.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: Chadder007
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.

Sometimes I question if gravity even exists. Oh wait, yes it does, just tested it.

Gravity is ONLY a theory. Jesus is actually holding everything down so it doesn't float away.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: Crescent13
LMFAO!!!!! Fish evolving into things that walk on land?!?!?!?!? WTF!! This whole evolution thing is really starting to get crazy. IMO something created everything. That's it. If something wanted walking things on land, It would have put walking things on land, not fish that would eventually evolve to things that walk on land. That Something could be God, some alien life form, etc.

the idea of life starting in the oceans and then moving to land is nothing new or shocking. the same goes for birds evolving from dinosaurs.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: Smartazz

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Time to dig through the bible to find obscure passage that could explain this

Are you serious? Evolution is not a theory, we just have to say it is, we have evidence of evolution, why can't people accept evolution and be religous at the same time, I know some people are, but there are still others who can't, it's odd.

QFT.

I believe the Bible is inerrant in its original form and that we should interpret the Bible literally whenever possible, but I don't see any problem with scientific theory and the Bible. I see that there are things that we have interpretted wrong or taken too literally, for both science and religion, but the two are not mutually exclusive. It still puzzles me why that is today, especially since the Church was one of the biggest supporters of science before. Even evolution was regarded by some of the scientist who were Christian as a glimpse into how creation was done, but then it became an issue of fundies versus evolutionist later on. :roll:

So so true, I don't see why they have to be mutually exclusive either. The only good reason for this are the die hards that don't want to accept one or the other. They can and do co-exist side by side.

Totally agree, /thread.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

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. 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?

Why do you believe in whatever scientific theories you believe in? What makes the ones you believe in right and the other opinions or theories false? Most likely it is because you believe the things you do becasue they have become clear to you.

I have multiple reason for which I believe in scientific theories.

1. Evolution is a theory that was created because of evidence. Creationism was made first, then people looked for evidence supporting it.

2. It has been scientifically proven that evolution happens on small levels every day. Look at roaches becomming more resistant to pesticides, or finches using sticks to get worms rather than beaks. Creatures being born with some kind of beneficial ability that is not the norm.(Geniuses anyone?)

3. Creationism has no support for any of its arguments.

4. It has been shown that as we look back further and further into the past, living organisms become less and less complex. That means that looking to the future, organisms become more and more complex. As stated in evolution.

5. I was born and raised as a Christian. However, the information given to me seems to be quite sufficient to be suspect of skepticism. As soon as I questioned the information, it became quite blatantly apparent that what I was listening to and was told was true was without support. I would ask "Why do you believe in god?" and they would be like "Well, god is love and he is great. Jesus saved you." Nothing I asked them would get any information other than that. I ask them who wrote the bible, and they either say god, or they say they don't know. Well guess what, a human wrote the bible. Want to know some more? The mother of Jesus was not a virgin. It has been scientifically proven that we know exactly how a human is born and developed. It requires a sperm and an egg. As far as I know, they did not have any other way of forming life other than intercourse back then.

 

[Feldenak]

I just don't understand the all or nothing attitude people have here. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. I know a several scientists that are quite religious and they have no problems with doing their work (yes, these scientists are biologists).

 

[dnuggett]

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: 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?

Why do you believe in whatever scientific theories you believe in? What makes the ones you believe in right and the other opinions or theories false? Most likely it is because you believe the things you do becasue they have become clear to you.

I have multiple reason for which I believe in scientific theories.

1. Evolution is a theory that was created because of evidence. Creationism was made first, then people looked for evidence supporting it.

2. It has been scientifically proven that evolution on happens every small levels every day. Look at roaches becomming more resistant to pesticides, or finches using sticks to get worms rather than beaks. Creatures being born with some kind of beneficial ability that is not the norm.(Geniuses anyone?)

3. Creationism has no support for any of its arguments.

I wouldn't say there is zero support for a creationist's argument. And no Evolution was not a theory that was created because evidence anymore than religion was a theory created by evidence.

Totally agreed to the second point. Except I dont' think that is evolution in the sense that most evolutionists see evolution.

I could be wrong here though. To the scientific minds who study evolution:

Is a roach becoming immune to a 3-4 year old pesticide evolution?

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: Feldenak
I just don't understand the all or nothing attitude people have here. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. I know a several scientists that are quite religious and they have no problems with doing their work (yes, these scientists are biologists).

I used to be Agnostic. Then I realized that it was pointless. Believing that it is possible to have a god and it is possible to not have a god, but not being sure as to what. Why does it even have to be a god? Why not some other object? God is an idea created by man. The idea of god stands on equal grounds with the boogie man and santa clause. Why would you say it can either be a god, or no god? If you believe god is possible, then you must also believe the boogie man and santa clause are both equally possible, or you are a hypocrite.