|
|
| Posted: 15 Oct 2007 03:49 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Sure. I just put Christianity up because its painting of creation is the one most often brought up on our board. I'll be the first to say that evolution has a hole or two in it. But it is also the most dominant explanation of where we came from for a reason- observable research.
You can't research the supernatural- somewhat by definition it is the domain of the unknown. Even creation "science" is an attempt at explaining a process that runs into a wall when it has to say "because God willed it". There isn't any proof of God. Evolution is different because when it runs into a similar wall of "what came before that?" the answer is "we don't know, but we're looking into it".
Hopefully, the domain of the supernatural will forever shrink as human knowledge expands. That doesn't mean God has to exist in the gaps though. I've always wondered what might have happened if Darwin had said "God told me how He did it...at least in a sense...". This debate might be very different.
Like you said, these concepts don't have to be at odds.
on a diferent note regarding the search for our origins, if there's one thing I think we'll always have on Matirx like computer know-it-alls, it is our capacity to say we don't know something, shrug our shoulders and just hope for the best.
|
| Posted: 15 Oct 2007 12:28 |
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
My experience has been that people will claim that it is so slow that we can't observe it, and then refer to it as observable science. When you look a little closer at some of the fossil 'proofs' and the 'transitional forms', you're genrally accused of being 'one of those creationists '. Guilty as charged, but it hardly explains the problems with your 'proof'. The same thing comes up when you bring up proofs for a young earth. There is a oddly unscientific bias against anyone who offers contrary theories. I know a guy who is a physicist who has problems getting published because he is a creationist. At no point in his research does he try to use creation to explain physics, although he is pretty rough on the proposed radioisotope decay models. But because of where he graduated from, he is blackballed.
The truth is in the 'unbiased, objective scientific community' where 'truth is our objective' there is a party line and a worldview that must be maintained if you expect to get along. Well, I am not afraid to say that the emperor has no clothes.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 15 Oct 2007 17:20 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
The truth is in the 'unbiased, objective scientific community' where 'truth is our objective' there is a party line and a worldview that must be maintained if you expect to get along. Excellent point. Scientists are not above politics.
Here's a question for any evolutionist to try an explain and please do in as straight forward a manner as possible.
What exactly makes evolution work? What is the force that tells a monkey to lose it's fur on the way to becoming human? Is it the monkey's brain?
If I'm not mistaken evolutionists seem to be saying that evolution takes place by necessity, but how does that work? Evolution says we need eyeballs so we get them? Evolution is not a force in and of itself is it? What is the actual force behind the creation of the eyeball or a hand or whatever else evolutions says we need? Is it the brain that says I need this or the other and eventually implants into the gene code? If that's true how could a single cell amoeba ever tell itself what to become next with no brain or any other senses?
Just doesn't figure.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 15 Oct 2007 17:53 |
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
Here's a question
That's nine questions Tim.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 15 Oct 2007 17:59 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
I wanted to make sure you all understood the point. So you got a answer?
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 15 Oct 2007 18:11 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
It depends on what one considers observed. DNA, radio-carbon dating, sediment layers, the distance from which light has traveled, the cosmological red shift, and natural selection are all observable now. Although there is no several billion years long DVD that shows evolution happening, there is plenty of observable evidence.
But so far as I'm aware- we haven't found any evidence of a God to create everything in a week, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest the universe and planet are a lot older than 7,000 years or so.
If there is resistance to having the minority opinion, well - that's always a drag. The church put Galileo on house arrest until he died for saying the earth goes around the sun and not vice versa.
I tried to tell everyone who would listen that Iraq would not turn out to be a bed of roses, and plenty of people told me I just didn't believe in the country or hate terrorism enough. Maybe I'll end up right, maybe not- but I formed this opinion based off objective evidence, some of which wasn't fun to bring up.
Being in the minority is frustrating. But if you're right, one day we'll all know and the debate will shift to where all these other religions came from. If not, we'll keep doing research and compiling data and we'll end up where ever that leads us.
|
| Posted: 15 Oct 2007 18:20 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Wasn't my argument but ok...according to what I've heard and have faith in....
Quote:
What exactly makes evolution work?
Necessity.
Quote:
What is the force that tells a monkey to lose it's fur on the way to becoming human?
Monkeys don't become human. We have some supposed 'missing link' in common and apes(monkeys) today are supposed to be our cousins in nature's kingdom. Losing the fur would mean the body doesn't need the fur anymore.
Quote:
how does that work?
Survival versus extinction. Those that won't adapt to their environment, can't change their environment/find a habitable environment or are forced out of that environment won't survive.
Quote:
Evolution says we need eyeballs so we get them Evolution says nothing. That would be like hurricane Katrina saying it wanted to drown New Orleans.
Quote:
Evolution is not a force in and of itself is it? No. Just an unrefined name for an unrefined process.
Quote:
What is the actual force behind the creation of the eyeball or a hand or whatever else evolutions says we need?
I posted the video about eye evolution elsewhere. It's beyond my scope as a cab driver to explain the hard science. Before you ask, I still accept evolution as more likely than creationism-lack of full understanding and all.
Quote:
Is it the brain that says I need this or the other and eventually implants into the gene code? This seems to be a repeat of the last question.
Quote:
If that's true how could a single cell amoeba ever tell itself what to become next with no brain or any other senses?
This answer would be an amalgam of all the previous answers but put simply: necessity.
Here's some questions for you.
How and why did you learn to ride a bike, swim or use a computer?
Why are we taller now than they were in biblical times?
Where do scabs and callouses come from?
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 15 Oct 2007 20:08 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Wait a second guys all that is well and good, but it still doesn't explain anything.
So is necessity an intelligent force that can will eyes, ears, noses, or mouths into place? Necessity must be followed by thought. I need something so I figure out how to get it. I go after it. Simply saying it's needed doesn't explain anything by a long shot. A tree needs roots, but how did it know to get roots, and even if it had enough intelligence to know it needed roots how could it ever make itself grow roots?
Just for the sake of argument, humor me here ok. Pretend like I'm a student and your a teacher. Explain it to me so it makes some kind of sense that an average guy can swallow.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 15 Oct 2007 20:36 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
For the sake of your argument...
Quote:
Here's some questions for you.
How and why did you learn to ride a bike, swim or use a computer?
Why are we taller now than they were in biblical times?
Where do scabs and callouses come from?
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 15 Oct 2007 22:17 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
I asked first. Stop playing around.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 15 Oct 2007 22:42 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Ok well I'll wait maybe Danny can take a stab at it.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 16 Oct 2007 01:11 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
While you're waiting, watch the evolution primer I posted a while ago.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 16 Oct 2007 04:23 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Well, say God willed it if you want. Maybe he did. But thats thing about evolution- it doesn't need a will to explain anything. Things can just happen.
There are things that are and things that aren't. If we just happen to be in a particular spot, with an evolved consciousness enough to say "here we are", hen you don't need any extra will or force. Maybe there is one- but who willed that? Who is God's God? Who is the creator's creator? At some point, there are just things that are and things that aren't.
In all the space out there, there's not much difference between one black spot and another. But what makes our position distinctive is that we are here to observe it.
This is all very tree falling in the forest- but that is the sort of question we're asking when we ask "Is there a God?"
Now personally, I tend to think there is- or I think God is so ingrained into our culture and consciousness that we might as well see that image as a valid something.
But there are schools of thought that don't even ask such questions. Buddhism says don't bother- wanting something to be true or not true is pointless in the first place. In these cultures, that hasn't bred any more nihilism or bad behavior than our belief in a Christian god has.
So there are more than one way to look at this. Christianity is great, but looking at these questions from another perspective can be useful. It can even teach you things about Christianity.
|
| Posted: 16 Oct 2007 12:44 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
When I discuss things with evolutionists (and I don't do this as much as I used to, to be honest) and I point out things like 'if that were true, then what about this?' or 'how did this happen since it runs contrary to your theory?", I get answers like 'I don't know, but it must've worked that way because here we are!'
That's faith, is what that is.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 16 Oct 2007 16:18 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
I don't know, but it must've worked that way because here we are!
Maybe, but that isn't faith. It is perfectly valid and within the bounds of science to say "I dunno, but I'm looking in to it."
In fact, anyone who is being honest is at least a little agnostic. I consider it faith to take a stab at things from that point, but acknowledge that one could be proven wrong.
Then its something else to say "I do know, despite a lack of evidence." Then there is a whole 'nother category in which people say "I do know, and I don't really care what comes along, I will find a way to avoid assimilating it into my world view."
|
| Posted: 16 Oct 2007 16:34 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
You're right preacher man that is a type of faith.
I'm not going to let our evolutionist friends off that easy though. You all need to have something besides we are here so that proves evolution must have been. To stick by an scientific theory so dogmatically you have to have more than that. If it's science we are truly talking about and not faith then why aren't scientists that believe in evolution doing the math so to speak?
I really want to know what force enabled trees to aquire roots necessary for life. If it wasn't the trees intelligence, if it wasn't an outside intelligence, then what? Now you have to ask yourself that question as a scientist with or without belief in biblical creation. Is "How" the question scientists are afraid to ask?
Quote:
Who is God's God? Who is the creator's creator? At some point, there are just things that are and things that aren't.
Ok, so let's go back to Christian belief for a second. The God of the Bible taken by faith is infinite which answers the previous scientific question of who directed creation. Someone of infinite existence had "to be" to solve the equation. Think about this. You see a tree. You know there was once a seed. That seed came from a tree, but somewhere along the way there was the first tree or the first seed. Since we know a tree or a seed cannot exist by itself we have to assume a greater intelligence designed it. Now where did the designer come from? While not explainable by our known scientific laws, logic must dictate the designer is above our known laws of science and quite probably our reality itself; otherwise we would have an infinite road back to nowhere. So does time go backward in an infinite direction? If so then can we not assume the possibility of an infinite God?
We are confined to our 5 senses. Who is to say that with God there are not so many other dimensions to existence that we cannot even begin to comprehend.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 16 Oct 2007 20:30 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
If so then can we not assume the possibility of an infinite God? Sure, you can assume that. But bear in mind that a functioning universe could happen, without any need for a God.
Furthermore- we know time exists. We don't know that God exists. Bringing God in means bringing in the supernatural. If it isn't observed- we can't measure it. God might be infinite or born 100 years ago, making up all the history before as a joke.
But there's never been any proof for God. That is what makes faith or belief or whatever something of a tricky thing that takes some work*. It is different from science- so why bother trying to make them add up? Justifying god through science is futile.
*And I don't mean this work as convincing oneself of something- or just letting someone else convince us of something. I mean asking tough questions of oneself and learning as much as possible about our ideas and where they fit into the world.
|
| Posted: 17 Oct 2007 12:38 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
But bear in mind that a functioning universe could happen, without any need for a God.
Oh Danny, Danny Danny. That is exactly the mindset I was referring to.
Quote:
But there's never been any proof for God. Unless you count the incredibly complex creation, the witness of the Scriptures,the witness of prophecy, the witness of your own conscience and the witness of the millions of lives changed by the gospel. Other than that, oh sure, we're just guessing.
I apologize Danny, that probably reads a lot more snarky that I want it to.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 17 Oct 2007 15:29 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
S'okay, the snarkiness doesn't bother me- but good word.
Quote:
Unless you count the incredibly complex creation, the witness of the Scriptures,the witness of prophecy, the witness of your own conscience and the witness of the millions of lives changed by the gospel.
Well, I don't count most of that. For me, I just count my own convictions and I try not to use that to win a point with anyone (especially because if they're clever enough, that argument won't work).
The complexity is an interesting argument put forth by creationists somewhat recently in its current form. I started hearing it ten years ago- I thin when "Darwin's Black Box" came out. However, it is pretty quickly dismissed because:
1.) Complexity doesn't prove anything more than life is complex (from a certain point of view). Physics is complex. Plenty of things are unlikely that happen anyway.
2.) This isn't an argument against evolution any more than it is for it. Amongst people who believe in evolution AND God ( ) the complexity of evolution looks like it needed a design built into the very structure of the universe. Of course, the God part is just guesswork- but if there was a process by which things were created- it sounds more realistic to people like me than magic.
3.) The fact hat we're here to observe something negates all this stuff and allows for the possibility that there might be no God at all. We're here to observe our own evolution. We weren't there to see all the times it hasn't gotten this far. If we're the bazillionth lucky winner- we never saw the losers.
Its a big, big universe and we've here in no particular time or place without the relative position of other things.
But that's just complexity. Belief is also not very credible as a reason for me to believe something. What happened to the Emperor not having any clothes?
4.) The existence of other religions, many of them older than Christianity or even Judaism makes personal or even group witnessing not very reliable. This is often the same trouble missionaries have historically run into- how do you convince someone that their old, unseen Gods are not real and the new unseen God IS real? Sometimes ya can and sometimes ya can't. We tend not to hear about times where it hasn't worked- but there are a lot of heathens out there still!
Personally, I feel that if life is a statistical probability, even property of the universe- then that says a lot for the existence of God or at least hopefulness for life. To me, the hope that we'll one day understand the universe better and understand how special it is, is much more rational and awe inspiring than one magical week in which God made us out of dirt, became disgusted with our actions and bailed- only to pop by every 1,000 years or so when someone needed smiting. I know the New Testament says that Christ died for MY sins as well as anyone else's- but I didn't ask for that, and I'm not sure I was headed for Hell in the first place.
Fortunately- what Christ said has guided my mindset as I studied science and I actually think he DID hit upon fundamental things that make our species worthwhile- forgiveness, selflessness and little regard for people in power, especially if they run counter to our principles. For this stuff to work against the tide of survival of the fittest- now THAT is divine.
But thats just me and what I believe. Other people can think whatever they like and I'm happy for them if it helps them.
|
| Posted: 17 Oct 2007 16:24 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
I think Captain deserves the credit for introducing 'snarky' into my vocabulary.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 17 Oct 2007 16:35 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
|
Quote:
I think Captain deserves the credit for introducing 'snarky' into my vocabulary.
Ha! Bueno.
|
| Posted: 17 Oct 2007 18:08 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
Justifying god through science is futile. I think the point would be that justifying evolution through science is futile or even justifying the existance of everything through science alone is futile for that matter. It seems the only plausible answer is a supernatural beginning or at least supernatural by our current understanding of scientific laws based on our limited view point.
Quote:
But bear in mind that a functioning universe could happen, without any need for a God.
And that brings me sort of to one of my points. How coud it have began with God?
The thing I'd like to get back to is this. How can you reconcile the existence of anything but accident. I just wish I could make my point more clearly. If you start at the beginning presumably from a scientific view with absolutely nothing, zero, nata, how do you overcome that little hurtle to get to building blocks and gases and whatever else is necessary to create a big bang, and one celled organisms? After you get past that impossible hurtle then you have to figure out what force would cause a one celled pre-existant organism to develop or mutate. Necessity isn't enough to explain it. How does a one-celled organism know what is necessary or what is not?
Just saying we exist, so it must be evolution is kinda dumb from a scientific view, and from a religious view I'd say it was cultish. I would really love for an evolutionist to address my questions. Really, really, really, really would. Like I triple dog dare anyone to hit my questions head on without doing the evolution dance around them.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 17 Oct 2007 18:23 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
|
Quote:
It seems the only plausible answer is a supernatural beginning or at least supernatural by our current understanding of scientific laws based on our limited view point.
Therein lies the exact reason why religion can be shot down: We have a limited viewpoint. Limited. What you believe comes from a limited viewpoint.
I have always said if there is a god, it/he/she doesn't care if you eat shellfish; is not a jealous god; doesn't care if you stone each other; sleep with folks of the same sex; worship it/he/she or another deity. It/he/she will be far greater than anything we can wrap out heads around.
In other words, the arrogance portrayed by believers is astounding. How the hell can you know anything about god? You have limited viewpoint that peaked somewhere between roughly 1,500 BC and 30 AD. And conveniently gloss past the truly great concepts of those eras in lieu of the rantings of a backwater people's theocrats (which have a place within the contexts of the time and descendants of those people, but not much further).
Science seeks to expand the limited viewpoints. Does it have all the answers? No. But it doesn't claim to. It theorizes in places where there are holes, but still pursues the answers.
You have stopped seeking. Intellectual suicide, really, and it's kinda pathetic. Me, I'll stick with the side that pushes the boundaries of knowledge.
|
| Posted: 17 Oct 2007 21:51 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
I'll stick with the side that pushes the boundaries of knowledge.
Right, if that's the case where is the answer to the questions I have raised. It would appear from the silence here that evolutionists are running scared from basic logic. You don't even have to claim a particular religion to see the massive gaping hole in evolution, and you know it. Otherwise you'd at least attempted to answer my questions.
I'll repeat myself again here.
The thing I'd like to get back to is this. How can you reconcile the existence of anything but accident. I just wish I could make my point more clearly. If you start at the beginning presumably from a scientific view with absolutely nothing, zero, nata, how do you overcome that little hurtle to get to building blocks and gases and whatever else is necessary to create a big bang, and one celled organisms? After you get past that impossible hurtle then you have to figure out what force would cause a one celled pre-existant organism to develop or mutate. Necessity isn't enough to explain it. How does a one-celled organism know what is necessary or what is not?
Now push the boundary of your thinking cap and come up with something here. Evolution is like trying to carry water with a bucket that has no bottom. All evolution is really is a guess. It's a guess that should have been disregarded a long time ago if scientist didn't need something to counter creationism with. At least you'd think they'd could come up with something that isn't completely impossible. I think I'd just not say anything if I had to lie to myself and others. How hypocrytical to claim this as science when it's really religion without a god.
I'll just take it that nowhere on the entire internet is there any answer to my questions on evolution that you all have ever seen at least.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 17 Oct 2007 22:34 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
Look, I don't claim to know enough about evolution outside of the broadest concepts. And I've watched nuff vids from pak that do detail these points, and you blow them off.
So, what's the point of this debate?
I just wanted to point out that we, as creatures with limited visions, really can't know the unknowable. Yet. I think we will figure it out, though probably not in my lifetime. But it won't happen through studying the Bible, the Koran, the Greek myths, the Book of the Dead, etc.
But, I am pretty sure that ancient Israelites (and their contemporaries in Greece, Germany, Iran, Iraq, China, Egypt, Italy, etc., who came up with similar concepts, stories, explanations, etc.) didn't have it right. I find the idea laughable and arrogant.
|
| Posted: 17 Oct 2007 23:39 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
And I've watched nuff vids from pak that do detail these points, and you blow them off.
Do you really believe any of those videos even come close to answering my questions?
Quote:
So, what's the point of this debate? To think. To go beyond what society pawns off as science. Nobody likes to have their beliefs questioned not even scientists. Somebody has to ask the tough questions though. I guess part of what drives me is I don't trust any person fully. I question everyone. You think because someone has a degree in science that you couldn't possibly out think them, or that you shouldn't at least try to question their motives or conclusions. Would you believe a scientist if he told you purple elephants with pink polka dots can fly into outerspace?
Can you not trust your own intellect enough to trust what you already know deep inside? I mean think through it dude.
Quote:
But, I am pretty sure that ancient Israelites (and their contemporaries in Greece, Germany, Iran, Iraq, China, Egypt, Italy, etc., who came up with similar concepts, stories, explanations, etc.) didn't have it right. I find the idea laughable and arrogant.
Hmm maybe about as arrogant as believing materials pre-existed to help kick start evolution.
You know pak, danny, you, or the most brilliant scientist in the world can't answer my questions, and I can only assume that evolution is a big waste of time. Isn't it about time scientists admit that at least? They have no more factual evidence to preach evolution than creationists. At least creationism makes sense philosophically. It's much more believable to see a creator in the universe than an impossible accident. It's all a matter of opening your mind and following out the facts we do know to their eventual conclusion.
I'll go on record as saying that there isn't a evolutionary scientist in the whole world that can come up with an answer to my questions. You don't have to be a genius to know 0 plus 0 equals 0. If anybody can tell me how anything suddenly popped into existence in a complete vaccum without any other materials, atoms, molecules, or anything else present. I'd love to hear it.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 18 Oct 2007 00:23 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
I think the point would be that justifying evolution through science is futile or even justifying the existance of everything through science alone is futile for that matter.
You're right. Screw science- what has it ever done for us? Nuthin! Justifying evolution through science is crazy.
Please no excuse Bizarro Danny, him just agree with Bizzaro Tim statement. It make plenty of sense.
|
| Posted: 18 Oct 2007 00:27 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
Like I triple dog dare anyone to hit my questions head on without doing the evolution dance around them.
Sooo... do you want me to give you a scientific perspective or not? I'm confused. I mean, if you want me to answer the questions from your point of view- you could just ask yourself... wait, no... you could ask a religious leader.
|
| Posted: 18 Oct 2007 00:30 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Dude don't act like a goober. Don't try the word play game. You still won't touch my questions with a ten foot pole now will you? Science is good, scientists aren't always true to science. I still stand by my statement though that science alone cannot answer every question in the universe specifically when it comes to the question of creation. If all scientists were thinking scientifically then evolution would be just a part of history a long time ago.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 18 Oct 2007 00:31 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
Sooo... do you want me to give you a scientific perspective or not? If you had one I would have thought you'd brought it up by now.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
|
