Creation vs. Evolution (1 Viewer)

[ElGatoLoco]

what scientist well never be able to know is exactly how much the aliens tampered with the evidence. i mean, c'mon, the earth is a pretty dirty crime scene, no?bill peterson, david caruso, and gary sinise working together couldn't get this one right.

I tried to bring this point up before. It was the space aliens. They're responsible.

 

[Mr. Anonymous]

tangfoot, somehow I missed the Asimov article and was just reading it. Of course, he makes the argument much more clearly than I did.

Kurtz: If you take Genesis metaphorically, you can believe in the theory of evolution as the Big Bang and also that everything evolved, so this need not be a threat to science necessarily? Asimov: No, if you are willing to say that the universe began fifteen billion years ago -- the exact number of billions of years is under dispute -- as a tiny object that expanded rapidly and dropped in temperature, and all the other things that scientists believe happened, then you can say that God created it, and the laws of nature that controlled it, and that he then sat back and watched it develop. I would be content to have people say that. Frankly, I don't believe it, but there's no way one can disprove it. Kurtz: You don't believe it? You don't think there is sufficient evidence that there was a cosmic egg that shattered and that God created this cosmic egg? Asimov: I believe there's enough evidence for us to think that a big bang took place. But there is no evidence whatsoever to suppose that a superhuman being said, "Let it be." However, neither is there any evidence against it; so, if a person feels comfortable believing that, I am willing to have him believe it. Kurtz: As an article of faith? Asimov: Yes, as an article of faith. I have articles of faith, too. I have an article of faith that says the universe makes sense. Now there's no way you can prove that the universe makes sense, but there's just no fun in living in the universe if it doesn't make sense. Kurtz: The universe is intelligible because you can formulate hypotheses and make predictions and there are regularities. Asimov: Yes, and my belief is that no matter how far we go we will always find that the universe makes sense. We will never get to the point where it suddenly stops making sense. But that is just an assumption on my part.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Can God ignore the natural laws that govern physics, chemistry, etc...scientific laws?

No, because physical laws don't govern -- they describe.To illustrate this, pick any "law of the universe" you like.

The law of gravity, you say? Fine. The law of gravity says that all objects in Texas will be drawn toward the earth: that a downward force will be exerted upon them (proportional to their mass, and inversely proportional to the square of their distance from the earth's core, roughly speaking).

Now suppose we find a magic rock just outside of Houston -- one that has a mass of four kilograms, but has no gravitational attraction to the earth at all. It floats in mid-air, accelerating in no particular direction until someone sneezes at it (causing it to accelerate away from the sneezer).

Is this magic rock disobeying a law of the universe?

It is not acting in a manner consistent with Newton's or Einstein's theories of gravity, that's for sure. Does that mean Newton is right and the rock is wrong? Or does it mean that Newton is wrong?

Obviously, it's the latter. Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravity would have to be revised to account for our observations of this magic rock.

So the rock didn't disobey a law of the universe: it merely showed that Newton's "law" of gravity was not really a law after all.

The same would be true for an apparent violation of any physical law -- whether by a rock or by a god. Physical "laws" are just descriptions of how the universe works. As such, they are not obeyed or disobeyed; rather, they are accurate or inaccurate. And if they are inaccurate, they are not really laws.

 

[tangfoot]

tangfoot, somehow I missed the Asimov article and was just reading it. Of course, he makes the argument much more clearly than I did.

I'm just going to dig out my Asimov essay books and use them for all of my arguments on this board from now on.He was f-ing brilliant, and wrote in such a way that ANYONE can understand what he was saying.I freaking understood quarks after reading his essay on them...

 

[ElGatoLoco]

Can God ignore the natural laws that govern physics, chemistry, etc...scientific laws?

No, because physical laws don't govern -- they describe.To illustrate this, pick any "law of the universe" you like.

The law of gravity, you say? Fine. The law of gravity says that all objects in Texas will be drawn toward the earth: that a downward force will be exerted upon them (proportional to their mass, and inversely proportional to the square of their distance from the earth's core, roughly speaking).

Now suppose we find a magic rock just outside of Houston -- one that has a mass of four kilograms, but has no gravitational attraction to the earth at all. It floats in mid-air, accelerating in no particular direction until someone sneezes at it (causing it to accelerate away from the sneezer).

Is this magic rock disobeying a law of the universe?

It is not acting in a manner consistent with Newton's or Einstein's theories of gravity, that's for sure. Does that mean Newton is right and the rock is wrong? Or does it mean that Newton is wrong?

Obviously, it's the latter. Newton and Einstein's theories of gravity would have to be revised to account for our observations of this magic rock.

So the rock didn't disobey a law of the universe: it merely showed that Newton's "law" of gravity was not really a law after all.

The same would be true for an apparent violation of any physical law -- whether by a rock or by a god. Physical "laws" are just descriptions of how the universe works. As such, they are not obeyed or disobeyed; rather, they are accurate or inaccurate. And if they are inaccurate, they are not really laws.

Okay, good explination.One point of contention on a minor issue. Didn't Einstein show that gravity is not a force? Edit...I don't remember the explination he gave. I just seem to remember this statement.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Didn't Einstein show that gravity is not a force? Edit...I don't remember the explination he gave. I just seem to remember this statement.

Here's an explanation: link.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

No, because physical laws don't govern -- they describe.

By the way, Raymond Smullyan wrote a very funny piece on free will called "Is God a Taoist??" Read the whole thing if you have time; it's good.Here is a short excerpt concerning whether it's possible to violate physical laws:

Mortal: Anyway, it is reassuring to know that my natural intuition about having free will is correct. Sometimes I have been worried that determinists are correct.

God: They are correct.

Mortal: Wait a minute now, do I have free will or don't I?

God: I already told you you do. But that does not mean that determinism is incorrect.

Mortal: Well, are my acts determined by the laws of nature or aren't they?

God: The word determined here is subtly but powerfully misleading and has contributed so much to the confusions of the free will versus determinism controversies. Your acts are certainly in accordance with the laws of nature, but to say they are determined by the laws of nature creates a totally misleading psychological image which is that your will could somehow be in conflict with the laws of nature and that the latter is somehow more powerful than you, and could "determine" your acts whether you liked it or not. But it is simply impossible for your will to ever conflict with natural law. You and natural law are really one and the same.

Mortal: What do you mean that I cannot conflict with nature? Suppose I were to become very stubborn, and I determined not to obey the laws of nature. What could stop me? If I became sufficiently stubborn even you could not stop me!

God: You are absolutely right! I certainly could not stop you. Nothing could stop you. But there is no need to stop you, because you could not even start! As Goethe very beautifully expressed it, "In trying to oppose Nature, we are, in the very process of doing so, acting according to the laws of nature!" Don't you see that the so-called "laws of nature" are nothing more than a description of how in fact you and other beings do act? They are merely a description of how you act, not a prescription of how you should act, not a power or force which compels or determines your acts. To be valid a law of nature must take into account how in fact you do act, or, if you like, how you choose to act.

Mortal: So you really claim that I am incapable of determining to act against natural law?

God: It is interesting that you have twice now used the phrase "determined to act" instead of "chosen to act." This identification is quite common. Often one uses the statement "I am determined to do this" synonymously with "I have chosen to do this." This very psychological identification should reveal that determinism and choice are much closer than they might appear. Of course, you might well say that the doctrine of free will says that it is you who are doing the determining, whereas the doctrine of determinism appears to say that your acts are determined by something apparently outside you. But the confusion is largely caused by your bifurcation of reality into the "you" and the "not you." Really now, just where do you leave off and the rest of the universe begin? Or where does the rest of the universe leave off and you begin? Once you can see the so-called "you" and the so-called "nature" as a continuous whole, then you can never again be bothered by such questions as whether it is you who are controlling nature or nature who is controlling you. Thus the muddle of free will versus determinism will vanish. If I may use a crude analogy, imagine two bodies moving toward each other by virtue of gravitational attraction. Each body, if sentient, might wonder whether it is he or the other fellow who is exerting the "force." In a way it is both, in a way it is neither. It is best to say that it is the configuration of the two which is crucial.

 

[Harpua]

because without the animals, stuff would get messed up... plants would overgrow, etc...

Wrong. Plants would be limited by their own resources (nutrients, water, SPACE). It is not a given that herbivors regulate plant populations.

 

[Harpua]

Larry let's concentrate, for a moment, on collection problems.  A simple experiment might be enlightening.Start out in the Middle East.  Travel to what is now California. Climb the mountains and capture one male and one female condor. Bring them back. Do you think you could do it? You have one week (we're ignoring the other millions of species for simplicity). Oh, and by the way, there is no sexual dimorphism in condors (you can't tell their gender by looking at them).  Another possible problem is they tend not to sit and wait for capture but instead fly away.

before the flood a few things were true:1. tropical climate WORLDWIDE, there was no polar climates or any of that...2. all animals ate plants, no meat-eating until after the flood3. no animals were "afraid" of humans until after the floodso all the animals were probably in one area, so it probably wasn't even that difficult...

No polar climates? So the flood shifted the magnetic poles and in doing so changed how we rotate on our axis as we rotate around the sun? Amazing that rain could do all that...

no, the canopy of water above the earth made the whole earth like a greenhouse...this made the whole earth tropical... which in turn made polar animals non-existant until after the flood...

The earth is already a greenhouse. Was this water vapor or liquid?

 

[bueno]

Did Larry ever attempt to explain how there was a "field" of water above the sky?Did God hold it up? I must have missed the "science" behind that one.

Oort Cloud.

 

[bueno]

The sad fact is there can be faith and science both - but too many people of faith don't believe in metaphors.

Metaphors don't exist?! This is a dark day for creative writing classes.I think humans were a result of DNA from space aliens that was injected into the lifeforms that already existed on Earth. It's a theory.

Directed Panspermia rears it's ugly head!

 

[tangfoot]

Did Larry ever attempt to explain how there was a "field" of water above the sky?Did God hold it up? I must have missed the "science" behind that one.

Oort Cloud.

The Oort cloud is an immense spherical cloud surrounding the planetary system and extending approximately 3 light years, about 30 trillion kilometers from the Sun.

That's an arseload of water.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Even if you get back to a single RNA strand that had to self replicate, what created that strand out of nothing?My faith leads me to belief that God is the answer. I can no more prove that to be true than science has been able to validate or replicate abiogenesis.I am with you on evolution, but we differ (greatly it appears) on origin. Even thinking beyond out earth...the concept of it ALL had to come from somewhere is baffling.

I don't really have any problem with this view, other than I don't think it should be taught in a science class since at the "we don't know" part, it defaults from "we just don't know" (either period or yet) to "it was God, may have been God," whatever.Although, as pointed out, I think we can think it reasonable that science will nail down the abiogenisis issue. RNA can be created from amino acids, RNA does self-replicate. Just because we can't recreate the exact conditions of the "murky pool" or whatever Darwin called it, and make life happened in a lab, doesn't mean that we won't be able to. We continue to learn. For example, that latest that I've read is that life very likely did not begin on the surface of the earth but rather along vents where lava flows from the seabed (where life lives, anaerobically and without light), or possibly even underground. So trying to create the murky pool was probably a waste of time all along.I would hate to hang my hat on this (life on Earth created by God's intervention), to find it overturned in the next five years or whatever. I think you have permanent ground to stand on if you posit God "at the (very) beginning," before the big bang, having established the laws of physics that that big bang was going to follow and expand into, and worship the giver of those wise laws, the majesty of what was created, and the wonder of intelligent beings able to sit here during work and type their views into cyberspace, to be read and pondered by people thousands of miles from one another in (almost) real time.Science doesn't and can't say what came before the big bang. Even theories that posit an accordion universe (big bang, expansion, retraction, big bang, etc.) can't go back before the big bang. The laws of physics break down before we can peer on the other side of the event horizon. So that is free space for anyone to make their case - whether folks who put God there, or folks who say that nothing was there.

flaw in your theory:can happen <> did happenjust 'cuz you can do it now when scientists are trying to make it happen doesn't mean it did happen...science can't prove what happened millions of years ago unless it can observe it...science needs observation or experimentation, but you can't experiment the origin of life when life is already here...

 

[bueno]

I must have missed it, did he ever explain what the heck dinosaurs have to do with creation or evolution??How old is he claiming the earth is?  Hopefully he's not going to tell me 6000 years or so.  The proof the earth is far older then that is pretty overwhelming, and it's a shame when Christians/creationists try to stick to the outdated theory the earth was so young.

BabyD, he checks in with his creationist stuff every once in a while. In short, he's a young earth creationist with little understanding of evolution or scientific method. Occasionally, he gathers a bunch of creationist arguments together and then posts them in a big regurgitation of senseless, formless, argument, where any half-understood argument (or more often just a couple buzzwords) may be applied in an attempt to refute scentific observation or the effect of physical laws.As arguments fall apart, it apparently becomes vitally important that lizards are kind of like dinosaurs, only smaller.Oh, and new today--plate tectonics cannot be accurate because it would cause continents to unroot themselves and climb over each other. I'm still waiting for an explanation of that one.

I wasn't saying plate tectonics aren't real...I'm saying there couldn't have been a super continent, 'cuz they can't drift apart with tectonic plates in the way...well, maybe, but how?my question was, how did one plate get around another so there is a plate in between where there used to be plates next to eachother....so, simplylate a plate b plate c plate dthen, switched:cbadhow did that happen?

Larry, the Atlantic plate didn't exist prior to about the Triassic Period. It came into existence due to extension related to the mid-Atlantic ridge. The same thing is happening today in the Great Rift in Africa. Eventually, part of east Africa will be pushed away as new ocean floor is created at the rift.Before you ask, yes, crust is destroyed too at convergent plate boundaries.

 

[The Football Freak]

Even if you get back to a single RNA strand that had to self replicate, what created that strand out of nothing?My faith leads me to belief that God is the answer. I can no more prove that to be true than science has been able to validate or replicate abiogenesis.I am with you on evolution, but we differ (greatly it appears) on origin. Even thinking beyond out earth...the concept of it ALL had to come from somewhere is baffling.

I don't really have any problem with this view, other than I don't think it should be taught in a science class since at the "we don't know" part, it defaults from "we just don't know" (either period or yet) to "it was God, may have been God," whatever.Although, as pointed out, I think we can think it reasonable that science will nail down the abiogenisis issue. RNA can be created from amino acids, RNA does self-replicate. Just because we can't recreate the exact conditions of the "murky pool" or whatever Darwin called it, and make life happened in a lab, doesn't mean that we won't be able to. We continue to learn. For example, that latest that I've read is that life very likely did not begin on the surface of the earth but rather along vents where lava flows from the seabed (where life lives, anaerobically and without light), or possibly even underground. So trying to create the murky pool was probably a waste of time all along.I would hate to hang my hat on this (life on Earth created by God's intervention), to find it overturned in the next five years or whatever. I think you have permanent ground to stand on if you posit God "at the (very) beginning," before the big bang, having established the laws of physics that that big bang was going to follow and expand into, and worship the giver of those wise laws, the majesty of what was created, and the wonder of intelligent beings able to sit here during work and type their views into cyberspace, to be read and pondered by people thousands of miles from one another in (almost) real time.Science doesn't and can't say what came before the big bang. Even theories that posit an accordion universe (big bang, expansion, retraction, big bang, etc.) can't go back before the big bang. The laws of physics break down before we can peer on the other side of the event horizon. So that is free space for anyone to make their case - whether folks who put God there, or folks who say that nothing was there.

flaw in your theory:can happen <> did happenjust 'cuz you can do it now when scientists are trying to make it happen doesn't mean it did happen...science can't prove what happened millions of years ago unless it can observe it...science needs observation or experimentation, but you can't experiment the origin of life when life is already here...

Yes, you can experiment to figure out what the beginning of life was Larry. You weren't there for my grandfathers birth, and he is dead so you never knew him. Can you prove that he was born even though you never observed him and never will? Yes. Can you do that conclusively? Yes. Think of all the little clues that scientists find about early life that they include in their experiments like birth certificates.

 

[Jericho]

science can't prove what happened millions of years ago

Of course it can't. That's why it doesn't try to. Science doesn't prove anything. You know, of course, that we've gone over this dozens of times already. And then you accuse us of not listening?You are a complete charicature.

 

[ElGatoLoco]

Didn't Einstein show that gravity is not a force? Edit...I don't remember the explination he gave. I just seem to remember this statement.

Here's an explanation: link.

Thanks. It's a matter of perspective then of how we experience gravity which continues to allow us to call gravity a force? That's what I got out of the explanation (dam spelling...does anybody else have those certain words they continually missplell?).

 

[larry_boy_44]

Did Larry ever attempt to explain how there was a "field" of water above the sky?Did God hold it up?  I must have missed the "science" behind that one.

Oort Cloud.

The Oort cloud is an immense spherical cloud surrounding the planetary system and extending approximately 3 light years, about 30 trillion kilometers from the Sun.

That's an arseload of water.

I don't wanna know how your #### holds that much water...

 

[larry_boy_44]

science can't prove what happened millions of years ago

Of course it can't. That's why it doesn't try to. Science doesn't prove anything. You know, of course, that we've gone over this dozens of times already. And then you accuse us of not listening?You are a complete charicature.

so, if it can't prove it, you need faith to believe it...evolution (aka - we got here from nothing through evolution, abiogenesis, & the big bang) is as much a religion as creation because niether of them can be proven...and you guys still have ignored half the stuff I've posted already ( so why post anything else?)

 

[Harpua]

The reason for there being more pressure is that before the Flood there was a layer of water above the current 6 layers of the atmosphere. During the Flood it fell to the earth, which is what caused the flood...my questions were about evolution itself, not necessarily the argument...it was asking how plants, who don't have legs, got above ground...how more oxygen due to those plants answer my question.. it doesn't, because what I was talking about also need 2 times the pressure...also, we have lost a % of plants in the last 50 years, or at least everyone says we have... has the % of oxygen changed any?

Plants, once adapting a vascular system, a cuticle, and most important, a hard seed, are able to live on land. The were able to move their by seed, which should be obvious, since this is how plants move now. 2ndwe can loose plant species, but still retain the same amount of plant biomass, increase the amount of species we still have.3rdyour notion on the speed of evolution is flaVVed. It takes more than a few generations to have divergence of species. Plus, the amount of genetic variation you would have to have in those two members of a "kind" would have to be tramendous.

 

[The Football Freak]

science can't prove what happened millions of years ago

Of course it can't. That's why it doesn't try to. Science doesn't prove anything. You know, of course, that we've gone over this dozens of times already. And then you accuse us of not listening?You are a complete charicature.

so, if it can't prove it, you need faith to believe it...evolution (aka - we got here from nothing through evolution, abiogenesis, & the big bang) is as much a religion as creation because niether of them can be proven...and you guys still have ignored half the stuff I've posted already ( so why post anything else?)

That argument is so tired Larry. It simply isn't true at all. So what do you want answered then Larry, what questions of your haven't been answered? C'mon guys, give him a break. Let him POST his questions and let's answer them for him.

 

[HarryS]

Does the Bible say God is all-knowing?

 

[ElGatoLoco]

No, because physical laws don't govern -- they describe.

By the way, Raymond Smullyan wrote a very funny piece on free will called "Is God a Taoist??" Read the whole thing if you have time; it's good....

Speaking of Taoism, here is another good quote about being persistence."If you persist in trying to attain what is never attained (It is Tao's gift), if you persist in making effort to obtain what effort cannot get, if you persist in reasoning about what cannot be understood, you will be destroyed by the very thing you seek. To know when to stop, to know when you can get no further by your own action, this is the right beginning!"~ Chuang Tzu (c.360 BC-c. 275 BC)Chinese philosopher, major thinker in Taoismfrom Chuang Tzu, (23:3-7, p. 197)

 

[tangfoot]

can happen <> did happen

You are right to say this.

just 'cuz you can do it now when scientists are trying to make it happen doesn't mean it did happen...

You've repeated yourself.

science can't prove what happened millions of years ago unless it can observe it...

Why must you stick to this "definition" of the observable? This is simply not true.

science needs observation or experimentation, but you can't experiment the origin of life when life is already here...

Why not? You can certainly experiment with the conditions that MAY have caused the origin of life, as science currently theorizes it to have happened.

 

[ElGatoLoco]

The sad fact is there can be faith and science both - but too many people of faith don't believe in metaphors.

Metaphors don't exist?! This is a dark day for creative writing classes.I think humans were a result of DNA from space aliens that was injected into the lifeforms that already existed on Earth. It's a theory.

Directed Panspermia rears it's ugly head!

God is an alien. Makes perfect sense.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I'm not ignoring what you posted. Here's some stuff that you said. You just ignored or didn't see my response.

So, you say that there was a catastrophic event (the flood) that killed everything not within the safe haven of the ark:

I'm saying without a catastrophic event that fossilized EVERYTHING INSTANTLY, how did anything become fossilized?

but, earlier, you said...

Some beetles live in salt water while others live in fresh water and under the bark of dead and living trees

In other words, those beetles pro'lly didn't need to be on the ark...and you can take 1/2 of those animals out for being equatic...

and another 1/6 we'll say for other equatic animals...

This is an apparent contradiction. Were the beetles and aquatic animals and fish on the ark or were they destroyed during the flood?

Also, I'll go ahead and concede to you that it takes faith to believe in both theories: evolution/big-bang and creation. Neither can be proven to be true by science. But, your creation theories have been proven to be wrong by science.

 

[tangfoot]

Also, I'll go ahead and concede to you that it takes faith to believe in both theories: evolution/big-bang and creation. Neither can be proven to be true by science.

I take issue with both you and Larry saying this.Science is NOT faith. Science cannot currently explain the events since the BB, but I have no doubt that it will be adequately explained at some time in the future.

The same cannot be said about faith in creationism. It will NEVER be adequately explained.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

God is an alien. Makes perfect sense.

This should not be controversial. An alien, or extraterrestrial if you like, is a being that is from somewhere other than earth. The Christian God, as described in the Bible, is not from earth. Therefore, God is an alien. It follows that the universe is more likely to have been created by an alien than it is to have been created by the Christian God. Do you see why?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Science cannot currently explain the events since the BB, but I have no doubt that it will be adequately explained at some time in the future.

This sounds like faith to me.

 

[ElGatoLoco]

God is an alien. Makes perfect sense.

This should not be controversial. An alien, or extraterrestrial if you like, is a being that is from somewhere other than earth. The Christian God, as described in the Bible, is not from earth. Therefore, God is an alien. It follows that the universe is more likely to have been created by an alien than it is to have been created by the Christian God. Do you see why?

The statement was kind of tongue and cheek, but I have an understanding of this idea and have read a bit about it.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Also, I'll go ahead and concede to you that it takes faith to believe in both theories: evolution/big-bang and creation. Neither can be proven to be true by science.

I take issue with both you and Larry saying this.Science is NOT faith. Science cannot currently explain the events since the BB, but I have no doubt that it will be adequately explained at some time in the future.

The same cannot be said about faith in creationism. It will NEVER be adequately explained.

I agree with everything you just said. I only conceded the first part because our side can afford it. We can give a little and still blow the creationist theories out of the water. Kind of like how I just traded Onterrio Smith and David Patten for Hines Ward - I'm loaded at running back and would never had used O. Smith. He was worthless to me. :rotflmao:

 

[larry_boy_44]

God is an alien. Makes perfect sense.

This should not be controversial. An alien, or extraterrestrial if you like, is a being that is from somewhere other than earth. The Christian God, as described in the Bible, is not from earth. Therefore, God is an alien. It follows that the universe is more likely to have been created by an alien than it is to have been created by the Christian God. Do you see why?

because, technically, God is an alien, so therefore the odds of life being created by an alien include the odds of life being created by God in them...

 

[Pigskin Fanatic]

All of you keep quoting the Bible. The Bible is the answer, right Larry? So, then, can you explain the origin of the Bible? This is a serious question. The Bible is quoted and cited without question. Much like faith, the Bible is the answer to everything ever asked of a religious person. You ask for proof of everything around you, so I'm sure you must have asked for proof of things in the Bible already. I would like to hear what you have found so far.

 

[tangfoot]

Also, I'll go ahead and concede to you that it takes faith to believe in both theories:  evolution/big-bang and creation.  Neither can be proven to be true by science.

I take issue with both you and Larry saying this.Science is NOT faith. Science cannot currently explain the events since the BB, but I have no doubt that it will be adequately explained at some time in the future.

The same cannot be said about faith in creationism. It will NEVER be adequately explained.

I agree with everything you just said. I only conceded the first part because our side can afford it. We can give a little and still blow the creationist theories out of the water. Kind of like how I just traded Onterrio Smith and David Patten for Hines Ward - I'm loaded at running back and would never had used O. Smith. He was worthless to me. :rotflmao:

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

God is an alien.  Makes perfect sense.

This should not be controversial. An alien, or extraterrestrial if you like, is a being that is from somewhere other than earth. The Christian God, as described in the Bible, is not from earth. Therefore, God is an alien. It follows that the universe is more likely to have been created by an alien than it is to have been created by the Christian God. Do you see why?

because, technically, God is an alien, so therefore the odds of life being created by an alien include the odds of life being created by God in them...

A+ student.

 

[Jericho]

so, if it can't prove it, you need faith to believe it...evolution (aka - we got here from nothing through evolution, abiogenesis, & the big bang) is as much a religion as creation because niether of them can be proven...and you guys still have ignored half the stuff I've posted already ( so why post anything else?)

Two murder trials. Neither murder has eyewitnesses. In murder number one, the lawyer argues that the defendant must be guilty because he just seems guilty. In murder number two, the lawyer brings out fingerprints, DNA analysis, tire tracks, trajectory analysis, receipts from the murder weapon, full dossiers on the victim found at the accused's house, etc. But neither case has an eyewitness, so are they require equal amounts of 'faith' to reach a verdict?

 

[HarryS]

I feel sorry for the people who have read this entire thread."Why is it not surprising that a religious man going by the name of Larry BOY does not believe in evolution?"

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Also, I'll go ahead and concede to you that it takes faith to believe in both theories:  evolution/big-bang and creation.  Neither can be proven to be true by science.

I take issue with both you and Larry saying this.Science is NOT faith. Science cannot currently explain the events since the BB, but I have no doubt that it will be adequately explained at some time in the future.

The same cannot be said about faith in creationism. It will NEVER be adequately explained.

I agree with everything you just said. I only conceded the first part because our side can afford it. We can give a little and still blow the creationist theories out of the water. Kind of like how I just traded Onterrio Smith and David Patten for Hines Ward - I'm loaded at running back and would never had used O. Smith. He was worthless to me. :rotflmao:

psssst...hey, buddy, did you just drop this 20-sided dice?

 

[Jericho]

Neither can be proven to be true by science. But, your creation theories have been proven to be wrong by science.

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

"Why is it not surprising that a religious man going by the name of Larry BOY does not believe in evolution?"

Isn't he a vegetable superhero?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

"Why is it not surprising that a religious man going by the name of Larry BOY does not believe in evolution?"

Isn't he a vegetable superhero?

With super-suction ears!

 

[ElGatoLoco]

"Why is it not surprising that a religious man going by the name of Larry BOY does not believe in evolution?"

Isn't he a vegetable superhero?

It's not nice to label people, even superheros.

 

[bueno]

Larry, instead of trying to shoot holes in what is observable and testable (because your scientific background is demonstrably negligible) why don't you just believe that the reason the earth appears to be old is that God created it to appear to be old?That way, we will have absolutely no common point of reference to debate and this thread can eperience the death it so richly deserves.

 

[Mr. Anonymous]

Science cannot currently explain the events since the BB, but I have no doubt that it will be adequately explained at some time in the future.

This is news to me. I believe science CAN currently explain events since the big bang. Our understanding of how we got from the big bang to today is pretty clear. I think abiogenesis is a perfectly reasonable explanation of how life came to be on earth. I believe that within my lifetime we will see life created from nonliving matter in the labratory. If that's faith, it's faith with an expiration date.Science can't (and very probably can never) explain events before the big bang, since the are unobservable. But, ironically, we can observe things that happened billions of years ago, so the old "oops, that happened before everyone's alive, so science just can't say" is actually incorrect with regard to things outside of our galaxy.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Also, I'll go ahead and concede to you that it takes faith to believe in both theories:  evolution/big-bang and creation.  Neither can be proven to be true by science.

I take issue with both you and Larry saying this.Science is NOT faith. Science cannot currently explain the events since the BB, but I have no doubt that it will be adequately explained at some time in the future.

The same cannot be said about faith in creationism. It will NEVER be adequately explained.

I agree with everything you just said. I only conceded the first part because our side can afford it. We can give a little and still blow the creationist theories out of the water. Kind of like how I just traded Onterrio Smith and David Patten for Hines Ward - I'm loaded at running back and would never had used O. Smith. He was worthless to me. :rotflmao:

psssst...hey, buddy, did you just drop this 20-sided dice?

I've been on the same side the whole time. Pardon me for throwing the other side a bone.

 

[tangfoot]

This is news to me. I believe science CAN currently explain events since the big bang. Our understanding of how we got from the big bang to today is pretty clear.

There are currently holes in the theories. They will soon be closed, but there are holes, nonetheless.

 

[Mr. Anonymous]

I've been on the same side the whole time. Pardon me for throwing the other side a bone.

I didn't want anybody getting their hopes up! I can only imagine what they'd be trying to get taught in high school astronomy class if states that would entertain creationism as science actually taught astronomy in high school.

 

[Mr. Anonymous]

This is news to me. I believe science CAN currently explain events since the big bang. Our understanding of how we got from the big bang to today is pretty clear.

There are currently holes in the theories. They will soon be closed, but there are holes, nonetheless.

I don't know that not being able to explain every jot and tittle is the same as saying that we don't have robust theories, that generally explain how the universe and life on earth developed, that are predictive, that explain the vast majority of observations without a lot of contortions, that in a word - work.Einstein replaced Newton, where necessary - but the creationist folks would never have come to know that Newtonian physics don't work on the large scale. Planck replaced Einstein, where necessary - but the creationist folks would never have come to know the quantum scale existed.We can't explain "where all the matter is" in space - we know that either it must be there, or our equations are wrong. We can't identify precisely how amino acids "came to life," but we know that this doesn't seem outlandish given what we know about amino acids. Through our own DNA we can trace our genetics back to friggin' bacteria, it seems, in the case of mitochondrial DNA.We are talking small gaps in a story line that otherwise holds together and is extremely robustly told. These are like a few typos in a 300 page book compared to how "scientifically" the Bible tells this story.

 

[tangfoot]

We can't explain "where all the matter is" in space - we know that either it must be there, or our equations are wrong. We can't identify precisely how amino acids "came to life," but we know that this doesn't seem outlandish given what we know about amino acids.

These two statements are enough to cause our dear Cucumber with suction cup ears to state that science is not adequate, therefore God.

 

[Mr. Anonymous]

These two statements are enough to cause our dear Cucumber with suction cup ears to state that science is not adequate, therefore God.

I didn't want him running off and telling the folks at the seminar that he'd convinced a bunch of atheists that evolution is bunk!