• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

The "Created God" Paradox

Tim the turtle

Happy Mudkip
How do you guys keep managing to post in this thread when I'm gone. Don't you have school or something? This thing moves far too fast.

"Debates center on whether or not it's a strange rock formation, a crashed airplane, perhaps a fortress or some other structure hundreds of years old or maybe something more interesting of potentially biblical proportions," Taylor told SPACE.com. Certain individuals in the know, he added, believe what is visible in certain satellite pictures is the bow of a ship sticking out of a glacier.

The anomaly is apparently more than 600-feet long (183 meters), Taylor said, at least that part of it jutting out as seen in aerial and satellite imagery. One expert, a naval engineer and architect, when looking at the photos believes "prongs" or "ribs" of the keel of an ancient marine structure can be identified, he said.
Again though, that is just the word of certain individuals basing their assumptions on the same grainy photographs.

That's not the point.
I was being facetious.

Actually, biologists have concluded that there are fully-formed features, of both bird and reptile.
So then what is it, a bird or a reptile. If it has features from both, then it is still evidence for evolution.

In order to believe the Jesus part of the Bible, you really must accept the rest of it.
Either:
A)God is real, the Bible is truth
or
B)God is false, the Bible isn't truth
or
C)God is crazy

The only logical answer is A.
I honestly cannot see how you arrived at that conclusion. Answers B and C are just as logical, as long as you believe that Jesus was just a man and not the son of God.

Seriously. The original Hebrew text of the book of Genesis uses a word that translates to 'a period of time' instead of 'day'. So it didn't necessarily take God seven 24 hour periods to create the universe. It could have taken him seven periods of 8 billion years for all we know.
The original Hebrew text opens with the line "In the beginning there was the word." Strikes me as a rather Platonic concept there, monotheistic religions are all basically just footnotes to Plato.

I bet you that as long as you choose to debate here, I will disprove EVERY "anti-Christian theory" you have!
Why Christian, again Ergonomics, I must ask you why Christianity? I am perfectly ok with the idea of a God (though I'm still an evolutionist), but you could quite feasibly defend a deist point of view, but I guarantee that by the standards of proper debate, you will not win with a purely Christian mindset. Here's an idea, go and read Descarte's Meditiations. A good read, not too difficult and some useful philosophy, but even though Descarte's was a Christian, his philosophy is not, and that is why his arguments work more effectively than simply using the Bible.

the formation of the grand canyon has also been theorized to have been created when the Great Flood happend which quickly spewed water from within the earth, and the amount of water proposed by the biblical account would quite possibly erode the cracks in the earth extremely quickly
If it was a global flood why did it only happen at the Grand Canyon to such a great extent?

Actually, he has a point there. Why do humans have morals?
Do you realise how interesting this question is? To pass it off as a simple "God did it" is an insult to the sheer scope of the question. Yes, God might have done it, but there are so many more theories, so many more ideas, so many more questions to ask and be answered. How can you simply lie back and state "God did it" without exploring such an unexplored field?

BUT! These principles come from the Ten Commandments, do they not?
No, there are many civilisations before the Decalogue which still exercised such rules and ethics.

Kind of like how this one guy just sort of guessed that perhaps all animals evolved from each other, then later admitted his own theories were absurd while on his deathbed.
Darwin didn't even come up with the theory of evolution. The first record of the theory was from a dutch trader some 200 years prior to Darwin who compiled a diary of his findings on the biological differences between certain bird species.

Also, Darwin did not "guess", Darwin observed the differences of the species of bird on the Gelapogos islands and based his theories on that. Creationism came from a book, I might as well just believe the creation story in the Silmarillion, it amounts to the same thing.

We have chosen to refute God's laws because we as humans are sinners.
There's something I honestly don't get about the whole "humans fell" thing. If, before Eve ate the apple, there was no sin (yes?), how did she manage to become tempted in the first place if Sin did not exist, seems that being tempted to go against God's word is Sin, but that did not exist so Eve would never have eaten the apple.

My religion never changes because it right.
Again with this, I still don't get it. You never really explained it to me, why Christianity over Islam. I know you said that you base it on the Bible, but why chose the Bible over the Koran or the Torah? What basis do you use. It would be far easier to chose a deistic approach to arguing for God, yet you chose a theistic one, why?

I'm not belittling your beliefs, but at the same time I will not stand to see you belittle the ideas of Islam or Judaism or even my "faith".

N.B. Do not read into where I said my faith, I wont go into it.
I do not mean to imply that you are deliberately belittling other religions, but to say yours is "right" does strike me as... arrogant.

Microevolution. Not macro. The viruses are adapting to the constant attack of the body's immune system.
They are exactly the same thing, only on larger scales. If you accept one exists, then the other will too.
 

Ergonomic

Innocent Doom
source it instead of giving me your personal definition. please or i wont debate something you arent referring to.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory
Sigh...


did you not just ignore those middle-fossils? what are they then?
What middle fossils?


i dont.. see a contradiction. the whole point is RELATION man.
What point are you even trying to convey?


no, you're misinterpreting me: bone structure is the framework of our bodies (as in, the human bone structure is upright), but the BONES are still similar.
Okay... Bones are similar are similar because God chose to create them similarly... It's a fact, not an opinion or theory like macroevolution...


science as a whole revises theories. evolution as of today has yet to revise anything significant even if you want to go that route.

we put faith in science because it works.
But you just stated that it is being revised constantly... I find it hard to believe something that is always changing facts... Kind of like a liar.


this is math; not science.

actually this is falsifiable as well. the whole idea of something being able to be falsified is being able to have a way to prove it wrong.

that's why it's called falsifiable. if you wanted to prove somebody's math wrong, what do you do? use math.
But isn't science everything? Hey, I'm just restating what has been stated by your comrades...

yes wow evolution. see it work!

now you're just picking and choosing science.
No... Not at all. You're the one who chose viruses.
But microevolution is natural selection.
Macroevolution (whether you like it or not) has not been proven by fossils, has not been proven by DNA, has not been proven by bone structure, has not been proven by bone "similarity", and has not been proven by any other means.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

tell me what this is and see if evolution is just a 'conjecture'.

What middle fossils?
the transitional fossils, obviously.

What point are you even trying to convey?
if you dont understand what i'm talking about by now, i dont think you should be debating this.

Okay... Bones are similar are similar because God chose to create them similarly... It's a fact, not an opinion or theory like macroevolution...
i'm not responding to this until you learn what a theory is.

But you just stated that it is being revised constantly... I find it hard to believe something that is always changing facts... Kind of like a liar.
no, i said science in general is revised constantly if we take everything in it.

i'm not a liar; you're just misinterpreting me and being dishonest.

No... Not at all. You're the one who chose viruses.
But microevolution is natural selection.
Macroevolution (whether you like it or not) has not been proven by fossils, has not been proven by DNA, has not been proven by bone structure, has not been proven by bone "similarity", and has not been proven by any other means.
BOTH OF THEM ARE NATURAL SELECTION.

jesus christ if you know so LITTLE of the damn topic, stop posting.

if you seriously make elementary mistakes like this, i'm going to refrain to replying to you about evolution.

if you want to learn about it, talkorigins is right there. you can also search a few good science databases if that's not good enough. if you want one just ask me. or you can talk to The Panda
 
Last edited:

Ergonomic

Innocent Doom
How do you guys keep managing to post in this thread when I'm gone. Don't you have school or something? This thing moves far too fast.
Yeah we have school. We're just cool like that. Haha just kidding.

Again though, that is just the word of certain individuals basing their assumptions on the same grainy photographs.
Ah, but if, say, 2 million people saw this and called it wood, would you believe it?

I was being facetious.
Good for you.

So then what is it, a bird or a reptile. If it has features from both, then it is still evidence for evolution.
It is a species in itself. That's why.

I honestly cannot see how you arrived at that conclusion. Answers B and C are just as logical, as long as you believe that Jesus was just a man and not the son of God.
No, because if even one part of the Bible is "false", then the whole Bible is, because it has falsified itself. No one has yet to disprove the Bible...

The original Hebrew text opens with the line "In the beginning there was the word." Strikes me as a rather Platonic concept there, monotheistic religions are all basically just footnotes to Plato.
That is the opening to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, not Genesis.

Why Christian, again Ergonomics, I must ask you why Christianity? I am perfectly ok with the idea of a God (though I'm still an evolutionist), but you could quite feasibly defend a deist point of view, but I guarantee that by the standards of proper debate, you will not win with a purely Christian mindset. Here's an idea, go and read Descarte's Meditiations. A good read, not too difficult and some useful philosophy, but even though Descarte's was a Christian, his philosophy is not, and that is why his arguments work more effectively than simply using the Bible.
Alright, I'll be more open-minded if others do as well.
If it was a global flood why did it only happen at the Grand Canyon to such a great extent?
The Grand Canyon has been proven that it eroded itself over time... And is perfectly feasible...

Do you realise how interesting this question is? To pass it off as a simple "God did it" is an insult to the sheer scope of the question. Yes, God might have done it, but there are so many more theories, so many more ideas, so many more questions to ask and be answered. How can you simply lie back and state "God did it" without exploring such an unexplored field?
So give me a list of the "many more theories".
No, there are many civilisations before the Decalogue which still exercised such rules and ethics.
Were you there? Sorry, I'm just using "empirical" logic..

Darwin didn't even come up with the theory of evolution. The first record of the theory was from a dutch trader some 200 years prior to Darwin who compiled a diary of his findings on the biological differences between certain bird species.

Also, Darwin did not "guess", Darwin observed the differences of the species of bird on the Gelapogos islands and based his theories on that. Creationism came from a book, I might as well just believe the creation story in the Silmarillion, it amounts to the same thing.
Ah, but I believe you are forgetting one very important fact:
On his deathbed, Darwin professed that all his theories were false and he became a Christian.
Ooh!
There's something I honestly don't get about the whole "humans fell" thing. If, before Eve ate the apple, there was no sin (yes?), how did she manage to become tempted in the first place if Sin did not exist, seems that being tempted to go against God's word is Sin, but that did not exist so Eve would never have eaten the apple.
Sin did not exist at the beginning, true. But the possibility was still there. Once Eve sinned, that began the human race's perpetual fall into sin.

Again with this, I still don't get it. You never really explained it to me, why Christianity over Islam. I know you said that you base it on the Bible, but why chose the Bible over the Koran or the Torah? What basis do you use. It would be far easier to chose a deistic approach to arguing for God, yet you chose a theistic one, why?
Deistic meaning belief in the existence of God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation, correct?
But with Islam, their prophet, if you will, was Mohammed. In the Quran, Mohammed refused to perform miracles...

I'm not belittling your beliefs, but at the same time I will not stand to see you belittle the ideas of Islam or Judaism or even my "faith".
Your "faith"? What do you mean by that? Ah never mind.
Judaism has Messianic Jews, who believe that Jesus was God's Son.
Judaism also has Jews, who believe that Jesus was just a teacher/prophet.

They are exactly the same thing, only on larger scales. If you accept one exists, then the other will too.
No! Not at all! Microevolution is basically adaptation, whilst macroevolution is the the belief of major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Ah, but it also says: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

tell me what this is and see if evolution is just a 'conjecture'.
Evolution is an unwarranted assumption.There.

the transitional fossils, obviously.
What if they're not transitional fossils, but they are what archaeologists assume to be transitional fossils?


Also, GhostAnime, if evolution can be falsified or whatever
Then it can't and shouldn't be treated as fact.

Intelligent design is scientific because it gives an explanation to something not yet proven by science and can technically be proven false. (by your logic)
 
Last edited:

Tim the turtle

Happy Mudkip
Ah, but if, say, 2 million people saw this and called it wood, would you believe it?
I'd think it were certainly possible, I wouldn't know for sure though.

No, because if even one part of the Bible is "false", then the whole Bible is, because it has falsified itself. No one has yet to disprove the Bible...
But why can't the Bible be entirely false? There is a flaw in your argument, bucause as logically B and C can be correct, and thus disprove the Bible, then by your own logic the entirety of the Bible is false. B and C are possible, thus the Bible is false. You are looking at it from the other side, however that is an untennable position because it is not based on the logical outcome, it is based only on your desire for the bible to be true.

That is the opening to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, not Genesis.
Really, well even then, monotheistic religions are still Platonic anyway so it changes little...

The Grand Canyon has been proven that it eroded itself over time... And is perfectly feasible...
Yes, but why only there. The flood was global, why haven't there been other monumental chasms along the same vein? It would stand to reason, seeing as how the flood was only a few thousand years ago and a canyon could not erode to such an extent so fast.

Were you there? Sorry, I'm just using "empirical" logic..
No you're not. If such was the case then you would treat the Bible with as much scepticism. You were not there for any of the Biblical events, I treat both with scepticism, however there are repeated texts detailing the laws and ethics of the ancient Greeks or the Mesopotamians. There is only one Biblical text which deals with a concept too nebulous to possibly be proved by just a book, behaviour on the other hand can easily be shown with textual evidence.

Ah, but I believe you are forgetting one very important fact:
On his deathbed, Darwin professed that all his theories were false and he became a Christian.
Ooh!
Were you there?

Sorry, had to :p

Anyways, that is besides the point, Darwin was just an average biologist, nothing special. Why should we care what he thought and believed. Evolution makes sense to people because of it's inherant arguments, not "because Darwin said so"

Sin did not exist at the beginning, true. But the possibility was still there. Once Eve sinned, that began the human race's perpetual fall into sin.
How did Eve sin when Sin did not exist is my point? How can one have the potential to commit an act when the very concept is non-existent?

Deistic meaning belief in the existence of God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation, correct?
Pretty much.

But with Islam, their prophet, if you will, was Mohammed. In the Quran, Mohammed refused to perform miracles...
What are you getting at here?

Judaism has Messianic Jews, who believe that Jesus was God's Son.
Judaism also has Jews, who believe that Jesus was just a teacher/prophet.
Why are you telling me this?

Microevolution is basically adaptation, whilst macroevolution is the the belief of major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.
But that occurs through gradual adaptation at the basic level. Animals pass on their genes and those that survive gradually pass on surviving genes to other species.

So give me a list of the "many more theories".
You honestly want to go into this?

Biological ethics based on simple chemical reactions within the brain.
Social constraints affecting behaviour in order to advance the system.
A nebulous mind or spirit (not necesassarily religious in nature).
An absolute ideal epitomised in a universal form (my favourite of them all)
Preprogrammed biological necessities benefitting the species (ties in with 1 and 2.)

All of these exist and are just as interesting and possible as the idea that "God did it", all of it also offer a far greater range for exploration and thought and are more interesting. I'm not ruling out religious morality but at least consider the alternatives.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
i'm only going to respond to one thing here bcause the rest is just a wasteof time (and also deals with what theory is anyway). no offense but your ignorance is just too huge to overcome this.

Ah, but it also says: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
good job reading the every day definition. now address the scientific one and we can have a reasonable discussion about science again.
 

Ergonomic

Innocent Doom
I'd think it were certainly possible, I wouldn't know for sure though.
Ah. Well at least you accept there could be the possibility of a God, right?
But why can't the Bible be entirely false? There is a flaw in your argument, bucause as logically B and C can be correct, and thus disprove the Bible, then by your own logic the entirety of the Bible is false. B and C are possible, thus the Bible is false. You are looking at it from the other side, however that is an untennable position because it is not based on the logical outcome, it is based only on your desire for the bible to be true.
Maybe you're looking at it based only on your desire for the bible to be untrue.

Really, well even then, monotheistic religions are still Platonic anyway so it changes little...
No, monotheism is not based purely on spiritual things... As previously stated...

Yes, but why only there. The flood was global, why haven't there been other monumental chasms along the same vein? It would stand to reason, seeing as how the flood was only a few thousand years ago and a canyon could not erode to such an extent so fast.
Not really at all. The Grand Canyon has the Rio Grande in its basin, correct?
The Rio Grande is the eroding force here... Not the flood.

No you're not. If such was the case then you would treat the Bible with as much scepticism. You were not there for any of the Biblical events, I treat both with scepticism, however there are repeated texts detailing the laws and ethics of the ancient Greeks or the Mesopotamians. There is only one Biblical text which deals with a concept too nebulous to possibly be proved by just a book, behaviour on the other hand can easily be shown with textual evidence.
True, but for a Christian, we do not need empirical data.
But, from an anti-Creationist view...
Of course no one alive today has witnessed the plot of Bible fold out.
But we do have the Dead Sea Scrolls...

Anyways, that is besides the point, Darwin was just an average biologist, nothing special. Why should we care what he thought and believed. Evolution makes sense to people because of it's inherant arguments, not "because Darwin said so"
But if Darwin had not proposed such arguments, would the theory of evolution be here? The world may never know...

How did Eve sin when Sin did not exist is my point? How can one have the potential to commit an act when the very concept is non-existent?
Sin had simply not been committed...


What are you getting at here?
If he himself refused to perform miracles, why should people believe he did?
Jesus performed miracles, and there are eyewitness accounts of them.
Why are you telling me this?
To prove my point that Christianity is not over every other religion. The only one that it's not over is the sect of Judaism of Messianic Jews.

But that occurs through gradual adaptation at the basic level. Animals pass on their genes and those that survive gradually pass on surviving genes to other species.
But science has yet to prove that, say, mammals evolved from dinosaurs.


You honestly want to go into this?

Biological ethics based on simple chemical reactions within the brain.
Social constraints affecting behaviour in order to advance the system.
A nebulous mind or spirit (not necesassarily religious in nature).
An absolute ideal epitomised in a universal form (my favourite of them all)
Preprogrammed biological necessities benefitting the species (ties in with 1 and 2.)

All of these exist and are just as interesting and possible as the idea that "God did it", all of it also offer a far greater range for exploration and thought and are more interesting. I'm not ruling out religious morality but at least consider the alternatives.
Ethics based on chemical reactions? That in itself is absurd.
A nebulous (hazy) mind or spirit? And how did humans gain souls?
An absolute ideal epitomised in a universal form? How does this
have ANYTHING to do with human morals?
Preprogrammed biological necessities benefitting the species? Then why don't lions know not to kill eachother?


For your ignorance, GhostAnime:
A theory is a plausible explanation for phenomena that is *supported by evidence*. The more evidence, the more it approaches the status of accepted *fact*. But it is never considered absolutely "proven" because you can never eliminate the possiblity of one of the following:
1) A piece of solid evidence that is inconsistent with the theory;
2) A better (simpler) theory that explains the same evidence.
 
Last edited:

Josiah

is your favorite
@ CoF and Ergo: What happens when microevolution keeps going over time? Enough changes in two seperate populations in the same species over time makes them different.
Let's say we have two containers of yellow paint. In one container we are slowly adding drops of blue, in the other drops of red. In the short term, we may still consider the paint yellow, but when we've added so much red or blue to them we can't still consider them the same color. One of them becomes orange and the other becomes green. It's the same thing with evolution. There is no distinct seperating point between a species, but eventually it splits. This 'microevolution' (the individual drops) eventually becomes 'macroevolution'.
 

Ergonomic

Innocent Doom
@ CoF and Ergo: What happens when microevolution keeps going over time? Enough changes in two seperate populations in the same species over time makes them different.
Let's say we have two containers of yellow paint. In one container we are slowly adding drops of blue, in the other drops of red. In the short term, we may still consider the paint yellow, but when we've added so much red or blue to them we can't still consider them the same color. One of them becomes orange and the other becomes green. It's the same thing with evolution. There is no distinct seperating point between a species, but eventually it splits. This 'microevolution' (the individual drops) eventually becomes 'macroevolution'.

Ah, but it does not become a completely different color, now, does it? No, it is simply a mix of the two. Just like one species may eventually create a subspecies, but not a completely different species.
But of course no creature is perfect. And since that is true, wouldn't we continue to see creatures evolving? Huh?
 

Josiah

is your favorite
Ah, but it does not become a completely different color, now, does it? No, it is simply a mix of the two. Just like one species may eventually create a subspecies, but not a completely different species.
But of course no creature is perfect. And since that is true, wouldn't we continue to see creatures evolving? Huh?
Evolution isn't fast enough to notice in one lifetime unless it's forced. You are probably similar looking to your parents, but go back over several generations and you'll see that you are less similar looking to your grandparents and great-grandparents.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
edit: okay ergo, tell me what part of that definition (that is, if you got it from somewhere), means that evolution is unsubsantiated?

may i also once again point to the theory of gravity?
 

Ergonomic

Innocent Doom
Evolution isn't fast enough to notice in one lifetime unless it's forced. You are probably similar looking to your parents, but go back over several generations and you'll see that you are less similar looking to your grandparents and great-grandparents.

Does that matter at all? I look more similar to my great-grandpa and my uncle than to my parents. Point disproved.

GhostAnime said:
edit: okay ergo, tell me what part of that definition (that is, if you got it from somewhere), means that evolution is unsubsantiated?

may i also once again point to the theory of gravity?
Yes, evolution is not proven, and is not verified.
The theory of gravity is also a law. Evolution is not a law.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
if it was a law why would they call it theory? perhaps you're talking about two separate things and just dont know what theory means?

the theory of gravity is our interpretation of the laws and facts; just like evolution! but does that mean gravity isnt real?

...no.

now quit telling me evolution isnt verified and actually

1) address the definition.

2) actually know what you're debating and quick having hissyfits when you dont understand the evidence.

this is my last time in asking you to do this politely and if you keep putting your head in the sand, i'm done here.
 

Ergonomic

Innocent Doom
now quit telling me evolution isnt verified and actually

1) address the definition.

2) actually know what you're debating and quick having hissyfits when you dont understand the evidence.

this is my last time in asking you to do this politely and if you keep putting your head in the sand, i'm done here.
Look, man, we've already told why evolution isn't verified. It isn't even LOGICAL. http://thegoodreporters.blogspot.com/2007/01/evolution-isnt-even-logical.html
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
okay, since you arent interested in having an honest debate and would prefer by one ignorant specific person (whose points are honestly just either not addressing evolution at all or has no idea how it even works) i'm no longer replying to you until you make an honest post or point.

two left.
 

Ergonomic

Innocent Doom
okay, since you arent interested in having an honest debate and would prefer by one ignorant specific person (whose points are honestly just either not addressing evolution at all or has no idea how it even works) i'm no longer replying to you until you make an honest post or point.

two left.
Okay. Fine by me.

pocketmunster said:
You do know that newtons theory of gravity was replaced by einstiens right? So do you not believe in gravity now because it was revised?
OMG! And my algebra book has been revised as well! So has my contact lens prescription! They must ALL be false!

No... Besides, Einstein's theory was of General Relativity.


First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.

This is a theory, much like evolution. Why hadn't we figured out before Darwin the theory of evolution? Creationism has been around since way before evolution.
 

Comedy of Errors

Sane Insanity
if it was a law why would they call it theory? perhaps you're talking about two separate things and just dont know what theory means?

the theory of gravity is our interpretation of the laws and facts; just like evolution! but does that mean gravity isnt real?

...no.
The fact that evolution is only a theory doesn't mean that it isn't real. It means that the textbooks and evolutionist scientists shouldn't present it as fact.

now quit telling me evolution isnt verified and actually

1) address the definition.

2) actually know what you're debating and quick having hissyfits when you dont understand the evidence.

1) If you're meaning the definition of a scientific theory then it's this: "As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena." Intelligent design meets the quota for this just as much as evolution so you can stop saying that it is unscientific.

2) We're not exactly the ones that are throwing hissyfits. Especially when one says things like the following after his opponent presents an extremely logical argument:

common sense says you cant prove it and you're whining about it.

this is my last time in asking you to do this politely and if you keep putting your head in the sand, i'm done here.
1) If you really want to leave no one's stopping you. You keep saying 'Oh I'm going' over and over again.
2) We are making logical arguments; you just have this extremely obstinate mindset that anything we say is an absolute lie and is not scientific. I'm not saying that we don't have obstinate mindsets, but we actually listen to your arguments and then systematically disprove them.

EDIT:
Evolution isn't fast enough to notice in one lifetime unless it's forced. You are probably similar looking to your parents, but go back over several generations and you'll see that you are less similar looking to your grandparents and great-grandparents.
I actually look much more like my great-grandfather then either of my parents...
 
Last edited:

crobatman

Well-Known Member
and that law is excused when it comes to god? then it's not a law.

try again before you assert yourself over scientists who have made no such law.

what? excuse me, are you denying the Law of Cause and Effect?

I am saying there has to be an ultimate Cause, and I believe that cause to be God. You believe (or not believe) what you want to be the ultimate cause.

Even if cause and effect were a scientific law, scientific laws break down at the point of singularity anyway (even thermodynamics), and hence would not necessarily apply during the beginning of the universe. When dealing with things such as the creation of the universe you have to realise that when there is infinite curvature in space-time, almost everything we "know" about the current state of the universe starts to contradict itself.

That is a great point Panda, and I wish other scientists would realize that. What you are saying is that in the past things could have worked differently than they do today! This is an argument creationist have been using. I don't know about thermodynamics being different, but maybe decay rates of chemicals in volcanic rocks? It is just a thought, and I might not have thought it out too well.

I need to research more.
 
Last edited:

Sapphiredragon929

A r t i f i c e.
There is know real answer to this. This is blind faith. You choose to BELIEVE this, not know this. Accoriding to the bible...

Whether you want to believe God or not, I don't care. I personally do, but the bible I have some serious doubts in. What a messed up storybook...

Anyway's blind faith. WE don't know, we choose.
 
Top