Watchman wrote:
oi.....from you last post, you (and other atheist) seem/claim that evolution and the big bang are two entirely separate theories that explain different aspects of the universe, yet, in what school of learning can you find any real separation or distinction between the two?...... moreover how do you believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were “all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex is “obviously a product of biological evolution."?
It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the “fact” that it was not designed.
you are on precarious ground...ne?
No. Just no. Your comparing nonliving things to living things. Fail.
urm,.. since you are a person who absolutely believes that life came from nonlife, so what is the difference....you atheists also believe that there is no God. Hence, either matter was not created, but was eternal, or came by chance. which?
No. We do not know how life came about. Thats the problem. As for the matter thing, we do not know yet what was before the big bang so we can’t say.
im glad that you accept the fact that you dont know where life came from, even based on your own theories involving the origin of life found in most textbooks all over america, euope.....
....i also add that you still cannot produce life in the lab. several other methods have been tried and have failed....... its a fact that life cannot be spontaneously generated. so since that is prety much impossible, is there possibly another explanation?............. life started somewhere somehow, doesnt matter what planet it started on either, it got started somehow. did someone create life? or did life create itself? or does the thought of doubting your godless theory of how this universe evolved tug at your heart?
without life you have no evolution...all you have are a bunch of chemicals (which also had to evolve) and a bunch of blown up stardust....oh and maybe some water. and saying that it happened millions of years ago doesnt make it any more feasible. .....
Watchman wrote:
Interesting thing, creation vs. evolution........... . Evolutionists must believe there is empirical evidence for “evolution” having-
1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
WRONG. Thats the big bang if anything. Your wrong on the nothing part too. Read up on the Big bang.
2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
Cosmology /=evolution. Fail yet again.
3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
Theory of abiogenesis, evolution does not explain the orgin of life. Fail yet again.
4. Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
And? Maybe they were like that to begin with. You know instincts and all.
5. Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).
Thats the first thing you’ve said right and I believe Ameba’s could do just that
mmmmm possible. And I guess a big wind could blow through a junkyard and assemble a 747. Is that really more believable than the idea of intelligent creation.....
I guess god can make a rock even he can’t lift either.
“sigh”.....
you seem to think questions like, “Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?", “Can God will Himself out of existence?" are perfect examples of how to disprove God’s omnipotence and ultimately how to disprove God. cant you see the false logic behind the such questions (i.e. pitting God’s omnipotence against itself),?....anyways at creationism explains how and why life exists. It has a beginning point! Evolution doesn’t, It starts with the assumption the life was always there. Do we really need to prove what doesn’t make sense here? Sciencs has proven that the OLDEST fossil of a living orginism is ONLY a couple Billion years old! Even the micoorganisms we know of have an approxamate age. It is a matter of fact that nothing is of infinte age. Every living orginism or fossalized orginsm has a difinitive age to it. Ok, It is proven that for evolution to be possible, orginisms need to breed and create new living orginisms....
so any of you atheist care to tell me where the first living orginism came from?
We don’t know that yet. But we don’t pretend to know.
Im a Christian, but believe in evolution (bad way of putting it). The first living organism probably came from amino acids generated from various elements being given the energy (by lightning strikes possibly [like frankensteins monster ] ) to form into Dna, which can replicate itself, though this seems to be like a miracle in itself.
I also have a question for the Creationists. Why does Genesis have to be literal? It makes more sense that it just shows how God made everything good. Which is more likly, that Jesus has a sword in his mouth (revelations), or that he will strike down tyrant nations with his words? Is God a total prick (book of Job), or is life a test of how good a person you are? Was there a huge flood that killed everything that wasn’t on a huge boat (noah, duh), or does God promise never to do again what he did to the dinosaurs ?
Have you ever seen a house build itself. I haven’t. Have you ever seen a man suddenly come into existence. Again no. Yet that is what many would like to belive. In the beginning was nothing, and nothing became something, and this unintelligent something turned into lots of stuff, and some of this stuff miraculously formed intelligence, and these intelligent beings began to question, and the question was, “where did we come from?” Behold the biggest practical joke in all of time, we came from nothing. If this sounds ridiculous then I guess I’m not the only one that thinks so. Intelligence came from nowhere. Does this make sense? Animals do are not as intelligent as us, yet they still function. They have instincts. Why? Who told them? Why do we think? How did brain waves come from something that cannot think, that has no idea, let alone an idea of what intelligence is. How can something without any thought whatsoever give birth to inteligent beings? This very idea undermines science itself, and all its principles. Where is the conservation of energy? of mass? How did this principles we know to be true come into being?
Watchman wrote:
Have you ever seen a house build itself. I haven’t. Have you ever seen a man suddenly come into existence. Again no. Yet that is what many would like to belive. In the beginning was nothing, and nothing became something, and this unintelligent something turned into lots of stuff, and some of this stuff miraculously formed intelligence, and these intelligent beings began to question, and the question was, “where did we come from?” Behold the biggest practical joke in all of time, we came from nothing. If this sounds ridiculous then I guess I’m not the only one that thinks so. Intelligence came from nowhere. Does this make sense? Animals do are not as intelligent as us, yet they still function. They have instincts. Why? Who told them? Why do we think? How did brain waves come from something that cannot think, that has no idea, let alone an idea of what intelligence is. How can something without any thought whatsoever give birth to inteligent beings? This very idea undermines science itself, and all its principles. Where is the conservation of energy? of mass? How did this principles we know to be true come into being?
did I say precarious?.......... ..
Oh my god just stop pulling your sources from comeplete dumbasses. Seriously. Not only is that a deluded view of evolution but some of that is not even part of evolution. Do us all a favor and look for some REAL evidence instead of providing bullshit like this.
Watchman wrote:
Have you ever seen a house build itself. I haven’t. Have you ever seen a man suddenly come into existence. Again no. Yet that is what many would like to belive. In the beginning was nothing, and nothing became something, and this unintelligent something turned into lots of stuff, and some of this stuff miraculously formed intelligence, and these intelligent beings began to question, and the question was, “where did we come from?” Behold the biggest practical joke in all of time, we came from nothing. If this sounds ridiculous then I guess I’m not the only one that thinks so. Intelligence came from nowhere. Does this make sense? Animals do are not as intelligent as us, yet they still function. They have instincts. Why? Who told them? Why do we think? How did brain waves come from something that cannot think, that has no idea, let alone an idea of what intelligence is. How can something without any thought whatsoever give birth to inteligent beings? This very idea undermines science itself, and all its principles. Where is the conservation of energy? of mass? How did this principles we know to be true come into being?
did I say precarious?.......... ..
Oh my god just stop pulling your sources from comeplete dumbasses. Seriously. Not only is that a deluded view of evolution but some of that is not even part of evolution. Do us all a favor and look for some REAL evidence instead of providing bullshit like this.
sound reasoning as per usual....but then you think you descended from an ape or its ancestor! think about it....by the way rock does not split itslef form the universe, impose bounds on it, give intellignce, and become a mindless mound again......
Watchman wrote:
Have you ever seen a house build itself. I haven’t. Have you ever seen a man suddenly come into existence. Again no. Yet that is what many would like to belive. In the beginning was nothing, and nothing became something, and this unintelligent something turned into lots of stuff, and some of this stuff miraculously formed intelligence, and these intelligent beings began to question, and the question was, “where did we come from?” Behold the biggest practical joke in all of time, we came from nothing. If this sounds ridiculous then I guess I’m not the only one that thinks so. Intelligence came from nowhere. Does this make sense? Animals do are not as intelligent as us, yet they still function. They have instincts. Why? Who told them? Why do we think? How did brain waves come from something that cannot think, that has no idea, let alone an idea of what intelligence is. How can something without any thought whatsoever give birth to inteligent beings? This very idea undermines science itself, and all its principles. Where is the conservation of energy? of mass? How did this principles we know to be true come into being?
did I say precarious?.......... ..
Oh my god just stop pulling your sources from comeplete dumbasses. Seriously. Not only is that a deluded view of evolution but some of that is not even part of evolution. Do us all a favor and look for some REAL evidence instead of providing bullshit like this.
sound reasoning as per usual....but then you think you descended from an ape or its ancestor! think about it....by the way rock does not split itslef form the universe, impose bounds on it, give intellignce, and become a mindless mound again......
Nobody claims this except creationist fundies. Find me a respected scientist who says this.
look, i concede its true evolution is a theory about how organisms change over time and obviously that theory considers what happens with organisms,.... not how they may have arisen from non-life in the distant past....but take it another step upwards leads to wonder that all evolution requires is one single living cell to come into existence......... How ((yes, how, hell , why) did this “Cell” come into existance? It had to come from somewhere! Something Can’t come from nothing!
is something titanically wrong with this question? i just would really like to know
Watchman wrote:
look, i concede its true evolution is a theory about how organisms change over time and obviously that theory considers what happens with organisms,.... not how they may have arisen from non-life in the distant past....but take it another step upwards leads to wonder that all evolution requires is one single living cell to come into existence......... How ((yes, how, hell , why) did this “Cell” come into existance? It had to come from somewhere! Something Can’t come from nothing!
is something titanically wrong with this question? i just would really like to know
Nowhere does evolution (which you have clearly confused with both abiogenesis) state the first self replicating “thing” came from nowhere. It just says “We’re not entirely sure what it came from or how it came about”. That’s like me claiming you say your bike came out of nowhere because you forget how you obtained it.
Also you got to think, the first cell would have been much more primitive than even some of the bacteria we have around today. Therefore for it to come out of something lifeless would not have been an incredibly complicated event. All it needed was some form of self replicating mechanism or metabolism (it’s debated).
Last edited 01 Aug 2008 02:47 am by Sean of the Living
Watchman wrote:
look, i concede its true evolution is a theory about how organisms change over time and obviously that theory considers what happens with organisms,.... not how they may have arisen from non-life in the distant past....but take it another step upwards leads to wonder that all evolution requires is one single living cell to come into existence......... How ((yes, how, hell , why) did this \“Cell\" come into existance? It had to come from somewhere! Something Can\'t come from nothing!
is something titanically wrong with this question? i just would really like to know
Thats like trying to say, hey the theory of gravity is wrong because it doesnt say where gravity comes from.
--- Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena.
ChibiDiscoDhaos wrote:
No there is nothing wrong with it at all. It’s just if we can’t give an answer you assume God did it. Well no. Alot of creationists would say that.
..... and if science finds this question difficult,
how does it assume that everything after the event of the 1st cell is correct then....
are you saying that there are no other avenues to explore outside of science for answers?
ChibiDiscoDhaos wrote:
No there is nothing wrong with it at all. It’s just if we can’t give an answer you assume God did it. Well no. Alot of creationists would say that.
..... and if science finds this question difficult,
how does it assume that everything after the event of the 1st cell is correct then....
are you saying that there are no other avenues to explore outside of science for answers?
They find evidence for it. It’s that simple.
What do you mean by exploring outside of science? What could we explore without logic or reason?
ChibiDiscoDhaos wrote:
No there is nothing wrong with it at all. It’s just if we can’t give an answer you assume God did it. Well no. Alot of creationists would say that.
..... and if science finds this question difficult,
how does it assume that everything after the event of the 1st cell is correct then....
are you saying that there are no other avenues to explore outside of science for answers?
They find evidence for it. It’s that simple.
What do you mean by exploring outside of science? What could we explore without logic or reason?
imagine you go to a site and there is no evidence of their being a building....the ground has been razed, and the there is no masonry...there are no records of their ever having being anything there let a alone a castle of epic proportions..its just dust and wind..well if someone says “i’m going to build exactly what was there before because I can work it out by the wind blowing, the heat of the ground, the amount of dust”....its a poor example, but indulge me ...what would your response be.....
»
Religion
» Creation vs. Evolution Debate topic
] ) to form into Dna, which can replicate itself, though this seems to be like a miracle in itself.
