Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...I am of the opinion that something caused the Big Bang (first cause). Whatever caused it to happen would seem to exist independently of time and space, and is by definition our Creator.
By what definition? And which 'creator' of a quite a few available in mythology? Can you describe a method of establishing validity of existance of this 'creator'?
Save the dogma. In the Middle-Ages they didn't know a Big Bang (creation event) had happened apart from religion.
The "Big Bang" was not a creation event.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
This biased approach is why evolution, as embraced by the public school system, is in fact the state endorsed religion of Atheism dressed up as science.
Easy answer: It's not.
It is embraced by the public school system because it is the single most powerful theory to explain the origin and diversity of life on earth. It has no serious competition, and is among the best confirmed theories in the history of science.
As Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution."
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
I am of the opinion that something caused the Big Bang (first cause). Whatever caused it to happen would seem to exist independently of time and space, and is by definition our Creator.
What would lead you to believe that the cause of the "Big Bang" was a first cause, rather than a 100th cause, or millionth cause, or infinith cause?
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Can you address the question of first cause without sinning against your faith that no creator can possibly exists?
I sure can.
The universe is eternal and uncreated. There is no first cause. And the "Big Bang" is not the point where the universe began, it is merely the point at which the universe became as it is now.
The real issue is ACCOUNTABILITY! -- As long as man remains randomly evolved from swamp gas (or whatever), he has no accountability to anyone or thing higher than himself. In other words, man can be his own 'god.'
Would it be a terrible idea to be accountable to self than to a perceived deity who may have been a person or an imagination? What proof do you have that Moses, for example, was speaking to "God" and not just making things up? Or, someone who wrote the story about Moses didn't explore his/her creative side?
Quote:
The 'science' of evolution never really answers man's questions regarding the 'source of life'...
That would be correct. The problem is, you're assuming evolution is about how life came about. Nope, that isn't how science works. If you want to discuss abiogenesis aspect of science, you may be onto something.
What is funny, however, is that your idea is based on a belief, but you dismiss science for not providing enough proof?
Actually both evolution and creationism are theories. Nice try though. I'm pretty certain that I acknowledged evolution in my previous post. Reading comprehension problems?
Creationism is not a theory. I don't think you know the definition of a scientific theory (it's not the same as we use coloquially) if you post two anecdotal links about a couple of scientists who believe in God. Many scientists believe in a higher power. You should read some of their writings on it. But theories have ample scientific evidence that, with enough body of work, are considered almost beyond refute.
Creationists have had ample opportunities to present the evidence before scientific panels and in courts of law and have yet to provide any compelling evidence to even come close to being a theory.
For the Nth time: What is the Creationism theory thesis? "God did it"? Is that all there is to it? That is lightweight and not worthy of even cursory glance.
Every time Creationism proponents show up, all they do is try to find holes in current and well proven theories, but offer nothing that would replace it. I am into scientific method, come on Creationists convince me. Show some guts.
The 'science' of evolution never really answers man's questions regarding the 'source of life' ... or resolves man's inborn desire and search for God's truth. That's because God created man as a being who will only find peace and satisfication of the inborn desires of his heart ... from God!
I'm reminded of a huge billboard I saw many years ago driving cross Tennessee. It said, "Jesus is the Answer!"
All I could ponder was, "What was the question?"
Not every question asked has an answer. In many cases, the question "Why?" is best met with the answer, "Because." And in as many instances people look for answers in the wrong places.
I wish you great good luck in finding "peace and satisfication of the inborn desires of (your) heart." Why you would expect to find it in science though... well, I am at a loss.
For the Nth time: What is the Creationism theory thesis? "God did it"? Is that all there is to it? That is lightweight and not worthy of even cursory glance.
Every time Creationism proponents show up, all they do is try to find holes in current and well proven theories, but offer nothing that would replace it. I am into scientific method, come on Creationists convince me...
Honestly, I would like to see a rational arguement for Creationism, some evidence that it is "real". I understand the appeal of a higher power and the comfort that brings. It would be nice to believe that life has some deep meaning...and that we have a chance to go to a happy place when we die. I honestly hope the Creationists here can provide some evidence to support that belief. I would like to change my "belief system", but there needs to be some proof or at least some reason behind the theory, to do so. As we say in engineering, "show me the data".
If the latter, well, mutation/natural selection are parts of evolution, just as cells are part of the whole that make us.
This is frustrating, but let me try to be as clear as possible .....
Genetic mutation = occurs when an error in DNA/Gene reproduction occurs for whatever reason. This is subtractive ... read: DNA code is compromised ... i.e. code is missing, damaged, which may or may not affect that organism in a significant manner, depending on what sequence/s are compromised. This occurs randomly ... and it's affects, if any, are devolutionary in nature ... not evolutionary.
Are you following me here? As I said before using an earlier analogy ... lets take your computer .... and lets take Microsoft Word source code as the DNA. Your computer hard disk malfunctions, causing a corruption in the MS Word program code. Depending on where this corruption occurs, will dictate the results. Perhaps that corrupt section of code controls a never used function, such an obscure font ... you won't even notice the corruption. But if this corruption occurs in a critical area of the program, it may not run at all (given the MS Operating system, the whole system might lock up). Capiche ?
But there is one thing I can virtually guarantee you .... such corruption is HIGHLY UNLIKELY to add an enhanced, functional feature to your Word program!!! The chances of that happening are less than nil.
This is the faulty premise behind genetic mutation caused evolution. It just isn't likely to happen ... it is certainly not going to follow a consistent pattern of occurring. Random damage to DNA code is extremely unlikely to produce evolutionary outcomes ... and ALL genetic mutations observed have never shown such an enhancement to the organism.
On the other hand ... the creation of subspecies through interbreeding of compatible animals, and cross pollination between plants is more likely to produce a positive effect, because the process is not a result of damage or malfunction (subtractive), it is additive ... increasing the DNA information of the offspring through the combination of traits of both parents. This doesn't always produce enhancement ... often hybrids are weaker, often times sterile, which is obviously not evolutionary as a result, but it can produce enhancements ...which is commonly done with plant hybrids, installing features in the hybrid to be more resistant to disease, or require less water in arid climates or be less susceptible to root rot in more wet environments. But again ... even genetically modified plants (purposely mutated in the laboratory) are being shown to have deleterious effects on the animals consuming them.
The entire monkey to modern human evolution through genetic mutation and natural selection theory is a gigantic load of hogwash. It's preposterous, and I'll again use an analogy .... this would be akin to your home computer crashing, and crashing and crashing until it became a Cray Super Computer. That's precisely how absurd it is.
Keep in mind something .... Thousands of Climate Scientists claimed absolute universal agreement on CO2 caused global warming. Later we find out that many scientists who were put on the list agreeing, did not agree, and had to sue the IPCC to have their names removed. Then we find massive fraud in these scientists cooking their data to support the theory ... and still, they continue with the warming causes cooling too nonsense.
So please ... I'm not particularly impressed with these claims "Everybody Agrees" ... and "The issue of evolution has been proven" crap. Because that is just what it is ... crap.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.