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.
Give me a better one then.
2. Since the universe had a beginning, we must conclude it was caused by something. You could argue that whatever caused the universe to exist was in turn caused by something prior, but at some point you must have an ultimate beginning cause that was not caused by another cause. To suggest otherwise is to suggest an infinite regression of causes. That's impossible because without a first cause none of the rest would exist.
3. This "cause" of the universe is a creator. This is logically deduced.
Giant hole in your theory: How did the creator get there? I find it funny that you rail on about infinite regression and how there must be an ultimate beginning, but you fail to explain how the creator got there, thereby introducing an infinite regression and leaving out an ultimate beginning yourself.
Giant hole in your theory: How did the creator get there? I find it funny that you rail on about infinite regression and how there must be an ultimate beginning, but you fail to explain how the creator got there, thereby introducing an infinite regression and leaving out an ultimate beginning yourself.
Are you saying that the Creator was created by somebody you don't tell us about? How did he get there and why did he allow things to change from time to time so we could see evolution? I think you are arguing something that not even a real lefty could din with.
Common sense dictates that the little old superstitious Italian widow is not what people are referring to when they point out that religious beliefs have caused more hate, murder, vengeance, torture and wars than any other motivation.
Wrong. The post to which I was responding left no room whatsoever for alternative interpretations.
Last edited by Mr. Joshua; 06-20-2011 at 01:14 PM..
Yes, I believe in evolution with gaps. When I have evidence that disproves evolution, then I, along with the science community, will believe something else. Science is not dogmatic.
Science changes as new evidence comes to light. I respect scientific theory because it makes sense to me. When Newton came up with his theory of gravity, he was attempting to explain the world around him. He examined all the evidence that was available to him, and came up with a theory to explain his environment and how it works. Evolution explains something about our world and how it works. The scientific method requires that it explain the existing evidence comprehensively, that is that if some piece of evidence contradicts the theory, then the theory is wrong and must be modified.
What would that evidence look like? I see is proved false due to a lack of evidence. What would it take you to think it false?
Quote:
Religious belief doesn't follow the scientific method. If a piece of evidence contradicts the religious belief, then it is the piece of evidence that is thought to be faulty. That doesn't make sense to me, but I know many people who have modified their religious beliefs to make them all-encompassing, so that inconsistencies between the world around us and what religion tells us about that world are simply proof that God is inscrutable and all-powerful. It requires a leap of faith. And as I said earlier, the willingness and ability to make such a leap of faith is a gift. Just as an unwillingness to make such a leap is a gift. Each path with its advantages and disadvantages.
Creationism is not religion. It's possible to believe in a creator without believing in a particular deity.
Quote:
As for your snarky remarks, I never proclaimed myself to be an expert on all things. The use of "I think" in my original remarks makes it clear that I was expressing an opinion. Your attack was unwarranted. Just as your remark that I "bash" creationists, is a lie. Nothing I've said regarding creationism could be construed as "bashing".
As a general statement, evolutionists I've spoken to here and elsewhere tend to be pretty arrogant and full of themselves--proclaiming that they have it figured out and us dopey Christians or other religious people are just too dumb to ge with the program. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaTrang
Gaping holes, you say. Okay, that is fair. You admit that it explains te majority of the changes of species, just that there are areas as-yet unexplained (so-called gaping holes). That is fair, and probably accurate. However, as science learns more, the holes will shrink even further.
I admit no such thing. The gaping holes, as I say, have to do with the very nature of the transition from one species to another.
Quote:
Life was created in the promordial soup of early earth. The science on this is relevant, and it won't be long until man creates simple life forms.
This is unproven.
Quote:
No, compare that with creationism, that doesn't HAVE gaping holes, but is, in fact, one MASSIVE HOLE of non-information. No facts whatsoever, no viable, verifieable explanations whatsoever. It is like the mass murder calling the guy with a parking ticket a bad citizen!!!!!!
There is a trillion times more info and support for evolution etc., than for creationism/Intelligent Design.
Considering you just said "Life was created in the promordial soup of early earth...and it won't be long until man creates simple life forms.", I would point out that you seem to be quite willing to accept a MASSIVE HOLE of non-information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaTrang
Here is your big chance.
Lay YOUR cards on the table. What provable facts do you have? Lay it on us.
Giant hole in your theory: How did the creator get there?
I find it funny that you rail on about infinite regression and how there must be an ultimate beginning, but you fail to explain how the creator got there, thereby introducing an infinite regression and leaving out an ultimate beginning yourself.
Logically, there had to be a creator that was not created -- one that is eternal. You got a better explanation? The only other one I see is an eternal universe.
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.
