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 don't see it as being a troll in fact I think they are quite right. If one doesn't believe in god, evolution is the next best answer. Of course as you mention previously, even if you do believe in god, evolution still remains the best answer.
It's Russell's Law.
I can't tell if he is a Creationist, or a parody of a Creationist.
I'm am very easy to pin down if you want a serious discussion. But when your position is based on the repetition of a long disabused equivocation, it gets difficult to take seriously. So that's when you're likely to get answers that, while not flip, are at least economical.
The universe operates by invariant natural law. All other things being equal, it solves the same problem the same way every time.
Life could therefore never be a "one time accident." It probably arose several times on this planet alone, and countless other times on others.
Exactly. When I was a kid, the only know planets were those in our solar system. Now we know they exist all over the universe. Mars, the Moon all have water, something unknown when I was a kid. To think that life only evolved on this planet is as outdated as pre-Copernican astronomy.
so you are saying all the elements were always there for the big bang. Is that not the same argument for god as the creator, god was always there
And you are very, very, very close. But not quite there.
Theists have already conceded the possibility of an eternal uncreated thing, in their case "God." Therefore, no theist can argue against the concept of an eternal universe without contradicting themselves. If God can be eternal then why can't the universe? This brings the two arguments (as you yourself point out) to parity. But I cannot allow that to last for long, because the arguments are not actually equal. One has actual evidence in its favor, while one does not.
1. There are two proposals in front of you for the "thing" that preexisted the Big Bang. One of them (the universe) actually has evidence in its favor. We need but look around us to experience first hand that, yes, a universe actually does exist.
We have no comparable evidence for a "God."
QED: There is infinitely more evidence in favor of an eternal uncreated universe than there is for an eternal uncreated God.
2. The laws of conservation and causality tell us that every effect must have a cause. These laws are empirically derived. In all of human history, no one has ever witnessed a violation of them... at least not in any testable venue.
The universe consists of entities, 100% of which obey the laws of conservation and causality. There does not exist a single thing in the universe that does not have a cause, exists for a term, and then ceases to exist. Even in an eternal universe, everything it contains is ephemeral and perfectly follows those laws.
An eternal God violates those laws by definition, since it is an effect that has no cause. An eternal universe does not, since it is not really a thing at all. It is just the category in which we include all things.
QED: According to the laws of conservation and causality, an eternal and uncreated universe is possible. An eternal and uncreated God is not.
Last edited by CaseyB; 02-23-2011 at 05:55 AM..
Reason: rude/discuss the topic, not others
Once a controversial subject...........once a Theory of Darwin...........who actually proved it and how?
It is proved every day as life forms mutate, change. Every year you get a new flu shot. Why, because the virus mutates and changes to its environment. New resistant forms of bacteria evolve that we can't treat evolve yearly. I refer you to Peter and Rosemary Grant's study and witnessing to the rapid development of a new species of bird in just one human lifetime. The list is endless. In all of the years since Darwin, the question has been not "if" evolution, but what influences it, how fast does it take, what determines where it will go? With every discovery, the consistency of evolution is made stronger, the gaps are filled. It requires study and discipline to understand.
No, I don't "believe" in the Theory of Evolution, any more than I "believe" in the Theory of Relativity or the Germ Theory of disease.
In its modern form (Darwin had a lot of specifics wrong, as was to be expected with the sparse data at his disposal) it is just a strong theory, very well supported by the evidence. So I'd say I subscribe to it.
Theories aren't "proven" - they can be disproven, or they can be supported by additional evidence. A nice little example is the fact that a lot of the great apes, including humans, can't produce our own Vitamin C. Now, for evolution to be true, some shared ancestor of ours must have lost the capability to synthesize Vitamin C, and we must have inherited this characteristic.
All somewhat theoretical until we started decoding DNA. All of a sudden we could map the genomes of all great apes, spot where the Vitamin C gene was, see where it was broken - and, notably, see that it was broken in the same way for all those who couldn't make their own vitamin C. This is exactly what the ToE predicted would be the case - we all inherited the same broken gene from the same shared forefather. If the gene had broken in wildly differing ways, that would have been a severe blow to the ToE.
Anyway, yes - it's a very strong theory, and I've yet to see a competing theory that didn't make some sweeping assumptions about external factors, supernatural or close to it.
Absolutely correct. I always use "belief in gravity" as my example, but you did a stellar job.
I think "life exists" would be considered a reasonably safe assumption by most. But feel free to make your case that it doesn't.
Easy. You say "This theory describes how gravity makes two physical bodies interact". People who yell " Oh yeah? Show us where the physical bodies came from first, smart guy!" are basically hecklers.
I am starting to like you, well your posts anyway. What amazes me about "true believers" and there is one on the radio who swears that the world will end in a few months as judgement day arrives, is that they always say that evolution is a fraud because it has gaps in it's understanding, while, at the same time, they have not a single fact to support their theory. Nothing, nil, nadda. The fact-base is nothing but one huge gap.
I'm a science teacher. I don't believe in evolution. I don't believe in gravity or electromagnetism, either. Evolution doesn't rest on belief. It's physical reality.
Pools of proteins and amino acids may exist whether life does or does not exist. One is not evidence of the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Why would one have to be evidence of the other? All these things exist. They have their own evidence.
The question was your bogus claim that the evidence for life arising in "Darwin's warm pond" was no better than the evidence for life having been created. But that is objectively not true.
We actually have evidence that "Darwin's warm pond" could have existed. We have no such evidence for your creator.
That makes the natural explanation objectively superior right out of the box. It doesn't even have to be right... and it's still an objectively superior explanation... based on evidence.
You do understand the difference between could and did, right?
What evidence do you have that the first cell came into being unaided?
We all know we can fill a test tube with all the organic compounds needed to create an original self-replicating cell, yet no original self-replicating cells form.
Without direct evidence to the contrary, a protocell forming from random organic compounds in its environment is just another possibility among many. Given the extremely complex nature of cell mechanics and reproduction, I would really like to see a strong objective case made for what appears to be a huge leap of faith.
Natural selection is compatible with Creationism and Evolution.
The next question then becomes, how did the first cell with the ability to replicate itself come to be.
If one's faith is built around a Creator, it was created.
If one's faith is built around the absence of a creator, it just came into being on its own.
Can you give a specific factual reason why either of these should be taught in public schools while excluding the other?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dollymixture
This is a new argument but I'll play.
This is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. It is covered in schools, in religion and philosophy classes.
The actual scientific theories are taught in science lessons.
I didn't ask how should it have come into being.
I asked how it did?
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.
Evolution believe it or not?
