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 believe that the theory of evolution is an excellent theory - which is to say that I believe that this theory explains the facts and processes of evolution very well. However, I do not believe that the current theory is complete. I predict that over the next couple of decades we will see "neo-Darwinism" expanded to include other factors that are not so well-handled by the theory in its current form. For example, the principles of dynamical systems (self-organization of chaotic systems, etc.) will play a more major role. Also, I think that questions from philosophy of mind may change the nature of the game to some extent. I don't think that the theory of evolution, in its current form, explains the emergence of the qualitative/phenomenal nature of consciousness.
Accepting that the fact of 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.
that can no more prove what caused the big bang then a creationist can prove it. The question then goes to what caused the big bang. Do you believe it was caused by elements which always existed accidental coming to gether and blowing up somehow causing planets suns and lava pools, or do you believe that there was a creator which caused it.
Somewhere from the lava pool life was magically created which if did happen surely we could recreate it. So is the father/mother of all life on earth an amoeba accidental formed in a lava pool,or was their a creator.
When we can scientifically prove by smashing elements together we can create an organism with life then i can buy this story a bit more than a creator
The beauty of science is that it doesn’t stop with a belief system and then assumes everybody should just learn to digest it as a fact. It moves on, looks for clues, on discoveries. It does not care about God or no God, just answers that can be calculated, analyzed and observed.
There is evidence of Big Bang happening billions of years ago. There is ongoing study, analysis and observation going into the possibility of it happening on a regular interval (the m-theory). The most important aspect of science is the desire to stand up and explain it all.
But, if we’re supposed to talk about evolution, why do we even bother with Big Bang? Or even abiogenesis? Those are deep subjects by themselves. Most people can’t even handle basic evolutionary theories, or acceptance of it. Heck, we have people quoting Biblical verses as “proof”.
You're the one that claims that something can't come from nothing....unless we're talking of how to defend your intellectually bankrupt theory.
Why do you knowingly persist in this lie? We have discussed this several times... of course ending each time with you running away. But you know full well that it is only theists that propose something from nothing. Creation ex nihilo is exclusively a religious idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
Prove the universe came from nothing.
Again... why do you keep setting up this phony straw man when you have been repeatedly corrected regarding it's falsehood?
Doesn't it embarrass you to knowingly use long refuted arguments? Don't you find it a tad humiliating to continuously be corrected on the same issue again, and again, and again by the same people?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
Prove we evolved from some primitive life form.
Endogenous Retroviruses prove (as far as anything in science can be proved) that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. Is that primitive enough for you?
Because that one detail pulls the rug out from under your religious belief. Deal with that one detail, and then we can move on to amoeba's later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
Unfortunately, there aren't enough of them that have been found. There are massive gaping holes in teh record.
This is of course mere creationist hand waving. All it takes is one to prove the falsehood of the creationist myth. We have thousands.
And I'm willing to discuss any of the best transitions in detail. Reptiles to mammals. Apes to humans. Land mammal to whale. Fish to amphibian.
I have repeatedly offered to do so many times in the past. Of course this is another discussion from which your consistently flee. It is your palpable fear of knowledge that turns your posts from farce to pathos.
Last edited by HistorianDude; 02-23-2011 at 09:50 AM..
He wrote in A Brief History ... "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God."
In his latest book, he said the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting another star other than the Sun helped deconstruct the view of the father of physics Isaac Newton that the universe could not have arisen out of chaos but was created by God.
"That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions -- the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass, far less remarkable, and far less compelling evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings," he writes.
Honestly....that is just plain dopey. It does nothing to explain the beginning of the universe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Why do you knowingly persist in this lie? We have discussed this several times... of course ending each time with you running away. But you know full well that it is only theists that propose something from nothing. Creation ex nihilo is exclusively a religious idea.
Tell me how the universe came about then. It can't be eternal. That's impossible. If it wasn't created, it had to have somehow come from nothing. Enlighten me.
Quote:
Again... why do you keep setting up this phony straw man when you have been repeatedly corrected regarding it's falsehood?
Doesn't it embarrass you to knowingly use long refuted arguments? Don;t you find it a tad humiliating to continuously be corrected on the same issue again, and again, and again by the same people?
You're the one spouting off dopey arguments, not me. Explain where the universe came from.
Quote:
Endogenous Retroviruses prove (as far as anything in science can be proved) that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. Is that primitive enough for you?
because that one detail pulls the rug out from under your religious belief. Deal with that one detail, and then we can move on to amoeba's later.
It shows a common designer. That doesn't bother me. Why does it bother you?
Quote:
This is of course mere creationist hand waving. All it takes is one to prove the falsehood of the creationist myth. We have thousands.
And I'm willing to discuss any of the best transitions in detail. Reptiles to mammals. Apes to humans. Land mammal to whale. Fish to amphibian.
Just explain how it all started. Then we'll get into the details of evolution.
No, your point was not proven, but your question was accuratley and honestly answered.
Sorry you are incorrect. My point was clearly proven whether you are willing to admit it or not.
My question was not accuratley (accurately) answered. It may have been his honest opinion but it proved that many on the left are not able to argue without prejudice or emotions getting in the way of facts.
I believe that the theory of evolution is an excellent theory - which is to say that I believe that this theory explains the facts and processes of evolution very well. However, I do not believe that the current theory is complete. I predict that over the next couple of decades we will see "neo-Darwinism" expanded to include other factors that are not so well-handled by the theory in its current form. For example, the principles of dynamical systems (self-organization of chaotic systems, etc.) will play a more major role. Also, I think that questions from philosophy of mind may change the nature of the game to some extent. I don't think that the theory of evolution, in its current form, explains the emergence of the qualitative/phenomenal nature of consciousness.
That last comment renders much of your post difficult to reconcile. You feign a certain familiarity with self-organization and chaotic systems, which would presume a concurrent familiarity with the concept of emergence.
But then you betray a vacuum of understanding these same ideas even when you use the term in a discussion of consciousness.
Mind is what brain does. What about the emergence of consciousness do you find inexplicable?
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.