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.
Not if it was in a box that electrocuted it when a quantum even occurred.....
Of course, it's alive until you open the box.
But the quantum event might not have occurred. You don't know what happened until you open the box. Until then, both possibilities exist at the same time. If you knew what happened, both possibilities could not exist at the same time.
You think everything around you happened by accident then?
If I wait long enough, will a 1964 Corvette appear in front of me by accident? The universe is about a billion times more complex and if that happened by accident I would think a Corvette should pop up every couple of minutes right?
There is not a worse blockhead than a blockhead that will not see what is right in front of their eyes.
It says it right in the bible "you have eyes, but you do not see"
Oh, not the Watchmaker's Analogy yet again!!
Corvettes aren't organic.
uh ... No, you did not answer my question, which was a simple yes or no question ... You instead posted a bunch of links explaining evolution, which was a patronizing way of insinuating ignorance. But now that you have answered, albeit it embedded in a lot of unnecessary and involuted dialog, i will respond.
That's not true at all ... The main thrust, as is easy to see, is, and has been evolutionary science's desire and actions to dismiss the premise of a creator, to include attacking the concept of "intelligent design", and not just young earth creationism, which just happens to be much lower hanging fruit, and more easily ridiculed.
The problem i have with darwinian evolution covers a wide spectrum, and is just further amplified by such claims that you have made regarding "overwhelming evidence" and 150 years without contrary evidence. This is patently false ... You may offer your opinion that you don't accept the contray evidence as valid, but you cannot claim it doesn't exist.
This is also patently false, and the best evidence comes from one of the most recognizable figures in evolution science .. Richard dawkins. He is an anti-religion crusader, who spends as much time attacking religion as he does discussing evolution. Perhaps even more.
That was my main point ... The question i repeatedly asked, for which no one on your side would even acknowledge.
Now we've come full circle .... Falsely claiming that evolution has no interest in disproving creation, followed by confession that it cannot disprove it ... Yet that does not change the reality that evolutionists constantly use evolution as a means to to just that, as we see in your next passage:
I like it!!! A "tricky god" ... Which of course is rather revealing of your contempt for the idea of a creator to whom you admit evolution cannot kill totally, but can wound, substantially, while having no real desire to do either! How charmingly disingenuous of you!
But let me now correct the factual dishonesty in this claim. The truth is, the strata is rife with countless examples of fully formed species, with a complete absence of the millions of transitionals for which darwin himself admitted would have to be there, else his theory would collapse. And based on the theory of genetic mutation and natural sellection over vast period of time culminating in entirely new species, transitionals should vastly outnumber the fully developed forms. Yet, the ellusive search for these missing links led to a few manufactured frauds, which can be summarized humorously by saying "you got some splainin' to do lucy". Today the fraud is more brazen, as evolution scientists now claim countless examples. They were there the whole time! Apparently, what qualifies as a transitional became more "liberal", or the previous evolutionary anthropologists were bloody morons standing on top of what they were searching for for 80 + years.
Aside all of that, the basic premise of darwinian theory of genetic mutation and natural selection requiring eons of time has been proven a false construct through modern experiments and observations. We know that viruses can rapidly adapt and become resistent to vaccinea, while bacteria can do the same with regard to antibiotics. This occurs in rapid single generation time frames. Other research such that was performed by dr. Bruce lipton shows that genes do not control a cell's biology, but that the dna sequence can be programmed by outside environmental factors. Dr. Lipton, in his stem cell research conducted in the 1970's took cloned srem cells .. Placed them in three different environment mediums, and those clones produced three different substances .. Bone, blood and tissue. Consequently, genetic control is a false construct, and that directly challenges the darwinian model which relies on genetic control. As for "speciation" ... A russian scientist (whose name escapes me at present) demonstrated spontaneous speciation, by passing a laser through the embyo of a salamander, redirecting the light through a frog embryo, which rewrote the dna of the frog, producing a salamander. This showed that the dna code can be instananeously reprogrammed by light photons passing through a blueprint dna sequence .... No darwin ... No god ... Just a "magic wand" called a laser, wielded not by a supernatural entity ...just a scientist, with a funny accent.
This reduces darwinian theory to the uninformed 1800's pseudo-scientific nonsense one might expect from an era in which germ theory was cutting edge.
Both of you look silly ... The 6,000 year old earth, and darwinian disciples clinging to the fraudulent tactic of discrediting another presposterous idea in order to secure some sense of plausibility for their absurd postulations. Discrediting one idea in no way enhances another, and only charlatans would pursue such tactics.
Let me tell you what the religious folks go bananas over ... The ceaseless attack on them by atheist cult members of the club of darwin ... Guys like dawkins and hitchens (who is probably as we speak, still apologizing to the man upstairs ... If he was lucky enough to avoid the other place :d )
that you reluctantly confess no incompatibility between evolution and the existence of a creator, is unlikely to get you a dinner invitation to richard's house, and you'll never get him to make such confession, even at gunpoint.
But as should be clear by now, my objection to dawinian evolution has no connection whatsoever to religious bias. While i am of the mindset that embraces the existence of a creator, i am not the least bit religious in the traditional sense.
My objections are based on facts, and my personal analysis of all available data, some of which i have already mentioned. The idea that genetic mutation and natural selection accounts for all of the diversity of life, plant and animal alike is antithetical to raw common sense, when placed in the context of less complexity mutating into more complex forms, due to the inherent nature of genetic mutation being "subtractive" rather than additive.
The mutation spoken of with genes is most often an error in transcription, which for whatever reason, the corrective mechansims in place fail to correct the error. When this happens, the damaged portion of the code is discarded (subtracting from the information). You cannot expect to move from less complexity, to greater complexity, by subtraction. And there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that such subtractive mutations have ever given rise to an entirely new and different species, let alone account for the countless billions of difgering species of fish, fowl, mammal, and vegetation, with such dramatic biological structural functions.
While there are measurable and observable changes that can be labeled evolutionary, such as variation and adaptation within species, it is illegitimate to ride the coattails of that evidence as proving the whole of darwinian theory, which is precisely what is being done.
Ps please forgive the typos .. This pos tablet is difficult to use, and impossible to correct errors, as it has a horrible interface and screen mapping.
Your rant is too full of misconceptions and misrepresentations and is not worth the time to address.
This is the same sort of silly game that his fellow Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham, is likely to play with Bill Nye.
They want to deflect from the fact that their views are based on a literal Biblical genesis, but still want to pretend their views are based in science- which they obviously are not. A pure time waster.
A time waster on the part of both parties. Ham I can forgive because he's going on faith and faith doesn't have to be logical. Nye should know better as a scientist. Ham can fall back on the simple fact that God can do anything. Therefore it is within the realm of possibility that God just made things as if they took millions of years to evolve when they didn't. When you are not required to prove your case, and religion is not required to prove anything, it's easy to dismiss anything you want in science by just saying that God made it that way.
Take Adam's belly button. Do you suppose he had one even though he never had an umbilical cord? Or a giant redwood tree on the day of creation. Do you suppose it had growth rings for years it didn't exist? Is God capable of making a man with a belly button he never used or a tree with growth rings for years it never existed? If God can create a man and a tree in mature form, why not a planet, entire species and a universe? I'm not saying this is what happened only that it is possible and if there is any possibility religion wins here because science cannot prove that this did not happen. Religion only needs something that is possible given the omnipotent nature of God. What's science got going up against that?
This debate should not happen. Nye should know better.
Science only studies the laws of the universe. It does not study what God did or did not do. Only the laws that were laid down on the day of creation however this universe was created. Science needs to stick to that and quit trying to be religion too. It's not religion.
They do not want any scrutiny of their theory whatsoever.
That is why they use evolution as a club to pound people into submission by utilizing ad hominem attacks against anyone who challenges them to think critically and rationally, and it is also why when asked to support their theory, they throw out the red herring of creation, as if that has anything to do with evolution.
If evolution is true, then it ought to stand on its own two feet.
The irony here, of course, is that Einstein didn't even believe this.
Neither do I but it's an interesting concept. What is reality? Why am I me and you you? We're both the same type of animal yet I have a unique conscience in this body and so to you in your body, unless you're not real anyway. I know I'm real but I don't know that you're real. Maybe you're just a projection of my own mind. Maybe I'm making all this up as I go along....Damn I must be intelligent to be able to do that....
Then again, we could all be in the Matrix....anyone hear the Duracell chimes off in the background?
You believe in the creation story found in Genesis, correct? That there were dinosaurs roaming the Garden of Eden less than 20,000 years ago, yes?
No strawman here, right-winger. These are your actual beliefs.
You won't get him to admit to that or answer any questions about evidence for his beliefs. He has exposed himself as a YECer. His whole game is to try to get you to waste your time responding to his inane demands so he can deflect attention away from his irrational evidence-free beliefs.
Where in the bible does it say Adam and Eve walked with dinosaurs?
Ask Harrier and Ken Ham - they believe dinosaurs were created at the same time as humans. Ken Ham says 6000 years ago, Harrier says less than 18,000 years ago. Not sure what he bases that 18,000 figure on because he continually refuses to answer the question.
Well quantum theory tells us that our whole reality can be a video game that can be turned off by a switch...and you should know that when you turn on a video game...trees, fruit, cars, houses...complete worlds are right there.
Can we disprove that?
What's my point?
We shouldn't care. Maybe some things are just not meant to be understood and don't deserve the time and energy invested because it's very likely more bad than good can stem from it.
That's an interesting concept. Maybe this is a SIMS like game on someone's laptop and our entire universe isn't real. What is real? Can we prove anything is real? The answer is no we can't.
Maybe all of this is just a three dimensional representation of a four dimensional universe on the equivalent of someone's lap top in the 4-D universe and maybe that "person" is just a 4-D representation on the lap top of someone in a 5-D universe...and so on and so on and so on.... None of us would be capable of communicating with the "person" running the simulation in the universe that is a dimension up because we can't experience those dimensions.
All could be fantasy....
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.
