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.
Change the title of this thread to "If natural selection was true, why are there constants", if you are to be correct, for evolution exists reasonably, not randomly - chance is an illusion. The theory of randomized natural selection is wrong, but evolution in essence is absolutely indisputable.
It seems to me that the question posed by the OP Lee, is meaningless, or perhaps not clearly put.
In terms of 'evilution' (since Lee's Creationist definition is remote from what evolution theory is actually about) whether constants change or remain unchanging or are altered by different conditions, whatever they are, why should it be a problem that what worked in physical terms is what we actually have, whereas what didn't in terms of what would work together long enough to produce the illusion we call 'matter' would not be around very long.
The idea that 'something' (read 'Someone' ) had to decide that it would be this way is what Lee is of course suggesting. In fact the question, correctly put, would be, how could there be constants (unchanging or not) unless God made them?
or did it eventually evolve to what we know now as constant.
Is this observed Science? Or is it Religion? Does it require GREATER FAITH to believe that these constants arose by random chance or that these laws are the natural byproduct result from a never changing constant Creator?
Wouldn't we expect randomness? but we observe constant laws of nature. So who is being Rationale?
If the theory of gods were true, why is there no proof whatsoever?
or did it eventually evolve to what we know now as constant.
Is this observed Science? Or is it Religion? Does it require GREATER FAITH to believe that these constants arose by random chance or that these laws are the natural byproduct result from a never changing constant Creator?
Wouldn't we expect randomness? but we observe constant laws of nature. So who is being Rationale?
You said the truth, but they don't agree about the truth: they have their religion of the Evolution which is the falsehood.
They are fanatic about their false religion of the Evolution, and they don't want to see any other thing as true and correct.
In fact when (lee9786) said "constant", he did not mean the arithmatic; he means the things are stable, so why they don't change according to your alleged evolution?
Again we see the difference between those who explain their position, explain the argument and present the evidence and those who simply spout religious Faith.
It is telling that Dawkins even (supposedly) conceding that a creator of some kind can't be disproved is regarded as a weakness of faith whereas bone- headed denial of everything other than Faith - based claims is considered praiseworthy strength of belief.
or did it eventually evolve to what we know now as constant.
Is this observed Science? Or is it Religion? Does it require GREATER FAITH to believe that these constants arose by random chance or that these laws are the natural byproduct result from a never changing constant Creator?
Wouldn't we expect randomness? but we observe constant laws of nature. So who is being Rationale?
Ah ha the passive aggressive "answer a question with a question". The fact is the evidence of pretty much any proof whatsoever is telling against god.
You are wrong; you only assert thing that is not correct.
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.
) had to decide that it would be this way is what Lee is of course suggesting. In fact the question, correctly put, would be, how could there be constants (unchanging or not) unless God made them?
