Ever Notice this about all religion ???

Well, god probably made chemistry the way it is so life can arise naturally.

Nothing you've said negates the requirement of a "first cause" aka G-d.

 

Thank you for your evolution story.

 

This is what I don't get...

Out of the blue... you randomly use your imagination to come up with an "explanation" and believe it...

...Instead of listening to a theory that has solid evidence and has been researched over and over again by some of the most brilliant scientist ever alive.

But because it's not 100% proven.. you'd rather just believe some whacko idea your imagination created in 3 seconds?

HAHAHAH!

 

I'm honestly confused about which side of the argument you're talking about. Hard for me to believe you're saying the first cause argument isn't represented by the most brilliant scientists AND the most brilliant philosophers.

 

From a scientific perspective, whether true or not, creationism is irrelevant, because it doesn't explain natural phenomenons and doesn't lend to future discoveries.

People are free to believe whatever myths they want, be it greek mythology, native american mythology, or jewish mythology, but if you're going to try and understand why tuberculosis is now becoming resistant to penicillin, or why giraffes have long necks or why humans have nails, appendices and coccyx, evolution is where it's at.

Saying tuberculosis is making a comeback because god is angry would be counterproductive, if not downright dangerous, just like christians that were insisting the sun turns around the earth, the earth is flat or that humans weren't animals and persecuted the brilliant scientists who said otherwise for the sake of their little dogmatic house of cards.

 

lol.
if you ever want to keep your job, never ever told your boss that they are retarded for what ever reasons even if they really are retarded.
that plain stupid.
specially for someone who did it twice.

not ALL atheist are smart people.

 

Here's something for you guys to think about.....
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.htm

Proving evolution isn't all that easy fellows, which is what u guys are DESPERATELY trying to do here. There are simply too many question marks for you to answer them.
And it is clearly stated by SCIENTISTS that among the fossils there is no concrete proof of transitional forms, I guess they believe in a sky-daddy too.

 

LOL is that what your god has been reduced to? It went from god created everything to god created life and now we are down to god probably created chemistry?

I don't know how many times i have to explain the same simple things to you.
1. fossils don't form easily so we never expected to have a detailed account of all transitions
2. We do have some transitional fossils which prove it does happen.

 

Um no, we're not trying anything, especially not desperately, we're *informing* people like you, who seem to be out of touch with the modern world, of the current state of science. What you make of it depends on your intellectual capacities.

It's up to the people with outlandish claims and crazy speculations to prove their point, not the people with the widely accepted, thoroughly tested prevalent scientific theory that have produced practical results. Changing subjects, misinterpreting details and never showing any evidence of your own is not considered a serious scientific process.

And spare me the list of links to kooky sites from religious fanatics. Show me articles in major scientific publications supported by a strong consensus of world scientists and I'll have a look. Meanwhile, if you really have a *scientific* theory of your own that contradicts evolution, present it. You're the fringe minority that need to convince the world. Don't dwell on some technicalities of evolution that aren't fully understood yet. Show your definitive facts that *positively* proves creationism. Show us how it can be practically used for scientific progress and new discoveries.

That's what I thought.

Oh and before you say the normal people around you are creationists, first, that's not an argument, "normal people" are usually ignorant on matter sof science, second, if you live in some backward US state mostly populated by uneducated red necks and religious kooks, that's hardly a compelling argument. What good has ever come from these places? Remind me of the latest scientific revolution or new age of reason that originated from some southern backwoods? Yeah.. we're more used to seeing obscurantism, superstition, ignorance and resistance to progress from simple conservative bible folks than anything else.

Even the catholic church has finally accepted evolution. Maybe it's time the backwoods preachers and their congregation of old ladies followed suit.

 

I never make a decision, even about software, based on the beta version, so I think I'll wait 'till the final version is done and see if it's still buggy.

 

Beta software is better than vaporware.

 

So until you make a decision about using the beta version of an astronomy software, which works already pretty well for most of the world's leading astronomers to use on a daily basis, you prefer to read the astrology section in the paper instead and laugh when someone get the odd error message? The whole concept of astrology is an error message.

 

ok, for an instance let's leave the fosssil thing, but I think you guys are trying to avoid other reasonable questions raised in those links.

Kindly do not see where those statements are written rather see what is written and try to answer that, the site may be made by a fanatic, but he had pretty solid arguments along with remarks from some scientisits!

You said, "Don't dwell on some technicalities of evolution that aren't fully understood yet"......That's exactly i'm trying to say that there are some small "holes" in your evolution theory, glad you accepted it.

Dr. W. R. Thompson, world-renowned entomologist, who for many years was director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control in Ottawa, Canada. So prestigious a scientist was Dr. Thompson that in 1959 he was selected to write the foreword to the centennial edition of the publication of Darwin's 'Origin of Species'. That foreword is a broadside attack against evolution by one of the world's greatest scientists. It is worth reading. In it he says: "This situation, where men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science." He later states, "The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity."

And here's the truth about the "MISSING LINK" i was talking about and Stox said that ONE is enough, i think u might have heard about the piltdown man?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

The discoverer had to forge it and show as if it was 500,000 years old but 40 years after its discovery it turned out to be only 2000 years old!

I'd rather say...stop believing in evolutiuon as a faith!

 

Even at the time people were skeptical of piltdown. It was a hoax, one hoax, it's certainly not sufficient to invalidate an entire theory supported by thousands of pieces of mutually supporting evidence and it certainly doesn;t invalidate Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, Homo rudolfensis, Homo habilis..

It's also worth pointing out that it was scientists who exposed it as a hoax, Because in science the truth is important.

 

All I read is someone who says he disagrees with evolution, not someone who provides facts that discredit it. There are always people who disagrees. Some respected engineers think we never went to the moon and that it was a hoax. Of course, they do the same as creationists or other conspirationists, they just obsessively focus on a few details that are can be confusing to try and discredit the whole idea.

There will always be hoaxes that baffle even scientists, but science eventually catch up to them. Again, a few hoaxes don't discredit the general idea. The whole thing with the missing link is rather just sensationalism. Say you have a series of numbers, like 1 2 3 4 5 X 7 8 9 where X represent a missing number. You have to work with what you get. Mathematicians will say that it looks like a series and that the most probable value will be 6. Creationists say that X doesn't exists and will never be found, and that the serie is a coincidence. Now imagine if the series had a few thousands numbers all matching up and a few were missing and you get the point.

I have zero faith in evolution. I just interpret what the facts as best as I can, and it's the best model we have found so far, with the scientific approach. Sure, it may change in the future, you are never 100% certain in science. We're not really sure what atoms look like, yet our models of them have made possible nuclear energy, so our models seem to work, yet we may actually be off by a certain margin.

The problem is creationists come and obsess over the little details trying to discredit the whole scientific approach that they, themselves, benefit from, with technology, medical care, etc, and all they have to offer as an alternative explanation is "it's magic" and they want to teach that in school instead.

I'm fine if you think god created the universe (evolution doesn't deal with that), and I'm really fine with religious folks in general. I'm not fine when you want to teach astrology instead of astronomy, alchemy instead of chemistry, the four elements instead of physics, in schools, because some of our scientific model are not perfect. They will never be, but they're still 1000000% better than the superstition people are suggesting instead and try to pass as "a valid theory" or "the other side of the coin". It's not. It's obscurantism.

Yet even that retarded ex-president was in favor of this. So yes, I believe creationist are dangerous. Otherwise I wouldn't care, just as I don't care about people who think we never went to the moon or people who say the government was behind 9/11. Until they push their agenda on rational people.

 

This topic caused my mind to experience a moment of liquefaction.

Atoms are made out of marshmallows and happy rainbows apparently.

I always thought it was sub-atomic particles.

 

And if a person who believes in creationism makes such a hoax to prove his point..... every scientist and evolutionist will jump all over him and start bashing all religions for this!

You're comparing a respected scientists with conspirists just because he disagrees with you...that's how it works when a scientists criticizes evolution, evolutionists start questionsing his credibility!

If someone believes in something without 100% proof of it, and does not even give a chance to a thought that it may be false................THAT'S CALLED FAITH!

 

We should conduct more experiments to see if the universe can arise from random chance with no intelligent purpose. Im sure the atheists will keep telling us that this is possible and ignore common sense. Maybe they believe in magic.
Im very close to making another experiment

Common sense tells me that the incredibly complexity of our universe on every level cant be created out of nothing or magic.

 

Would you mind not trying to reduce an otherwise interesting thread to manufactured strawman arguments and intentional misrepresentations pong? You have to realise that the fact that you personally don't get it or can't get your head around something is not actually an argument against it. I know that's all you are capable of, what with your limited understanding of the subject at hand, But grownups are talking... so run along.

Well that's because all "evidence" that supposedly supports creationism is either manufactured or simply incorrect. And it's not like other creationists will be running to disprove the evidence. The whole creationism movement relies on falsehoods, So they aren't likely to go around disproving their own argument are they.

 

Is there not one other person who hasn't completely made their mind up yet?

To me, that brings all of your intellectual honesty into question... well, the ones who even try to pretend to have it at least.