[tomder55]

You call it a singularity we say God. Sounds like semantics to me.

[Galveston1]

Lot of fun stuff here. From here forward, all of us are eternal, just as God was and is.
I doubt the big bang thing. Every big bang I ever saw blew everythlng to bits. All you Atheists base your thoughts on the presuppostition that evolution is the cause of everything. Well, things don't improve, they degenerate. We have no record of any new species appearing, but we do have record of many species disappearing. (Reverse evolution, anyone?) The earliest languages we know about are the most complex. Why not accept the reasonable path and admit the fact that our Creator gave us a book explaining all these things, as much as we can grasp, and stop drowning in a sea of hopeless unbelief. Think about this; the Bible is a collection of 66 books, penned by many different men over the period of about 2,000 years and yet has no significant internal conflicts. That continuity is not found anywhere else as far as I have ever heard. Belief in evolution as a cause of anything takes much greater "faith" than to accept the record we have.

[Capuchin]

I doubt the big bang thing. Every big bang I ever saw blew everythlng to bits.

Bits that cool down and slowly coalesce into a statistically predictable pattern? Yep, that's about right.
The big bang was not an explosion inside spacetime, but a rapid expansion of spacetime itself. The common representation of it as an explosion leads too much misunderstanding.

All you Atheists base your thoughts on the presuppostition that evolution is the cause of everything.

Everything? You're showing your ignorance here. Evolution only explains how forms of life change over time. If things did not show evidence of change over time, nobody would be arguing about evolution. Thus it certainly wasn't presupposed. Sorry. Facts before theory is how all good science works.

Well, things don't improve, they degenerate.

Who says?

We have no record of any new species appearing, but we do have record of many species disappearing.

Wrong. How do you define species? How about wheat? That certainly looks nothing like the original crop that we have evolved it from. Sheep? Domestic sheep can no longer produce offspring with wild sheep as they have evolved, would this not be a new species? How about nylonase? (hint: there are many more.. )

The earliest languages we know about are the most complex.

Exactly, the earliest languages we know about. These are still very complex languages on par with the complexity of ours today. Language developed long before anyone worked out how to write it down.
In any case. This has nothing to do with evolution.

Why not accept the reasonable path and admit the fact that our Creator gave us a book explaining all these things, as much as we can grasp, and stop drowning in a sea of hopeless unbelief. Think about this; the Bible is a collection of 66 books, penned by many different men over the period of about 2,000 years and yet has no significant internal conflicts. That continuity is not found anywhere else as far as I have ever heard. Belief in evolution as a cause of anything takes much greater "faith" than to accept the record we have.

No significant internal conflicts? Like how entire towns should be burned if one person worships a God other than the biblical one (somewhere in Deuteronomy, I believe), but of course, "Thou shall not kill" (also in Deuteronomy)? How is that not conflicting? I suppose something was lost in translation somewhere? So how can we trust the translations we have now?

You think that a path of creationism, with no solid evidence, a path that is untestable, a path that is fundamentally useless to the progression of technology is somehow more reasonable than the "path" of evolution, which has shown itself to be accurate time and time again over the past 150 years, with hundreds of vaccines and farming methods based off it? Please...

I also want to point out a laughable contradiction you made. You say that evolution is a "sea of hopeless unbelief", then you claim that "Belief in evolution as a cause of anything takes much greater "faith" than to accept the record we have.". How can both these things be true? Which is it?

In short, evolution is observable fact. Tests of evolutionary theory show it to be accurate again and again. Creationism is faith. Believe it if you wish but just know that it has no use in the real world.

[inthebox]

"Evolution only explains how forms of life change over time. If things did not show evidence of change over time, nobody would be arguing about evolution. Thus it certainly wasn't presupposed. Sorry. Facts before theory is how all good science works."


Oldest Horseshoe Crab Fossil Discovered | LiveScience

Prior fossils were dated back to 350 million years. These new discoveries now date 105 million years older to 455 million years ago.


"We wouldn't necessarily have expected horseshoe crabs to look very much like the modern ones, but that's exactly what they look like," Rudkin said.
"This body plan that they've INVENTED, they've stayed with it for almost a HALF A BILLION YEARS. It's a good plan," Rudkin told LiveScience. "They've survived almost UNCHANGED up until the present day, whereas lots of other animals haven't."



Please forgive my biases, but you would think that our fellow primates would get with the program and "evolve" to the more dominant and superior species. ;)

[Capuchin]

Please forgive my biases, but you would think that our fellow primates would get with the program and "evolve" to the more dominant and superior species. ;)

I don't get your point?

[inthebox]

"You think that a path of creationism, with no solid evidence, a path that is untestable, a path that is fundamentally useless to the progression of technology is somehow more reasonable than the "path" of evolution, which has shown itself to be accurate time and time again over the past 150 years, with hundreds of vaccines and farming methods based off of it? Please...."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did vaccines, better farming methods, cars, computers etc... come about randomly or through human INTELLIGENCE?

Lets see Creationism teaches that we were INTELLIGENTLY designed by God, created for Him.

Evolution teaches us that humans are here due to random chance.

Here is another example of facts versus theory.

First Detailed Map Of Nuclear Pore Complex Made

"The scientists’ results have given them a peek into the early evolution of eukaryotic cells, the cells that make up all higher organisms, from people to plants to fungi. These cells split off from their progenitors when THEY DEVELOPED a nucleus and other specialized organelles that allowed them to compartmentalize different aspects of cellular metabolism."


It took 9 years, three lab, computer power and modeling, countless man hours
to decipher the nuclear pore complex. and these prokaryotic cells developed their own nucleus - purely by chance.?

[inthebox]

Horseshoe crabs have not changed in half a billion years because they have such a good plan.

Do you think we have a better plan than our fellow primates, especially our intelligence?

If so, why are chimps and gorillas still around, unless we did not evolve from them.

[Capuchin]

Why are chimps and gorillas still around, unless we did not evolve from them.

We did not.

Evolution is not random.

You've pretty much shown the height of ignorance of how evolution works in your last 2 posts.

[inthebox]

We did not?. evolve from them?

So evolution, if not random, is intentional? Whose intention?

Please educate me on evolution.

[Galveston1]

If evolution is so irrefutable, why is it that many of those who believe in to do everything within their power to keep young students from being permitted to hear anything about intelligent design? Afraid they might not swallow the idea of accidental complexity?

[Capuchin]

We did not?... evolve from them?

So evolution, if not random, is intentional? Whose intention?

Please educate me on evolution.

Both us an modern apes evolved from a single ape-like ancestor. The animal that was left behind died out long ago. We are different twigs on the same branch.

The mutation of genes is random, of course. But the selective pressure that competition for resources provides means that only beneficial mutations are passed on. This is very ordered - a generational selection process of the animals best mutated to take advantage of a resource. There is no intent behind it, it's just a very complex phenomenon arising from a very simple process - similar organisms fighting for the same resources.

[Capuchin]

If evolution is so irrefutable, why is it that many of those who believe in to do everything within their power to keep young students from being permitted to hear anything about intelligent design? Afraid they might not swallow the idea of accidental complexity?

I don't think anyone has a problem with kids being taught intelligent design. The problem is with it being taught in science class. It is a long stretch from being scientific, there is no evidence, it makes no observable predictions etc. etc. etc. All things that a scientific theory must do, and all things that evolution does by the bucketloads.

Again, evolution is not accidental, it's actually incredibly systematic, unpredictable but systematic.

[excon]

Hello in:

If you flip a coin long enough, you'll find that heads comes up 50% of the time. That's not a random number. It's a law of nature. It just happens that way without intervention.

You, however, apparently think that God intended that to happen or it would not happen, and heads might always come up.

I wouldn't know how to convince you that it happens, automatically, without intention. Because that's how evolution happens, automatically, without intention. Without intention species that evolved without survival skills died off. Without intention, species with survival skills passed on those skills (genes), and the species, for lack of a better word, survived.

It happened like that just assuredly as coin flipping will follow the rules. It happens automatically, without intervention, and without intention.

excon

[Galveston1]

No significant internal conflicts? Like how entire towns should be burned if one person worships a God other than the biblical one (somewhere in Deuteronomy, I believe), but of course, "Thou shall not kill" (also in Deuteronomy)? How is that not conflicting? I suppose something was lost in translation somewhere? So how can we trust the translations we have now?

I don't expect you will understand this, but the destruction of the Caananites was necessary to keep the lineage of Jesus Christ from being assimilated and destroyed before His birth. Otherwise, the promise God gave to Eve of a descendent who would destroy Satan would have failed. Murder was forbidden, execution for crimes was not.

I also want to point out a laughable contradiction you made. You say that evolution is a "sea of hopeless unbelief", then you claim that "Belief in evolution as a cause of anything takes much greater "faith" than to accept the record we have.". How can both these things be true? Which is it?

Both. Your unbelief in anyone greater than yourself puts you in the position of trying to reach any eternal bliss without map or compass. Howevcer, you do "believe" in random chance as a FIRST CAUSE. You have to, because there is absolutely no proof of such being possible. Where has it ever been observed?

[inthebox]

Teach the facts, the actually observed tested fact - let people come to their own conclusion.

How can evoultion be tested when it is a retrospective observation? First you believe in evolution, then you take the actual facts and attribute it to evolution.

Is that science?

Evolution has it backward.

Christianity [ and I think Islam and Judaism ] tells its believers to look forward to life; a life that has purpose, meaning, and innumerable possibilities to glorify God by trusting in Him. 1 Thess 1:3

[oneguyinohio]

If evolution is so irrefutable, why is it that many of those who believe in to do everything within their power to keep young students from being permitted to hear anything about intelligent design? Afraid they might not swallow the idea of accidental complexity?

And on the opposite side, why do intelligent design advocates fear the evolution teachings? Afraid their religious beliefs won't be swallowed by the masses without a trace of evidence?

Imagine if church profitably taught evolution? What need would there be to dispute it then?

If the bible says that man was created in God's image, who was there to see what that image looked like? Eve? Look at all the variety in Man... eye color, weight, height, skin color, and intelligence levels to name a few... Tell me which one was in God's image??

If a moment of time for God is 10,000 years for us, how can you know what happened in an hour of God's time during the world's creation... It doesn't tell how the creation was done, nor what happened in the process... That's a matter of interpretation.

[Galveston1]

Hi, ExCon. Passing genes on to offspring. OK. In that context explain the ant or honeybee, or any of several insect species. The parents exibit none of the beneficial traits of their offspring. Everything is designed in by intellect.

[Galveston1]

If a moment of time for God is 10,000 years for us, how can you know what happened in an hour of God's time during the world's creation... It doesn't tell how the creation was done, nor what happened in the process... That's a matter of interpretation.[/QUOTE]

Aha! You admit to a Creator!

[oneguyinohio]

To a creation

[Capuchin]

Teach the facts, the actually observed tested fact - let people come to their own conclusion.

How can evoultion be tested when it is a retrospective observation? First you believe in evolution, then you take the actual facts and attribute it to evolution.

Is that science?

Evolution has it backward.

Christianity [ and I think Islam and Judaism ] tells its believers to look forward to life; a life that has purpose, meaning, and innumerable possibilities to glorify God by trusting in Him. 1 Thess 1:3

I think what you mean by "retrospective observation" is "prediction". And yes, that is how science works, how else would you test your theories? Of course evolution wasn't formulated by prediction, but by observation. But we test well founded theories through prediction.