Re: Creation and evolution aside,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Von Milash
I can't beleive how many people in this forum are going to burn in hell. :cwm23:
just because something can't be proven, doesn't mean it isn't real. I guess all the evolutionists, who can't prove it happened, also doubt the existence of the atom. If God can't be proven, he aint there. If the atom can't be proven, it aint there. If evolution can't be proven, it didn't happen.
See, we all accept theories as fact when it supports our argument. But the theories that don't, we dismiss them as unproven, or even conspiracy.
I believe evolution happend because someone wanted it. I believe that someone is God....some cosmic power that resides over us. Just because it can't be proven, doesn't make it less real.
See, if you truly understood science, you would know that entropy renders us basically impossible. How did things become more complex? They can't. DNA couldn't have just formed frmo whatever. And then to form life from it? Come on. Couldn't have happened no mater how many BILLIOBS pon billions of years you gave it. Basic laws say that entropy increases. DNA is the very opposite. We are evidence of something that overcame the basic lws of physics. We may have come from crude forms of humans, and them from apes, but this contradicts the laws of physics. But what is striking is non-believers seem to ignore that if we did come from eviolution (which again, I don't argue), then how come no other species of life took a similar evlotionary path? What made us MAGNITUDES more advanced than the next closest animal on earth? We are not random. Someone, somewhere did this.
Entropy does make the evolutionary concept impossible. If however we started out better, say living 900 years, given that entropy is in effect we would be getting worse and worse. As our dna is copied there is more likely to be errors, and loss of information. Gaining information is impossible. Another piece of evidence against evolution is the existence of larger lifeforms. Dinosaurs, bugs, and mostly all the animals we know lived "millions" of years ago, were much bigger than lifeforms now. Is getting smaller and weaker better? If they started out as single celled lifeforms, and grew into multicelled complex lifeforms that are continuing to evolve into more complex forms, how did they get so big millions of years ago, but now are smaller? It doesn't fit the model. So the model is wrong or there is some other reason.
Re: Creation and evolution aside,
I'm not sold on evolution either, but does that mean the only other option is the god you speak of?
Re: Creation and evolution aside,
The law of entropy is actually the law of UNIVERSAL entropy and it is about energy, nothing to do with 'rendering us basically impossible' ::**
The next dominant lifeform on the planet will be Artificial Intelligence. Minuturization has meant that they have, indeed, 'evolved' to be smaller and have more processing power.
So will they have been created by God, or by us, or will they have evolved?
Why is 'God' also 'Dog' backwards? Why does Ozzy always tell people to kill themselves when you play his songs backwards - does that make him a god or a dog?
If god created man in his own image, why do we all look different if there is no such thing as evolution?
Re: Creation and evolution aside,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missy
yes. If they don't like it, forgive us.
Missy,
You and any of the other evolution supporters that have posted on this topic, haven't offered a single bit of discussion about the points of evolution. You have been unable to stay on topic, unable to decipher between science and philosophy, and unable to be genuine, only making snide comments.
I haven't made a single insulting or "arrogant" statement. I have been mocked and called names for questioning your beliefs. You act as if I am some fool trying to convince people that santa claus exists when we all know better ;). The thing is that this topic is supposed to be on the merits of evolution vs creation. Whether someone is a christian or any other religion is not relevant to the topic. This is in genera. Did everything appear in order, capable of supporting life, randomly or by design? You believe that science has proven that random chance is responsible. I believe that there is no science to support that only conjecture and theory. You should be able to easily prove me wrong without ever having to bring up any philosophical argument, or any other non scientific argument.
If you are unable to prove your point, it doesn't mean that my theory is correct. It means that your theory isn't science and is also religion. Is this too difficult to understand??? Do you think that evolution is possible simply because the Biblical account is unbelievable to you? Proving one wrong doesn't prove the other to be true, it just eliminates that possibility. The problem is that in this topic there aren't very many plausible options. It really comes down to accident or design. Which side you are on isn't neccessarily a religious statement. There are many scientists that don't believe the Bible, but know that there had to be a creator because science has no answers. Don't mischaracterize my position. It's the easy way out. If you objectively weight the facts you will find nothing on your side of the scale. That is my entire argument. And whether I am a religious person or not doesn't affect your lack of evidence. It would seem that by discrediting me you think it lends evidence to your argument. That is a childish reasoning. Let the facts stand on there own. Any chance you can do that? Or are you afraid that if you really examine it you won't like the results?
Re: Creation and evolution aside,
Quote:
Originally Posted by raleights
I'm not sold on evolution either, but does that mean the only other option is the god you speak of?
No, I have faith in the God I BELIEVE in.
However there is either chance or creation. I am not neccessarily right about who God is. God could exist and my beliefs could be wrong.
Re: Creation and evolution aside,
Quote:
Originally Posted by X
The law of entropy is actually the law of UNIVERSAL entropy and it is about energy, nothing to do with 'rendering us basically impossible' ::**
The next dominant lifeform on the planet will be Artificial Intelligence. Minuturization has meant that they have, indeed, 'evolved' to be smaller and have more processing power.
So will they have been created by God, or by us, or will they have evolved?
Why is 'God' also 'Dog' backwards? Why does Ozzy always tell people to kill themselves when you play his songs backwards - does that make him a god or a dog?
If god created man in his own image, why do we all look different if there is no such thing as evolution?
Sticking to the scientific part of these questions....
Are you sure about the application of entropy? It renders improvement without a mechanism to harness energy impossible. I thought we were getting bigger, stronger, and faster? You are confusing technology with life forms. And by the way these technological advances didn't happen randomly. Alot of people have been working very hard to make improvements.
The other questions you pose aren't relevent to this topic. Start another thread about religion and I will address them with my opinions, but not this one. The great and mighty science should be ruling this debate.
Re: Creation and evolution aside,
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvfightgame
trying to convince people that santa claus exists when we all know better?
Eh? What are you trying to say. Are you trying to deny Santa's existence?
Where do all the presents come from then, they are created by him and his elves - they certainly do not evolve through random chance and appear magically from nothing. many different cultures have a concept of santa, and ancient people's with sophisticated societies belived they were visited once a year by 'Sinterklaas'. I leave a glass of port out every year for him, and it's gone in the morning - explain that, then!!!!
You must not deny the existence of santa (like the apostle Rudolph did 3 times), or you will get no presents next year. All your actions are judged and then rewarded by santa at the end of the year.
If you don't believe in Santa, you must be the Anti-Santa
;)
Re: Creation and evolution aside,
Quote:
Originally Posted by X
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvfightgame
trying to convince people that santa claus exists when we all know better?
Eh? What are you trying to say. Are you trying to deny Santa's existence?
Where do all the presents come from then, they are created by him and his elves - they certainly do not evolve through random chance and appear magically from nothing. many different cultures have a concept of santa, and ancient people's with sophisticated societies belived they were visited once a year by 'Sinterklaas'. I leave a glass of port out every year for him, and it's gone in the morning - explain that, then!!!!
You must not deny the existence of santa (like the apostle Rudolph did 3 times), or you will get no presents next year. All your actions are judged and then rewarded by santa at the end of the year.
If you don't believe in Santa, you must be the Anti-Santa
;)
X,
I don't quite get your humour, but you are definitely very witty. C.C. anyway. I see it in almost all your posts, your damn smart, but just a little off your rocker in my opinion...
:coolclick:
Re: Creation and evolution aside,
Quote:
Originally Posted by X
If you don't believe in Santa, you must be the Anti-Santa[/color]
;)
I heard that in Birmingham, they are banning Santa and his little helpers this Christmas?
Bloody Antisanterians >:mad
Re: Creation and evolution aside,
X,
sorry, but you're flat out wring wrt to entropy. Entropy says that randomness can only increase. Forming DNA that has increasingly more complexity to carry genetic information goes against all of the laws of nature. And science.
Re: Creation and evolution aside,
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvfightgame
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missy
yes. If they don't like it, forgive us.
Missy,
You and any of the other evolution supporters that have posted on this topic, haven't offered a single bit of discussion about the points of evolution. You have been unable to stay on topic, unable to decipher between science and philosophy, and unable to be genuine, only making snide comments.
I haven't made a single insulting or "arrogant" statement. I have been mocked and called names for questioning your beliefs. You act as if I am some fool trying to convince people that santa claus exists when we all know better ;). The thing is that this topic is supposed to be on the merits of evolution vs creation. Whether someone is a christian or any other religion is not relevant to the topic. This is in genera. Did everything appear in order, capable of supporting life, randomly or by design? You believe that science has proven that random chance is responsible. I believe that there is no science to support that only conjecture and theory. You should be able to easily prove me wrong without ever having to bring up any philosophical argument, or any other non scientific argument.
If you are unable to prove your point, it doesn't mean that my theory is correct. It means that your theory isn't science and is also religion. Is this too difficult to understand??? Do you think that evolution is possible simply because the Biblical account is unbelievable to you? Proving one wrong doesn't prove the other to be true, it just eliminates that possibility. The problem is that in this topic there aren't very many plausible options. It really comes down to accident or design. Which side you are on isn't neccessarily a religious statement. There are many scientists that don't believe the Bible, but know that there had to be a creator because science has no answers. Don't mischaracterize my position. It's the easy way out. If you objectively weight the facts you will find nothing on your side of the scale. That is my entire argument. And whether I am a religious person or not doesn't affect your lack of evidence. It would seem that by discrediting me you think it lends evidence to your argument. That is a childish reasoning. Let the facts stand on there own. Any chance you can do that? Or are you afraid that if you really examine it you won't like the results?
Why do you feel such a need to continue this debate so relentlessly? Does this stuff prevent you from sleeping at night? You believe what you believe and others are doing the same. I happen to think science is somewhat more plausible in this debate and you disagree with me. But neither of us are able to persuade the other that one of us is wrong in this. Thats why I choose now to abstain from wasting my valuable time so extensively in this thread. You should do the same. There are no winners in this kind of debate.
I believe in bacon and sausages for breakfast and its a shame I can enjoy that pleasure only twice a year...these are the things that should really prey on a mans mind!!! ;D
Re: Creation and evolution aside,
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvfightgame
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missy
yes. If they don't like it, forgive us.
Missy,
You and any of the other evolution supporters that have posted on this topic, haven't offered a single bit of discussion about the points of evolution. You have been unable to stay on topic, unable to decipher between science and philosophy, and unable to be genuine, only making snide comments.
I haven't made a single insulting or "arrogant" statement. I have been mocked and called names for questioning your beliefs. You act as if I am some fool trying to convince people that santa claus exists when we all know better ;). The thing is that this topic is supposed to be on the merits of evolution vs creation. Whether someone is a christian or any other religion is not relevant to the topic. This is in genera. Did everything appear in order, capable of supporting life, randomly or by design? You believe that science has proven that random chance is responsible. I believe that there is no science to support that only conjecture and theory. You should be able to easily prove me wrong without ever having to bring up any philosophical argument, or any other non scientific argument.
If you are unable to prove your point, it doesn't mean that my theory is correct. It means that your theory isn't science and is also religion. Is this too difficult to understand??? Do you think that evolution is possible simply because the Biblical account is unbelievable to you? Proving one wrong doesn't prove the other to be true, it just eliminates that possibility. The problem is that in this topic there aren't very many plausible options. It really comes down to accident or design. Which side you are on isn't neccessarily a religious statement. There are many scientists that don't believe the Bible, but know that there had to be a creator because science has no answers. Don't mischaracterize my position. It's the easy way out. If you objectively weight the facts you will find nothing on your side of the scale. That is my entire argument. And whether I am a religious person or not doesn't affect your lack of evidence. It would seem that by discrediting me you think it lends evidence to your argument. That is a childish reasoning. Let the facts stand on there own. Any chance you can do that? Or are you afraid that if you really examine it you won't like the results?
And I might add that though god and creationsm are connected, this thread is actually about god or the lack of god....
Re: Creation and evolution aside,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Von Milash
X,
sorry, but you're flat out wring wrt to entropy. Entropy says that randomness can only increase. Forming DNA that has increasingly more complexity to carry genetic information goes against all of the laws of nature. And science.
I'm not sure about that.
But ...... me bad :'(
Re: Creation and evolution aside,
Which came first Gravity or Capilery attraction
Re: Creation and evolution aside,
This entertaining thread seems to have gone quiet.
So ............ if evolution doesn't exist, how come black people and white people have brown babies together?
*stir*stir
