Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong

Quote from killthesunshine:

jem,

do you see the wisdom in stu's post:

The flip side of not being able to prove something isn't more of the same.
Can't prove God , can't prove big bang , would be one side of the same coin surely?

On the flip side of the coin might be things that can be proved.
Like for instance the power which you say must guide the universe. Gravity does exactly that.

The universe from a dot or from nowhere is something unimaginable, but a creator from nothing or nowhere is something imaginable.
Yet a creator is on the unproven side of the coin. The universe on the flipside.

How come the universe is not already all the things any divine power could ever be described as?

Isn't the principle of self-awareness across all living things primarily survival?
Morals and ethics themselves must come before religion. Otherwise how if religion is supposed to be a foundation for life, could anyone have a moral or ethical motivation to say it was?

Prove with 100% accuracy?
Religion is certainty without fact. On the flipside, science is fact without certainty.

Around the edge of the coin I suggest, are those things that have facts and proofs in them but have not yet been proven in all aspects themselves. Like big bang


how much more reasonable do we atheists need to be for god's sake?
More...

You have to be kidding me... the wisdow in Stu's post? He has been saying for years there is no scientific evidence of a Creator.

I have been providing him more and more proof every year.
Now you think high school philosophy is a substitute for science?

Real physicists have been adding up numbers such as these

"British physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for later star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes, at least. He also estimates that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by only one part in 10,100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the big bang’s low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 10 to the 123rd power

a person with wisdom would say:

yes there is evidence of a designer but that does not me we have to conclude there is a designer.

This is not a debate about religion. I am not saying who the designer is or what he does. You keep talking religion while the reasonable keep talking science.
 
What are the Christian's and thiest's end game here? Even if they did have the scientific evidence to strike down secular theory after secular theory it still wouldn't make the argument for the existence of their god any stronger unless they had evidence that their god existed. Without any evidence, the Christians and thiests are simply against certain theories and beliefs not because they consider it false, but because they plain just don't like it.
 
Quote from NeoRio1:

What are the Christian's and thiest's end game here? Even if they did have the scientific evidence to strike down secular theory after secular theory it still wouldn't make the argument for the existence of their god any stronger unless they had evidence that their god existed. Without any evidence, the Christians and thiests are simply against certain theories and beliefs not because they consider it false, but because they plain just don't like it.
More...

I swear to God, no pun intended, I just cannot believe the thick heads you people have. The very same argument could be used against you.
Here we go, read it really slow. You must get past all the christian, thiest, religious terminology you are in love with. It ain't about that! Science has made a fairly compelling argument that about 13.7 billion years ago our universe was really, really, really, really small, and very dense, kinda' like you. For some reason this really small thing blew up and expanded in to the universe we now know. However, no matter how small the universe once was, there was something that did exist. What the real truth seekers are trying to determine is the why and how of that event. Get over your hard on for religion and you'll take a huge step on the path towards discovery. Until you take that step you are lost in the abyss of your own personal bias and political agenda.

BTW, I do not, nor have I ever practiced any sort of organized religion.
 
Quote from CaptainObvious:

I swear to God, no pun intended, I just cannot believe the thick heads you people have. The very same argument could be used against you.
Here we go, read it really slow. You must get past all the christian, thiest, religious terminology you are in love with. It ain't about that! Science has made a fairly compelling argument that about 13.7 billion years ago our universe was really, really, really, really small, and very dense, kinda' like you. For some reason this really small thing blew up and expanded in to the universe we now know. However, no matter how small the universe once was, there was something that did exist. What the real truth seekers are trying to determine is the why and how of that event. Get over your hard on for religion and you'll take a huge step on the path towards discovery. Until you take that step you are lost in the abyss of your own personal bias and political agenda.

BTW, I do not, nor have I ever practiced any sort of organized religion.
More...

The argument can be turned around because there is no actual fact about creation but Christians look about 10x dumber for even engaging in it. They look dumber because instead of using the most up to date concepts of scientific research, they use a book that is 2,000 years old. That is what I was saying.

Look at it this way. One group of people thinks the world will end in 2012 because of an ancient calendar. Another group of people (scientists) thinks the world will end when the sun becomes a super giant and engulfs the earth. Which group of people look smarter? Is it really that thick headed and dense to say that the scientists look smarter in this argument? I don't think so.
 
Quote from jem:

You have to be kidding me... the wisdow in Stu's post? He has been saying for years there is no scientific evidence of a Creator.

I have been providing him more and more proof every year.
Now you think high school philosophy is a substitute for science?

Real physicists have been adding up numbers such as these

"British physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for later star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes, at least. He also estimates that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by only one part in 10,100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the big bang’s low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 10 to the 123rd power

a person with wisdom would say:

yes there is evidence of a designer but that does not me we have to conclude there is a designer.

This is not a debate about religion. I am not saying who the designer is or what he does. You keep talking religion while the reasonable keep talking science.
More...

A thousand billion billion zeroes against, is evidence of a thousand billion billion zeroes against. It is not evidence of a creator (designer).

But even if there were a thousand billion billion zeroes against, there is a universe against any odds.

So what now the odds against a creator (designer) for which there is no such comparison of existence? Your bible odds making site not do that calc? Too many zeroes even for them?

The universe is evidence of a universe, nothing else.

The universe is everything a creator (designer) could be.
You want to see a designer while you're staring right into it.

Talk about can't see the wood for the trees.
 
Anyway thanks for the kindly words KTS. .... woo that certainly agitated the para-military wing of the ET 'Ignorance Through God Forever ' faction. The Guardians Of Darkness:eek:
 
Quote from stu:

Anyway thanks for the kindly words KTS. .... woo that certainly agitated the para-military wing of the ET 'Ignorance Through God Forever ' faction. The Guardians Of Darkness:eek:
More...

No grounds for pride. The other guys hold their convictions as dearly as you do yours.
 
Quote from killthesunshine:

if you can't see the diff you have a BIG problem processing REALITY
More...

You have a problem, though I'm not going to call it "big". The scientific worldview is but one. So I do in fact see a difference, but my overview is greater.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top