Reply With Quote
I have now typed this question for the fourth time.
How did the diversity of life we see on Earth today come to be?
Seriously, it's annoying to see nothing but the foolishness of atheists believing science is on their sides and the foolishness of creationists believing that finding (or pretending to find) one hole in evolution somehow validates their religious fantasy.
I have now typed this question for the fourth time.
How did the diversity of life we see on Earth today come to be?
Wrong debate, tbh.
What is the right question?
Just wondering?
I don't like either extreme.
1) Evolutionists typically support the Big Bang, which is why I grouped it
2) Do you disagree with my assessment? I'm guessing so considering you asked for a citation. I suppose that supports why you support the Big Bang.. nothing cause nothing to make nothing explode into something, etc, etc...
3) No, there is no support. At least there are do entation of a higher power existing.
4) There's a difference. Spiderman is science fiction, AKA, labeled not real. Nice try.. try using a better example next time.
^ Pretty sure you don't have the education to be able to rationally discuss either evolution or the "Big Bang".
And you do? LOL, just because you have some sort of degree makes you an expert on the subject? Have you ever observed evolution in the lab or anywhere for that matter?
Haha... I bet I know a of a lot more than you. Try me.
You are doing nothing but proving my point. Don't agree with an atheist = you're dumb, unqualified or uneducated
I guess, "Was the universe designed, or is it just accidental?" is a decent way to phrase the question. Theism vs atheism is a matter of purpose, not method; a question of why, not how. Even if that seems counter-intuitive.
Because the cosmic microwave background and the cosmological redshift indicate a finite age tbh.
They also support the theory of gravity as well. Why don't you group every common belief most of them share, while you're at it?
You were asked a question about the origin of the universe, and your response had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the question you were asked.
First you use special pleading. Then you use non-sequiturs. Now you are using strawmen. Nobody claimed that "nothing exploded into something." You are attacking a position nobody in this thread made.2) Do you disagree with my assessment? I'm guessing so considering you asked for a citation. I suppose that supports why you support the Big Bang.. nothing cause nothing to make nothing explode into something, etc, etc...
There's a story created by simpletons born thousands of years ago that contradicts itself constantly. Why should anybody believe what is written in the Bible when it completely contradicts what is possible?3) No, there is no support. At least there are do entation of a higher power existing.
Oh, I'm sorry--I didn't see the significance of Spider-Man's more fantastical elements on how believable he is.4) There's a difference. Spiderman is science fiction, AKA, labeled not real. Nice try.. try using a better example next time.
So, to get this straight: a guy who was bitten by a radioactive spider and then gained super powers is not possible, but a man who can walk on water, raise the dead, heal people by merely touching them, multiply food magically, and come back from being dead for three days, is perfectly believable?
What is the difference? That one story is hundreds of years older than the other one? That billions believe one story to be actually true? What exactly makes the second person more believable than the first?
Ok.
Thats a tough question.
There are clearly some rules that govern the way the universe behaves that are known to us and are predictive. I really don't know if that means accidental or designed.
Exactly. That's why the debate is stupid. It's between people who believe that a book someone wrote thousands of years ago trumps centuries of empirical investigation and people who think that finding out how something works somehow proves it wasn't made.
How is it that RNA can self replicate given precursor RNA strands and that some RNA precursor sequences replicate more efficiently and become the most abundant sequences yet this does not occur with DNA?
he does have the education to discuss feline topics though.
It proves that one has no reason to come to the conclusion that said thing was made.
A lot of strawmen in this thread.
Why is it the theory of evolution? If it is fact, it shouldn't be a theory.
I thought the debate concerned the competing ideas explaining the diversity of life on this planet.
Specially created. Or a wonderfully rich and complex mechanism we call evolution.
I thought it spiraled into much larger questions after the above.
The theory part comes in the mechanism by which evolution occurs, not if evolution did and does occur.
This is easily a 30+ page thread
First off, it sort of does, but it doesn't make sense to try to explain it to staunch people on either side.
Secondly, who cares? It really doesn't affect anything if you believe in god or not. It doesn't prevent intellectual pursuit.
Yeah, because every religious person believes in a vacuum, so their religious beliefs have absolutely no effect whatsoever on how they view the world, and, as a result, treat other people. Yep, they either believe or don't believe. There would be absolutely no difference in one how one behaves based on their beliefs.
Fossils/bones aren't evidence of human evolution. When are people going to understand this? The only way science can scientifically prove that human evolution happened from one species to another is by DNA evidence something that we all know is impossible to get.
In other words, Evolution is not the same as Gravity..Creationism can't be scientifically proven, sure that's true..But so is human evolution.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions