Its Science versus Religion Part XXXV

[ididnotnothat]

I think God created evolution.

I also know some who believe in the theory of evolution religiously.

[E20]

If you guys wanna know what was here before The Big Bang then read this:

Galactus

[SPARKY]

What was here before God was here?

Seriously, think about it for a minute. It's a bit troubling when you do so. And a good reason for another drink.

[GoldToe]

God created man to create God.

[exstatic]

Sorry, religious types: this one just made me HOWL.

[xcoriate]

Man created God

[JoeChalupa]

I too believe God created evolution.

[Useruser666]

If you guys wanna know what was here before The Big Bang then read this:

Galactus

So the universe was created by a human can opener?

[Samurai Jane]

Next time you wonder why the US schools are falling behind a lot of other countries, it is because we are becoming an anti-scientific society. If we don't like evolution or global warming, why, we can solve it by believing otherwise.

So your opinion is that if you don't believe in evolution, you must be anti-scientific?

[Samurai Jane]

If there are only "micro" evolutions, then why are there no 63 million year old dog fossils? Or for that matter, and 63 million year old mammal fossils larger than a small shrew? Only Dinosaurs. Carbon 14 dating can tell you how old fossils are. It's scientificly airtight, unless you posit a world with God as a trickster setting up things to LOOK old. Carbon 14 is a radioactive isotope that breaks down in a known, steady fashion. If you live your life according to clocks, they aren't 1/1000th as acurate as carbon 14.

I knew I shouldn't have opened this can of worms when I don't really have time for it.

Let me just start off by saying that Carbon 14 dating is not airtight. First off, it's based on the assumption that the levels of carbon is the same as it has always been. There have been recent advances in Carbon14 dating that are introducing some major anomalies in the geographic time table. I will elaborate more on this later.

[Samurai Jane]

I want to participate in this thread, but I can only do so in about 30 seconds... so here it goes...

1. Why do people have difficulty understanding that a series of micro's amounts to a macro?

2. Why is "evolution by default intelligent design?" What has lead you to believe such a thing?

3. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, but creation (as in what Creationists believe) and evolution are.

4. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and reading just about any readily available science journal (or the National Geographic) shows that Scientists are convinced.

5. Creationists often point to the "vast numbers of scientists" who doubt evolution (as a whole). The Creation Science Ins ute registers these scientists. There are over 300 of them! The number of scientists registers with the National Ins ute of Science is over 12,000. 300 out of 12,000 = vast?

6. Anyone who seeks to remove evolution from textbooks or present it as "just a theory" does a disserve to the Children of America, who are well below the standards of other industrialized nations. Evolution is indeed "just" a scientific theory... of course scientific theories are half a step away from "facts"- we aren't talking about the kind of theory you come up with to figure out who ate the last slice of cheesecake.

1.) Really? Please cite a specific example.

4.) Yes, since many scientists are convinced, we should just accept it, right? Just like it was just accepted that the world was flat. I myself accepted it until recently when I began to question it and I noted too many holes that aren't easy for me to ignore. I also read science journals, my favorite being Scientific American, and it is clear to me that there is a certain bias against anything even remotely related to Creation. It is often treated as something that only the stupidest people believe in.

I'm late for class now so I gotta jet.. to be continued!

[spurster]

Everything that is "macro" in some way is made up of "micro" parts.

Are there holes in scientific theories? Yes, that's why scientists still have science left to do.

Compared to the holes of evolution, the theory that earth is 6000 or so years old has yawning canyons. Intelligent design is better, I suppose, but lacks a mechanism that produces the intelligence, unless you bring theology into it.

It is hard to believe that random mutation and survival of the fittest could lead to the results we see, but science has become full of hard to believe things, stars and galaxies that are unbelievably big and zillions of miles away, curving space, small particles that aren't really particles, and so on.

[SPARKY]

So what was here before time began?

[Yonivore]

So what was here before time began?

God

[SPARKY]

So where'd God come from?

[Yonivore]

So where'd God come from?

He's always been

[SPARKY]

been what? where?

[Yonivore]

You guys are chasing your tails.

Any scientist worth his weight in atoms will tell you the only way to accurately validate a hypothesis is to observe from outside the components of the experiment. Since is it both theoretically and realistically impossible to observe the universe from outside the universe, no theories about the universe will ever by validated.

They stumbled on this when trying to view subatomic particles. They could record the trajectory of a particle and they could record the position of a particle but, never at the same time and, therefore, they could never tell you from where the particle came or to where it was originally bound. All measurement devices altered the trajectory of the particle and rendered any supposition on it's disposition useless.

Much like this conversation.

[Yonivore]

been what? where?

Just been.

[SPARKY]

Thanks for the non answer.

[SPARKY]

You guys are chasing your tails.

Any scientist worth his weight in atoms will tell you the only way to accurately validate a hypothesis is to observe from outside the components of the experiment. Since is it both theoretically and realistically impossible to observe the universe from outside the universe, no theories about the universe will ever by validated.

They stumbled on this when trying to view subatomic particles. They could record the trajectory of a particle and they could record the position of a particle but, never at the same time and, therefore, they could never tell you from where the particle came or to where it was originally bound. All measurement devices altered the trajectory of the particle and rendered any supposition on it's disposition useless.

Much like this conversation.

Are you a "scientist"?

[Yonivore]

Thanks for the non answer.

It was an answer, I'm sorry you appear to be constrained by three dimensions. To date, physicists have identified anywhere betwee 11 and 20 dimensions...try thinking outside the box every now and again.

[Yonivore]

Are you a "scientist"?

No, but I play one on T.V.

[SPARKY]

It was an answer, I'm sorry you appear to be constrained by three dimensions. To date, physicists have identified anywhere betwee 11 and 20 dimensions...try thinking outside the box every now and again.

I am. Where'd this reality come from? Saying that God's just here doesn't cut it, unless you just want to say it's a matter of faith.

[Useruser666]

BangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBa ngBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBang BangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBa ngBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBang BangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBa ngBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBang BangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBa ngBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangBangRepeat