Qusetions about evolution for Advanced Science/physics/biology experts.

Yea, I checked both. Both sides upset me. Both have massive gaps, both are not well thought out. Both sides say things that are just impossible and neither side will dive deeper into the explaination. Creationists have faith god made everything, evolutionary followers have faith that things just came to be.

deadpool86x

"Evolutionary followers" do not have faith that things just came to be. Rather, they recognize that they do not yet have an answer for this question and are not going to fabricate an easy answer just to have one.

Yea, I checked both. Both sides upset me. Both have massive gaps, both are not well thought out. Both sides say things that are just impossible and neither side will dive deeper into the explaination. Creationists have faith god made everything, evolutionary followers have faith that things just came to be.

deadpool86x

[QUOTE="deadpool86x"]

Yea, I checked both. Both sides upset me. Both have massive gaps, both are not well thought out. Both sides say things that are just impossible and neither side will dive deeper into the explaination. Creationists have faith god made everything, evolutionary followers have faith that things just came to be.

Juken7

"Evolutionary followers" do not have faith that things just came to be. Rather, they recognize that they do not yet have an answer for this question and are not going to fabricate an easy answer just to have one.

then why label yourself an evolutionist in the first place and even bother telling anyone your thoughts on it ( not you specifically, i mean evolutionary scientists and supporters ) And if you believe in something without a shred of evidence, its called faith. Nobody has proof god doesnt exist, not one athiest or evolutionist on this planet can say without a dout, god does not exist. That is 100% faith. Its not religious faith, but it is faith.

Sadly, you shouldnt listen to Einstein or Hawkings about God. Neither are credible and I'll tell you why. Albert was an avid church goer until the war started, after which he was so sad and depressed about life and things not going his way, that he turned to science and math to understand the universe. He became bias. Hawkings was a firm believer in god, and flip flops on this debate all the time saying he does or doesnt, yes and then no, but always refers to some type of God in his work. He is extremely depressed about his condition and blamed god for it. I dont like to admit it but thats how it is with many scientific leaders of today. Take the asian fella on the discovery channel, might be one of the brightest minds on earth and a firm believer in god. The african american fello you see often is equally as intelligent and experienced but doesnt believe in god because he lost his father and is trying to build a dang TIME MACHNIE TO GO BACK AND SAVE HIM. These scientific leaders of the world often have a horrible event in their lives occur and makes them stop believing in god....most of them started out as firm believers.

Creationists have faith that god exists and came to be or maybe always existed.

Athiests have faith that the absense of intelligence can create a non randomized sequence of events

And I do apologize for not making my view clear before.

If you're talking about this:

"...there is nothing intelligent about the fact that the Earth exerted a force on that ball that caused it to accelerate towards the Earth. It simply followed a natural law, just as evolution follows natural laws."

I'm... not really sure how that can be construed as me saying that it is random. The entire purpose of my post was to illustrate the way in which something can be predictable (again, that is to say, not random), yet not be directly guided by an intelligent being. It is analogous to programming a computer: the programmer defines the way in which the computer ought to act, but once that definition is made, the computer does not require the direct intervention of the programmer to guide its actions.

Like I said, if you are wishing to assert that the fundamental forces of nature were created by an intelligent being, I am more than happy to grant that possibility without debate. What I am arguing against is the idea that the forces themselves are intelligent. Given the way in which the same input will always give the same output, they seem an awful lot more to me like predefined, intelligence-less procedures, and unless there is evidence to the contrary, I do not think one would have any justification for asserting otherwise.

GabuEx

Natural laws are laws as understood by humans though......

Anyway you must not have read my reply to that post as you haven't addressed it.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

If you're talking about this:

"...there is nothing intelligent about the fact that the Earth exerted a force on that ball that caused it to accelerate towards the Earth. It simply followed a natural law, just as evolution follows natural laws."

I'm... not really sure how that can be construed as me saying that it is random. The entire purpose of my post was to illustrate the way in which something can be predictable (again, that is to say, not random), yet not be directly guided by an intelligent being. It is analogous to programming a computer: the programmer defines the way in which the computer ought to act, but once that definition is made, the computer does not require the direct intervention of the programmer to guide its actions.

Like I said, if you are wishing to assert that the fundamental forces of nature were created by an intelligent being, I am more than happy to grant that possibility without debate. What I am arguing against is the idea that the forces themselves are intelligent. Given the way in which the same input will always give the same output, they seem an awful lot more to me like predefined, intelligence-less procedures, and unless there is evidence to the contrary, I do not think one would have any justification for asserting otherwise.

LJS9502_basic

Natural laws are laws as understood by humans though......

Then how can you (or anyone) judge whether or not the occurances in nature are random if you believe that our perception might be flawed?

You misunderstand my view i think. I support evolution, but not via the absense of intelligence. I believe evolution exists as a result of GOD writing the laws and letting them play out randomly. The predefined parameters you speak of is what i was trying to get at. It was written, things shall play out this or that way. This information exists that allows for the seemingly randomized events that will later take place. I believe that there is only a small portion of things that are randomized and that God allowed some leg room for things to grow and suprise him with how it turned out. He wrote the guidelines for the basics, made sure things dont mess up along the way, i think people are just out of their minds if they truely believe such complexity came from nothingness. Two events must have taken place if you believe this

the first being the universe itself suddenly popping into existence, the second event that life popped into existence without any thing causing it. Out of emptyness, the most complex thing possible in our universe suddenly existed.

I think god itself purposely intented to never know what things may come out of this, but he wanted humans to exist, tigers and lions, earth and stars, ect ect. The basics were preset, the rest was left the the written law of evolution. I do feel there is a mathematical formula for everything, if it exists, it has one. Evolution does exist, it has a prewritten formula for what governs its existence. Otherwise, it wouldnt exist in my opinion.

afterall if i were god, id want it to be that way.

deadpool86x

So you believe that our perception may be flawed, right?

Then how can you (or anyone) judge whether or not the occurances in nature are random if you believe that our perception might be flawed?

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

So you believe that our perception may be flawed, right?

Then how can you (or anyone) judge whether or not the occurances in nature are random if you believe that our perception might be flawed?

LJS9502_basic

Make your line of thought clearer so that people might be able to follow it.

Also I dont think its that difficult for you to correct me if I inferred something incorrectly.

Seeing as most of the questions have already been debated to death, I'll just discuss some points of interest:

"4a. If there is a God like being, a higher power, couldn't it have created the universe and earth to be old? Many evolutionists and geologists believe the earth is close to 4 billion years old, for this reason they dont believe in god and that the bible is nonsense saying the earth is a few thousand years old. While i do not agree with that last idea, couldnt a higher power have created our universe to be aged? Why do so many athiests deny the existence of a god for this reason?"

The atheists' disbelief in a god isn't just due to the earth being old. Young earth belief just serves as an example as to why fundamentalist christianity does not make sense. Atheists do not believe in god, however, because there is no empirical reason to.

"5. If aliens do exist, wouldnt they be jelous and very interested in our planet if the son of GOD came to us and not them? ....or if you believe in Jesus and god, what are your thoughts on the possibility that he also visited other alien planets? Mind bomb "

Religion is a very natural social phenomenon for us (it serves/served to maintain social cohesion), so odds are that if there are other intelligent lifeforms out there, they'll have their own religions, or at least be familiar with the phenomenon.

Natural laws are laws as understood by humans though......

Anyway you must not have read my reply to that post as you haven't addressed it.

LJS9502_basic

I read your post, and I replied to the post. That I referred specifically to the portion you had bolded in your post ought to make that much obvious. If I read it wrong, then explain what you were saying so that I may better understand your argument rather than having to resort to telepathy. Your penchant for insinuation in the case of a misunderstanding, rather than honest attempts to ensure your position is known in its entirety so the discussion may continue, makes talking with you difficult. It is like trying to get a firm hold on a live fish, and is quite frankly a little tiresome.

I read your post, and I replied to the post. That I referred specifically to the portion you had bolded in your post ought to make that much obvious. If I read it wrong, then explain what you were saying so that I may better understand your argument rather than having to resort to telepathy. Your penchant for insinuation in the case of a misunderstanding, rather than honest attempts to ensure your position is known in its entirety so the discussion may continue, makes talking with you difficult. It is like trying to get a firm hold on a live fish, and is quite frankly a little tiresome.

GabuEx

there is nothing intelligent about the fact that the Earth exerted a force on that ball that caused it to accelerate towards the Earth. It simply followed a natural law, just as evolution follows natural laws.

GabuEx

That depends entirely on one's thinking on the subject. What may seem random to an atheist may not seem as such to a theist. Neither can be proven right or wrong in this context. Science is ONLY the understanding man has of how the natural world works. That does not mean a supernatural entity is not a part of the puzzle. Merely that we can see how the pieces fit together without the need to apply it to the supernatural. So the fact that evolution occured does not mean a god was not the "science" behind the changes.

Again...it depends on one's perspective on what science explains to us.

LJS9502_basic

That depends entirely on one's thinking on the subject. What may seem random to an atheist may not seem as such to a theist. Neither can be proven right or wrong in this context. Science is ONLY the understanding man has of how the natural world works. That does not mean a supernatural entity is not a part of the puzzle. Merely that we can see how the pieces fit together without the need to apply it to the supernatural. So the fact that evolution occured does not mean a god was not the "science" behind the changes.

Again...it depends on one's perspective on what science explains to us.

LJS9502_basic

My post was self explanatory and you did not address it. Further a moderater should not be using ad hominem as a tactic in a discussion. I'm sure you are aware that atheists and theists have differing ideas on how the world exists and why. Thus while you believe it followed a natural law....which is merely the understanding humans place on the "science" of the universe with some degree of accuracy. It does not mean we understand everything in regard to how the world came to be. With further scientific advances we may find some things we believe today to be wrong tomorrow.

LJS9502_basic

All the points you tried to refute with that post were points Gabu never made or implied. He explained that to you when he answered to you.

Further, he did not use an ad hominem against you but meh different people have different levels of sensitivity. Who am I to judge...

The additional points you add with the clarification you just posted seem to me like playing devils advocate since if I am not mistaken you do believe that evolution occurred.

Always awaiting to be corrected if I misjudged of course.

A post which I adressed (if I am allowed to address posts directed to others than me).

All the points you tried to refute with that post were points Gabu never made or implied. He explained that to you when he answered to you.

Further, he did not use an ad hominem against you but meh different people have different levels of sensitivity. Who am I to judge...

The additional points you add with the clarification you just posted seem to me like playing devils advocate since if I am not mistaken you do believe that evolution occurred.

Always awaiting to be corrected if I misjudged of course.

Teenaged

Further I was not arguing per se but stating a differenece in perspective. He assumed it was an argument.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

A post which I adressed (if I am allowed to address posts directed to others than me).

All the points you tried to refute with that post were points Gabu never made or implied. He explained that to you when he answered to you.

Further, he did not use an ad hominem against you but meh different people have different levels of sensitivity. Who am I to judge...

The additional points you add with the clarification you just posted seem to me like playing devils advocate since if I am not mistaken you do believe that evolution occurred.

Always awaiting to be corrected if I misjudged of course.

LJS9502_basic

He did adress the points you made. Only now did you make it clear what you meant.

You are misrepresenting what he actually said and meant. Dont do that. He replied to a poster who said that atheists are close-minded by telling him that the same can be said for theists. From a specific perspective both sides can appear close-minded. He didnt say that theists are by definition close-minded. Gabu is a theist himself. Would he call himself close-minded?

[Do I need permission to enter a discussion? This is a forum, not a place where you have private conversations.

He did adress the points you made. Only now did you make it clear what you meant.

You are misrepresenting what he actually said and meant. Dont do that. He replied to a poster who said that atheists are close-minded by telling him that the same can be said for theists. From a specific perspective both sides can appear close-minded. He didnt say that theists are by definition close-minded. Gabu is a theist himself. Would he call himself close-minded?

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Do I need permission to enter a discussion? This is a forum, not a place where you have private conversations.

He did adress the points you made. Only now did you make it clear what you meant.

You are misrepresenting what he actually said and meant. Dont do that. He replied to a poster who said that atheists are close-minded by telling him that the same can be said for theists. From a specific perspective both sides can appear close-minded. He didnt say that theists are by definition close-minded. Gabu is a theist himself. Would he call himself close-minded?

LJS9502_basic

Make my own argument? Am I not allowed to just disagree with other people's arguments? Like I said before you do realise this is a public forum...

And if anything you are the one who intepreted his posts and I just corrected you because I realised what he meant.

................huh?

Make my own argument? Am I not allowed to just disagree with other people's arguments? Like I said before you do realise this is a public forum...

And if anything you are the one who intepreted his posts and I just corrected you because I realised what he meant.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]................huh?

Make my own argument? Am I not allowed to just disagree with other people's arguments? Like I said before you do realise this is a public forum...

And if anything you are the one who intepreted his posts and I just corrected you because I realised what he meant.

LJS9502_basic

Like I said I merely corrected you when you interpreted his posts. And I did establish why my interpretation stands while your assumptions on his posts dont.

No. At first you debated him on whether or not the occurances in the universe are random or not based on different prespective. You had thought he said that the occurances are random, while he clearly didnt. At that point I just corrected you by bringing to your attenion parts of his post you may have missed.

Like I said I merely corrected you when you interpreted his posts. And I did establish why my interpretation stands while your assumptions on his posts dont.

Teenaged

Where is the argument to this?

That depends entirely on one's thinking on the subject. What may seem random to an atheist may not seem as such to a theist. Neither can be proven right or wrong in this context. Science is ONLY the understanding man has of how the natural world works. That does not mean a supernatural entity is not a part of the puzzle. Merely that we can see how the pieces fit together without the need to apply it to the supernatural. So the fact that evolution occured does not mean a god was not the "science" behind the changes.

Again...it depends on one's perspective on what science explains to us.

1. If the universe was born of the Big Bang, which was a singularity that either always existed or suddenly appeared for no reason, how can Universal Law even exist? Meaning, if evolution is real and there was no creation, how can universal laws like gravity, particles and atomic structure of basic elements be the same here as they are on the opposite side of the universe, a number of lightyears away that you cannot count to? How can such a thing be possible...it seems like things are preset to exist this way right here as well as infinte light years away. If evolution is real, then things far away shouldnt be like it is here...but they are. The basic elements of the universe seem to be unbias regardless of location in the universe...that bothers me and i really dont understand that. Air evoloved over time, water, carbons ect ect. Yet, infinite light years away they will remain the same as they are here, evolving exactly the same way. Evolution is supposed to be RANDOM...this makes absolutely no sense to me.

2. If the universe expanded to infinity, wouldn't it take an infinite amount of time to do so? Otherwise it is still expanding and there is an edge, which means there is a container for our universe, right? If there is no edge to the universe, then there was no beginning and you cannot say the universe is 13.5 billion years old because you are measuring the amount of time it takes to reach infinity. ( this is where i dont want to spark an argument, please dont argue :P ) But if infinity was instantly obtained after the big bang, to me it seems like only something that already existed with limitless power can make such a thing occur instantly. You've just broken the laws of math and physics in saying evolution of the universe took place, and the universe expanded to infinity in a measured amount of time however small.

3. Evolution seems to be based on the idea that 0 + 1 = 2. 0 being the absense of intelligence and the law that governs the existence of the idea of randomization ( which either doesnt exist but still allows for things to exist and occur, or that it always existed. ) 1 being anything else that exists then evolving, may it be people, life, planets, stars ect ect. How can the absense of intelligence create randomization? Yet on a universal, infinitely large scale that repeats itself indentically regardless of your location as mentioned in my first question.

4. Why are athiest people so closed minded about God only being that which is found in the Bible, or other written works. I've know some athiest who simply do not believe in god because the Bible to them is stupid or they dont like the way God is written. Personally, I am the polar opposite. If there is a God, I believe it isnt even remotely like that which is found in any literary works of religion. To some people, this means auto denying the existence of a higher power. Why? Since when do athiest have to believe anything written down? Just because it is said doesnt make it true...athiest of all people should not be bias towards that. Im not saying all do, but like i said ive know a few that automatically turn down the idea of a higher power simply because if their view of the bible.

4a. If there is a God like being, a higher power, couldn't it have created the universe and earth to be old? Many evolutionists and geologists believe the earth is close to 4 billion years old, for this reason they dont believe in god and that the bible is nonsense saying the earth is a few thousand years old. While i do not agree with that last idea, couldnt a higher power have created our universe to be aged? Why do so many athiests deny the existence of a god for this reason?

5. If aliens do exist, wouldnt they be jelous and very interested in our planet if the son of GOD came to us and not them? ....or if you believe in Jesus and god, what are your thoughts on the possibility that he also visited other alien planets? Mind bomb :D

deadpool86x

1. It is generally thought by many that the four fundamental forces that exist today, those beign the Weak Force, the Strong Force, the Nuclear Force and Gravity, all existed as one force. When that singularity began expanding each one of those forces seperated from that one force at different times. (There may even be some forces we are unaware of). They were basically all born of 1 and therefor uniform throughout. Evolution does not deal with the fundamental forces of nature nor does it deal with atomic structure. Evolution deals with biological organisms that already exist and their adaption to forces outside of their internal structure. Air, water, carbon, etc.. did not evolve over time. Their atomic mass, atomic makeup, etc are and have always been set. If these were different it would be a complete different element. Evolution is not random, it is adaption to outside forces via natural selection and a couple of other things to their outside environment. You know that misused term "The strong shall survive"? That is what evolution deals with, if bears with long fur and bears with short fur existed on an island and there was a catclysm that forced the temperature of the island to drop substantially forcing most of the bears to die the majority of the bears that would die would be short haired bears. The mutation or genetic makeup that allowed bears to grow long hair would then take a huge leap forward towards beign the norm and subsequent generations would have longer hair. This is evolution, the general flow in a genetic code of a species adapt to it's surroundings.

2. Who ever said the universe was gooing to expand into infinity? I have no idea what you're talking about here. Scientists agree that the universe had a beginning at some point in time. At least the way we see the universe now. They figure this out by taking the distance of several galaxies in the universe and the speed at which they are traveling apart from us. We know this occurs because of red shift and we know what elemnts make up the star and how far it is away from us via the light from it. The universe didn't expand to infinity.

3. The forces of the universe are again uniform throughout. At least that's how we treat them and observations have not told us differently. What you are asking here on the most basic level is "How can a universe so complex, at least by my understanding, be formed withotu a first cause that was not intelligent". My answer is, "Remember those 4 fundamental forces that were spojen about in the first reply? Those forces have worked together to form what we know of today as the universe. There was no helping hand needed as the means by which the universe would come to look as it is today already existed." and then I would add, "But if you want to take the stance that God created the Big Bang and these four fundamental forces why would the original cause, as you are statign God is, have to be intelligent? There are many causes in the universe, such as a the explosion of a star, that lead to complexity, such as the formation of a new star from that exploded material."

4, 4a. Atheist people, at least most of them, are not close minded about God in general. We are close minded abotu certain types of Gods. Those Gods being Gods, or interpretations of Him, that have been proven false by scientific advancement and observation. If you want to believe that God created the Big Bang then you go right ahead but remember there are other possible causes by which that could have occurred without an intelligent force behind it. It seems like society is creating and changing its image of God by what observations are made without any data or observation to back it up.

5. I don't believe in God

Er...how can one be closed minded against atheism. It means lack of belief in a god in simple terms. I don't see where theists are close minded about that belief per se.

LJS9502_basic

Science cannot answer the question as to whether a god exists or not.......and a god can exist with our understanding of the universe we call science.LJS9502_basic

That depends entirely on one's thinking on the subject. What may seem random to an atheist may not seem as such to a theist. Neither can be proven right or wrong in this context. Science is ONLY the understanding man has of how the natural world works. That does not mean a supernatural entity is not a part of the puzzle. Merely that we can see how the pieces fit together without the need to apply it to the supernatural. So the fact that evolution occured does not mean a god was not the "science" behind the changes.

Again...it depends on one's perspective on what science explains to us.

LJS9502_basic

The first one is the issue of Gabu supposedly claiming that theists are close-minded. I answered that.

The second also I answered. In it you refuted points that Gabu never made.

Same with the third. In the third you assume that Gabu with his words implies that God is not part of the puzzle due to the explanation science has given.

As for the different take people have on what science says... well, I dont think anyone refute that point of yours.

These are the first three posts you answered to Gabu with.

The first one is the issue of Gabu supposedly claiming that theists are close-minded. I answered that.

The second also I answered. In it you refuted points that Gabu never made.

Same with the third. In the third you assume that Gabu with his words implies that God is not part of the puzzle due to the explanation science has given.

As for the different take people have on what science says... well, I dont think anyone refute that point of yours.

Teenaged

First I replied to his comment about close minded theists. Then I replied about differing perspectives. Which he turned into an argument. Which you now say he believes so I don't know what his argument was with what I said.

Where is the argument to this?

That depends entirely on one's thinking on the subject. What may seem random to an atheist may not seem as such to a theist. Neither can be proven right or wrong in this context. Science is ONLY the understanding man has of how the natural world works. That does not mean a supernatural entity is not a part of the puzzle. Merely that we can see how the pieces fit together without the need to apply it to the supernatural. So the fact that evolution occured does not mean a god was not the "science" behind the changes.

Again...it depends on one's perspective on what science explains to us.

LJS9502_basic

"That depends entirely on one's thinking on the subject. What may seem random to an atheist may not seem as such to a theist."

Gabu never said that to an atheist its random. He pretty much shows how for both theists and atheists it isnt random (but they have different reasons why they believe it isnt random).

"Neither can be proven right or wrong in this context." Which ties with the above. Since both have different reasons behind believing it isnt random, there is no central and common parametre to help resolve whose reason is correct.

"Science is ONLY the understanding man has of how the natural world works." ....quite obviously. That would be a point worth making had Gabu said that science excludes the possibility of a deity. Which he didnt.

"That does not mean a supernatural entity is not a part of the puzzle. Merely that we can see how the pieces fit together without the need to apply it to the supernatural. So the fact that evolution occured does not mean a god was not the "science" behind the changes."

Again you are trying to refute a point Gabu never made.

"Again...it depends on one's perspective on what science explains to us." Again quite obviously since atheists are not the only ones that believe that science is valuable.

As you see, it is puzzling to see you refuting points Gabu never made. Unless of course you just wanted to emphasise.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

These are the first three posts you answered to Gabu with.

The first one is the issue of Gabu supposedly claiming that theists are close-minded. I answered that.

The second also I answered. In it you refuted points that Gabu never made.

Same with the third. In the third you assume that Gabu with his words implies that God is not part of the puzzle due to the explanation science has given.

As for the different take people have on what science says... well, I dont think anyone refute that point of yours.

LJS9502_basic

And I am also sure that if it werent an argument you wouldnt be asking right now for us to answer to it. ;)

Ok lets break it down:

"

As you see, it is puzzling to see you refuting points Gabu never made. Unless of course you just wanted to emphasise.

Teenaged

This thread seems to have taken a turn from explaning the fundamentals behind evolution, abiogenesis and cosmology and turned into a he said she said debate...

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Ok lets break it down:

"

As you see, it is puzzling to see you refuting points Gabu never made. Unless of course you just wanted to emphasise.

LJS9502_basic

Even now you could have just told me: "Yes I just wanted to emphasise, not argue".

Whatever...

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Ok lets break it down:

"

As you see, it is puzzling to see you refuting points Gabu never made. Unless of course you just wanted to emphasise.

Teenaged

Even now you could have just told me: "Yes I just wanted to emphasise, not argue".

Whatever...

This thread seems to have taken a turn from explaning the fundamentals behind evolution, abiogenesis and cosmology and turned into a he said she said debate...

BumFluff122

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Break it down all you want but nowhere in my post did I say Gabu said anything. I think the fact that it was my post shows it was my ideas dude.:|

LJS9502_basic

Even now you could have just told me: "Yes I just wanted to emphasise, not argue".

Whatever...

Besides I wasnt the only one who thought you were perhaps starting an argument.

Like I said if it werent an argument you wouldnt be asking of us to answer to it. You are giving yourself away.

Well science is merely humans understanding of how the universe works. And really...what more can be said after that?

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Well science is merely humans understanding of how the universe works. And really...what more can be said after that?

BumFluff122

Maybe you should be clearer when you post. ;) Or when people misunderstand you, be courteous enough to clear things out.

Besides I wasnt the only one who thought you were perhaps starting an argument.

Like I said if it werent an argument you wouldnt be asking of us to answer to it. You are giving yourself away.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Maybe you should be clearer when you post. ;) Or when people misunderstand you, be courteous enough to clear things out.

Besides I wasnt the only one who thought you were perhaps starting an argument.

Like I said if it werent an argument you wouldnt be asking of us to answer to it. You are giving yourself away.

LJS9502_basic

And like I also said, in the scenario that I misinterpreted your post then you could have made yourself clear from the beginning, rather than letting us make asses of ourselves by debating you, in which case you are as much to blame for the possible misunderstanding.

ill be brief 1 evolution isnt random...natural selection and all...there was and is choice 2. laws of math and physics can be improved and changed over time 3 we are 97% matched to chimps...meaning at one point we were closer and came from the same place 4.at the end of the day a man wrote the bible... 5. you assume the aliens know of us..and can get to us... they could be in the same boat we are or be far behind in middle ages in their timeweezyfb

I saw this long special about scientists who found fossils of ancesters that were far older then chimps that we came from, and that we didn't actually come directly from chimps. Don't hold me to that though, it's just what I saw on the program.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Well science is merely humans understanding of how the universe works. And really...what more can be said after that?

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="weezyfb"]ill be brief 1 evolution isnt random...natural selection and all...there was and is choice 2. laws of math and physics can be improved and changed over time 3 we are 97% matched to chimps...meaning at one point we were closer and came from the same place 4.at the end of the day a man wrote the bible... 5. you assume the aliens know of us..and can get to us... they could be in the same boat we are or be far behind in middle ages in their timeHellsing2o2

I saw this long special about scientists who found fossils of ancesters that were far older then chimps that we came from, and that we didn't actually come directly from chimps. Don't hold me to that though, it's just what I saw on the program.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="BumFluff122"]And science has shown that evolution is factual. My original post was the last post on a page a few pages back trying to explain to the OP that that is what it is and how it's based on evidence we know. Obviously the OP is not aware of the evidence that shows it's what occurred. The suddenly this entire thread turned into a strawman/he said she said argument thread.

BumFluff122

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Has someone said evolution doesn't happen?LJS9502_basic

It's "Atheist", not "Athiest". Get it right.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="BumFluff122"]The first post was basically questioning the reliability behind certain types of data concerning evolution. And by evolution I am referring to what the OP is referring to as evolution, that being evolution, abiogenesis and cosmology all rolled into one.

BumFluff122

It's "Atheist", not "Athiest". Get it right.

C3Le5tiaL

Hmm...well I don't know that it's just theists that don't follow science closely. But as for what I've noticed most religious have no problem with science. Though I'm not saying that is absolute.:PLJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Hmm...well I don't know that it's just theists that don't follow science closely. But as for what I've noticed most religious have no problem with science. Though I'm not saying that is absolute.:PBumFluff122

I think those theists are in the minority here. I've spent more time in OT.....and the users to which I think you are referring are the evangelicals. They are rather new to OT themselves. Most theists I've encountered here have no problem accepting science.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I think those theists are in the minority here. I've spent more time in OT.....and the users to which I think you are referring are the evangelicals. They are rather new to OT themselves. Most theists I've encountered here have no problem accepting science.BumFluff122

In those cases I think it's more that they don't want to accept science than they are following a religion. Or it could be they only deal in literal analysis of the bible but that belies the reason the scripture uses metaphors. So I'm back to because they don't want to accept it.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]In those cases I think it's more that they don't want to accept science than they are following a religion. Or it could be they only deal in literal analysis of the bible but that belies the reason the scripture uses metaphors. So I'm back to because they don't want to accept it.BumFluff122

[QUOTE="Hellsing2o2"]

[QUOTE="weezyfb"]ill be brief 1 evolution isnt random...natural selection and all...there was and is choice 2. laws of math and physics can be improved and changed over time 3 we are 97% matched to chimps...meaning at one point we were closer and came from the same place 4.at the end of the day a man wrote the bible... 5. you assume the aliens know of us..and can get to us... they could be in the same boat we are or be far behind in middle ages in their timeBumFluff122

I saw this long special about scientists who found fossils of ancesters that were far older then chimps that we came from, and that we didn't actually come directly from chimps. Don't hold me to that though, it's just what I saw on the program.