Dude, those parts that were sexist and racist do not show up in any science texts as part of the theory of evolution (if those accusations are true). They have nothing at all to do with evolution; Charles Darwin lived in that kind of time, so that was his view. Again though, the theory of evolution itself has nothing offensive about it. If anything, the Bible has more examples of racism or sexism. So if an omnipotent being is incomprehensible, how do we understand God at all? And there is no "infinite out of infinite" chance. There is 100%, or any other percentage. But then you'd be saying that God exists without a doubt, and that is your opinion.
Props to you for coming back into this endless debate good sir. Also props to bringing a new argument to the table. What Charles Darwin wrote in his books were in no way facts, just merely theories. Most were racist years ago and most still are, i'm not saying there is racist bias in his writings but it's a possibility. Saying somebody of darker skin is less evolved is entirely a reasonable theory, but that doesn't mean any person is superior over the other. It's just stating that caucasians came further down the line of evolution. Example: Humans not needing dark skin as they migrated out of where we originally came about. Religious creationism on the other hand also supports innequalities of humans, Eve was widdled from a rib bone merely to keep Adam company. Also states that it's a sin to engage in same-sex acts. People are naturally stereotypical and racist to be honest, its just in our nature. As long as everybody is still treated equally regardless of differences then I dont see a problem with supporting evolution's theories. It's really all beside the point. The theory of evolution does not contradict pre existing life. It's a very open ended theory.
Do you understand that there there are incredibly large differences between the big bang and an explosion? I'm not even going to mention the varying environments that the two occurred in- just think about the difference in sale. One of them encompasses a few miles, another encompasses all matter that exists. To CreepyChuck: I'm replying... Who's childish now? Abiogenesis* You did not post a single point that was aimed at evolution. All of them are against abiogenesis. Oh, don't even get me started with the quoting of ancient books... I can give you pages of biblical quotes... You are probably thinking about *On the Origin of the Species* by Darwin. Since when is evolution based solely on his viewpoints? Him being a white supremacist (Which I'm not even sure he is, source please?) has nothing to do with his theory, from which we derive large parts our our current evolutionary theory. Also, stop making false assumptions. I didn't stop reading because I instantly assumed you were 100% wrong. I have just seen so many ignorant people come here and post their rationale for Creationism that I immediately assume you are the same when I read some of your points... Pff, yea. Who needs know about the world around them. It's useless. Instead, we should all spend our lives worshiping. I mean, what has the understanding of our environment ever done for us (except medicine, architecture, electricity, printing, computers, food preservation, prosthetic limbs, etc), and who needs those things anyways? [/sarcasm] Of course we can't understand everything. We view the world in a certain way- with three spacial and 1 time dimension, and we will never be able to completely grasp that concept. In reality, everything has to be explainable. The universe obeys fundamental laws- while we may not have a full grasp of what they are or why they behave the way they do, the information has to be out there somewhere. You, on the other hand, have simply arbitrarily decided that everybody else is wrong and you are right. "They're going to deny it, plug their ears and start quoting Darwin's theory, and then get mad when anyone tries to explain otherwise to them." You are not explaining anything. You are making claims with no logical basis with the unwavering assumption that you are right even with no reasoning. Of c You quoted the bible and referred to yourself as a Christian. Let me remind you again that the formation of life is abiogenesis, not evolution, and if you want to debate it you should make a separate topic.
If you are looking for some serious scientific answers to these questions go somewhere else because the stupid just oozes and oozes and oozes. I just mocked you with mild amounts of information that in and of themselves refute you (not that you'd ever see it). Nope. Evolution explains the biological diversity of life, not it's orgins. Starting off poorly. You don't even have basic knowledge of the subject you claim you can debunk. Nope. Biological diversity, not cosmic origins. I could explain why you are wrong but you're probably too stupid understand and too ignorant to read. Nope. Biological diversity, not galactic and stellar formation. Nope. "Evolutionists" don't believe that either. Now an evolutionist may argue that mutation and natural selection caused the rise of invertebrates but under the pretense that lightning cause it, I don't think most people would give you the time of day. Sure, why not?... I'll look past the fact that you think man is not a primate. Nope. There is no scientific theory on the origin of the universe. The big bang explains the development but not the origins. Religion is the exclusive holder of that title. That's all evolution is...if we both believe it then we're both evolutionists so why are you even debating?... Take it up with Abiogenesis, bub. Evolution doesn't care where those genes came from. This is where I get angry. What kind of slimball uses the deaths of 3,000 U.S. Civilians to further send home a moronic point? You could have used explosion in general but you used 9/11, why? Are you trying to piss me off? Look I don't have time to explain to you why gravity draws particles together but I'm sure you can understand this: The big bang was a big ass explosion. All this **** went everywhere. Atoms and molecules formed under the strong nuclear and under the gravity these particles coalesced (you can see this in the asteroid belt). Hydrogen under great pressure and gravity fuses and a star is born. Stars drawn together by gravity form galaxies. It's that ****ing simple. Just use a little common sense. Firstly, Evolution has nothing to do with the order of heat flow. You are a moron. Secondly, the bible has nothing to say about entropy. Thirdly, my full response: Entropy[1]- In simplicity, entropy is the measure of the unavailability of the energy in a system to do work. It describes the tendency of heat to flow from hot regions to cold regions homogenizing the system by allowing energy to be distributed in the greatest number of microstates. The notion that entropy is a measure of disorder is one of the more pervasive misconceptions regarding thermodynamics. In fact, the idea that everything should tend toward disorder is disproven by crystallization. You took an unordered amount of atoms and ordered them in a crystalline pattern which should tell you that order can be achieved even if the second law stated that everything is head towards disorder.[1] If you don't like diamonds you can use snow. You also have the problem of emergence but that's an irrelevancy at this point. But of course you may have objections to this. Crystallization and snow flakes require added energy to form, to which I would agree. If the earth were in a closed system I suspect no life would have arose, however, the earth is an open system as it constantly recieves energy from the sun, which reduces the sun's ability to do work while increasing the earth's ability. It doesn't overcome entropy it just delays it. It's a double-edged sword. You may continue to say that the universe itself is a closed system, which I would disagree once more, since the universe is expanding and the definition of a closed system is that it must be closed and static.[1][2] 1) Sonntag RE, Borgnakke C, Van Wylen GJ. 2002. Fundamentals of Thermodynamics, 6th ed. Wiley. 2) Spergel DN, Bean R, Doré O, Nolta MR, Bennett CL, Dunkley J, Hinshaw G, Jarosik N, Komatsu E, Page L, Peiris HV, Verde L, Halpern M, Hjill RS, Limon M, Meyer SS, Odegard N, Tucker GS, Weiland JL, E Wollack, and Wright EL. 2007. Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) three year results: Implications for cosmology. Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 170:377-408. Nope, added energy overcomes entropy. Fusion creates energy and creates order. You are wrong. Not only did you get the formation of the moon wrong, you assumed that the materials in the accretion disk were uniform. You are so wrong, it's hard to comprehend the stupidity. I would have rather ****ed sandpaper then to even have humored this point but if I don't, "OH nitrous was stumped so he just called you names! hahahahlollolol" That one sentence of information that I had to give you was such a struggle, you don't even know. I'm going to take a different approach to this one. It's going to be wild so here it goes (try to keep up). SUBSTANTIATE THAT CLAIM. Uranus is on its side because of debris impact, Pluto isn't a planet, and Venus spins very sloooooooowly in the opposite direction suggesting an asteroid impact. Substantiate your claim that asteroids and meteorites can only cause planets to stop. Was that even sensical? When did gravity stop functioning. Please explain that to me. What? Have you visited the internet, taken a science class, or even tried to reason your way through this problem? What?! The moon has an iron core! Ugh, this is unbelievable. You might as well just piss of first grade science book while screaming "free at last" because that is the equivalent of what you are doing. Oh god, I'll believe in a deity if you just shut up. The universe is not fine-tuned for us we are fine-tuned for it. Whether you believe creation or evolution this is true! This is first grade stuff and you're treating it as if its worth our time. No, it could be 37% farther from the sun and still retain liquid water and 12% closer. The habitable zone is huge in human terms. Even if it wasn't we wouldn't be here, if it wasn't in the habitable zone, to say, "man I wish we were in the habitable zone" so the whole argument is stupid and flawed from the get-go. You're going to have to explain that one to me. Different gravity, different animals. Remember what I said about fine-tuning? No it's not. Cool. God wrote a bestseller. Go figure, so did Dan Brown. No its not. It's abiogenesis. I'm going to kill myself. I don't think I can make it to the end. Let's just assume of the sake of argument that science is a self-correcting process. Let's also assume, just for the sake of argument that when new data comes in, science changes. Let's assume once more, for the sake of argument, that life can come from nonlife. Would you think that science would change that? I've argued about this topic so many times in this forum alone that it makes sick to think about it. Here's something you might not know, I don't give a **** about Stanley Miller at this point. Oxygen was not present in the primordial earth. That was created by cyanobacteria which already had a protective membrane so...yeah. Pretty much. Once again, understand the subject and then talk about it. I don't care if this is accurate or not. Oh no! Not right handed amino acids! I don't care. Proteins didn't exist in the original vesicles. Read my blog on abiogenesis. You understand NOTHING. I'm glad but that's not how it works so it really doesn't matter now does it? Well if my calculations are correct you are douche bag and there's a 1/10 to the 500,000th power that you are a liar or your source lied. No body would be so stupid as to assume cells today are exactly the same as they were in the past. No its doesn't. The human genome takes up 300 mb. Smaller than Windows Vista. Peanut butter? PEANUT BUTTER?! **** you dude. You have no idea which way is up.
I'm sorry but I have to answer this one... because those are two major misconceptions. 1. We didn't start as monkeys. We didn't 'start' either. Of course the series of events did start but we weren't involved ourselves. So the reason we originated from prehuman primates is that we are primates. That's really quite basic. That's also why the connection is drawn, well that and the 99.8% similarity in our genetic pattern, the 98,000 plus shared Endogenous Retroviruses, and the obvious fusion of chimp two Chimpanzee chromosomes in Human chromosome #2 (I don't know by hand the specific two that were fused) 2. Evolution hasn't stopped. We can still observe the developmental evolution of humans as we develop defenses against strains of diseases or adapt to survive in the more extreme climates. Just look at skin color, we have different pigmentation to assist survival in our natural climates, and this mechanism is the result of change. Look at bacteria, specifically and recently the emergence of Nylonase Bacterium, which are capable of digesting Nylon, a synthetic material that has only existed for roughly 75 years. Ordinary bacteria are not capable of this feat. 3. I would counter your questions with my own. 4. How do you deny fossilized remains of clear transitionary forms such as Tiktaalik, Archeopteryx and others? 5. What argument would you present against the Endogenal Retroviral linkups humans and the great apes share? 6. What conclusion would you draw from the two fused chimpanzee chromosomes that form human chromosome #2? (We can recognize this fusion since human chromosome #2 has two centromeres, and four telomeres, where as a standard chromosome has one centromere, and two telomeres. Also, humans have one less chromosomal pair than chimpanzee's and the other great apes, the loss of which would be fatal). 7. What conclusion do you draw from the well documented cases of speciation throughout history, both in the lab and in nature? To the extent even that we have categorize of how speciation occurs to help us class and document the emergence of new species. That's about all off the top of my head. Also: Originally Posted by stickmanmeyhem Evolution states that [energy + matter] can, occasionally, produce new life. So wrong. So very wrong. That's Abiogenesis, not evolution, and the peanut butter argument is a huge oversimplification.
If God created this world, why did he create Sins and the Devil? Surely that makes God the ultimate evil? Evolution is proven fact. Evolution does not disprove God though, some people believe God started Evolution. Also, if you follow the tree of life far enough, you'll reach nothing. That's right. Out of nothing came the big bang. Or you could believe God started the big bang, in which case the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of (etc) God is the origin of life.
God has been forever, the beginning and the end, there are too many words to describe Him. He is an excellent god. there is no sense in evolution because God has been always, he created everything there is in this place. nothing evolved from nothing, there has to be a beginning and that beginning is God. and at the end of time and everything we will know our Creator if we choose to. we will see Him in Heaven, but just remember to hold that faith and hope close and the promise that it brings, we will go to a place with no more suffering or misery.
It may be the case that god has always been but why has he always been instead of not always having been?
yes, what logic says that.prove what you are trying to say...back it up with "your logic's" information... something had to create something
Evolution is true. Accept it and move on. Well then. Something that created something. But wait- doesn't something have too create something? So something created something that created something. That will just go on forever. God is something. What created him?
We really don't know were everything started but just because we don't know doesn't mean that we can make assumptions. I don't believe in god because I don't need to. I believe that god is an early answer to life's questions, If no one could explain where we all came from, that would be very disheartening. Likewise if people didn't believe in hell, there would be nothing stopping them from wrong doing. People had no reason to do good but belief in god drove them to be kind. I don't believe in god as a whole. There is no divine being named god and there is no hell or angels or anything else like that. I believe that Jesus Christ and I share similar beliefs, over time our religion became warped by the same mentality that forced goodness. The application of "God's will" in the crusades showed that things had changed over so long. What is god's will? What does he expect of us? I believe that god is not a figure, but a symbol. A symbol that represents kindness and the will to do good. Likewise hell is a symbol of evil. God holds a sort of view that involves a material existence as well as a certain set of governing values. As the concept and following of the values flourished, the following of the material existence was also followed but became corrupt. It was the assumed will of the material existence that started the crusades. People needed something to believe in and this religion filled their needs, but nowadays it only causes trouble. I don't need this material existence because I have science to answer those questions, but I still hold the values of god. To me god doesn't exist as such but its his morals that stay with me. To me god is the will to do good, god's will. Maybe everyone should try my point of view and hold god's true will.