Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by hippomchippo
"Scientists can't explain how life came to be. There must have been a god to create the first life form."

Oops, we pretty much have that nailed now.
So now it goes to this.

"The Big Bang theory doesn't explain what caused the Big Bang. There must have been a god to set the universe in motion."

That's a massive leap of logic there Edmc2, I hope you realize that, and until we can use some sort of scientific knowledge or tools to find out what actually happened before the big bang, it's nothing but a assertion, and believing in god on an assertion is really bad thinking.

[edit on 17-7-2010 by hippomchippo]

E= mc2

That's a fantastic way to ignore my post, thanks.

Well we can delve into quantum physics and the theory of relativity but I'm trying to keep things simple.

So do you agree that the universe had a beginning then?

ty,
edmc2

By current scientific understanding, yes.
If you're going to argue the first cause argument, please don't, I've heard it many times before and is very very flawed in its thinking.

Originally posted by soleprobe
Good job.... but the evolution theory is very similar to the climate change theory... it's roots are political... thus only logic that directs towards that political objective will be used.

see, this is the problem with you people...scientific testing is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of anything political...religion and the belief in god is totally political...why???
because nobody can DISPROVE A BELIEF!!! it's...a... BELIEF!!!

Originally posted by edmc^2

I didn't say energy has intelligence - I said that the source of energy has the intelligence. Thus the quote.

ty,

[edit on 17-7-2010 by edmc^2]

And how do you know anything about the source of this energy?
Old books? And also how do you know this source has intelligence?
Infact, how do you even know the energy has a source?

[edit on 17-7-2010 by hippomchippo]

you guys ever think that this dude might be brilliant he might be play psyche games with you showing people jus how dumb an invisible creator is that is so powerful nothing created it it just appeared for no reason like a fairy with fairy dust!

so if he can suck people that argue for god which i have seen one in here who i have argued with on multiple occasions..but hes in here arguing against this guy after supportingbasically what the guy is saying....it makes me wonder maybe it's his way to get people to see there hypocritcal self!

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by soleprobe
Good job.... but the evolution theory is very similar to the climate change theory... it's roots are political... thus only logic that directs towards that political objective will be used.

see, this is the problem with you people...scientific testing is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of anything political...religion and the belief in god is totally political...why???
because nobody can DISPROVE A BELIEF!!! it's...a... BELIEF!!!

You mean FAITH? Anyway faith or belief is totally based on this fact:

True Faith and Blind Faith.

Here's the Bible diffinition of faith:

(Heb 11:1-2) “Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. For by means of this the men of old times had witness borne to them.”

This type of faith/belief is not an ignorant readiness to believe something on weak or insufficient evidence.

On the other hand blind faith/belief is self explenatory - faith founded on unreality - something that does not make sense and illogic.


ty,
edmc2

Originally posted by edmc^2
So OZ are you saying that a simpe pencil requires a maker while the super complex universe with all of its stars and galaxies does not require a maker? Just happen to be?

Hmmm, highly illogic and unscientific don't you think?

ty,
edmc2

Why not? Does your super complex God require a maker?

I don't feel compelled to answer the OP's arguments. You can find them in any introduction to philosophical analysis textbook used in Freshman classes around the world. It's old stuff.

What is interesting about the theory of Evolution is its OWN evolution since 1859. Darwin, who was NOT a political animal, but a scientist who did not care for politics, has a wealth of detail in "Origin of Species." (How many here besides myself have actually read it?) He uses contemporary examples showing evolution in action, such as the white moth evolving to a black moth because of coal dust pollution in the English countryside turning the bark of white trees black, thus favoring the survival of black moths from predators because they couldn't be seen. Changing conditions enabled survival of the fittest.

But a serious "flaw" in Evolution in 1859 and in 1871/2 when he published "The Descent of Man" was that no one knew how evolution worked. We could see the results, but we did not understand the mechanism behind it. Also, in the 19th century there were few, if any, fossils of early hominims that could show how Homo sapiens evolved. In other words, Darwin had a theory, but he didn't have much evidence other than the end results.

Then the 20th century came along and several things happened. First, we started finding lots of fossils. This has continued for 100 years with every new find filling in another piece of the puzzle. Yes, it's ever changing as we find newer bones; that's as it should be. But the fact is after a century of searching anthropologists have it pretty well nailed back to Homo erectus. It gets thinner and thinner the further back you go, of course, but the point is that nothing in the fossil record contradicts evolution. Everything found supports it; and Homo erectus was NOT Homo sapiens. He was a little smaller, not quite as intelligent, but could probably easily beat you on the soccer field. We have hundreds of specimens including some complete skeletons, such as Turkana Boy.

The other big thing that happened was the discovery of the mechanism in the form of DNA. If there was ever a "missing link," this was it. And the interesting thing was that these discoveries came about by studying genetics. These guys weren't into paleontology. So here we have two completely different fields and it all comes together. We now understand the science of genetics well enough that we can use gene therapy. We've mapped the human genome and are beginning to discover which genes cause which traits. Incredible.

So the point is that in the last 150 years science has confirmed evolution from may different angles.

And the sad thing is, this "creator" argument is simply unnecessary. It is not a logical fallacy to say that the Creator used the mechanism of DNA to create. You can have your God and evolution, too, and there is no real contradiction.

Of couse, OP won't go along with that. He's a man with a cause (see sig below), but I didn't write this for him, but to the reat of you whom I thought might be interested. I won't be back on this thread. It really isn't worth it. Cheers.

[edit on 7/17/2010 by schuyler]