|
|
Post by hanzrimer on Sept 22, 2009 18:19:24 GMT -5
Since when does not knowing about something stop anyone from talking about it? haha
|
|
|
|
Post by Fober-dud on Sept 23, 2009 1:56:18 GMT -5
"Well, you'd have to bring up the points for why ID is correct first. In general, though, my likely response to most of the points will be something along the lines of, "Prove the creator exists"."
Is this a question of proof? Because Evolution has not been proven, it has been reported by proponents of its side that it has evidence behind it.
To answer your question, I would say that the world is answer enough. There simply HAD to be a Creator to have a creation; things could not have come to be by beating the odds of improbability or something and just "becoming". There are no "odds" to work with without a Creator. Hehe, there is no computer that I'm writing this message on without a creator of the computer, why do we seem to think that there is no Creator of the Universe?
"Well considering that the theory of evolution is about the evolution of LIFE on earth, that's exactly what it is supposed to address. It doesn't seek to provide an answer as to what happened in the universe before life began since that is irrelevant to it's subject; how life began and developed.
As I said before, the theory of evolution IS NOT a theory about the creation of the universe (see: the big bang theory). "
I have two things to say on this post:
First, as I have said, if you don't know how the Universe began, how can you claim to "know" (without a doubt) how something in the Universe began? Example:
What if in the "beginning" of the Universe the Creator said "I will create life on the Earth by means other than what evolutionists and BM will say in the year 2009 so that Fob can win the debate."?
Lol, TECHNICALLY that COULD have happened, (you couldn't even disprove it) and you would be forever doomed as an Evolutionist to be wrong, because the Creator didn't make the Universe the way you (as an evolutionist) said. And the entire time you would be saying: "It doesn't matter what happened before life began, Evolution doesn't deal with what happens before life began on earth.", and you would be TOTALLY ignorant of just how foolish you notion is. Now, obviously that probably isn't what happened, but we actually cannot even say whether that example I used is true or not, because we weren't there at the beginning.
So my point is: It DOES matter what happened before life on earth began. And if Evolution does not deal with that, then it is doomed at the start as a theory without a solid foundation, EVEN if it has all this evidence to support it, because it DOESN'T take into account what could have happened that COULD'VE created life as we know it by means OTHER than Evolution. I'm not even saying outright that Evolution couldn't have happened, but I am saying that something else could have happened that started life, and as Evolutionists, you guys would be none the wiser.
Second, do you think that the big-bang-theory is scientific?
And in closing, please don't take my comments out of context and pick them apart one by one, they are meant to be taken together as parts of the same thought. The first point I made is all one thought, so don't go quoting one part of it and saying that what I'm saying is wrong or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fober-dud on Sept 23, 2009 2:14:46 GMT -5
"Well, my parents were born in the 60's, so they never got to Biology class before the Supreme Court "officially" banned Creationism in the classroom (Epperson vs Arkansas, 1968), but I doubt that's really your point."
I just realized that this post totally smoke-screened a point that I was making; so I will re-iterate: They used to teach Evolution, ID, and the big bang theory side by side when our parents were kids, why not now? This time answer the question Joppi.
"If you believe in something I feel you have the burden to prove it's true, not others to prove it's wrong."
I agree with you Hanz. But I wasn't saying that ID was true, I was asking if you guys could provide actual reasons behind why you think that it's false. BM, Joppi, and you were saying that ID was false, so the burden of proof is on you guys.
"Have you ever wondered why "aliens" are depicted as weak, frail beings with large craniums? Probably because their entire race has been pumped full of antibiotics and other life prolonging drugs for eons. Hmmm.... "
Maybe also because we have tabloids that make money off of making stories up.
Also BM, where is the factual evidence (that hasn't been disproven as a hoax) that macro-evolution has ever taken place?
|
|
|
|
Post by BulgarianMenace on Sept 23, 2009 2:34:30 GMT -5
Fossil records, comparing embryo development across species, species that used to be one, then due to certain circumstances (geological change causing them to be separated, creating distinctly different gene pools), changing over time to the point that they can't reproduce anymore, among many other things.
And micro-evolution proves macro-evolution. They're the same thing, different only in size of the organism. But just because bacteria is smaller doesn't mean it's not an organism just the same as mammals are.
Seriously man, teaching you is getting tedious. I am NOT a science professor; this isn't my job. You should have learned this stuff in school, and if you didn't there are plenty of sources on the internet you can read written by people who research this stuff as a profession (i.e. can explain it in much greater depth than I can).
No it doesn't. Something could have happened before, that doesn't change that evolution did happen.
I mean, two people could have an argument over spilled milk, and maybe one of them had a bad day at work earlier, but that doesn't mean the argument didn't happen or that the milk didn't get spilled.
And btw, saying "you can't prove X isn't true" doesn't mean jack shit. You can't prove that there isn't an invisible tentacle monster behind you right this second who can't be detected by the senses or modern equipment who will devour your soul when you die. So what? We can't live or make decisions based on the idea that anything is possible that we can't disprove.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joppi on Sept 23, 2009 5:34:06 GMT -5
Bad wording on my part.
"Evidence of the creator, please"
Who created the creator? Or did the creator beat the odds of improbability and just become?
Also, to not waste a post because I know exactly what you're going to say: If the creator can come from nothing/always exist, why couldn't the universe have come from nothing or simply always existed? We have no idea what the universe (or, actually, the lack-thereof) was like before the Big Bang. Who knows, maybe things could simply spring into existence back then?
Uh, I still can't really see the point to this point. Times change. Your great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather was taught that the earth was flat when he was a kid. Scientific theories develop and become more accepted by the scientific community. The overwhelming religious sentiment in the nation has declined. The Supreme Court decided to start really enforcing the "Church and State" separation. There are plenty of reasons why it doesn't belong in school now. Hell, it didn't really belong in school then, but we can't change the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fober-dud on Sept 24, 2009 2:05:06 GMT -5
Fossil records, comparing embryo development across species, species that used to be one, then due to certain circumstances (geological change causing them to be separated, creating distinctly different gene pools), changing over time to the point that they can't reproduce anymore, among many other things. Give me specific evidence of a species evolving into another. Also ID says that fossils prove that Evolution didn't take place, so it's going to take more than your (or my) word against each other to prove the point on that issue. And micro-evolution proves macro-evolution. They're the same thing, different only in size of the organism. When last I checked, the ball park summary was Macro-evolution meant "evolving from one species to another", and Micro-evolution meant "adapting to the environment as needed". Would you say to my face that I am utterly wrong in my take on what micro and macro evolution means? Just wondering. |
|
|
|
Post by Fober-dud on Sept 24, 2009 3:51:50 GMT -5
Seriously man, teaching you is getting tedious. I am NOT a science professor; this isn't my job. You should have learned this stuff in school, and if you didn't there are plenty of sources on the internet you can read written by people who research this stuff as a profession (i.e. can explain it in much greater depth than I can). I wouldn't say that you are teaching me anything, and it seems like you are trying to make me look stupid (lol) to help your argument out. But I could be (and hopefully am) wrong. But also, I am definitely no science professor; it isn't my job either. But we are having a debate, so I am trying to make sure you guys have to backup what you say and can't just throw out some statement about how this or that happened and have everybody gawking at you like you just gave divine revelation from the Big Man Himself. No it doesn't. Something could have happened before, that doesn't change that evolution did happen. Lol, yes it does matter as I've said. If you don't know how the Universe started, then you are missing possible events that COULD HAVE shaped life as we know it in OTHER ways than what Evolution states. And EVEN if Evolution is true, and all that I'm saying is wrong, the fact is that Evolutionists ARE willing to say that it couldn't have come about any other way than by evolutionary means (you said so yourself) because they have found some evidence that, in their minds, points to Evolution when they straight up cannot know (without a doubt) if life was produced by evolutionary means or not. All they have is some evidence that Evolution happened. We can't live or make decisions based on the idea that anything is possible that we can't disprove. Yes, you're right. As humans we could not function living in that manner. But science is not offered the same grace. Now obviously we can't spend every waking hour trying to find out if the boogie man really exists or not, but if there are variables floating around in an equation, you cannot establish a scientific law based on that equation. You must eliminate all possible variations and loose factors until you can get the same answer again and again. But if evolutionists do not "factor" in and eliminate ALL the variables that are present in the equation that is Evolution, then their answer cannot be trusted and especially cannot be held a scientific law, or even a defendable theory. And if they do so, they have proven they are not honest scientists and therefore should not be trusted. Also, to not waste a post because I know exactly what you're going to say: If the creator can come from nothing/always exist, why couldn't the universe have come from nothing or simply always existed? We have no idea what the universe (or, actually, the lack-thereof) was like before the Big Bang. Who knows, maybe things could simply spring into existence back then? (to answer your first question) Have you ever heard of Entropy? I would wonder with a post like that. I would also say that the Big Bang was not the most "scientific" theory to ever be hatched. If you throw a grenade into a house, you do not get order; you get disorder. Why on earth would you expect a HUGE explosion to yield any different results, ON A MUCH GRANDER SCALE I might add. IF a Creator exists, then He must be greater than His creation. (If a man makes a watch, you don't say the watch is greater, you say the man who made the watch is greater. The watch is his creation)*** And IF this Universe is His creation, then literally all we know of as humans is subject to Him, because He is the Creator of this Universe. Therefore time, space, matter, and everything we know of does not affect Him, because He is greater than the creation, and simply made those things (time, space, matter, etc.). Therefore, the Creator does not exist in time because it is something He made. Therefore, He does not "require" a beginning. ***but not in the same exact way, because both the watch and the man are finite, the Creator is infinite, the creation is not infinite(entropy), so we share a different relationship with our "creations" than He does. [Looking over my points and such, I realized that not all of my thoughts were fully fleshed out, but I'm too tired to fix them right now so I'll leave it at that for tonight. Maybe I'll edit the post or something tomorrow.] |
|
|
|
Post by redwurd on Sept 24, 2009 7:43:09 GMT -5
Um ok so this Creator of your is Male?!? Is he like Q from Star Trek the Next Generation? lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Fober-dud on Sept 25, 2009 2:11:16 GMT -5
Um ok so this Creator of your is Male?!? Is he like Q from Star Trek the Next Generation? lol Is this a serious question? Also, who said He was mine? O.o Lol, I would say that calling the Creator a "He" is just to make it a more fluid read. Saying "She" kinda begs the question. Obviously I have nothing against women or anything, but it just makes for a more fluid read saying "He". |
|
|
|
Post by Fober-dud on Sept 25, 2009 2:29:53 GMT -5
We have no idea what the universe (or, actually, the lack-thereof) was like before the Big Bang. Who knows, maybe things could simply spring into existence back then? Is this last sentence supposed to be scientific? BM was saying earlier that I was illogical, and you come at me with this? I am NOT trying to make you guys look stupid, but I was actually taken aback quite a bit by that last sentence. That is not scientific at all. This is science we are talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by BulgarianMenace on Sept 25, 2009 2:38:45 GMT -5
Like I said, scientists don't claim to be correct beyond a doubt.
Rather, they say that the theory is right in the face of all of the evidence we do have, and it should be treated as true until such a time as we find evidence that should cause it to be amended accordingly.
The argument that there could possibly be something scientists don't know yet does nothing to discredit the theory of evolution and the the facts that support it.
Basically what you're saying is, "yes, it makes sense and appears to be true, but because nothing is 100% certain the theory is obviously false."
Or if you prefer, "I'm so determined to disagree that I'll desperately say anything even though I know I have no real point."
I can't help but ask, why don't you apply that same degree of skepticism that you have towards evolution to god? There's not even any evidence for god. There's no reason to believe he exists. And even if you want to say the bible is evidence (it isn't, no more than Grimm's Fairy Tales proves the existence of German myths), what makes your god more likely to be THE god over some other religion's god? I mean, all religions have texts that say their god(s) is the god and other gods are fake.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joppi on Sept 25, 2009 5:08:54 GMT -5
We have no idea what the universe (or, actually, the lack-thereof) was like before the Big Bang. Who knows, maybe things could simply spring into existence back then? Is this last sentence supposed to be scientific? BM was saying earlier that I was illogical, and you come at me with this? I am NOT trying to make you guys look stupid, but I was actually taken aback quite a bit by that last sentence. That is not scientific at all. This is science we are talking about. How so? The Big Bang, if you believe in it, created the universe that we know today. We have no idea how the "universe" worked before that time. I mean, I'm not saying that because we don't know then things must have been able to do spring into existence Pre-Big Bang, it's just food for thought. |
|
|
|
Post by NexsusX (Fury) on Jan 14, 2010 18:31:27 GMT -5
so did this topic die or something D:
|
|
|
|
Post by redwurd on Jan 14, 2010 22:01:59 GMT -5
well to borrow from Nietzsche:
"God is Dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?"
|
|
