Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[(SWGO)Kren]

I've added my replies in bold.

MT: With regards to the three hypotheses (not theories) you present, as far as I know, we only have evidence that the first is possible. Thus, it's accepted pending further evidence.

You don't want to believe how many holes are there in the evolution theory....

1- If there ever was a Big Bang - who or what caused it to happen? How can something (a lot, actually everything) come from nothing?(since we didn't know what was there at that time) Wild theories like the completely unproven evolutionary string theory require a lot more 'faith' than accepting a Creator God
(Steven Hawking, perhaps the most famous scientist alive, made this startling admission during the 1997 PBS program, Universe.)

Reply: we don't know for sure, it's still being investigated but it was according to science a rapid expansion of energy. Just because we don't know how something came in being does not mean it did not come out of nothing as we know it.

2-The natural laws that govern the universe and our world are perfectly fine tuned: Even minor changes in the constants of these laws and/or the natural or chemical properties of the elements critical to life would have destroyed life before it existed. How can these natural laws be so perfectly balanced and designed without a Designer?
Paul Davies , God and the New Physics (1983), p.189)

Reply: What do you mean by natural laws, you mean what humans have developed through science and investigation. What is to say there are other 'laws' that exist that we have not found and only exist under specific conditions (time/lack of time, er, dark er, dark energy etc)?

3- Chances of finding a similar habitable planet like Earth suited for life in our Milky Way galaxy or even in the entire universe are practically zero.
(Evolutionary astronomers Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee , Rare Earth (2000), chapter 12)

Reply: Do you mean with humans on it or life? If there are billions of galaxies and billions of stars with each galaxy and many more planets do you not think that perhaps there is life elsewhere which could have been developed. I mean not that long ago our ancestors though the Earth was the middle of the universe. Now we know different.

4- Modern science has reached the unanimous conclusion that life on a planet like earth could not have started by mere chance. The complex building blocks of the simplest living cell – proteins, DNA and molecular machines – do not allow for random assembly even through long periods of time. Despite decades of intense research, origin-of-life scientists have found no evolutionary explanation to explain how life could have started by natural processes alone.
(Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart, The Plausibility of Life (2005), p.46-50)

Reply: So modern science has indicated that life was created by whom? What do you mean by natural btw?

5- No mechanism for species to evolve. Natural selection is just variation within a species. Genetic mutations are required to evolve from one species into the next, however mutations are not common and mostly neutral. If they happen, they are almost always harmful not beneficial. The occurrence of many small, beneficial steps of mutations is against all odds and has never been observed.
(James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard, 1999, p.25)

Reply: Mutations are common in every species including humans. Out DNA is different for others, there are commonalities but there are also differences. Copying can cause mutations, environmental agents interacting with DNA etc.

6- The fossil record. There are no intermediate species in the fossil record. According to Darwin's theory of evolution, species would evolve to more complex new species by a series of gradual mutations. However, despite of over 100+ years of extensive studies of the fossil record, no intermediate species have been discovered. On the contrary, the Cambrian Explosion shows the almost “overnight” appearance of the body plans of all modern day life forms at about the same moment in time.
(Paleontologist Harry Whittington, The Biological Explosion at the Precambrian-Cambrian Boundary, as published in Evolutionary Biology, volume 25 (1991), p.294)

Reply: LOL, it happened almost overnight. More like millions of years.


7-The existence of so called irreducible complex molecular machines cannot be explained by gradual, 'evolutionary' evolvement of the components of these machines, as these systems can only perform if all components are present. Therefore, gradual “evolution” is not possible.
(Dr. Michael Behe, Darwin ’s Black Box (1996), p.70-71)

Reply: this is down to chemical and biochemical properties. The evolutionary process is full of complex and simple processes. I can't really agree with Behe's findings.

PS. these are quotes placed into simpler more understandable sentences, if you want the original quote just ask, i wanted to add em but the post would be bigger then any ever before

So just like STEVEN HAWKINGS said i find it easier to believe creationalism then the odds given to me, what i think has been the main problem for creationalism are all the diffrent religions that make their own story about hell and all that B-[[poo]] however cientists can't agree either on their own theories or hypotheses...

I don't think everyone has all the answers and you are not going to get everyone to agree. I just want to understand what you are aiming to get out of this, an understanding, a theory to change your views, a convergence of ideas and a debate between in some cases people with massively different views and ideas. What outcome are you looking for MT?

MT

[Heatmaster78]

So if you believe in Creationism then you believe that...

1. Someone called "God" popped out of thin air
2. He just happened to have holy, godlike powers (he is God after all) and shaped the Earth with nothing but his hands and imagination
3. He used his holy godlike powers to create JUST 2 people (Adam and Eve), not a whole civilization of people.
4. All of the above seems entirely IMPOSSIBlE and entirely IMPROBABLE that those events could happen.
As a true Christian you're taught to believe all the Bible says and if anyone denies it then you go all rage mode on them saying "you're gonna go to Hell if you don't believe what the Bible says, now convert!"

Sorry if I make a generalization here but that's all I'm getting from the people who believe in Creationism.

[(SWGO)Kren]

Ugh. The problem I have with your way of thinking is you act like god and science can't or don't go hand in hand. I'm taking it on faith that God exists, I believe in that. I can look at solid proof that evolution exists in some way. They are more or less the same thing for me.

1)You say that god and science based upon your understanding of Yanoda's reply can't or do go hand in hand. Does it er if they cannot especially if science can't prove/disprove God exists but your faith means you believe God can?

2) Faith = belief rather than proof

If evolution is not how god creates life(whether directly or indirectly), then how does he do it?

3) You have to believe firstly there is a god, who had a plan, and that plan included the development of diversity in life from non sentient to sentient life forms and within that plan there was a specific design for humans. How would this be done, good question and I mean no disrespect here but if god created life and consciousness do you think he would be willing to share the design with such a primitive race? If God wanted to communicate the design to us or the plan/end-game should this not have been done? You are also asking for proof, why, just accept this is they way things work, a mixture of science and faith? That way nobody is completely right or wrong.

4)You are asking Yanoda about proof but there very nature of faith is that you don't need proof therefore why should it be provided, can you just take it on faith?


Some of your so called "facts" are false. I suggest you study a lot more on paleontology before you try and say evolution is impossible.

By the way, don't follow what Darwin said like On the Origin of Species is a bible. He was the first, doesn't mean he is right. How we understand evolution changes all the time.

[THEWULFMAN]

Ugh. The problem I have with your way of thinking is you act like god and science can't or don't go hand in hand. I'm taking it on faith that God exists, I believe in that. I can look at solid proof that evolution exists in some way. They are more or less the same thing for me.

1)You say that god and science based upon your understanding of Yanoda's reply can't or do go hand in hand. Does it er if they cannot especially if science can't prove/disprove God exists but your faith means you believe God can?

2) Faith = belief rather than proof

If evolution is not how god creates life(whether directly or indirectly), then how does he do it?

3) You have to believe firstly there is a god, who had a plan, and that plan included the development of diversity in life from non sentient to sentient life forms and within that plan there was a specific design for humans. How would this be done, good question and I mean no disrespect here but if god created life and consciousness do you think he would be willing to share the design with such a primitive race? If God wanted to communicate the design to us or the plan/end-game should this not have been done? You are also asking for proof, why, just accept this is they way things work, a mixture of science and faith? That way nobody is completely right or wrong.

4)You are asking Yanoda about proof but there very nature of faith is that you don't need proof therefore why should it be provided, can you just take it on faith?


Some of your so called "facts" are false. I suggest you study a lot more on paleontology before you try and say evolution is impossible.

By the way, don't follow what Darwin said like On the Origin of Species is a bible. He was the first, doesn't mean he is right. How we understand evolution changes all the time.

Uh... I was responding to MT, not Yanoda. What I said wasn't directed at Yanoda at all.

So... there's been some kind of a misunderstanding here...

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

Reply: we don't know for sure, it's still being investigated but it was according to science a rapid expansion of energy. Just because we don't know how something came in being does not mean it did not come out of nothing as we know it.

That's the point, but i can just redo that question: How can you claim the big bang theory is right if you don't know for sure

Reply: What do you mean by natural laws, you mean what humans have developed through science and investigation. What is to say there are other 'laws' that exist that we have not found and only exist under specific conditions (time/lack of time, er, dark er, dark energy etc)?

The laws of nature, are like yanny said before fact that have been prooven and cannot be denied, such as gravity, but to put in more details here is the original quote“It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in numbers, has been rather carefully thought out… The seemingly miraculous concurrence of these numerical values must remain the most compelling evidence for cosmic design.”
(Paul Davies , God and the New Physics (1983), p.189)

Reply: Do you mean with humans on it or life? If there are billions of galaxies and billions of stars with each galaxy and many more planets do you not think that perhaps there is life elsewhere which could have been developed. I mean not that long ago our ancestors though the Earth was the middle of the universe. Now we know different.
And after that they tought the sun was the center of the universe, and after that they started thinking life created himself, but what will they know in 100 years from now? however it's like was said in the reply that life created by itself without a disign has not low chances but the Percentage is far below some 0,001% chance life fits in a piece and one alteration could end it, i'm not claiming it will, i'm claiming that it's easier to believe that someone made us then all these coincidences just to be coincidences

Reply: So modern science has indicated that life was created by whom? What do you mean by natural btw?
Look basicly cells have their pattern, there can be no alteration in this patrern to make the cell meaning a ramdom mix of substances cannot create, it has to be exact hence why cientists such as the one's quote iv'e posted do not believe in the evolution theory, altough they believe in evolution, meaning they think humans don't know the answer YET

Reply: Mutations are common in every species including humans. Out DNA is different for others, there are commonalities but there are also differences. Copying can cause mutations, environmental agents interacting with DNA etc.
Just asking, ever seen a purebreed horse being mixed with a zebra? posible? yes yet no reproduction can be made,

Reply: LOL, it happened almost overnight. More like millions of years.
“I look skeptically upon diagrams that show the branching diversity of animal life through time, and come down at the base to a single kind of animal….Animals may have originated more than once, in different places at different times.”
(Paleontologist Harry Whittington, The Biological Explosion at the Precambrian-Cambrian Boundary, as published in Evolutionary Biology, volume 25 (1991), p.294)

Reply: this is down to chemical and biochemical properties. The evolutionary process is full of complex and simple processes. I can't really agree with Behe's findings.
no comment

I don't think everyone has all the answers and you are not going to get everyone to agree. I just want to understand what you are aiming to get out of this, an understanding, a theory to change your views, a convergence of ideas and a debate between in some cases people with massively different views and ideas. What outcome are you looking for MT?
I do remember my teacher saying "i do not teach you like others, i give you facts, and you think whatever you want to think about it" , i'm not trying to change someone's mind about something, and yes i love debating and seeing other's theories, i don't have a purpose of an outcome, i would only be happy if everyone had a minute to spend on other's theories, and give opinions about it, not about who's wrong and who's right.

There are many things that are flawed within the Bible in explaining phenomenons in our world, written by humans ('who believed the Earth was flat') that lived over 2000 years ago.
7000 Thousand years in cosmological terms is still very, very short. As a vague example: 7000 years in cosmological time is like 1 second of human life.
MT, all your points have been debunked already.

1- Please know the flaws before you think they are flaws, you say the humans then believed the earth was flat wich is correct, this passage however denies your claim
Isaiah 40:22 "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwel"

"the circle of earth" not the flat of earth.
The bible was finished some years after "Jesus" death, they started writing it A LONG TIME before that, but just let's say 2000 years even tough it's longer.
So how did these men who wrote the bible, even tough religios people say "inspired by god" while others say written by humans, knew that the earth was round?
There was no proof about the round of earth yet the bible discribes it, and it was written by humans of that time.

MT

[THEWULFMAN]

"the circle of earth" not the flat of earth.

*facepalm*

A circle is not a sphere. A circle is flat. A sphere is not flat.

Basically it means absolutely nothing.

[(SWGO)Kren]

Ugh. The problem I have with your way of thinking is you act like god and science can't or don't go hand in hand. I'm taking it on faith that God exists, I believe in that. I can look at solid proof that evolution exists in some way. They are more or less the same thing for me.

1)You say that god and science based upon your understanding of Yanoda's reply can't or do go hand in hand. Does it er if they cannot especially if science can't prove/disprove God exists but your faith means you believe God can?

2) Faith = belief rather than proof

If evolution is not how god creates life(whether directly or indirectly), then how does he do it?

3) You have to believe firstly there is a god, who had a plan, and that plan included the development of diversity in life from non sentient to sentient life forms and within that plan there was a specific design for humans. How would this be done, good question and I mean no disrespect here but if god created life and consciousness do you think he would be willing to share the design with such a primitive race? If God wanted to communicate the design to us or the plan/end-game should this not have been done? You are also asking for proof, why, just accept this is they way things work, a mixture of science and faith? That way nobody is completely right or wrong.

4)You are asking Yanoda about proof but there very nature of faith is that you don't need proof therefore why should it be provided, can you just take it on faith?


Some of your so called "facts" are false. I suggest you study a lot more on paleontology before you try and say evolution is impossible.

By the way, don't follow what Darwin said like On the Origin of Species is a bible. He was the first, doesn't mean he is right. How we understand evolution changes all the time.

Uh... I was responding to MT, not Yanoda. What I said wasn't directed at Yanoda at all.

So... there's been some kind of a misunderstanding here...

Nevermind, scrub Yanoda's name and put MT's...same applies though

[Bryant]

The Big Bang Theory is currently the best explanation of how the Universe we know today came to be.

Exactly, it is the best purely scientific explanation. And this is were the argument becomes pointless. If you're looking for me to prove to you a better scientific explanation, you're never going to get it. So basically this argument boils down to: do you believe in science or God...

Why does believing in God have to make you oppose science? We use science to attempt to explain, understand, and improve the world. The data and conclusions we get don't care whether you think there's a creator behind everything or not.

I didn't mean it to sound so cut in dry. I was trying to point out that: if you reject God then you will have no other point of view. You'll simply fall into "there is no better explanation" thus making the argument pointless. And instead it becomes an argument about God. In other words, it seems that we would need to prove the existence of God before I can disprove the big bang or evolution.

By the way, I am a very scientific person

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

So if you believe in Creationism then you believe that...

1. Someone called "God" popped out of thin air
2. He just happened to have holy, godlike powers (he is God after all) and shaped the Earth with nothing but his hands and imagination
3. He used his holy godlike powers to create JUST 2 people (Adam and Eve), not a whole civilization of people.
4. All of the above seems entirely IMPOSSIBlE and entirely IMPROBABLE that those events could happen.
As a true Christian you're taught to believe all the Bible says and if anyone denies it then you go all rage mode on them saying "you're gonna go to Hell if you don't believe what the Bible says, now convert!"

Sorry if I make a generalization here but that's all I'm getting from the people who believe in Creationism.

1. Nothing popped out of nowhere, if you read the bible your bound to find a couple of times(example Deuteronomy 33:27) "god is eternal"
Definition of eternal: Being without beginning or end, the only other thing i could name eternal is time.
2. Not really the bible gives detailed information about what he created, also note in much passages that he usses "forces of nature" in wich i could agree with Wulf
3. I have to refer to genesis now:
Genesis 1:26-28 26 And God went on to say: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth.” 27 And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. 28 Further, God blessed them and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.”

4. As improbable as the odds of a big bang created by something unknown that puts the earth on the perfect location, while the 1/billion of chance spawned a protein adding a little RDN that happened to be there on the same square inch and adding the spice of coorperation that made them work together and create a basic cell that somehow got to a complex cell?

5. THAT'S THE WHOLE PROBLEM, you know most religions messed up creationalism did you know the bible doesn't discribe a burning hell as some religions do? there is no eternal suffering found in the bible.

MT

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

"the circle of earth" not the flat of earth.

*facepalm*

A circle is not a sphere. A circle is flat. A sphere is not flat.

Basically it means absolutely nothing.

Sorry for forgetting to add:
Note, the bible is translated from hebrew and greek
Note, this language(hebrew) didn't have vowels
Note, the Biblical Hebrew word for “circle” (חוג—chuwg) can also mean “round” or “sphere.”