Search results

I believe this thread is about abiogenesis. Not angels.

Convenient.

No. It has been shown time and time again that order can and does arise from natural processes.

There would be very few atheists who consider the universe to have always existed. A big bang that happened 13-14 billion years ago is the theory with the most credence.

Because they were all ignorant. It's probable that they all believed lightning and rainbows were the works of supernatural beings too. Forgive me for not being swayed by your argument that because a bunch of ancient civilisations all believed something sort of similar, it means that your...

Not really considering he still thought it was probable that there was a big bang. You're also failing to take into account the fact that we can measure the distance to type Ia supernovae (and any other astronomical object of a standard brightness) and that it corresponds perfectly with what we...

The universe has a net energy of zero (something which has been proved in the last few decades) Meaning it could have (must have) come from nothing in order to not break the law of conservation of energy.

I do generally refer to the King James. What gave it away?

If we all spoke Latin maybe. In English homo sapiens = human. The vast majority of people who call themselves homo sapiens wouldn't even know what it means in Latin.

So who's Stephen Smith? An appeal to authority works better when the "authority" you're quoting is well known, professionally qualified and has been published in places other than a pseudo-scientific .info site. As far as I can see most of what you brought up are theories to explain observable...

Considering your insistence in taking Genesis literally you seem to be making some astoundingly far-fetched interpretations when it comes to Revelation.

Learning more about how the universe works is intrinsically a good thing. Knowledge is better than ignorance. Any practical applications of evolution are secondary to the huge benefit that is understanding how we and the rest of the species inhabiting Earth came into existence.

You could get rid of the could've/would've/might've and replace them with "the evidence points towards", "there's broad consensus that" or "it's most likely that". By showing you how it could've happened surely you can see that non-theistic evolution is a totally valid possibility?

It. Has. Already. Been. Explained. But I will do it again. A lizard evolves downy feathers to keep warm. This gives it increased insulation. Increased chance of survival. These downy feathers become more complex feathers. Either for displaying in courtship or to frighten predators, or later on...

So try explaining it as though I were someone who has dropped these "preconceived notions"

If you take Genesis (or any part of the Bible for that matter) as the non-allegorical and infallible word of God then how do you account for the countless inconsistencies? Or is God in his omnipotence capable of saying two things that are incompatible and them both being true?

"We're sorry, but this video is not available in your region due to rights restrictions." Cliff notes?

I'm pretty sure LSD could do that.

Of course there are differences. There are also differences between glasses and mugs, tables and chairs, Baptists and Anglicans, etc. That's not to say that you can't classify them as belonging in some of the same categories. Biology's method of classifying Hominoids (Apes) doesn't take the...

No one's saying that humans are chimpanzees/gorillas/what-have-you. They're simply both classed as "apes" or Hominoidae because of their similarities. Just as cows and buffalo are both Bovids and llamas and camels are both Camelids. Not considering yourself as one of the "apes" makes about as...