Could someone explain me evolution & Big Bang?

[KWCrazy]

There are plenty of 'Christians' who don't understand the scriptures and think all sorts of misconceptions about them.

Yes, that's where theistic evolution comes in. My standard is simple; demonstrate what you say through PASSAGES of Scriptures, not a word or phrase taken out of context.

You really think that everything you needed to learn about such things, you learned in seventh grade.

I know that the laws of thermodynamics are still laws, which means they are inviolate. You can't get around them. Matter/ energy cannot be created. Period.

I don't have to pretend, that's actually the case.

The universe is a closed system. When we talk about creation, we talk about the universe, NOT the earth. Yet invariably, just about every evolutionist tries to move the goal post and say that the earth is NOT a closed system because of the sun. It's common distortion which points out either dishonesty on your part or your lack of knowledge of the laws of physics. As I mentioned, the sun, which is part of the closed system we call the universe, is burning out and decaying like everything else in the universe. Secondly, raw energy imparted into a system is deleterious, which is why bombs cause destruction. Our universe is perfectly designed with a beginning and an end. Only God knows when that end will come, but it will come according to God's law, not natural law. In the complete absence of Got, it would take a few billion years but the universe would still decay to unusable heat energy. You would know that if you actually studied the 2nd Law beyond what evolution friendly websites have picked out about it.

We 'know' no such things.

You certainly don't, because you apparently don't understand the laws of Thermodynamics. You think you can point to a tiny subset with an external source of energy and radiation (that is finite) and proclaim the governing laws of the physical world invalid.

A blanket statement backed by absolutely nothing but your own personal...

Experience. I corrected it for you. I've never met an atheist who ever studied the Scriptures for any purpose than to discredit them. Atheism IS ignorance. The two are interchangeable.

 

[Black Akuma]

I know that the laws of thermodynamics are still laws, which means they are inviolate.

No, that's not what a law means. Scientific laws explain observations. They're descriptive. You're conflating them with law in a legal sense.

Matter/ energy cannot be created. Period.

That doesn't mean we have to appeal to a supernatural force to explain them.

Yet invariably, just about every evolutionist tries to move the goal post and say that the earth is NOT a closed system because of the sun.

Because it's not. And if we're talking about evolution, we're dealing with the Earth.

Secondly, raw energy imparted into a system is deleterious, which is why bombs cause destruction.

Not necessarily. Is sunlight not raw energy? Can plants not process it via photosynthesis?

You would know that if you actually studied the 2nd Law beyond what evolution friendly websites have picked out about it.

Please, cite a scientific journal that states the universe won't fall into heat death without God.

You certainly don't, because you apparently don't understand the laws of Thermodynamics.

Do you?

What are the three different forms of the 2nd Law? Did you even know it had three different forms? What is 'entropy'? How is it quantified? What is 'disorder', in a real scientific sense? Do you know what 'thermal equilibrium' means? Do you know that the Earth receives more energy than it can ever expend?

I've never met an atheist who ever studied the Scriptures for any purpose than to discredit them.

Given your attitude, I can't imagine you've ever spent a good deal of time actually trying to get to know any atheist. Regardless, 'I've never met one' isn't an argument against the existence of something.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I know that the laws of thermodynamics are still laws, which means they are inviolate. You can't get around them. Matter/ energy cannot be created. Period.

The laws of thermodynamics are observations. Tenacious observations, sure, but observations nonetheless. We've never seen energy be created or destroyed, so we posit that it can't be created or destroyed. But we have no proof of that, only a lack of disproof.

It is little known that conservation laws have been broken. We once thought that parity was conserved, but in 1957 we observed that weak interactions (i.e., those mediated by the weak nuclear force) break parity conservation. Oh no!

Don't take the word 'law' too literally. It isn't some grand equation in granite floating in the sky. Laws are just tenacious observations assumed to be true - until it's shown that they're not, such as in weak interactions. The laws have implications in Noether's theorem, of course.

The universe is a closed system.

We have no idea if it's closed or not. But ultimately that's irrelevant: the Earth, taken on its own, is open. Even the solar system, taken on its own, is open - the energy emitted by the Sun radiates outwards. Evolution doesn't violate thermodynamics because any entropy loss from evolution comes from a greater entropy gain as the Sun burns away.

As for the universe itself, like I said, we have no idea if it's closed or not. The laws of thermodynamics are only applicable to thermodynamic systems, and even if the universe is closed, since we don't know what its topology or boundaries are like, we can't comment on whether it fits the background assumptions of thermodynamics.

Experience. I corrected it for you. I've never met an atheist who ever studied the Scriptures for any purpose than to discredit them. Atheism IS ignorance. The two are interchangeable.

I submit myself: a Christian who studied the Bible, and thereafter became an atheist. I'm an atheist who's studied the Bible for a purpose other than to discredit it.

 

[KWCrazy]

No, that's not what a law means. Scientific laws explain observations. They're descriptive. You're conflating them with law in a legal sense.

A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science, like Newton's law of universal gravitation. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. The law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of Inductive Reasoning. As well, factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered to be too specific to qualify as scientific laws.
source

A law in science is a generalized rule to explain a body of observations in the form of a verbal or mathematical statement. Scientific laws imply a cause and effect between the observed elements and must always apply under the same conditions.

Scientific laws do not try to explain the 'why' the observed event happens, but only that the event actually occurs the same way over and over.
source

When facing the fact that the laws of physics interfere with their arguments, atheists ALWAYS try to change the definition of the law or the verbiage of the law to accommodate what they chose to believe is scientific. I knew this would be the immediate reaction. Simply admitting that something is explainable requires an honesty not found in these discussions.

That doesn't mean we have to appeal to a supernatural force to explain them.

That doesn't mean you can disprove the actions of a supernatural force, either.

And if we're talking about evolution, we're dealing with the Earth.

We're talking about CREATION, which includes the physical universe. You don't get to re-define terms to fit your argument. The simple fact is that EVERY SINGLE explanation for the origination of the universe is equally impossible, but only our side has the integrity to admit it. God can do the impossible.

Not necessarily. Is sunlight not raw energy? Can plants not process it via photosynthesis?

How many plants are there on Mercury? Without the atmosphere protecting us from the sun's energy, we'd all be dead.

Please, cite a scientific journal that states the universe won't fall into heat death without God.

That says it WON'T?? Science knows that the universe is finite and WILL eventually decay to useless energy.

What are the three different forms of the 2nd Law?

Did you even know it had three different forms?

Since high school.

What is 'entropy'?

A measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder, that is a property of the system's state, and that varies directly with any reversible change in heat in the system and inversely with the temperature of the system; broadly : the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system.

How is it quantified? What is 'disorder', in a real scientific sense? Do you know what 'thermal equilibrium' means? Do you know that the Earth receives more energy than it can ever expend?

Enough with the grade school questions. This is getting increasingly boring. It only points out that you don't know enough about science to know its limitations, you can't comprehend that the sun is burning out, you claim that the laws of physics govern the universe but not necessarily your arguments, and you're trying to divert attention from the fact that the very laws of physics preclude the origination of matter by any means.

It's really sad that you cannot have a fact based discussion without someone bringing their own facts to the table. Increasing entropy means you're going to die. When you do you will stand before your Creator. What happens then depends entirely on whether you worship the Creator or the creation.

Given your attitude, I can't imagine you've ever spent a good deal of time actually trying to get to know any atheist.

I know quite a few, and they can't have a discussion without bringing their own facts any more than you can.

Regardless, 'I've never met one' isn't an argument against the existence of something.

That just blew away your reason for not believing in God.

 

[KWCrazy]

I submit myself: a Christian who studied the Bible, and thereafter became an atheist. I'm an atheist who's studied the Bible for a purpose other than to discredit it.

Christian means "of Christ." If you were ever truly "of Christ," then you had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This means you had a direct relationship with God. You now claim He doesn't exist, which either means you're lying or you were never actually a Christian. Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than swimming in the ocean makes you a tuna. If you were never saved, then you were never a Christian regardless of what you called yourself. You might as well say that your earthly father never existed, even after living in his home, eating at his table and growing up with him. You are obviously deceiving yourself about one path or the other. Perhaps you need to search your soul to see what, if anything, you truly believe.

 

[biggles53]

Christian means "of Christ." If you were ever truly "of Christ," then you had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This means you had a direct relationship with God. You now claim He doesn't exist, which either means you're lying or you were never actually a Christian. Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than swimming in the ocean makes you a tuna. If you were never saved, then you were never a Christian regardless of what you called yourself. You might as well say that your earthly father never existed, even after living in his home, eating at his table and growing up with him. You are obviously deceiving yourself about one path or the other. Perhaps you need to search your soul to see what, if anything, you truly believe.

Hoots mon..! Can ye nae ken why there are 30 000 of you chappies oot there...?

 

[biggles53]

Experience. I corrected it for you. I've never met an atheist who ever studied the Scriptures for any purpose than to discredit them. Atheism IS ignorance. The two are interchangeable.[/COLOR]

Actually, it would appear that one of the BEST ways of producing an atheist is to have a person of faith read the Bible....!

 

[ThinkForYourself]

... That doesn't mean you can disprove the actions of a supernatural force, either.
...

You are correct. Santa Claus created the universe, the earth, and all life upon it.

Santa divinely inspired the author to write "The Night Before Christmas" so that mankind could learn HIS sacred word. Notice the part about "Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse". This obviously means there was not one creature upon the earth, until Santa divinely created it.

I hope you have a decorated tree in your house to celebrate the awesome that is Santa.

 

[stevevw]

Environment plays a crucial role in evolution. Gaining a limb and loosing a limb does not mean gaining or loosing an advantage. Loss of limbs are advantageous just as gaining limbs.

Consider this: Dolphins have ancestors who left the ocean and returned to the ocean. Seals too are in the transition of becoming aquatic. This does not mean that the aquatic ancestors were disadvantaged nor the land based ancestor. All it means is that as the environment changes then so life forms adapt. Some to survive and some to populate new niches that give them an advantage.

Snakes are extremely agile due to their limbless body structure. Lizards are also agile with their limbs. The Earth has an ever changing environment and this pushes life forms to adapt. There is no right or wrong in evolution. There is only: If you adapt you survive. If you cannot adapt then you die.

That still doesn't explain the evidence they have put forward of how the snake evolved. First they said it was one way because of the evidence. This was linked to a creature from the sea the mosasaurs because of the similarities and built a story around it. They had it in books and taught it. This shows that they get the guess work wrong of building a story about the evolution of a creature and make all sorts of claims. But that all seem to be ok because its still true they have just got the details wrong. Well they could be wrong about a lot of their story and the new evidence with discoveries of fossils and DNA is showing they are wrong. The new discoveries came along and contradicted this. The new fossils outdated the mosasaurs. Where they had said it lost it legs on land and showed the links to lizards it now seems it lost it legs at sea.

Because fossils have been found with complete hind legs that are older they must have evolved onto land as either a two legged creature on with no legs. Because it has complete hind legs it shows that it lost it front legs separately. So for what ever reason it seems weird to just have back legs. To me it would make it harder. If its on land it would be awkward and be easy prey, if its in the sea then its still a strange thing to have without developing webs or fins. It just doesn't make sense.

But the point is there are no transitions of snakes losing front legs. We have a fossil showing complete hind legs and a snake alive today supposedly with traces of hind legs. But nothing has been found to show any stage in between. In other words if we have a snake with a slither of a remnant of hind legs then this shows its disappearing. Then the stages before it got to the point of a slither should be found somewhere. They have found several fossils with hind legs but not one with front legs or any stages of losing both front and hind legs. Not just that if a lizard type creature evolved into a snake then its body would not becoming like a snke leaving its legs. It would gradually become longer and thinner and lose everything at the same time.

If we have a snake with a slither of hind leg around today showing how evolution works. Showing that the limbs are disappearing and what is left is the last stages of the leg before it completely goes then why dont we see that everywhere within other creatures. I agree if it had legs and then they gradually disappeared then that would show evolution. If you had fossil evidence with some other stages of this then yes it would be good evidence. But you dont, everything shows complete creatures or a creature they say had this feature once but now its gone because we can see where it use to go. But never any stage in between showing gradual disappearance or growing of that limb.

So they have built the whole idea that snakes lost they limbs and came from a 4 legged lizard from a slither of bone in the snake that is alive today. I just dont think there is enough evidence to support this based on the contradictory evidence we have now. It seems the snake may not have come from a four legged lizard type and at the moment its ancestor was already snake like creature with 2 legs. There is no reason why that creature could not have just lost its legs because of a loss of genetic ability and thats it. It could also be that snakes are just a part of the lizard family with great variation. But that doesn't show the snake or any creature evolving from a completely different shaped creature nor are there any proofs to show it has.

It seems with the more we discover with new fossils and the DNA there have been more and more surprising things coming up that are changing the story that evolution painted. Not just a matter of they got their position wrong in a line but its taking creatures completely out of that line and placing others that shouldn't belong in them . According to the evolutionary story they have put forward and said was true.

 

[Black Akuma]

A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated.

I didn't change the definition, you cut out the part of the definition that disagreed with you.

A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated.

You didn't think I'd click on the link? And your second 'source' pretty much just restates what I said. Scientific laws are simply observations in natures. You're treating them like they're some hard, fast rule that's written down and can never be violated or something, but that's not what they are.

How come you didn't address Wiccan's example?

Without the atmosphere protecting us from the sun's energy, we'd all be dead.

Not necessarily.

It only points out that you don't know enough about science to know its limitations

I, at no point, said anything to suggest that science has no limitations. My only point is that having those limitations doesn't mean we should just accept anything to fill them in.

you can't comprehend that the sun is burning out

I comprehend it. I don't see what it has to do with this discussion, but I comprehend it.

and you're trying to divert attention from the fact that the very laws of physics preclude the origination of matter by any means.

No, they don't. And if you think they do, you don't understand them. There is absolutely nothing about any of the laws of thermodynamics that requires supernatural intervention.

Increasing entropy means you're going to die.

No, it's not. You have a childishly simplistic idea, here.

Here's a question for you - what, exactly, is entropy? And don't just say 'disorder'. Disorder is an extremely vague term that has no real scientific meaning. From a scientific standpoint, what is entropy?

I know quite a few, and they can't have a discussion without bringing their own facts any more than you can.

Maybe they just can't take your smug disdain for them long enough to bring them out? I know I have a hard time speaking with self-satisfied, pompous know-nothings.

That just blew away your reason for not believing in God.

I never said I didn't believe in God. You really are an overly presumptuous little boy.

 

[mzungu]

That still doesn't explain the evidence they have put forward of how the snake evolved. First they said it was one way because of the evidence. This was linked to a creature from the sea the mosasaurs because of the similarities and built a story around it. They had it in books and taught it. This shows that they get the guess work wrong of building a story about the evolution of a creature and make all sorts of claims. But that all seem to be ok because its still true they have just got the details wrong. Well they could be wrong about a lot of their story and the new evidence with discoveries of fossils and DNA is showing they are wrong. The new discoveries came along and contradicted this. The new fossils outdated the mosasaurs. Where they had said it lost it legs on land and showed the links to lizards it now seems it lost it legs at sea.

Because fossils have been found with complete hind legs that are older they must have evolved onto land as either a two legged creature on with no legs. Because it has complete hind legs it shows that it lost it front legs separately. So for what ever reason it seems weird to just have back legs. To me it would make it harder. If its on land it would be awkward and be easy prey, if its in the sea then its still a strange thing to have without developing webs or fins. It just doesn't make sense.

But the point is there are no transitions of snakes losing front legs. We have a fossil showing complete hind legs and a snake alive today supposedly with traces of hind legs. But nothing has been found to show any stage in between. In other words if we have a snake with a slither of a remnant of hind legs then this shows its disappearing. Then the stages before it got to the point of a slither should be found somewhere. They have found several fossils with hind legs but not one with front legs or any stages of losing both front and hind legs. Not just that if a lizard type creature evolved into a snake then its body would not becoming like a snke leaving its legs. It would gradually become longer and thinner and lose everything at the same time.

If we have a snake with a slither of hind leg around today showing how evolution works. Showing that the limbs are disappearing and what is left is the last stages of the leg before it completely goes then why dont we see that everywhere within other creatures. I agree if it had legs and then they gradually disappeared then that would show evolution. If you had fossil evidence with some other stages of this then yes it would be good evidence. But you dont, everything shows complete creatures or a creature they say had this feature once but now its gone because we can see where it use to go. But never any stage in between showing gradual disappearance or growing of that limb.

So they have built the whole idea that snakes lost they limbs and came from a 4 legged lizard from a slither of bone in the snake that is alive today. I just dont think there is enough evidence to support this based on the contradictory evidence we have now. It seems the snake may not have come from a four legged lizard type and at the moment its ancestor was already snake like creature with 2 legs. There is no reason why that creature could not have just lost its legs because of a loss of genetic ability and thats it. It could also be that snakes are just a part of the lizard family with great variation. But that doesn't show the snake or any creature evolving from a completely different shaped creature nor are there any proofs to show it has.

It seems with the more we discover with new fossils and the DNA there have been more and more surprising things coming up that are changing the story that evolution painted. Not just a matter of they got their position wrong in a line but its taking creatures completely out of that line and placing others that shouldn't belong in them . According to the evolutionary story they have put forward and said was true.

It seems that you are an authority in these matters and it is a shame you are passing the opportunity not only to make creationism the standard model but winning the Nobel Prize and becoming the most famous scientist in history.

May I propose you write a paper refuting ToE, have it peer reviewed, and go collect the Nobel Prize. I give you my promise that when you succeed (this is a given) I will publicly denounce ToE and convert.

You have my word, and there are witnesses here in CF who will attest to my promise.

 

[stevevw]

It seems that you are an authority in these matters and it is a shame you are passing the opportunity not only to make creationism the standard model but winning the Nobel Prize and becoming the most famous scientist in history.

May I propose you write a paper refuting ToE, have it peer reviewed, and go collect the Nobel Prize. I give you my promise that when you succeed (this is a given) I will publicly denounce ToE and convert.

You have my word, and there are witnesses here in CF who will attest to my promise.

i haven't got any authority in these matters i thought it was you and those who i am debating with. I may be totally off the mark because i dont have that deeper knowledge. Its like someone who knows that the pistons in a car go up and down and they are ignited by a spark and fuel. You understand the basic mechanics involved but a qualified mechanic will know there are other mechanisms that also make it work as he studied it. But when someone says that the pistons can go sideways some times i know that doesn't make sense.

I am just using my basic understanding and putting some logic and common sense to it. I think anyone who stops and looks can see that. On the surface thats what it looks like to me and if you stop and look at it close enough you realize some things just dont make sense even to the way that evolution says it does in some cases. Its just not as straight forward as they say. There maybe a form of evolution at work but im not sure its the one they are talking about. Sometimes i think some can not see the forest through the trees. You can get lost in all the statistics and detail of something which is important. But you also need to take some steps back and see it for what it is.

There still needs to be more results to make a confident decision and in some ways there may never be conclusive proof one way or the other. One thing i do know is that God will never be proven with evidence as he says we can only be saved by faith. Faith is the belief in things unseen and your assurance comes when you put your trust in God.

 

[Black Akuma]

Well they could be wrong about a lot of their story and the new evidence with discoveries of fossils and DNA is showing they are wrong.

If your complaint about the science is that there's some debate about certain details, then there's little point in anyone presenting you with any evidence whatsoever. Science changes as new data is brought to light. It's refinement. Every science is like this - nothing is 100% settled or 'proven'. Ideas are overturned all the time. Everything is tentative. Which sort of spits in the face of your earlier assertion that it's an 'old boy's club' that brooks no dissent, doesn't it?

There's disagreement about a lot of things, it's just not the disagreements you think should be happening. All of these changes and refinements are made within the paradigm of evolution.

 

[mzungu]

i haven't got any authority in these matters i thought it was you and those who i am debating with. I may be totally off the mark because i dont have that deeper knowledge. Its like someone who knows that the pistons in a car go up and down and they are ignited by a spark and fuel. You understand the basic mechanics involved but a qualified mechanic will know there are other mechanisms that also make it work as he studied it. But when someone says that the pistons can go sideways some times i know that doesn't make sense.

I am just using my basic understanding and putting some logic and common sense to it. I think anyone who stops and looks can see that. On the surface thats what it looks like to me and if you stop and look at it close enough you realize some things just dont make sense even to the way that evolution says it does in some cases. Its just not as straight forward as they say. There maybe a form of evolution at work but im not sure its the one they are talking about. Sometimes i think some can not see the forest through the trees. You can get lost in all the statistics and detail of something which is important. But you also need to take some steps back and see it for what it is.

There still needs to be more results to make a confident decision and in some ways there may never be conclusive proof one way or the other. One thing i do know is that God will never be proven with evidence as he says we can only be saved by faith. Faith is the belief in things unseen and your assurance comes when you put your trust in God.

Common sense and logic are not driving forces in science. If you are not a qualified car mechanic then how can you argue with a qualified mechanic on matters of car mechanics?

I am sure that to most scientists; quantum mechanics makes little common sense and logic.

Take a look at the following experiment:

Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment - YouTube

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Medical trade publications are not peer reviewed journals. If you had experience in the process you would know that.

Let's hope KWCrazy doesn't try that smear again. You seem to have shut him up on the subject at least temporarily.

 

[stevevw]

If your complaint about the science is that there's some debate about certain details, then there's little point in anyone presenting you with any evidence whatsoever. Science changes as new data is brought to light. It's refinement. Every science is like this - nothing is 100% settled or 'proven'. Ideas are overturned all the time. Everything is tentative. Which sort of spits in the face of your earlier assertion that it's an 'old boy's club' that brooks no dissent, doesn't it?

No because even though some things have to be investigate more and some of the detail is wrong, some still take it as being true. They believe the basic premise but say the detail needs to be sorted. Some times this may happen again and again and then they adjust it a bit and still say that we are basically right.

I'm saying in some cases because things keep coming up and in some cases indicating other things are possible at work that may even question their basic premise. So they hold onto their beliefs no matter what and get bogged down in all the experiments and detail. But it may be that the foundation they have built that belief on is wrong in the first place. So there is an element of that common belief that is held onto and its accepted. If you challenge it they dont like it.

There's disagreement about a lot of things, it's just not the disagreements you think should be happening. All of these changes and refinements are made within the paradigm of evolution.

You can have disagreement thats healthy. I'm not saying that. I am saying that sometimes they agree to not have disagreement on certain things. Whether its a subconscious thing or something inherent in groups and organizations but it happens in all walks of life. Just because science makes the claim that everything is questioned and there are processes that ensure we do it properly doesn't mean they are not subject to the human traits of forming clicks and groups which see things their own way.

It doesn't mean they dont get stuck in a certain way of thinking which is more to do with self preservation and protecting their territory. It happens in everything to a greater or lessor extent. The police can have certain coverups of corruption even though they are suppose to be above the law. It just happens. But i think with evolution it is prone to happen more because its almost a challenge again religion and God as well. Its mixed in with some peoples personal beliefs. There is an element of religion in that they hold onto certain ideals that may not be the case anymore and its hard for them to let it go.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

i haven't got any authority in these matters i thought it was you and those who i am debating with. I may be totally off the mark because i dont have that deeper knowledge. Its like someone who knows that the pistons in a car go up and down and they are ignited by a spark and fuel. You understand the basic mechanics involved but a qualified mechanic will know there are other mechanisms that also make it work as he studied it. But when someone says that the pistons can go sideways some times i know that doesn't make sense.

That's fair enough, but I'd be careful about making conclusions based on common sense alone - if a mechanic says the pistons go sideways, who am I to argue? When I first learned about capacitors, it didn't make sense to me that the reduction in potential due to the dielectric raises the capacitance - and yet, it does.

I am just using my basic understanding and putting some logic and common sense to it. I think anyone who stops and looks can see that. On the surface thats what it looks like to me and if you stop and look at it close enough you realize some things just dont make sense even to the way that evolution says it does in some cases. Its just not as straight forward as they say. There maybe a form of evolution at work but im not sure its the one they are talking about. Sometimes i think some can not see the forest through the trees. You can get lost in all the statistics and detail of something which is important. But you also need to take some steps back and see it for what it is.

But all of that is your own subjective perspective. It doesn't mean you've acquired some transcendental 'big picture' view that shows all manner of flaws. While you might have disproven a major scientific theory and overturned 150 years of science, it's more likely that you've made a mistake.

There still needs to be more results to make a confident decision and in some ways there may never be conclusive proof one way or the other. One thing i do know is that God will never be proven with evidence as he says we can only be saved by faith. Faith is the belief in things unseen and your assurance comes when you put your trust in God.

That seems like a horrendous system - you can only be saved if you have faith in God, and since there's no reason to have faith in God, there's nothing to compel anyone to have faith. Take me, for instance: I don't believe in God or Christianity, so I don't believe I need to be saved, so I see no reason why I should try to have faith.

Which leads to another problem: how does one acquire faith in that which one doesn't already believe? I can't just flip a switch and become faithful, so I can only become faithful once I'm already faithful. It's in impenetrable catch-22.

See my signature for similar problems in Christianity. If Christianity can't be proven, then there's no need to believe. But then you don't get saved. So why would God decide that you need faith, of all things?

 

[Black Akuma]

But i think with evolution it is prone to happen more because its almost a challenge again religion and God as well.

Many - if not most - scientists are religious to some extent. Evolution is perfectly compatible with most religions. The only real religions that seriously clashes with it are Christianity and Islam, and even with that, only among followers that insist on taking a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Look at this graph and tell me - do you think it's just coincidence that the religions with the most tendency to take Genesis literally are the ones who reject evolution the most often? If there really wasn't some bias here, wouldn't you expect it to be more uniform across all religions? But no, that's clearly not what we see. Once you get away from the Bible entirely, it jumps up 14% - there's clearly a correlation, here.

 

[stevevw]

Common sense and logic are not driving forces in science. If you are not a qualified car mechanic then how can you argue with a qualified mechanic on matters of car mechanics?

I am sure that to most scientists; quantum mechanics makes little common sense and logic.

Take a look at the following experiment:

Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment - YouTube

Common sense and logic should be the basis for all things. Thats how things work in our day to day lives. Up until the discovery of dark matter and energy we had a basic understanding how gravity worked. What goes up must come down and we applied that to things in our physical world and made adjustments when sending rockets out into space.

Einstein open the door to there being other factors at work but this is where we began to see that things were perhaps beyond the normal parameters. Now quantum mechanics has taken us into a world where things are not making sense according to those known laws of physics. But we still used logic in all our approaches and the way we planned the experiments and built our technology.

The logic in evolution is that we come from apes because we look like them. If they say we came from pelicans i would say that doesn't make sense. The logic says our DNA should match the closest relative to us and animals that they say are closet should have similar DNA. But if an animal that doesn't look like it belongs and the DNA shows it does then you begin to say that doesn't add up to how the story goes. How can that be.

Not because they are never 100% right and will always need to adjust things. But because it doesn't fit and doesn't make sense according to the story they have predicted. But sometimes i believe that even though this comes up a lot they still overlook it and find another way to rationalize it. It wont be till enough of these come up and it starts to look like there is no way it could happen the way they say will they give up the idea.

I believe the very fact that quantum mechanics is bringing up unusual results that are going beyond what scientist predicted should be the case is because it is beyond what they can understand. They will never understand it. It was interesting that the commentator or the cartoon bloke said that it all seems to change the moment we look at it. Its like the particles know that we are looking at them.

To me this is a world where we will never understand as it goes beyond our understanding. For all we know we could be breaking down Gods creation and will eventually come to a point where we will say this cannot be this is some sort of magic or something that has no answer and must have something behind it. After all isnt the whole idea of science and evolution to put a meaning and answer to life and how it came into being.

 

[46AND2]

i haven't got any authority in these matters i thought it was you and those who i am debating with. I may be totally off the mark because i dont have that deeper knowledge. Its like someone who knows that the pistons in a car go up and down and they are ignited by a spark and fuel. You understand the basic mechanics involved but a qualified mechanic will know there are other mechanisms that also make it work as he studied it. But when someone says that the pistons can go sideways some times i know that doesn't make sense.

I am just using my basic understanding and putting some logic and common sense to it. I think anyone who stops and looks can see that. On the surface thats what it looks like to me and if you stop and look at it close enough you realize some things just dont make sense even to the way that evolution says it does in some cases. Its just not as straight forward as they say. There maybe a form of evolution at work but im not sure its the one they are talking about. Sometimes i think some can not see the forest through the trees. You can get lost in all the statistics and detail of something which is important. But you also need to take some steps back and see it for what it is.

There still needs to be more results to make a confident decision and in some ways there may never be conclusive proof one way or the other. One thing i do know is that God will never be proven with evidence as he says we can only be saved by faith. Faith is the belief in things unseen and your assurance comes when you put your trust in God.

You talk about logic as if you dont believe in a 3 in 1 god, who somehow makes a finite sacrifice, despite being infinite himself by making himself 100% man, while retaining 100% godhood, and lacking manly attributes like sin, but for some reason can still be tempted by satan, forsaken by himself...I mean his dad, who somehow has parenthood over himself...and who created the world exactly as he wanted to, yet somehow isnt responsible for sin...

I'm sorry to be so cynical, but if you want to talk about things that don't make sense...