Evolution vs Creation

[mathetes123]

You do not need to directly witness an event to make a judgment about what happened. For instance, juries decided guilt or innocence, despite the fact that, by law, they can't have witnessed the crime firsthand or even been directly involved with the events. The whole point of forensics is to make judgment on events that weren't directly witnessed.

You can use evidence. Science does this all the time.

No one has ever been to the center of the Earth or even more than a few miles below the surface, but we know it's composition down to the core. No one has ever seen Pluto make a full orbit, but we can calculate where it was 1,000 years ago and where it will be in a 1,000 years. No one has directly observed an atom splitting, but we can make that happen and use it for weaponry.

I think you will find that science agrees that something cannot come from nothing.

 

[Delphiki]

Have you ever seen something come from nothing?

No. And that is not what the Theory of Evolution explains.

Have you ever seen life spontaneously develop from non life?

No. This is also not what the Theory of Evolution explains. This is actually how creationists describe their god created life.

Have you ever seen information ever produced from a non-intelligent source?

Yes. All over the place, every day. Anything that reduces the lack of knowledge on something is considered information. Again, this is not what the Theory of Evolution explains.

Maybe you should take a basic biology course before attempting to enter debate on the subject of the Theory of Evolution.



So, have you seen a planet created in 6 days?

Have you seen a man be crucified?

Have you seen a man come back to life after 3 days?

Have you seen a talking snake?

Have you seen the Garden of Eden?

Have you seen any of the events in the bible whatsoever?

Special pleading.... it's definitely... special.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

I think you will find that science agrees that something cannot come from nothing.

I don't think science has defined "nothing", so I don't see how science could make a claim about it.

If I'm wrong, could you please point me to an appropriate link? Thanks in advance.

 

[Delphiki]

No one has ever been to the center of the Earth...

Of course they have. It's called the Arctic.

 

[lasthero]

I think you will find that science agrees that something cannot come from nothing.

Then you should be able to produce some scientific literature to that effect.

 

[mathetes123]

Then you should be able to produce some scientific literature to that effect.

It's called the law of thermodynamics. Common sense and logic would also lead you to understand something cannot come from nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's called the law of thermodynamics. Common sense and logic would also lead you to understand something cannot come from nothing.

You are misusing the law. Have you checked out this video:


Krauss '09: "A Universe From Nothing" - YouTube

I can guarantee you that he understands the laws of thermodynamics better than you do.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

It's called the law of thermodynamics. Common sense and logic would also lead you to understand something cannot come from nothing.

No, I'm pretty sure the laws of thermodynamics don't prove the concept of "Nothing".

Again, if I'm wrong, could you please provide a link to an unbiased source? Thanks.

 

[mathetes123]

You are misusing the law. Have you checked out this video:


Krauss '09: "A Universe From Nothing" - YouTube

I can guarantee you that he understands the laws of thermodynamics better than you do.

I don't have time to listen to the video. Can you explain it in your own words.

 

[mzungu]

Dumb Kids Prefer Candy Over Fancy Green Salad.

That's because they have dumb parents who prefer to feed them junk food (processed) instead of cooking proper meals.

 

[mzungu]

Every time you ride on a plane you put your faith in the pilots ability to fly the plane and the mechanics ability to keep it in operating condition.

If you don't believe your belief in evolution is based on faith, please elaborate on the evidence that convinced you evolution was true!

Wrong! Every time you fly a plane you "TRUST" the system (FAA, Mechanics, Engineers, Pilots, etc.) is working in accordance to the set rules governing technology and hence science. That is because in the physical world; for every action there is a consequence.

Religion on the other hand suffers no consequences and thus requires only faith.

In short; one "ACCEPTS" science while on the other hand one has "FAITH" in religion. BIG difference!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't have time to listen to the video. Can you explain it in your own words.

In the video he shows how that there is no such thing as "nothing". Even a vacuum has countless virtual particles appearing and disappearing all of the time. He also shows how the total energy of the universe is zero. So the fact that there is matter does not violate any physical law. That matter could have come from nothing as long as a total energy of zero is maintained for the universe.

 

[Ginger123]

I don't have time to listen to the video. Can you explain it in your own words.

It would seem that you don't even have time to think for yourself.

 

[AV1611VET]

In the video he shows how that there is no such thing as "nothing". Even a vacuum has countless virtual particles appearing and disappearing all of the time. He also shows how the total energy of the universe is zero. So the fact that there is matter does not violate any physical law. That matter could have come from nothing as long as a total energy of zero is maintained for the universe.

That's the miracle of creation.

The universe started out at zero energy, then was raised to its current level over a period of six days.

 

[SkyWriting]

That's the miracle of creation.
The universe started out at zero energy, then was raised to its current level over a period of six days.

Science says that every action has an opposing force.
This implies that every result has an initial cause.
And that every result has a source.
If there was energy near the beginning, it must have had a Creator.
Science proves there was a Creator.

 

[mzungu]

If there was energy near the beginning, it must have had a Creator.
Science proves there was a Creator.

Sorry but I think you are misrepresenting science. Science says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so this pretty much excludes a creator altogether. Just watch the video in whole please.

 

[mathetes123]

Sorry but I think you are misrepresenting science. Science says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so this pretty much excludes a creator altogether. Just watch the video in whole please.

Where do you think the law came from, out of thin air? Why would you expect mathematically precise laws would result from random chance rather than an intelligent lawmaker.

 

[mathetes123]

It would seem that you don't even have time to think for yourself.

It would seem you cannot explain it in your own words.

 

[mzungu]

Where do you think the law came from, out of thin air? Why would you expect mathematically precise laws would result from random chance rather than an intelligent lawmaker.

The law was formulated by scientists and not by God. Science does not need any deity in order to explain the physical world.

 

[mathetes123]

In the video he shows how that there is no such thing as "nothing". Even a vacuum has countless virtual particles appearing and disappearing all of the time. He also shows how the total energy of the universe is zero. So the fact that there is matter does not violate any physical law. That matter could have come from nothing as long as a total energy of zero is maintained for the universe.

Matter does not come from nothing. Even the energy requires a creator. EVERYTHING that has a beginning requires a cause outside of itself.