Ok soo.

[allout2k3]

2) The gasses possibly came from other stars and what not and the original gasses that formed the came from the energy combining once it cooled from the big bang.
-where did those stars come from? where did the energy come from? and the gasses

3) The apes came from another species, just like all animals. The evolution of the sexes was an important thing as the sharing of different genetic information allows for more diversity and more diversity is a good thing.
-where did the apes coem from and why arent there still humans coming from apes.

 

[Jet Black]

ok all you atheists all you physics believers all you evo's all those were created by man ... now wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the world was flat? And, up until like what, 50 years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess of **** came out. Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?

The old thoughts you mentioned were thought because they lacked the empirical evidence. It is the scientific method that has thrown them aside, not arbitrary belief. Yes science could be wrong, but if it is, it will be shown empirically, not because some book says so.

I have never said that there isn't a God, simply on the basis that science and evolution has nothing to say on the matter. simply that the universe looks so much like it could do all this stuff on it's own that there is no reason to insert God into the equation (and no reason to discount him either... science is agnostic)

if God is anything, he is a mathematician.

 

[Jet Black]

2) The gasses possibly came from other stars and what not and the original gasses that formed the came from the energy combining once it cooled from the big bang.
-where did those stars come from? where did the energy come from? and the gasses

3) The apes came from another species, just like all animals. The evolution of the sexes was an important thing as the sharing of different genetic information allows for more diversity and more diversity is a good thing.
-where did the apes coem from and why arent there still humans coming from apes.

2) THE BIG BANG

3) you clearly don't understand evolution. at all. I suggest you look at the science forum for some explanations of it. lucaspa's posts are very well informed, as are others.

 

[ObbiQuiet]

-where did the those 2 universes come from? where did the black hole come from..

They could have always existed - who knows, our universe popped into existance from a big bang and is constantly expanding, theirs could be static and unmoving. We could also be trapped in a loop - a circle. A "scratch my back I scratch yours" circle of universes spawning.

-where did those planets come from? where did the gas come from?

From the quantum soup that formed subatomic particles, then atoms, basically the stuff in the big bang that formed into basic matter we have now.

-where did the monkeys/apes or whatever comefrom? Or you belive to that 2 sexes came from one singled cell organisim

Again, read up on evolutionary theory. www.talkorigins.org is a great informational site, providing well-cited information.

On a side note - you will not debunk the theories by using causality - because the assumption of causality defeats the creator-concept of god/gods. "Everything must have a creator, thus a being has to exist that was without creation." That line contradicts itself. The causality argument doesn't work.

 

[Jet Black]

no i'm saying god did all of it not that nature did it all..

God has always been... you are saying everything the universe and all fit so perfect but it all just appeared it is more logical than for something to always has been than for something to just appear

is nature independent from God then?

have you heard of the weak anthropic principle?

 

[allout2k3]

so jet black we agree there is a god?

now this book, , you dont believe it why?

 

[allout2k3]

is nature independent from God then?

no cause god created everything in nature..

 

[Jet Black]

no, I am saying that there is nothing to say whether there is a god or not.

 

[Jet Black]

no cause god created everything in nature..

then why can't evolution and the big bang be then?

and have you heard of the weak anthropic principle?

 

[Arikay]

I agree.

If you really want to learn about evolution, go to the science forum and ask a question, and people will be happy to answer.

You need to be willing to learn though.

 

[ObbiQuiet]

so jet black we agree there is a god?

now this book, , you dont believe it why?

You're becoming pushy, and are begining to seem like a troll... I'm going to sit back and not make a whole lot of fuss about it, but do NOT put words into other people's mouths...

 

[allout2k3]

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html

 

[Jet Black]

present your own argument please, nto just provide links to sites like that. It is part of the forum rules.

 

[allout2k3]

Fine

 

[allout2k3]

Definitions
It is important to first define what is meant by the word "evolution." There are actually two major theories of biological evolution:

Microevolution - Unequivocally proven through numerous scientific studies. Includes concepts such as mutation, recombination, natural selection, etc.
Macroevolution - Extrapolation of microevolution to account for all changes in body designs, speciation, appearance of new phyla, etc.
Therefore, I accept microevolution as a scientifically reliable theory, which describes the intelligent design with which organisms were endowed by their Designer. However, in contrast to the reliability of microevolutionary theory, macroevolution is not supported by the record of nature or current scientific research. Even evolutionists admit these major problems in the scientific journals (although you are unlikely to find these admissions in textbooks or popular books on evolution):

"Major transitions in evolution - such as the origin of life, the emergence of eukaryotic cells, and the origin of the human capacity for language, to name but a few - could not be farther from an equilibrium. Also, they cannot be described satisfactorily by established models of microevolution."1
Dr. Fagerstrom, et al.

 

[Jet Black]

have you heard of the weak anthropic principle?

 

[allout2k3]

There are two major models of macroevolution (In the remainder of this article, I will refer to macroevolution simply as evolution, since this is the common usage). They are:

Gradualism - Changes in the morphology of species are the result of gradual changes in the genomes of species. The apparent lack of gradualism in the fossil record is due to an incompleteness of the fossil record.
Punctuated Equilibrium - Changes in morphology are due to species sorting following geographic isolation and major reductions in population numbers. The punctuated appearance of the fossil record is real.


Refutation of Gradualism
The major problems with gradualism is that it is not reflected in the fossil record. By far, the fossil record is extremely discontinuous. There are a few examples of gradualism, but they are the exception. Even the most famous example of gradualism (the horse) suffers from a lack of intermediates for most species. Here is an admission by an evolutionist:

"Eldredge and Gould not only showed that paleontologists had been out-of-step with biologists for decades, but also that they had unconsciously trying to force the fossil record into the gradualistic mode. The few supposed examples of gradual evolution were featured in the journals and textbooks, but paleontologists had long been mum about their 'dirty little trade secret:' most species appear suddenly in the fossil record and show no appreciable change for millions of years until their extinction."2
Dr. Donald Prothero

 

[Jet Black]

bulk quoting of sites is the same as just linking to the sites. no-one here has the time to debunk an entire website, so please make a point, one at a time preferably, and then we can go over them.

 

[allout2k3]

The evidence against gradualism is extensive, but not readily admitted to in the popular press or textbooks. Although the fossil record for a given location on land may be discontinuous, the fossil record for organisms deposited in the ocean or large bodies of water is continuous. Studies by Stanley (3), Cheetham (4) and Stanley and Yang (5) examined all the available lineages of their respective groups (bryozoans and bivalves) through long intervals of time, using multivariate analysis of multiple character states. Both concluded that most of their species were static through millions of years, followed by the sudden appearance of new species. Williamson (6) examined the fossil record of mollusks in Lake Turkana, Kenya, and showed that there were multiple examples of rapid speciation and prolonged stasis, but no gradualism. Barnosky (7) examined a large number of different lineages of mammals, from mammoths to shrews and rodents that lived during the last two million years of the Ice Ages and found a few examples of gradualism, but many more which showed stasis and punctuation. Prothero examined all the mammals with a reasonably complete record from the Eocene-Oligocene (about 30-35 million years ago) beds of the Big Badlands of South Dakota and related areas in Wyoming and Nebraska (8). This study not only sampled every available lineage without bias, but also had much better time control from magnetic stratigraphy and wider geographic coverage than previous studies. With only one exception all of the Badlands mammals were static through millions of years, or speciated abruptly (if they changed at all). Stasis and sudden appearance of new species is the norm rather than the exception, as evidenced by the fossil record.

Evolutionists have used the excuse that the fossil record is not complete enough to be an accurate representation of the history of life on the Earth. A recent book, The Adequacy of the Fossil Record (9), examined the fossil record in terms of its completeness, bias (over and under representation of certain species and groups of organisms), and stratigraphic range (its completeness for a species over the entire history of its existence). Their conclusions were that the fossil record is surprisingly complete, with about 10% of all species that have ever lived being represented. There are some biases and stratigraphic incompleteness in the fossil record, but these problems can be estimated mathematically from the available data. There are many examples of stratigraphic gaps in the fossil record, with these gaps being the rule rather than the exception. In the past, it has been assumed that the gaps represent incompleteness of the fossil record. The authors suggest the "heretical" view that stratigraphic data should be used to test the phylogenetic relationships between species rather than assume that the relationships exist and that the fossil record is incomplete.

and no i didnt hear of that weak principle.

 

[ObbiQuiet]

Microevolution - Unequivocally proven through numerous scientific studies.

A flat-out lie. Insects will even grow an immunity to certian types of poisons over time, for example.