Bridge, there is a bit of a problem here. Do you know why evolution is not worth repeating? Because fundamental christains don't bother listening to the explaination. They have an opinion beforehand. They are stubborn and have their 'faith'. Therefore, it is a waste of my (and others) time to try and explain it. A leopard can't change its spots. But, I'll give you a brief summary. Big Bang Chemicals combine Cell formed Cell evolves into complex life. Maybe you should try showing some REAL interest in evolution. Go and read a book about evolution or the true origin of the universe. Maybe "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins would be a good start. Actually, it has. God is becoming unnecessary. God is dead. Does it really? I think you should give us an explaination, and post your references. Just so we know that you aren't taking them out of context. Unicorns = No evidence. Do you believe? Santa = No evidence. Do you believe? God = No evidence. If you don't believe in unicorns or santa, why do you believe in God? I disagree. Look at Creationism. That is science with religion, and it makes a mockery of science.
Top notch mountainhare, you said just about everything I wanted to say to Bridge. There is no middle ground between science and religion, and there shouldn't be because the two are completely different. -ZERO MASS
Dear mountainhare: I'm not a fundamentalist so feel free to go into more detail. Interestingly enough you made two comments which I feel apply just as easily to those who unflinchingly accept Universal Darwinism as an explanantion for our origins. Everybody has an opinion. Just because some Christian fundies ignore mainstream science and believe in a young earth, etc. is no reason to give up on them. They just don't know how to reconcile some faith issues. Perhaps if you told them that all truth is God's truth then you'd have a platform to change their way of thinking. I'd submit that none of us truly knows the answers to these questions so we at least have some common thread there. Allow me to make another observation about your synopsis of creation: Indeed! Very brief! Yeah, those big bangs, don't you just love 'em? Heeheheheee, seriously though, reading Hawkings and other books, exploring the question with others involved in astronomy, one can't help but become a little humbled by the scope of things. The Big Bang shouldn't conflict with creationists in my opinion, but apparently I'm wrong. Christians believe God spoke creation into "being"......when you get down beyond the electrons, protons and neutrons scientists have theorized the existence of "quarks" and "strings". Strings vibrate in 10-dimensional space. Your basic vibration is acoustic is it not? Vocal? Hello? Alright, anyway it's just a thought. Study up young Padiwan. The Miller-Urey experiments didn't create life. Pastuer's experiments disproved spontaneous generation. Seems to me alot of people are putting some heavy faith in miracles based on "chance". Ah! Perhaps this is the famed "LUCA*" Darwinists so foundly speak of? (*Last Universal Common Ancestor) Just realize science has not established empirical evidence if life started from a parokyotic or eukaryotic source. Again, add some faith that this will all be resolved but also rest assured it is not at this time, hence the theory of evolution remains theory. Cells are complex life in and of themselves. Minature marvels. Too bad no one can figure out how the heck they got that way. Chance enters the picture again. Maybe you should get an attitude adjustment. I've spent the last 5 or 6 years doing just that. Dawkin's book was a good read, very entertaining. His spiritualism is like that of a Christian only the object of his worship is a combination of natural selection and blind chance. I can understand the affection towards natural selection, but the faith in chance is so unscientific. I pity the man actually. The existing evidence for the creative power of natural selection is somewhere between weak and non-existent. Artificial selection of fruit flies or domestic animals produces limited change within the species, but tells us nothing about how insects and mammals came into existence in the first place. No one denies changes occur. That ToE explains many things is correct. That it explains our origins is wishful thinking. Maybe for you He is. Thank God you have a choice in the matter. Stephen Hawkings, "A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME". Read it yourself Mr. Know-it-all with an attitude. Actually, some of them make a mockery of themselves.
Given that there is only 6000 years of recorded history, we can guess that humans have been around for 7000-8000 years. Now if we assume that the age of reproduction (nearer the beginning because there was no contraception etc) was around 15 fifteen years old, then that means there have only been around four hundred and sixty six generations since then. This is assuming that humans have been here for seven thousand years, and it does not even take into account the fact that from a certain age (time-period) contraception was widely available which could make this figure significantly smaller. Can anyone see evolution taking us from monkeys to what we are today in four hundred generations? I know it's possible and that we must have been humans already seven thousand years ago, so nothing says that much evolution has occured since then, just that we have been humans since then.
Zero Mass, With the exception of X-rays, Cosmic rays and Nuclear radiation mutations are all caused by Random chemical reactions in the cell. You're right about some stuff though, if the world was never changing, nothing would ever happen, nothing would move so nothing would evolve (this is kind of obvious...). If you mean that the environment is constant, then you're wrong, mutations would still occur since X-Rays, Cosmic rays, Nuclear radiation, and random chemical actions would still be there. Your explanation is the universe tends to favor less energy, thats really scientific. The universe just favors things to happen, no reason why it just favors it. Chemical reactions have nothing to do with evolution? Wait, they do have A LOT to do with evolution... Still no explanation to why organisms want to reproduce to ensure the survival of the species, "...maybe it was just chance..." . That sounds pretty scientific to me (sarcasm)..... There is no debate to whether the will to survive and reproduce has evolved, the debate is over why it wants to reproduce, survive, and keep its species alive. According to evolution thats wrong. There is no evidence that animals consciously/subconsciously mutate. I was just saying that every superstitution comes from some idea.......... I haven't read Darwin's orgin of man, but some of his information is old and outdated, so I'd rather use modern sources instead of ancient ones.... If you don't believe me about the mutations thing, look at http://people.howstuffworks.com/evolution4.htm Btw, you are supporting the idea of a designed universe.......
Ok first the head stuff. Mystee's theory of evolution/BB theory. Here's how I think it went. God said "let there be light" BOOOOOOOM there's the universe. God proceeds to make planets and raise land from the water of one particular planes called Earth. He then decides to create life. (This is why evolution looks so probable. Keep in mind this is just my theory there may be faults.) So God creates a cell, the first life. He takes a good hard look and sees that it is good. So he sticks a few together. Cool bacteria. He then continues to stick them together and design new ones crafting skillfully until there are WAY to many different kinds. So he decides to make a REALLY complex creature and give it free will so it can name them all. Ok that's just it's first task, the real job of the human is to live up to the image we were created in and love our creator. As for the time line for all this. God said it was 7 days. Usually when someone said something took 7 days he means it took 7 days. The thing is, it was 7 days as we would perceive it. God is timeless he has and infinite amount of hours in a day. This also explains how he can be everywhere at once and how he can answer so many prayers. Now this time thing brings up another issue that someone (I forget who) has constantly been bringing up. Ok so God can see the past present and further all at the same time. Why shouldn't He? He is God after all. So with the idea of free will verses predestination we have a bit of a conflict. The thing is that yes God knows what will happen to us. He knows that if we get in that car we are going to get in a accident or whatever, but that doesn't mean he is being cruel by not stopping us. For one thing we do have free will. Also we can kind of relate (Not really because we can't see all, but we can sort of get an idea) lets say for the sake of argument you are all women (bare with me). Ok you have a boy friend and a best friend. Boyfriend turns out to be a loser and a womanizer and he eventually dumps you. Your best friend is suddenly taken by him. She goes out with him and gets hurt the same way. Did you know what was going to happen (at least to some probability)? YES. But is it your fault she was hurt? NO. You see just because God knows something is going to happen doesn't mean he makes it happen. The future IS based on our choices. Just because God knew I was going to give my life to him a year and a week ago didn't mean he made me. If God was going to make us do stuff there wouldn't be people fighting over his existence and there would only be one religion. Don't you agree? Ok now to the heart stuff. One thing that is rarely mention on these threads is the idea that maybe God isn't all bad. Ok another example. Let's say for the sake of argument the there was a pair of perfect parents. What would they be like. Anyone with some maturity would agree that they would discipline occasionally. But why? Because the child would ultimately hurt himself. Why do parents stop young children from playing in the road? Because though the child doesn't understand and may even be angry at the parents, the parents just wanted to keep there child safe. If the child had gotten hit by a car and seen the consequences he would have wished he had listened to his parents. The thing is, even though you don't understand God's actions or his rules, He really does have your best interests in mind. And though you may not see the consequences in your life time there is REAL danger in living a godless life. We are all His creation, His children, and He doesn't want to see us hurt. My heart breaks for all of you who say you don't know God or seem to think God has betrayed you. Open your eyes and your heart He's still here, and He loves you. I know because he has given me a love for all of you that I don't quite understand yet. Anyway I'm done. Sorry it's so long. Please take it to heart. I'm not crazy. I'm not deceive. And I'm not living a fantasy. If you've tried everything else this world has to offer why not give God a try. He's been waiting. With more love than I can understand, Mystee
Mystee, Why? How do you know? How do you know the universe isn’t infinite? How many big bangs have there been? Why so much junk in the DNA though? Why? Can you quote any important prayer he might have answered? This is true, they can’t coexist. It does if he is the creator and the designer of everything. If he is omniscient then at the moment of creation he would know every action you are ever going to take, and every outcome. How then, since you didn’t exist at the time of the creation could you now claim your apparent choices are yours, since they were known long before you existed? They would be known before you make them which effectively means you were entirely destined to make those apparent choices, in reality you would have had no real choice, since if you could have chosen something different then God could not be omniscient. Very simply if your choice is known long before you make it then it isn’t your choice, since you would be powerless to do anything else. If you have real free will then God cannot be omniscient. If he is omniscient then you are just a mindless puppet in the hands of a monster. If he is cruel enough to create horrendous diseases then I’m sure he is psychotic enough to play other cruel mind games. And if he doesn’t want us to be hurt what was his purpose in creating atrocious diseases? Why trust something that causes so much agony? Don’t worry I don’t think any such things. There is little point trying to know something that doesn’t exist, and such things aren’t capable of betrayal anyway. And your proof is? Perhaps you are just a happy optimistic person, and you’d be just as good if you could understand yourself rather than apparently be dependent on a fantasy crutch. How do you know? What is your proof?
I like your description Mystee! I have some thoughts of my own to add: Ever thought about what "here" means? If you are "somewhere", it usually means the relative location where anybody who shares that location could experience *you*. "You are" wherever you can "experienced to be". If you could physically be seen by everybody right around the world, you would be "here" in China just as much as you would be "here" in Africa. But at the same time you would have to be "nowhere" in particular... but I'm making it too complicated now Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! To Cris: You, Mystee and I know just as much or just as little about these things. None of us can even comprehend infity, much less prove it to be a physical reality. For all you know, there were a series of "big bangs", which we can't tell from one another becomes "time" did not exist until "time" had passed. Mystee and I believe God exists outside of "time" - being timeless and eternal - and therefore no theory about "time" or "big bangs" could shake our belief as much as you'd like it to. What we "know", we know by faith - I know it isn't valid "knowledge" by scientific standards, but the reality is that nobody could prove or disprove how much it does correspond with reality, symbolically, metaphorically or physically. It makes no difference either way, except in the conclusion, or consequences that belief has. The 'consequence' of what we believe is: God is the creator. The consequence of your belief is 'the universe was a cosmic accident'. Conclusions are valid consequences, and they do make a difference in life... Why is the universe as big as it is? Why are there so many stars? Why did dinosaurs become extinct? Why do we have an appendix? Just because we haven't figured it out doesn't mean it's junk. You're a man of science, you should appreciate that. Science is the closest we'll ever come to knowing anything. It is both our only tool and our only limitation. Because perfection is the opposite of entropy (arguably). Nobody strives to be the worst they can be - at least not sanely. Not one that would impress you. There is only philosophically perceived conflict. Look around you: there is no perceived "struggle against our destinies" - we live as we think best - yet at the same time we are struggling against suffering, poverty, hatred... sin and it's consequences - we are simultaneously opposing God's will and not opposing God's will. The degree to which God's will is perceived in the world corresponds directly to the degree to which it is carried out. His unperceived Plan is still being carried out as He intends it to. From our perspective His decisions seem like predestination, but our choices can't be known before they are made since there is nothing to know. But God knows our hearts, our intentions, what moves us to decision - who knows what this perfect knowledge about us implies... In practice, we are free to be bound to His plan or not, and His plan has been salvation from the beginning. In the Bible, when God was angry about the sins of people, He "left them to their own devices, so that they might know the consequences of their sin". That is the 'freedom' people hold so dear these days. Submission to God's will means praying that He doesn't leave us to follow our natural inclinations, and then doing what He commands: base every decision on love for Him and love for each other. You won't entertain the thought that God created you, but you have no problems about saying He created disease? Now that is a leap of faith. If you believe so much in natural processes and evolution, then "diseases" - viruses, bacteria, etc. have just as much right to carry out their evolved functions as you do, and "it is merely by an extension of chance and circumstance that we are affected by certain organisms". Why favour your own existence above theirs? It is only after belief of our own significance that this becomes problematic. Perhaps it is precisely because we know ourselves - our weaknesses, what we are capable of, what we are or could be guilty of - that we appreciate the amount of love we are able to give and experience. And when you do something that distances you from this love it is almost traumatic - you become oversensitized to it. You realize you can't give enough and you try to give more, you realize you can't appreciate enough and you try to appreciate more, you can't say enough and you try to say more... Sorry to disappoint you - even as a valid experience, it's unfortunately all very irrational and subjective.
Thanks Jenyar Jenyar, Thank you SO mouch for covering that. It is such a releif to hear another Christian stand up for what they believe in. Cris, Again you have responed by picking apart my every word, asking for more proof, and acusing me of living in a fantasy. Though I apreciate the lack of insults this time, I was hoping you would stop asking the same questions and get to some meat, but if this is your game, have at it. I know what I believe is true because I have felt it and experienced it in my own life. The only reason I can feel it is because I first excepted it. God had his hand in my life VERY strong for the year before I was a Christian. Yet I didn't see it until I took a leap of faith and just prayed one night. All it took was asking "God, if you're real, come into my life, I want you here" and suddenly everything is new and different. Even through my doubt in his very existence I was still changed just by taking that one step in faith. I will never be the same, Thank God. There is no more proof I can give you than what I know in my life and what we have been told through the Bible and creation itself. I wish that was enough for you. It would be if you just took a closer look and experienced it for yourself.
"It is an insult to God to believe in God. For on the one hand it is to suppose that he has perpetrated acts of incalculable cruelty. On the other hand, it is to suppose that he has perversely given his human creatures an instrument—their intellect—which must inevitably lead them, if they are dispassionate and honest, to deny his existence. It is tempting to conclude that if he exists, it is the atheists and agnostics that he loves best, among those with any pretensions to education. For they are the ones who have taken him most seriously." -Galen Strawson
I studied up ages ago, oh great Sith lord. The Miller-Urey experiments (and many like them) created amino acids, the elements of life. They also created microspheres out of these amino acids. These spheres are not alive, but they have internal chemical reactions which are analogous to those of a living cell. They divide and multiply in the same manner that living cells employ (The Rise of Life, by John Reader). "And the chances of life forming from chemicals is quite high. The 29 essential characters were present by the million in every teaspoonful of the waters on the primitive Earth, and there was not just one lifespan available for ther chance combination there were a hundred million life spans. On this scale, odds of billions to one are not at all unreasonable. It only had to happen once. From the moment that some of the 29 characters spelled out the first word, the first living cell, the logic of biochemistry took over the composition of life's story" (The Rise of Life, by John Reader) You clearly have no understanding of the scientific method. If you did, you would know that evolution is not 'just' a theory. A theory in science is an accepted explaination backed up by a mountain of evidence. In science, you can never prove a theory. There is always a .00001% chance that it wrong. Gravity is theory (as well as fact). What about the nuclear theory? Why don't you go to Hiroshima and tell them all to 'get over it, it was only a theory!'. Do you fly in a plane, Bridge? Guess what, it's the THEORY of aerodynamics that is keeping that plane in the air. Do you feel save, knowing that ONLY A THEORY is keeping you alive. And evolution is fact and theory. So what if evolutionists can not agree on fine details? That means nothing. Things evolved from a single celled organism. That simple. When evolutionists disagree, they are quibbling, and evolution is wrong. When they agree, they are conspiring. It's a lose/lose situation for them. So, let me summarize. Theories are explainations. You can never prove explainations. Evolution is an EXPLAINATION of how things EVOLVED. That's why it will ALWAYS remain a theory (although it is also fact.) Actually, they have almost solved this mystery. They have had, ooohhh, about 50 years to research. And you've had over 5000 years to provide evidence of a supreme Creator. And they have made FAR more progress that people who believe in the 'divine' ever had. WHAT THE FUCK? Okay, it is obvious you haven't read Dawkin's book. If you had, you would know two things... - The problem with anti-evolutionists is that they THINK they know what evolution is. Dawkins says "I suppose one trouble with Darwinism is that, as Jacques Monod perceptively remarked, everybody THINKS he understand it. - Natural selection IS NOT BLIND CHANCE! Is it blind chance that when you throw objects into a hole, those smaller than it pass through, and those larger that don't? The size of the hole (the mutation) is random, but what pass through (what natural selection 'selects' is not chance). If you had read Dawkin's book (which you obviously haven't) you would know this. You obviously need to reread and attempt to understand Dawkin's book. Evolution is both fact and theory. Speciation has been observed. The fossil record clearly shows an evolutionary trend. How do you think we got here, bridge? God clicked his fingers, and we just appeared? Or do you believe a lazy god guided creation? Do you have any evidence? I didn't think so. Maybe you should provide evidence to support your fantasy. I have, and what you quoted is not in ABHOT. And I'm a know it all with an attitude? Look who's talking! You said above that you pity Dawkins. I don't. He is a great man. I pity you, Bridge. You believe some macho god created everything. Do you have a scrap of evidence? Nope. You claim to have read Dawkins. You show clearly that you haven't. Otherwise you wouldn't be saying that natural selection was 'chance'. That is rubbish, plain and simple. You say that chemicals combining was chance? Not totally. They were GUIDED (but not intelligently) by the laws of chemistry and physcics. Evolution is GUIDED (but not intelligently) by the laws of chemistry, physcics and natural selection. Evolution is fact. Things chance. New species are made. Whales lost their legs. Birds were once reptiles. FACTS. You choose to ignore the facts, and common sense. You choose to 'pity' Dawkins. Dawkins has more common sense in his little finger than you do in your entire body. You know why? His 'faith' is backed by evidence. Dawkins does not join his hands with evolutionists every Sunday and sing "I believe in Evolution. Yes I do! Things evolve! I must believe! I must be strong!" They save that type of stuff for fanatics who have no evidence (aka. You.) Until you get some evidence to support the existence of a divine creator, your 'theory' is worth nothing.
Hmmmmm. I know this is not your statement, but you must believe it since you posted it. So why would God create things and love most the ones who hate him or deny his existence all together? And how do you think he came to the conclusion that atheists take God the most seriously since the very definition of the word states they don't believe in a higher power at all. Don't post a quote if you can't back it up. (For all I know you may be able to. Please don't take that as an insult). Lots of Love, Mystee
Mr. Reader apparently ignores that the Miller-Urey experiment wasn't reflective of actual conditions on early earth. It was an example of design. The experiment was conducted under conditions which could only be described as ideal and pristine and still didn't create any viable building blocks for life. http://www.stanford.edu/group/STS/techne/Fall2002/srinivasan1.htm “It must be admitted from the beginning that we do not know how life began. It is generally believed that a variety of processes led to the formation of simple organic compounds on the primitive earth. These compounds combined together to give more and more complex structures until one was formed that could be called living. No one should be satisfied with an explanation as general as this.” ~Stanley Miller mountainhare insists: If it's so simple then it shouldn't be very difficult to provide some empirical evidence. mountainhare contends: Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades young padiwan! This is science remember? Dawkins also said: "Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." (Dawkins, Richard [zoologist and Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, Oxford University], "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.229). That changes occur is fact, that macroevolution can occur is theory. That would depend on your definition of speciation, the strong definition (proposed by Dobzhansky) or the weak definition (Ernst Mayr)? All the fruitfly experiments still produce fruitflies. An Irish Wolfhound and a Chihuahua may be difficult partners to breed in the natural arena but you can take the Wolfhound's sperm and the Chihuahua's egg and still produce a dog. I agree. Unfortunately for you the trend includes gaps. Okay, convince us. Tell us which order of reptiles evolved into birds. Don't sweat the details. I'm not asking for the species, just the order. I'm looking forward to your "factual" reply.
Pure bullshit. Mrs. Reader clearly ignores the fact that the chemicals used were those which would have been present on an early earth. The sources of energy used would also have been present on an early earth. Once again, utter bullshit. Amino acids were created. Amino acids are the building blocks of life. It is a fact that only cellular life existed 3.5 billion years ago. It is a fact that as time passed, more and more complex life (usually) came to occupy the planet. It is a fact that hundreds of transitional fossils have been found showing macroevolution. Funny that you tell me what science is about, since you don't even know what the scientific method is, and think that evolution is ONLY a theory. The FACT is that Miller never attempted to create life, only the building blocks of life. You see, almost does count in science. Have you almost found evidence supporting god yet, child? And once again, a creationist is taking things out of context. Let me continue what Dawkin's says... "Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from peroids before about 600 millions years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies, no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist, you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationsists' and 'gradualists'. Both schools of though despise so called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record." In otherwords, things without bones don't fossilize too well. And they existed 600 million years ago. Therefore, you will have great difficulty in finding fossils 600 million y.a. And Bridge, you copying quotes from an intelligent design website is not evidence that you have read "The Blind Watchmaker". Actually, the strong definition of speciation has occurred.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html You are now playing the old trick 'lord of the gaps'. I think, child, that you are forgetting that fossilization is an extremely rare event. Especially with mollusks. We have hundreds of transitional fossils CLEARLY showing intermediate forms. How do you account for these fossils? Unfortunately for me, the fossil record has gaps? Unforunately for you, the fossil record clearly shows animals in their intermediate forms. Instead of me always answering your questions, why don't you answer some of mine for once? You keep avoiding my questions by shifting the argument over to me. Yet another sneaky tactic employed by someone who doesn't have a clue. Very clever, Bridge. Ask the impossible, so it looks like evolution is inadequate. Why don't you ask a biologist? I'm certainly no scientist, just your average Jo. I don't have to tell you how reptiles evolved into birds. I just need to tell you about a transitional fossil of a reptile bird. Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil of a reptile with feathers, and other bird like qualities. There are 7 of these transitional fossils. If you don't believe in macroevolution, you must have an explaination for these fossils, which clearly show reptiles evolving into birds. Bridge, you keep attacking evolution. Why not supply some evidence for your creator? And I good explaination for why transitional fossils exist if a divine creator did "POOF" everything into existence.
I can just imagine some early Pagan, puffed up and naively proud of his cleverness, asking his detractors: Okay, convince us. Tell us where lightning comes from. Don't sweat the details. I'm looking forward to your "factual" reply. As Darwin said:
C.A.: Oh, nice detraction. Next to "unicorns" and "Santa Claus", here comes the "lightning" bolts from God example in third place as an all time favorite myth that theists still believe in. Speaking of ignorance, Darwin also believed Negros were next to gorillas on the ladder of life. ---------------------------------- mountainhare: Another FACT? The facts are piling up fast in your replies, it's too bad they can't contain some confirmation of what you claim. Ignoring the fact that the conditions simulated were not that of early earths, Miller's results didn't produce viable building blocks and as George Wald noted, the experiment failed to: "definitively show that organic compounds could be produced without a living organism, because “organic chemists are alive". Dawkins: The theory of evolution in terms of the transformation of one kind of an organism into another different kind of an organism (macroevolution) takes place too slowly to occur(gradualists), and yet in the fossil record the evolutionists tell us it took place to rapidly(punctuated equilibrium) to be caught. Now, this puts the evolutionists in an interesting position in believing in something that they've not seen. I call that faith, mountainhare probably would call it fact. The only problem being that it is you who continues making all these claims as FACT and have yet to provide an adequate FACTUAL answer. You specifically claimed: If indeed birds were once reptiles and as you claim this is a FACT why is it you can't provide us the order of reptiles that birds evolved from? What's the problem here? What kind of FACTUAL answer is this: I'm sorry to have to be one to inform on you this but I thought you were already aware of the continuing controversy surrounding whether archaeopteryx is a true bird, a true reptile or true transitional. The debate is not only a philosophical one between evolutionists and creationists/design advocates but a scientific one between experts in ornithology and the other biological sciences. As for me supplying answers to prove the existence of a creator, it wasn't me who claimed that I could provide the answer. You made the claims, you need to make your case. Lets assume the best case scenario for your argument. If it's a true transitional, why can't you tell us what order of reptiles archaeopteryx descended from?
God and chance are the same. I don't understand how scientist can call ANY occurrence random. EVERYTHING has some sort of origin and cause. Time, The universe (scientist who believe that it's infintie are picking the easy explanation to a number of CURRENTLY unexplainable phenomena) gravity,etc. The theory of evol. is riddled with chance or random activites that are no better an explanation than "God did it".A cell mutation isn't random just because we as cannot find the cause. The cause of the mutation may be a chemical element that breifly comes into exsistent when the right conditions are present and disentergrates as soon as the mutation occurs. The right "conditions" to cause this mutation can be a chain of events that go back all the way to the gravitational pull of of the six moons on the yet to be found planet Qintar in the yet to be found galaxy Plaxtar. Or it may simply be the number of fincants(a yet to be found particle in sunlight) that the cell is exposed to. Either or, i believe all things have a cause and a scientist of believer of science should be the last person to except chance or random occurrence as a valid explantion lest you be no better than your so called foolish fundementalist. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, but isn't that besides the point? You posted a quote. I think it's wrong. If you think it's right, stand up for it.
