GOD ? or Evolution?

And if you're looking for physical proof of good, the best advice I can give you is to examine St. Thomas Aquinas... He was a pre-renaissance religious philosopher who came up with the 5 proofs of god.

 

On a different note, it's possible to recreate the early atmosphere in a laboratory and when electricity is added (ie. lightening) simple proteins arrange, the precursor to life. It's a pretty big jump from there to the first cell tho.

 

Are your a creation? If so how, could you not have a creator? Do you exist? If so, How could you exist, from nothingness? How could something be produced from nothing? One could ask:Tehn what created GOD. If something created GOD, and somthing created that GOD, and so forth and so on are you not speaking of infinicy? Deducing that God is infinte, due the interconnection of these GODs. So really There is only one GOD regardlessly.
But I like us all am just a human, meiraculaslly existing.

 

There's this thing called creationism,-look it up!

It's got some disproof of evolution, and also proof of its own.

 

could we not extend this logic further, saying god0 created material existence, god1 created god0, etc to infinity. Instead of deducing that god is infinite and hence there is 1 infinite god which created material existence, could it not be possible that material existence is infinite, ie that 'god' is everything around us.

 

In what part of the impression does the idea of a creator exist? Simply saying that a creation must have a creator is not saying anything much and reducing the question to a mere verbal dispute, a circular argument that doesn't go anywhere.

 

Exactly. It starts with the assumption that we are creations. That is not a fact, just an opinion. We may alternatively just be here. Not created, just existing.

 

Regardless of weather we exist or not, Something is or is not happening. I see now that the question is irrelavent wholistically, but I still enjoy offering thanks to the universe. For my owne appreciation and for being grateful to and for such an experience.

 

In many ways you two( mati and trippen) are saying the exact same things as we are

(Exactly what I was getting at)
Thus if all is one, than even if we dont exist we still dont exist within GOD

 

i'm with you more than any other that's commented here....except for one thing you said...." God invented Adam and Eve right, they were the first humans on earth, ever".....you said it with such certainty....how do you know they were the 1st ones?...the fables you read, written by monks, centuries after the alleged incident supposedly occurred...

i mean....what qualified these guys to be god's biographers?

scopes theory's objective...it's traceable, plausible ....god is subjective, based on belief and desire to be true...

personally it is what it is to us all because of how we were groom'd as kids....we want to believe something, regardless of which side of the fence it's on, so that's our truth.....just maybe not the factual truth

 

See for me I choose to ignore both major theories accepted by the main audience and instead opt out on trying to figure out how we got here. Instead I figure isn't the more important question where are we going from here?

 

Evidence against evolution (have fun! ):


http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/english/17evidences.html
http://www.ghg.net/hollaway/isevolut.htm
http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp
http://www.serve.com/revev/revev5.html
http://www.ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html
http://www.designeduniverse.com/art..._Evolution/evidence_disproving_evolution.html
http://www.projecttruth.org/Project Truth/PTCreation/SciencePapers/darwinerupts.htm
http://www.branchministry.net/bibleteachings/evolutionfoolishness.htm
http://heresies.landmarkbiblebaptist.net/Entropy.html


Darwin HIMSELF even said that his theory was wrong,- in his book!

I used to believe in evolution.However, Some stuff...just doesn't make sense.

I don't think dinosaurs could evolve FEATHERY wings by jumping off trees.

And how could you get ORGANS (like the brain) from amoibas??

Most of all, how does a creature 'evolve' scales,skin,hair,etc.. if the ONE CELLED creature doesn't even contain this DNA?

 

Ryu, here is where I show you that everything you believe in is wrong.

A one-celled creature might have the DNA for scales. But it's not going to be expressed, because it's useless to a one-celled creature and would probably be maladaptive.

You should pay more attention in English class. Darwin's quote, taken directly from your link, was "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

Darwin did not say that his theory is wrong. What he said is that the Earth does not contain a perfect nor even complete catalogue of all the species to which it has ever played host - he said that we _will not_ find examples of every infinitesimal graduation between species, because not every animal has been preserved. He is saying that those who reject the science of geology will reject his theory as a valid (though untrue) logical conclusion.

And now to refute your "proofs." Not that you're going to take the time to read any of this, because you'd prefer to remain willfully ignorant. Some of these (1-4, for example) actually agree with some things you've pointed to, so I strongly suggest that you read all of these articles and take them to heart.

Site 1:
1) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html
2) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html
3) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.html
4) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB701_1.html
5) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
6) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
7) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB360.html
8) I don't even need to link for this one; if we could make oil in a laboratory we wouldn't be drilling Alaska and invading the Middle East for this commodity.
9) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
10) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
11) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html
12) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH712.html ; http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710.html ; http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH712_1.html
13) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.html
14) I can handle this one myself, too: That is based on a fallacious assumption that the Nile has always flowed at its current vector (volume, velocity, and direction).
15) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.html
16) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH134.html
17) "Lastly, and most importantly, the Bible says that God created the universe and every living thing, so the world must have been created." The Silmarillion says that Iluvatar created Ea, so it must be true. Get a grip.

Site 2:
The author of this site is an idiot. He uses the famous peppered moth example ( http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/peppered.htm ) and says, "Now, why was there an apparent change in the moth's color? Did it change color to adapt to its environment? No, the light moths were very simply eaten by the birds." This man demonstrates the thickheadedness of most fundamentalist Creationists - the moth DID adapt, in fact that is an absolutely perfect example of adaptation. "The moth" does not refer to individuals, but to the species as a whole. Individuals do not evolve, they merely serve as stepping stones in the process of evolution.
Do not listen to what morons say.

Site 3:
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/ ; http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html ; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html

Site 4:
This site is discredited as easily as Site 2. "The more you study the duckbill platypus, the more problems you find for evolutionists. Here is a list of some of its features:

? It is a fur-bearing mammal."

One need go no farther to realize that these people do not know what they are talking about. Fur, or hair, is one of the defining features of mammals.

Site 5:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/momevol.html

Site 6:
www.talkorigins.org

Site 7:
Another moron. Attempts to prove that the Earth is much younger than science has shown by appealing to the amount of volcanic product deposited on the surface of the Earth each year, while completely ignoring erosion, island chain formations, and the destructive properties of lava.

Site 8:
www.talkorigins.org
Nothing but another site full of lies and misconceptions. They even say that Nebraska man was included in textbooks, which is false.

Site 9:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

Disprove entropy! Play this game: http://gprime.net/game.php/chainreaction

 

Something else you all need to keep in mind: Our organs are /functional/, NOT perfect. Yes, the eye and ear are amazing...but even we lowly humans could, can, and have designed much better models. Surely God could have made them more perfect.

The fact that things simply work, as opposed to being as ultimately efficient as possible, is further support for development rather than design.

 

I looked at some of those sites, but I have not found an explenation for the questions I've asked, nor have I found anything explaining how the giraffe got such a long neck.

I guess you didn't understand my last question. How did one-celled organisms develop these things? The reason I said 'without DNA' is because sperms are one-celled, and with an egg produced a living creature, BUT that's because it has DNA.

 

Each of those sites refutes (backed up by solid, researched evidence) each of the points made by the sites you linked us to. I figured my post was long enough without delving into the questions you tacked on at the end.

 

How, then, did these creatures develop brains,hearts,etc...
also, you're implying that one-celled organisms can think? How did it happen that they knew exactly how to bind, if they couldn't think?

That doesn't really answer my question. How did the creatures develop a long neck in the first place?
"As the acacia trees got taller, giraffes with longer necks stood a better chance of surviving."

 

No, I'm not implying that they can think. Just because they may have happened to clump together doesn't mean it was premeditated. Unicellular organisms sometimes display activity that looks like thinking - Amoebas hunting down other unicellular organisms, for example - but it's doubtful that they think as we do.

It's a good thing you're only 15, or I'd be concerned that you suffer from a learning disability.
I'm sure you've seen humans who are 5 feet tall or shorter, and humans who are over 6 feet tall. Now imagine that we ate green maple leaves by reaching up with our arms to grab them. Now imagine that we end up systematically killing all the trees that are reachable by all of us, because we keep eating their means of producing food. Now the only maple trees left are not reachable by those under 6 feet. Tall people are much more able to survive, and subsequently will reproduce more, spreading their tall information among the population and causing the species' overall height to increase.

 

So all these amoebas clumped together, and for some strange reason the clump had organs, and for some strange reason it worked as one Unit? right.

That still didn't answer my question, how did the tall Giraffe get so tall in the first place. What I mean is, in the most simple way, 'so how did the first tall giraffe get taller than the others?'

 

Did I say the 'clumps' suddenly had organs? No. Not to mention it wouldn't have been amoebas, because amoebas are cannibalistic.

And why not ask me why some of your friends are taller than you? It just happens. There is phenotypical diversity in every species on the planet.