liquid

Personally, I find this very rude. I could understand in an already hostile debate, but you had got some straightforward answers to your questions.

To ignore and/or deliberately misunderstand these answers, and then throw them back with a dismissive catchphrase was unjustified.

I hope I don't need to explain why debate by three-word quip is never going to solve anything, much less convince scientifically-knowledgeable people of divine revelation. If you want an honest discussion, stick around, but if you do not then I don't see the point in you being here.

One of the things I know for certain is that such an attitude would not be following the example of Jesus. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?

I sincerely doubt you will actually analyse your own attitude and opinions but you are some way off the mark if you aim to live your life like the meek lamb.

variant 13

Meaning don't believe the bible or the priests or anyone else for that matter.

Show me the design. Not patterns or complexity but design.

Wiploc

Okay, maybe some people who watched the documentary believe it; but I don't think you'll find a cosmologist who believes there was empty space before the big bang.

crc

Dr.GH

Evolution is not in the least bit conserned with the origin of the Universe, or even the origin of life. These are interesting questions and there is a massive amount of work that has gone in to find these answers.

If I limit myself to only web sites, there are a few that you can read to learn some cosmology:

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

The MAP project was selected as this years "Science Break Through" by the American Association for the Advancement of Science." It is the study of the Cosmic Background Radiation, and has made several oustanding discoveries this year alone. Examples, the Universe is flat, the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, the Universe's rate of expansion is accelerating, most of the Universe is not made of 'ordinary' matter. Cool stuff.

By the way, the "Big Bang" was not an explosion.

trunks2k

Damn, GH, do you have that post stored on your computer somewhere? I swear, this is the third or fourth time in the past couple days I've seen you post that.

nessa20x

quote
This is somewhat typical of evolutionists, hundreds of words posted in response when three would have sufficed,
I DON'T KNOW.

Ok this pisses me off...not because of what it says but because of what it implies. The fact that evolution, and the thousands of other scientific theories out there can't answer every damn question you come up with does not make science wrong. If the inability to explain everything did make science wrong...then think what that does to religion which couldn't even predict that the sun was the center of the solar system. Your religion doesn't increase life spans, or prevent death from c-section, or provide antibiotics, or rid the world of active smallpox...etcetc. Science has made those things possible. You do not understand the scientific theories you are trying to argue against. I'll bet that you cannot give a satisfactory definition of evolution without looking it up, nor can you describe the mechanisms by which evolution occurs??? Can you do that?? Honestly???

Just because we don't have every detail of abiogenisis (origin of life) does not mean we don't know how to account for species diversity. Just because we don't have a clear idea of the moment of the bigbang (0 sec) doesn't mean we can't study radiation, light, particle interaction, and collision data to figure out what happened directly after the bigbang and how matter coalesced in the universe.

Religion presupposes something created the universe. Science doesn't. So already science is a more fair, balanced way of looking at the origin of the universe...do you understand this?? If there is evidence for a creator, science will find it. If there is evidence of a different cause for the origin of the Universe and it is detectable, someday science will find that. So far there simply hasn't been any evidence for creation...sorry.

You can however observe the evolution of new species right in a laboratory using colchicene and plants. The alloploid condition which results in the offspring separates them from their parents(new species) and they can still reproduce (viable species). Also the alloploid condition has been shown to occur in the wild naturally...so this is one mechanism for evolution. You can perform the experiment on your own...its pretty simple.

Dr.GH

Obviously we both spend too much time at this Evo/Creato issue. The cosmology question comes up regularly, and I have two favorite web links.

I have noticed over the years that creationists' arguments seem to cycle through some fairly regular points. What is more interesting is how they seem to be almost coordinated- what shows up at one active site will be on them all within the week. I wonder if there is a conection here to some of the creationists' magazines, or a television preacher.

I did use the identical text at the POD site.

Albion

Well, now he's graduated to the five-word quip ("design points to a designer"), which seems so far to be the sum total of his argument. Apart from quoting the Bible at us, of course - always helpful as scientific evidence.

Perhaps one day he'll get around to telling us the difference between design and order, whether natural processes count as a designer, and why it's so important for him to be able to use science to prove the existence of God.

Principia

Hi revaelc,

You make excellent observations. It is in fact easier to believe that GOD created everything. Sometimes I don't get why atheists and atheistic scientists rack their brains on such obvious matters. Here, let me recommend that you graduate to posting at some other sites. Posters at these sites can definitely use more intelligent people, like you, who also have a fondness for easy beliefs that require minimal faith:
www.arn.org/boards
www.iscid.org/boards
www.theologyweb.com
www.rr-bb.com
www.baptistboard.com

God Bless.

In Christ,
Principia

RufusAtticus

Okay. I note that you didn't say "design points to an sentient designer" or "design points to YHWH." Why is that? Do you accept without realizing it that there is no evidence at all in the biological world for YHWH or any other gods?

Now back to your statement: "Design points to a designer."

Science has conclusively shown that biological design is the result of a designer, evolution via selection. In fact, selection works so well that many engineers are using it in their work to design electronic circuits and computer programs more complex and more efficient than any human ever did.

Ah the irony, a book written by man tells you not to trust man.