CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your own opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
To me this is a simple one Evolution all the way. It is science plain and simple when and if creationists can show evidence for creation beside the bible then and only then should it even be considered. The fact of the matter is all they have are criticisms of evolution which does not amount to evidence of creation.
You say the bible is the only proof of creationism. Um, biblical archaeology?? Archaeology is science too.
Isn't evolution's bible Darwin's "On the Origin of Species..."? It has been proved by other branches of science.
And also, you think all things just appeared and began to evolve?
Was life created out of thin air? And, if so, how was the air created?
I beleive evolution could be, but as a stage after creation, that would progress life.
Both could be one in the same. Just, I beleive, for evolution to exsist, that creation must have preceeded it.
"The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared..."
How did they appear? What?
"... and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began. The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions, but it is unclear how this occurred..."
Unclear? Hmmm?
"Not much is certain about the earliest developments in life, the structure of the first living things, or the identity and nature of any last universal common ancestor or ancestral gene pool. Consequently, there is no scientific consensus on how life began, but proposals include self-replicating molecules such as RNA, and the assembly of simple cells."
How did RNA first become?
I do not believe this debate is fair, because evolution has so many gaps in its reasoning. How can it be compared to creationism? They are two different things.
I would say I agree with both, but the blatantly ignoring theology in scientific theory makes a rift between the two. So, creationism.
actully, uncomplext compunds bonded to geather to create chemicals and very very uncomplect cell fragments that then banded to geather with otherthings for survival and formed the first very simple cells that then became more complext. (also, we have proof of human civilization that started with writings and buildings and history and bones before the bible says it all just happened)
Nothing "appeared"- its very simple. A very long time ago, after the creation of the oceans, simple chemical reactions occurred that became more and more complex, and eventually created RNA, which developed into 2 cells. those cells began to multiply, and random mutations occurred, changing them ever so slightly. (Also, cyanobacteria developed, which developed that thin air you were talking about). Millions and millions of years of this evolutionary process, and now we have websites where we can debate about how we started.
To each their own as a personal belief I have nothing against those that subscribe to creationism but feel strongly that it does not belong in schools. There is no theory of creation it is not even a hypothesis it is a belief or faith. Given the current state of education I dont think america can afford to put faith in schools.
Life consist of nothing but creations. Scientist create medicines such as, anti-biotics, and anti-dotes to fight bacteria and poisons to treat the problem and make you well. Other types of scientists that we wonder why are they getting paid such as (not all agree with me) marine biologist. I believe they study the ocean and sea and all that reside in them. What I'm trying to say is, If man have the ability to create something besides the sun, moon and stars. Who in their right mind would think that it doesnt take time and effort and a little thought into creating these beautiful things you wake up to each day?
Evolution has been basically proven... Other than that, the only source for creationism is the creation story in the Bible. And although that's a nice story and all, I believe it was only put there as an allegory for other messages we should know, like "God is all powerful (He created everything)" and "God is all loving (the line "and He saw it was good")".
I think evolution is an actual truth, since we are able to prove it and all. However, i think the two are closely linked.
But seeing as how everyone has their own beliefs, bleev what u want. My religion has already influenced me, so i'd like to believe God created the Big Bang and designed how evolution would occur. The Bible is not all truth sometimes, because the story of creation could just be a way to improve faith, not to state the way people came to be, we hav science for that
Intelligent Design doesn't refute evolution. it simply says that it was "guided" or "started" by something beyond explanation (at this time).
creationism says "God created man in his image"... nothing like Intelligent Design. Despite its origins, Intelligent Design has become something much more than just "God did it". Think of it based on the philosophy of Plato.
and, Evolution is not a theory saying God had nothing to do with it. even its origins were not perfect but BECAME something better as we went along with it (like Darwin saying that the cell was very basic). the cell is actually another Universe.
Evolution may not have been perfect when it was first thought up, but it was still pretty damn good. Why? Because it was based on observation, and evidence. It employed the scientific method to come up with an idea that changed the way we view our world. It is the foundation that unites all fields of biolgy.
Intelligent design, on the other hand began as an attempt to discredit evolution, for religious reasons. It was put in text books (such as Of Pandas and People) as a replacement for creationism, because the supreme court ruled that creationism was a violation of the first ammendment. I'D has no scientific evidence to support it's claims and never will because it requires an unobservable "inteligent agent." That which is completely unobservable cannot be scuentific because science requires observation.
Could ID be taught in schools? Sure...in a philosophy class, or in a science class as an example of what science isn't. As long as there is not one iota of evidence for ID, then it can never be taught as a theory.
no scientific evidence, of course. but plenty of mathematical evidence. mainly because the mathematical answer for Life or the Universe is Undefined. ID doesn't say God directly (anymore, unless you are a creationist who believes in ID).
back to math. The existence of the Universe and Life itself is considered mathematically impossible. But if something that's impossible is happening, that would be illogical. but it's also illogical to say that the Universe and life within it doesn't exist because we see with our very own two eyes that it is happening. So how is the impossible possible? Intelligent Design may not answer it, but it does open our minds to the idea that things aren't always as they seem. The very fact that our brains are the rational animal kind, we see things, often, in irrational ways. Our perception, in trying to be rational, has obscured reality into matching what is logical. But, it is both illogical and logical to say that these obscurities are right.
idk, maybe what pisses me off is the harsh reaction to the idea of ID. I don't accept it as truth because there is not enough evidence to support it. but when working it out mathematically and looking to philosophy, it's not that improbable.
You're right about ID not being taught as a science. But, science teachers should be able to bring it up as a possible answer. My Chemistry Professor (who despised creationists) would sometimes answer "God did it" because he knew there was no answer for certain questions (like how and why). He was able to dissect the Universe and Life as we know it into the smallest terms, but he was still unable to answer the most simplest questions on why certain things did things.
The existence of the Universe and Life itself is considered mathematically impossible
I'm curious who (other than yourself) considers this to be the case. I know most scientists don't. The main reasons for this are:
1) Much is still unknown about the creation of the universe, and therefore attempting to put a numerical probability on the chances of it's existence is futile, and clearly any figure is going to be wildly inaccurate.
2) The universe is huge. The is so much stuff out there, that actually the chances of life occurring at least once, are probably pretty damn likely. As is the case with the previous answer though, we have no way of knowing the probability of life until we find (or don't find) other life.
3) Every individual scenario is unlikely. If I were to roll a billion sided dice, the chances of any one number coming up are wildly improbable, however one number will come up. Does this mean God did it? Maybe, but much more likely it was chance. Compare this to life on earth. Every single individual life is wildly improbable (think about all the sperm cells that could have reached your mom's egg) however, once again when we look at the whole picture we see that life did have to happen, it just happened to take this form.
idk, maybe what pisses me off is the harsh reaction to the idea of ID.
I think the claims you've heard about the "harsh reaction" to ID have been either exaggerated, or flat out fabricated. The fight has been to keep ID out of the classroom, because it was being used merely as a way to undermine evolution. There are in fact Christian scientists who, more than likely believe that God is guiding evolution, however these people still know that ID is not scientific.
What you need to understand is that no scientist, atheist, Christian, or otherwise takes the idea of ID seriously. You claim that it makes mathematical sense, then prove it! Show me some equations, that says that evolution needs an "intelligent agent." There is none. People used to think that rainbows were proof of an intelligent designer, because it was so unlikely that the light would just form in that way by itself. Well turns out it's not unlikely, and is simply refraction. Substituting "God" in for what we don't know has never gotten us anywhere. Looking for natural explanations may seem "both illogical and logical" (whatever the fuck that means) to you, but look at where it has gotten us (at this point you should look around you and think about what someone from the 1700's would think of your lifestyle). Maybe the world isn't completely rational, but so far all evidence points to the contrary.
Edit: Just came across this video which is very relevant to my argument. I hope you take the time to watch it.
ID doesn't undermine evolution. it doesn't say it didn't happen.
and it's funny how all of a sudden you speak for every scientist. i think in Logical terms we call that a fallacy.
I already said that it shouldn't be taught as a science (don't know what your rambling was about), I was just upset at how some people (not most though) react to it. you know, having to type extremely long explanations on why it's wrong (even though it proves nothing).
As i've explained already, our brain automatically attempts to rationalize things and in that effect it is irrational. This has been proven (Mueller). I'm not saying that science is bad (it's one of my most favorite subjects to research on), I'm just saying that things aren't ALWAYS as they seem, and no matter how hard we try, we won't be able to reason certain aspects out because our brain won't accept it.
and, I'm not saying ID has to be true just because the probability of life is practically zero. Obviously we hardly know shit about the Universe and Time. But because of this, it's not insane to suggest that there may be more to it (because there obviously is). ID may say that it's a God, and sometimes it will say it's just some kind of guide. Maybe some powerful force of energy that creates a guidance (the one i find most probable).
but go ahead. just say that ID is creationist propaganda trying to destroy the theory of evolution.
ID does undermine evolution, because supporters of ID wish to put a sticker in every textbook that says something along the lines of: "Evolution is just a theory. It is not a fact, and has not been proven. There are other possibilities." To deny that ID is being used to undermine not only evolution, but science as a whole, is...to put it lightly a dumb thing to do. Look at the video I posted. In it you can actually see people using ID to do just that.
If you or anyone else wants to believe in some guiding force, great. That's what freedom of religion is all about. No one is attacking anyone's personal beliefs.
If you think that there are significant number of scientists who disagree with me, I challenge you to find me some. I would be interested in hearing their opinion.
While on fallacies however, I think we should address the straw man you continue to present as your reason for defending ID. In previous debates, you said scientists were fired for "just mentioning ID." I gave you a list of people you might be referring to, and why this was not the case with each of them. You never responded to that argument, and haven't mentioned it since, so I am going to assume that you admit that you were mistaken. (If not, I would love for you to give me an example of someone who was fired for bringing up the topic.) Now, your reason for defending ID is that people (like me) get upset when the topic is brought up. Let me repeat what I said earlier. If you want to talk about philosophy or theology, I would be perfectly willing to talk about a "guiding force" that controls life. However, until you have some evidence, or even some type of realistic scenario, then we can't talk about it in a scientific way. It isn't possible. What I get angry about is when people attempt to teach ID in school. You have already agreed that it shouldn't be taught in school. I'm not even sure at this point why you're disagreeing with me.
I'm just saying that things aren't ALWAYS as they seem, and no matter how hard we try, we won't be able to reason certain aspects out because our brain won't accept it.
So we should fill in the gaps with "it's magic", or "God did it"? Again if you want to say this as a personal belief GREAT*. But it is better to say I don't know, and try to figure it out rationally. Usually, the results are pretty damn useful (modern medicine, airplanes, computers, etc...). But maybe that's all made up and we're just rationalizing magic.
Hell, right now maybe I'm typing on a magic keyboard and my brain is rationalizing what it sees by saying that my computer is just a bunch of integrated circuits powered by a stream of electrons. I must be fucking delusional.
Once again generalizing on an unfair term. Most people who believe in ID (i've already said that i don't accept it as fact) also believe in Evolution. They do not conflict with each other. Creationists want to say that evolution is just a theory, ID believers do not (usually).
I was disagreeing with your generalization of ID belief.
as for the scientists thing, Caroline Crocker's contract was no renewed and the reasons mentioned her belief in Intelligent Design. I'm sorry i don't have a list ready of all the scientists who were ever fired.
a couple are a bit extreme, but most of the guys on here are pretty rational ID believers (and are not religious), and, they're scientists and scholars.
I admit that I don't know. I do try to figure things out rationally, and ID happens to be a very rational conquest for the answers to the Universe. It's not the only theory i consider though, I have over 9000 theories in my head and I am constantly dissecting them in my head trying to figure out how i can possibly put them together or change them around a bit so that they are more reasonable.
and you keep on trying to make it sound like i want scientific conquests to stop... I don't understand why you continue with that argument after i've constantly repeated that i want scientific research to continue and that i don't want it to stop at ID.
it's an unfair argument. You seem to want to paint me as an irrational creationists when it's obvious i'm nowhere near that.
We do seem to be arguing past each other, and I will apologize for some of that.
As for Caroline Crocker, I mentioned her in my previous argument, of people who were not fired for merely mentioning ID. If you would like to hear the real story of what happened with her please look here. As the article shows, she actually taught creationism, and made flawed arguments against evolution. The students were the ones that complained, and she later lied about being blacklisted.
As for your post of non-religious scientists, I must point out that that is a blog and not a scientific peer reviewed journal. Because I am not a scientist myself I cannot accurately peer review them, however I can say that I can see what appear to be flaws in their arguments. They talk about "specified complexity." What this means is that a system, is too complex to have evolved. Another term that is often used by ID proponents is "irreducible complexity." This argument has already been debunked by numerous scientists including Ken Miller. Here is a video of him proving the argument to be invalid. What this leads me to believe is that there are other flaws, and that they are merely giving specious reasons for ID.
This is why i have my doubts about ID too, but the main premise of it (which is why i accept it as probable) is still very rational. People will try to make their reasoning for certain ideas, and I don't condone or condemn them (just how the Big Bang theory is still filled with a shit load of holes). It may be because I think more philosophically and mathematically then i do by senses and the scientific method... it's not that i ignore science (as i've said, i embrace it and continue to study it), I just see how science, when taken to an extreme, can lead people to think too linear.
I see how we are debating on a sort of different path. We both accept Evolution as a valid and most reasonable theory on the track of life. You think more on the what can be physically proven scale and on what you say, i agree. But concrete thinking was never enough for me.
although ID is not acceptable to me just yet (so far, no theory on the Universe is acceptable to me yet), I believe that we can incorporate it (as i've said, the mass form of energy that creates a guidance) with what is rational to even atheists.
Or maybe not, Philosophy is a pretty harsh subject now a days. How much I wish more people could become philosophers (seriously, we had three of the greatest in a row and now nothing).
Plato being my favorite. Socrates I like a lot too mainly because I think like him on how there is no real answer for anything. That if you look into all beliefs and theories, you will find a flaw. This is why i am constantly skeptical of beliefs but I still hold them because I take elements of them to try and rationalize other beliefs.
long explanation on how my mind works... i'd rather not.
But maybe we can see Philosophers in different lights. After all, Marx and Adam Smith can also be considered philosophers. Marx saw a greater picture kind of thing and Adam Smith was really just an economist, but his Invisible Hand of the Market belief go a great deal along with philosophy. (and, of course, I like Smith and i dislike Marx).
Einstein thought philosophically. He thought a bit on the lines of Pantheism, actually, a lot. He considered himself of an agnostic because he was astonished by the brilliance behind the Universe. But, on religion, he didn't focus too much on whether he was agnostic or w/e... he even said that "if you're religious, you might consider me an atheist". And on how the atheist would consider him religious (sort of how people constantly view me).
So maybe philosophy is still vibrant. or not. maybe i'm wrong about the last few mentioned.
That if you look into all beliefs and theories, you will find a flaw
This is very true for almost all theories. In fact even the fundamental theories of sciences still have a surprising number of holes. Molecular theory is a great example.
I'm surprised you didn't mention Thoreau. I don't agree with everything he says, however he has been extremely influential. One of my favorite quotes by him is "simplify, simplify, simplify." He recognized that modern life, and materialism tend to complicate life, and draw us away from what makes us human. Looking at our culture, it's pretty easy to see how right he was.
Evolution has more supporting details than the theory of intelligent design. Though, both still remains as a theory because it is still not proven to be otherwise. The evolutionism concept is more based on logic and radical studies. But though I still don't believe that our origin is that of a primate; I like to think that we are an origin of human at the beginning of time and mutate over time. Darwinism concept of primate origin has still a big void that is still left unresolved. So it really comes down to what you want to believe in because both still runs unsupported facts.
Evolution has been proven many times. The fossil records, DNA analysis, geographical distribution, real-time observations all point to evolution. It all makes perfect sense and no discovery has contradicted it yet.
Evolution has not been proven. Were you there when evolution was happening? Are there any videos? Records? Pictures? No, there are not. Therefore, there is no concrete proof that directly points to evolution. Believing in evoluition requires an element of faith, because there isn't any concrete proof for it.
Creationism is most often related to Christianity's form of creation. So, if we taught creationism in school, shouldn't we all have to learn about each religion's form of creationism? That way we keep the divide between church and state. We can't indoctrinate our students one way or the other, and being fair with religious education would mean we spend years talking about each religion's ideas on evolution, creationism, or whatever other ideas are out there. We just can't let there be Evolution and then Christian Creationism. There are others.
"evolution has basically been proven", "there is no evidence for the Biblical story" common claims made by evolutionists. Out of all the claims, I've never heard any solid evidence to support them. There's no evidence for the biblical story? Then why is the top of Mt Everest covered in fossilized clams? Why have sets of human footprints have been found on top and next to dinosaur footprints? Why are there so many "fossil graveyards" (the result of swirling water eddies)? Why did the earth have to be created instantaneously (www.halos.com)? Evolution is a fact? Then why have fossilized whales been found standing vertically on their tails? Why are the layers of coal formations connected? Out of the billions of fruit flies/bacteria generations observed, why have they only produced after their kind? Why is the age of the earth severely limited?: The moon is moving away from the earth each year, and would have been touching earth 1.3 billion years ago; long before then lunar tides would have wiped out life. Earth's spin is slowing down, so less than a million years ago it would it have been going much too fast for anything to survive (centrifugal force, 5,000 mph winds). Need more questions?
OK. Great. But I don't understand why you opposed my argument...
Everything you said sounds so ridiculous it borders made-up. Many of your questions don't even make sense. I don't need more questions. I need more answers. I think andsoccer said most everything that needs to be said other than that.
First, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist". Evolution is not a religion or belief system, but instead a well tested theory backed up by evidence in many scientific fields such as geology, embryology, genetics, and other fields of biology. A more accurate term to use would be scientist because over 99% of scientists agree with evolution. But hey, what do they know?
I will talk about the evidence for evolution later but first allow me to answer some of your questions:
Then why is the top of Mt Everest covered in fossilized clams?
That's simple. The surface of the earth is covered by large masses of land known as tectonic plates. There are two types of tectonic plates, oceanic and continental. When two continental plates collide, mountains form. In this case, the Indian subcontinent collided with the Eurasian Plate forming the Himalayas. In fact this collision is still occurring and Mt. Everest is rising a few inches each year. What does this have to do with fossilized clams? At one point during earth's history, the rocks that currently make up the Himalayas were underwater and during this time the clams would have been fossilized. The mountains were raised later. In addition, if you are trying to say that these clams are evidence of the biblical flood (if you are not please correct me), then you should know that fossilization of the type witnessed on the top of Mt. Everest could not have happened in a short amount of time. They would have to have been covered for thousands of years. Didn't the flood supposedly only last 40 days?
Why have sets of human footprints have been found on top and next to dinosaur footprints?
Short answer: They haven't
Long Answer: Although creationists originally claimed that "man-tracks" appeared with dinosaur prints near in Glen Rose Texas, these assertions were later proven to be false. The supposed human footprints were in fact shown to be dinosaur footprints that had been eroded, natural features, and some doctored and carved specimens.
Why are there so many "fossil graveyards" (the result of swirling water eddies)?
Could you be more specific? I have never heard the term fossil graveyard, and I fail to see how this could possibly point to "swirling water eddies."
Why did the earth have to be created instantaneously (www.halos.com)?
This theory was thought up by Robert Gentry, who based his conclusion on what he called "halos" found in certain primordial rocks. Gentry is a physicist not a geologist however, so his method of observations, and the conclusions he comes to are flawed. You might as well ask a plumber to falsify string theory. The problems with his research are numerous, but for the sake of brevity I will give you the basic reasons why he's wrong.
- The rocks he was examining were not part of the primordial crust of earth, but instead much younger, and therefore not reflective of earth's formation.
-He does not show that polonium is the only possible cause of the "halos." In fact, other scientists who reviewed his work have determined that Uranium (which decays much more slowly) is the real cause. This is because the rings were most common in areas that were Uranium rich. If the cause had been Polonium, this would not have been the case.
-Gentry attempts to rationalize the apparent conflict between his results and all other geological evidence for the age of earth, by proposing that decay rates have changed. There is no evidence for this, and the phenomenon is impossible according to current atomic theory. If he is right, then there is no reason that Polonium decay rates couldn't have changed as well, and therefore his entire conclusion is baseless
-His theory requires at least three instances of divine intervention. Science does not deal with the supernatural.
Then why have fossilized whales been found standing vertically on their tails?
What does this have to do with anything? I don't know specifically what your talking about, however, if I were to speculate this could be because either rocks containing the fossils were pushed vertically by volcanic or tectonic activity, or that an underwater avalanche buried a whale vertically. Until you show me specifically what your talking about though, these are just guesses.
Why are the layers of coal formations connected?
Once again, I'm not sure what your talking about.
Out of the billions of fruit flies/bacteria generations observed, why have they only produced after their kind?
I assume by kind you mean species. If that is the case, then you are severely mistaken. There are numerous examples of observed speciation, especially among bacteria. In fact, in 1975, a strain of bacteria was found that could digest nylon. Nylon was only invented in 1935, so this was obviously an evolved trait. Fruit flys have also been observed in laboratories to evolve. In addition we see bugs evolving all the time, to become resistant to pesticides. If you want more examples of instances of observed speciation look here.
Why is the age of the earth severely limited?: The moon is moving away from the earth each year, and would have been touching earth 1.3 billion years ago; long before then lunar tides would have wiped out life. Earth's spin is slowing down, so less than a million years ago it would it have been going much too fast for anything to survive (centrifugal force, 5,000 mph winds).
Your figures are out of date. The whole, moon touching the earth 1.3 billion years ago, was a problem in the 1960s. Since then, newer and more accurate models of the earth-moon system put the moon a good distance away from the earth 4 billion years ago. Scientists had to take into account how shifting landmasses on earth (due to tectonic activity) had an effect on the moon's movement.
Your second claim is laughable. I don't really know how to answer you other than to say that it's not true. Yesterday the temperature was one degree colder than today. Does that mean I can conclude there as an ice age less than a year ago? The earth is slowing down, but not nearly in the way that you described.
Okay, now that that's over with we can talk about evidence for evolution.
Out of all the claims, I've never heard any solid evidence to support them
I'd say that's probably because creationist blogs don't have much information on the topic. I however do. Let's break it up into a couple catagories:
Fossils
Scientists have been able to date fossils that are millions of years old, using numerous different techniques. What we see, when we look at the fossils we've found is a very clear representation of the evolutionary tree of life. Scientists have found literally thousands of transitional fossils, and not a single fossil has not fit within what evolution predicts. There were no mammals found during the Precambrian period, and no dinosaurs that dated less than 50 million years ago.
If evolution were not true then how could you explain:
1) How every dating technique used to identify the age of the fossils, turned up the same result? and how all of these results were consistent with evolution
As I said earlier in the debate, we can actually see species evolving. The reason that the flu vaccine must be updated every year, is because the flu virus evolves each year. In this case, our knowledge of evolution actually saves people's lives. So you must ask yourself:
3) If evolution isn't true, then why do we still see things evolving?
I could go on, but this argument is already too long. If you have more questions go ahead and ask, but I'm much more interested in answers.
The flu virus doesn't evolve, it mutates. Mutation and evolution are two different things. Evolution has never been witnessed happening. Scientists in support of evolution even state that. Evolution is a theory with a good argument, but it is a theory none-the-less.
Mutation and natural selection are the two driving forces behind evolution. By mutating the flu virus is evolving. There is no difference between the two.
Also, you claim that we have never observed organisms evolving: this is completely untrue. In lab experiments evolution is witnessed all the time.
In addition, scientists have also witnessed the evolution of species in the wild like the Italian wall lizard.
This is one of the common misconceptions about evolution. That species evolve is observed fact...that they do so through natural selection is the theory.
The bacteria mutated. They did not evolve into a new creature, granted that would take millions of years to witness. But, I agree, mutation would be a driving force behind evolution. However it isn't evolution itself. Mutations happen all the time in nature that never lead to a new evolved state in.
Now the article about the lizards is pretty amazing. I had not seen that. I have never said that evolution or adaptation or what ever someone wants to call it does not happen. These lizards may adapt through a from of evolution to acquire what is necessary to survive in a new environment but there is no evidence of them changing into a completely different creature to survive. Still, that is pretty amazing. Now, if they grew feathered wings I'd be convinced.
I think you have some misconceptions about what evolution actually is. Nothing ever changes into something completely different...that's impossible. Every generation is the same species as the previous generation, but with some added mutations orginally these mutations occur to the point where the end species cannot mate with the original, and that is where biologists arbitrarily draw the line as to a different species. In this sense we have seen many many examples of evolution.
In addition, we really do see new species of bacteria, and no it wouldn't take millions of years for them to evolve into a new species. It might take a long time for them to be mostly unrecognizeable from their parent species but dissimilarity to an ancester species is not a requirement to the observation of evolution.
In addition you claim that you would only except that scientists have observed evolution if they saw something without wings evolve into something with wings. Now obviously this is virtually impossible because the chances of parralel evolution of an exact same feature are virtually none, however I'm pretty sure you were being fecicious. Would you instead settle for the evolution of a mechanism in an organism that could didn't exist previously?
"Then why is the top of Mt Everest covered in fossilized clams?"
Because nearly all mountains used to be ancient sea floor genius. That continental drift and plate techtonics.
"Why have sets of human footprints have been found on top and next to dinosaur footprints?"
Because they are a hoax and have been proven to be so.
"Then why have fossilized whales been found standing vertically on their tails?"
Because the earth moves and shifts! Remember the mountains?
OK I'm going to stop there. If you can't go find the answers to some of these questions you are willfully ignorant. Science has working theories for most of this stuff and if it doesn't it's working on them because that's what science does. It knows it doesnt have all the answers yet but the very fact that you can make arguments that you made is because you have a basic understanding of science. Dont worry, friend, the answers are coming faster every day.
There is no actual absolute proof of evolution as some of the people here have stated. Before people post things, they should really do their research first. And for those reading this I implore you to do your own.
Here are three basic reasons for why evolution is only theory and not a proven fact:
1.) Evolution has never been witnessed. Dawkin's even states that, "evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." He goes on to say that its like coming upon a murder scene after the murder has already taken place. It seems pretty obvious but there is no concrete evidence. Just obvious clues. "It might as well be spelled out in words of English." Well, it might seem obvious, but its not concrete evidence. It seemed pretty obvious that the world was flat once too.
2.) Science is constantly trying to prove the theory of evolution with suggesting that life itself was generated in a pool of amino acids and proteins by complete chance. However, so far all experiments to attempt to manufacture a self replicating DNA based Molecule have failed. If you don't believe me, look it up. Now, there is evidence supporting RNA based molecules. But, even if that turned out to be successful, it would still pose an interesting paradox being that science created the self replicating molecule, it did not create itself as theory of evolution suggests.
3.) The last point is the fossil record is incomplete. We do share similar bone structures with other animals but there is no defined developmental line. Not even slight mutations within each generation to warrant there being evidence of evolution. Though, I will add they are getting closer and closer every year to finding that missing link but closer and closer does not equal found.
Now speaking about creation. I have read a lot of the arguments that are saying that creationism is faith based. Well, its just as faith based as evolution is. And there is just as much evidence, if not more, supporting intelligent design as there is supporting evolution. In all fairness there is no absolute proof for intelligent design as well. However, there is more substantial evidence for it. Here is one example:
Patterns occur naturally without the need for a 'designer'. For example: snowflakes, tornados, hurricanes, sand dunes, stalactites, rivers, ocean waves etc... These patterns are a natural result of what scientists categorize as chaos. Science, in support of evolution, also uses chaos to describe what was before the "big bang". These things are well-understood and there is no debate in the scientific community. Now, take codes. Codes do not occur without a designer (programmer). Some examples of these include stuff like music, blueprints, languages, computer programs, and even codes of DNA. The basic difference is what happens between patterns and codes. Chaos can produce patterns, but it has never been shown to produce codes. Codes store information which is pretty good proof that DNA just might have been designed (programed). DNA is not a molecule with a pattern. It's a code, basically a language, and a storage device for information. All codes that we know of were created by a conscious mind. Therefore, evidence dictates that DNA was designed by a mind of sorts. The language and information of our very own DNA is proof of some sort of intelligent design.
I for one believe that elements from both evolution and creation, working in tandem, is more likely that one or the other. But if I had to pick one I would say creation.
All observations are retroactive. We have observed evolution in the lab and in nature. That s, we have seen novel structures and abilities rise in diversified populations in various settings, whether it by nylonase in flavobacterium or cecil valves in Italian lizards, polyploidy in flowering plants, infertile and fertile hybridization in mammals, speciation of Drosphilia and Promonella among many, many other observed instances of speciation
Science is constantly trying to prove the theory of evolution with suggesting that life itself was generated in a pool of amino acids and proteins by complete chance.
You're mixing up theories. And there are no proofs in science. Proofs exist only in mathematics and liquor.
The last point is the fossil record is incomplete.
First, your understanding of the field, which you are discussing is woefully lacking. Two, there are thousands upon thousands of fossils categorically identifying diversification over time of various phylogenetic lineages. Third, there is no such thing as a missing link. That's just a media term. Every new generation of a population consists of physiological and genetic differences from the parent lineage, thereby becoming intermediate exemplars.
We do share similar bone structures with other animals but there is no defined developmental line.
An organic, DNA/RNA replicating, protein based, metabolic and metazoic, diploid, bilaterally symmetric, gilless, internally heated, coelomate, with a spinal chord, reduced olfactory system, lacteal mammaries, a jawed skull, specialized teeth, with canines and molars, forward oriented and fully enclosed optical systems in a singal temporal fenestra in an amniote skull that is attached to a vertebrate, that are hind-leg dominant, with sacral pelvis, clavicle, with wrist and ankle bones, lungs, tear-ducts, body hair, opposable thumbs, plantigrade extremities with an embryonic development, including amniotic fluid and placental birth leading ultimately to a highly social lifestyle based on a shared complexity in the frontal lobe, enhanced limbic system all connected to a reptilian brain, shared bi-hemispheres that help process language and spatial cognition... etc. etc. That's just the apes. Of course we have a bloody idea of a defined developmental line. Don't confuse yourself.
Well, its just as faith based as evolution is.
No. No. No. No. No. Evolution is not faith based. It is observed. And it is verified by biology, virology, paleontology, embryology, genetics, population genetics, genomics, bioinformatics, phylogenetics. it is evidenced by ring species, gene frequency change, observations and descriptions of populations in controlled settings and in nature. Endogenous retroviruses, body plans, homologous structures, basal features... and the list goes on and on.
I for one believe that elements from both evolution and creation, working in tandem, is more likely that one or the other. But if I had to pick one I would say creation.
Of course you. But you also have no idea what you're talking about. At all, it seems. And that explains fully why you'd go with the fantasy instead of learning about the things that make the world you live in tick. And if you just knew--simply knew--what you are talking about, you wouldn't have to go to some ridiculous, undefined, designer using undefined terms like "information" and talk about chemistry as if it's a computer program. Do what you said: research (IT IS SO ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT YOU HAVE NOT DONE ANY).
The aftermath of evolution has been witnessed but never the actual process itself. Its pretty good evidence but not concrete. With that said I never once stated that I don't believe in evolution personally.
You said my understanding of the field is lacking. Well, I am not a scientist but I have researched this on both sides. If I am lacking I am open to learning more about it. But in this case I don't believe you are correct. You're are right about one thing though. There are thousands of fossils showing what look like steps but there is no gradual change. Your examples of a defined developmental line are actually examples of a fragmented developmental line. And there are a ton more you could list. What you are talking about is macro evolution. These are changes within a species but there is no evidence of micro evolution. There should be millions if not billions of transitional phases between species but we have yet to find them. Therefore, I suggest that the fossil record is incomplete.
And I was being ironic when I made a comment about evolution being faith based. What I mean is, there is just as little, or as much evidence to support both sides. It always seems to me that Creationists are open to science but science is never open to creation. It comes across as incredibly close-minded. You say that evolution is observed. Well, intelligent design can be observed by the same definition. I even gave an example of it. But all you had to say was "And if you just knew--simply knew--what you are talking about, you wouldn't have to go to some ridiculous, undefined, designer using undefined terms like "information" and talk about chemistry as if it's a computer program." That isn't debating that is childish arguing which I don't participate in. I am also pretty sure its obvious what I meant by "information". And calling what I believe a "fantasy" and trying make me look like a fool is also a terrible way to approach a debate. Its just immature and proves that you are close-minded, not to mention it makes you seem incredibly unintelligent. You didn't even try to disprove the argument you just called it, in other words, stupid and left it alone. I typically don't debate with people that are immature. It just doesn't seem fair to them.
I have no patience for people like you. I use to spend days arguing with know-nothings about the evidence for evolution, when I was studying biology. And that was when I cared. We'll start with evidence for design. And we'll start step by step.
If it is so obvious, define "information" and pinpoint where it is located in a genome, in the chemicals: adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine (that make up DNA) or any combination of those chemicals, or in proteins or amino-acid chains (whichever you choose is fine). Explain how this "information" is transferred and adapted between living organisms and provide examples. How is the information stored?
Faith is believeing in something without evidence. You're the only one using faith here buddy. Evolution has more evidence than I could possibly tell you. From the fossil record to plant homologies to speciation. We've even observed evolution in labs at this point.
Evolution has actually never been observed. The aftermath of it has been observed. But there is no concrete evidence. Now mutations have been observed but mutation and evolution are two different things.
Your definition of faith is atheistic; it actually denotes the essence of the term foolish. Explain how any person can believe in something about nothing that doesn’t exist. People can only know or not know of that which exists.
If evolution is observable in the laboratory what is the name of the new species? Are you asserting that evolution is observable in controlled artificial laboratory experiments? Then, if you are, how is that evidence of evolution when it can only be evidence of artificial manipulation of a species? I thought evolution is a naturally occurring process, not a consequence of a controlled experiment in a lab.
Allow me an opportunity, here and now, to describe in part my approach in answering the question of intelligent cause.
The axiom of my argument: The laws of mathematics are the consequences of an intelligent eternal cause. No man or group of men can claim that he/they is/are the author of the laws of mathematics, for the laws existed before a man recognized them. We can however, fundamentally claim that man recognized by reason the known laws of mathematics, but never can it be claimed that man is the author of that which he has recognized by reason. The laws of mathematics existed before they were identified by man. They are eternally true. For example, 1+1+1+1+1100=1104 is true now, and is true thirty trillion centuries from now, and has always been true apart from time itself. This is an eternal truth for the equation is true apart from time itself. When there exists eternal truths that are only recognized by intelligence such as I describe there is an eternal cause of those consequences. And since mathematics is an exercise of knowledge and intelligence it is therefore the consequence of an intelligent cause.
If someone would like to contradict the conclusion of my argument I offer an invitation to do so. However, the difficulty in opposing this view is that the opposition must prove that there was a time when 1+1= not 2.
I have loosely laid out some of the evidence that supports the deductive conclusion that the whole of the creation is a consequence of intelligent design. And as necessary, I will add thereto so that my statements are understood in the manner I have intended.
"I thought evolution is a naturally occurring process, not a consequence of a controlled experiment in a lab."
So you don't believe it's possible for a naturally occuring processes to be the consequence of an controlled experiment?
That would be an interesting position to hold considering that's what science is all about. All the philosophical logic in the world won't help you if you don't have a basic understanding of what science is.
Please take no offence to my response. I refute arguments not people.
I do not believe, as implicated in your rhetorical question, that evolution is the consequence of a controlled experiment. For your rhetorical question expresses that the evolutionary natural process is a consequence of a controlled experiment. A controlled experiment evidences only a consequence of a controlled experiment. In a laboratory we can conclude as a consequence of an experiment that plastic is derived from petroleum. We can not say that petroleum will become plastic one day. We must always be vigilantly mindful of that which we think evidences one thing when we are controlling only some of the variables in any given experiment.
If someone would like to contradict the conclusion of my argument I offer an invitation to do so. However, the difficulty in opposing this view is that the opposition must prove that there was a time when 1+1= not 2.
What if said laws are only the random configuration that occurred in our universe in a multiverse of every possible mathematical configuration. I don't see how their existence denotes intelligence unless you are bordering on a more pantheistic "universal intelligence" where mathematics is like the "fingerprint" of each universe and the multiverse itself is the "intelligent cause". But math came into being after the big bang, and if that is what you are using to denote intelligence how can you assume what preceded it was intelligent when the laws of the universe break down at the big bang? We know 1+1= not 2 before the big bang, therefore the reasoning you have provided doesn't logically follow.
Stephen Wolfram and other mathematicians have shown that complexity or order can occur randomly.
I see no reason for the mathematical constants of this universe to warrant a belief in an intelligent cause when their complexity could have simply solidified randomly at the beginning moments of the universe, and you're assertion that due to your own intelligent nature you can discern an intelligent cause in mathematics seems to be a covering for a possible argument from ignorance unless you really believe that science can never discover how the laws of the universe actually came about, or as I said earlier you mean some kind of pantheistic "universal intelligence" .
But math came into being after the big bang, and if that is what you are using to denote intelligence how can you assume what preceded it was intelligent when the laws of the universe break down at the big bang? We know 1+1= not 2 before the big bang, therefore the reasoning you have provided doesn't logically follow.
The most basic fundamental of the law of mathematics is the concept of the ‘unit’. We cannot refer to the big bang without first relying upon mathematical law. However, would you care to number the attributes of the singularity before it banged, or simply prove what it was which banged?
Note: the existence of the singularity was governed by law, if so be there was such a thing.
I'm sorry for the intervention, but I have to add.
You said that maths existed before man and that 1+1 has always and will always equal 2.
That is wrong for a few reasons.
Maths is just a language. A language that was invented by and only exists in the realm of our intelligent brains, and is used to describe what we observe and make our lives easier. But just because our mathematical language has evolved to describe almost everything in predictable detail, that does not mean that the world is actually bound to the rules of that language.
Which is why Newtonian Physics came shattering down and gave way to Chaos Theory.
For in Nature, 1+1 has never equaled 2.
It equals 1.999999999999......-infinite. (Fractal Theory)
.
To demonstrate this I would like you to think of this: A piece of wood that we have measured to be 2 meters long, is not and will never be 2 meters long in reality. For if you zoom in at one end, you will always add more fractions, infinite fractions.
Which is why nothing IS or HAPPENS the same way twice.
Maths is as adequate a language as we need it to be for us to live our lives, but it will never be able to describe or predict nature to the full extent.
Maths is just a language. A language that was invented by and only exists in the realm of our intelligent brains, and is used to describe what we observe and make our lives easier. But just because our mathematical language has evolved to describe almost everything in predictable detail, that does not mean that the world is actually bound to the rules of that language.
Are you implying the laws of mathematics were invented by the language of mathematics? My argument references the laws of mathematics, not the language of the laws.
Which is why Newtonian Physics came shattering down and gave way to Chaos Theory.
For in Nature, 1+1 has never equaled 2.
It equals 1.999999999999......-infinite. (Fractal Theory)
That is a question of precision, not the laws of mathematics. In essence you are affirming the laws of mathematics are governed by man’s inability to infinitely and precisely measure. Consequently the laws of mathematics are therefore infinitely fallacious. Is that true?
Which is why nothing IS or HAPPENS the same way twice.
Theoretically.
Maths is as adequate a language as we need it to be for us to live our lives, but it will never be able to describe or predict nature to the full extent.
Again, that is a question of precision, not a question of the laws of mathematics.
No, the laws where not invented by the language. But our description of the laws requires the language. But in reality the observed is infinite. So the language will never be adequate enough to describe the full extent of the infinite reality.
In other words, there may well be a law, but it is certainly not confined to the description we have given it.
Which is why the universe doesn't quite work like a clockwork mechanism.
Having said that, I am not making this case to prove that God doesn't exist.
I just don't agree with the idea that the finite order we observe is somehow the work of an infinite creator.
Fractal theory however makes a lot more sense, because it proposes that all things are infinite (in fractions), which is nothing less than I would expect from an infinite creator.
Fractal theory does not contradict the laws of mathematics. It does though serve as a reminder that man’s observations are finite, not infinite. And yet despite man’s limitations of observation, the laws of mathematics can infinitely bare witness of both the truths and falsities of those limitations.
Bare in mind, if Fractal theory advances the supposition that all observations are necessarily false, then we must also infer that Fractal theory is necessarily false.
(True or false: Fractal theory is mathematically described?)
Bare in mind, if Fractal theory advances the supposition that all observations are necessarily false, then we must also infer that Fractal theory is necessarily false.
Fractal theory does not advance that supposition.
True or false: Fractal theory is mathematically described?
This is an interesting point.
But you are confusing the description of specific fractals with the description of a law that applies to all fractals.
So yes, mathematical language and geometry can describe (to a certain extent) an existing fractal. And you can even create your own mathematical fractals in the realm of your imagination.
But can mathematical rules predict or prescribe the variety of fractals that happen in the real world?
Can mathematical rules predict the branches of a tree? Or the branches that a river might create?
But you are confusing the description of specific fractals with the description of a law that applies to all fractals.
Fractal theory is a branch of knowledge that is an application of mathematics, first and foremost. Without the laws of mathematics, fractal theory has no foundation.
But can mathematical rules predict or prescribe the variety of fractals that happen in the real world?
Can mathematical rules predict the branches of a tree? Or the branches that a river might create?
Directly, I must answer ‘no’ to all of the above: Can mathematical rules predict or prescribe…. However, any field of knowledge that can reasonably predict or prescribe the above is mathematically predicated.
Conclusion: Fractal and Chaos theory are variations of our applications of mathematics. They augment our knowledge of the observable by the application of mathematics.
Do not the patterns of Zebras, Tigers, Rivers, fingerprints, snowflakes, mountains… evidence the uniformity of patterns that confirm the principles of a given pattern? Granted, no two Zebras, or any of the above, are identical. Yet, they exhibit diversity of a pattern. The diversity of that pattern is what I think you are identifying as random, is that true? If so, then I’ll continue.
If we cannot discern the causes of the variability within a considered pattern, shall we assume that the variations are random, or shall we assume our knowledge is incomplete?
I do not think anything or condition exists as a random consequence. Why, all that ‘is’ must exist as a consequence of a cause, including conditions of existence.
(I am willing to debate those assertions. I think we use the terms ‘chaos’ and ‘random’ as an implied admission of the limitations of our knowledge. And to date I have not discovered anything that should be rightfully described as either. But, I am willing to consider any examples that you care to submit.)
And there is no mathematical law or rule or equation that will ever predict those patterns, no matter how thoroughly we study and observe them.
Have we discovered all mathematical laws, or are we simply assuming that our knowledge is complete, and therefore that which does not appear to be subject to our knowledge of those laws is merely beyond mathematical law?
But is there one? And do you think there will ever be one?
Logically, I can deduce there are laws that must describe and predict all that exists, but I do not think we shall learn which questions must be asked in order to identify those laws.
How can any field ever be able to predict that which has no order?
I do not think there is anything which has no order, yet I also think we can’t predict all that exists. Hell, we struggle with the understanding of the ‘now’ of life and existence, let alone the ‘tomorrow’ of the same.
The diversity of that pattern is what I think you are identifying as random, is that true? If so, then I’ll continue.
Yes I am referring to the diversity of the pattern. Although I must add: when it comes to animals, it is very possible that the pattern is genetically coded.
What I am proposing however is that the genetic code can be random and still yield orderly results.
If we cannot discern the causes of the variability within a considered pattern, shall we assume that the variations are random, or shall we assume our knowledge is incomplete?
Both can be true.
I do not think anything or condition exists as a random consequence. Why, all that ‘is’ must exist as a consequence of a cause, including conditions of existence.
Agreed. But the "cause" and the "conditions of existence" can be a random code or a random sequence of events. Do we agree on this?
Because from a theological and philosophical perspective, there can be no freedom unless those events and codes are random. (I can explain this more if you would like me to).
when it comes to animals, it is very possible that the pattern is genetically coded.
Agreed.
What I am proposing however is that the genetic code can be random and still yield orderly results.
I am not, at the moment, willing to accept or refute your proposal, but I am willing to carefully consider an example from which the proposal should or could be inferred.
But the "cause" and the "conditions of existence" can be a random code or a random sequence of events. Do we agree on this?
Because from a theological and philosophical perspective, there can be no freedom unless those events and codes are random. (I can explain this more if you would like me to).
I have enjoyed our discourse; consequently I would like to further the matter by addressing the root disagreement of the same.
That from which you infer ‘random’ is that from which I infer ‘order’, generally. Allow me to explain myself.
(Feel free to address any of the following thoughts.)
There are an infinite number of unique mathematical equations that =1.
There are an infinite number of unique Zebras from one genetic code.
There are an infinite number of unique humans from one genetic code.
There are an infinite number of unique snowflakes, yet they form within distinct parameters.
When I consider the stars of the heavens, the beasts of the fields, and even the sons of men, I see none are identical among themselves. Then I ask myself:
If all of this is random, why does it...
The completed question and answer thereof will be revealed in part two!
If all of this is random, why does it not evidence that attribute? Because it is not random, it is deliberate. Now, before I argue the justification of that proposition, I want to state the two view points.
A. The existence of matter is random.
B. The existence of matter is deliberate.
Obviously, I’ll argue the proposition B ‘a priori’.
(I’ll await your response before I commit to a rather lengthy argument.)
It's called the THEORY of evolution for a reason. Do you know why? Because it's not the LAW of evolution because it has no proof!
Even IF evolution was truth(which it isn't) it doesn't proove against intelligent design. Intelligent design constitutes that something created the universe; Aithiesm constitutes that NOTHING created the universe.
Personally, I believe that the earth and universe was created in six literal days, and evolution has no more proof than creationism IMHO
Ignorance of terminology. A "Law" is just a description of a phenomenon.
For instance: in a closed system, the amount of energy in that system is finite and thus the ability for that system to work reduces over time. That is the second law of thermodynamics. An example of a closed system is a small lighter, after so many uses it just won't work anymore.
A theory, on the other hand, is a model of observations that explains those observations, and has predictive power. A theory is the highest point in scientific endeavor, because it utilizes facts, laws and observations in its explanatory powers, and is the direct result of verified hypotheses.
A theory (as the word is used by scientists) is a detailed description of some aspect of the universes workings that is based on long-continued observation and, where possible, experiment, that is the result of careful reasoning from those oservations and experiments, and that has survived the critical studies of scientists generally.
Example... we have the description of the cellular nature of living organisms (the "cell theory"), of objects attracting each other according to the fixed rule (the theory of gravitation), of energy behaving in discrete bits (the quantum theory), of light traveling through a vacuum at a fixed measurable velocity (the theory of relativity). I could go on and on... but I think you get the picture. All are theories... all are firmly founded... all are accepted as valid descriptions of whatever aspect of the universe. AND NO THEORY is better founded, more closely examined, more critically argued, and more thoroughly accepted than the theory of evolution. If it is only a "theory"... that is all it has to be.
Creationism... on the other hand... IS NOT A THEORY! There is no evidence, in the scientific sense, that supports it. Creationism is an expression of Middle Eastern legend. It is no more than a MYTH.
"Aithiesm constitutes that NOTHING created the universe."
Not a very good choice of words, by the way... atheists believe that God IS Nothing (in other words... something that is non-existent).
Your right... evolution does not "neccasarilly contradict intellegent design"... that is if you interpret the Holy Bible in a way which favors that point of view... but I have noticed something in the field of Bible interpretations... they are inconsistent. You can basically start reading the Bible with ANY built-in bias... and it can be read in a way which supports that bias (which are usually conceived through emotion... not rational thinking) If you are a Christian... it basically comes down to which bias makes you feel better... which, I'm sorry, is not good enough for me.
"Aithiests believe that there IS NO GOD, not that God is "nothing"
"Nothing" is definitely an overwhelming word... maybe this definition will clear things up...
noth⋅ing /ˈnʌθɪŋ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [nuhth-ing] Show IPA
So, what is the difference in saying "God IS Nothing" and "There is no God" and "God is nonexistent"? There is no difference, all of the above statements have the same meaning.
ZINGO! HE CAN BE TAUGHT! I KNOW that there is no difference between those statements. Please provide some evidence that proves that I said otherwise... because I have no idea why you think that I think that.
But I was under the impression that You didnt know... at least until now.
"Aithiests believe that there IS NO GOD, not that God is "nothing"
See? You said that.
I was throwing out definitions of "nothing" to make the other statements clearer... not to dispute other statements meanings. I hope you realize how confused your argument is.
Listen... I'm sorry if I offended you... I'm not very sensitive when it comes to debating.
Your statement isn't correct. What makes you think it is?
As the matter of fact... there is no concrete belief among atheists as to what created the universe. But I have found that the Big Bang Theory is the most widely accepted idea among atheists. Who knows... maybe some atheists believe that the universe spontaneously generated out of nothing... but that in no way is the common belief of atheism.
Now... as to what I said previously about your argument... I was just pointing out that it wasnt a very good choice of words. My response was in no way saying whether you statement was right or wrong... (because I understand what you were trying to get at) I just noted that your choice of words were poor.
"found that the Big Bang Theory is the most widely accepted"
Let's just say, for the sake of arguement, that the big bang theory is true. What caused it? And what caused that, and before that, and before that? etc.
There is a concrete belief among athiests that there is no God. The end result of that way of thinking is that nothing created the universe in the begining. So, in the beginning, aithiests believe that the universe spontaneously generated out of nothing.
