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 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.
"Do you accept evolution?" is a yes or no question. So, I chose the yes answer. A yes answer means that I accept evolution. Someone who believes evolution is an accurate description of how things work would be considered as accepting evolution. So, I hope I was able to clear up what I meant by "yes".
The ? symbol indicates that the statement was a question. There is no limit to the possible questions that can be asked. Since there are more questions possible there must be another one. The question that directly follows this question would be the "next" question. I hope that clears up the rest of my post.
Many of the so-called 'missing links' have been found.
Consider, for a moment, that fossilization is generally the exception, rather than the rule. Most creatures that die are completely devoured by other organisms, even the bones eventually succumbing and turning to dust. Particular conditions must be present to preserve the structure of the bone long enough for fossilization to occur. These conditions are not found everywhere.
Not just that, but we've only searched a tiny portion of our world for fossils. From these, it is reasonable to infer that the majority of extinct species have not been discovered in fossil form yet.
Despite the facts that only a tiny fraction of dead organisms fossilize, and we've only looked for fossils in a tiny fraction of the earths crust, we've still managed to uncover enough fossils to demonstrate a clear progression, including most of the previously touted missing links.
The fossil record alone, as it stands, is already a very strong argument for evolution, and we haven't even touched on other supporting information, such as phylogenetics, or the fact that we've actually witnessed the genome of species changing in response to selective pressure in a lab.
Evolution actually gives us a more understandable way of how everything was made. It actually explains to us and makes a lot of sense. Why do you think Humans look and act so much like other Primates, evolution tells us that. Why does Primates along with Marsupials have thumbs, Evolution gives us a clear answer to that. The bibble just tells us lies. It tell us how we're supposed to live our own lives. Plus Evolution was proven, and there's fossils to prove it. There's barely even any clues given in this "Bibble"!
We have evidence for it. Thus we are inclined to accept it.
The other side has no evidence. Their only tool is to ridicule Evolution or cite pseudoscience for that matter. Nothing short of idiocy and is simply unacceptable.
No reason not to. It's pretty much proven. We can't see it with our own eyes, like snow, or colors, but we can observe it's affect on generations of quicker aging species. A virus doesn't become airborne because God wanted it to kill more people, it evolves. A Bird with a short beak doesn't have children with long beaks because God decided not to punish the next generation making them starve, they do because of natural selection and evolution.
Only a fool wouldn't with the evidence we have to back it up. It can't be proven 100% but it is the only logical explanation and it has evidence so it is the obvious thing to believe.
The bible is a logical explanation Especially that part about human made from mud his wife from his rib ..followed by talking snake offering magical fruits... yeah fucktard.
Especially that part about human made from mud his wife from his rib ..followed by talking snake offering magical fruits... yeah fucktard.
It was actually in the King James Version dust and Christians don't believe the fruit was magic just that God told them not to eat it. Also the snake was Satan.
It was actually in the King James Version dust and Christians don't believe the fruit was magic just that God told them not to eat it. Also the snake was Satan. the fruit of knowledge.. not magical ... there is no word about talking snake being actually a devilish wizard...
Someone fears the realization that they are wrong so much that they feel they will accomplish something by downvoting the winning arguments, and upvoting the losing ones. It's almost funny.
You guys are missing the real point. Christianity is a young religion. It's only 2000 years old. There has been many religions before that. Different gods, different ways the world was made. Too many concepts and Gods.
It was proven. There's a lot of evidence proving that Evoution is fact. Simple Evolution is in Nature when a Tadpole Evolves into a frog. Also compare Humans To Chimps.
There is clear evidence of progression of living things, all animals, plants, fungi and bacteria. Irrefutable evidence of this is the growing problem of pathogenic diseases that can be treated by antibiotics becoming resistant to antibiotics. How are they becoming resistant? EVOLUTION. There is no other plausible explanation. The one evidence that seems to contradict this is the bible. However, the bible refers to times 8,000 years before the earliest dated piece of inscribed writing. If it wasn't a work of fiction, it was a giant game of Chinese whispers. This is incredibly weak evidence and cannot be supported by any solid proof. Therefore, evolution is true.
I accept evolution, but I believe that God created this thing we call life and creationism. I do not believe that we came from plant-like animals with no eyes or sense of smell, but I do believe that some things have changed a little bit since creation.
yes i really accept the evolution. Because as we take our own life we cant born suddenly as a grown up individual, it would take a gradual time to transfer us from a child to a adult. in mean time we undergo many changes in our body as compared to before. So in the mean while evolution also occurred with out that we cant improve like as today. In other way there is direct proof was given in the Hindu literature like
It's really difficult to explain to someone who hasn't experienced it, but the closest word I can come to is an enlightenment. Sounds crazy, but in a single moment it was like a puzzle put itself together in my head and my entire outlook changed. I realized that everything and everyone were a whole. A Self. So I looked some stuff up afterwards and found that not only does science agree, but about 90% of the people who have NDE's and come back say that they discovered that we're all one Self.
Kind of. I'm not going to put a name on it. I made an argument for another user that goes into more detail: If you were to look at an oak tree, you would see what an acorn has become. They are not two separate things, but rather an oak tree is just a grown up acorn. And on that oak tree are leaves, twigs and more acorns. Those are not separate from the tree, but are part of the tree... They ARE the tree. Eventually acorns fall off and grow into oak trees themselves, giving us the illusion of separate trees... But if those acorns that are now oaks once belonged to a single oak tree, then they are still that one tree. It's like cutting a pizza into slices. You have different slices, but they are still the same pizza.
Well, everything you see on this planet grew from this planet, just like acorns growing from a single tree. We as humans, grew from the combination of our father's sperm and our mother's egg. We ARE those things, and those are part of our parents. And everything in our universe came from a single point, the Big Bang, if you believe in that. That single point was the acorn from which everything in the universe came from.
That creative force, whether it was from two atoms, God, whatever, is as much US, as an acorn is an oak tree. Everything in this universe is ONE. You see, we complain that there is no evidence of God... But as it turns out, if this theory is correct... Then we ARE God. Everything is God and we are everything. Religions have been saying this for thousands of years. Though, I would say that no religion is entirely correct, therefore there is no need to commit to a single one. So if you look up into the sky, you will see stars and planets that came from the exact same point that you did, the seed of creation. Those stars are not miles away from you, they simply are you... And so is everything else, because everything you see is just an oak that was once an acorn.
"Science and religion are two different languages telling the same story."
I tried to explain the biological connection, but there is also another clear connection. If you were to look at your body through a microscope, you would see cells, and within those cells are atoms, and within those atoms is energy. Everything and everyone is made up of that same energy. That's also the energy that came from the Big Bang.
If you talks round the Bible,take a closer look of it and it had said the earth being a sphere and revolving around the sun in Psalm(I remember it is...)
The Bible also uses metaphors and includes talking animals as symbols (by the way, the serpent didn't become a snake until after he was punished), similar to that of Aesop's fables. People just interpret that stuff literally, so now we have delusional Christians, and delusional atheists who think they are making the Christians look stupid, even though they too have misinterpreted the Bible.
It's the blind making fun of the blind for their blindness.
Uhhh... What? Mind fixing that argument for an English speaker? well, yes it was a bit crude reply. I was battling auto correction integrated in my cellphone and in combination with strange smell coming out from seat row behind me, I felt quite under pressure and realising that I am replying to some deluded stranger which implies that stone/bronze age mythology and poetry somehow could (metaphorically) be linked to the Evolution. Which with adding the magical word "metaphorically" could be said virtually about anything ever written..
I said that they agree that we came from the earth. I didn't say that they believe we continued to evolve.
A lot of religious passages are metaphors. You saying, "No it's not!" is ignorant. Take it from someone who didn't believe in a god at the time he was studying religion in college. We know based on history that metaphors were often used to share stories in ancient times. Prove to me that they weren't.
I also think it is incredibly daft of you to say that I am delusional when I actually believe in the same theories as you. It's whether or not intelligence was behind these is where we disagree.
Did you personally knew the author? Does it states somewhere that it is a metaphor. Most of bible are primitive tales divorced from reality. How do you want to distinct entire bullshit from metaphorical bullshit?
Did you personally knew the author? Does it states somewhere that it is a metaphor. Most of bible are primitive tales divorced from reality. How do you want to distinct entire bullshit from metaphorical bullshit?
That is how they explained things back then. Not everything were metaphors, but a lot of them were. The Bible even mentions that Jesus spoke in parables... They are actually called the Parables of Jesus Christ. In case you don't know, parables are a type of analogy that teaches a moral lesson. They are like fables, except they don't include animals. What you would find in Old Testament are more along the lines of fables.
...sorry but the ultimate wizard cound't do any better that give set of trivial myths to bronze age goat farmers? Jesus Christ is as real as Hercules.
Parables of Jesus Christ No, no, no, this is just try of modern creatards to make bible look less retarded, saying that they are just "tales" that suppose to teach about "morals" Same as Old testaments bible never states anything about being metaphorical, It wasn't and is not understood that way. For vast majority of it's existence you would be executed for saying something like that.
No, no, no, this is just try of modern creatards to make bible look less retarded, saying that they are just "tales" that suppose to teach about "morals" Same as Old testaments bible never states anything about being metaphorical, It wasn't and is not understood that way.
Oh, good grief... Ignorance and arrogance are not a good combination. The Bible specifically says "parables".
Ezekiel 20:49 "Then I said, “Ah, Lord God! They say of me, ‘Does he not speak parables?"
Matthew 13:3 "Then He spoke many things to them in parables, saying: “Behold, a sower went out to sow."
Matthew 13:10 "And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”
Matthew 13:13 "Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand."
Matthew 13:35 "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: “I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world.”
45 The Lord spoke his word to me. He said, 46 “Son of man, turn to the south, preach against the south, and prophesy against the forest in the Negev. 47 Tell the forest in the Negev, ‘Listen to the word of the Lord. This is what the Almighty Lord says: I am about to set fire to you to destroy all your green trees and all your dry trees. The blazing fire will not be put out. It will burn the whole land from the south to the north. 48 Then everyone will know that I, the Lord, started the fire. It will never be put out.’”
49 Then I said, “Oh no! Almighty Lord, no! The people already say that I’m only telling stories.”
You are just another bible cunt that cuts stuff out of context. You cut out dialogues to make it look like bible is not meant to be an encyclopaedia.
Are you really that stupid? Go back and reread. By the way, for the thousandth time, I am not a Christian. Why else would I be trying to reinterpret modern-Christian thought by arguing that Jesus is the reincarnation of Adam? Get an idea of who you're arguing with before you make ridiculous assumptions, or just fuck off.
Theorizes that a large quantity of NOTHINGNESS decided to pack tightly together, ----and EXPLODE outward into hydrogen and helium. This gas is said to have flowed outward through frictionless space ("frictionless ", so the outflowing gas cannot stop or slow down) to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets, and moons.
According to this theory, in the beginning, there was no matter, just nothingness. Then this nothingness condensed by gravity into a single, tiny spot; and it decided to explode! This produced protons, neutrons, and electrons which flowed outward at incredible speed throughout empty space; for there was no other matter in the universe.
As these protons, neutrons, and electrons hurled themselves outward at supersonic speed, they are said to have formed themselves into typical atomic structures of mutually orbiting hydrogen and helium atoms.
Gradually, the outward-racing atoms are said to have begun circling one another, producing gas clouds which then pushed together into stars. These first stars only contained lighter elements (hydrogen and helium). Then all of the stars repeatedly exploded. It took at least two explosions of each star to produce our heavier elements. Gamow describe it like this "In violation of physical law, emptiness fled from the vacuum of space and rushed into a superdense core, that had a density of 10 94 gm/cm2 and a temperature in exess of 10/39 degrees absolute. (That is a lot of heat for a gigantic pile of nothingness, especially when it is impossible for nothing to get hot).
This theory stands in clear violation of physical laws, celestial mechanics, and common sense. Here are a number of scientific reasons why the BIG BANG THEORY is unworkable and fallacious.
1. Nothingness can not pack together
2. a Vacuum has no density
3. There would be no ignition to explode nothingness
4. How do you expand what isn't there.
5. Nothingness cannot produce heat
6. The anti-matter would have destroyed all the regular matter.
Now lets look at the outward pushing particles
1. There is no way to unite the particles. As the particles rush outward from the central explosion, tehy would keep getting farther apart.
2. Outer space is frictionless, and there would be no way to slow the particles.
3. The particles would maintain the same vector (speed and direction) forever. They could not get together and begin circling one another.
4. No way to change the direction of even one particle
Now look at the gases (lets imagine the particles could get together)
1. Gas molecules in outer space are widely separated
2. Neither hydrogen nor helium in outer space would clump together
Look at "Push themselves into stars"
1. Because gas in outer space does not clump, the gas could not build enough mutual gravity to bring it together
2. Careful analysis has revealed that there is not enough matter in gas clouds to produce stars
3. There would not be enough time for the gas to reach the currently know expanse of the universe, so it could form itself into stars.
4. Gas clouds in outer space to not contract.
We could go on and on.
This information came from "The evolution handbook" by Vance Ferrell
this book has over 3,000 facts which annihilate evolutionary theory
No idiot, Evolutionists are scientist respective, biologists with are in expertise in Evolution which is about diversity of species nothing more nothing less.
This you may find surprising but Cosmology and Biology are very different disciplines.
However I will not jump into the fire just because I can't know for sure that I burn alive... Same way I know the difference between primitive stone age mythology and 21st century science...
I believe God created the universe. I believe God was the timeless and immaterial cause of the universe and his work is recorded in Genesis. I believe God used the Big Bang and evolution to create the universe and life on this earth.
It is weird for you to deny evolution because there is so much evidence for it. It is weird for you to deny the process that causes life to change over time simply because you think God is required for the start of the universe.
You really should having this in a cosmology debate. This STILL has nothing to do with evolution. However...
something had to have either just appeared or always been.
That "something" that has always been would be energy. We KNOW energy, we know how it works, how to trace it and know it cannot be created or destroyed. So if you wanted to define God as energy, and accept our current demonstrable understandings thereof, you would get a lot less argument from us. But your version of God is outside of energy, has characteristics that energy does not appear to (intelligence, intent, morality). You automatically step beyond the reasonable assumption that at least one item is eternal by adding unnecessary, unfalsifiable and biased characteristics. Its not the same thing at all.
And so what if we don't know how it began?!? It is literally the oldest mystery in the universe and we didn't have the understanding or technology to make sense of it all until last century. It takes a while to figure things out when you are honest and diligent about finding the truth. Nobody should accept an unverifiable proposition just because a verifiable one hasn't been proposed. That's lazy, dishonest and completely unhelpful.
the point is not that we say 'God couldn't have existed forever' but that you use the universe requiring some creation because it is complex or something and then you claim something more complex (God) can exist forever which is then a contradiction.
Also for the big bang, we are slowly getting close, we have even identified what happened in the mere seconds after the big bang (gluons turning into protons etc).
although it is possible that the universe has existed forever as a big bounce (universe expands then contracts really small the explodes again).
If your on about the start of life, well we are getting closer; I am sure you have heard of the Yuri Miller experiment which created amino acids (required for life).
I always thought that you are just another braindead religious drone. I would expect you to simply support that retard rambling about BBT in Evolution topic...
Just wow :D
just the (5) during the initial expansion was no light present. Universe was not transparent for about 300 000 year
Anitmatter exists the same way matter does, but the elements of it are reversed. Instead of a proton have a positive charge, it has a negative charge, instead of an electron having a negative charge it has a positive charge. When the two meet they do in fact "annihilate" each other, but it is more than that. When they come into contact with each other, they release pure energy as, for a lack of a better word right now, they die. At the start of the universe, or the singularity, it is theorized there was an equal amount of matter and antimatter that caused the release of pure energy. Antimatter no longer exists in large clumps but it has been detected in the reaches of space in small amounts and has been created in labs.
Err....that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. A quick google may set you straight but guessing from your knee jerk reaction I can guess you do not believe in evolution.
I am a born again child of God who has asked Jesus Christ to forgive my sins, and save my soul. I believe the Bible to be God's holy Word, without error. I am his servant and preach the gospel of Jesus Christ because he called me to do just that 35 years ago. Ordained Baptist Preacher.
You are truly retarded. Evolution is not about origin of live but about it's diversity, fucktard. Completely unrelated topic, same as the Big bang Theory.
Any way where did the very first living thing come from? Did it just appear from nothing? Or, did it just always exist?
Don 't be a hypocrite and say either one.
Actually, you are right, it isn't either of those. The first living thing came from the raw materials on the Earth at the time and were sparked from energy sources like lightning. It didn't appear from nothing. Hope that helps.
Ad hominem, really? You think that is going to help you at all in a debate?
in your theory the big bang had to happen before the evolution started. Or it would not have any where to start.
Well no shit... everyone knows that.
in your theory the big bang had to happen before the evolution started. Or it would not have any where to start.
Well, there is the theory of Abiogenesis, I am not well educated on it, but even it that for some reason never held up, that doesn't mean we assume it is god, that means we keep searching till we find out how. Everything in the universe is made up of the same stuff, you are made up of the same stuff as rocks, and asteroids and starts, you are stardust, but in a different form. The question isn't simply "where did we come from?" but "How we came to be?" from the universe.
Don 't be a hypocrite and say either one.
Nobody is though, you are making a false dichotomy by simplifying it to only two answers, like I said it's not about where we came from, we know where we came from, the universe, it is how we came to be from the universe.
Evolutionist laugh at us when we say it about God, but you think it is Okay to believe it about your THEORY.
No they don't, most that accept evolution for what it is, and the fact that it takes place, generally believe evolution is guided by a higher power, I would disagree, but one can accept evolution, and still believe in a god.
By the way I typed REAAAAAAL sloooooow so you could comprehend.
Ummmm, yeah I could totally tell (I am being sarcastic btw) when someone posts an argument it's very easy to tell how slowly they typed... lol. Yeah you indeed did help him in his confusion... by typing really slowly when it doesn't make any difference and then stating it, because we wouldn't know either way... XD
in your theory the big bang had to happen before the evolution started.
Incorrect. Biological evolution is change within preexisting life over time. All that is required to begin this line of inquiry is to have some form of life at the beginning. It does not matter how it got there, it full well could have been God. But IF it was God that created the first life, the evidence strongly shows the current diversity observed within in life is likely obtained through natural selection.
The Big Bang does not have to be true for this to be true. The method by which the first life form appeared is irrelevant. As long as life is there, evolutionary inquiry may begin.
Given that you have spent all of your time in this debate attacking (and rather insufficiently) big bang theory and most recently abiogenesis, but not a word about evolution, I am inclined to believe you have no strong evidence against evolution itself. Am I correct?
Evolutionist laugh at us when we say it about God, but you think it is Okay to believe it about your THEORY.
Highlighting the word "theory" as some implication that it invalidates the proposal shows your ignorance. Evolution is a scientific principal, so the word "theory" in this instance falls under the scientific definition. A scientific theory is testable and tested, and is valid until ONE fact irreconcilably contradicts it. All it takes is one. If a theory has existed for over a century without that single piece of damning evidence being presented, its probability is very high.
A lesser form of theory would be a hypothesis, but even those need to be falsifiable. God, therefore isn't even a valid hypothesis and will therefore never be as strong as a scientific theory.
OK, make a man out of mud, then decide it's too sloppy, make a working man out of wood, and make a woman out of his (wooden) rib without using magic then post me pics, ok?
Please don't point holes in the opposition when your argument has the same holes.
Even if we were originally made from wood, which we were not, we are clearly not now. The only way the transformation could have taken place is by evolution!
Theorizes that a large quantity of NOTHINGNESS decided to pack tightly together, ----and EXPLODE outward into hydrogen and helium. This gas is said to have flowed outward through frictionless space ("frictionless ", so the outflowing gas cannot stop or slow down) to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets, and moons.
According to this theory, in the beginning, there was no matter, just nothingness. Then this nothingness condensed by gravity into a single, tiny spot; and it decided to explode! This produced protons, neutrons, and electrons which flowed outward at incredible speed throughout empty space; for there was no other matter in the universe.
As these protons, neutrons, and electrons hurled themselves outward at supersonic speed, they are said to have formed themselves into typical atomic structures of mutually orbiting hydrogen and helium atoms.
Gradually, the outward-racing atoms are said to have begun circling one another, producing gas clouds which then pushed together into stars. These first stars only contained lighter elements (hydrogen and helium). Then all of the stars repeatedly exploded. It took at least two explosions of each star to produce our heavier elements. Gamow describe it like this "In violation of physical law, emptiness fled from the vacuum of space and rushed into a superdense core, that had a density of 10 94 gm/cm2 and a temperature in exess of 10/39 degrees absolute. (That is a lot of heat for a gigantic pile of nothingness, especially when it is impossible for nothing to get hot).
This theory stands in clear violation of physical laws, celestial mechanics, and common sense. Here are a number of scientific reasons why the BIG BANG THEORY is unworkable and fallacious.
1. Nothingness can not pack together
2. a Vacuum has no density
3. There would be no ignition to explode nothingness
4. How do you expand what isn't there.
5. Nothingness cannot produce heat
6. The anti-matter would have destroyed all the regular matter.
Now lets look at the outward pushing particles
1. There is no way to unite the particles. As the particles rush outward from the central explosion, tehy would keep getting farther apart.
2. Outer space is frictionless, and there would be no way to slow the particles.
3. The particles would maintain the same vector (speed and direction) forever. They could not get together and begin circling one another.
4. No way to change the direction of even one particle
Now look at the gases (lets imagine the particles could get together)
1. Gas molecules in outer space are widely separated
2. Neither hydrogen nor helium in outer space would clump together
Look at "Push themselves into stars"
1. Because gas in outer space does not clump, the gas could not build enough mutual gravity to bring it together
2. Careful analysis has revealed that there is not enough matter in gas clouds to produce stars
3. There would not be enough time for the gas to reach the currently know expanse of the universe, so it could form itself into stars.
4. Gas clouds in outer space to not contract.
We could go on and on.
This information came from "The evolution handbook" by Vance Ferrell
this book has over 3,000 facts which annihilate evolutionary theory
The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.
"This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception." {E. H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, "A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics," Physics Today (vol. 53, April 2000), p. 32. }
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
27.Lewontin, Richard, Review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.
No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.
No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one.
Except one pretty important one: IT ONLY WORKS LIKE THAT IN A CLOSED SYSTEM.
We aren't in a closed system, new energy comes in from the sun every day, so even though energy is constantly being lost it is constantly being replaced, and there is plenty of energy to power the kind of reactions we need to keep the ball rolling. What you don't seem to realize is that if the second law worked the way you seem to think it does, all life as we know it would not function as it does. How much more complex are you now than you were when you were just a fertilized egg?
The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.
"This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception." {E. H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, "A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics," Physics Today (vol. 53, April 2000), p. 32. }
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
27.Lewontin, Richard, Review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.
No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"
You mean that Bullshit book that responsible for millions of deaths. You mean that book who brainwashes people and gives them wrong information. The bible is historically inaccurate.
The j in Latin was invented in the 1400's, while Jesus is 200 years old. How does that happen. In accurate. Even the great flood is a lie. So is Adam and Eve asshole.
You better do some checking. The bible has been proven to be more accurate than some history books. Archeology is also proving the bible to be true.
They have in the past few years even found chariots in the bottom of the Red Sea. As in Exodus. The Bible has things in it scientifically that science has only discovered in the past hundred years. It is way ahead of its time.
Almost the entire Old Testament was written in Hebrew during the thousand years of its composition. But a few chapters in the prophecies of Ezra and Daniel and one verse in Jeremiah were written in a language called Aramaic. This language became very popular in the ancient world and actually displaced many other languages. Aramaic even became the common language spoken in Israel in Jesus' time, and it was likely the language He spoke day by day. Some Aramaic words were even used by the Gospel writers in the New Testament.
The New Testament, however, was written in Greek. This seems strange, since you might think it would be either Hebrew or Aramaic. However, Greek was the language of scholarship during the years of the composition of the New Testament from 50 to 100 AD. The fact is that many Jews could not even read Hebrew anymore, and this disturbed the Jewish leaders a lot! So, around 300 BC a translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek was undertaken, and it was completed around 200 BC. Gradually this Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, was widely accepted and was even used in many synagogues. It also became a wonderful missionary tool for the early Christians, for now the Greeks could read God's Word in their own tongue.
We were created about 10,000 years ago by a super-intelligent father who fancied playing with reality for the lels and making a species in his 'image'. :)
All petty insults aside. There's one fundamental area I have yet to hear from anyone; the distinction between micro and macro evolution theories. When someone asks me if I simply believe in evolution, my simple answer yes and no. Evolution happens all around us all the time. This would include our biological adaptation to the world around us, everything from immunizations, to physiological changes to adapt to our climates and our development as a species. However, if someone were to ask if I agreed with our biological relation with anything other than the human race, I would have to disincline to agree. There has been no concrete geological or biological evidence to support our development as a species from anything other than each other. This is not to say there are plenty of scientific theories. But in my observation, science says very little by itself, scientists say a lot. Now I admit I am not speaking as a geologist, biologist, anthropologist, or cosmologist. I'm simply speaking as one who has compared and contrasted arguments from both sides of the spectrum. My question is why does everyone think that God has nothing to do with science? If there was an intelligent designer, I would only logically assume fundamental laws to be interpreted by science would be a natural necessary part of that creation. Just to put it out there, the scientific method was actually developed by a theist. Just a thought.
There has been no concrete geological or biological evidence to support our development as a species from anything other than each other.
You have stretched the word concrete to the limits in order to make this true.
My question is why does everyone think that God has nothing to do with science?
That's a good question, why don't Christians believe that God works through science? Evolution does not require that there be no God.
If there was an intelligent designer, I would only logically assume fundamental laws to be interpreted by science would be a natural necessary part of that creation.
You know what would be really intelligent? To work smart not hard. Instead of creating a special design for each animal, why not create a method where animals can become other animals over time.
Just to put it out there, the scientific method was actually developed by a theist. Just a thought.
The Theist you refer to is Galileo and he was abandoned by the Church. Plus, the techniques used in the scientific method are older than that.
There is your evidence. Rocks form layers in a way, that the layers on top are more recent then the layers down below. So the deeper into the ground we find a fossil, the older it is, this allows us to line up all the fossils we have in a way that shows the time period that all the organisms existed, or lived.
My question is why does everyone think that God has nothing to do with science?
Because god can't be scientifically verified, the inquiry of god, can't be explored via science. However this means, science can't disprove, prove god's existence, which makes god utterly irrelevant to science.
If there was an intelligent designer, I would only logically assume fundamental laws to be interpreted by science would be a natural necessary part of that creation.
the distinction between micro and macro evolution theories.
That distinction is purely one of definition. Micro identifies evolution below the species level (which itself is a somewhat arbitrary definition since there is no one definition of "species" that works for all life.) Macro is anything indicating speciation or divergences at higher levels.
Its like the difference between walking one mile and 20 miles. The second takes longer and you will probably get a bigger change in scenery, but the process is the same, and if you can do one, you can do the other.
Unless you had some conditions that prevented you from walking such a distance of course. That is where we could delineate between the two; if there was a deficiency or mechanism that limited the amount of variety we could achieve over greater amounts of time. This has never been found.
IF evolution is right,there will be less and less species due to the extinction of the 'filtered out' ones in the Natural Selection.And the remaining species will be fighting for their flesh.The last species will fight themselves and when the fighting ended,one of the last species will die of hunger.
The theory that all living things will spread out and adapt to the environment leading to diversity does not say that all species will disappear. You have things backwards.