| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/27/2007 03:11:55 PM · #726 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Do you or do you not believe that the majority of people who believe in something are uneducated? Pretty simple question to answer don't you think? |
No, it's not. The majority of people who believe the earth is flat are probably uneducated while the majority of people who believe the Advance Report on Durable Goods can provide a reliable indicator of future economic growth are probably educated. When you paint in generalizations, you get abstract answers. ;-) |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 03:14:31 PM · #727 |
Great Flood
Great Flood
The fossil record also shows a universal global flood. Worldwide fossils of animals and fish have been found buried in swimming positions---suddenly and catastrophically preserved in a moment of time. Rhinos, zebras, and hippos have been found buried in volcanic ash in Nebraska in swimming positions. The Beresovka River mammoth of Siberia was discovered half-kneeling, half-standing with buttercups in its mouth. In Scotland, tons of fish have been found in positions of terror with their fins extended and eyes bulging. Another fossil graveyard in Germany shows a mixture of plants and insects from all climatic zones. When these kinds of fossils are found together, it is usually indicative of global flooding and rapid burial.
Great Flood
Great Flood
Great Flood
Dr. Brown's comprehensive and highly referenced treatise, In the Beginning.
Consider the ratios of dead things we find buried in this sedimentary rock: "95% of all fossils are marine invertebrates, particularly shellfish. Of the remaining 5%, 95% are algae and plant fossils (4.74%). 95% of the remaining 0.25% consists of the other invertebrates, including insects (0.2375%). The remaining 0.0125% includes all vertebrates, mostly fish. 95% of the few land vertebrates consist of less than one bone. (For example, only about 1,200 dinosaur skeletons have been found.)" [2]
Also consider the abundant fossil remains of marine life found atop every mountain range in the world. For example, clusters of hundreds of gigantic (300kg/650lbs) oysters found atop the Andes Mountains in South America. [3]
Great Flood
20 questions
Twenty Questions for Evolutionists
To answer a question satisfactorily, one must first understand facts related to that question. When you click on the page numbers following each question, you will be taken to a brief section within the online book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. There you will see why knowledgeable evolutionists have great difficulty answering these questions. If you find evolutionists who feel they or others can answer these questions, then ask one more question: âWhy wonât evolutionists enter a strictly scientific, written debate on the creation-evolution issue?â; After you read the entire book, the answer will be evident. For details on this written debate offer, see pages 399-401.
1. Where has macroevolution ever been observed? (See page 6.) Whatâs the mechanism for getting new complexity, such as new vital organs? (See pages 6â8.) If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how could the organism live before getting the vital organ? (Without a vital organ, the organism is deadâby definition.) If a reptileâs leg evolved into a birdâs wing, wouldnât it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing? How could metamorphosis evolve? (See page 17.)
2. Do you realize how complex living things are? (See page 14.) How could organs as complex as the eye, ear, or brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? (See page 8.) How could a bacterial motor evolve? How could such motors work until all components evolved completely and were precisely in place? (See page 19.)
3. If macroevolution happened, where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why donât we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both? (See page 11.)
4. Textbooks show an evolutionary tree, but where is its trunk and where are its branches? For example, what are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects? (See page 12.)
5. How could the first living cell begin? Thatâs a greater miracle than for bacteria to evolve into man. How could that first cell reproduce? (See page 14.) Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution. Both must come into existence at about the same time. (See page 14.)
6. Please point to a strictly natural process that creates information. What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself? What about the 4,000 booksâ worth of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells? If astronomers received an intelligent signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesnât the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacterium also imply an intelligent source? (See pages 9 and 15.)
7. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA? (See page 15.)
8. How could sexual reproduction evolve? (See page 18.) How could immune systems evolve? (See page 19.)
9. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesnât it take vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?
10. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least 30 moons revolve backwards? (See page 24.)
11. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got thereâany hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why arenât students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary theories for the moonâs origin? What about the almost 200 other moons in the solar system? (See page 26.)
12. Where did matter, space, time, energy, or even the laws of physics come from? (See page 27.) What about water? (See page 24.)
13. How could stars evolve? (See pages 28â30.)
14. Are you aware of all the unreasonable assumptions and contradictory evidence used by those who say the earth is billions of years old? (See pages 34â37 and 314â319.)
15. Why are living bacteria found inside rocks that you say are hundreds of millions of years old and in meteorites that you say are billions of years old? Clean-room techniques and great care were used to rule out contamination. (See page 33.)
16. Did you know that most scientific dating techniques indicate that the earth, solar system, and universe are young? (See pages 31â37.)
17. Why do so many ancient cultures have flood legends? (See page 45.)
18. Have you heard about the mitochondrial Eve and the genetic Adam? Scientists know that the mitochondrial Eve was the common female ancestor of every living person, and she appears to have lived only about 6,000â7,000 years ago. (See pages 311â313.)
19. Careful researchers have found the following inside meteorites: living bacteria, salt crystals, limestone, water, sugars, terrestrial-like brines, and earthlike isotopic patterns. Doesnât this implicate Earth as their sourceâand a powerful launcher, the fountains of the great deep? (See page 295 .)
20. Would you explain the origin of any of the following 25 features of the earth:
⢠The Grand Canyon and Other Canyons (See pages 175â204.)
⢠Mid-Oceanic Ridge
⢠Continental Shelves and Slopes
⢠Ocean Trenches (See pages 137â159.)
⢠Seamounts and Tablemounts
⢠Earthquakes
⢠Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor
⢠Submarine Canyons
⢠Coal and Oil Formations
⢠Methane Hydrates
⢠Ice Age
⢠Frozen Mammoths (See pages 219 â251.)
⢠Major Mountain Ranges
⢠Overthrusts
⢠Volcanoes and Lava
⢠Geothermal Heat
⢠Strata and Layered Fossils (See pages 161â172.)
⢠Metamorphic Rock
⢠Limestone (See pages 211â217.)
⢠Plateaus
⢠Salt Domes
⢠Jigsaw Fit of the Continents
⢠Changing Axis Tilt
⢠Comets (See pages 253â284.)
⢠Asteroids and Meteoroids (See pages 285â303.)
edit to add: More research on other topics to follow.
Message edited by author 2007-11-27 15:18:21.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2007 03:22:46 PM · #728 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Phil:
Do you or do you not believe that the majority of people who believe in something are uneducated? Pretty simple question to answer don't you think? |
No, it's not. The majority of people who believe the earth is flat are probably uneducated while the majority of people who believe the Advance Report on Durable Goods can provide a reliable indicator of future economic growth are probably educated. When you paint in generalizations, you get abstract answers. ;-) |
I wasn't generalizing. I was continuing my question that was never answered here:
Originally posted by Phil:
If 79% of the entire population believe in something spiritual then the majority must be uneducated- by your way of thinking of course. Am I right or wrong? |
or here
Originally posted by Phil:
Why not tell me if I'm wrong or right by assuming that you are saying that the majority of the EU (79% believe in something, remember?) are uneducated?
Hostile? By reading your copy and paste and letting you know what I got from them I am hostile? Maybe my words aren't coming across as I intend but if you aren't trying to be condescending then you might consider working on your written word as well. |
Forgive me if I didn't ask exactly what I did previously. I just figured that people actually read these posts and knew that by "something" I meant something spiritual/religious. |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 03:31:56 PM · #729 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Also consider the abundant fossil remains of marine life found atop every mountain range in the world. For example, clusters of hundreds of gigantic (300kg/650lbs) oysters found atop the Andes Mountains in South America. |
Just to respond to ONE of these:
When the earth was formed, there were no mountains, and the Andes are very young mountains (as mountains go). Plate tectonics give us the explanation for this; as the continents grind slowly apart from each other, the leading edges of them buckle and uplift, producing mountain ranges. In South America we have the Andes, in North America the Rockies and the Sierra Nevada and the Cascades. It's no surprise that back in primeval times is now the peaks of the Andes was once underwater.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2007 03:52:49 PM · #730 |
I'd love to address all those questions, whether people will listen to the answers is another mater altogether...
"Whatâs the mechanism for getting new complexity, such as new vital organs? "
Here is an excellent series of lectures EXPLAINING the process. Its aimed at children, so it isnt too convoluted.
Evolution of the eye PtI
Evolution of the eye Pt II
And another pitched at adults:
Evolution of the eye
|
|
|
|
11/27/2007 03:58:07 PM · #731 |
| If you were SERIOUS about answering those questions (which I doubt)... the answers are there, if you are willing to read with an open mind. Almost all of those are covered in the the selfish gene. But I'm guessin you won't like the answers. (I'll give you a clue, 'God' isnt any of them!) |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 04:13:54 PM · #732 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Forgive me if I didn't ask exactly what I did previously. I just figured that people actually read these posts and knew that by "something" I meant something spiritual/religious. |
Louis already answered that question. I just figured that people actually read these posts...
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Phil:
Why not tell me if I'm wrong or right by assuming that you are saying that the majority of the EU (79% believe in something, remember?) are uneducated? |
Certainly not. |
|
|
|
|
11/27/2007 04:58:40 PM · #733 |
Man, I'm just keeping a running tally of subjects since I've started:
* Crack cocaine
* The flood
* Evolution of the eye
* The uneducated masses of Europe
This is a pretty wild thread even for rant!
|
|
|
|
11/27/2007 05:06:15 PM · #734 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
I'd love to address all those questions, whether people will listen to the answers is another mater altogether...
"Whatâs the mechanism for getting new complexity, such as new vital organs? "
Here is an excellent series of lectures EXPLAINING the process. Its aimed at children, so it isnt too convoluted.
Evolution of the eye PtI
Evolution of the eye Pt II
And another pitched at adults:
Evolution of the eye |
I watched the Children's presentation and am not impressed.
I notice that Dawkins BEGINS with a "simple, flat retina", but doesn't explain to the children how such a complex mechanism as THAT, itself, came to be or how many hundreds of thousands of generations must have passed before light sensitive cells a) occurred at all, b) provided any survival benefit, and c) somehow clustered together, d) limited their clustering to only one or two parts of the body while avoiding the same type of clustering in all other parts of the body.
Furthermore, he doesn't explain why it is, if ONE eye, even a primative one, provides a survival advantage, that most species stopped at only two, and positioned relatively close together at that. Wouldn't you think that a body with more than two eyes have a better survival rate than one with only two? Say a gopher with an eye in the back of its head who would be able to see that eagle coming? Or a zebra with an extra eye on its rump that could see that lion coming?
Another interesting part of Dawkins presentation is the reference to "different peaks" on "Mt. Improbable" that apparently lead to evolutionary dead-ends. That was his explanation of why the Nautilus's eye stopped evolving. I thought that microevolution was not only possible, but probable in every extant species. Is Dawkins now claiming that that isn't necessarily the case? If there really ARE dead-end peaks on Mt. Improbable, then that throws a monkey wrench ( pun intended ) in the fundamentals of evolutionary theory. If there are NOT dead-end peaks, then why is Dawkins claiming that there are, unless it's just a piece of trickery to avoid having to explain to the children why the Nautilus's eye stopped evolving?
Unfortunately, the children are not educated enough to raise those questions, and instead, blindly believe what they are being taught.
Message edited by author 2007-11-27 17:09:22. |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 05:18:35 PM · #735 |
watch the other one, photosensistive cells arent too much a of leap. Two eyes - depth perception, simple as that and an obvious evolutionary advantage. Maybe in a few hundred million year gophers will indeed have eyes in the back of their head. Give it time my friend!
Here is the childrens evolution of the wing
Message edited by author 2007-11-27 17:20:04. |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 05:30:18 PM · #736 |
As dawkins says "Evolution has no foresight", I dont see how that throws an "adam and eve" wrench (ok...my pun isnt as good) into evolutionary theory. Its beauty is in its simplicity, I thought the Mt. Improbably analogy was quite elegant, Nautilus picked the wrong path.
Those ridiculous questions posted earlier, really may be sad. If they were genuine, answers could be given. But the playground response is typically: "LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU" If its not what you want to hear. I truly believe that the world (well... universe) is a fantastic place, and feel really sorry for those that will be unable to see, understand and appreciate that due the blinkers of religion. |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 06:15:47 PM · #737 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I notice that Dawkins BEGINS with a "simple, flat retina", but doesn't explain to the children how such a complex mechanism as THAT, itself, came to be or how many hundreds of thousands of generations must have passed before light sensitive cells a) occurred at all, b) provided any survival benefit, and c) somehow clustered together, d) limited their clustering to only one or two parts of the body while avoiding the same type of clustering in all other parts of the body. |
Just because YOU assume something is complex doesn't make it so. Many primitive plants and microorganisms have photosensitive cells, and even some inorganic compounds are sensitive to light. ANY light sensitivity would logically offer a survival benefit over none (unless you happen to live in a cave). Not every animal "limited their clustering," but one or two areas worked well enough for most to perpetuate that configuration.
Originally posted by RonB:
Furthermore, he doesn't explain why it is, if ONE eye, even a primative one, provides a survival advantage, that most species stopped at only two, and positioned relatively close together at that. |
Some animals have more than two eyes or photosensitivity over other areas. Predators tend to have eyes closer together for better binocular vision, while prey animals tend to have eyes set farther apart for better awareness. Some animals (such as dragonflies) CAN see all around them, while other developments, such as the ability to turn your neck or hear, reduce or eliminate the need for additional vulnerable eyes. Just because an innovation could offer an advantage doesn't mean it must occur- a third eye might help a prairie dog evade predators, but lookouts and increased birth rates may have been enough to continue the species.
Originally posted by RonB:
Another interesting part of Dawkins presentation is the reference to "different peaks" on "Mt. Improbable" that apparently lead to evolutionary dead-ends. If there really ARE dead-end peaks on Mt. Improbable, then that throws a monkey wrench (pun intended) in the fundamentals of evolutionary theory. |
All branches don't keep growing forever. Some animals are "good enough" to be successful for very long periods of time, while others can't adapt fast enough and die off. If a crocodile can get plenty of food as-is, then there's no advantage to change, and you get a "dead end" design (because it's been successful enough to continue). If terrestrial food sources became scarce over time, a crocodiule that could leap out of the water might be able to grab prey off tree branches. If overhanging trees became the ONLY food source, then evolutionary pressure would quickly favor those who could jump the highest, maybe leading to crocs with flatter bodies to reduce air resistance, then gliding... and eventually to gators with wings. We don't see flying crocs because they've been able to survive just fine as they are.
Originally posted by RonB:
Unfortunately, the children are not educated enough to raise those questions, and instead, blindly believe what they are being taught. |
You've perfectly described the perpetuation of religion. |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 06:28:29 PM · #738 |
One interesting thing about complexity and evolution is that things appear quite complex at the surface (like an eye), but may be simpler when their anatomy is considered, but then get complex again when the molecular mechanisms are taken into account.
Truly I think the evolutionist who flippantly says an eye can evolve no problem at all does not understand the challenges of such an organ. Yes, I believe in evolution, but I also would feel that the person who truly understands biology would be uncomfortable with some of the hurdles which have been surmounted merely by time and chance.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2007 06:45:19 PM · #739 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
... even some inorganic compounds are sensitive to light. |
Hence the invention of photography ... :-) |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 06:53:53 PM · #740 |
if something designed us, why'd he give us a crappy eye and a squid and mantis shrimp the superior eye? Why give us a blind spot and block light getting to the retina with nerves?
7. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA? (See page 15.)
There is the possibility it was neither. The main reference is a book published in 1993. I can't find an abstract at the moment.
RNA world
How could a bacterial motor evolve?
possibilities for evolution of bacterial motor
For example, what are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects?
According to tree of life, these guys may have been the ancestor to arthropods (which are part of the animal kingdom)
If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesnât it take vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?
If there is no carbon attached to it, then no, I don't think hydrogen will turn into humans.
My head hurts so I'm going to stop
|
|
|
|
11/27/2007 08:25:44 PM · #741 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
One interesting thing about complexity and evolution is that things appear quite complex at the surface (like an eye), but may be simpler when their anatomy is considered, but then get complex again when the molecular mechanisms are taken into account.
Truly I think the evolutionist who flippantly says an eye can evolve no problem at all does not understand the challenges of such an organ. Yes, I believe in evolution, but I also would feel that the person who truly understands biology would be uncomfortable with some of the hurdles which have been surmounted merely by time and chance. |
What hurdles are you referring to? It sounds like you're saying an evolutionist should be uncomfortable with the concept of evolution. Take away the hurdles life must overcome in order to survive and there's no change, no evolution.
Message edited by author 2007-11-27 20:27:03. |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 08:37:33 PM · #742 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Louis already answered that question. I just figured that people actually read these posts... |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Phil:
Why not tell me if I'm wrong or right by assuming that you are saying that the majority of the EU (79% believe in something, remember?) are uneducated?
Certainly not. |
|
Forgive me if I don't understand his answer of: "Certainly not. I just posted stats that say otherwise but I don't agree with them. It is okay for me to not agree with them but if you do I will proclaim that you will not listen to facts.". Hardly an answer wouldn't you say?
|
|
|
|
11/27/2007 09:21:50 PM · #743 |
A flood 7000 years ago that created the Black Sea ⦠leads to the conclusion of a global flood how?
Again, a flood 7000 years ago that created the Black Sea ⦠leads to the conclusion of a global flood how?
Originally posted by Flash:
The fossil record also shows a universal global flood. Worldwide fossils of animals and fish have been found buried in swimming positions---suddenly and catastrophically preserved in a moment of time. Rhinos, zebras, and hippos have been found buried in volcanic ash in Nebraska in swimming positions. The Beresovka River mammoth of Siberia was discovered half-kneeling, half-standing with buttercups in its mouth. In Scotland, tons of fish have been found in positions of terror with their fins extended and eyes bulging. Another fossil graveyard in Germany shows a mixture of plants and insects from all climatic zones. When these kinds of fossils are found together, it is usually indicative of global flooding and rapid burial. |
Youâre just cutting and pasting. Iâm calling BS that modern rhinos, zebras and hippos having been found in buried in volcanic ash in Nebraska. Cite some sources, please. If you respond to nothing else in my post, please respond to this request.
Uh ... could post some pictures of fish "in positions of terror"? I would like to see that.
That there were local floods in southern Babylonia in the 28th Century BCE leads the conclusion that there was a global flood how?
Originally posted by Flash:
5. How could the first living cell begin? Thatâs a greater miracle than for bacteria to evolve into man. How could that first cell reproduce? (See page 14.) Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution. Both must come into existence at about the same time. (See page 14.) |
Why must both come into existence at about the same time?
Originally posted by Flash:
10. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least 30 moons revolve backwards? (See page 24.) |
What does this have to do with evolution? Thatâs cosmology.
Originally posted by Flash:
11. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got thereâany hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why arenât students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary theories for the moonâs origin? What about the almost 200 other moons in the solar system? (See page 26.) |
What does his have to do with evolution? Thatâs cosmology.
Originally posted by Flash:
12. Where did matter, space, time, energy, or even the laws of physics come from? (See page 27.) What about water? (See page 24.) |
What does this have to do with evolution?
Originally posted by Flash:
13. How could stars evolve? (See pages 28â30.) |
What does this have to do with evolution?
Originally posted by Flash:
16. Did you know that most scientific dating techniques indicate that the earth, solar system, and universe are young? (See pages 31â37.) |
Nonsense.
Originally posted by Flash:
17. Why do so many ancient cultures have flood legends? (See page 45.) |
Why are so many ancient cultures centered around rivers?
Originally posted by Flash:
18. Have you heard about the mitochondrial Eve and the genetic Adam? Scientists know that the mitochondrial Eve was the common female ancestor of every living person, and she appears to have lived only about 6,000â7,000 years ago. (See pages 311â313.) |
Nonsense. âMitochondrial Eveâ is the most-recent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today with respect to matrilineal descent, not the only living female of her time ⦠and she lived around 140,000 years ago.
Originally posted by Flash:
edit to add: More research on other topics to follow. |
I wouldnât qualify âcutting and pastingâ arguments from creationist websites as âresearchâ.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2007 09:27:21 PM · #744 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Another fossil graveyard in Germany shows a mixture of plants and insects from all climatic zones. When these kinds of fossils are found together, it is usually indicative of global flooding.... |
Yes, because we've had so many examples of "global flooding" to compare to. :/
Originally posted by milo655321:
Uh ... could post some pictures of fish "in positions of terror"? I would like to see that. |
 <-- picture of uproarious laughter, in case it's not clear.
Message edited by author 2007-11-27 21:32:21. |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 09:30:45 PM · #745 |
Originally posted by Flash:
If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesnât it take vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough? |
It would take too long to address the whole post (if you really care, a 5th grade science textbook would answer many of those questions), but I'll take this one.
The simple answer is because an arrowhead is manmade, whereas humans are a result of a natural process like the flint itself. The second question is presumptuous in that the likelihood of the exact same series of random events occurring again to produce humans, iguanas or banded armadillos is insanely low, however I would expect hydrogen to be forged into other elements and molecules in stellar furnaces throughout the universe and eventually result in isolated pockets of life. It has apparently already happened at least once. ;-)
What I [still] find incredulous is that the same people who claim the universe couldn't possibly have always existed or popped into existence offer as an alternative claim something that either always existed or popped into existence AND... it's invisible, possesses infinite knowledge even before there's anything to know, the ability to create/defy the laws of physics, micromanage individual lives and events from beyond our universe, etc. They'll say that something like an eye is too complex to just "happen," so it must have been created by something infinitely MORE complex that just happened to exist. The argument doesn't even make sense. :-/
Message edited by author 2007-11-27 21:38:22. |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 09:34:46 PM · #746 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Uh ... could post some pictures of fish "in positions of terror"? I would like to see that. |
If you insist.
 |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 10:01:57 PM · #747 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
They'll say that something like an eye is too complex to just "happen," so it must have been created by something infinitely MORE complex that just happened to exist. The argument doesn't even make sense. :-/ |
I'm not sure this quite makes sense. The complexity would be quite different. The first is complex in a scientific sense (an eye is more complex than another biological object such as, say, a tooth) the second is complex in some completely different manner. We don't expect God to be made of molecules and cells and be a huge construct of biological processes. He would be something else which falls completely outside the physical domain (and thus mainly outside our imaginations). |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 10:21:30 PM · #748 |
I DO BELIEVE SCIENCE AND GOD CAN COEXIST.
God went through all the trouble of creating the universe adn sustaining it throughout time, sending his only son to be crucified, all in the hopes that I would not eat hotdogs durinf fridays in early spring.
Perhaps there is a creator, but why is your dogma better than my dogma?
Most of God and religion is just morphine for an anxious human mind thinking of eternal death. (and hotdogs) |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 10:34:13 PM · #749 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The complexity would be quite different... He would be something else which falls completely outside the physical domain (and thus mainly outside our imaginations). |
Nevertheless, omniscience is itself vastly more complex than a process that's supposedly too complex to be natural. Personally, I can admire the complexity of natural formations like snowflakes, quartz crystals and butterflies without the need to ascribe their structures to deliberate manufacture by elves, aliens or other intelligent beings.
Message edited by author 2007-11-27 22:46:08. |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 10:47:45 PM · #750 |
I believe there is only one thing in this universe, not two. Science is god and god is science. We just don't understand it with same concepts. One spiritual, other technological. But they will merge at the end. When it does, we probably will answer more questions than we think right now.
Until then, all I know is: I don't know the answer(s), and I do not intend to spend my time to learn everything, which is impossible and not within my capacity. That does not mean I am weak, means it's not time yet.
FP
(Above statement is my personal opinion only. Not intent to change other peoples mind nor is a defense of other's opinion) |
|
<-- picture of uproarious laughter, in case it's not clear.
