Depends on your starting point A boat and a toy are created by man, man is created by........ a shell is created by (depends on shell I guess) calcium carbonate, which is created by........ sooner or later you end up back at creation/origin, then the fun starts
I dont expect anything really in all honesty, its only a forum however all evidence points to a creator, based that what we know and no other evidence being available
No, nor have I claimed to. Not in the 'magicking it up from nowhere' sense, no. Making something from constituent parts certainly happens and creatures reproduce through natural processes, if you want to count those as creation. It doesn't suggest one, either and it makes the answer utterly irrelevant. You've said before that not knowing was unacceptable to you. Have you changed your mind? We have evidence of the existence of dinosaurs and their reproduction. There must have been a method for it, so we can conclude that the current theories are the most likely explanation of that method. We have no evidence of a creator at all. So you believe that man evolved into our current form? From what? No, wisdom teeth and our third eye-lid don't have a use. Wisdom teeth are actually a hindrance, if anything. I've explained this bullshit to you before. Why do creationists always **** this quote up? When Darwin talked about the eye, he was saying that whilst his theory may at first appear to be counter-intuitive, it's actually true. The quote that your lot love is this: "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." Unfortunately for you, he actually goes on to explain the solution to the problem that he's suggesting, but the sites that you visit don't mention that: "Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound". No, you quoted out of context and failed to understand the whole, just as you did with the Darwin Eye thing.
TFWNN About three days ago on this thread (!) I suggested you read up on cosmology. The reason I did so was because I believed it would give you a better grasp of the subject at hand. If you had taken me up on the offer you would realise that the way the universe "works" at a molecular level is very different from the way it does at a macroscopic level. At that level, where scientists study the origin of the universe for example, things pop in and out of existence all the time. As yet, there is no concrete evidence as to why that happens. Light acts differently at that level too. As does gravity. As do a million and one other things. Your whole basis of "something exists, therefore there must be a creator" goes completely out the window. This is the very basic building blocks of the universe we are talking about here and scientists cannot explain why something exists or where they came from. Your argument is flawed I'm afraid. In fact, it's undone by the very thing you argue in favour of: a creator. In quantum physics it seems it is perfectly reasonable for something to come into existence without being created by some external force. It is possible for a single light beam to split and be in two places at once. The more we look into the "creation" of the universe the more we see that things are illogical and may never even be explainable. Did someone or some thing create the universe? I simply don't know. But so far there is no evidence to suggest that there was and until there is proof, even anecdotal evidence, I will continue to believe that there is no such thing as a creator, be it spiritual or physical.
thefanwithnoname appears to have somehow become even more dumb in the 24 hours (or less) since he was last here. "We can't prove Dinosaurs had sex" and "(some people) claim evolution as the cause/creator of the Universe" being my favourite parts of today's session. You appear to be confusing yourself with the word 'creator' again, and I know we have had this issue before. Saying something has been 'created' establishes a 'creator'. Maybe if you try and tear yourself away from the words 'created' and 'creation' you may go some way towards getting a proper scientific education. Perhaps what you mean is "nothing we know of exists without prior cause". Though of course this too is wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle Also, have you looked up 'endogenous retroviruses' yet? I did say they would be of great interest to you, given your laughable lack of understanding of the DNA evidence for Evolutionary Theory.
die thread die die die, and die..............Science 10 God lovers 0......................TFWNN, GIVE IT UP SON
The trouble I find religious people have in debates like this is the fact that they base their arguments on what was written 1,500 - 2,500 years ago and treat it as fact. As I've stated on a previous submission on this thread, back then peoples knowledge and understanding of things was nowhere near as much as they are today. As science and education have developed and our knowledge and understanding of things has increased and expanded our horizons we have been less reliant on taking things at face value. Science is all about going beyond what we know and pushing the boundaries back. Religion is static - this is what was understood 2,000 years ago so it must be true no matter what. I couldn't accept that as a 7 year old back in 1975 and I can't accept that now. Just because someone saw a bright light doesn't mean he saw God, Angels or any other "mythical" being. I still can't explain how the universe began - I'm still not a scientist. The answers will never be known in my lifetime and might take several hundred years to come about but it will be discovered and have a rational, logical, scientific explanation.
Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are sequences in the genome thought to be derived from ancient viral infections of germ cells in humans, mammals and other vertebrates; as such their proviruses are passed on to the next generation and now remain in the genome.
TFWNN About three days ago on this thread (!) I suggested you read up on cosmology. The reason I did so was because I believed it would give you a better grasp of the subject at hand. If you had taken me up on the offer you would realise that the way the universe "works" at a molecular level is very different from the way it does at a macroscopic level. At that level, where scientists study the origin of the universe for example, things pop in and out of existence all the time. As yet, there is no concrete evidence as to why that happens. Light acts differently at that level too. As does gravity. As do a million and one other things. Your whole basis of "something exists, therefore there must be a creator" goes completely out the window. This is the very basic building blocks of the universe we are talking about here and scientists cannot explain why something exists or where they came from. Your argument is flawed I'm afraid. In fact, it's undone by the very thing you argue in favour of: a creator. In quantum physics it seems it is perfectly reasonable for something to come into existence without being created by some external force. It is possible for a single light beam to split and be in two places at once. The more we look into the "creation" of the universe the more we see that things are illogical and may never even be explainable. Did someone or some thing create the universe? I simply don't know. But so far there is no evidence to suggest that there was and until there is proof, even anecdotal evidence, I will continue to believe that there is no such thing as a creator, be it spiritual or physical.
Another of your problems seems to be with the fact that science isn't as arrogant as religion. Do you not understand why terms such as "thought to be" are included in descriptions of biological functions, etc?
religion is also a form of cosmology, as it too deals with origins. The problem is the starting point. If the Big Bang is the starting point then to me that is not origins. The big bang is stage B if you like, we need to start at A
You don't know yourself, but you'd knock someone else for having a different view? The Last Question -- Isaac Asimov
