Evolution vs. Creationism

Mr ProgFreak wrote: AmbianceMan wrote: I believe it's very, very, very simple.  Most people ignore the obvious scientific proof that evolution could NOT be true.  Forget the religious arguments for now and let's focus on simple things.  The reasoning is so simple that most people dismiss it as not being "intellectual" enough. You obviously don't understand the difference between evidence and opinion. Just because you don't understand something or perceive it as overwhelmingly complex, there can still be a simple explanation (often even remarkably simple).   Here we go, another Dawkins syncophant throwing insults...seen it all before.  To say I obviously don't understand the difference reduces your credibility.  Relying on Dawkins means that you don't have to think for yourself... AmbianceMan wrote: I think much more faith is required to believe in evolution than in intelligent design.   For example, take the big bang.  So something the size of a period exploded and formed the universe?  Really?  That's fine but you must first explain where that matter came from.  Scientists accept the big bang in large numbers, but fail to look at the obvious.  As a matter of fact if you accept scientific law...it states that matter cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred.  If that were the case...how did matter originate?  And if you don't accept the Big Bang you still have to explain how matter magically appeared.  I've heard stuff about "dark matter" and the like...but matter is matter, energy is energy. Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. Yet you live in a country that runs nuclear reactors ... it's only the tip of the iceberg, but the most obvious flaw in this paragraph is obvious if you just look at one of the most simple equations of all time: E=mc^2. Of course its consequences are quite complex ...   Please don't go there...I work with radiation for a living.  I could teach a course in radiation physics.  The consequences of this equation don't support anything that you could offer.   AmbianceMan wrote: In order to disprove intelligent design you first have to assume that matter spontaneously appeared from nothingness with no cause or reason.  So if you believe this, you are in effect saying "poof, there it is".  As a creationist, I am also saying "poof there it is" but with a reason behind it. The first sentence is wrong. And since the rest is based on it, it's also wrong. I'm also not saying that the Universe just "sprang into existence". We don't know yet how it started in all its implication, but that doesn't mean that it must have happened "magically". There are many examples of scientific explanations for things that people used to think were magic.   AmbianceMan wrote: I could go on and on...the fact that there should be a bajillion fossils of steps between monkeys and man if it were true, like whole populations.  Instead you have monkeys...and man....and scientists digging and digging and causing a bunch of hoopla if they think they might have found ONE that MIGHT be in between  There is a such thing as minor variations and changes along the way, but species never change to another species, which is required for evolution.  This was a theory created by one guy, and accepted by billions because it's an easy explanation. You're sure making a proud display of your ignorance. You could recommend Dawkins's book to you, but of course I know that you are not looking for evidence. You are simply spreading lies and disinformation in the hope that people will be convinced by pure rhethoric and stereotypical phrases ... which is exactly the one thing that us atheists should fight.   The simple fact is, evolutionists are in the majority, so really it's the creationists who are fighting YOUR stereotypes...just look at the poll.  And Dawkins....sheesh.  I bet you never saw the interview where he was asked questions point blank and stuttered and stumbled all over himself?  He's just a man with an agenda...like making money from people like you.  He's the Al Gore of atheism.   AmbianceMan wrote: Now I'm not saying you are stupid if you believe it at all.  But I think if you go back to the simple arguments you simply cannot get past it. So far you haven't presented any arguments that I could go back to. AmbianceMan wrote: Now is when I hear "well if God created everything, who created God?".  All I can say is go read the book where God tells us all about himself.  The bible pretty much lays it all out and I can't add to the argument.  He says that he himself is the beginning, and without him TIME would not even exist, let alone space and matter.  That's a big concept, and our mortal finite minds can't really comprehend it...and if we could comprehend everything then we would be God...and I sure know I'm not. The bible was written by a bunch of religious fanatics ... I don't believe in anything it says. It's not a lack of faith on my part, it's an over-abundance of mistakes and inconsistencies that prevent me from even considering to take it seriously.   There are no mistakes, only the ones people have told you about, like your Dawkins.  It's very convenient to latch on to someone something and hold them up like a shield.  I have read the entire thing multiple times, and also study it in the original Koine greek.  If you read it from the proper perspective and in cultural context, mistakes are non-existent, there are only misunderstandings.    AmbianceMan wrote: Even in the book of Job, it is laid out that the earth is a sphere and floats in space, and describes the hydrologic cycle..and that's the oldest book in the bible!  This was thousands of years before everyone found out the earth was not flat.  I enjoy thinking about these things actually...like trying to wrap my mind around the fact that there was a time when space did not even exist.   Intelligent design is more awe inspiring and thought provoking IMHO.   *edit* please don't take anything I say as an insult to anyone's beliefs.  I used to believe in evolution, big bang and all that....but when I thought about the things they DON'T teach you in school, I had questions I don't have any belief that you could possibly insult. And no matter what you do, you won't keep me from asking questions that *you* can't answer.   I most certainly won't keep you from asking questions, and in fact, I encourage you to.  The only problem is that you have failed to ask any!

AmbianceMan wrote:   And Dawkins....sheesh.  I bet you never saw the interview where he was asked questions point blank and stuttered and stumbled all over himself?  He's just a man with an agenda...like making money from people like you.  He's the Al Gore of atheism.

Actually, I posted that very video not too long ago, and everybody pretty much agreed that Ben Stein twisted things around in a very biased, unfair way.

p0mt3 wrote: jampa17 wrote: p0mt3 wrote: Negoba wrote: The existence of many of the ancients is highly disputed, Lao Tzu, Patanjali, Siddhartha/Buddha, Jesus, and yes Socrates. The most common line is that they are composites of several leaders within the group. People take Occam's Razor too far. I, in fact, do believe in single humans who are crux points in the web of causation because we see them even today. Martin Luther King is a more "saintly" example, while Hitler is a devilish one. These single individuals had profound effects on human culture and the course of history. So yes I believe Jesus existed and was perhaps the greatest "Karma-crux" (my word) in our recorded history.   And whether you believe in the world of the Divine or not, these subjects are fun to think about.       One last monkey wrench, if you believe in the Science cosmology as I understand it, you must believe in aliens. (Staunch atheist Carl Sagan did.) Probably a subject for a different thread. The actual historical records of Jesus that exist outside of the Bible shed more light on what the real man was like. He was born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem, for instance, and there is even evidence that he was indeed crucified. Jesus was nothing new, though. Many prophets existed at the time who claimed to have divine powers, and all had disciples, etc. If you want to talk composits, I would say that the Jesus of the Bible is an amalgam of historical Jesus and many legends that existed before the Bible was written. No, I cannot name specifics at this point, but I do know that the 'Jesus' story existed in many incarnations before it got stuck into thr Bible. Could anybody with a better knowledge of past literature help me out here and give some examples of the stories I speak of? As for your last sentence, Jay, if by 'aliens' you mean the bulbous-headed creatures people always claim are abducting them from their bedrooms and whatnot, then no, I do not believe in them. But is it possible, even likely, that other beings exist on other planets in the universe? Well, yes of course. I don't believe they've ever made contact, but I would like to think this isn't the only planet that can support intelligent life.   How do you proclaim that it was in Nazareth not Bethelem his place of birth...??? I mean, how do you decided that this fact is more likely than the other...???  I understand your point and this has been discussed by centuries, all the myth and common knowledge from different cultures that have merged and is mentioned on the old testament... there are thousand of information of it... but it is interesting that there's no a single serious source that could said this is true and this is false... there are too much gosdpells that have being wrote in 4th or 5th century... which you can discount because is very likely that those were writen after the other and accepted Godspells... this theme is very long to discuss... so... back to the topic... I still don't see proof from species to species... Did you not read anything I typed? I clearly said that it was documents located OUTSIDE of biblical scripture (you know . . . documents that can actually be confirmed as true history?) that tells us the actual Jesus' place of birth. No offense, but I've been reading all of your posts thus far, and it seems as if you ignore the comments that contradict you while making the same arguments over and over. I can't debate with somebody like that. You obviously have no desire to actually listen to the other side of this debate.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: AmbianceMan wrote:    Also, I do in fact know plenty about e=mc2.  If you had any idea about it you would never write that using a lower case "e", or writing "mc2" like it was "m" times "c" times 2.   Please....I don't know how to html a superscript 2 and you are using this as an insult? AmbianceMan wrote: I happen to have a B.S. in science studying to be a radiation physicist.  Electron to photon "conversion" is what I do for a living.  It involves electrons traveling at the speed of light striking other atoms (whether striking the nucleus, shell electrons, or passing through creating a "braking" type loss of energy) which throws off photons. Electrons don't travel at the speed of light ... not even in the LHC.   Yes you are correct about this and I misstated.  I should have said that it throws off PHOTONS at the speed of light, not electrons. AmbianceMan wrote:   The point of all this is that matter or energy is not created or destroyed, just converted, which really proves my point more than it does yours. As if any of us at that point have any memory of that point ... with all the distractions you are providing. AmbianceMan wrote:   So what is your explanation for how matter got here?  You may disagree with me, but you can't disprove me either.  However, I can simply dismiss most arguments anybody comes up with by just stating a couple elementary laws. You can dismiss arguments easier with made up B.S. ... which is what you've been doing since you created your account here. My assumtion is that you're a religious fanatic, scouring the internet for religious discussions. A heavenly troll, so to speak.

p0mt3 wrote: AmbianceMan wrote:   And Dawkins....sheesh.  I bet you never saw the interview where he was asked questions point blank and stuttered and stumbled all over himself?  He's just a man with an agenda...like making money from people like you.  He's the Al Gore of atheism.   Actually, I posted that very video not too long ago, and everybody pretty much agreed that Ben Stein twisted things around in a very biased, unfair way.

Just to butt into the conversation here, but surely some of you atheists get wound up by that moron? I even watched one 'educational' program where he went into a science class and told them something along the lines:

"Evolution is real. God isn't. Accept it, you're all idiots that were brought up that way" - slightly exaggerated of course but only slightly. He went on to tell a poor Jewish kid that his parents were completely stupid and that God was plainly and obviously not real. Ridiculous man.

You can dismiss arguments easier with made up B.S. ... which is what you've been doing since you created your account here. My assumtion is that you're a religious fanatic, scouring the internet for religious discussions. A heavenly troll, so to speak.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: AmbianceMan wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: You obviously don't understand the difference between evidence and opinion. Just because you don't understand something or perceive it as overwhelmingly complex, there can still be a simple explanation (often even remarkably simple).   Here we go, another Dawkins syncophant throwing insults...seen it all before.  To say I obviously don't understand the difference reduces your credibility.  Relying on Dawkins means that you don't have to think for yourself... Now if I only knew what a syncophant was ... in any case, your claim that there exists any scientific proof against evolution still lacks evidence. Maybe it's the syncophant ... some cross between a syncope and an elephant maybe? Sorry, but I have better things to do this evening than to argue with trolls.

sycophant = an elephant who has drunk too much.

^ You're easily insulted.

AmbianceMan wrote: I could go on and on...the fact that there should be a bajillion fossils of steps between monkeys and man if it were true, like whole populations.  Instead you have monkeys...and man....and scientists digging and digging and causing a bunch of hoopla if they think they might have found ONE that MIGHT be in between  There is a such thing as minor variations and changes along the way, but species never change to another species, which is required for evolution.  This was a theory created by one guy, and accepted by billions because it's an easy explanation.

Fossilisation is an extremely rare event. To be able to find a fossil, seven stages have to occur:

1. Surviving death - dying is not enough - the body has to remain undisturbed - nature has ways of preventing this - scavengers, carrion eaters, worms etc
2. Surviving burial - a dead body lying on the surface will not be fossilised - it has to be buried - this is not a natural thing unless the body died in quick sand or a land slide or at the bottom of a silt-bed.
3. Surviving Underground (1) - once underground the body has to be in the right kind of substrate material - anything organic or too acidic will destroy the bones - the vast majority of bones do not survive this stage.
4. Mineralisation - this is a complex chemical process where minerals in the bones are replaced by harder minerals from the surrounding rocks - this is an issue of being in the right place at the right time.
5. Surviving Underground (2) - having been mineralised, the resulting fossil has to survive underground - the mineralisation process can be reversed, changes in the environment can change the mineral carrying water in to acid carrying water which will dissolve the minerals, also digging by burrowing animals, erosion, earthquakes and volcanic action can destroy the fossil
6. Surviving being exposed - the commonest means of finding fossils is after they have been exposed by some other process, such as glaciation, wind, water or wave erosion etc. These process can also destroy a fossil
7. Surviving being found - having been exposed and found is no guarantee that the fossil fragment will be correctly identified, many fossils end up as hardcore ballast  in concrete buildings.

Edited by Dean - December 02 2009 at 16:08

Citizen Erased wrote: p0mt3 wrote: AmbianceMan wrote:   And Dawkins....sheesh.  I bet you never saw the interview where he was asked questions point blank and stuttered and stumbled all over himself?  He's just a man with an agenda...like making money from people like you.  He's the Al Gore of atheism.   Actually, I posted that very video not too long ago, and everybody pretty much agreed that Ben Stein twisted things around in a very biased, unfair way. Just to butt into the conversation here, but surely some of you atheists get wound up by that moron? I even watched one 'educational' program where he went into a science class and told them something along the lines: "Evolution is real. God isn't. Accept it, you're all idiots that were brought up that way" - slightly exaggerated of course but only slightly. He went on to tell a poor Jewish kid that his parents were completely stupid and that God was plainly and obviously not real. Ridiculous man.

First of all, you assume falsely that I am an Atheist. I consider myself Agnostic, since I still cannot say for sure if I believe in a creator or not. See, this is what I'm talking about. You speak to non-believers as if we flock in packs, when in fact we make up the most diverse collection of people you are ever likely to meet. ''You Atheists'' isn't too for from saying ''You people'' as far as I am concerned. Such bland and general opinions of the unbeliever clearly shows your bias for what it really is.

As for what Dawkins said . . . I'm glad that you admit you exaggerated his speech. But you didn't just exaggerate a little . . . you exaggerated a LOT. Dawkins has never and will never call someone an idiot for believing in God. That's Christopher Hitchens' job. He simply states his opinion just as strongly as you would. Nothing wrong with that, as far as I can tell.

Furthermore, if he spoke to a child, it would not have been to call his family 'stupid' as you claim. He probably just wanted to wake the kid up to reality. How would a non-believer do that? Well . . . tell them there is no God, of course. How is that 'ridiculous' or out of character for a non-believer anyway? It's not like he randomly walks up to people on the street, gets in their face and proclaims that their belief system is wrong. Whoever he has discussions with obviously wants to debate with him. He speaks on God and such at his lectures and debates. The people who attend there obviously know what to expect before they even enter. The way you've twisted it, you make Dawkins out to be a madman on a rampage, trying to destroy people's lives. He simply states things as he sees them. Don't agree with it? Don't go to his lectures.