Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dr. Cranium

Evolution Vs. Creation

  

181 members have voted

  1. 1. Which do you beleive in?

    • Evolution
      139
    • Creation
      27


Recommended Posts

^Sorry Simon your quite wrong.

You can't tell me what I would do given the situation. My mind is clear and so are my morals.

I would not kill an innocent person just so I can live another day.

If I did I would continue to kill anyone else I see who has food, or tried to and fail and be killed.

I'd rather take my chances of asking or walking away knowing, A- I would find food elsewhere or B- I wouldn't find food and that's how it was meant to be.

 

How about this.

If I put a gun to your head and told you to choose between the two:

Eat 100 new born babies (ALIVE), or get butt f**ked by 100 Russian men. Each for a couple hours.

 

What would you choose?

 

Well you see there is a third option there. That option is to attempt to overpower you which is the option I would choose.

 

However, while it is a completely ludicrous example and I am not sure exactly what your trying to get at, I won't avoid answering it. Had you written it to allow no other possible options than the 2 stated, I would choose the second option.

 

Why?? Aside from the first being physically impossible. Because the second option is the least worst.

 

I too was raised knowing that it is wrong to kill other people and especially defenceless children. But not because the bible says so, but because society says so.

 

You do not have to be religious to have a moral compass, and just because some of the morals imposed by society happen to match those within the bible does not make the bible the authority on what is good and bad

 

You can't over power me. There's no way out, if you tried, I would shoot you on the spot. If I failed, the other gunmen would.

So it's either die, eat or be raped.

But...

 

 

Yeah I had no point in that story. :lol:

Had nothing to do with god or science.

 

did you read what i wrote?

 

you cannot say that you would feel the same until your in the situation. im not suggestion you'd kill the hypotetical person but who knows what else you may do.

 

basic human nature suggests that survival > moral compass

 

I read what you wrote. I still disagree. I wouldn't kill another to live, even in that situation.

People have it hard all over the world at this very time as well.

Some kill, some struggle.

I'd choose to struggle because on what I believe in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did your laws come from?

 

Here is my previous response to the last time you asked that same question:

 

A society decides for itself what it considers to be immoral or reprehensible and bases it's legal system on that. Now these decisions may be based on the bible or the quaran or any other set of beliefs/traditions/practices.

 

Laws have evolved as society has evolved.

.............................

And just so you don't forget here is the question I asked previously:

 

Consider it's a considerable period of time after a major apocalyptic event (not a biblical apocalypse, but a natural one - a global pandemic or asteroid strike etc).

 

Now all government, law enforcement, civilization has been destroyed and most of the population is dead, you are one of the survivors. You are now completely on your own, you are totally responsible for yourself, up until now you have been surviving off scraps you can scavenge but now they are all gone .You are starving, you have not eaten for weeks, you are exhausted and death is only a few days off.

 

You come across a sleeping man who could easily overpower you, but you have the element of surprise. He has a stash of food and water. You will not be able to take the food/water without waking him and it is unlikely that you could simply knock him unconscious or incapacitate him as you no longer have the strength. You do however have a knife.

 

Do you kill him and take his food and water?

 

man debating evolution has come to this.

 

Good example of would you rather? horrible scenario in regards to ethics/morals. If the man is strong enough to overpower you in the first place, and taking the food from him will wake him up, don't you think that stabbing him would only really piss him off? I mean you would have to be pretty quick/lucky to kill a man who can easily overpower you, especially when you're hungry, weak, thirsty and disoriented due to the previous 3 states.

 

Look you see this in the wild, a tiger's feed left for future consumption, whilst it naps, a pack of dogs show up, and one stupidly tries to steal/take on the tiger, gets bicthed on and then turns into tiger food. the same thing happens with bears and wolfs, lions and hyenas, need I go on? to say we are animals,need to survive by any means possible adn that morals are the only thing holding us back is one thing, but to say animals don't have the basic intelligence to assess risk is a completely different, and stupid barrell of monkeys...

 

RC completely threw your argument out of the window with his answer. I'll give him that much.

 

A suggestion, Why don't you start up a thread on ethics and leave the evolution talk to those interested in it? Otherwise posting out of context makes you look even more moronic

Edited by spongeboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think people take religion and science too seriously when they don't have a f%cking clue what they're on about (like you RC),

 

Like me, and the rest of the people in this forum.

Like creationists.

Like scientists.

Like every body else in this world.

 

Hey we could argue for 600 pages and still be at square one.

 

No one knows about the big bang, they can only guess, no one was there.

No one knows about Jesus, they can only assume form the bible, no one was there from this day.

Christians and scientists will continue to argue until a firm 100% evidence is found and proved either one wrong.

 

Now don't tell me the scientists are correct because of some bullshit happened out of nothing and POW there was humans and an earth.

If there was nothing in the first place why would there have been atoms or what ever floating around until one f**ked the other in the ass and gave birth to the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 reasons why the big bang theory doesn't work.

 

1. The Big Bang theory is based on theoretical extremes. It may look good in math calculations, but it can't actually happen. A tiny bit of nothing packed so tightly together that it blew up and produced all the matter in the universe. Seriously now, this is a fairy tale. It is a bunch of armchair calculations, and nothing else. It is easy to theorize on paper. The Big Bang is a theoretical extreme, just as is a black hole. It is easy to theorize that something is true, when it has never been seen and there is no definitive evidence that it exists or ever happened. But let us not mistake Disneyland theories for science.

 

2. Nothingness cannot pack together. It would have no way to push itself into a pile.

 

3. A vacuum has no density. It is said that the nothingness got very dense, and that is why it exploded. But a total vacuum is the opposite of total density.

 

4. There would be no ignition to explode nothingness. No fire and no match. It could not be a chemical explosion, for no chemicals existed. It could not be a nuclear explosion, for there were no atoms!

 

5. There is no way to expand it. How can you expand what isn't there? Even if that magical vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity, what would then cause the pile of emptiness to push outward? The "gravity" which brought it together would keep it from expanding.

 

6. Nothingness cannot produce heat. The intense heat caused by the exploding nothingness is said to have changed the nothingness into protons, neutrons, and electrons. First, an empty vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself. Second, an empty void cannot magically change itself into matter. Third, there can be no heat without an energy source.

 

7. The calculations are too exacting. Too perfect an explosion would be required. On many points, the theoretical mathematical calculations needed to turn a Big Bang into stars and our planet cannot be worked out; in others they are too exacting. Knowledgeable scientists call them "too perfect." Mathematical limitations would have to be met which would be next to impossible to achieve. The limits for success are simply too narrow. Most aspects of the theory are impossible, and some require parameters that would require miracles to fulfill. One example of this is the expansion of the original fireball from the Big Bang, which they place precisely within the narrowest of limits. An evolutionist astronomer, R.H. Dicke, says it well: "If the fireball had expanded only .1 percent faster, the present rate of expansion would have been 3 x 103 times as great. Had the initial expansion rate been 0.1 percent less, the Universe would have expanded to only 3 x 10-6 of its present radius before collapsing. At this maximum radius the density of ordinary matter would have been 10-12 grm/m3, over 1016 times as great as the present mass density. No stars could have formed in such a Universe, for it would not have existed long enough to form stars."

 

8. Such an equation would have produced not a universe but a hole. *Roger L. St. Peter in 1974 developed a complicated mathematical equation that showed that the theorized Big Bang could not have exploded outward into hydrogen and helium. In reality, St. Peter says the theoretical explosion (if one could possibly take place) would fall back on itself and make a theoretical black hole! This means that one imaginary object would swallow another one!

 

9. There is not enough antimatter in the universe. This is a big problem for the theorists. The original Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of positive matter (matter) and negative matter (antimatter). But only small amounts of antimatter exist. There should be as much antimatter as matter--if the Big Bang was true. "Since matter and antimatter are equivalent in all respects but that of electromagnetic charge oppositeness, any force [the Big Bang] that would create one should have to create the other, and the universe should be made of equal quantities of each. This is a dilemma. Theory tells us there should be antimatter out there, and observation refuses to back it up." "We are pretty sure from our observations that the universe today contains matter, but very little if any antimatter."

 

10. The antimatter from the Big Bang would have destroyed all the regular matter. This fact is well-known to physicists. As soon as the two are produced in the laboratory, they instantly come together and annihilate one another.

 

CHECK MATE BITCHES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is hardly check mate. straight up the first point you raise.. black holes have been proven now. while rare and distant. they have been recorded.

 

whats more all those points are obviously biased.

Edited by Simon-S14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^They haven't been proven yet mate.

It's still under research and have some evidence to back them up.

Black holes are still theories.

"You cannot see a black hole, because as light itself, cannot escape, there would be nothing emitting or reflecting for you to see... Rather you can only observer the the effects it has on it surroundings"

 

And yes they are all bias.

The very same with what evolutionists think.

The very same with what creationists think.

 

Both are very bias.

Edited by Rolled Cambers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, science can't prove it ... YET.

 

 

So let's believe in some bloke who magically f**ked a virgin without actually f**king her raising a child who told everyone he was gods son and he has magical powers yet he gets hung on a cross?

 

 

Seems legit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can someone please lock this f**king thread coz shits getting no where!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think people take religion and science too seriously when they don't have a f%cking clue what they're on about (like you RC),

 

Like me, and the rest of the people in this forum.

Like creationists.

Like scientists.

Like every body else in this world.

 

Hey we could argue for 600 pages and still be at square one.

 

No one knows about the big bang, they can only guess, no one was there.

No one knows about Jesus, they can only assume form the bible, no one was there from this day.

Christians and scientists will continue to argue until a firm 100% evidence is found and proved either one wrong.

 

Now don't tell me the scientists are correct because of some bullshit happened out of nothing and POW there was humans and an earth.

If there was nothing in the first place why would there have been atoms or what ever floating around until one f**ked the other in the ass and gave birth to the universe.

 

damn son.

 

you've managed to prove my point about morons drivelling on over shit they have no clue about. This thread has nothing to do with the big bang, black holes or any physics whatsoever, the title is simple, do you believe you evolved from fish, or do you believe god chucked you up from the recesses of the mind? Simple as that, heading off on a tangent shows you clearly know nothing about evolution or creation.

 

Also there is plenty of clear evidence to prove that evolution exists, I've provided some in my previous posts, whether it was caused by the right amino chains in a sea of polymers and a thunderstorm, or it was by intelligent design, I don't know, I'd like to believe intelligent design, because the explanation that scientists provide lacks any evidence whatsoever and until then I'll believe basic life was kicked off by higher power, what happened afterwards was up to nature..

 

You see my oponion on creation vs evolution, I believe in evolution, but I also believe that life was kicked off by god or whatever you want to call him.

Edited by spongeboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^This man is stupid.

Of course evolution has everything to do with big bang and fishes.

You have proved your own point about morons driveling on over shit they have no clue about, about your self.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did your laws come from?

 

Here is my previous response to the last time you asked that same question:

 

A society decides for itself what it considers to be immoral or reprehensible and bases it's legal system on that. Now these decisions may be based on the bible or the quaran or any other set of beliefs/traditions/practices.

 

Laws have evolved as society has evolved.

.............................

And just so you don't forget here is the question I asked previously:

 

Consider it's a considerable period of time after a major apocalyptic event (not a biblical apocalypse, but a natural one - a global pandemic or asteroid strike etc).

 

Now all government, law enforcement, civilization has been destroyed and most of the population is dead, you are one of the survivors. You are now completely on your own, you are totally responsible for yourself, up until now you have been surviving off scraps you can scavenge but now they are all gone .You are starving, you have not eaten for weeks, you are exhausted and death is only a few days off.

 

You come across a sleeping man who could easily overpower you, but you have the element of surprise. He has a stash of food and water. You will not be able to take the food/water without waking him and it is unlikely that you could simply knock him unconscious or incapacitate him as you no longer have the strength. You do however have a knife.

 

Do you kill him and take his food and water?

 

man debating evolution has come to this.

 

Good example of would you rather? horrible scenario in regards to ethics/morals. If the man is strong enough to overpower you in the first place, and taking the food from him will wake him up, don't you think that stabbing him would only really piss him off? I mean you would have to be pretty quick/lucky to kill a man who can easily overpower you, especially when you're hungry, weak, thirsty and disoriented due to the previous 3 states.

 

Look you see this in the wild, a tiger's feed left for future consumption, whilst it naps, a pack of dogs show up, and one stupidly tries to steal/take on the tiger, gets bicthed on and then turns into tiger food. the same thing happens with bears and wolfs, lions and hyenas, need I go on? to say we are animals,need to survive by any means possible adn that morals are the only thing holding us back is one thing, but to say animals don't have the basic intelligence to assess risk is a completely different, and stupid barrell of monkeys...

 

RC completely threw your argument out of the window with his answer. I'll give him that much.

 

A suggestion, Why don't you start up a thread on ethics and leave the evolution talk to those interested in it? Otherwise posting out of context makes you look even more moronic

 

I agree we did get off the topic of evolution vs creation, however I do not see how I appear moronic, I suspect you did not read back to where this line of discussion started, and thus it appears as I simply was posting extraneous crap regarding morality in an evolution vs creation thread.

 

While not discussing evolution or creation I was simply responding to a question that RC posed ( (post 142) which asked why the world is not all rainbows and butterflies - he suggested it is due to sin which is caused by the devil and since the devil exists god must also exist in order to have created the devil. To which I responded that basic human nature is to ensure your own survival and that the strong will always take from the weak. This led to discussion on what keeps people from doing whatever they want (me - the laws imposed by society, him - biblical morality). My scenario was aimed at determining what he would do when placed in a situation that directly pitted his morality against his own continued survival, which is directly related to my assertion on basic survival instinct..

 

Regarding the mechanics of the scenario I proposed, I never intended for the man to be stabbed, of course one stab is unlikely to be fatal and the risk of him still be able to overpower you is too great - you would be silly to try, my thinking was one would slit the man's throat while he was sleeping, perhaps I overestimated the intelligence of people in assuming they would all slit his throat too.

 

I fail to see how the counter scenario invalidated my scenario in anyway. The counter scenario was ludicrous, I still can not see exactly where he was heading with it, it did not place me in a position where I was forced to choose between one really bad option and a second much easier option which would have contradicted my own previous position.

 

It simply posed 2 options, one, an horrific act inflicted upon others and the other, personal suffering.

 

I fail to see how it supports his position of the bible being responsible for morality. If it proves anything it is that I personally have morals, which was never in debate - yes I have morals, we all do.

 

However the debate was regarding whether morality is instilled by the bible or society, not that you can only possess morality if you follow the bible.

Edited by SIR ASHMAN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^This man is stupid.

Of course evolution has everything to do with big bang and fishes.

You have proved your own point about morons driveling on over shit they have no clue about, about your self.

1269914528813_145.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time line of evolution.

Big bang, f**king dirt, bloody fish, apes, humans. Although some of you are still between the ape and human phase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're a f*cking moron, I've said it and now you've proven it, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the big bang, so here it is. Timeline of evolution for morons, so even you can understand, Single cell organisms, basic multicellular organism, basic arthropods, complex arthropods, fish, amphibians, reptiles/dinosaurs, monotremes, mammals/marsupials. very basic, and yet there's nothing about the big bang theory there. Next time please don't be a waste of an ovum, don't confuse physics and biology/genetics/evolution. Because as far as science goes, they are quite unrelated.

 

Now if both were related as you say, then the almost all evolutionists would have to believe in the big bang, they don't, in fact member of the church believe in evolution. The big bang theory has more relevance in the conservation of matter and energy. I doubt you'd know what that is...

Edited by spongeboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

agree we did get off the topic of evolution vs creation, however I do not see how I appear moronic, I suspect you did not read back to where this line of discussion started, and thus it appears as I simply was posting extraneous crap regarding morality in an evolution vs creation thread.

 

While not discussing evolution or creation I was simply responding to a question that RC posed ( (post 142) which asked why the world is not all rainbows and butterflies - he suggested it is due to sin which is caused by the devil and since the devil exists god must also exist in order to have created the devil. To which I responded that basic human nature is to ensure your own survival and that the strong will always take from the weak. This led to discussion on what keeps people from doing whatever they want (me - the laws imposed by society, him - biblical morality). My scenario was aimed at determining what he would do when placed in a situation that directly pitted his morality against his own continued survival, which is directly related to my assertion on basic survival instinct..

 

Regarding the mechanics of the scenario I proposed, I never intended for the man to be stabbed, of course one stab is unlikely to be fatal and the risk of him still be able to overpower you is too great - you would be silly to try, my thinking was one would slit the man's throat while he was sleeping, perhaps I overestimated the intelligence of people in assuming they would all slit his throat too.

 

I fail to see how the counter scenario invalidated my scenario in anyway. The counter scenario was ludicrous, I still can not see exactly where he was heading with it, it did not place me in a position where I was forced to choose between one really bad option and a second much easier option which would have contradicted my own previous position.

 

It simply posed 2 options, one, an horrific act inflicted upon others and the other, personal suffering.

 

I fail to see how it supports his position of the bible being responsible for morality. If it proves anything it is that I personally have morals, which was never in debate - yes I have morals, we all do.

 

However the debate was regarding whether morality is instilled by the bible or society, not that you can only possess morality if you follow the bible.

 

RC is a retard, I agree, however your scenario was flawed, the problem with it is that is the fact you are hungry, thirsty and weak, there is no way you could slit a mans throat if he could overpower you with ease. It's just implausible, especially if just touching his food will wake him up.

 

Survival and ethics are unrelated as well, in conventional society shooting someone is a taboo, however in war shooting someone results in your survival and the defence of your nation. It's more a matter of context than ethics/moral. ethics would be would you steal to feed someone who is starving? see the dilemma? It is the fact you need this food to save a life, but you'd have to break laws in order to attain it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RC is a retard, I agree, however your scenario was flawed, the problem with it is that is the fact you are hungry, thirsty and weak, there is no way you could slit a mans throat if he could overpower you with ease. It's just implausible, especially if just touching his food will wake him up.

 

I did not intend for the scenario to be interpreted that deeply.

 

I simply intended for the fact that he would wake and overpower you to prevent you from simply stealing his food an running off. I did not mean for it to prevent you from being able to stealthily approach and dispatch him. I fully intended when writing it for you to be able to sneak up on him while he remained asleep and kill him. Thus making the choice simply between committing a sin (thoust shall not kill) or your own continued survival.

 

Though I will grant you that as it is explicitly written it may be implausible.

 

Survival and ethics are unrelated as well, in conventional society shooting someone is a taboo, however in war shooting someone results in your survival and the defence of your nation. It's more a matter of context than ethics/moral. ethics would be would you steal to feed someone who is starving? see the dilemma? It is the fact you need this food to save a life, but you'd have to break laws in order to attain it...

 

I agree on this point, personally I feel that morality has no place when basic continued survival is concerned as survival will always win out. Though Rc's position was that he would not kill another person under any circumstances, my attempt was to create a situation in which that would become an illogical position to maintain. And thus it became a scenario of personal ethical position vs survival. Though I now realize that that was foolish on my part, as a religious person will always claim something as "god's will" rather than adhere to logic and reason.

 

Context is a point I was trying to make earlier actually(specifically how one society may view something as immoral while another views the same act as acceptable). My position was that society decides for itself what is and is not immoral and under what circumstances.

 

The point I was trying to make with the scenario is that were society removed and everything were stripped away so all that remained were a persons own core beliefs that under extreme circumstances people would abandon their core beliefs in favor of continued survival - as that is basic human instinct.

Edited by SIR ASHMAN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RC is a retard, I agree, however your scenario was flawed, the problem with it is that is the fact you are hungry, thirsty and weak, there is no way you could slit a mans throat if he could overpower you with ease. It's just implausible, especially if just touching his food will wake him up.

 

I did not intend for the scenario to be interpreted that deeply.

 

I simply intended for the fact that he would wake and overpower you to prevent you from simply stealing his food an running off. I did not mean for it to prevent you from being able to stealthily approach and dispatch him. I fully intended when writing it for you to be able to sneak up on him while he remained asleep and kill him. Thus making the choice simply between committing a sin (thoust shall not kill) or your own continued survival.

 

Though I will grant you that as it is explicitly written it may be implausible.

 

Survival and ethics are unrelated as well, in conventional society shooting someone is a taboo, however in war shooting someone results in your survival and the defence of your nation. It's more a matter of context than ethics/moral. ethics would be would you steal to feed someone who is starving? see the dilemma? It is the fact you need this food to save a life, but you'd have to break laws in order to attain it...

 

I agree on this point, personally I feel that morality has no place where basic survival is concerned.

 

Context is a point I was trying to make earlier actually. My reasoning is that society decides what is an is not immoral and under what circumstances. The point I was trying to make is that were society removed and all that remained were a persons own core beliefs that under extreme circumstances people would abandon their core beliefs in favor of continued survival as that is basic human instinct.

 

Ah I see what you mean, my mention of morons never included you hehe, just those who provide the simple point of disbelief that some dude in a beard was god reincarnated, creationists can provide the same point of disbelief in regards to us evolving from fish, it all comes down to providing evidence of your point, something that someone who knows anything about evolution can easily provide.

 

+1 for banning RC from ever reproducing hehe. otherwise we'll end with George Dubyaesque stupidity...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're a f*cking moron, I've said it and now you've proven it, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the big bang, so here it is. Timeline of evolution for morons, so even you can understand, Single cell organisms, basic multicellular organism, basic arthropods, complex arthropods, fish, amphibians, reptiles/dinosaurs, monotremes, mammals/marsupials. very basic, and yet there's nothing about the big bang theory there. Next time please don't be a waste of an ovum, don't confuse physics and biology/genetics/evolution. Because as far as science goes, they are quite unrelated. Now if both were related as you say, then the almost all evolutionists would have to believe in the big bang, they don't, in fact member of the church believe in evolution. The big bang theory has more relevance in the conservation of matter and energy. I doubt you'd know what that is...

 

Because as far as science goes, they are quite unrelated.

 

Bahahahaha right, your telling me, evolution and the big bad bang has nothing to do with each other?

hahahaha alright professor.

 

Nope. Wrong.

How do you believe single cell organisms came to be?

It was how shit was created, how was shit created? Big f**king bang.

Caused some explosion out of nothing, made some universe out of nothing, made the earth out of nothing and ta daa f**king organisms.

Idiots.

 

I know what your referring to, and your talking about JUST EVOLUTION, HOW WE EVOLVED.

I'm talking about what caused organisms. What caused them to pop up.

 

Cosmic evolution. From the big bad bang to human.

 

Started with particulates and then processed into biological/cultural/human.

Edited by Rolled Cambers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're a f*cking moron, I've said it and now you've proven it, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the big bang, so here it is. Timeline of evolution for morons, so even you can understand, Single cell organisms, basic multicellular organism, basic arthropods, complex arthropods, fish, amphibians, reptiles/dinosaurs, monotremes, mammals/marsupials. very basic, and yet there's nothing about the big bang theory there. Next time please don't be a waste of an ovum, don't confuse physics and biology/genetics/evolution. Because as far as science goes, they are quite unrelated. Now if both were related as you say, then the almost all evolutionists would have to believe in the big bang, they don't, in fact member of the church believe in evolution. The big bang theory has more relevance in the conservation of matter and energy. I doubt you'd know what that is...

 

Because as far as science goes, they are quite unrelated.

 

 

How do you believe single cell organisms came to be?

 

NRA??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're a f*cking moron, I've said it and now you've proven it, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the big bang, so here it is. Timeline of evolution for morons, so even you can understand, Single cell organisms, basic multicellular organism, basic arthropods, complex arthropods, fish, amphibians, reptiles/dinosaurs, monotremes, mammals/marsupials. very basic, and yet there's nothing about the big bang theory there. Next time please don't be a waste of an ovum, don't confuse physics and biology/genetics/evolution. Because as far as science goes, they are quite unrelated. Now if both were related as you say, then the almost all evolutionists would have to believe in the big bang, they don't, in fact member of the church believe in evolution. The big bang theory has more relevance in the conservation of matter and energy. I doubt you'd know what that is...

 

Because as far as science goes, they are quite unrelated.

 

Bahahahaha right, your telling me, evolution and the big bad bang has nothing to do with each other?

hahahaha alright professor.

 

Nope. Wrong.

How do you believe single cell organisms came to be?

It was how shit was created, how was shit created? Big f**king bang.

Caused some explosion out of nothing, made some universe out of nothing, made the earth out of nothing and ta daa f**king organisms.

Idiots.

 

I know what your referring to, and your talking about JUST EVOLUTION, HOW WE EVOLVED.

I'm talking about what caused organisms. What caused them to pop up.

 

Cosmic evolution. From the big bad bang to human.

 

Started with particulates and then processed into biological/cultural/human.

 

 

Again you're a f**king moron, as I stated, the universe hasn't evolved, especially if you're using the 'big bad bang' theory, it is just ever expanding, not evolving you f*cktard. Seeing as you're a creationist, how the F*CK would you believe in the big bang theory? considering god created the devil, the universe and all that other bullshit..

 

the theory of evolution came before the big bang theory, so how is it, that if evolution came before the theory of where our universe came, they are related? They're not, sure in order for life to exist we needed a universe, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with the big bang theory itself. Evolution of life, which is clearly what this thread is discussing has nothing to do with the universe itself, you can assume there is a relatiionship, but that's your opinion, and you're a moron, so your opinion is worth jack shit in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a creationist I don't doubt in the big bang theory.

I just don't believe it came out of no where.

 

Yes the world could have been created by an explosion.

Not out of no where, but by God.

Most christians believe in the theory. But not that it came from nothing.

More on that tomorrow.

Gnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eevolution doesnt have all the answers

 

where did humans come from?

 

out of africa evolution or multi region evolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You all know scientology is a huge load of crap.

 

Christianity, Judaism (insert all religions) have just been around longer screwing everyone over.

 

It's a sad and terrifying realisation, but true none the less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cambers, do some reading on the current experiments relating to the creation of the first single cell organisms.

 

Many of the life giving aromatic hydrocarbons, amino acids, nitrogenous bases etc. that are required for life have spontaneously formed under conditions similar to that of the deep sea vents (thought to be where life on earth started).

 

Life on earth would have started from a single ancestral cell, and all organisms evolved from this single cell. This is the only explanation for a universal genetic code.

 

How that cell came to be we will most likely never know, but we can make inferences and hypothesis about it and test these through experimentation.

 

Evolution does not say how life came to be, only that it started with 1 single ancestral cell.

 

Exactly the point I make, we can trace our genetic history accurately, however how life itself came to be is hazy, neither scientists nor religious figures can provide a solid answer, that is up to your imagination.

 

And RC, if you believe in creation, then god couldn't have caused the big bang, why? Simply because creationists lobby that god created all planets and galaxies intentionally, not an explosion leaving planets to form at random, it's one or the other when it comes to the big bang, even though it is still fairly unrelated to evolution, study it, get some evidence to back your claims, think about what you're going to say and only then post your crap up..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so god created everything out of nowhere? hardly a compelling argument you have

 

LOL!! Come on Simbo.

And you think that Something was created out of nothing from.. nothing?

 

I'd rather believe God created the big bang.

 

And Spongeboy, hold onto that.

I'm going to work but when I come back, I'll give you a response back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so god created everything out of nowhere? hardly a compelling argument you have

 

LOL!! Come on Simbo.

And you think that Something was created out of nothing from.. nothing?

 

I'd rather believe God created the big bang.

 

 

An unexplainable big bang from no where is still a million times more believable the some invisble douche bag just decided to do it oneday because he was bored, that is of course if you are not brain washed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RC is a retard. What about 99.999% of the universe which has no life and no concept of evolution. The big bang and evolution are totally different topics.

 

People don't seem to understand that there are concepts totally outside the realm what the human mind can conceive. It's impossible for us to contemplate what existed before the big bang, the edge of the universe and even the true existence of god. There are things we will never know, and maybe due to our humanity, it's meant to be like that.

 

So before people get on their high horse and proclaim everything that is to be known is already known, remember we've barely discovered anything and a lot of these answers may no be answered until 1000 years after we're all dead, or not at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×