Theory of Evolution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stann
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 93
  • Views Views 7K
The problem with that was that some evolutionists didn't like the idea of a Big Bang because it potentially involved a creator.

Answer this question:
How did the Big Bang come to being?
Well how did the "Creator" become into being?
 
The problem with that was that some evolutionists didn't like the idea of a Big Bang because it potentially involved a creator.

Answer this question:
How did the Big Bang come to being?

so now you are admitting the big bang happened, thus admitting that genesis is bollocks?

there are theories (that do have sufficinet evidence i may add) about what started the big bang, but i am not a physicist, so am not fully aware of them

it is god of the gaps as usual, you cant fathom how something happened so you take the easy way out and attribute it to a diety. Even if there is no explanation at the moment, doesnt mean there never will be

also as someone has already said, how did the creator come into existence?
 
You clearly haven't seen the flagellum and cilia as proof of intelligent design (Creator) haven't you?

I have heard of them. I've read a lot about Irreducible complexity and sadly it's just another case of Arguments out of Ignorance like all of the arguments for Intelligent Design.

The problem with that was that some evolutionists didn't like the idea of a Big Bang because it potentially involved a creator.

Answer this question:
How did the Big Bang come to being?

YouTube - Into The Universe With Stephen Hawking - The Story Of Everything - 1 of 9

You (and everyone else) should give that documentary a watch. Presents the Big Bang Theory very well.

Here's another dilemma/theory I'm going to put across to you.

Take an ant. They are a civilization, they work in teams, help one another, no how to survive. Yet there brain capacity is way too small, to know of our existence or to fathom what we are. So my question is why could it not be that WE to another species, are the ant. Is it not possible for our brain capacity to be so small that we are being percieved in that way, and that there are beings out there "above" us somewhere, who are way too advanced for us to fathom.

Thoughts?

Of course it's possible, but the scale of these potential beings just makes my head hurt thinking about them. Considering how big the known Universe is compared to ourselves.
 
why is everyone asking questions no-one knows the answer to?

**** sake, this is why people who beileve in creationsim gets a bad name.Dont preach to others,, just enjoy your faith.
 
You clearly haven't seen the flagellum and cilia as proof of intelligent design (Creator) haven't you?

instead of just quoting Michael Behe, please explain how they "proove" a creator wont you? im actually intrigued, and i have a pretty good idea what you are going to say
 
why is everyone asking questions no-one knows the answer to?

**** sake, this is why people who beileve in creationsim gets a bad name.Dont preach to others,, just enjoy your faith.

fine I'll stop. Besides, I have to study for Business and History soon. Now I really mean it. To all, you can enjoy not seeing me here anymore -hears cheers everywhere-. Bye for now.
 
instead of just quoting Michael Behe, please explain how they "proove" a creator wont you? im actually intrigued, and i have a pretty good idea what you are going to say

They're supposed to be too complex to be created by evolution.
 
They're supposed to be too complex to be created by evolution.

well yes, thats what i though his argument was. but it doesnt hold any water. evolution allows things to evolve piece by piece over millions of years in small increments. it is not, as im sure he would have argued, randon, or blind chance, it is trial and error, and explains the flagella and cillia perfectly.
 
Too bad you left. Pascal and C.S. Lewis did state that if an atheist were to die, he would have all to lose. He'd either have nothing or be sent to eternal fire in ****. Not that I'm judging anyone.
There are an infinite number of possible gods, both already imagined and too be imaged in the future, and since all are unverifiable, you must give them equal chance to be real. You can believe in only one god or set of diety's. This leaves your odds of picking right 1/∞ , which every math ****** knows is 0.

That's right, you have 0% chance of picking the right religion.
 
well yes, thats what i though his argument was. but it doesnt hold any water. evolution allows things to evolve piece by piece over millions of years in small increments. it is not, as im sure he would have argued, randon, or blind chance, it is trial and error, and explains the flagella and cillia perfectly.

The case with the Flagella and Cillia though is that they are both made up of 30 or so parts and don't function if any of the parts are missing. So the possibility of these all evolving at the same time was as close to impossible as it gets. But anyway, these arguments are old and Science has advanced enough in the time to disprove them and have found various smaller proteins etc that can/could explain how they evolved.
 
Too bad you left. Pascal and C.S. Lewis did state that if an atheist were to die, he would have all to lose. He'd either have nothing or be sent to eternal fire in ****. Not that I'm judging anyone.

not really. why do people assume that the one quality a (benevolent) god values above all others is faith. why not kindness, generosity, empathy or anything. who is to say God wouldnt be proud of atheists for having the courage and inquring mind to question everything. By the logic that lack of faith means you are going to ****, than Ghandi is going to ****.

Plus, what they have to lose by believing is a full life. an atheist has far more freedom in life than a christian, forever forbidden to do the things they want by guilt and fear of God's punishment
 
I have heard of them. I've read a lot about Irreducible complexity and sadly it's just another case of Arguments out of Ignorance like all of the arguments for Intelligent Design.



YouTube - Into The Universe With Stephen Hawking - The Story Of Everything - 1 of 9

You (and everyone else) should give that documentary a watch. Presents the Big Bang Theory very well.



Of course it's possible, but the scale of these potential beings just makes my head hurt thinking about them. Considering how big the known Universe is compared to ourselves.

I've been watching that on channel 4 has it finnished?
 
Nothing is a perfect fit in the world, because nothing is perfect (sorry, Theists, deny it all you want but personally I don't see ANY reason to believe in something that cannot be seen in any shape or form (even the tiniest of molecules can be seen under some form of microscope and are proven to existed) and the fact of the matter is under no microscope or eyesight can God be seen. If you say God is in your head, I suggest your dedicate your life to proving God's existence well and truly by letting a Scientist cut open your head and use modern technology to search for God. It may just be my personal opinion, but I see no reason to believe in something that cannot be seen.
So as I said, nothing is a perfect fit, but the closest theory we have to a perfect fit is Evolution. Athleticism is a good example of this. Athletes get stronger and quicker every generation. Usain Bolt's record WILL be broken in this generation or the next, and so on and so forth. NaturalMotion, a game development and scientific research company used a supercomputer to track the growth of computer designed figures through generations, I believe using mathematical equations related to the theory of evolution. They started off just falling over straight away, without the ability to walk. From generation to generation this came to stumbling and walking like a toddler, still falling over, to being able to walk properly and confidently like we do, to being able to jump long distances and climb/run/walk faster and easier. This is similair to what has happened in real life. Thus, you could already argue there is more evidence pointing towards the theory of evolution than there is pointing to God in that one study carried out.
The fact is that the theory of Evolution is more logical than ANYTHING Theists have put out to defend themselves, and at this stage it is very hard to argue against. Returning to my point about not being able to see God, Evolution has been clearly visible for many years, whereas God has never been.
I'm incredibly ignorant in the subject, I have not been given the chance to do philosophy as an IGCSE so my knowledge goes from watching documentaries and reading books and things like the God Delusion. However, I'm aware that I'm nowhere near as ignorant as most religious people nowadays.
One well known Biologist, who's name I cannot remember, was recently slated quite publicly by Dawkins for saying "all the evidence points towards evolution, but I will carry on believing in God because my religious scripture says I should". Theists, does this not tell you everything you need to know?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top