dont confuse apples w/ oranges
im giving beethoven as an example
btw a music piece is a creation not an idea
You ARE persistent aren't you?
I know you're giving Beethoven as an example. I'm saying that your example is fallicious. We are not sounds. We are solid, in case you hadn't checked.
Music is an idea turned into sound, basically.
speaking of fossils
10 million yrs from now There will probably be no humans...
ppl who found windows 7, 8, 10 Not likely.
will say wow there is evolution Okay...
so there must be no bill gates (who is the god of operating systems) Okay...
i humilitated all of u With bad English.
one more time
Ah. I think I know what you're saying...
Examples are all well and good, but there is no proof of God, and there is proof of evolution.
"So," I hear you say. "There is no proof of Bill Gates. Ha. Beat that."
We know the inventor of the computers is human. There is evidence of humanity. There is no evidence of God.
If our complex universe for being in such complexity requires a complex creator as god then that god should also require a much more complex creator too
One would think but that is not the way religion works. "In the beginning..." means just that. There is no preface. There is no before the beginning.
If the big bang is the beginning of space and time then the 'creator' not having a creator does not necessarily violate logic as it could be argued that the 'creator' precedes the big bang and thus time.
This is of course ridiculous but if I were to believe in god, that is the way I would approach it with an eye to physics.
Best to not read too much into it.
ok ur confusing examples with reality
as usual
where did u go to middle school ?
Where I went to middle school is irrelevant.
No. I distiguished quite clearly why your example is also irrelevant.
atm im debugging a software i wrote
im not gonna worry about grammar on a stupid forum
suck it
Bad grammar doesn't give the impression of a well-educated person.
At least you aren't lying.
I saw the post that states the fossil record is complete and shows all of the links needed to prove evolution. This is a curious statement. I wonder if that person has ever truly examined each supposd link and the evidence used to create each supposed link. I have looked at them and they are found wanting at best. To me evolution is a side show, a distraction from true science. Evolution requires faith just as religions do. There is not enough connected facts/evidence to take it as it is given. In the postulation of the idea, faith is required. The second point is in the same vein as evolution " who created God". It doesnt answer the question. You could go on for infintity saying that if there is a God, then who created Him, and who created Him and who...... you see the point. The problem with the argument is that it ignores the fact and depends on circular logic for reason. The reality is that at some point, you have to acknowledge a begining. That is the achilies heel of evolution also. Consider the concept of the big bang theory - where did that first piece of material come from? Did it always exist? Evolution does not answere that. It comes up short again. To me evolution is like a set of opposing mirrors, when you look into them you see what appears to be great depth as the reflection bounces back and forth, but the reality is that it is shallow and has no dept of answeres, it only appears to for those who dont care to look deep enough. Seeing design and supposing that someone created it is logic. Not bad logic, just logic. To see design and say that it proves that nothing created it, is an odd logic. Just saying.
I saw the post that states the fossil record is complete and shows all of the links needed to prove evolution. This is a curious statement. I wonder if that person has ever truly examined each supposd link and the evidence used to create each supposed link. I have looked at them and they are found wanting at best. To me evolution is a side show, a distraction from true science. Evolution requires faith just as religions do. There is not enough connected facts/evidence to take it as it is given. In the postulation of the idea, faith is required. The second point is in the same vein as evolution " who created God". It doesnt answer the question. You could go on for infintity saying that if there is a God, then who created Him, and who created Him and who...... you see the point. The problem with the argument is that it ignores the fact and depends on circular logic for reason. The reality is that at some point, you have to acknowledge a begining. That is the achilies heel of evolution also. Consider the concept of the big bang theory - where did that first piece of material come from? Did it always exist? Evolution does not answere that. It comes up short again. To me evolution is like a set of opposing mirrors, when you look into them you see what appears to be great depth as the reflection bounces back and forth, but the reality is that it is shallow and has no dept of answeres, it only appears to for those who dont care to look deep enough. Seeing design and supposing that someone created it is logic. Not bad logic, just logic. To see design and say that it proves that nothing created it, is an odd logic. Just saying.
Evolutions most certainly does not say anything about the big bang.
This is due to evolution being a theory of BIOLOGY and the big bang being part of a theory in PHYSICS.
If you can even make this confusion and mention big bang withing 10.000 miles of biological evolution, you simply do not have remotely the knowledge required to have a serious opinion about this.
I dont know where you get your "information" from, but the source that told you that big bang is part of evolution is totally wrong and useless. You might as well use Pokemon lol.
speaking of fossils
10 million yrs from now
ppl who found windows 7, 8, 10
will say wow there is evolution
so there must be no bill gates (who is the god of operating systems)
i humilitated all of u
one more time
This is some of the weirdest stuff i have seen on the internet, ever :)
Is Charlie Sheen half mexican ???
Oh ras.... The big bang theory is used to show that there is enough time needed for the process of evolution to exist. As far as my background, I deal with radioactive dating processes. There is a larger theater of thought here that you would be wise to grasp. Many parts fit together.
Understanding the connected tissue that links many parts of this equation together is needed. You need to grasp all parts of the equation to stand on firm logic.
I saw the post that states the fossil record is complete and shows all of the links needed to prove evolution. .... To me evolution is a side show, a distraction from true science. Evolution requires faith just as religions do. There is not enough connected facts/evidence to take it as it is given. ..... Consider the concept of the big bang theory - where did that first piece of material come from? Did it always exist? Evolution does not answere that. It comes up short again.
The fossil record is incomplete however what there is of it is very good evidence for evolution.
Evolution does not require faith. As with all science it requires only evidence. The evidence is there or it isn't. Yes, with genetics many of the links you question are well established.
There are no side shows in science. There is evidence or there isn't. If there is, it is science.
Big bang - Not where did the first piece of material come from. How did All matter in the universe get to that one point? We don't know. Evolution is not meant to answer that. That is a very common misconception.
This is basic stuff. There is a creator and a creation. Just like Chef is to food, Engineers to buildings, Programmers to Application software, Painter is to painting etc etc...
chessterd5 writes - "The closest DNA sequencing has ever came is adaptation of species. This particularly involves LABORITORY INDUCED MUTATIONS of bacteria that usually don't live and cannot reproduce by themselves."
Once again chessterd5 I think you are confusing things. You refer to "bacteria" when you actually seem to be describing viruses. Please stop writing about stuff you really don't understand. You are fueling the other side's contention that we non-Darwinians are a bunch of uniformed fools.
I'm still working on the Blind Watchmaker proposition but my thought for the day for you music lovers comes from Jimmy Buffet -
"Maybe it's all too simple
For the big brains to figure it out"
God is a miracle. People should rejoy that there is a God that loves us. Instead people are angry, they dont want this God. This i will never understand.
Stephanson - I lean toward the argument that the creator(s) we are talking about is/are not composed of of matter, electrons, neutrons, protons and other things with mass that interact with each other using gravitation, electric charge or weak and strong nuclear energy. We are talking about the creation of the material world. Primitive minds thought of this creation as magic and simply think iof that creator as "the Eternal". In modern times we have caught a glimpse of how this was done without magic. The subset of the material universe resulted in a laboratory of the Master Scientist(s). The Masters do not require a creator.
@ilikeme
where did u go to school, a public one?
schools in NZ must be not that good
Your flag knowlege is dreadful. I'm from Australia.