Enough of Evolution!!

[MorningGlory]

4. Something or Someone outside this dimension of reality exercised a force infinitely greater that the universe at its maximum moment, and brought it into existence! And, of course, if we reject No. 4, it's incumbent upon us to produce a logical alternative......we either have eternal hydrogen atoms - or we have a personal Creator-God.

Your last inference doesn't follow - "Something or Someone outside this dimension of reality" does not necessarily equal a "personal Creator-God".

Well, Lurker, who do YOU believe created everything?

[Believer1997]

4. Something or Someone outside this dimension of reality exercised a force infinitely greater that the universe at its maximum moment, and brought it into existence! And, of course, if we reject No. 4, it's incumbent upon us to produce a logical alternative......we either have eternal hydrogen atoms - or we have a personal Creator-God.

Your last inference doesn't follow - "Something or Someone outside this dimension of reality" does not necessarily equal a "personal Creator-God".

Well, Lurker, who do YOU believe created everything?

Mattel

[MorningGlory]

4. Something or Someone outside this dimension of reality exercised a force infinitely greater that the universe at its maximum moment, and brought it into existence! And, of course, if we reject No. 4, it's incumbent upon us to produce a logical alternative......we either have eternal hydrogen atoms - or we have a personal Creator-God.

Your last inference doesn't follow - "Something or Someone outside this dimension of reality" does not necessarily equal a "personal Creator-God".

Well, Lurker, who do YOU believe created everything?

Mattel

Omigosh! I hope not!

[MorningGlory]

Well, Lurker, who do YOU believe created everything?

A personal Creator-God. I just don't think we can make the evidenciary leap from "something supernatural" to "God of Christianity". That gap needs to be crossed with faith.

Lurker

Well, you're correct. God did create this universe and maybe, who knows?, maybe others. There is no evidenciary leap though; there is no evidence of the creation except what scientists now see as they look back to the 'Big Bang' (which was the Creation). I don't think God hung a sign out when He created everything; the Creation itself tells the story. Only He can bring something from nothing.

[MorningGlory]

Well, you're correct. God did create this universe and maybe, who knows?, maybe others. There is no evidenciary leap though; there is no evidence of the creation except what scientists now see as they look back to the 'Big Bang' (which was the Creation). I don't think God hung a sign out when He created everything; the Creation itself tells the story. Only He can bring something from nothing.

Science has had incredible success tracing back the chain of cause and effect for how the world works, but it is important to recognize that we both see God at the beginning of that chain. . .my chain is just a little longer than yours. There's my weekly quota of magnanimity.

Lurker

[MelodyCat]

Not all science is based on theories formed from experimental testing or trials using scientific methodology.

Darwin did not apply any scientific testing to any of his theories and they should not even been called theories but observations.

Darwin by the way he left College to hitch a ride as rich English Toff on a Sail Boat. All he did was read other peoples books (I believe a geologists book in particular) and observed nature as they stopped here and there. He didn't even properly tag and label his findings. He had to do most of that when he got home (remember he was away for five years). So who knows if his specimens are actually properly identified he wasn't an onthologist or had training in any other arm of biology.

You know this is probably ironic but Darwin was studying to be a minister when he left College to travel the world.

Apparently Darwins only scientific skills is that he was a butterfly collector when he was a boy. A wonderful English pass time of the rich during his day.

Twenty years after he comes home and bored out of his brain as he married a rich woman and never worked a day in his life he thought he would write a book.

Darwin's work was made up of self indulgent non-scientific observations motivated by the fact he had nothing better to do with his life. Before he wrote his book he did write the occassional artice on Philosophy (another past time of the rich in those days). He had been contemplating the non-existence of God for many years at this point. So you have a piece of work that really has nothing to do with science really but is based on a mans life time of thought and poor obervation (many of his dicoveries during his journey had been disproved by actual geologists and onthologists recently). So to sum up his book on Evolution is nothing more than an opinion with No Scientific proof and has not been proven to this day.

Please note natural selection is not Evolution. Evolution itself has no scientific proof to date. Two or three bones does not a species make. Not to mention all of the bones presented to date supporting Evolution have all been disproved. The scientists still in their dillusion continue to teach that Lucy and her other fictious man/animal creatures actually existed. We need more bone evidence before constructing and putting forward a new dinosaur discovery than we do for a supposed ape-man (a partial jaw and fingerbone and there you go we can have an artist draw the creature with great detail).

The anti-God intellectuals sit there and laugh at my niave belief that a supposed non-existant God made the earth in six days and then flooded the earth later and supposedly saved 8 people and a boat load of animals and started again. Well you laugh all you like but I'm not the only one putting my belief into a non-scientifcally proven theory.

At least I accept I can't scientifically prove Creation.

[MorningGlory]

o

The anti-God intellectuals sit there and laugh at my niave belief that a supposed non-existant God made the earth in six days and then flooded the earth later and supposedly saved 8 people and a boat load of animals and started again. Well you laugh all you like but I'm not the only one putting my belief into a non-scientifcally proven theory.

At least I accept I can't scientifically prove Creation.

Amazing; you hit the nail right on the head, MelodyCat. Very well said.

[Anne]

Darwin by the way he left College to hitch a ride as rich English Toff on a Sail Boat. All he did was read other peoples books (I believe a geologists book in particular) and observed nature as they stopped here and there. He didn't even properly tag and label his findings. He had to do most of that when he got home (remember he was away for five years). So who knows if his specimens are actually properly identified he wasn't an onthologist or had training in any other arm of biology.

You know this is probably ironic but Darwin was studying to be a minister when he left College to travel the world.

Apparently Darwins only scientific skills is that he was a butterfly collector when he was a boy. A wonderful English pass time of the rich during his day.

Your account of Darwin's education is atrocious. Let's try again.

"Darwin spent the summer of 1825 as an apprentice doctor, helping his father treat the poor of Shropshire, before going with Erasmus to the University of Edinburgh. He found lectures dull and surgery distressing, so neglected his medical studies. He learned taxidermy from John Edmonstone, a freed black slave. . .

"In Darwin

[MelodyCat]

Science doesn't deal with "proof", it deals with evidence. As of today the theory of evolution has the most evidence going for it and explains the most observations, ergo it is the leading theory in biology.

Lurker

http://www.animalassessment.com/Scientific_Evidence.html

Scientific Evidence

What is it? Why is it important?

What is it?

[MorningGlory]

i've read everything that's been posted, i dare say i'll probably reread after posting this, because i just can't see why we are trying to run circles around each other.

Do you want to discuss the creation of man, the existence of God, or are we just trying to prove we are smarter than the other?

whichever i'm listening and happy to talk

I'm open to discussing any of the above topics though at the moment in this thread I'm just trying to make sure that Christians aren't trying to attack evolution using lies about the life of Charles Darwin.

Lurker

Wouldn't want those mean ol' Christians doing that would you, Lurker?