Topic: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion

[fattyacid]

i think it is for this reason that they came up with the Big Crunch.

I read somewhere that the universe is still expanding, so where going to the Big Chill or a possible Big Rip.

[docelmo]

"Language is complex. Somebody (was it Webster?) must've sat down one day and decided to design the English Language and its hundreds of thousands of words and idioms.

I mean—it's certainly not possible that language evolved out of the everyday use of sounds and symbols by millions of people over hundreds of generations and thousands of years. Is it?"


“Language and DNA are both complex and specific and were designed/created/developed by man and God respectively!”

Amino acids forms proteins, just like letters in the alphabet forming words and sentences. Without the proper sequential arrangement in both it would be impossible to understand….thus there must be an origin, a cause, a Creator who made this proper sequencing in the DNA or an intellect(person) creating the words and assigning meaning to it  in the first place.

Or else no proteins would be produced, no chemical reactions  would take place. To put it in another way, it would like you getting a monkey in front of your computer  on your behalf to post in this thread….
The monkey may be able to type extremely complex sequence of letters, but will you be able to understand it? I don’t think so!

Remember, “proper sequential arrangement” is key to understanding Language and DNA, without an intellect a force that shall initiate this….No words, sentences, poetry will exist, No nucleotides, proteins, cells, living organisms will Exist!

[Tempter]

Ewan ko naman kung ano ang nakakatawa doon.

Pag relihiyon ang nagsabing bigla na lang nagkaroon, ano ang problema doon?  Relihiyon lang naman yon.  E di huwag mong paniwalaan kung ayaw mo.

Pag science ang nagsabing bigla daw nagkaroon, malaki ang problema doon.  Kailangan kasi nating paniwalaan ang science kahit ano pa ang relihiyon natin o kahit wala tayong relihiyon.  

Ang tanong, "science" nga ba yung sabihin mong bigla na lang nagkaroon, kahit wala ka namang maibigay na patunay doon?

Bakit mo tatawaging science yon kung ang lumalabas ay pananampalataya lang talaga ang batayan sa paniniwalang yon?  

Alin ngayon ang lumalabas na katawa-tawa --- Yung umaamin na pananampalataya lang ang batayan ng paniniwala niya, o yung ayaw umamin na pananampalataya lang din ang batayan ng paniniwala niya?  

Nakakatawa talaga, dahil pag "FAITH" you have to swallow it no matter what, NEVER question faith...  

Science is not all about facts, its also about creating theories based on facts. Theories are not facts, they are there to be proven, and it's part of SCIENCE. Noone is saying that EVOLUTION is a proven fact because how can we say that now when noone ever lived that long to observe. The facts stated are small things that "CAN BE" considered as evidence.

Pano mo sasabihin na EVOLUTION theory is all about faith when there are things that are being done to collect evidence to prove the theory. But this is not sufficient to say that EVOLUTION is not just a theory, it is. Pero sa Creationist POV, meron ba kayong mapapakita na katiting na evidence why you have so much FAITH in your FAITH???  

[Tempter]

"Language is complex. Somebody (was it Webster?) must've sat down one day and decided to design the English Language and its hundreds of thousands of words and idioms.

I mean—it's certainly not possible that language evolved out of the everyday use of sounds and symbols by millions of people over hundreds of generations and thousands of years. Is it?"


“Language and DNA are both complex and specific and were designed/created/developed by man and God respectively!”

Amino acids forms proteins, just like letters in the alphabet forming words and sentences. Without the proper sequential arrangement in both it would be impossible to understand….thus there must be an origin, a cause, a Creator who made this proper sequencing in the DNA or an intellect(person) creating the words and assigning meaning to it  in the first place.

Or else no proteins would be produced, no chemical reactions  would take place. To put it in another way, it would like you getting a monkey in front of your computer  on your behalf to post in this thread….
The monkey may be able to type extremely complex sequence of letters, but will you be able to understand it? I don’t think so!

Remember, “proper sequential arrangement” is key to understanding Language and DNA, without an intellect a force that shall initiate this….No words, sentences, poetry will exist, No nucleotides, proteins, cells, living organisms will Exist!

So let's go back to the question, who created your creator???

What made him so complex???

Who taught him(or her or whatever it is) to learn language??? Because how can it not know language when we know language??? Am I wrong to assume??? 

Can you give me even a small acceptable idea on how your so called creator started??? Again, from nothing??? Then how can you not believe that organisms can evolve to have such complex composition???

[barrister]

Nakakatawa talaga, dahil pag "FAITH" you have to swallow it no matter what, NEVER question faith...  

Bakit nakakatawa?

You don't have to swallow it if you don't want to.  E di huwag kang maniwala.  Pinipilit ba kita?

Pero sa Creationist POV, meron ba kayong mapapakita na katiting na evidence why you have so much FAITH in your FAITH???  

Wala ngang evidence, kaya nga faith.  Kung may evidence, e di hindi na faith yon.

Sa evolutionist --- wala ring evidence, e di faith din.  Kung naniniwala ka sa evolution kahit walang evidence, e ano pala ang tawag mo doon?  

That's the big difference between us --- I admit that I can't prove creation; but you refuse to admit that you can't prove evolution.

Pero kung sa tingin mo ay may evidence sa evolution, why don't you state that evidence and let's discuss it.    

[docelmo]

So let's go back to the question, who created your creator???

What made him so complex???

Who taught him(or her or whatever it is) to learn language??? Because how can it not know language when we know language??? Am I wrong to assume??? 

Can you give me even a small acceptable idea on how your so called creator started??? Again, from nothing??? Then how can you not believe that organisms can evolve to have such complex composition???

You said it.....Creator....not created.


Where did I say that He did not know language?

It's obvious that Language was developed by man, an All-powerful Being will certainly be able to communicate w/ His creation. He did manifest Himself as read in the scriptures. Since you don't accept this, then there's no point trying to convince you.

The Law Thermodynamics has already stated a fact ....that Energy cannot be created or destroy. This Energy has no beginning and no end! as opposed to the Universe which had a beginning and also end as stated by the so-called theory 'Big Crunch". So when the universe is again reduced to its original state of disorder....what will be left?..........ENERGY!


I cannot believe organism "can evolve to form other more organism" simply because there is no factual evidence of this and the all theories being given to explain evolution are just examples of adaption of organism to its environment and not evolution to another more complex specie. And fossil records has not come up with convincing proof either...


Example:
Emergence of drug resistant bacterias, or the E.coli-citrate experiment are just two samples of Adaption of the same specie to its environment and not evolution to a new more complex organism...

It's like this....I cannot make a diagnosis of Pneumonia, when my patient actually show signs and symptoms of Tuberculosis!

[docelmo]

Quote from: alistair

"Good for you!

Now, tell me again, if a Perfect Being designed DNA—don't you think He would've designed it so that every organism is a perfect copy of the previous one?

Why did God allow mutations to exist? Hmm—maybe so that the eventual accumulation of beneficial mutations over millions of years would allow increasing complexity of Life, eventually, until some species achieved sentience and Science and start to question His existence?

Sounds about right."



“Good for us brother!”

DNA is designed to have all the necessary codes to develop into a mature complex living system. It is a digital, self-replicating, complex yet simple, error correcting substance. However, since development occurs within the environment then it is subjected to various extrinsic factors that may affect the developing organism.

Example: exposure to xray, drugs that are teratogenic, or illness occurring during pregnancy…all these have been observed through various research and experimentation.

Does this mean that the DNA Design is flawed…..not at all!

If the Creator’s desire was to create a perfect person with the perfect environment, then we would be like GOD!  there would be no need for adaptation, mutation, evolution. There would also be no need for the wonder of discovery, science, mathematics, philosophy!

Since we are already Perfect…then we would be already aware and have all the knowledge of all the Laws and principles in the entire universe!

If he made us Perfect like Him then He would be breaking His own law!

Cause and Effect!  The cause will always be greatest than the effect!

Sure, He can change the rules because He made them…. but instead He gave something far greater than perfection……

Free Will, Intellect, Mind….to think, analyze, decide and conclude! Precisely what we are making full use of here….

Otherwise, we would all be like “The Borg” or the Robots in I-robot…..which do you prefer?

[docelmo]

Quote from: Alistair
“The Clockwork Universe seems to humming along just fine without the Watchmaker”


"It’s funny, perplexing and it defies logic that you would say that the Universal Clock is working without the watchmaker, the MASTER CLOCK of the universe, which never misses a second—the perfect watch by which we must constantly set all our imperfect man-made watches which includes the Atomic and Optical Clock—and this just HAPPENED! ?

There was no Great Watchmaker? No Master MIND thought out and planned that vast universe, brought it into being, set each star and planet in its own exact place, and started the all heavenly bodies coursing through space, each in its prescribed orbit, in its orderly precision. No, it just fashioned itself, put itself together, wound itself up, and started itself running. There was no Intelligence—no planning—NO CREATION—NO GOD!’

Try to consider this passage:
“For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made..." Romans 1:20

I believe you are all intelligent enough to grasp the implication of this statement....

The Atomic Clock......Created or Evolution?

[alistair]

I believe you are all intelligent enough to grasp the implication of this statement....

Yup. That you come to a rational discussion with a religious argument and agenda.

Look: none of what you've said thus far can be tested or falsified.

I believe immortal, hyper-intelligent, multi-dimensional beings made of pure energy designed DNA and terraformed then seeded the Earth so that eventually, a sentient species will emerge and achieve singularity and figure out how to turn into immortal, energy-based beings.

You can't prove they don't exist.

[leomarley]

The big crunch is being postulated as the universe's ultimate fate.....and NOT its Origin.

the big crunch model is not the considered as the universe's fate. it is viewed as a never ending cycle between the big bang and big crunch.

[bumblebee]

Sir,
The statement is not at all factual and in fact contradicts one the most fundamental law of Science!
The Law of Thermodynamics!
 
The First Law states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed! What does this imply? Energy was already in existence before the universe was formed! So there was Something there before everything and not..Nothing!

TheSecond Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the total entropy in any isolated thermodynamic systems tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value. Which means that everything left to itself will decay or will result in disorder. The discovery of Uranium and other radioactive elements led scientist the believe that  Radioactive elements always break down in a highly systematic, controlled manner.
Which means that at some point in time all radioactive elements came into existence!

Kaya nga po Big Bang ang start ng lahat, including the laws of  physics. If something existed before the Big Bang (multiverses), I'm not sure if we can use the laws of physics to come to that because these laws are tied up with this universe (and if you are near the edge, the same laws wouldn't probably apply). If my understanding is correct, other universes will have a different set of laws.

[leomarley]

Kaya nga po Big Bang ang start ng lahat, including the laws of  physics. If something existed before the Big Bang (multiverses), I'm not sure if we can use the laws of physics to come to that because these laws are tied up with this universe (and if you are near the edge, the same laws wouldn't probably apply). If my understanding is correct, other universes will have a different set of laws.

that's my understanding as well though we'll never really know unless we travel to those parallel universes which is impossible.

[barrister]

the big crunch model is not the considered as the universe's fate. it is viewed as a never ending cycle between the big bang and big crunch.

The Big Crunch scenario is not a never-ending cycle.  You're talking about the Cyclic Model, which is an extension of the Big Crunch scenario.

The Big Crunch scenario theorizes that one possible scenario for the ultimate fate of the universe is that the expansion of the universe will eventually reverse, causing the universe to collapse and become a black hole.  And that's the end of that universe.

If the Big Crunch is extended to theorize an oscillating universe ---- starting with a Big Bang, followed by an expansion, ending with a Big Crunch, followed by another Big Bang, and so on, making an eternal series of oscillations --- then that is the Cyclic Model.

[Tempter]

You said it.....Creator....not created.


Where did I say that He did not know language?

It's obvious that Language was developed by man, an All-powerful Being will certainly be able to communicate w/ His creation. He did manifest Himself as read in the scriptures. Since you don't accept this, then there's no point trying to convince you.

The Law Thermodynamics has already stated a fact ....that Energy cannot be created or destroy. This Energy has no beginning and no end! as opposed to the Universe which had a beginning and also end as stated by the so-called theory 'Big Crunch". So when the universe is again reduced to its original state of disorder....what will be left?..........ENERGY!


I cannot believe organism "can evolve to form other more organism" simply because there is no factual evidence of this and the all theories being given to explain evolution are just examples of adaption of organism to its environment and not evolution to another more complex specie. And fossil records has not come up with convincing proof either...


Example:
Emergence of drug resistant bacterias, or the E.coli-citrate experiment are just two samples of Adaption of the same specie to its environment and not evolution to a new more complex organism...

It's like this....I cannot make a diagnosis of Pneumonia, when my patient actually show signs and symptoms of Tuberculosis!

You did not answer any of my questions... 

Pinapaikot mo lang at pinapaganda sa pamamagitan ng mga nacocopy-paste mo mula sa internet ang mga sinasabi mo... 

[docelmo]

Yup. That you come to a rational discussion with a religious argument and agenda.

Look: none of what you've said thus far can be tested or falsified.

I believe immortal, hyper-intelligent, multi-dimensional beings made of pure energy designed DNA and terraformed then seeded the Earth so that eventually, a sentient species will emerge and achieve singularity and figure out how to turn into immortal, energy-based beings.

You can't prove they don't exist.

No agenda, I was just quoting from one of references, just as you have been quoting from yours...

Let's see...
          "All things that are made has a Creator"

          " If all things were Made"
          "Therefore All things has a Creator"

What have I said so far...

...DNA is a complex, simple, self repeating substance found in All living things.
....Energy is Eternal, not created, already present before the universe existed.(first law)
....All things will approach decay (second law)
.....Language is complex and simple, needs order, sequence and intellect to produce and understand.
.....Universal Clock so precise, that we need an imprecise man-made atomic/optical clock to set to, but could not even come close....and the Universal Clock just happened by itself?

.....All these not tested and falsified? Really? Seriously?

It's Evolution that has not been observed and  confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true to qualify as FACT. And since the so-called "evolutionary changes" occured in the past, it is also Not Falsifiable! Which does not qualify it to be called a theory...

At best Evolution is an Assumption of a highly speculative Hypotheses!


" immortal, hyper-intelligent, multi-dimensional beings made of pure energy"
 
Best description of a CREATOR!!!! Note you said the He Designed the DNA that turned into You!

Therefore you were Created!

Let me give you the rest of that quote from one my reference: The Bible

“For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made...Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And CHANGED the glory of the uncorruptible God into...birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things...Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator”
(Rom. 1:20-23, 25)

[docelmo]

You did not answer any of my questions... 

Pinapaikot mo lang at pinapaganda sa pamamagitan ng mga nacocopy-paste mo mula sa internet ang mga sinasabi mo... 

Sir,

Huh? I can no longer do anything about that....I believe i have given you an answer.

I beg your pardon! If you want a straight forward discussion of your beliefs and mine, don't insinuate something you are not absolutely of. Sure, I copy and paste (who doesn't) but what i type here are the result of what I have read, learned and understood!

[Quitacet]

as a fence-sitter at this time, gusto ko lang itanong sa naniniwala sa creation kung meron ba sa inyo na naniniwala na ang Earth ay at least 3.5 billion years old?

meron kasi akong grupo na nakaringgan na sinundan yung genealogy from genesis hanggang kay Jesus Christ and two thousand years after thus estimating na a few tens of thousands of years lang daw ang mundo.

[alistair]

At best Evolution is an Assumption of a highly speculative Hypotheses!

Evolution isn't an assumption. It's a model that unifies countless observations or facts from yada yada yada.

To say that Evolution is just one person's best guess is to discount all the countless discoveries and observations and experiments about the Earth's age, fossils, genetics, natural selection, etc.

"immortal, hyper-intelligent, multi-dimensional beings made of pure energy"
  
Best description of a CREATOR!!!! Note you said the He Designed the DNA that turned into You!

Therefore you were Created!

Prove it. Prove that you have one God, and that my multi-dimensional Invisible Pink Unicorns don't exist.

You can't. It can't be tested, and it can't be falsified.

That's the difference between faith-based Religion and Science (never mind that dpogs can't distinguish between the two).

The Big Bang Theory can be falsified (even if it can't be proved, yet). All you need to show is a static, non-expanding Universe.

Parts of Game Theory can be falsified (even if, as a whole, it can't be 'proven' in the conventional sense of 'proof'). Just show a case where a finite, 2-player zero-sum game has no Nash equilibrium, for example.

Evolution Theory can be falsified. For example, find a fossil of a modern human from ~4.5 billion years ago when the Earth was formed. Or just demonstrate how a bird can come into existence out of thin air. You know, pull a rabbit out of a hat.

By contrast, you maintain some supernatural cause for the Universe. How can we falsify that?

Let me give you the rest of that quote from one my reference: The Bible

I think I believe in this, today:

"I found no place to stand. I cast a spell with my own heart to lay a foundation in Maat. I made everything . I was alone. I had not yet breathed the god Shu, and I had not yet spit up the goddess Tefnut. I worked alone."

Thus by the use of magic Khepri created land with its foundation in Maat (law, order, and stability). From this foundation many things came into being... After this Khepri created plants and herbs, animals, reptiles and crawling things.

You can't prove Khepri doesn't exist.

[dpogs]

Evolution isn't an assumption. It's a model that unifies countless observations or facts from yada yada yada.

To say that Evolution is just one person's best guess is to discount all the countless discoveries and observations and experiments about the Earth's age, fossils, genetics, natural selection, etc.
Prove it. Prove that you have one God, and that my multi-dimensional Invisible Pink Unicorns don't exist.

You can't. It can't be tested, and it can't be falsified.

That's the difference between faith-based Religion and Science (never mind that dpogs can't distinguish between the two).

The Big Bang Theory can be falsified (even if it can't be proved, yet). All you need to show is a static, non-expanding Universe.

Parts of Game Theory can be falsified (even if, as a whole, it can't be 'proven' in the conventional sense of 'proof'). Just show a case where a finite, 2-player zero-sum game has no Nash equilibrium, for example.

Evolution Theory can be falsified. For example, find a fossil of a modern human from ~4.5 billion years ago when the Earth was formed. Or just demonstrate how a bird can come into existence out of thin air. You know, pull a rabbit out of a hat.

By contrast, you maintain some supernatural cause for the Universe. How can we falsify that?
I think I believe in this, today:

"I found no place to stand. I cast a spell with my own heart to lay a foundation in Maat. I made everything . I was alone. I had not yet breathed the god Shu, and I had not yet spit up the goddess Tefnut. I worked alone."

Thus by the use of magic Khepri created land with its foundation in Maat (law, order, and stability). From this foundation many things came into being... After this Khepri created plants and herbs, animals, reptiles and crawling things.

You can't prove Khepri doesn't exist.

it is all by faith... we cant prove that God really exist (or how life begins on earth maliban sa paniniwala ko sa creation)... now if you can say that evolution is tested and proven... show us your proof... not just observatioin, not just assumption... show us the direct link of simple single celled living organism to complex living organisn... show us the missing link... if you cant show us then... all of those theories about evolution yada ada... are all speculation, guesses, suggestions based on observed data, some measurement etc etc, ... ahh... well... just add time and anything will happen - say billion years and life from non-living will just come out eventually

[barrister]

Let's see...
          "All things that are made has a Creator"

          " If all things were Made"
          "Therefore All things has a Creator"

There's a big problem with this reasoning:

You started with this premise ---- "All things that are made has a Creator"

Your starting point is not an axiom that is accepted by all reasonable persons as true.  Therefore, if the starting premise is not an axiom, then the conclusion will not necessarily be true.

[leomarley]

Common Misconceptions About Evolution and Creationism

Here are a few things that people tend to confuse, both about Evolutionary Theory and Creationism, including definitions, status and implications.

Evolution narrows a student's perspective on life. Students should be exposed to alternatives to Evolution, like Creationism.

This is totally untrue. When in a scientific forum, religious opinion means literally nothing. Evolution isn't "just a theory," it is observed fact. Organisms have been observed to adapt themselves to better survive in their environment. Cockroaches have adapted to certain pesticides, and virii mutate to become resistant to vaccines and antibiotics. This claim is tantamount to saying that students should be taught "alternatives to gravity," or "alternatives to the Theory of Relativity." Evolution is simply how things happen in nature.

How can you say that?! Creationism is another theory that answers the question of how we came into being!

This is a common misconception. Creationism is not a theory as science defines it. It does not fit all the facts, it has not been tested and it cannot be tested, and has no predictive capability. Therefore, it is not a scientific theory. It is an unsupported opinion.

Evolution is a dogma, just like Creationism. Both are based on faith, and those that choose Evolution are defying the written word of God, himself!

Believe it or not, some people actually claim that Evolutionary Theory is faith-based, rather than grounded in science. To shatter this misconception, a general understanding of what a theory, as science defines it, is. A scientific theory is not simply a view on something. A scientific theory comes about when scientists, like Charles Darwin, observe physical phenomena and attempt to explain them. Creationists tend to think of a scientific theory as science's equivalent of the Catholic Church's dogma. It isn't. Rather, a scientific theory is a simple description of what has been observed and an explanation for why it occurs. Theories in science are always subject to change, scrutiny and improvement. Here is the Theory of Evolution and all its postulates:

1. All life forms (species) have developed from other species.
2. All living things are related to one another to varying degrees through common decent (share common ancestors).
3. All life on Earth has a common origin. In other words, that in the distant past, there once existed an original life form and that this life form gave rise to all subsequent life forms.
4. The process by which one species evolves into another involves random heritable genetic mutations (changes), some of which are more likely to spread and persist in a gene pool than others. Mutations that result in a survival advantage for organisms that possess them, are more likely to spread and persist than mutations that do not result in a survival advantage and/or that result in a survival disadvantage.

Ahah! You can't "test" Evolution! It requires millions of years! Evolution isn't testable. It can't be a theory!

No need to "test" Evolution. The test for Evolution is keeping consistent with the Fossil Record, and it does. The consistency is indicated by a trend known as "progressionism." As you dig deeper into fossil beds, fossils tend to get simpler and simpler in form. Also, Evolution doesn't have to take such a long time all the time. Creationists demand hard evidence of macro-Evolution, which is also known as speciation. Macro-Evolution is when a species splits into two species, the old one and the new one. The other type of Evolution, micro-Evolution, is easily observable. Micro-Evolution is any small, adaptive change made by a species that isn't significant enough to create a new species. For example, cockroaches have, over the generations, adapted to certain pesticides and have become more resistant to them. The adaptation to pesticides is an example of a mutation that results in a survival advantage. However, this change in the cockroach is not nearly significant enough to put the cockroach which has adapted into its own species category. If the cockroach grew an extra pair of antennae, enablingÊ it to have a much better sense of its environmental surroundings than its predecessor, this could be enough of a change to qualify as macro-Evolution. Thus, the cockroach with extra antennae would then be classified in its own species.

As an aside, even if we can't directly observe macro-Evolution, the two processes are driven by the same mechanism. Even Creationists admit that micro-Evolution occurs. So, they admit that a species will undergo small, adaptive changes. Wouldn't it follow that, after a significant number of these changes, the new species would be different enough to be considered another, separate species?

Life just couldn't have happened by random chance! They've done computer simulations of the probability, and they're ridiculously low! There must have been an intelligent creator!

Amino acids have been observed to form under conditions like those of Earth many billions of years ago in a lab. When gases contained in Earth's atmosphere back then are stuck in a container and shot with an electrical charge, amino acids form. This is observed fact.

Furthermore, there is no part of Evolution which says, "There is no God." Science does not make theories to answer the theistic question. Science makes theories to explain how the Universe works. It stays within its realm, the physical.

But the amino acids formed in the lab were formed because some scientist stuck the right gases together at the right place at the right time! That proves that intelligent direction is necessary for the acids to form! Evolution flies in the face of probability!

This is untrue. Evolution is completely consistent with probability. The amino acids created in a lab were created when hydrogen, ammonia and nitrogen were charged. This could have easily happened on Earth, billions of years ago, when a lightning bolt struck the proper mixture, and, given a billion or so years to do so, chances are, it would have.

Actually, the theory illustrated above is the Abiogenesis theory (the "primordial soup" theory). It's totally separate from Evolution. Creationists like to lump the two together, all the time, though (and, even mash the Big Bang in there, too). The truth is that, even if Abiogenesis were disproven, Evolution would be totally unaffected.

Evolution can't explain the beauty and perfection of the human body.

Granted, I'm as attracted to good-looking women as the next guy, but your body, biologically-speaking, is hardly "perfect." The immune system could use a lot of work. Our running speed isn't the fastest in the forest. Our natural strength isn't all it could be. Just because you find the human body physically appealing doesn't mean that it's the result of some exquisite craftsmanship from a supernatural creator. It just means that nature is doing its job: making you attracted to a member of the opposite sex so you can potentially procreate. In other words, you're attracted to females because of Evolution.

All the recent research in science brings out more questions that scientists can't answer. This is because God and his works are unfathomable by Man's mere intellect.

Good thing this kind of logic didn't prevail when scientists were trying to understand the workings of the sun. Otherwise, nuclear fusion would have never been discovered because scientists would have just dropped any kind of physical explanation in favor of the classic Catholic saying, "It's a mystery." Just because science can't answer a question now doesn't mean that it will never be able to, and it certainly doesn't mean that religious dogma is the only answer. We couldn't answer the question of what processes the sun used to create its energy at one time. Then, we found out about the atom and subatomic particles. We now have a certain understanding of how these things work, thanks to quantum physics, quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics. Obviously, these things are not "unfathomable."

If scientists can use what they want as evidence, then I should be able to use the Bible as evidence.

Scientists can't use whatever they want for evidence. Evidence gathering is a very strict process, subject to evaluation by peers. Furthermore, the Bible is not evidence in any sense of the word. It is completely unverifiable that God created the Universe out of nothing, because that violates the Law of Conservation of energy, which has never been proven incorrect. Unless creationists can recreate the creation of the Universe to test their opinion, it remains just that: an opinion. Scientists know some of what happened in the early Universe because of the predictions of particle physics theories, as well as measuring the cosmic microwave background radiation. Creationists "know" what happened because they read a book written by oppressive and arrogant Jewish males. See the difference? Where do the writers of the Bible get their information? There's no bibliography in the Bible. There are no independently verifiable sources. The Big Bang and Evolution, as well as ever other theory in science, can be verified independently.

But where did the first bacteria come from? Where did that come from (continue ad infinitum)? There are so many questions raised by evolution that Creationism is so much simpler.

By far, one of the most irritating of Creationist misconceptions. Virtually every question a Creationist will raise (except those prefacing with the word "why," science doesn't answer those questions) has an answer. The first amino acids were created when ammonia, hydrogen and methane were energized by UV rays or lightning. The Earth formed as a result of gravitational attractions among various elements after the first stars went supernova, creating the heavier elements. Why is this irritating? Because people that ask this question never do research. If you have a question about a scientific statement or theory, look it up! Chances are, you'll find an answer. Do some independent learning, and don't hold the scientific community responsible for your own laziness. I could explain how the very nature of the Big Bang and relativity doesn't require a God creator, but why should I? The information is readily available. Just because you can't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/creationism/misconceptions.shtml

[alistair]

it is all by faith...

You really don't get it, do you?

When we say, "The Universe is expanding," that statement is observable fact. No faith required.

When we say, "The Higgs boson is predicted to give particles mass," that statement can be falsified. Now, according to the most recent data that prediction is being proven true. Meaning, it's turning into an observed fact.  No faith required.

When we say, "Life on Earth may have started with abiogenesis," that statement can be tested and falsified, even if it hasn't been conclusively proven to be true. No faith required.

When we say, "Homo sapiens likely evolved from Australopithecus" that statement can be tested and falsified, even if it hasn't been conclusively proven to be true. No faith required.

Any of the following would falsify the overall theory of Evolution:

• If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
• If it could be shown that, although mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
• If it could be shown that, although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of  changes that drive natural selection.
• If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.

On the other hand, "I believe that... the Land Breeze and the Sea Breeze were married, and they had a child which they named Bamboo. One day, when Bamboo was floating against the sea, it struck the feet of the Kite. Shocked, hurt, and angered that anything should strike it, the bird furiously pecked at the bamboo until it split in half. Out of one section came a golden-bronze colored man, named Malakas (Strong One) and from the other half came a similarly hued woman, named Maganda (Beautiful One).

That's where we humans came from."

You can't prove Bathala doesn't exist.

[Tempter]

it is all by faith... we cant prove that God really exist (or how life begins on earth maliban sa paniniwala ko sa creation)... now if you can say that evolution is tested and proven... show us your proof... not just observatioin, not just assumption... show us the direct link of simple single celled living organism to complex living organisn... show us the missing link... if you cant show us then... all of those theories about evolution yada ada... are all speculation, guesses, suggestions based on observed data, some measurement etc etc, ... ahh... well... just add time and anything will happen - say billion years and life from non-living will just come out eventually

Noone is saying that Evolution is a proven fact...

But saying the theory is all by faith, then you must be crazy... 

[barrister]

Noone is saying that EVOLUTION is a proven fact because how can we say that now when noone ever lived that long to observe.

Noone is saying that Evolution is a proven fact...

That's not true.  Evolutionists have long been claiming that evolution is a fact.



Sir leomarley's above-posted article says:

Evolution isn't "just a theory," it is observed fact. ... Evolution is simply how things happen in nature.

Other examples:

Evolution may not be perfect but it is scientific fact. ...

A must-read article.

... Well, evolution is a theory and it is also a fact. ... Evolution has been observed in nature. Evolutionary Theory, explains the mechanisms of evolution (the fact).

But this is where you're mistaken. Evolution is fact—and there is an abundance of proof supporting it.

[alistair]

^

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

"The application of the terms "fact" and "theory" to evolution is comparable to their use in describing gravity. The most obvious fact of gravity is that objects in our everyday experience always fall downwards when not otherwise prevented from doing so. People throughout history have wondered what causes this effect. Many explanations have been proposed over the centuries. Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein developed models of gravity, each of which constitutes a theory of gravity. Newton, for example, realized that the fact of gravity can be extended to the tendency of any two masses to attract one another. The word "gravity", therefore, can be used to refer to the observed facts (i.e., that masses attract one another) and the theory used to explain the facts (the reason why masses attract one another). In this way, gravity is both a theory and a fact."

[Tempter]

That's not true.  Evolutionists have long been claiming that evolution is a fact.



Sir leomarley's above-posted article says:

Other examples:

Yes, so I admit. Maybe that is why I am for both sides hehe!!!

Some things I agree and don't agree on both sides. I believe in Evolution and Creation... 

[leomarley]

Same goes with General Relativity. it is a theory and a fact. it is incomplete but physicists uses Einstein's equations in their computations for large cosmological masses.

[docelmo]

There's a big problem with this reasoning:

You started with this premise ---- "All things that are made has a Creator"

Your starting point is not an axiom that is accepted by all reasonable persons as true.  Therefore, if the starting premise is not an axiom, then the conclusion will not necessarily be true.

Sir,
     Can you give an example of a "thing that is made without a maker" that will make the
     statement not true and therefore invalidate it as an axiom.

[Tempter]

Sir,
     Can you give an example of a "thing that is made without a maker" that will make the
     statement not true and therefore invalidate it as an axiom.

If you think your statement is an axiom, then why can't you answer the question how did the creator cam about??? Or like what has been said, it's pure energy, pure energy that is so intelligent from the moment it "materialize" Or is that word even relevant to it...since it is creator anyhow, how can it materialize when its the one that eventually will create anything that is "CREATED" anyway??? 

NAGULUMIHANAN ako sa mga sinabi ko!!! 

Is it just like "PUFFFFFFF!!! IT BECAME COCO-CRUNCH!!!" 

[leomarley]

No agenda, I was just quoting from one of references, just as you have been quoting from yours...

Let's see...
          "All things that are made has a Creator"

          " If all things were Made"
          "Therefore All things has a Creator"

What have I said so far...

...DNA is a complex, simple, self repeating substance found in All living things.
....Energy is Eternal, not created, already present before the universe existed.(first law)
....All things will approach decay (second law)
.....Language is complex and simple, needs order, sequence and intellect to produce and understand.
.....Universal Clock so precise, that we need an imprecise man-made atomic/optical clock to set to, but could not even come close....and the Universal Clock just happened by itself?

.....All these not tested and falsified? Really? Seriously?

It's Evolution that has not been observed and  confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true to qualify as FACT. And since the so-called "evolutionary changes" occured in the past, it is also Not Falsifiable! Which does not qualify it to be called a theory...

At best Evolution is an Assumption of a highly speculative Hypotheses!


" immortal, hyper-intelligent, multi-dimensional beings made of pure energy"
 
Best description of a CREATOR!!!! Note you said the He Designed the DNA that turned into You!

Therefore you were Created!

Let me give you the rest of that quote from one my reference: The Bible

“For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made...Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And CHANGED the glory of the uncorruptible God into...birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things...Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator”
(Rom. 1:20-23, 25)

sir this is a quote from the article that i posted:

Furthermore, there is no part of Evolution which says, "There is no God." Science does not make theories to answer the theistic question. Science makes theories to explain how the Universe works. It stays within its realm, the physical.