Creation vs. Evolution

[mase]

I was diving with God the other day and he said, "Look at that fish, I never saw him before." And, I said, "What do you mean, didn't you create all this?" And he said, " Boy, you're one dumb SOB. Haven't you ever heard of Darwin?"

 

[Kim]

I was diving with God the other day and he said, "Look at that fish, I never saw him before." And, I said, "What do you mean, didn't you create all this?" And he said, " Boy, you're one dumb SOB. Haven't you ever heard of Darwin?"

:rofl2:

Be careful.....I see stakes and fire in your future...... (or maybe just men in grey suits....)

 

[mase]

No fear here. The Eastern Religions have a completely different view of the world. Enlightenment.

 

[H2Andy]

A lot of the rest of the references are just restating the same old watchmaker argument with a little more scientifically flowerly and rigorous-sounding arguments. And it looks like this one...

well, at least we're reaching the same conclusions:

by the way, all that "irreducibly complexity" stuff being thrown around is just the old watchmaker's analogy with a new name, and it's just as unscientific. these are just philosophical arguments with a thin veneer of "scientific" language.

 

[H2Andy]

Is it possible that God created life and built evolution into this intelligent design?

unfortunately, that's speculation, not science.

it certainly could be possible (heck, you could throw two particles together and get a grand piano).

but is it testable? is it determinable?

you have to wait til you die to find out. that's not particularly scientific

but i see your point, which is it "could" be that way. yeah... it could be that way.

and i could come up with 1,000 different stories of how it "could" have been which are just as unscientific and untestable.

do i have a problem with you beliving that? NO!!!! i quite respect your right to believe it.

but just dont' call it science, is all

 

[Thalassamania]

I suggest you read what they have said about God and the forming of this country, receiving a PHD is this field would make me more of an expert than you.

If your argument is reduced to, "nah, nah .... I have more degrees that you do" I have some doubt about the quality of your training.

In order to answer those concerns, would it be too much to ask what your PhD is in? What your thesis topic was and where was it published? What other papers have you published? Where is your PhD from? Who was your major professor and who were the members of your examining committee?

Edited to add the quote for clarity

 

[Potapko]

Thank you very much for that Thalassamania, I was about to comment on what exactly scientists mean when they use the word 'Theory' and 'Hypothesis'.

For the benefit of others who have not read Thalassamania's post, scientific 'theory' becomes theory when it is indepedently peer reviewed, observed and replicated by other scientists among other things...

I.E. it becomes 'theory' when it is proven to be true, has possible holes in it picked apart and it otherwise subjected to rigorous examination

It then becomes "law" after thousands and thousands of attempts have failed to show any "known" exception.

That is why this can be proven while staying in the realm of science and not religion.

So please give the evidence against the First "law" of thermodynamics. "Matter cannot be created or destroyed by natural means"

This "law" rules out TO DATE a natural explanation for the origin of the universe. Atheists will have to say that the answer just has not been found YET.

Fine, but don't call that science. A natural origin of the universe is in complete opposition to the first "law". Remember, laws have no known exceptions.

Keep the argument here till we have a conclusion.
If a natural origin is in complete opposition to a known law, the universe must logically have a supernatural origin. It is the only scientifically acceptable answer.

 

[Rick Murchison]

If your argument is reduced to, "nah, nah .... I have more degrees that you do" I have some doubt about the quality of your training.

In order to answer those concerns, would it be too much to ask what your PhD is in? What your thesis topic was and where was it published? What other papers have you published? Where is your PhD from? Who was your major professor and who were the members of your examining committee?

This is cool... I mean, if we're gonna use logical fallacies (I think they've all been used in this thread), lets not fiddle around... Ye're goin' for the gold with this one
Rick

 

[wreckchick]

Uncle Ricky, I actually went to wikipedia and pulled up the list of logical fallacies to see if I could find one that hadn't been used in this thread and couldn't Perhaps we need a side thread to discuss logical fallacies and take examples from here to use.

TheDivingPreacher, matter cannot be created nor destroyed but it can be turned back and forth between matter and energy. There was already a post in this thread that either described it or had a link talking about it. I'm sure lamont will be along to help you out but in the meantime you can probably Google that to get a satisfactory explanation as to why the 1st law of thermodynamics does not invalidate Big Bang Theory.

R

 

[wreckchick]

For those keeping score....

TheDivingPreacher: Argument from Ignorance and Straw Man
Thalissmania: ad Hominem (you should be ashamed of yourself!)

R