Evolution or creation?

by haujobbz 155 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  pomegranate

  Ha! That's a laugh, you hypocrite. You are the one who refuses to look at both sides of the issue dispassionately as I and many others on this board have.

  You have shown no logical evidence of your accepted hypothesis. Just redundant pomegranate this and pomegranate that.

  Your tired arguments about the second law of thermodynamics reveal your ignorance. If your understanding were true, then a whole multitude of things would not be possible, including snow-flakes, crystals, and even fetal development.

  I have shown FACTS all you have done is label my facts as TIRED without proof. Only YOUR TYPED OPINION.

  And you have spoken true, without God, the whole multitude of things would not be possible, including snowflakes, crystals and even fetal developement. Show some logical facts friend. Where are they?

  If you actually understood the second law of thermodynamics, then you would know that it's law of entropy only applies within closed systems. The earth is most certainly not a closed system. We have this neat little thing called the sun providing energy into the system.

  Tell that to Dr. Yu, a man who would surely know where to apply the LAW correctly. After all, he's the doctor.
• 

  expatbrit

  The Law of Cause and Effect - Every effect must have an equal or greater cause.

  My six year old knows the concept of God always being.

  See, when Theists come out with such blatantly contradictory arguments, is it any wonder Atheists shake their heads?

  If something as complex as God could have always existed, then the relatively much simpler physical universe could also have always existed. Theists would have us believe that relatively simple physical mechanisms required a Creator, but that an incredibly complex spirit creature like God didn't require a Creator.

  Something else to keep in mind is that evidence perceived to be contradictory to evolution does not automatically support the existence of God. The reverse is true: evidence perceived to be contradictory to the existence of God does not automatically support evolution.

  The existence of God and the question of evolution are two separate subjects.

  Expatbrit

  Edited by - expatbrit on 10 October 2002 15:10:37
• 

  pomegranate

  Something else to keep in mind is that evidence perceived to be contradictory to evolution does not automatically support the existence of God. The reverse is true: evidence perceived to be contradictory to the existence of God does not automatically support evolution.

  Well that's interesting. A third possibility that even science doesn't know about.

  The existence of God and the question of evolution are two separate subjects.

  Are you for real. I don't think you comprehend the true subject.

  Here it is...

  Are you ready?

  Holding your breath?

  All kinds of tense and anxious and stuff???

  Ok..the subject matter is:

  How the hell did we come to be?

  It's one of two answers...

  Evolution or Creation.

  PS. See thread title.

  Edited by - pomegranate on 10 October 2002 15:19:53
• 

  rem

  Pomegranate,

  Read it again friend. They are the believers who identified and ESTABLISHED THOSE PARTICULAR SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES. Which covers just about all of them.

  I did notice that. And I still say... so? What's your point?

  Even true evolutionists know they do defy the LAWS of simple science, you show your intentionally retained ignorance quite well.

  Cite please.

  Tell that to Dr. Yu, a man who would surely know where to apply the LAW correctly. After all, he's the doctor.

  Wow! Argument from authority... you've certainly convinced me with that one. Again, I can list scores of scientists - physicists (not just surgeons) who know the second law of thermodynamics intimately who would wholeheartedly disagree with Dr. Yu's mistaken notion.

  But then again, that's just another argument form authority (though, those seem to hold some weight with you ). It would be best for you to understand the second law of thermodynamics yourself and then you would also understand why Dr. Yu is wrong. I already gave you the simple answer. Look it up and show me where I'm wrong.

  Perhaps along with doing research on Evolution (and preferably before) you should educate yourself on logical fallacies and how to spot illogical reasoning.

  rem
• 

  rem

  Pomegranate,

  No, you are the one who is mistaken. The question of "How the hell we came to be" is not between Creation and Evolution. It's between Creation and Abiogenesis. Evolution is a fact. Abiogenesis is still a theory in infancy. Creation is not even a scientific theory.

  You've been arguing the wrong thing all this time and you didn't even know it!

  Here is some more information on Abiogenesis:

  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

  rem

  Edited by - rem on 10 October 2002 15:31:13
• 

  expatbrit

  It's one of two answers...

  Evolution or Creation.

  Nope. The third possibility is that both were involved. Which is why evidence for or against one is not automatically for or against the other.

  As for your question:

  How the hell did we come to be?

  the response is:

  How the hell did we come to be what?

  Alive? Human? Internet junkies? Jehovah's Witnesses?

  Perhaps it would be better to narrow the question down with specifics, such as: what is life, and how did life begin? Have humans evolved or were they created humans? Was life created and then evolved, or was it created and then remained static?

  "Evolution or creation?" is too general. And is a different question than "Does God exist?" (Which God, btw?)

  Expatbrit
• 

  pomegranate

  Ha...I can't wait.

  Enjoy yourselves!!
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Divinely directed evolution (therefore no "accidents of nature") is pretty much where I'm falling in on this debate. God set it all in motion and it's still following the map he laid out.
• 

  freeman

  Just as an aside, I think Expatbrit raised an interesting and profound question, he said what is life?

  Good question Expatbrit, but I have another, are viruses considered a life form?

  For you theists I would advise you to use extreme caution when answering this simple question because your little world may get rocked.

  I wonder, am I the only person on the planet that knows that a simple and viable virus was created in a laboratory a few months back? Yes I said created, not cloned created.

  Granted it is the simplest of viruses and Im sure it took considerable expertise to create, but as it was described in the news the virus was created with ordinarily available material.

  The crux of the story seemed to be the possibility of such homemade viruses being used as bio-terror weapons, but scarcely a word was said about how this achievement could affect peoples sensibilities, particularly those that hold strong religious views.

  So again I ask the question; are viruses life? If so, then man just did in a laboratory what only God is supposed to be able to do.

  Just something to think about

  Freeman
• 

  pomegranate

  Viruses are not living things they are infectious agents that survive and multiply by parasitic action and are known trouble makers for humans, animals, plants, fungi, and bacteria.

  Viruses are not considered free-living, since they cannot reproduce outside of a living cell; they have to transmit their genetic information from one cell to another for the purpose of replication.

  They have to infect a living cell, then the cell becomes taken over by the virus.

  So no, your man did not create life, he created a non-living infection, if he even did it at all.