Belief in a creator is a personal decision based on one's own experience. Their decisions to choose creation over random chance doesn't have to involve any preconceived notions.
Show me the evidence that points to a creator creating everything as is instead of things evolving over time without first having a belief in a creator.
It's really late. I stayed up late to watch if the BP guys would stop the oil, and it didn't really look like they did, but who knows.
Anyways, all it begins with is a rejection of the preconceived notion that the laws of physics and all the stuff came from nothingness as a result of random chance.
Anyways, all it begins with is a rejection of the preconceived notion that the laws of physics and all the stuff came from nothingness as a result of random chance.
First of that's cosmology not evolution. And they aren't saying the laws of physics come from nothingness, it comes from the formation of spacetime which came from an expansion of matter/energy.
Just in case you missed it the first time, discrediting one theory isn't evidence for another. So even if you did disprove evolution you still have to show evidence for creation.
And they aren't saying the laws of physics come from nothingness, it comes from the formation of spacetime which came from an expansion of matter/energy.
How could you blindly accept that? You didn't even catch yourself. Expansion is a law of physics. Even according to your theory, matter/energy had to have a quality about it that it could expand in the first place. The Law of Expansion had to pre-exist matter/energy in order for it to respond. Uh-oh. Now suddenly the magical land of No-Time has time.
I suppose you think that the Law of Expansion appeared randomly too!
The Law of Expansion had to pre-exist matter/energy in order for it to respond. Uh-oh. Now suddenly the magical land of No-Time has time.
I thought your argument was for a magical being? Now you make reference to something being magical in a negative sense, as if something magical discredits it? That's very interesting.
The likely trigger would have been dealing with something in quantum mechanics which does not follow the laws of physics as we know them.
But how ever it happened your statement of it coming from nothingness is incorrect.
Anyway as I said before discrediting one theory does not automatically give credit to another. This has nothing to do with evolution thus does nothing to discredit that theory.
Provide evidence for creation rather then species evolving. Can you do this?
You just said that you thought creationism was formed from preconceived notions. I just gave you an example of how it can be formed without preconceived notions. Rejecting random chance as a start for a meaningless Universe follows through by my rejecting random chances in Life's creation.
Wow, your so mature. You make all these stupid mistakes and try to cover up by putting a huge geeky star trek thing up to intimidate me. It's really stupid of you.
First of all, you were never addressing ME about MY opinion on evidence?
The first time on page 108 was in the midst of the point whether evolutionism could be used or not. You asked it in a general way, "Where is the evidence for creation?" You didn't ask ME for MY opinion. And I answered in a general way about the US Supreme court.
On page 109 you didn't seem to understand the use of the Supreme court example, so I had to explain it. That their conclusions weren't drawn first, but only after they weighed the evidence.
Later you asked "again what evidence" and continued on the Supreme Court talking about THEIR preconceived notions. I answered that THEIR decisions didn't have to involve preconceived notions.
This is when you asked your first question directly to me, and it's about preconceived notions:
Show me the evidence that points to a creator creating everything as is instead of things evolving over time without first having a belief in a creator.
I first had to explain how you could derive a belief in a creator without a preconceived notion. And then I also had to follow you up to show where you were going wrong about the law of expansion. This has to do with the origin of idea called Creator.
Then you changed your question since you had to accept that the notion of Creator could be derived without a preconceived notion, and for the first time phrased it like this:
Provide evidence for creation rather then species evolving. Can you do this?
Notice that you took away the part about preconceived notions cause you lost on that point.
And I answered you.
Rejecting random chance as a start for a meaningless Universe follows through by my rejecting random chances in Life's creation.
If you are an evolutionist you have to believe that life came about through random chance. According to evolutionists the first species had to evolve from non-living materials. So my rejecting random chances in Life's creation rejects the first species evolving. Why would I think that the first species could not evolve, and then believe that life could evolve randomly after that? Kinda stupid of you to miss that conclusion, MGW.
You counted 6 times? I think you mixed me up with your responses toward NoobsforDummies.
God made the laws of Science. God made the Big Bang. It's easy to come up with some solutions; after all where is the evidence against such an idea let alone for it? I like to leave this area of History alone - it's not ours to meddle with. I don't think anyone can truly know the truth. You all state your arguments and counter-arguments but there will always be a problem in even the best.
I think it's best if we leave this Science versus God, Evolution versus Creationism alone. It only causes conflict. Personally, I believe strongly in God but at the same time I an a keen Evolutionist. I am concerned with some of the issues both cause like taking the Bible's take on creationism and Adam & Eve too literally (although if you've played Assassin's Creed 2 you'd know there are other theories ) but also problems and holes with Macro Evolution (trust me, I've done my research).
Anyway, I'm not going into any more details. Please though, don't judge me on what I believe.
Could you creationists please move away from 'goddidit' and start providing some hard evidence. At the very best so far you've been trying to refute the flood of evidence for the Theory of Evolution. Perhaps you could provide some actual evidence in the support of your side of the argument? pretty please?
Could you creationists please move away from 'goddidit' and start providing some hard evidence. At the very best so far you've been trying to refute the flood of evidence for the Theory of Evolution. Perhaps you could provide some actual evidence in the support of your side of the argument? pretty please?
Okay, can you first please present your evidence that evolution exists? Furthermore, I thought this was supposed to be
a NICE, FREINDLY place to talk about their beliefs
My evidence is found throughout this topic - look at the examples that ThisIs and Mage have provided. I see no reason why that evidence can't be mine as well. as for my own contribution to this?
Here ya go - [url=http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Common_descent]
