Community > Science & Philosophy

Topic: "Missing link" found
Winx Joined Fri 08/31/07 Posts: 39051	Wed 05/27/09 08:08 PM
I believe that God created everything too. I also believe in science. Inherent contradiction. It's not a contradiction to me. There are Christian scientists, btw. I think what he means is from a logic standpoint If god is a thing that can create and you state that god created everything, then this statement is self defeating unless you can propose a way something can not exist and create itself. If god created everything extant then then that would include himself, if god does not exist then god did not create anything, if god created anything then god exists and did not create everything. Make sense? Thank you for the interpretation. I don't consider it self defeating though. To me, a power greater then us created everything. That includes Ida.

Eljay Joined Tue 05/08/07 Posts: 2426	Wed 05/27/09 10:49 PM
Its rare that a field of science has as much evidence to support the field. Evolution is the unifying theory of biology, and has more evidence to support it then does our current theory of gravity. Evidence? Explain how this is since all of the conclusions of what is observed is subjective. Evidence in science is a repeatable, observable fact. Not psuedo-educated guesses. There is infinitely more proof of gravity than ANY conjecture that "evolution science" presumes. Eljay you are an evolution Denier, Ive spent far too many hours explaining things to you to rehash it now. However my statement is CORRECT. You are wrong. Evolution as a theory has far more testable facets then does gravity as a theory. There is infinitely more proof of gravity than ANY conjecture that "evolution science" presumes. Just to clarify, I believe the original post was discussing a particular theory for explaining gravity, not gravities mere existence. Correct! I'm not an "evolution denier" - I just don't see there being enough "facts" to support the conjectures. From the presumption of dating (a scientific contradiction in and of itself) to the lack of ANY success in the laboratory to substanciate the suppositions. For instance. In the original post - I don't disagree that an extremely old, unique fossel was discovered shedding light on perhaps a "new" - which is just another way of saying previously unknown, as there's nothing "new" about it, but to draw any conclusion as to how it fits in the order of man is what science fiction novels are created on. Where's the "science" in that? We know how evolution works becuase of all the facts and the amazing people in the field that have uncovered so much data (all of which supports the theory). However we have very little understanding of how gravity works, what is space time, why mass warps it . . . Now you're redefining your terms. We have extensive proof of gravity through experimentation - but science is not about the "why's" of anything so what was your original point? We know nothing of "how" evolution works, as there has yet to be a succesful experiment recreating any conjecture that is presumed. What we have are many observances of fossils, and then subjective explinations as to how they may or may not relate. Which - by the way, every one of the fossils that "prove" evolution, also verify and prove creation. It's a matter of world view. Since there is no way to substanciate anything that EITHER side claims - it just boils down to what one is willing to put their faith in. While I cannot disagree with you that the advances in science and technology are mind boggling, I cannot agree that any observances of the scientists of the last 150 years lays any claim to what occured 6,000-10,000 years ago (for those Creationists in the croud) or 4 to 5 billion years old for that matter. There's no way to substanciate it. It's all conjectured extrapolation. It's like looking at an Escher. You can understand what you're looking at - but it is impossible to verify it in reality.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Thu 05/28/09 12:24 PM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Thu 05/28/09 12:30 PM
Eljay, your plain wrong. Its ridiculous how much you think you know and just plain dont. I bumped the threads that will list far more then enough data to prove you wrong. Just look.

Pointy1 Joined Tue 05/26/09 Posts: 34	Thu 05/28/09 12:42 PM
Eljay, your plain wrong. Its ridiculous how much you think you know and just plain dont. I bumped the threads that will list far more then enough data to prove you wrong. Just look. Thanks for bumping all of that info in response to eljay. I can see that this debate has been going on for a while here. It always seems amazing to me that within the scientific community there is relatively little debate surrounding the question as to whether or not evolution occurs. Certainly there is debate within the context of evolution as to how it manifests itself, but I think most scientists agree that this is the best theory to explain the facts. Evolution seems to come into question most from people who do not have an intimiate knowledge of the theory.