Which created everything. And a planet called earth was part of this everything. After a long time, inorganic compounds magically became the first cell. This cell reproduced and reproduced and it add new genetic information - which is imposible - and became more complex. It went against the 2nd law of thermodynamics and went from disorder to order.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

As opposed to: In the beginning there was one randomly existing entity called God that by Himself "magically" created all life in 7 days, contradicting masses of evidence found concerning evolution. After all, since we don't have an explanation for everything (like how the world, people, etc. came to be) there MUST be a god. People have always attributed anything they don't understand to a deity. You'd think we'd have learned and risen above resorting to that by now, but alas, we have not.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

"contradicting masses of evidence found concerning evolution" I'd say this is your fallacy. Can you substantiate this claim?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Are you kidding me? You've never read about how humans evolved from apes and such? If you haven't, look it up yourself. Also... dinosaurs who existed way before humans ever did. I don't really think that fits in with God's six day planning period.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Right. I've heard that. Can you give me some evidence?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

yes. lets see yours.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Hmm, how many times must I say this? Everything has a cause. Everything we see has causation. Leaves, trees, animals, houses, people, cars, everything has been brought into being by something else. Nothing on this earth sprung into being. Nothing. Nothing can bring about its own existence. That's just illogical.  While you're out, are you worried that maybe a horse will spring up in your kitchen and wreak havoc? Of course not! Nothing just randomly appears! The universe hasn't existed forever. Now, this was "proven" scientifically in the 1900's, but if you wish I'll give you a logical approach to this.  Third, some thing, some supernatural force, some transient being capable of flitting through time, some thing unbound by the laws of physics and time, in short, a god, created this world.  God exists, and we know He's of the Bible due to the large amount of prophecies fulfilled. Any questions? Kthxbai.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

yes, questions. i'm not stupid, so don't make me out to be. what i am simply trying to point out is that to someone who does not accept the Bible based on faith, there is no evidence that God exists. Therefore whether someone believes in the explanation posed by science or that proppsed in the Bible, there will always be a degree of faith. asking for evidence is a waste of time, though to be frank, i see far more for evolution and a big bang of some sort.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Did you eh, even read what I wrote? Okay, so I'd just like to see some compelling evidence for evolution. Anything, really. Has trans-species evolution ever been observed? Also, what about the supposed evolution of wings, coming from legs? Wouldn't that become a bad leg before it ever becomes a good wing?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

yes, i've read that you've written the same things over and over. for the (insert large number here)th time, how can you observe something that takes longer that we are alive? besides, in case you haven;t noticed, birds still have feet and can run. only now they can fly too. and therein lies the advantage.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ah, then what evidence is there? Right. But supposedly the wings came from the reptile's legs. Explain how wings came about, then,

by Anonymous 13 years ago

watch jurassic park. a complete work of fiction, but that should at least give you an idea of the anatomy we're talking about here. as for evidence, if you insist that all evidence needed for creation is to be found in the Bible, then i would suggest reading On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man. good day sir.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Oh, so you're unable to provide a response to either of my points? No wonder you're leaving.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

actually, i replied to both. and now, good day.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Not really. Watch a movie doesn't count as an adequate response, nor does read a book.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

funny then that "read the bible" seems to suffice.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's adequate to a question that is answered in it. The only thing Origin of Species answers is how deluded Darwin was.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

not to someone who believes what the book says. you will note, if you please, that i have not claimed the bible or its contents to be deluded. some manner of mutual respect might be nice.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ah, sure thing. Did you know Darwin was a racist? Whatdya mean about your first sentence?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

no, actually darwin was very conscious of the social and religious ramifications of his theories. using darwinism to justify racism was society's perversion of the theory. not only did i know this before, i have taken a university class on the subject. as for my first sentence, what i mean to say is that darwin does not seem deluded if you believe in darwinian evolution.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ah, but he sincerely believed that black people were less evolved. Dude, Darwin himself wrote a book without any evidence at all. None. He himself noted that if the fossil record doesn't explicitly back him up, then more than likely he's wrong. Guess what? The fossil record hasn't even adequately backed his claims. .

by Anonymous 13 years ago

hm, years spent on the beagle exploring the galapagos doesn't count as gathering evidence? also, like i said, darwin was always concerned with how big the ramifications of his discovery would be, so it's only natural that he should be cautious. Look through the hstory of natural philosophy and you'll find that he is no exception there. maybe darwin did have some racist ideas. let's not forget though that ideas now conseidered perfectly acceptable once included aspects that are now preposterous. For instance, the US Constitution laid out a new and improved system of government, but it stated that blacks were 3/5 of a person and only male property owners had the vote. Religious doctrine, which you obviously value very much, held for centuries that the world was flat and in the center of the universe.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

And lastly, we've discovered more fossils since Darwin was around, and there can never be what you would consider a "full" fossil record. when something dies it will decompose far more often that it will fossilize, so there is no rational reason to think we will find evidence of every creature ever to roam the Earth.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Hmm Darwin saw one species become another? Woah! No he didn't. He saw one species stay the same, except a 1/2 of a beak. Like, huh? That means that we came from rocks? Ah, just so you recognize his racism. No. We really haven't discovered ANY irrefutable fossils. Like, what, one questionable transition? Lolno. There should be billions.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

you have quite the penchant for hyperbole don't you? i haven't the foggiest idea where the rocks suddenly came from since your own example pointed out how small individual changes can be. i think i will abandon the fossil argument, as i have done in the past, because i feel i am talking to a wall.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Abiogenesis? How the rocks became soup and then living cells formed? 1/2 an inch of beak proves that, along with the baseless claims that we came from monkeys? Ah, or you simply do not know enough to construct a decent argument.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

i highly doubt that you know how abiogenesis is said to work if you claim rocks became soup. i'd encourage you to read up on the miller-urey experiment. of course finches aren't enough to prove things of that nature anyway. and darwin didn't try. more modern scientists have expanded and extrapolated upon darwin's theories based on new experiments. actually, i am quite capable of constructing a decent argument, but since you always make the same comeback to it, i no longer feel like repeating myself.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ah, the Miller-Urey experiment? Lol. Are you aware that a red slime doesn't constitute life? Also, are You aware that the atmosphere they used isn't even the one scientists today expect existed? They didn't even use the write atmosphere! Ah, so saying "Read origin of species" doesn't count, as it isn't answered. Orly? Well simply presenting any decent argument would be much appreciated.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Sounds more plausible to me. Something had to be there to make the 'nothing' appear. And explode.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That just isn't logical. Honestly, neither theory is any more plausible than the other. I mean, if you can say that "Something" already existed in order to make things happen (an entity- a God) why can't it simply be that the universe was already there or that these things simply happened? Besides, just because you don't know something doesn't mean you should believe fairy tales. Instead of a God there might be the Flying Spaghetti Monster if we follow your reasoning. Do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The reality of our universe can be way to intense for some people. Its actually easier for some people to have a deity than to accept the Universe. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6w2M50_Xdk ^this video explains perfectly.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That was a good video =] And I do understand that it's "easier" it just aggravates me.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

if there was nothing, how did it explode?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

God created it. Nah, just joking, God doesn't exist. I know no intelligence people who believe in his existence.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

intelligent* people :( The sad part is that you got up-voted. Twice.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If you watch Stephen Hawking's recent interview with Larry King regarding his new book that he wrote with Leonard Mlodinow, you'll see that Mlodinow claims according to quantum mechanics, things can pop into existence out of nothingness. That really puts an end to this debate.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Steven Hawking and friends seem to be making a lot of largely unsubstantiated claims recently. Show me something coming into existence with no cause (not just out of nothing, but with absolutely no reason for something to come into existence) and I will believe it. Give me evidence that the universe both contracts and expands and I'll believe it. As far as real facts go, the evidence is still in favor of the big bang.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Who's Steven Hawking? And show you evidence? Evidence is not something you ask for and immediately receive overnight.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Eccept that this "nothing" was actually a something--the Singularity. And there is nothing in the Bible that truly contradicts the Big Bang Theory. The point of Creation is that the world was planned, inspired, and brought about by God. It never says HOW He did it. God made science, so why should it disprove Him?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

* Expanded.

by Anonymous 13 years ago