90_EF_Hatch
Señor Member
hahaha yeah, i know this, but im talking about evolution as disputed in this conversation.
We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms
Such as?
hahaha yeah, i know this, but im talking about evolution as disputed in this conversation.
well shit look around you. Something doesnt come from nothing, this is a fact.
Care to elaborate?
well shit look around you. Something doesnt come from nothing, this is a fact.
You should re-read some of the conversation me and Sabz have already had in this thread. Evolution doesn't explain the origin of things, instead it explains how life on Planet Earth has changed over time. Pitting Intelligent Design against the theory of evolution is like apples and oranges...
some one explain to me what the whole argument between the two is because im obviously lost
Like the Virtual Boy, you're failing right out the door!
hmm im a christian i guess you could say,
but im trying to figure out why God couldnt have made evolution in the first place
That's easy. He's God. Why would he need to create a natural (and slow!) process when he could simply snap his fingers, say a few words and BAM... just like he did with the universe and everything else within it.
Because God lives out side of time, so whether it takes .5 miliseconds or 500 million years, Is irrelevant to him.
I never disputed this. In fact, I think we're both going the same direction.The Unicorn has as much evidence as God.
Mathematics is purely the most simple form of showing how you prove something wrong. You plug in a counter-example and pow! - something is proven wrong.This is not mathematics. Confusing the two is a quick way to misunderstand the subject.
Mathematics is purely the most simple form of showing how you prove something wrong. You plug in a counter-example and pow! - something is proven wrong.
If you are going to say that "this isn't math" - shove it. This applies to all rigorous thought. And please don't bullshit me to win an argument.
Now. Am I saying that any "counter-example" proposed by ID proponents negates evolution? No. They have to be valid examples and questions that fall within the rules and guidelines set. So I dont believe origin questions should be asked of evolution because it doesn't lie within the boundries of evolution. Nor do I believe that any example such as "irreducible complexity" has won the argument, because it is not a valid example.
I agree that most of the debate comes from not understanding the obvious about evolution - but most of it comes from repeated use of false counter-examples such as "irreducible complexity", "man from monkeys", etc. Even after years of these things being well know to be false, people keep preaching this shit and people keep listening.
That is why theories are theories and facts are facts.