Evolution or God????. . . .

[Faultydesign]

the better poll would have been

Darwinian Evolution

or

Intelligent Design

[Funken Monken]

^^ No, as ID is fundamentally flawed as a theory (who designed the designer?) where as there mounting evidence for evolution, and Darwinian theory

[Faultydesign]

It's just that current evidence points to an intelligent designer due to irreducible complexity. Which is that all of of a system had to be there at the same time or else it wouldn't work, not that it evlolved part by part.

I'd question how the Bombadeer Bettle evolved as it mixes two chemicals in perfect ammounts with a delayed firing mechnism. If anyone of those parts are missing you have a dead beatle and dead beatles can't reproduce.

[Funken Monken]

It's just that current evidence points to an intelligent designer due to irreducible complexity. Which is that all of of a system had to be there at the same time or else it wouldn't work, not that it evlolved part by part.

I'd question how the Bombadeer Bettle evolved as it mixes two chemicals in perfect ammounts with a delayed firing mechnism. If anyone of those parts are missing you have a dead beatle and dead beatles can't reproduce.

I'd ask you to point me to the bit of extensive reseach (or current evidence)that 'points to an intelligent designer' however I think you will struggle, other than looking at non-scientific studies in this area. If there was an intelligent designer, who designed the designer? How can you have a body that designs everything...without itself having not been first designed? Paradox! Dont work dude!

And if its systems theory (lets take the works of Bertalffeny) then you are incorrect about need all parts in the first place. Consider entropy etc. Again, its a flawed arguement, however if its a key tenet to your faith that helps you sleep at night, then you go ahead believing in it.

[Faultydesign]

I'd question you to give me concrete evidence that evolution is true.

[Funken Monken]

Oh I wont, and I cant, but I can point you to several works (start with oxford.ac.uk) that would indicate an overwhelming case for evolution being correct, and works in nearly all scientific fields that would corroborate it.

As a scientist, I welcome you to prove me wrong - as thats what science is all about.

[mrdevious]

I'd question you to give me concrete evidence that evolution is true.

even if we can't find even a small piece to prove evolution, that doens't mean squat towards proving creationism.

[flavour]

Believing in god is like beliveing anything.. it is just a belief...
beliefs are fleeting thoughts in fleeting lives..

this does not mean there is not a god... it just means that if you believe in god.. it is nothing else other than a belief... no more powerful, no more helpful, than believeing in Santa Claus, or Gravity or the bible.

Is there a way to KNOW something?

if you are feeling immediate answers pop up to these questions,
or rebutals to others POSTS and statements..
if you are being "reactionary" then this is a clear sign that you are "in your head" or in belief mode... this is the constant state of 99% of the planet...
most people are so "reactionary" that they don't even know it..
The thought in their heads come one right after another .. with no GAP no SPACE..
They are UNCONCIOUS... if you point this out to them, they will wake up for 1 second.. and then quickly go back unconcious and become reactionary.. defending their false IDENTITY...based on their beliefs...

is there any other state...
YES
you can choose to evolve.. choose to be with "god"... you can choose to "BE"...
you can choose to take your awareness out of the mind and BE..

Your eternal self is AWARENESS... humans have pointed their awareness at their mind for so long that they have become confused and think that they are their mind.

It would be as if you were in front of your computer so much that you forgot you were a human.... it is that insane...

If you wish to see or experience a glimpse of what you really are... you will most likely have to sit in a non reactionary state. Stilness...SITTING ...

your mind will never allow you to have this glimpse of BEINIG of GOD..
no amount of praying, or going to church, or doing LSD or smoking weed... NO AmOUNT will allow you to get a glimpse.

You will have to conciously choose to evolve... You will conciously have to choose to evolve and become one with "GOD"... to beome I...

I AM..

Many people have experiences that put them
in a state of BEING...
A state of I AM..
A state of LOVE..
A state of STILL MIND...
A state in which ones awareness is not held captive by the mind.
When this expeience of I AM...LOVE.. FREEDOM... BEING... GOD... (what ever you want to call it) is over... when one once again becomes captive of the mind...

The mind will make up an explanation.. a belief... it often comes in the form of religion and people turn to god and this leads them back to their mind... away from just being.. they go back to beliefs.... belief that preserve their false IDENTITY
I AM JO BLOW, STONER, CHRITIAN, FOOTBALL PLAYER, BLAH bLAH bALJAJKHAKJHz

LOL - look at all the posts above this one.. reactions of the mind... defending a POSITION or attacking anothers position in order to solidify the ones own IDENTITY... andthe foundation of the minds identity is BELIEFS... NO BELIEF is TRUTH... belief are only relative truths....

the truth is... I AM...

LOVE
the opposite of BIRTH is DEATH
LIFE IS TIMELESS
YOU ARE LIFE
LOVE

Ya dont have get all techinal about it m8

[Rarrr]

My personal opinion is the darwinian theory but this isnt 100% proven and never will be (like everything else in this world, nothing is 100% proven because every person has their own perspective and will percieve differently to the next person). This is the same with religion, it's unproven. Each person interprets things in their own way (whether it be with religion or anything else). This is because of their own life experiences which has lead them to belive what they believe now so whos to say either theory is more correct than the other.

Of course we have our own opinion and it's based off things we believe (our self evidence which allows us to believe either of the theories) but to force your opinions on another is unfair because you don't know whether you would've done the same thing having been in their life.

[Pyramidsonmars]

When you assume your only allowed to make an Hypothisis. If you find evidence for these underground chambers, then I'd be more willing to accept theses ideas.

It seems more than reasonable to provide hard evidence for such a claim. This isn't something that is feesable for either side (the evolutionairy, or creationist) of the argument as no one from that time is alive today. Therefore we must also maintain this mindset when looking at both sides. (where is this "missing link" btw? The man-ape) The bible makes some sort of claim to be insight from God, and in this insight it talks about a global-flood. In describing this event, it backs this claim up with as much scientificly rational illustration as to give an accord for its own questions. Asking "where did the water come from", or "where did the water go" are questions more or less already answered elsewhere in the bible (specifically genesis). You say that I would require evidence such as underground chambers, when in reality we all know there is water under the earth; enough to provide wells, rivers, systems, circuits, and bodies. We even now do not have first hand knowlege of what is inside our earth, save what we've found in exploration of minerals.


If a lot of this water was in the atmosphere then Earth would have defenatly been a much much hotter place, for H20 is a Greenhouse gas and would absorb aserious amount of the Energy from the Sun.

You're absolutely right. I would even go further and say that our atmosphere WAS water. This could potentially explain why life was different in Noah's time (living 900+ years, etc) as things such as the sun's radiation, environmental stability, and ecosystem would be closer to that which was God-intended for mankind.

I guess I feel that many of the explanations (not only for this flood but for many other ideas from Creationists) lack qualitative models.

And evolutionists don't? The idea of evolution stems off of some form of scientific truth, we'll say, an absolute scientific truth, and therefore is feesable and (in a sense) accurate as well. Theories such as adaption, even to the point of sub-dividing a species, are probable and even provable. The conflict comes when mankind's "scientific truth" conflicts with what scientific truth I have with God (in my bible), backing it up with a series of arguments that all stem from one small untruth. Evolution's account for man's existence is therefore, to me, unbelievable in both my heart and my mind. That one small point that they missed was not a scientific point at all, but rather a spiritual one. Our carnal nature has turned us away from God, and the light, therefore we must change anything we see that would indicate that light was there.
I liken it to telling some one a story, and at some point during the beginning you leave out a small detail that you don't want that person to know. You continue to tell your story, but since you left that one detail out, you now have to leave out all the aftermath that stemmed from that one detail. Before you know it, you've had to change your story all together to account for leaving this detail out.


All the places on the Web I've found give poor (and twisted for physics and Astronomy) answers. Not To mention I cant find a single puplished scintific paper anywhere.

Yeah, all the "atheist" web pages I looked at tend to attack creationists themselves, more than their work.

I mean where did all this water go? Back into the ground? It would have needed to be under pressure (or needed some other potential energy) in order to work against gravity to reach the surface. Then where would it have gone? back under water? Polar icecaps? There still seems to be many questions to be answered in order for this idea to be taken seriously

I've responded with that exact statement (the last one in your paragraph) to many of those that support the religion of evolution. I would have to say that we do not, in our current state, know all the laws of nature (including physics), therefore we can not say what it would take to move water up or down or whatnot. The iceage is something biblically implied as aftermath of the flood. That would also change the date or our Ice Age from 10,000 years to something more along the lines of 4500BC. (How long have humans been keeping record anyway?)


I doupt this, many cultures from around the world (muiltiple sources) have incorperated a flood story into their cultures. So I don't deny it has happened but I seriously doupt it has happened to the magnitude of what you speak.

You've made it obvious that you have a mind, and i'm glad to see that . The flood IS a legend around the world (along with dragons I might add )

Evolution (of both the cosmos and biology) are very strongly supported by quantitative and obsrevational evidence. Not becuase Scientists want it that way but becuase the evidence points to it. Creationism will never be a solid theory because it depends on "God" who is not directly observable.

The god in a lot of peoples heads is one of a complete human nature. We cannot invent anything without putting a little bit of ourselves into it. The God of the bible claims to be the creator of everything. That is everything. The god in our heads is one that is completely subjective. Everyone's would be a little different if that were the case. If God is an all together real thing, than obviously there is a little bit of him in ourselves. God claims to be the perfect good, and therefore by observation we can see God when we see the good that exists in every person. Likewise we see a carnal nature; one that is sinful, and at a distance from God. This is where we observe the bent-goodness we know as "bad". My claim is that God is the most observed thing, something we are constantly striving for (whether we know it as "God" or simply the "things that please us" is due to our relationship with true goodness, or our bent-goodness due to sin-something that we indulge in but is entirely un-good) Everyone has caught themselves lying to themselves at one point, almost as if one part of them were trying to shut out the other. There is obviously some natural form of schizophrenia inside all of us, a moral truth, and a carnal nature battling it out in that which we know has human morality. This is the closest we get to observing the little piece of God that we have in us as individuals.

Aside from that, we're told that it is abundantly clear through our creation; it's perfection (having even perfected death), the complexity behind it, but most importantly the "purpose" behind everything (as if each part of reality were commanded to fullfill it's task) that is a part of it. The law of light and sound, and the way these things can all ammount to something pleasing (music, color, etc) to the individual, or things such as smell, or gravity, or heat all ammount to some use for humanity. A fish might just as well have no light, or gravity, or law of thermodynamics, but it certainly lends itself in humanity's use (even survival).

btw: " the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago" Did yours happen 5999 years ago? Or did it happen during the 6 days? I don't know too much about the Bible

Given that our outlook on life is completely different from the outside worlds, this is simply as endless a debate as the topic at hand. The idea behind christianity is that we accept that the world has chosen to remain blind to the real truth...a betrayal of that truth, so it is in the christian's hands to find God's truth.