Almost TM? So your saying that they did NOT actually call it a fact then? It's a theory. peace axeman
Is there a sticker on my body that says "built by god #344,554,234,576? No. "TM: WRONG: You face, your fingerprint, your unique charcater that nobody else has" Non-sequitor. Twins also disprove this. Is there a god factory I can find humans and universes being built it? No. "TM:YES: The female body" Non-sequitor. "Can I ask god if he built me? No. YES: Pray." Non-sequitor. (What if god responded NO? ) Creation must be DETERMINED, and you have completely FAILED to provide even the smallest shred of evidence that god created the universe or ME. "TM:HAVE YOU EVER HELD A BABY???" Non-sequitor. peace axeman
I consider it a fact, You consider it a theory.....I know God is a Fact in my life in ways you don't understand yet,...But the irony is that many scientists DEMAND fact....but then use THEORY to bridge huge gaps.....and then over the years after they use THEORY for so long.......they ACCEPT THEORY as FACT....Like the Big bang theory.......if you actually believe the big bang theory and accept it as fact.....I find it odd you wouldn't believe in God.
"With all due respect changing a wolf into a chihuahua is chump change. Is the dog's digestive system reengineered? No. Is the dog's circulatory and skeletal systems completely redesigned? No. This is little different than the Galapagos finches." I disagree. If you had never seen a chihuahua and I claimed they were selectively bread from wolves, I wager the typical creationist would scream bloody murder and DEMAND far more proof. Look at a bat and a rat. Some bats basically look exactly like rats but with their arms turned into long skinny arms with stretched skin. The wolf and chewy dog seem further apart to me on the surface. The other HUGE thing you seem to constantly ignore is the DNA evidence. Observe the DNA among related species and non-related species. It's really close together, and gets further apart for unrelated species. Evolution explains this DNA match up very well. "And more importantly, creating a chihuahua is anything but random. It is carefully guided by the 100 parallel Cray computers that sit inside our craniums." It was not an example of randomness. It was an example of how FAST things can be changed. There is nothing in evolution which prevents FAST change. Thats the point I made, and it sticks. "The line of reasoning that you took is what evolutionists always take: they give tiny microevolutionary examples and then say imagine what would happen if you strung those all together. Why are we being asked to imagine something? " Are you? If I can change a dog into a chewy dog in a couple of hundred years, I think drastic changes in nature could easily account for such changes through selection and mutation over hundreds of millions of years. I think the best thing to do is go out and study macroevolution in detail. Examine the evidence. Get caught up on the most up to date science available. Many of your questions stem from mere ignorance. Not a put down. I am no master of evolution, but I cant sit here for the next 10 years studying evolution in detail just so I can answer or all your questions I think you should ponder the DNA evidence more. It aligns with evolution very well. Here is a website I found very interesting that talks about creationism and evolution. http://www.lightandmatter.com/evolution/ Here is a snippet: What's the evidence for evolution? Creationists often claim that evolution is not a very important part of biology, but nothing could be further from the truth. You will have a hard time finding a biologist who will disagree with Theodosuis Dobzhansky's statement that "Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution." Evolution is easily observed in the laboratory, for instance when bacteria evolve resistance to a particular antibiotic. The fossil record shows, for example, how birds evolved from dinosaurs. The hypothesis that present-day forms evolved from a common ancestor or ancestors is corroborated by DNA studies, which show that humans have 97% of their DNA in common with chimpanzees -- in terms of DNA, we are even quite similar to mushrooms! If you don't believe there are any transitional fossils, look here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html One more side point... did you NOT see the fossil found several months ago in china of that feathered dino? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2684927.stm peace axeman
There's a HUGE underlying assumption here. Why does creation have to be determined? Here's the problem that I have with what your logic above. To keep this less emotional, let's look at Deism versus your approach that I will label as Secular Humanism. And by Deism, to clarify, I mean the idea that God created the universe, set it into motion adn then let it tick like a clock and just run while He, for the most part, watches with little or no intervention. Now why should anyone believe your Secular Humanist proposal for the origin of the universe through multiple universes, etc. versus a Deistic approach? Why is it easier for you to believe that some sort of impersonal, mechanistic First Cause created this extraordinary universe that we live in? I ask if your belief is based on the hard sciences (astronomy, geology, etc.) or based on the fact that you have a bias against theism, i.e. "I don't like the doctrine of hell. Christians are obnoxious hyypocrits. Noone in the NAS believes in God. I've never had any supernatural experiences, etc." Why do you have any confidence that you are more correct than the typical Deist? I argue that you have absolutely no reason and therefore should discotinue labelling those who believe in God with the "silly fable" label.
TM, You are simply showing that you do not understand what a non-sequitor is. What you are proposing in not an argument at all. It is a mere unsupported opinion. I CANNOT point at a tree and conclude: GOD. I might as well point at a unicorn in a story book and propose that they really exist. I might as well point at myself and claim im god. These are all non-sequitors. A baby is NOT proof of creationism in any way. I am not blowing you off or dodging your questions. I am simply properly labeling them as unsupported opinion. Why can't I point at a baby and claim: ALIEN design ?? Why can't I point at a womans body and claim: ZEUS? Why can't I point to my unique DNA and claim: ELVIN MAGIC?? Because it is completely unsupported. Provide PROOF that a womans body means there is a god. You cannot simply assert it. I won't debate a non-argument with you. peace axeman
EXACTLY.....So you would admit that the BIG BANG theory is a laughable , unprovable concept that , quite frankly has no merit in science and basically any scientist who uses the big bang theory in his argument is intellectually lacking and is just grasping at straws.....think about it? what is the difference between the BIG Bang theory and the idea of a creator, God????