What other options are there? WE either evolved, or we were created!

Donal, there is total proof of evolution simply by the fact that genetic skin
pigment exists according to climate. Biological Adaptation is evolution.

RB

(Bobsprit) wrote in message ...
What other options are there? WE either evolved, or we were created!

Donal, there is total proof of evolution simply by the fact that genetic skin
pigment exists according to climate. Biological Adaptation is evolution.

RB


Bobnospirt,

There had to be creation before evolution.
Simple logic.
Or there would be nothing to evolve.

Joe

There had to be creation before evolution.
Simple logic.

Josie, Simple logic also dictates that someone/thing had to create god. If you
say he was "always here" then I simply reply, so was the universe.
Logic isn't for you, Josephine!

RB

Donal stated:
WE either evolved, or we were created!

Bologna....the Church does not insist on accepting the creation story as
literal, Donal. the "birth" of mankind into setients can be fully explained
by evolution with a belief in the creativity of God having written the
masterplan....
--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
Evolution, if the theory is true, is direct evidence that God exists.

And so goes the scary brainwashing power. If proof counters existence of
god,
then "believers" warp it into some sort of proof to support their faith.

You've already admitted that you used fiction to support your point of view.

You "imagined" an unfortunate 12y/o girl in your attempt to prove that God
sidn't exist.

Can't you see that if you need to resort to invention, your theory must be
very weak?

Regards


Donal
--

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
What other options are there? WE either evolved, or we were created!

Donal, there is total proof of evolution simply by the fact that genetic
skin
pigment exists according to climate. Biological Adaptation is evolution.

Bob,
I don't have a problem with the concept of evolution. In fact, I believe
that we *are* evolving.

Evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive.

My point is that we could NOT have evolved into our current state in the
time available.



Regards


Donal
--

"Navigator" wrote in message
...
Donal

check these out:

http://universe.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/darkenergy.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html


I've read the links. However I don't see how they are at odds with the
concept of my third option.

3) It was created in a single event which resulted in equal amounts of
"matter" and "anti-matter".



Do you think that there is a fourth option?


Regards


Donal
--

(Bobsprit) wrote in message ...
There had to be creation before evolution.
Simple logic.

Josie, Simple logic also dictates that someone/thing had to create god. If you
say he was "always here" then I simply reply, so was the universe.
Logic isn't for you, Josephine!

RB


Boobsie,

The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a
beginning.

Correct?

It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a
cause.

Correct?

The universe therefore requires a cause.

Correct?

Einstein's theory of general relativity shows that time is linked to
matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter
and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole
universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by
the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time. Therefore
He doesn't have a cause.

God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore he has no
beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn't need a cause.

It is self-evident that things that begin have a cause. All science
and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were
denied. The universe cannot be self-caused — nothing can create
itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into
existence, which is a logical absurdity.

Simple Logic Boobsie

And why arent you out in the harbor with a boat load of skimply
dressed alien girls welcoming the fleet?

Joe

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Donal wrote:

The fact that you seem to
think that I will if I 'ask myself the questions' is arrogant.

Correct! I am arrogant.

You are a bit arrogant too, aren't you?

Am I?

A Teensy-weensy bit!




I'm trying to conduct this conversation from a scientific
viewpoint.

You're kidding!

No! Why do you question me?

I don't see how the notion that god created the universe can be arrived at
by scientific means - how that can be an 'inescapable conclusion'. There
is
no presentable, sharable evidence that supports the contention that god
exists, or ever has. Without evidence for god, the argument's busted -
it's
no more scientific than an untested hypothesis.

Rubbish! I proposed three alternatives.

1) God created it.
2) It is endlessly expanding and contracting
3) It was created in a single event which resulted in equal amounts of
"matter" and "anti-matter".

I can prove that two of them are impossible. That leaves the third option
as the only viable answer.

If you have an alternative proposal, then you should put it forward.
Simply stating that I am wrong is the behaviour of an idiot. I know that
you are not stupid, so why don't you offer us some evidence to back up your
position?

Is it compatible with the notion of 'god did it' being an inescapable
conclusion? If we don't have enough information to draw a conclusion other
than 'insufficient data', then how can any other conclusion be
'inescapable'?


Think about "beyond reasonable doubt"????



Regards


Donal
--

Donal wrote:

You are a bit arrogant too, aren't you?
Am I?

A Teensy-weensy bit!

Not at all.


Rubbish! I proposed three alternatives.

1) God created it.
2) It is endlessly expanding and contracting
3) It was created in a single event which resulted in equal amounts of
"matter" and "anti-matter".

I can prove that two of them are impossible.

Please do so.


If you have an alternative proposal, then you should put it forward.
Simply stating that I am wrong is the behaviour of an idiot. I know
that you are not stupid, so why don't you offer us some evidence to
back up your position?

I have already stated (more than once) that I don't think we have enough
data to draw a viable conclusion. If we did have, this sort of thing
wouldn't be the on-going subject of debate that it is.


Is it compatible with the notion of 'god did it' being an inescapable
conclusion? If we don't have enough information to draw a conclusion
other than 'insufficient data', then how can any other conclusion be
'inescapable'?

Think about "beyond reasonable doubt"????

What?!? If the conclusion is 'insufficient data', then *no* other conclusion
can be drawn! If we don't know, then we *don't* know - any attempt to imply
that we do know is little more than fantasy.


--
Wally
www.forthsailing.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk