"Donal" wrote in message
...

"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.

Yes we could, and did. I've considered all of the possibilities and concluded
this is the only one that makes sense.

"Donal" wrote in message
...
Jeff Morris wrote:
Are you actually claiming that God must exist because evolution isn't
possible.
That's pretty lame.

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


And while you might have made an interesting claim that humans couldn't
evolve
in the rather narrow time period they seem to have, you're claiming that the
full age of the Earth is not sufficient. Its pretty clear that there's been
plenty of time. Mammals have had roughly 100,000,000 generations to evolve.
That's a real long time - we've only had a 100 generations since Biblical
times.
And mammals have only been around for the last few percent of the timeline.

I find it odd that some people try to use "science" to prove the existence
of
God.

Why?

Belief in God should be an absolute act of faith.

Incorrect. Many religions demand absolute faith - which is quite
different.


How?


Arguing for the
existence of God on scientific or logical grounds is accepting the
possibility
that someone could simply provide a stronger argument the God doesn't exist.

True. However, if you have Faith, then you know that nobody will be
able to provide a stronger argument.

In other words, while you argue "scientifically" you will not consider the
possibility that you might be wrong. And yet you say that the is not an
absolute act of faith.



If
you want to believe, fine - but don't try to prove that your faith is
justified.

I've been discussing the existence of God, not faith. Why do you think
that I shouldn't argue for the existence of God?

You're not arguing if deby the possibility that you might be proven wrong.
You're simply asserting your faith.


I find it strange that people get so defensive when evidence is put
forward that suggests that God must exist.


I agree, why are you so defensive? Are you trying to prove God's existence as
a way to bolster your faith?

katysails wrote:

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....

Nice fence you've got there Kook!

Cheers

wrote:

On 25 May 2004 11:32:15 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote:


fairy tail. Can't explain the thunder? No problem, it's Thor.

RB

Well... Donal is proof that Darwin wasn't completely correct.

Mutations can exist on a downward spiral, and like the Dodo, Donal is obviously
a failed mutation.

RB


Dodonal?


Good one LOL

Cheers

Bobsprit wrote:

Dodonal?

BB

Specific classification: Dodonalus Minimindess Beneteauess.
Quite common until mostly wiped out by unsafe boats.



Stop it you're killing me!

Bwhahhahahahah

Cheers

Donal wrote:

"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.


Did you like the ideas -do they make sense?


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?


Yes, dark matter too. Maybe even anti-dark matter but I don't know if
that is in any way required by a coherent cosmology.

Cheers

Donal wrote:

"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!


Don't be modest, that's my province!

Cheers

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

Sadly, all evidence points to exactly that. Your problem is the timeline, based
on VERY limited data on evolution.
What you fail to release is that evolution has probably slowed due to a general
geological stabilization over millions of years. It MAY have moved at a faster
rate and all indications are this is exactly what happened.
No big bearded gods need apply.

RB

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

Not all, seeing as my "invention" was a mix of real events and is quite common
otherwise.
"Pain and suffering" may not ultimately disprove the existance of god, but they
do show the level of job he/she's been doing. It's almost as if Bush were
god...!

RB

Donal

You've just completely undone your own argument, Dodonal

I doubt he sees it.

RB