Science Disproves Evolution

Phillipy · Jun 22, 2013

That's another way in which that syllogism was silly

It claimed that the universe DID come from nothing, "5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing."

Phillipy · Jun 22, 2013

I don't see dinosaurs into birds as such a big change, especially since we've discovered in the last decade or so that many dinosaur families were covered in feathers. The only major difference I see is the wings for flight and the pointed beak, one could almost call it micro evolution even, as some dinosaurs even had beak-like bills! And many were small, the smallest adult dinosaur discovered was only 4 inches tall, covered in feathers and probably looked just like our local Indian miner scavenger birds (without the flight or beak).
But I guess the point I should make is that we've found mutant whales with legs, they still have the genes for growing legs but the genes are turned off. Just like birds still have the genes for growing teeth, but are likewise inactivated.
So it's no fairy tale!

Whale ancestors had legs and bird ancestors had teeth

Phillipy · Jun 22, 2013

Shiloah said:

I wouldn't claim knowledge, but I'm personally currently in the group of people that believes God can't do logically impossible things. Many modern theologians define omnipotence as 'the power to do all things that are logically possible' to solve the apparent paradoxes in questions like "can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it".
So if it's absolutely true that something cannot come from nothing (which I don't place absolute confidence in), then that wouldn't be how God made the universe. Perhaps rather than being from nothing, it was made from his energy.

basebool · Jun 22, 2013

Shiloah said:

basebool said:

Are you seriously gonna bring the age thing like a prick? Obviously it make no difference if you think evolution is not science and the bible is, talk about an older idiot. Your not making it look good for you.

What i suggest is YOU do your research snd YOU stop believing in appealing things cause you can't handle other points which are more validated.

Evolution is not just about one factor of the theory, it is the observable transformation of the change in species and this is all backed up with dna and fossil records. Your bible is 2000 years old that was written men who wrote what they thought god would think of. Absolutely nothing to back it up.

Trust me i've heard both sides, i just can't take your side because i'd be dishonest with myself in every way

Grey · Jun 22, 2013

Laserbreath said:

Theres the red flag, when you're not even referring to what evolution is when you try to refer to it. Evolution is biological, it has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, you're thinking of the big bang theory.

Grey · Jun 22, 2013

Shiloah said:

Hardly an erase, we know what we believed at the time, say the dark ages about diseases. We modify our theories to what we know now.

As to the last part I agree, thats why they're scientific theories and not facts! They're likely explanations to natural phenomenon, very few people in the world claim to know things -- or justly claim to know things with absolute certainty.

Grey · Jun 22, 2013

Shiloah said:

I never claimed absolute certainty, listen to what I say. I only see levels of validity in claims based on observable, and provable evidence. I agree! There's plenty of Christians smarter then you and I, and also many smart Christians to view evolution as perfectly valid. And I'm certainly not more logical than everyone here, the only difference between me and you is that I use the scientific method, a method I didn't conceive, and certainly don't use flawlessly. But my main "belief", is that I don't know, I just don't know. Thats why I'm not an anti-theist, and not a straight atheist, rather I'm an agnostic atheist.

Grey · Jun 22, 2013

Shiloah said:

Why do you think I've said not to use macro and micro?? Because 1, its just baggage, and 2, its definition varies extensively even with those who view it as valid! So don't use it in the first place, ergo no "accepting" needed. Not to mention you're not using scientific theories correctly if you see them as "truths".

Phillipy · Jun 22, 2013

I should probably be comfortable with calling myself an agnostic theist - I don't consider myself to have absolute proof of God. That idea seems to make lots of theists uncomfortable, I think faith is sort of about taking belief to absolute certainty for many people. Dunno

basebool · Jun 22, 2013

Phillipy said:

May i ask why u believe then?

Phillipy · Jun 22, 2013

basebool said:

That's a really tricky question, I don't want to appeal to my moving experiences while praying/meditating because they aren't really clear enough to serve as convincing contact with an all-loving being... nor do I want to appeal to being raised to believe it or something.
Give me a while to think about it, maybe even a couple of days.

I take the Genesis creation story as a parable about responsibility, betrayal and forgiveness. I whole heartedly accept the secular scientific model of the universe as well established, then when secular science gets to speculating about multiverses or whatever came before the big bang, I imagine God as that original, eternal multiverse state.
Most creationists object that if I don't take the Genesis creation story literally, Jesus has no purpose in dying. I think my model is much better, where Jesus dies for the forgiveness of sins we actually do, instead of those done by Adam and Eve and passed down genetically. I think this is clear from the obvious innocence of people who find out from genetic testing they are the great great grandchildren of Hitler (to invoke a cliché); I would be against executing such people for Hitler's evils.

Well anyway, that's my position, now I'll spend some time thinking about what evidence has convinced me.
(also I'm not a deist so I should probably try to explain why I find Jesus historically convincing)

megaman125 · Jun 22, 2013

Phillipy said:

What you had was good up until this point. Not sure where you got these ideas from, but it's certainly not the Bible.

The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
Ezekiel 18:20

Edit: Oh, and the part about Adam and Eve being a parable. If they weren't literal people, then Jesus couldn't have been either, since the geneology of Jesus traces back to Adam and Eve. And if Jesus wasn't a real literal person, then he couldn't have really literally died for your sins. Yay for theological problems.

Phillipy · Jun 23, 2013

megaman125 said:

Okay I like that interpretation, I was talking about one interpretation of original sin. It's good that it's not that biblically supported.

I don't take those 'begat's as infallible and complete geneology

I don't think the non-literal existence of Adam and Eve means the non-literal existence of Jesus.

Pahu · Jun 23, 2013

Phillipy said:

Precisely! And since something never comes from nothing by any natural cause, the cause of the universe logically must be supernatural.

Undertaker · Jun 23, 2013

The Evolution of the Human Eye -Dismantled

Sean D. Pitman M.D.
© May. 2001
Updated October 2008

Eye evolution

Pahu · Jun 23, 2013

Phillipy said:

Dinosaurs to Birds?

Some extinct birds, such as Archaeopteryx, shared quite a few features with some theropods. That raises the question of how one can determine whether a creature is a bird that resembles a dinosaur or a dinosaur that resembles a bird. Feathers had long been accepted as a distinctively avian characteristic because they had never been found on any creature, living or extinct, that was not a bird.[SUP][[/SUP]22[SUP]][/SUP] The presence of feathers marked a creature as a bird, but one is now told that this is an invalid criterion and that Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx were dinosaurs despite the fact they possessed feathers.

It is difficult to accept that the long hand-feathers of Caudipteryxevolved within (nonavian) Maniraptora. The strong, grasping hands of maniraptorans were an essential part of their weaponry,[SUP][[/SUP]37[SUP]] [/SUP]but the well-formed feathers attached to Caudipteryx’s middle finger would prevent the hand from being used as a grasping organ. What possible selective advantage could be bestowed on a cursorial predator by the development of hand-feathers that disable the function of one of its primary weapons?

Since the discovery of Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx, two filament-bearing dinosaurs from the Yixian Formation in China (middle Early Cretaceous) have been reported in the formal scientific literature: a quite fragmentary seven-foot-long therizinosaur dubbed Beipiaosaurus inexpectus [SUP] [[/SUP]50[SUP]][/SUP] and an eagle-size dromaeosaurid (mentioned above) dubbed Sinornithosaurus millenii. [SUP] [[/SUP]51[SUP]][/SUP] Theropod advocates suggest that these filaments represent an early stage in the development of feathers and thus link theropods to avian ancestry, but this is pure speculation. As Dr. Olson put it in his recent open letter, “[t]he statement [in Sloan 1999] that ‘hollow, hairlike structures characterize protofeathers’ is nonsense considering that protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct, so that the internal structure of one is even more hypothetical.”

The theropod faithful, undaunted by these issues, claim (in the recent exhibit at National Geographic Society) “there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers” and depict Deinonychus and baby tyrannosaurs as having feathers. Dr. Olson labels the claim “spurious” and says the depictions are “simply imaginary and [have] no place outside of science fiction.”

Too specialized. In all the talk about shared anatomical traits and “sister groups,” it is easy to lose sight of the fact that, even if they were old enough, all known coelurosaurs are too specialized to have been actual ancestors of birds. In other words, they have features believed to have arisen in their lineage after it split from the lineage leading to birds, which features disqualify them as actual ancestors. Thus, after explaining that Compsognathus could not be ancestral to Archaeopteryx because of its date and its specialization, Carroll says, “No other adequately known theropod appears to be an appropriate ancestor.”

Similarities overstated. It is not widely known at the popular level, but many of the key characters seen as uniting birds and theropods are disputed. According to Feduccia, these include:

the nature of the pelvis (Martin 1991; Tarsitano 1991), the homology of the digits (Hinchliffe and Hecht 1984; Hinchliffe 1985; Martin 1991; Tarsitano 1991), the nature of the teeth (Martin, Stewart, and Whetstone 1980); Martin 1991), the hallux (Tarsitano and Hecht, 1980; Martin 1991; Feduccia 1993a), the ascending process of the astragalus (Martin, Stewart, and Whetstone 1980; Martin 1991; also see McGowan 1984, 1985 and reply by Martin and Stewart 1985), the pubis (Martin 1983a, 1983b, 1991; Tarsitano 1991; also see Wellnhofer 1985), and even the supposed unique semilunate carpal thought to be shared by Deinonychus and Archaeopteryx (and modern birds) (Martin 1991; Tarsitano 1991).[SUP][[/SUP]95[SUP]][/SUP]

Since the hypothesized relationship of theropods to birds is based on the similarity of certain features, uncertainty about that similarity casts doubt on the hypothesis. There is obviously more art in the interpretation of these fossils than popular presentations would lead one to believe.

Lung questions. John Ruben, an expert in respiratory physiology, concluded from an examination of Sinosauropteryx “that theropods had the same kind of compartmentalization of lungs, liver, and intestines that you would find in a crocodile”—and not a bird.[SUP][[/SUP]96[SUP]][/SUP] The thoracic cavity and the abdominal cavity of theropods appear to have been completely separated from each other by the diaphragm, whereas birds have no such separation. In living crocodilians, the function of this separation is to provide an airtight seal between the cavities. Air is drawn into the bellows-type lungs by contraction of the diaphragmatic muscles which creates negative pressure in the thoracic cavity.

One reason this is significant is that, as Ruben argues, “a transition from a crocodilian to a bird lung would be impossible, because the transitional animal would have a life-threatening hernia or hole in its diaphragm.” According to Ruben, this means that if there is a relationship between dinosaurs and birds, “it’s not the linear relationship you see in the museum displays.”

Flight question. A corollary of the theropod theory of bird origins is that flight evolved from the ground up (cursorial theory) rather than from the trees down (arboreal theory). There is, however, no plausible explanation for how this could have occurred. The difficulty is so great that Chatterjee, who supports theropod ancestry, suggested recently that some theropods may have been tree climbers.[SUP][[/SUP]104[SUP]][/SUP] If they were, they apparently left no evidence of that ability. According to Fastovsky and Weishampel:

It has been argued that perhaps the earliest birds scaled trees, and from that position learned to fly. There is, however, no evidence for an arboreal proto-bird, no evidence for climbing adaptations, and no evidence in the skeleton of any nonavian theropod for arboreal habits.

The idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs remains at best a highly speculative hypothesis. One suspects its popularity has less to do with the evidence for theropod ancestry than with the Darwinian aversion to ancestral vacuums. When paleontologist Hans-Dieter Sues says, “Only dinosaurs are anatomically suited to be the precursors of birds,”[SUP][[/SUP]118[SUP]][/SUP] he is saying that, when it comes to bird origins, it is dinosaurs or nothing. Since evolutionists are convinced that every taxon arose from some other, “nothing” is not an option. This philosophical predisposition induces them to read lineages into ambiguous data. They compound that error by confusing these interpretive constructs with fact.

One can state the matter no more forcefully than did Storrs Olson in his November 1, 1999 letter to the most prominent scientist at the National Geographic Society. He concluded with the following:

“The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties of their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age – the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. If Sloan’s article is not the crescendo of this fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be taken. But it is certain that when the folly has run its course and has been fully exposed, National Geographic will unfortunately play a prominent but unenviable role in the book that summarizes the whole sorry episode.”

- On the Alleged Dinosaurian Ancestry of Birds -

Pahu · Jun 23, 2013

Phillipy said:

The Overselling of Whale Evolution

This article first appeared in the May/June 1998 issue of Creation Matters, a newsletter published by the Creation Research Society.

Conventional wisdom among evolutionists, at least at the popular level, is that whales descended from Mesonychidae, an early and diverse family of land mammals that were well adapted for running.[SUP][1][/SUP] It is hypothesized that some mesonychid species began feeding on creatures inhabiting shallow waters and that over many generations the selective pressures created by this change of diet transformed one or more of the species into an amphibious archaeocete. The selective pressures of amphibious living in turn generated a variety of archaeocetes and eventually transformed one or more of the species into a fully marine archaeocete. Marine existence then shaped further adaptations to produce the 75 to 77 living species of whales, porpoises, and dolphins.[SUP][2][/SUP]

Some evolutionists believe the fossil record has established this claim beyond a reasonable doubt. One writer went so far as to pronounce that “the evolutionary case is now closed.”[SUP][3][/SUP] The purpose of this article is to suggest that the fossil evidence for the mesonychid-to-whale transition is not persuasive, let alone conclusive.

Mesonychids to Archaeocetes

The first claim in the evolutionists’ scenario is that archaeocetes descended from a mesonychid species. The ancestral status of Mesonychidae was first proposed by Leigh Van Valen in 1966 on the basis of certain dental similarities between the mesonychid Dissacus navajovius (which is Dissacus carnifex of Cope) and some archaeocete specimens. His rather cautious statement of the claim is worth recalling:

“To my knowledge the family of Mesonychidae is one of the relatively few groups of mammals (and even of reptiles) that has not been specifically suggested as ancestral to the whales, but in my opinion the preceding argument establishes them as at least the most likely candidate….Dissacus navajovius is possibly directly ancestral, but little is known of the early history of the mesonychids, especially outside North America.” [SUP] [[/SUP][SUP]4][/SUP]

In a more extensive analysis published three years later, Frederick Szalay suggested that both hapalodectines (which was then considered a mesonychid subfamily) and archaeocetes probably “derived from either early or middle Paleocene mesonychids, species more primitive than known mesonychines”. [SUP] [5][/SUP] In other words, Szalay concluded that both Dissacus and Ankalagon, the only middle Paleocene mesonychids known at that time, were too derived (evolutionarily advanced) to be in the archaeocete lineage.[SUP][6][/SUP] He saw them as "sister groups" of the archaeocetes, not as actual ancestors.

Since publication of the Szalay article, three more genera of middle Paleocene mesonychids have been identified in Asia (Dissacusium, Hukoutherium, Yangtanglestes), but none is known from anything more than fragmentary crania.[SUP][7][/SUP] Information on Hukoutherium, the best known of the three, is limited to a crushed and broken skull with lower jaws.[SUP][8][/SUP] No one has nominated any of these genera for ancestor of the archaeocetes, and thus mesonychids continue to be classified in the more technical literature as a "sister group" to the archaeocetes.[SUP][9][/SUP]

To acknowledge, as Robert Carroll did recently, that “t is not possible to identify a sequence of mesonychids leading directly to whales,” is to understate the problem.[SUP][10][/SUP] It is not even possible to identify a single ancestral species. All known mesonychids are excluded from the actual chain of descent by the evolutionists’ own criteria.

The reason evolutionists are confident that mesonychids gave rise to archaeocetes, despite the inability to identify any species in the actual lineage, is that known mesonychids and archaeocetes have some similarities. These similarities, however, are not sufficient to make the case for ancestry, especially in light of the vast differences. The subjective nature of such comparisons is evident from the fact so many groups of mammals and even reptiles have been suggested as ancestral to whales.

In the case of mesonychids, the relationship to archaeocetes is based on the most general of similarities. As Van Valen acknowledged in the original article proposing mesonychid ancestry:

“[M]any features of the skull of Protocetus [an early archaeocete - AC] are not similar to those of either the Hyaenodontidae or the Mesonychidae (or to any other terrestrial mammal known to me) and probably represent to a considerable extent a reorganization of the skull, the chain of effects resulting from adaptation to hearing, feeding, locomotion, and other functions in an aquatic existence.” [SUP] [11][/SUP]

This point was later echoed by Edwin Colbert: “In general this [archaeocete] skull appears as if it might have been derived from a mesonychid type, but there is little beyond certain general resemblances to support such a relationship.” [SUP][12][/SUP] Others have likewise noted that the cited similarities in skull and dental characters “are not all clear-cut.”[SUP][13][/SUP] One need only compare the reconstructed skull of the late Paleocene Sinonyx jiashanensis to that of an early archaeocete to appreciate these remarks.[SUP][14 ][/SUP]

Amphibious Archaeocete to Fully Marine Archaeocete

The second claim in the evolutionists’ explanation of the origin of whales is that an amphibious archaeocete evolved into a fully marine archaeocete. It is believed that this transformation is documented by a sequence of intermediate forms, what one writer called the “sweetest series of transitional fossils an evolutionist could ever hope to find.”[SUP][15][/SUP] This series, which spans 10-12 million years of the Eocene, includes Pakicetus inachus, Ambulocetus natans, Rodhocetus kasrani, Indocetus ramani, Protocetus atavus, and Basilosaurus isis.[SUP][16][/SUP]

It is important to understand that, in calling these creatures a “series of transitional fossils,” the evolutionist does not mean that they form an actual lineage of ancestors and descendants. On the contrary, they readily acknowledge that these archaeocetes “cannot be strung in procession from ancestor to descendant in a scala naturae.”[SUP][17 ][/SUP] What they mean is that these fossils show a progressive development within Archaeoceti of certain features found in the later, fully marine forms such as Basilosaurus. (The specific features relate mainly to the middle ear and the appendicular skeleton.) This progression of features is believed to correspond to changes that were occurring in the actual basilosaurid lineage.

Whether the early archaeocetes form a series or sequence of intermediate forms depends, of course, on their morphology and their stratigraphic position. The claim is that, for each of these fossils, the degree of evolutionary advancement corresponds to the stratigraphic position. In other words, the older the fossil the less advanced its features; the younger the fossil the more advanced its features. It is this correspondence of form and position (age) that provides the impression of directional transformation through time.

The generally accepted order of the archaeocete species, in terms of both morphological (primitive to advanced) and stratigraphical (lower/older to higher/younger) criteria, is Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Indocetus, Protocetus, and Basilosaurus (see note 16). One problem for this tidy picture is that the stratigraphical relationships of most of these fossils are uncertain.

In the standard scheme, Pakicetus inachus is dated to the late Ypresian, but several experts acknowledge that it may date to the early Lutetian.[SUP][18][/SUP] If the younger date (early Lutetian) is accepted, then Pakicetus is nearly, if not actually, contemporaneous with Rodhocetus, an early Lutetian fossil from another formation in Pakistan.[SUP][19][/SUP] Moreover, the date of Ambulocetus, which was found in the same formation as Pakicetus but 120 meters higher, would have to be adjusted upward the same amount as Pakicetus.[SUP][20][/SUP] This would make Ambulocetus younger than Rodhocetus and possibly younger than Indocetus and even Protocetus.[SUP][21][/SUP]

In the standard scheme, Protocetus is dated to the middle Lutetian, but some experts have dated it in the early Lutetian.[SUP][22][/SUP] If the older date (early Lutetian) is accepted, then Protocetus is contemporaneous with Rodhocetus and Indocetus. In that case, what is believed to have been a fully marine archaeocete was already on the scene at or near the time archaeocetes first appear in the fossil record.[SUP][23][/SUP]

Given the significance evolutionists have attributed to these fossils in their battle with creationists, one cannot help but wonder whether their stratigraphical arrangement in the standard scheme has been influenced by their morphology. One committed to evolution would tend to be less critical of dates that placed these fossils in a morphological sequence and more critical of dates that disrupted that sequence.[SUP][24][/SUP] As the diversity and shifts of expert opinion indicate, stratigraphical correlation is more an art than is commonly appreciated.

Based on the foregoing, it is reasonable to believe, even from within an evolutionist framework, that all the early archaeocetes were essentially contemporaries. Basilosaurus isis, on the other hand, was a gigantic marine archaeocete dating to the early Bartonian.[SUP][25][/SUP] Evolutionists suspect that basilosaurids descended from the earlier Protocetidae (which includes the archaeocetes discussed above), but specialists admit there is a “lack of clear ancestor to descendant relationships.”[SUP][26][/SUP] Indeed, the tremendous size difference between Basilosaurinae and protocetids casts doubt on that hypothesis. All protocetids were less than ten feet long, whereas Basilosaurus cetoides was over 80 feet in length, and Basilosaurus isis was over 50 feet.[SUP][27][/SUP] It has been calculated that, even in a rapidly evolving line, changes in size are usually on the order of only 1-10% per million years.[SUP][28][/SUP]

Lacking a cogent argument that Basilosaurus isis actually descended from protocetids, evolutionists claim it is transitional in the sense that it exhibits features between the earlier protocetids and the later cetaceans. If Protocetus was fully marine, as some experts now believe, it is questionable whether and to what extent the features of Basilosaurus can be characterized as more “advanced.” But more importantly, if Basilosaurus did not descend from protocetids and was not ancestral to cetaceans (see below), what does the presence of intermediate features in Basilosaurus establish? It seems the most one could say is that it indirectly supports the claim of descent with modification by showing a creature similar to the creature hypothesized to be in the actual lineage. Creationists find this too weak to carry the extraordinary claim of cetacean evolution.

Archaeocetes to Modern Cetaceans

The third claim in the evolutionists’ chain of events is that archaeocetes gave rise to modern cetaceans. This is sometimes asserted as a fact, but the relationship between these suborders has long been debated.

There are major differences between the archaeocetes and cetaceans (e.g., body shape, thoracic fin structure, and skull arrangement) which have led many experts to deny that archaeocetes gave rise to odontocetes or mysticetes.[SUP][29][/SUP] As George Gaylord Simpson concluded:

“Thus the Archaeoceti, middle Eocene to early Miocene, are definitely the most primitive of cetaceans, but they can hardly have given rise to the other suborders. The Odontoceti, late Eocene to Recent, are on a higher grade than the Archaeoceti and, on the average, lower than the Mysticeti, middle Oligocene to Recent, but apparently were not derived from the former and did not give rise to the latter.” [SUP] [[/SUP][SUP]30][/SUP]

The point was reiterated two decades later by A. V. Yablokov, who wrote, “It is now obvious to most investigators that the Archaeoceti cannot be regarded as direct ancestral forms of the modern cetaceans.” [SUP] [31][/SUP] This was the consensus opinion until relatively recently.[SUP][32][/SUP]

The current leaders in the field believe that archaeocetes were ancestral to modern whales, but there is no agreement on which family of archaeocetes was involved. In fact, all three families (Protocetidae, Remingtonocetidae, and Basilosauridae) have been proposed.[SUP][33][/SUP] This is particularly revealing when one considers how radically different Remingtonocetidae is from the other archaeocetes.[SUP][34][/SUP]

In addition, no chain of descent from archaeocetes to modern whales has been identified. The phylogenetic relationships among major lineages within the Cetacea continue to be “very poorly understood,” which is why recent phylogenies are dominated by dead ends, broken lines, and question marks.[SUP][35][/SUP] As for Basilosaurus isis, it is generally recognized that Basilosaurinae was an isolated subfamily that had nothing to do with the origin of modern whales.[SUP][36]

[/SUP]http://www.trueorigin.org/whales.asp

didymos · Jun 23, 2013

I'm amased scientists managed to find evolutionary links between dinosaurs and birds - like Archaeopteryx -
but even more amased that they found out what all those creatures were called...

megaman125 · Jun 23, 2013

Phillipy said:

Well, if that works for you, I guess. But that's really just your opinion, and not how the Bible is written, so I'm sticking with that they were actually people.

Pahu said:

Yeah, if someone could be created out of nothing and by nothing, then there is absolutely no logical reason why a 5 ton boulder doesn't spontaneous pop into existence over my head and crush me. And that's why naturalism fails when it comes to the creation of the universe.

basebool · Jun 23, 2013

Phillipy said:

That's a really tricky question, I don't want to appeal to my moving experiences while praying/meditating because they aren't really clear enough to serve as convincing contact with an all-loving being... nor do I want to appeal to being raised to believe it or something.
Give me a while to think about it, maybe even a couple of days.

I take the Genesis creation story as a parable about responsibility, betrayal and forgiveness. I whole heartedly accept the secular scientific model of the universe as well established, then when secular science gets to speculating about multiverses or whatever came before the big bang, I imagine God as that original, eternal multiverse state.
Most creationists object that if I don't take the Genesis creation story literally, Jesus has no purpose in dying. I think my model is much better, where Jesus dies for the forgiveness of sins we actually do, instead of those done by Adam and Eve and passed down genetically. I think this is clear from the obvious innocence of people who find out from genetic testing they are the great great grandchildren of Hitler (to invoke a cliché); I would be against executing such people for Hitler's evils.

Well anyway, that's my position, now I'll spend some time thinking about what evidence has convinced me.
(also I'm not a deist so I should probably try to explain why I find Jesus historically convincing)

See i already like you because you accept the scientific models of the universe not out of faith, but because they're demonstrable. I recently asked on reddit to other christians and i was surprised to hear most christians accept evolution and the ones that don't are purely a loud minority.

I feel like your the only one here who is honest with himself and that i can actually discuss with.

Science Disproves Evolution

Phillipy

Guest

Phillipy

Guest

Phillipy

Guest

basebool

Banned

Grey

Guest

Grey

Guest

Grey

Guest

Grey

Guest

Phillipy

Guest

basebool

Banned

Phillipy

Guest

megaman125

Guest

Phillipy

Guest

Pahu

Senior Member

Undertaker

Banned

Pahu

Senior Member

Pahu

Senior Member

didymos

Guest

megaman125

Guest

basebool

Banned