Evolution

[Mehhht]

Do you believe in evolution? Why or why not? I'd like to see a good and logical debate over this.

It's not of the biggest concern to me, so I haven't looked up all the facts, but I accept what scientists say about it. If you can prove them wrong, go for it.

[Gumballer]

I don't know... maybe becaus of the tiny tiny tiny logical reason that it is prooven? A hundred times with DNA research, archological research, the darwin project and 1000s and 1000s of others. So that its almost impossible that the evolution theory isn't right ? ? ?

But: the theory isn't finnished completely we still don't know everything about our evolving. and therefor there can be slightly verry slight adjustments to the theory but the main principels will always stay.

If a species is threatent to be whiped out then the ghene of the species has to change or they'll be whiped out. Every species has a survivor instinct so they'll not just let them get whiped out, they need to adapt to a situation where they weren't in when their species just excisted. Thats when nature helps. They change so they can survive and on a long term the changes from the beginning are so big that new species excist. Its realy not that complicated..

[superiorgamer]

Your overconfidence and assumptions really discredit your debate. If there are thousands lets see the list. Cause I could also just as easily give a list of thousands secular scientists that don't believe in evolution. In addition, just cause you have the capability of saying "that it is prooven" doesn't make you right because we all know that science can't really prove anything. Not one scientific theory or law has stayed true overtime. We can't even properly figure out gravity let alone how we were created billions of years ago when we weren't even there to observe it. The fact is, some aspects of evolution are only logical, however, other aspects give an explanation but have wholes in there theory.

The type of evolution i'll be debating is macro evolution and not micro. Micro evolution is basically small changes overtime. (Like our height is an example of micro evolution) An example of macro evolution is more like the butterfly to the elephant. It is the belief that large changes can occur overtime making one spices an entirely new spices.

Now, there is quite abit of evidence for evolution, however the major problem I see with it are the holes in the theory. Just like we can't really define gravity as “the attraction between mass” because there are exceptions. Anyways, the biggest of wholes that concern me are;
1. The lack of a fossil record for missing links
2. Overall complexity with irreducible complexity.
3. The idea of a "constant struggle for survival" (i'll write on later...)
4. The geological column, (the supposed order in which evolution took place (i'll write on later...)

Addressing the first is the lack of an overall fossil record regarding missing links. We have billions upon billions of fossils from trilobites (supposedly one of the earliest multi cell organisms) to large mamals..ect. One thing we don't see though is millions upon millions of transitional fossils. If all spices on this planet evolved from other species, we should find more transitional fossils than regular spices. Instead, in our present area, the few fossils that are found are paraded around the globe and then thrown in measums because of there rarity. Each one of them are met with fierce debate and many have been disproved such as "the peeking man", "lucy", ..ect. If evolution really did happen, the evidence for it should be beyond comprehension, not a few hundred main icons.

To address this, most modern-day evolutionists believe in neo-Darwinism which, is the belief of rapid changes overtime which would explain the utter lack of a fossil record. However, such a change has never been showed to be genetically possible or observed so its a rather large stretch at best.

Well, i'll address my second issue which is about all I have time for which is irreducible complexity. This supposed hole in the theory of evolution is the belief that certain modern-day organs..ect are simply to complex to have evolved overtime. Such as the eye..ect. To put to put in simpler terms, most ID debaters have used the mouse trap model which consists of 5 parts. If you take one part away, it simply doesn't function. You can't make a mousetrap that consists of only 1 or 2 parts cause it simply wouldn't function. This applys to many of the basic single cell organism parts such as the flagellum, ectoplasm,..ect.

Finally, complexity is an issue I see with evolution. Lets just say I told you I saw a pentium 4 labtop on the beach and that evolution had created it. You would pry laugh your head off at me. But if I told you I found a snail on the beach and that evolution had created it, you might believe me. However, the snail is a machine of complexity beyond reason and the labtop would be rather simple. Why would you believe that such a simple machine couldn't evolve by itself over time where as a snail of far far more complexity could?

Well, thats about all I have time for right now, forgive its sloppyness. I could always right an eassy but I wouldn't want to to bore you by making you read it lol. In additoin, i'm not sure how many phd.s either of us have on the topic so in reality were debating with purley speculation. =P Just giving my thoughts on the issue.

[Gumballer]

Your overconfidence and assumptions really discredit your debate. If there are thousands lets see the list. Cause I could also just as easily give a list of thousands secular scientists that don't believe in evolution. In addition, just cause you have the capability of saying "that it is prooven" doesn't make you right because we all know that science can't really prove anything. Not one scientific theory or law has stayed true overtime. We can't even properly figure out gravity let alone how we were created billions of years ago when we weren't even there to observe it. The fact is, some aspects of evolution are only logical, however, other aspects give an explanation but have wholes in there theory.

The type of evolution i'll be debating is macro evolution and not micro. Micro evolution is basically small changes overtime. (Like our height is an example of micro evolution) An example of macro evolution is more like the butterfly to the elephant. It is the belief that large changes can occur overtime making one spices an entirely new spices.

Now, there is quite abit of evidence for evolution, however the major problem I see with it are the holes in the theory. Just like we can't really define gravity as “the attraction between mass” because there are exceptions. Anyways, the biggest of wholes that concern me are;
1. The lack of a fossil record for missing links
2. Overall complexity with irreducible complexity.
3. The idea of a "constant struggle for survival" (i'll write on later...)
4. The geological column, (the supposed order in which evolution took place (i'll write on later...)

Addressing the first is the lack of an overall fossil record regarding missing links. We have billions upon billions of fossils from trilobites (supposedly one of the earliest multi cell organisms) to large mamals..ect. One thing we don't see though is millions upon millions of transitional fossils. If all spices on this planet evolved from other species, we should find more transitional fossils than regular spices. Instead, in our present area, the few fossils that are found are paraded around the globe and then thrown in measums because of there rarity. Each one of them are met with fierce debate and many have been disproved such as "the peeking man", "lucy", ..ect. If evolution really did happen, the evidence for it should be beyond comprehension, not a few hundred main icons.

To address this, most modern-day evolutionists believe in neo-Darwinism which, is the belief of rapid changes overtime which would explain the utter lack of a fossil record. However, such a change has never been showed to be genetically possible or observed so its a rather large stretch at best.

Well, i'll address my second issue which is about all I have time for which is irreducible complexity. This supposed hole in the theory of evolution is the belief that certain modern-day organs..ect are simply to complex to have evolved overtime. Such as the eye..ect. To put to put in simpler terms, most ID debaters have used the mouse trap model which consists of 5 parts. If you take one part away, it simply doesn't function. You can't make a mousetrap that consists of only 1 or 2 parts cause it simply wouldn't function. This applys to many of the basic single cell organism parts such as the flagellum, ectoplasm,..ect.

Finally, complexity is an issue I see with evolution. Lets just say I told you I saw a pentium 4 labtop on the beach and that evolution had created it. You would pry laugh your head off at me. But if I told you I found a snail on the beach and that evolution had created it, you might believe me. However, the snail is a machine of complexity beyond reason and the labtop would be rather simple. Why would you believe that such a simple machine couldn't evolve by itself over time where as a snail of far far more complexity could?

Well, thats about all I have time for right now, forgive its sloppyness. I could always right an eassy but I wouldn't want to to bore you by making you read it lol. In additoin, i'm not sure how many phd.s either of us have on the topic so in reality were debating with purley speculation. =P Just giving my thoughts on the issue.[/b]

I'm not overconvidenced. I'm convinced of my own ideas if I'm not then I wouldn't post here.
I hope you do realise that 1000s of scientists are nothing compared if you consider that there are 100000s.

Btw, I'm sorry if I came over wrong in my first post or something. I was telling my opinion, not that it can't be elseways.

"we all know that science can't realy proove anything" stop using that "arguement" it doesn't belong in this discussion. Becaus nothing can be prooved on any surface anywhere not only in science, its impossible. You can only bring something so close to the truth that there's a chance of 1 / a billion that its not true. Didn't science prooved the earth was a sphere ? Realy, science prooved a million of things.

I really have no single idea of what you mean with "lack of fossils record" how can you say such a thing? Aren't billions of extincted species found in rocks not enough to proove only 1 theory ???
There are some species that aren't capable of being preserved in a fossil-form. They just fade away. Its only logical that different species fade away depending on their species.

complexity? I thought you were the one that life is so complex ?
and then you say that the reason of existance is to complex for it ? Isn't that verry contradicting.

why is the eye to complex to be evolved ? I've heard that arguement for a 100 times and it still doesn't make sence to me.

Becaus a snail has DNA and has the instinct to survive while a laptop isn't an organism and is just random matter ?

please, don't write an essay xD its a shame of your time.

[Mehhht]

I'm not overconvidenced. I'm convinced of my own ideas if I'm not then I wouldn't post here.
I hope you do realise that 1000s of scientists are nothing compared if you consider that there are 100000s.

Btw, I'm sorry if I came over wrong in my first post or something. I was telling my opinion, not that it can't be elseways.

"we all know that science can't realy proove anything" stop using that "arguement" it doesn't belong in this discussion. Becaus nothing can be prooved on any surface anywhere not only in science, its impossible. You can only bring something so close to the truth that there's a chance of 1 / a billion that its not true. Didn't science prooved the earth was a sphere ? Realy, science prooved a million of things.

I really have no single idea of what you mean with "lack of fossils record" how can you say such a thing? Aren't billions of extincted species found in rocks not enough to proove only 1 theory ???
There are some species that aren't capable of being preserved in a fossil-form. They just fade away. Its only logical that different species fade away depending on their species.

complexity? I thought you were the one that life is so complex ?
and then you say that the reason of existance is to complex for it ? Isn't that verry contradicting.

why is the eye to complex to be evolved ? I've heard that arguement for a 100 times and it still doesn't make sence to me.

Becaus a snail has DNA and has the instinct to survive while a laptop isn't an organism and is just random matter ?

please, don't write an essay xD its a shame of your time.[/b]

So far, all you have done is argue that scientists are always right. Just because 1000s of people believe something doesn't mean it's true... that would be like me saying, "well millions of people believe in God, so He must be real."

And second, he never started the "science can't prove anything" argument. He is trying to use science to "prove" something else.

I'm just trying to have a fair debate here. Please don't say things like "It doesn't make sense to me" (and imply that it's wrong).

I'm really trying not to be on anyones side, but just trying to point out the flaws in logic.

I do agree with Gumballer on the snail/laptop part, they can't really be compared.

But, SG's complexity argument has been debated by scientists, and scientists claim that it is due to a very slow, gradual increase in complexity. But then the fossil records go against this claim.

[Gumballer]

So far, all you have done is argue that scientists are always right. Just because 1000s of people believe something doesn't mean it's true... that would be like me saying, "well millions of people believe in God, so He must be real."

And second, he never started the "science can't prove anything" argument. He is trying to use science to "prove" something else.

I'm just trying to have a fair debate here. Please don't say things like "It doesn't make sense to me" (and imply that it's wrong).

I'm really trying not to be on anyones side, but just trying to point out the flaws in logic.

I do agree with Gumballer on the snail/laptop part, they can't really be compared.

But, SG's complexity argument has been debated by scientists, and scientists claim that it is due to a very slow, gradual increase in complexity. But then the fossil records go against this claim.[/b]

Ofcource the number doesn't matter xD else I would be the most katholic guy on earth xD no it doesn't matter but I just said that to show him that it doesn't matter that there're 1000s of scientists who don't believe in the evolution theory while there are also 100000s who do believe in it which makes the numbers irrelivant.

No, not realy, he's saying that whatever standpoint science makes that they can't proove anything. Which makes that he is using that point which is completely irrelivant becaus it wont change anything to this case.

I never said that it was wrong I just said that it doesn't make sence to me that an eyeball is to complicated to evolve. Its not my fault that some things don't make sence to me xD

I think I explained the fossils? Please say if I didn't..

[Mehhht]

Well the fossils, it's not that they haven't found ANY, but they have found a much smaller amount than they should in accordance with the theory.

[Gumballer]

they've found 1000s of the same species but there're other kinds of species that they didn't find becaus those species can't be preserved as a fossil...

[oranges]

ive got famous with my fossil
icthysaur ;)


btw anyone heard of the scientists in switzerland that created the giant chamber and are going to fling together 2 atoms at very high speeds to see what happens?
they think this what sparked off the big bang.

[Gumballer]

it depends. If it are 2 normal atoms, nothing will happen if its a normal attom with its oposite the anti-matter then there will be an explosion bigger then 50 kg of TNT.

[Roar]

it depends. If it are 2 normal atoms, nothing will happen if its a normal attom with its oposite the anti-matter then there will be an explosion bigger then 50 kg of TNT.[/b]

bring the marshmallows!

[oranges]

i cant remember the details. but there doing it in november
its a 1 in 10,000 chance they will create a black hole or else they think they will have made the right conditions from the big bang.

[Mehhht]

Haha, this is getting a bit off evolution, but I find this stuff very interesting. I think for an antimatter explosion, you need more than one atom. They've made thousands of antimatter atoms, but it's a very small amount. CERN said that 1g of antimatter has enough energy to power a car for 100 years without stopping, but currently they have enough to power a 100-watt light bulb for about 3 seconds.

But they've been using particle accelerators for a while now, so I'll have to look up what your talking about.

[Gumballer]

Yeah, I'm also verry interested in antimatter. Its verry dangerous tho. If an antimatter meets its oposite matter then there's an incredible huge explosion.

[oranges]

yes! particle excellerator =D
ill try find a youtube video that was on my tv last year.

edit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvEK5uZXpZU


protons, sorry :) or hadron?

[superiorgamer]

To much school to view the other evo posts.. i'll reply to those some other time... buttt heres a quick question.

How did matter originate? What created the first substance? Was it all just magically there? Or did something create it. Yet again fiath, for either choice, is based upon faith =P .

[Mehhht]

I think that belongs in the science/religion debate but good point... although it is often countered by "matter is eternal" but it doesn't make sense to me

and thanks for the share oranges I'll check it out :)

[.ncr.]

Look back in history? did we evolve? did great cities built? world problems grew? population grew?

YES no need to talk in long paragraphs the answer is yes. Look around you.

[Mehhht]

Sure we adapt, but was life as we know it created because of this process? Just looking around doesn't prove that ;)

[Gumballer]

How did matter originate? What created the first substance? Was it all just magically there? Or did something create it. Yet again fiath, for either choice, is based upon faith =P .[/b]

You can go on and on about that. Evolution isn't a theory about how everything excisted but like the word says it self how everything evolves.

if you're going to start like that, you can also ask the question like: who created the great creator then ? There's only one answer: infinity. You can't discuss with the fact that everything is infinitive and it has nothing to do with a creator.

[TD]

You can go on and on about that. Evolution isn't a theory about how everything excisted but like the word says it self how everything evolves.

if you're going to start like that, you can also ask the question like: who created the great creator then ? There's only one answer: infinity. You can't discuss with the fact that everything is infinitive and it has nothing to do with a creator.[/b]

something has to be there to create something, so i agree with gumballer, infinity.
I think that there has always been something, but there just needed to happen something to create all other things, thus the big bang as we call it.

[Hobbs]

On the theory of evolution, I do agree. Between the middle ages and the 17-18th centuries average European height fell from 173 to 165. The size of feet has changed over the years as well. Thats recent proof, and what could have changed over millions of years is almost limitless, and on that large scale, many things have been uncovered that do suggest evolution.
What people need to understand is that the goal of evolution isn't to disproof any religion, its simply humans attempt to understand their origins. Too many people I have met refuse to believe in evolution because of their faith, claiming God is the only answer and whatnot. and when it comes to other theories it's the same. But the reality of evolution AND the THEORY of a God or group of Gods is a possibility. I've met people who believe in evolution and no God who also are guilty of this blindness, though granted most of them are teens who just want attention.
On the Big Bang and other creation theories, they also could be a part of a divine plan, and some need to learn to expand their minds to understand that every theory could be one part of the larger truth. The possibility of a God creating the primieval atom and therefore setting into motion the conditions required to induce the big bang, which induces the creation of worlds, evolution, and so on is much more likely than JUST the big bang, evolution, or divine creation individually. And the possibly of this combined theory without God is also an equal possibility. If so, if we don't kill ourselves first EVENTUALLY humans will evolve to have the capacity to comprehend this. In closing, I don't wish to sound cliché, but anything IS possible and people need to learn to accept that.

[Gumballer]

yes anything is possible but there can only be 1 theory the actual right one and if one has realy suportive proof and all and the other theory doesn't then its only normal to believe the other one don't you think ?

[Hobbs]

I agree but as of yet there is no theory of everything, only theories on small scale matters-religion doesn't explain photosynthesis and other chemical reactions, and science doesn't as of yet have supportive proof of many theories. If you hear enough and are open enough there are an unlimited number of ways you could combine these theories, and many may seem to have supportive proof, leaving infinite possibilities. And our theories, also, are based on laws of physics that may only exist in our part of/this universe.

Edit: Because of light speed and other factors when we look into space, the further we look the further in the past we look. Therefore, we cannot truly assume what has become of the galaxies in the distance to study their laws of physics, if they have life, and so on even if we could look in such quality.

[Mehhht]

Well, in response to "who made God?" I would say an all-powerful God would not have to follow the laws He created, like the law of time, and therefore He would need no beginning.

[Gumballer]

I think I'm going to sleep over this for a night xD that actually made sence to me. I think I'll edit tomorrow or tonight..

[Hobbs]

Well, in response to "who made God?" I would say an all-powerful God would not have to follow the laws He created, like the law of time, and therefore He would need no beginning.[/b]
ah but you see, god or not, time does not exist. its only an excuse for us to understand the rising and setting of the sun
so nothing is limited by time, because there is no such thing

edit: what im saying is god didnt create a law of time, it was a manmade idea to try and find understanding

[Gumballer]

^ no, not realy its not man made... its like gravity.. we didn't invent gravity we just realised it was there, just like time, we created time-countingsystems but we never created time.. just like einstein didn't create the fact that E=mc (sorry can't write an upper 2 on my laptop) he just realised that it was there.. we didn't create electricity we just realised it was there etc.. etc.. exactly the same with time...

we know how the sun rises and sets but they didn't invent time for that they invented a system to count time not time itself.

[Mehhht]

Yeah, time exists... as in the physical dimension... I don't mean 24 hours, seconds, ect. but the fact that things have a start and beginning, and the reason things move.

[Hobbs]

but if the beginnings and ends of objects vary so vastly as to human life about 70-100 years to stars for billions, you cna't generalize it all as time, if you consider time as beginnings and ends. with so many factors that could change the expected 'time' something lasts its too varied. like i said time is just an idea used to describe distance from one point to another on a separate and different plane

[Dain]

On the theory of evolution, I do agree. Between the middle ages and the 17-18th centuries average European height fell from 173 to 165. The size of feet has changed over the years as well. Thats recent proof, and what could have changed over millions of years is almost limitless, and on that large scale, many things have been uncovered that do suggest evolution.[/b]

just thought i would say a few things.

diet has a rather large effect on how tall people are,

and, scientists can't prove the earth is millions/billions of years old...

[Mehhht]

but if the beginnings and ends of objects vary so vastly as to human life about 70-100 years to stars for billions, you cna't generalize it all as time, if you consider time as beginnings and ends. with so many factors that could change the expected 'time' something lasts its too varied. like i said time is just an idea used to describe distance from one point to another on a separate and different plane[/b]

Okay but I mean if time (or the time I'm talking about) doesn't exist we would be like a still photo. Think of it like I was making a 3D animation. I have 3 dimensions to create different shapes. If there was no "time" then it would just be a still picture. But if I want to make an animation, I add different frames and then things move from one place to another...

[Gumballer]

and, scientists can't prove the earth is millions/billions of years old...[/b]

??

they prooved it like I don't know how much times but realy a lot e.g. the grand canion and such...

[Hobbs]

they prooved it like I don't know how much times but realy a lot e.g. the grand canion and such...[/b]
hes right man scientists look at dinosaur bones or sediment layers and can tell us how old the earth is
Okay but I mean if time (or the time I'm talking about) doesn't exist we would be like a still photo. Think of it like I was making a 3D animation. I have 3 dimensions to create different shapes. If there was no "time" then it would just be a still picture. But if I want to make an animation, I add different frames and then things move from one place to another..[/b]
well i guess it depends on your views in other subjects because i mean someone with a religion could argue that god is real and an agnostic would argue that the said god is a man-made idea because you cant see, feel, touch, taste and so on

also i was reading back through this topic and on this complexity thing the eye could have easily evolved overtime, such as the fact that according to the theory itself we came from a reaction converting nonliving substances to life, microorganisms, which have no eyes, and from there you know the tune. are eyes aren't at there max complexity as well. there is infrared and uv and microwave and more light waves we cant see, but through technology can. there may even be colors we cant see because are eyes have evolved to only see our visual spectrum.
and you cant compared snails to laptops, or any nonliving object to a living organism. laptops are man-made, and your wrong about machines not evolving, its just that they dont have minds of there own. if you give a robot a brain that can gain knowledge, learn to adapt, reproduce (maybe by building their offspring, fixing problems) and change to fit its environment, it would evolve overtime. and really the only thing making any living organism more complex than machines is the mind, unseen

[Dain]

they tried dating 2 rocks/ pieces of magma (with some radio active dating? or other type) that was 20 years old.... they came out with a result of so many billion years old <.< this was with a method other then carbon dating.

carbon dating can only goto 5000 years old or so.

not very reliable dating methods :S


though, i spose nobody can ever be sure, not untill they can come up with a reliable dating system that can go back millions of years. still maybe there are somethings that we just don't need to know xD

[Gumballer]

^

hes right man scientists look at dinosaur bones or sediment layers and can tell us how old the earth is[/b]

exactly.. they can see how old they are by seeing how much under they're.. realy there're hundreds of methods.. and why wouldn't we want to know that ??

[Hobbs]

they tried dating 2 rocks/ pieces of magma (with some radio active dating? or other type) that was 20 years old.... they came out with a result of so many billion years old <.< this was with a method other then carbon dating.[/b]
they also tried dating dinosaur bones and came up with millions of years ago, and they were right o.0
lol

[Cirno]

"A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait."

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/d...ft-in-the-lab.h (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.h)

[Hobbs]

And here come the denials...now :)

[Kirarose]

The belief and proverbial war on evolution vs. the creation, can be backed up by scientist
and the bible, Torah ect. When you really get down to the matter either source can prove or disprove just about any fact that becomes aware to us. The Bible says that God created Adam and Eve as the first human beings on earth and their children where also part of the first lineage, but later in the bible after they are kicked out of eden and their children get married, a farmers daughter pops up out of no where so right there the bible contradicts itself. The research and data
that scientist come up with can also do this if its looked at very closely. I believe to certain extent that we have evolved. My reasoning is this... We have appendices that at one time had to be useful, now are usually more harm than good, body hair was probably more dense and covered more areas for some reason, wisdom teeth where probably used long ago but now have to be removed from most of the worlds population. However I also believe that there has to be something else out there, its very discouraging to think that this is it, isn't it? I am a big believer in ghost and hauntings and such, as a teenager I used to "investigate" place that no one in there right mind would go to in the light of day let alone in the dark of night. some of the research I gathered
had no logical explanation and would raise the hair on your neck.

[Gumballer]

Well, in response to "who made God?" I would say an all-powerful God would not have to follow the laws He created, like the law of time, and therefore He would need no beginning.[/b]

Well, it took a litle bit more then one night to think over xD I kinda forgot..

You're right, he doesn't need to follow the law of time. But that doesn't take away the fact that everything has a begining. Even if there's no time, there's always a beginning only its then: time=beginning. Becaus the only time there is is the beginning and the time kinda stops in the beginning else there's just nothing but there still is a beginning and beginnings don't come from nothing rather there's time or not...

^thats sort off my thinking... nice arguement tho..

[Mehhht]

Well, it took a litle bit more then one night to think over xD I kinda forgot..

You're right, he doesn't need to follow the law of time. But that doesn't take away the fact that everything has a begining. Even if there's no time, there's always a beginning only its then: time=beginning. Becaus the only time there is is the beginning and the time kinda stops in the beginning else there's just nothing but there still is a beginning and beginnings don't come from nothing rather there's time or not...

^thats sort off my thinking... nice arguement tho..[/b]

Well yeah I completely understand what your saying.

The hard thing to grasp about an "all-powerful" being is that you can't fully understand them. We can't say that what we know and live by applies to something omnipotent.

I don't believe God created only matter and energy, I believe He created everything. So I believe he created the law that makes 1+1=2 (the reason why this is so hard to understand is because we can't understand what it would be like if 1+1≠2) and the law that makes everything have a beginning. We can't imagine what it would be like for something not to have a beginning so it's hard to understand. In a way it's like trying to think of what it would be like to be able to see and move in a fourth dimension.


Maybe we should get back to evolution in this debate....

One thing I'm wondering is if anyone can show me evidence of macro evolution... I've seen some for micro but none for macro... any good websites or articles?

[Gumballer]

^ understood ;)

I'll try to find some tommorow.. its already late here and I'm a bit tired :)

small edit tho: I'll go further on evolution tomorrow but just wondering this..
Aren't those laws of time and 1+1=2 etc.. etc.. aren't they necesairily to "be" for what superbeing ever ? I know, this is getting a bit phylosofical etc.. xD I can immagine that 1+1 doesn't equal 2, I can't immagine how it would be like but I can immagine that it "is". Nothing has to apply for a creator but if there is a creator shouldn't they have applied in the beginning meaning that in one point they do apply without an other possibility becaus there is a point of creation and at that exact point of creation that they had to apply.. I know.. its kinda of a *dificult english word*-circle ?

[Mehhht]

I don't really understand what your saying (grammar-wise, mostly) but I'll try to explain better.

Well it's impossible to imagine what it would be like before creation (like it's impossible to imagine what is "before" the big bang). I can't really explain how God "existed" before but I'll use the analogy of the 3D designer again. If I create a 3D world and timeline, I technically "created" that 3D model or whatever. I may make the time go faster or slower or stop, but it doesn't matter what I do to that time, because it won't apply to me. Like if I was making a physics engine for a game, I can reduce the gravity in the game but it won't reduce mine. Think of a creator in that sense. If He decides to make everything have a start it doesn't mean He had one.

[Gumballer]

Ofcource, I realy get that.. its impossible to immagin how it was before a creator. But it is possible, even necesairily to immagine that there is something before a creator. And whats before the big-bang thats only a matter of time when we find that out... we just can't look far enough yet to see whats before the big bang. Everything just goes to the past with cause-action, cause-action. There isn't a point where there isn't a cause anymore but only an action. Becaus an action can't exist like *poof* out of nothing.. it needs a cause.. thats more or less what I'm trying to say..