Why are there still Monkeys?

[Thief]

So it is merely yet another bold empty claim from you?



And what of those who have thought about god and come to a different conclusion than you?

I like Genesis just the way it is.
Works for me.

I'm not surprised I am one of the few that understand.

soooooooo many stubborn people!
soooooooo many who nod their heads blindly!

but I'm nobody's savior.
I simply have a different perspective.

You can say 'nay'.....all that you care to.

 

[FearGod]

If you mean evidence for evolution? Then the answer is none, you'll just have to take it on faith.

What, isn't taking it on faith good enough? And still you are religious?

Nah. There is plenty of observable evidence for evolution by random mutation and natural selection.

- bacteria cultures becoming resistent to antibiotics
- Peppered moth evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- fossil evidence of gradual change and species splitting off into different species
- DNA evidence that animals are related to different degrees (ie. we have more DNA in common with chimps than with elephants, but more in common with elephants than with trees)

Just to name some off the top of my head.

We were talking about singularity as the starting point of our universe.
Long before monkeys and the born of life out of a non living matter.

 

[FearGod]

Then how can we understand it an know it exists?

For me by the scripture but that doesn't work for you.

 

[Thief]

I heard in some science documentary (I love science)....
Most of the dna on this planet is the same.

We share more the half of what we are with plants.

Stands to reason....we share the same planet and resources.
We simply trade the chemistry back and forth.

Why are there still monkeys?

Well gee....an event that destroys the previous form, could destroy the current copy.

 

[Mycroft]

For me by the scripture but that doesn't work for you.

Scripture does not help you understand how life came to be at all. Scripture simply helps you become satisfied with no explanation.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

It is a mystery to me why Creationists want to use the fallacy of the "something from nothing" argument against science, then postulate that their deity created "something from nothing" by mere words.

 

[FearGod]

It is a mystery to me why Creationists want to use the fallacy of the "something from nothing" argument against science, then postulate that their deity created "something from nothing" by mere words.

OMG.

Nature is created, the creator is supernatural.

We'll never understand what beyond the nature and we can't compare the creator to what was created, it is like comparing the door to the carpenter.

 

[FearGod]

Scripture does not help you understand how life came to be at all. Scripture simply helps you become satisfied with no explanation.

The scripture offer clues that the creator does exist.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

OMG.

Nature is created, the creator is supernatural.

We'll never understand what beyond the nature and we can't compare the creator to what was created, it is like comparing the door to the carpenter.

I beg to differ. The fact that any human being can create a door; and that doors don't materialize magically in nature leads to the logical conclusion that the door was built by human hands. Moreover, if one wanted to waste their time, the construction of doors is often documented by item numbers; or comparing designs, etc. as to who made that door, when, and for what.

Even if we discovered a door that was custom built by an unknown human, we can still rest assured that this door was created by human hands, as only human hands create the door of the design in question, and as humans, we can replicate that process and no other species can.

In other words, a "trail of evidence that leads to the conclusion that the door was created by human hands".

As we unravel the mysteries of nature, the evidence only points to a preceding natural cause; thus that which we can not yet explain by natural causes can not be arbitrarily attributed to a creator being. The trail of evidence does not continue to a creator, thus it is a biased leap in logic to determine that a creator was involved.

 

[Mycroft]

The scripture offer clues that the creator does exist.

No. It offers vicarious verse which can be interpreted as a 'clue', but offers no clue.

 

[FearGod]

I beg to differ. The fact that any human being can create a door; and that doors don't materialize magically in nature leads to the logical conclusion that the door was built by human hands. Moreover, if one wanted to waste their time, the construction of doors is often documented by item numbers; or comparing designs, etc. as to who made that door, when, and for what.

Even if we discovered a door that was custom built by an unknown human, we can still rest assured that this door was created by human hands, as only human hands create the door of the design in question, and as humans, we can replicate that process and no other species can.

In other words, a "trail of evidence that leads to the conclusion that the door was created by human hands".

As we unravel the mysteries of nature, the evidence only points to a preceding natural cause; thus that which we can not yet explain by natural causes can not be arbitrarily attributed to a creator being. The trail of evidence does not continue to a creator, thus it is a biased leap in logic to determine that a creator was involved.

That wasn't my point regarding the door and the carpenter.

My point is that the nature of the carpenter is incomparable to the nature of the door, but we know that the carpenter did make the door.

Does the door looks like the carpenter ? will the door realize the nature of the carpenter ?

 

[Mycroft]

It is a mystery to me why Creationists want to use the fallacy of the "something from nothing" argument against science, then postulate that their deity created "something from nothing" by mere words.

The 'something from nothing' argument is fallacious in of itself. The Ancient Greeks had, for example, no concept of absolute nothing. They believe that before the universe there was simply a disordered chaos which, through eons of mixing, became ordered. Scientists are beginning to believe that before the universe there was probably something there, we just don't know what. The 'nothing was there' argument is simply a lie made up by christian scribes to amplify the power of god. The idea that he could create something from nothing is far more impacting than the idea that he could simply rearrange something into something else.

The only thing the 'something from nothing' argument does is illustrate the religious set's unwillingness to move with the times and cling to 13th century pseudoscience as the main source of their 'belief'.

 

[FearGod]

No. It offers vicarious verse which can be interpreted as a 'clue', but offers no clue.

To you but not to me.:yes:

 

[FearGod]

The 'something from nothing' argument is fallacious in of itself. The Ancient Greeks had, for example, no concept of absolute nothing. They believe that before the universe there was simply a disordered chaos which, through eons of mixing, became ordered. Scientists are beginning to believe that before the universe there was probably something there, we just don't know what. The 'nothing was there' argument is simply a lie made up by christian scribes to amplify the power of god. The idea that he could create something from nothing is far more impacting than the idea that he could simply rearrange something into something else.

The only thing the 'something from nothing' argument does is illustrate the religious set's unwillingness to move with the times and cling to 13th century pseudoscience as the main source of their 'belief'.

So it can be anything but not God and that make sense for you.:sarcastic

 

[Mycroft]

To you but not to me.:yes:

Well of course. That's the whole point of vicarious verse, to be interpreted differently.

 

[Mycroft]

So it can be anything but not God and that make sense for you.:sarcastic

It seems more likely that the universe formed from a disordered chaos of primordial gasses and matter than some invisible man putting it all together, yes.

Furthermore, it seems far more likely to be the work of simply evolution and adaptation than the god of a religion founded by an illiterate, epileptic shepherd.

 

[FearGod]

It seems more likely that the universe formed from a disordered chaos of primordial gasses and matter than some invisible man putting it all together, yes.

Furthermore, it seems far more likely to be the work of simply evolution and adaptation than the god of a religion founded by an illiterate, epileptic shepherd.

It seems more likely for you and for your fellow atheists but that doesn't make it to be a fact just because you only believe it to be so.

 

[Mycroft]

It seems more likely for you and for your fellow atheists but that doesn't make it to be a fact just because you only believe it to be so.

I like the irony of that statement. As if, somehow, your 'fact of creation' wasn't based on belief.

In any case, there is a wealth of evidence in favour of evolution. You simply choose to ignore it or fail to understand it due to your scientific illiteracy.

 

[FearGod]

Well of course. That's the whole point of vicarious verse, to be interpreted differently.

Did i say otherwise ?

Similarly as you read the creation of the universe differently than i do.

 

[FearGod]

I like the irony of that statement. As if, somehow, your 'fact of creation' wasn't based on belief.

In any case, there is a wealth of evidence in favour of evolution. You simply choose to ignore it or fail to understand it due to your scientific illiteracy.

What was before evolution ?
Where did life come from ?

No life can exist within the singularity, so from the starting point life didn't exist, then how you explain it in scientific manner.

What is your evidence that the creator wasn't behind abiogenesis.