That is not correct. The only thing created was something similar to the "primordial soup" amino acids etc.

Damn. Just in case you hadn't embarrassed yourself enough already, you come back for more. All signs do <i>not</i> point to it. Scientists believe that chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor, as bhutocracy already pointed out. No scientist believes that humans evolved from chimps. Go and find the nearest library. It'll do you and the rest of us a world of good.

uh, actually... we can go with probabilities.... and they are at 99.999999999% that what you are reading is real! And if you are dreaming... that means that you are still something... with a brain... living... And forget about our mind being some king of fuel/energy... thats fiction and ridiculous.. As for being lab rat experiementing some insanely elaborate software... mmh life is WAY to complex to even dream that something like this would be possible... and btw... why would they create a software where people die and atrocity exist...?

No evidence? Put your head back in the sand. No proof, perhaps. But there is certainly evidence. And even the vatican has said that the 7 day creation isn't to be taken so literally. To say that you don't believe the evidence is one thing. To deny it even exists is stupid. It's evidence. It's not proof.

Video games=software...have you ever seen or played some of the video games? :)

or have you ever thought that you are the only real person on the planet?
that everybody else lives to "Feed you" ?

its a wierd point of view, but its a POV nonetheless

and for chodadog, stfu hater
I am allowed making a fool of myself and it seems as if you are the only one flaming me, everybody here is here to learn, I believe 100% that we are from evolution, thats my belief,I can argue it all I want, and you can refute me. not start a fight about it

if you dont like it, leave :321GFY

software/program/matrix or whatever you want to call it

Believe what you want. Just don't post a bunch of bollocks. That, or keep your mouth shut.

And you win the prize...evidence is not proof...even overwhelming evidence is not proof. Reasonable...logical assumptions...yes...but not proof. There is not any proof of abiogensis but scientists must believe...have faith...that it happened...or their theories about evolution are greatly weakened...if not totally incorrect.

What sort of 'proof' would you be willing to accept, considering this happened around 4.5 billion years ago and one can not time travel?

If you are really interested why not read something like this: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

"why would they create a software where people die and atrocity exist...?"

I thought I was being amusing.

actually, based on our reality, that would be too complex... but then, they might have given us very limited intelligence... :1orglaugh

anyhow, if there has been a Creation, whether God is a programmer or some sort of Angel... the result is the same...

oh sorry, I missed that one! :1orglaugh

Empirical proof is the only real proof and even empirical proof is sometimes argued. I do not see where that book explains the process of abiogenesis.

No i'm saying study all you want and make up your own mind, but don't act like its FACT. This is a belief. You go into this believing in a god or no god at the start and shape your ideas around this. Sciencists do not discover fossils and think "hrmm now does this discovery prove evolution or creationism?, nope they go "ok my belief is that we evolved so how does this find give proof of this as since the fact that we are here already proves i'm already correct I just need to find evidence to tell others." "Believing in God takes the same faith as believing in the big bang.

Personally I think there is a god and he is hands off doesn't care. I sure as hell don't believe we evolved from apes, think about this, we with all our science don't know how to create life. We have no idea what makes something live or how to create a being that lives, all we can do is fuck around with DNA of already existing animals and see what happens. So with all our knowledge we can't create shit but so many people believe the human body in all its amazing ways evolved into such a perfect form. I think not

The fact is Joe...there is not any proof...nada...that abiogenesis happened other than some scientists (those that do not believe in creationism) believe that it did happen as they believe the proof is in the pudding..."there is life...we are here". There is not any proof of creationism...oh wait..."there is life...we are here".

I'm no expert in theories of abiogenesis, largely because in the area of science I am only self educated and read what interests me. But I do know this: there IS voluminous evidence for large scale evolution and natural selection generally. Only abiogenesis is easier to believe than creation because it doesn't involve the supernatural... of which there is no evidence.

Beyond blind faith what evidence is there that there is a god? Old text that is not even accurate archeologically? You indeed must have your head in the sand if you believe the religous mumbo jumbo

Wel...there is enough proof for me to believe that evolution has happened...though there are parts of the chain that are still missing in total. I...at least at this point in time...do not believe in creationism. Neither is factually correct...or factually incorrect.

One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.
The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you; We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."

God listened very patiently and kindly to the man. After the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this? Let's say we have a man-making contest." To which the scientist replied, "Okay, great!" But, God added, "now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam." The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.

God looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt."

abiogenesis has NOTHING to do with evolution and vice versa.
evolution is what happens once a group of molecules are able to replicate themselves. It's a process that happens once there is life and is totally independant of abiogensis.
"God" or *shudder* aliens could have created everything and evolution still takes place.

science doesn't have bias, interepretation has bias. Also science can be bad, i.e experiments to prove or disprove an idea can be poorly designed.

Evolution has obviously been one of the most contentious, rigourously tested theories there is. It has stood the test of time in science for a reason. There is not a better rational explanation.

:1orglaugh

I miss that show

You are correct about evolution once life has come into being...but in the case of those scientists that are not creationists...they "believe" that abiogenesis is the method of life coming into being...thus the beginning of evolution.

this is true.
just had to re-iterate it's not a problem with evolution.
Anyways I believe in abiogenesis as It is personally more likely than a big guy in the sky or aliens wasting a perfectly good resource of a planet.

like 99% to .99999% to .00001%

unless you consider dorment bacteria on an asteroid an "alien", but that still falls under abiogenesis anyways.

The difference being that abiogenesis is a naturalistic process whereas creation by a 'god' is a supernatural act. This is an important distinction.

In my 33 years of oserving the world around me I have been led to the conclusion that we live in a completely naturalistic world. I have never experienced nor witnessed a 'supernatural' event first hand. Nor have I heard a story of a supernatural event that could not be explained away by naturalistic means. As a consequence, I believe that the 'supernatural' as many like to call it is in fact imagined or deluded. Subsequently I have no belief in supernatural beings, making a belief in a 'god' impossible for me.

I do reserve the right to alter my views on this matter should I one day witness water being turned into wine etc. I will not, however, be holding my breath.

I would also like to state that arguing with those who believe in God (or the supernatural generally) is impossible as they can conveniently explain things away (i.e. How are we to know the ways of God) with no regard for logic or common sense.

And arguing with those that won't believe in god, unfortunately, has a very sad ending if their "logic" was mistaken.

And THAT, my friend, is common sense. :)

I didnt read any pots...but the answer is EVOLUTION!

didn't require empirical proof of WMD's :glugglug

You smoke a lot of DMT?

Rhythm is my god.

Mitsubishi Evolution VIII

What evidence of a deity do you speak of?

Who said that man evolved into a perfect form? We are very far from anything that may be considered perfect. Why should we be able to create life from scratch? Nature has had billions of years to do this. We most certainly CANNOT come close in only a few short decades.

Believing in a deity is by no means the same thing as believing in a scientific principle, which by definition; can, should, will, and does change with new evidence, debate, and models.

:eek7

LOL. You are pretty funny.

I'm not going to find every instance of evidence for you. I'm sure you can find google.com on your own, but here's a site about a museum in Texas.

http://www.creationevidence.org/

The guy that runs it is probably far more qualified than you and i. I'm not saying i agree with him, but again, to deny the existance of even <i>evidence</i> is just stupid. I'm not Christian. I believe in some form of God though. Quite frankly, what anyone else thinks about that means very little to me.

been to that museum, it is quite interesting.

He has casts of human footprints that were right next to dinosaur footprints, along with some other interesting finds.
I would also like to point out he is not the only person who has discovered footprints next to dinosaur prints.

Anyway, I'm not qualified to speak on the theories of evolution, I guess I kinda believe in a combination of both...and then sometimes I question my beliefs in a supreme being as I know it can be a fanciful idea.

However my question to those is if you don't believe in a god, a heaven a hell etc...then knowing full well this could be the ONLY shot we get at existence what are you doing to make it worthwhile?

This is a question I ask myself when I begin to have doubts.

I hope there is a heaven, I hope there is a God, I guess more for the reason that I just hope that there will be something better than what we've been born into...LOL

Life sure can be cool at times, but it can also be extremely hard.

Before taking the time to read this entire thread, let's make one thing clear:

Creationism is bullshit.

There are two major theories, namely creationism and the evolution theory. Those who believe in evolution theory say that looking at the evidence we now have, evolution theory or a variant thereof is the most likely explanation for the development and existence of advanced life on earth. Those who believe in creation theory say that the ancient magic book contains all the answers, and that the evolution theory still being incomplete clearly proves that the big ghost in the sky created everything.

Note how this has happened many times before in history. Once, people believed a big ghost in the sky caused thunderstorms by riding across the skies in his magic chariot. Then, science explained the true nature of thunderstorms. Once, people believed the big ghosts in the sky made it rain only if they sacrificed enough warriors. Then, science explained the true nature of rain. Etcetera. There are thousands of examples.

And STILL people fail to see the fundamental flaw in the idea that if you can't explain something, the big ghost in the sky must be responsible.

Yesterday, I misplaced my keys. Finally found them, in a completely different place than I remembered. Now, would it be reasonable to assume that, since I have no conclusive natural explanation for what happened, the magic key-stealing leprechaun must have taken them and put them somewhere else?
Because that is essentially what creationists are saying.

You know it's funny.. I'm Wiccan and I have my own belief system. But I am also a true believer in science and scientific proof and methods. However, what I've never understood is this continual arguement between creationism and evolution. Who is to say, "God" did not create man VIA evolution? The 7 biblical days were not meant to be literal. Those who've studied the bible in depth should know that. It says in the bible that the life of a man is but a blink of an eye to god. So it would make sense to follow that a "day" for god could be thousands, millions, or even billions of years. What's an eyeblink?

I guess people are just so blinded by blind faith itself, they don't try to see it in a logical light. Me, I prefer to think instead being spoon fed my belief, and considering that the entire UNIVERSE, which was "created by god" follows a LOGICAL MECHINISM, why would not it be a reflection of it's "creator" who should be, if we follow the theory, a logical being? Am I really the first person to think about it that way?

being a christian at heart... creation all the way

No, you aren't. The main problem with reasoning like that is that the more science advances, the more it leaves you with an impotent, useless God. Why include a God in theories if she isn't necessary? Aside from that, it goes against the scientific law of singularity. It's giving two explanations for one thing, when one would be sufficient.

If you are speaking of the Paluxy River 'man tracks' they have been disproven for some time now.

You are all wrong...........

..................

.................


........what you all have yet to realize is that you are all simply figments of the imagination of an alien chimp named god.......


:321GFY

There was empirical proof that Saddam had possessed WMD's.

:1orglaugh

You might want to stop sniffing glue some time soon. :2 cents:

Can't evolution have happened and there still be large powerful beings?

Saddam used WMD's against the Iranians and his own people. Betweet '91 and '98 the inspectors destroyed thousands of artillary/missile rounds that were armed with chemicals...tons of chemicals/biological materials. When they left in '98 the inspectors concluded that they had destroyed 95% of Saddam's WMD's. That is called empirical proof that Saddam had possessed WMD's. Your nick says it all...you are dismissed.

:1orglaugh