 |
Duration: 07:01 minutes Upload Time: 2007-07-21 21:37:12 User: BalmungSama0 :::: Favorites :::: Top Videos of Day |
|
Description: Part 2. |
|
Comments | |
| BalmungSama0 ::: Favorites 2007-09-08 14:39:54 A possibility. Literally anything is possible. However, is it probable? No. Anyway, 99.85% of the scientific community accepts evolution, and 40% is Christian, so they don't really see a conflict between the theory of evolution and their faith. __________________________________________________ | |
| modesty34 ::: Favorites 2007-09-08 14:35:19 Could you say that it is a possibility that science could be making too small of a progess to see the evidence of God? __________________________________________________ | |
| BalmungSama0 ::: Favorites 2007-08-04 22:41:20 No can do. I'm leaving for Portugal tomorrow night for the rest of the summer. I probably won't get any computer access. __________________________________________________ | |
| TheParty1984 ::: Favorites 2007-08-04 22:14:38 I did want to provide a few examples and point to a website or 2 but i am unfortunately leaving until Friday so we can continue then if you want. If you think Im lying search the vid disproving God in 3 words and i made a post at a debate exactly like this there too saying im leaving. __________________________________________________ | |
| BalmungSama0 ::: Favorites 2007-08-03 22:47:09 "Muck"? They were chemicals that formed our simple ancestor. It needed development, and the organism was probably simple enough to be formed that way. It just occured to me that I may have made that sound too absolute. I should point out that abiogenesis is yet to be proven, and that it is not evolution. So, can you give me evidence for creationism? __________________________________________________ | |
| TheParty1984 ::: Favorites 2007-08-03 22:41:28 Not even so much as that but arguing that chemicals aka muck is so much better than dirt probably doesnt pan out too well either. __________________________________________________ | |
| BalmungSama0 ::: Favorites 2007-08-03 11:44:32 No. Abiogenesis is not the same as spontaneous generation. Abiogenesis involves a simple ancestor being formed and developing through numerous chemical reactions. Spontaneous generation said that life can arise fully formed from, well, pretty much anything (flies from rotting meat, frogs from rain, etc). Ironically, it's closer to creationism that it is to abiogenesis (man from dirt). But I guess that isn't really a problem for God, so I tend not to use that as an argument. __________________________________________________ | |
| BalmungSama0 ::: Favorites 2007-08-03 11:40:37 Fossils are a great help to evolution. But they don't help abiogenesis, which is the origin of life (for the record, evolution is not the origin of life). Just like evidence of the 10 plagues, if it's even there, wouldn't help creationism. __________________________________________________ | |
| TheParty1984 ::: Favorites 2007-08-03 07:47:06 Wait so now you're saying the fossils dont help evolution? Or that they only help part of it? And i though Abiogenesis was put to death a good while ago by Louis Pasteur who was a scientist.... __________________________________________________ | |
| BalmungSama0 ::: Favorites 2007-08-02 23:18:08 No, that's not how it works. The fossils don't help abiogenesis, which is how life started, and thus, how evolution began. The fossils help a common origin, but they don't help the origin of the common origin. __________________________________________________ | |
| TheParty1984 ::: Favorites 2007-08-02 23:14:03 Its not the whole bible but its the beginning and everything else stems from that beginning therefore if we can prove things along the way happened it helps prove that beginning exactly like your fossils and other evidence you talk about. Fossils arnt entirely evolution either but can be used to point back to it as you have shown so i believe its the same scenario here as that. __________________________________________________ | |
| BalmungSama0 ::: Favorites 2007-08-02 23:01:13 It makes the Bible as a whole more credible. Creationism isn't the entire Bible, now is it? What you're suggesting is "it was right here, so it must be right here, too". __________________________________________________ | |
| TheParty1984 ::: Favorites 2007-08-02 22:59:37 i dont think you got my question let me make it more simple if i support Candidate A in an elevtion and my arguments in favor of him are proven correct by Civilian doesnt that make Candidate A more credible? In that scenario Candidate A=Creationism, I=bible and Civilian=wut im trying to do now or a piece of evidence whichever you like better. __________________________________________________ | |
| BalmungSama0 ::: Favorites 2007-08-02 22:52:22 It makes the Bible seem more credible, but from a scientific standpoint it does nothing whatsoever to creationism. __________________________________________________ | |
| TheParty1984 ::: Favorites 2007-08-02 22:51:19 The Bible is supposed to support creationism so doesnt propping it up indirectly support creationism? __________________________________________________ | |
No comments:
Post a Comment