The Atheist's view of how the Universe started

[VirtualDUDE]

Most of these "Theists" are numbnuts who are just

MindFuck

[Unicow]

Well there's no real proof for either Creationism and the Big Bang Theory. For Creationism, no one can truely say that the bible speaks the truth and no one can admit that they have know/seen God. For Creationism, where did the 2 atoms that collided come from?

[Empire]

Well there's no real proof for either Creationism and the Big Bang Theory. For Creationism, no one can truely say that the bible speaks the truth and no one can admit that they have know/seen God. For The big bang theory, where did the 2 atoms that collided come from?

You see thats what the first law of thermodynamics is.
"The law expresses that energy can be transformed, i.e. changed from one form to another, but cannot be created nor destroyed. It is usually formulated by stating that the change in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of heat supplied to the system, minus the amount of work performed by the system on its surroundings"

But hey, its ok if people who believe in the big bang theory to deny laws of science right? I mean if the theist do it, why not?

[Nitehawk772]

Omfg... You guys are still going at this? Who cares... Posting in the religious section is gay... It's a hack site, Not a church...

[Shark]

Omfg... You guys are still going at this? Who cares... Posting in the religious section is gay... It's a hack site, Not a church...

I wouldn't go to a church to discuss theism, ******.


Also, debate is one of my favorite things, especially religion. It helps me cool down.

[Empire]

I wouldn't go to a church to discuss theism, ******.


Also, debate is one of my favorite things, especially religion. It helps me cool down.

trolling muslims is a pretty good pastime.

But you can't go to a church, your right on that. Tried arguing once, didn't turn out too well.

[Locke]

Omfg... You guys are still going at this? Who cares... Posting in the religious section is gay... It's a hack site, Not a church...

No, it's a discussion forum, with both hack subforums and debate subforums.

On-topic:I haven't read through the whole thread, but I think as myself as a creationist, but that doesn't stop me from believing that the big bang occured. Maybe that was the way God created the universe, with a kaboom? As far as I know, it has been proved that if you see through a telescope, you can actually see other galaxies (or something) move away from ours.

BUT, I still don't believe that we are descended from apes, when we also have 50% similar DNA to a banana.

[Empire]

Descendants of things are very iffy really, and thats where creationist always go after evolutionist or big-bang theory.

Honestly, i don't believe nature just "jumps". I can understand evolves to fit surroundings, but just "jumping" like from apes to humans is a bit too much. Not to mention what happened before the ape, and before that.

What happened before all these animals is what i think is creationist biggest argument. You see scientist haven't tracked animals ancestory very far, not to the point of beggining or even close. Most of this stuff is what you *could* call an educated guess, but without any proof, its like "well this animal could have done this, and then after a meteor did this, and then this, and this."

Its really just "lets guess". Since no one knows, its not like you can debate it either.

:/ Dinosaurs i find funny though, giant, huge creatures. Yet the last remnants of them are small reptiles in comparison. As to what wiped them out? I bet on aliens.

[Paroxysm]

Descendants of things are very iffy really, and thats where creationist always go after evolutionist or big-bang theory.

Honestly, i don't believe nature just "jumps". I can understand evolves to fit surroundings, but just "jumping" like from apes to humans is a bit too much. Not to mention what happened before the ape, and before that.

No one is saying that evolution produces "jumps" that's a silly notion propped up by creationists. I can keep explaining that evolution must NECESSARILY be a very slow process but that won't stop your Ken Ham's, Kirk Cameron's or Ray Comfort's from continuously bringing this up as if it's a legitimate criticism. Knocking down straw-men is no difficult task.

[Empire]

No one is saying that evolution produces "jumps" that's a silly notion propped up by creationists. I can keep explaining that evolution must NECESSARILY be a very slow process but that won't stop your Ken Ham's, Kirk Cameron's or Ray Comfort's from continuously bringing this up as if it's a legitimate criticism. Knocking down straw-men is no difficult task.

Mmm, problem with this is still lack of evidence and guessing.

Even if very slow, jumping is still required, and species is where i find it most troublesome. Which is why the "missing link" was so important i guess, since the link was indeed what would prove more to this argument.

[Paroxysm]

Mmm, problem with this is still lack of evidence and guessing.

Even if very slow, jumping is still required, and species is where i find it most troublesome. Which is why the "missing link" was so important i guess, since the link was indeed what would prove more to this argument.

I think the problem is that you have a poor understanding of how evolution works because in no way are there "jumps". Missing link is another misconception you seem to have had for the entire time that I've been talking to you on MPGH. The problem is that you've established a profound misunderstanding about the evolutionary process.

[Empire]

I think the problem is that you have a poor understanding of how evolution works because in no way are there "jumps". Missing link is another misconception you seem to have had for the entire time that I've been talking to you on MPGH. The problem is that you've established a profound misunderstanding about the evolutionary process.

Even if slowly, you have to say the animal is definite.

Man is not ape. Therefore the evolutionary process jumps from definition of one being to another.

When its a "slow process." You lose credibility. If not proven with any existing then its really not worth my time because its just guessing. Hey i'm fine with you doing that, but I won't care.

Rabbit to arctic hair. You see the difference in species, but you do not see rabbit to idk, a fox or something.
---------------

And thats what the missing link would be.

[Paroxysm]

Even if slowly, you have to say the animal is definite.

Man is not ape. Therefore the evolutionary process jumps from definition of one being to another.

When its a "slow process." You lose credibility. If not proven with any existing then its really not worth my time because its just guessing. Hey i'm fine with you doing that, but I won't care.

Rabbit to arctic hair. You see the difference in species, but you do not see rabbit to idk, a fox or something.
---------------

And thats what the missing link would be.

The evolutionary process does not jump, species are defined only once they can no longer interbreed because of genetic differences. It is then and only then when a species is said to have evolved. You must understand that compounding genetic changes inevitable give rise to new species? Evolution is no guess, it is a biological fact, whether we are talking about the fossil records or gene sequencing it is the cornerstone of modern biology. Denying evolution is no different from denying gravity. Simply because one requires more research than the other is no justification for denial.

[BackInAction]

Bing bang ftw lol

[Empire]

The evolutionary process does not jump, species are defined only once they can no longer interbreed because of genetic differences. It is then and only then when a species is said to have evolved. You must understand that compounding genetic changes inevitable give rise to new species? Evolution is no guess, it is a biological fact, whether we are talking about the fossil records or gene sequencing it is the cornerstone of modern biology. Denying evolution is no different from denying gravity. Simply because one requires more research than the other is no justification for denial.

:/ its not just research, its lack of proof.

Only reason creationist have any argument is because evo's can't factually prove anything.

They can only speculate and guess.

Which is why until factual proof is there, just like any scientific theory, it will have an argument against it.
--------------------------
Evolution, and humans came from apes are different.
---------------------------
But the problem is both the creationist and evolutionist try to use this "we didn't or we did" argument when its not valid.