Evolution Versus Creationism

[nolan 0]

[1] Things "popping into existence out of nothing" would imply everything needs a beginning. You're contradicting yourself.

[2] A lot of different theories, actually, and I've not mixed any of them other than to say that I firmly believe in both creationism and evolution.

[3] Nothing definitively does. Hence my point. And yes, you likely are wasting your time.

[4] But wait, you just said they don't give an explanation for the most important thing necessary to disprove creationism. Again, contradictory. And feel free never to repeat yourself on my behalf; an argument failed once isn't rectified through repetition.

[5] I have a very good grasp an a variety of theories. I assume that what you've gathered about them reaches to about the level of a highschool lecture. Also, feel free to ignore whatever you wish. I am not your parent, so I will not attempt to force anything down your throat, and you ignoring me is the least of my concerns. It does not harm me if you do, nor benefit me if you don't. The origin of matter is, however, very important when attempting to disprove creationism with -any- theory.

[6] Please present the quote in which I said what you've accused me of saying, as I don't believe it exists. I merely pointed out that not all creationists are clueless to scientific principle, and some are, in fact, most renown for their accomplishment in the field. Furthermore, this is not an academic debate, and I've sat in, facilitated, and contributed to many. Industry and field research conferences are greatly different than the highschool debates you may be accustomed to.

[7] You're borrowing another point from me here, and it was a point you argued against previously. Quote: "And telling that things are impossible to understand because we don't have an explanation now is kinda dumb." I take it you've had a change of heart, and that's forgivable, although for the record, at the industry- and university-level, contradictions are highly frowned upon.

[1] I'm disproving creationism with simple logic that suggests that things can't pop into existence... Don't make assumptions like "everything needs a beginning".
[2] You're messing with two different theories here, keep them separate.

[3] Because as I already said, evolution doesn't explain the origin of matter, big bang doesn't... AHHHH! I'm totally wasting my time here. The theories of Big Bang and Evolution DON'T EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF ENERGY.

[4] All they do is combine the facts and give you an explanation. Now, please don't make me repeat that again, will ya. One more time and I'll freaking explode.

[5] People just don't seem to get what these particular scientific theories are for. It's like saying that the theory of general relativity doesn't give the answer to the origin of matter.

[6] As for Einstein and Darwin, even if they did, it wouldn't matter. You're saying that because these men believed that way, it's correct or not correct. ...disqualified instantly in any proper academic debate.

[7] And let's not start assuming things about existence itself, because that is one thing I don't think we can ever understand.

[1] This is a forum. The context is inherently public. Again, self-argument is irrelevant.

[2] War does not begin nor expand without purpose. (There is also a difference between crusading and war, but I'll ignore that for the sake of simplicity.)

[1] Your statement here says "personally." Context shows it is on a personal level, therefore my self-argument is relevant.
[2] I do not deny the things common of war (like killing, siege, et cetera); what i said was mentioned to show that there is no historical evidence that the violence was for the sake of conversion (as you mentioned here).

[truefusion 3]

[1] This is a forum. The context is inherently public. Again, self-argument is irrelevant.
[2] War does not begin nor expand without purpose. (There is also a difference between crusading and war, but I'll ignore that for the sake of simplicity.)

[1] This is a forum, but that is irrelevant. Beliefs aren't stated publicly if you weren't already personally convinced of it.

[2] But the purpose you have suggested bears no historical evidence.

[nolan 0]

[1] It is very relevant that this is a forum, as it is the only reason this topic came up. As I've mentioned before, one can be personally convinced about something without having to support it publicly. That was the whole point. You had mentioned that I was supporting evolution (or something along those lines) by posting that I believed evolution to be true. People have sense enough to determine and maintain their own beliefs regardless of me posting about mine, and at the time, I had not posted any arguments -for- evolution. The definition for "support" from Princeton's WordNet can be found at http://definr.com/support/. Item #2 is probably the most relevant. All that being said, again, personal conviction is irrelevant for the point in question. [2] You need look no further than the very definition of the term, which did not arbitrarily arise. If it is your belief that the term was formulated by those trying to suppress Christian beliefs or to misguide others, so be it. Alternatively, see: http://definr.com/christian/ and http://definr.com/crusade/. One thing to note (for the sake of accuracy) is that the definition of the term 'crusade' hasn't remained stagnant over time. It takes its roots in the Latin cruci-, or crux (oldest forms), referring to a cross. With this in mind, the term originally bore a meaning more along the lines of "a war for the cross", although that meaning can still be assumed in current definitions/contexts. (Neither of these are quite accurate, but they're close enough for all intents and purposes as a reference: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=crusade and http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/.)

[1] This is a forum, but that is irrelevant. Beliefs aren't stated publicly if you weren't already personally convinced of it. [2] But the purpose you have suggested bears no historical evidence.

[truefusion 3]

[1] It is very relevant that this is a forum, as it is the only reason this topic came up. As I've mentioned before, one can be personally convinced about something without having to support it publicly. That was the whole point. You had mentioned that I was supporting evolution (or something along those lines) by posting that I believed evolution to be true. People have sense enough to determine and maintain their own beliefs regardless of me posting about mine, and at the time, I had not posted any arguments -for- evolution. The definition for "support" from Princeton's WordNet can be found at  definr.com/support. Item #2 is probably the most relevant. All that being said, again, personal conviction is irrelevant for the point in question.

 

[2] You need look no further than the very definition of the term, which did not arbitrarily arise. If it is your belief that the term was formulated by those trying to suppress Christian beliefs or to misguide others, so be it. Alternatively, see:  definr.com/christian and  definr.com/crusade. One thing to note (for the sake of accuracy) is that the definition of the term 'crusade' hasn't remained stagnant over time. It takes its roots in the Latin cruci-, or crux (oldest forms), referring to a cross. With this in mind, the term originally bore a meaning more along the lines of "a war for the cross", although that meaning can still be assumed in current definitions/contexts. (Neither of these are quite accurate, but they're close enough for all intents and purposes as a reference: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=crusade

[1] The definition i have been arguing from the start would be what can be found in verb number 3, which is wholly applicable, and i would say is the most relevant. But even if this topic did exist, it does not entail that you would believe in evolution and creationism and therefore mention such. That is why the forums are irrelevant, because your belief is not dependent on the forums. While you don't have to publicly support something to believe in it, that is irrelevant, because you do believe in bothâÂÂeven if it isn't 100%. I've already mentioned a long time ago that my original statement is not restricted to public support. Of course, i cannot know about your belief without you first mentioning it, but you did, which is why i said you support them, because a belief always has support. You said you don't have to support something to believe it, but that is redirecting the issue, because support isn't restricted to publicity. You already stated that you believe in it, that is all that needs to be said to prove what i have been saying.

 

[2] I'll repeat myself but with emphasis:

[2] I do not deny the things common of war (like killing, siege, et cetera); what i said was mentioned to show that there is no historical evidence that the violence was for the sake of conversion (as you mentioned here).

Hence, while "crusade" may concern reaching a goal, the obvious goal of the Crusades was to regain landâÂÂthere is no mention of it being for the sake of conversion.

 

[nolan 0]

[1] There was no support, material or immaterial, so again the point has no merit.. You could argue immaterial support if I had broached the topic myself, although I did not, so that would be foolish. Nor had I, at the time, given any form of approval to the idea. I did detail considerations that would need to be made within the general subject, just as a man with hearing might consider the world of the deaf. This does not lend support of any kind to a particular idea. Part of a debate entails considering varying viewpoints and the intricacies of each. Doing so does not mean you endorse a particular notion, however, and for one to assume so would be misguided.

 

[2] "Christian" and "crusades" go together in the term "Christian crusades". The events are not referred to merely as "crusades", so the response below is irrelevant. Further, if you want to argue that the point was merely to "reclaim land", the end would be restoring land to Christian control, which reverts back to the original point that I had made. Controlling land inherently involves having influence.

 

[1] The definition i have been arguing from the start would be what can be found in verb number 3, which is wholly applicable, and i would say is the most relevant. But even if this topic did exist, it does not entail that you would believe in evolution and creationism and therefore mention such. That is why the forums are irrelevant, because your belief is not dependent on the forums. While you don't have to publicly support something to believe in it, that is irrelevant, because you do believe in both?even if it isn't 100%. I've already mentioned a long time ago that my original statement is not restricted to public support. Of course, i cannot know about your belief without you first mentioning it, but you did, which is why i said you support them, because a belief always has support. You said you don't have to support something to believe it, but that is redirecting the issue, because support isn't restricted to publicity. You already stated that you believe in it, that is all that needs to be said to prove what i have been saying.

 

[2] I'll repeat myself but with emphasis: Hence, while "crusade" may concern reaching a goal, the obvious goal of the Crusades was to regain land?there is no mention of it being for the sake of conversion.

[Baniboy 3]

[1] Things "popping into existence out of nothing" would imply everything needs a beginning. You're contradicting yourself.

 

[2] A lot of different theories, actually, and I've not mixed any of them other than to say that I firmly believe in both creationism and evolution.

 

[3] Nothing definitively does. Hence my point. And yes, you likely are wasting your time.

 

[4] But wait, you just said they don't give an explanation for the most important thing necessary to disprove creationism. Again, contradictory. And feel free never to repeat yourself on my behalf; an argument failed once isn't rectified through repetition.

 

[5] I have a very good grasp an a variety of theories. I assume that what you've gathered about them reaches to about the level of a highschool lecture. Also, feel free to ignore whatever you wish. I am not your parent, so I will not attempt to force anything down your throat, and you ignoring me is the least of my concerns. It does not harm me if you do, nor benefit me if you don't. The origin of matter is, however, very important when attempting to disprove creationism with -any- theory.

 

[6] Please present the quote in which I said what you've accused me of saying, as I don't believe it exists. I merely pointed out that not all creationists are clueless to scientific principle, and some are, in fact, most renown for their accomplishment in the field. Furthermore, this is not an academic debate, and I've sat in, facilitated, and contributed to many. Industry and field research conferences are greatly different than the highschool debates you may be accustomed to.

 

[7] You're borrowing another point from me here, and it was a point you argued against previously. Quote: "And telling that things are impossible to understand because we don't have an explanation now is kinda dumb." I take it you've had a change of heart, and that's forgivable, although for the record, at the industry- and university-level, contradictions are highly frowned upon.

1. No, things being unable to pop into existence out of nothing implies that things were already there. You're still assuming that everything needs a beginning again, try to look at things from multiple perspectives. I never said that energy, or what it consists of has an origin.

 

2. Yes, you did. Why would you repeat the obvious things all the time? And by obvious things I mean you saying that the theories of evolution and big bang don't explain the origin of matter. Is there any argument in that? It's like me saying that because apples are red, carrots must be blue. Saying that big bang doesn't explain the origin of matter doesn't justify or prove creationism. If we had evidence for creationism(things popping into existence out of nothing), things would be different. I know this isn't what you exactly said, but just clearing this out for you. And for believing in creationism, do you mean the bronze age mythologies or just believing that something created everything?

 

4. By explanation I mean the actual things they are supposed to explain, not the freaking origin of energy. And there is no evidence in our possession to disprove the theories of Evolution or Big Bang. Otherwise they would've been disqualified many years ago.

 

5. Actually I'm very interested in physics. My knowledge of thermodynamics and understanding of energy goes beyond highschool physics.

And using the scientific method, you don't need a theory to disprove another theory. A theory itself must be falsifiable with testable facts. For example, the standard model. The standard model doesn't need something to take its place to be disproved. All you need to do is to prove that the Higg's particle doesn't exist, which is what they're doing in Switzerland with LHC. Although we don't have "evidence" of things popping into existence out of nothing, we have no evidence that they do either, so we can conclude that we don't know and not suffocate the seek for the answer by saying that a higher creature did it.

 

6. But it did give the impression of what I accused you of. Sorry if I understood it in the wrong way. And by saying that it would be disqualified in any academic debate I was giving you hint that what you said was not an argument and would be understood the way I did. And I never said that all creationists are unaware of the scientific principle, you answered to an argument which I never said.

 

7. It was your own fault that you were too excited of finding me "contradicting" myself that you forgot to read the reason why I typed that. I can't take the responsibility for your ignorance.

 

Moving on... *Gosh I have to stop messing myself with these debates in the future, takes so much of my time.*

 

[1] Definition in biology: hence why i said it is better to state the "theory of evolution," since "evolution" is "change over time," which encompasses more than the theory of evolution. I can answer "yes" to every one of those question you provided, but since "evolution" encompasses more than the theory of evolution, it does not follow that i believe the theory of evolution is true, especially since your questions only touch on the possibilities of things, not things that have actually occurred. Since your questions do not entail that these things actually did occur, i can wholly agree while still denying the theory of evolution.

Stop picking on the small typos that I couldn't edit!

The theory of evolution suggests that species evolve and the evolving in a macroscale is controlled by natural selection. If you agreed with what I said, I don't care anymore if you don't want to agree with the theory of evolution. I just broke it down to small parts so it will be more digestible and you'll agree with it without realizing it.

 

[2] I've already told you the differences, you merely have to show which one is the case. The "can't prove a negative" mentality that is implied here will always be impractical, regardless of context. Proving one denies the other, since they are mutually exclusive at their core (in about every other area they are mutual). If one proves creationism, then it does prove evolution false, for as mentioned before, they are mutually exclusive at their core. Likewise, all evidence is interpreted. This means that proving creationism forces people to look at the evidence in a different light. But "in REALITY:" are not arguments for God or creationism said in reality?

Yet again I repeat the question I asked from nolan, are we talking about energy or organisms? I think we're talking about both + christian creationism, right(because if we do, evolution and creationism are exclusive)? So, by following the bible and agreeing that it has passed over 2000 years since Jesus died, you can conclude that everything is around 6 000 years old. If you want to skip over that, let's do it. But you still have to explain how something can come from nothing.

 

And this evidence you speak of, you mean those little mutations that have yet to amount to anything to the extent of the theory of evolution as a whole? And from what i've been seeing in medical journals has been totally unbeneficial to the species, for why else would there be medicine and the like to fight things off? Natural selection? From what is observable, the species (not just humans) should have died a long time ago.

FAIL

Actually, that evidence is more than enough to prove the theory of evolution to be true, but since you started this with false analogy, let's finish it.

Medical journals? That's where you look for evidence against evolution? Anyway, I can give you an example. In Africa, large amount of the population has a gene that causes cancer(or something, I'm not exactly sure), but that same gene also reduces a risk of dying to malaria. In Papua-Guinea(or whatever it is in English) a cannibal-tribe has developed full immunity to prion-diseases(= Braincell disease, most known ones are mad cow disease and Creutzfeldt-Jakob's disease). This was caused because they ate the brains of the ones that died because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%28disease in the 1900's. Most of the population died. Immunity was created in just 3-5 decades. This is just a small example. And I need some examples of these "observations" you've made to conculde that life should've died off a long time ago.

 

[3.1] My logic? I've already previously mentioned i was using your form of reasoning. So what do i have now? I have a closer look on the reasons why you believe metaphysical things do not exist. From what i can gather, you are limiting "existence" to only physical things, while providing no justification for such an assumption (presupposition). While i've never seen the "laws of thermodynamics" state that anything without kinetic energy does not exist (since that would be impractical), kinetic energy is energy in "motion." That means if it is not in motion, then there is no kinetic energy. That means anything, whether physical or metaphysical, would not therefore exist without kinetic energy.

Yes, your logic, you took my logic and twisted it into something evil And of course I limit existence to physical things, I thought you had figured that out already by now? And I was kinda expecting that to be brought up. FYI, the only forms of energy are potential and kinetic energy. Have a look at the laws of thermodynamics one more time, then read some quantum mechanics and wonder why we can't reach 0 Kelvin, I'm sure you'll experience an enlightenment during the process. And I believe I mentioned this already in my "Thermal Energy", thread, look that up if you don't want to spend the next 4 weeks reading the basics of quantum mechanics. And yes, every non-physical thing is metaphysical. But that wouldn't prove anything.

 

But while we humans use words to reference things, even if they are ideas, it does not mean that because they are metaphysical that they don't exist. Granted, our minds normally cannot fully understand infinite things, especially since a lot of our words place limitations on these infinite things, though it is illogical to do so. You can't say "without space," because space is a void, and it is infinite: space - space = space. You can "take up" space, but you'll still be left with an infinite amount of space, even if you can't use the "remaining portion" (be it because of lack of oxygen or what-have-you). Because you can "take up" space, we know this void exists, for how else would you be able to "take up" space?

You can't use mathematical patterns to describe something that's not physical. Using the same pattern I could prove why space is infinite, all you have to agree is that existence takes place in non-existence. If space is non-existence, 0 = 0, 0 - 0 = 0. Even if metaphysical realm exist as in your arguments(magical world where god is having his morning coffee? ), there is no evidence of it interacting with the physical realm.

 

Metaphysical things, however, need not be limited to space alone; for, indeed, space isn't the only metaphysical thing.

 

[4] By quoting the word "mind," you are implying acknowledgment of its metaphysical nature. But my argument for its metaphysical nature is a process of elimination, so you'll have to explain what you mean or intend with the word "prove."

With the word "prove", I mean that if you could provide me with evidence or logic that suggests that metaphysical/non-existing can affect the physical. I need some examples of this at least. If mind is metaphysical, so is making decisions, and if making decisions is metaphysical and launches physical processes, I need examples.

 

Now I'll just go and release my frustration by playing violent games, that's what you creationists want, isn't it? Encourage me to kill!(not that I need much encouragement) Just kidding

[nolan 0]

[1] If things were already there, then there was no "nothing" to pop out of. I've pointed this out to you before. Further, to assume "things were already there", but to limit the possibility of things that were "already there" simply to mesh more cooperatively with whatever paradigm you choose to adhere to is, as I've mentioned before, constricting and nearsighted.

[2] Again, you've failed to show where I've done so. Not only this, but my entire point was that creationism is not disproved by the other concepts you've referenced, which you've since agreed with on two separate occassions.

[4] Which again do not touch on the fundamental concepts of creationism.

[5] While you're going on with the "don't" knows that you've criticised mentioning earlier, you might want to throw in that we "don't know" if a "higher creature did it", because as you say, it cannot be "falsified with testable facts". Those are your own words, simply put into perspective.

[6] You don't have to be sorry. As for answering to an argument that never existed, it was a valid point that needed no greater introduction than the context it was placed in (the scientific considerations of creationism, that is).

[7] Saying one thing and then saying another which has a meaning contrary to your earlier statement is called a contradiction. You can look up the word in your dictionary of choice, if you prefer. The reason for you contradicting yourself is beyond my concern. As I've mentioned before, contradictions are highly frowned upon in any true academic or professional debate, and no one would spare you the time to explain yourself.

[8] One providing no substantive arguments to a debate is not only wasting their own time, but the time of those who are participating substantively.

Further, since you're so apt at trying to tear concepts down (ineffectively, nonetheless) in less than a minute, try these:

1. How did the concept of evolution itself ever come into being? Hint: without believing in creationism, your answer can only be: "through a series of random particle collisions that resulted in the framework for a complicated, ingrained function within living organisms". I'm sure even you can see the fallacy here.

2. Why should creatures have the desire to reproduce? After all, whether a species continues on or not is of little consequence to the universe. Note, too, that reproduction is not a subordinate function of evolution, but rather, evolution provides subordinate functions for reproduction. You should know that if you've studied evolution. (Your answer? A series of random particle collisions came together to instill in life the will and capacity to multiply.)

3. Why should a creature, arbitrarily created, have an ingrained system for ceasing its own existence (that is, why should death occur)? The constructs of death are embodied in our very genetic makeup, although our bodies are certainly otherwise able to sustain themselves for longer, being carbon-based lifeforms. The body itself, however, follows a natural path of degeneration, beyond the requirements of its material existence. This (as you know) again is not a subset of evolution, and to say that population control is the concern of an arbitrarily created lifeform is an awful stretch. In reality, there is no pinnable reason for death to have ever existed, and as it stands, the very notion is somewhat counterintuitive to the typical nature of evolution. (Your reply? Again, random particle collisions.)

In the end, you're either placing an extraordinary amount of faith on arbitrarily colliding particles, or accepting that there might just be something larger than your own existence. For you to claim one is more scientific or intelligent than the other is simple foolishness by any other name.

1. No, things being unable to pop into existence out of nothing implies that things were already there. You're still assuming that everything needs a beginning again, try to look at things from multiple perspectives. I never said that energy, or what it consists of has an origin.
2. Yes, you did. Why would you repeat the obvious things all the time? And by obvious things I mean you saying that the theories of evolution and big bang don't explain the origin of matter. Is there any argument in that? It's like me saying that because apples are red, carrots must be blue. Saying that big bang doesn't explain the origin of matter doesn't justify or prove creationism. If we had evidence for creationism(things popping into existence out of nothing), things would be different. I know this isn't what you exactly said, but just clearing this out for you. And for believing in creationism, do you mean the bronze age mythologies or just believing that something created everything?

4. By explanation I mean the actual things they are supposed to explain, not the freaking origin of energy. And there is no evidence in our possession to disprove the theories of Evolution or Big Bang. Otherwise they would've been disqualified many years ago.

5. Actually I'm very interested in physics. My knowledge of thermodynamics and understanding of energy goes beyond highschool physics.
And using the scientific method, you don't need a theory to disprove another theory. A theory itself must be falsifiable with testable facts. For example, the standard model. The standard model doesn't need something to take its place to be disproved. All you need to do is to prove that the Higg's particle doesn't exist, which is what they're doing in Switzerland with LHC. Although we don't have "evidence" of things popping into existence out of nothing, we have no evidence that they do either, so we can conclude that we don't know and not suffocate the seek for the answer by saying that a higher creature did it.

6. But it did give the impression of what I accused you of. Sorry if I understood it in the wrong way. And by saying that it would be disqualified in any academic debate I was giving you hint that what you said was not an argument and would be understood the way I did. And I never said that all creationists are unaware of the scientific principle, you answered to an argument which I never said.

7. It was your own fault that you were too excited of finding me "contradicting" myself that you forgot to read the reason why I typed that. I can't take the responsibility for your ignorance.

8. Moving on... *Gosh I have to stop messing myself with these debates in the future, takes so much of my time.*

[Baniboy 3]

[1] If things were already there, then there was no "nothing" to pop out of. I've pointed this out to you before. Further, to assume "things were already there", but to limit the possibility of things that were "already there" simply to mesh more cooperatively with whatever paradigm you choose to adhere to is, as I've mentioned before, constricting and nearsighted.
[2] Again, you've failed to show where I've done so. Not only this, but my entire point was that creationism is not disproved by the other concepts you've referenced, which you've since agreed with on two separate occassions.

[4] Which again do not touch on the fundamental concepts of creationism.

[5] While you're going on with the "don't" knows that you've criticised mentioning earlier, you might want to throw in that we "don't know" if a "higher creature did it", because as you say, it cannot be "falsified with testable facts". Those are your own words, simply put into perspective.

[6] You don't have to be sorry. As for answering to an argument that never existed, it was a valid point that needed no greater introduction than the context it was placed in (the scientific considerations of creationism, that is).

[7] Saying one thing and then saying another which has a meaning contrary to your earlier statement is called a contradiction. You can look up the word in your dictionary of choice, if you prefer. The reason for you contradicting yourself is beyond my concern. As I've mentioned before, contradictions are highly frowned upon in any true academic or professional debate, and no one would spare you the time to explain yourself.

[8] One providing no substantive arguments to a debate is not only wasting their own time, but the time of those who are participating substantively.

Further, since you're so apt at trying to tear concepts down (ineffectively, nonetheless) in less than a minute, try these:

1. How did the concept of evolution itself ever come into being? Hint: without believing in creationism, your answer can only be: "through a series of random particle collisions that resulted in the framework for a complicated, ingrained function within living organisms". I'm sure even you can see the fallacy here.

2. Why should creatures have the desire to reproduce? After all, whether a species continues on or not is of little consequence to the universe. Note, too, that reproduction is not a subordinate function of evolution, but rather, evolution provides subordinate functions for reproduction. You should know that if you've studied evolution. (Your answer? A series of random particle collisions came together to instill in life the will and capacity to multiply.)

3. Why should a creature, arbitrarily created, have an ingrained system for ceasing its own existence (that is, why should death occur)? The constructs of death are embodied in our very genetic makeup, although our bodies are certainly otherwise able to sustain themselves for longer, being carbon-based lifeforms. The body itself, however, follows a natural path of degeneration, beyond the requirements of its material existence. This (as you know) again is not a subset of evolution, and to say that population control is the concern of an arbitrarily created lifeform is an awful stretch. In reality, there is no pinnable reason for death to have ever existed, and as it stands, the very notion is somewhat counterintuitive to the typical nature of evolution. (Your reply? Again, random particle collisions.)

In the end, you're either placing an extraordinary amount of faith on arbitrarily colliding particles, or accepting that there might just be something larger than your own existence. For you to claim one is more scientific or intelligent than the other is simple foolishness by any other name.

1. Are you trying to confuse me with word games or something ? I'm saying I don't know. But if things need an origin(like you assume after I've told you not to 3 times or something ), it wouldn't be possible and I gave you the reason. It's you that are shortsighted here, creationism states that something had to make everything, because everything couldn't exist without some reason. I'm saying that it doesn't make sense, since the thing creating the universe would need a cause itself(= demanding a cause for everything is short-sighted). Instead, if everything having to pop out of nothing like in creationism, it had been there forever, you wouldn't need a cause. Or would ? because the movement of particles do need a cause even if existence doesn't. Which would lead us to the ultimate cause? But wouldn't that itself need a cause. Thinking about this won't lead anywhere, that's why you have to say that you don't know. You can't even guess anything in this subject without contradicting yourself and making exceptions in your own logic to try to desperately prove yourself that it makes sense. And especially, don't ever start doing it without evidence, it's so pathetic when people do so.

2. What's up with the "big bang doesn't explain this and that" then? + you didn't answer my question at the end. My entire point was that you don't have any evidence for creationism even tho you don't have anything to disprove it with. You don't have any evidence to disprove my retarded cappuccino-maker monkey either. You just believe in creationism because you don't understand and it's freaking you out, so it seems a little easier to ignore and pretend to know.

4. Where I said they did?

5. Lol, you just repeated what I said. I'm saying we don't know, so let's not assume. You don't know, but you assume and try to find facts that fit your views instead of giving in.

7. When I consciously contradict myself, put an exception to the rule AND give you the reason for it...

And let's not start assuming things about existence itself, because that is one thing I don't think we can ever understand. We have to be outside the system to monitor the things happening in the system itself. We can't get outside existence to monitor existence in the universe itself.

You're too excited, man. Calm down if you feel that it's contrary, that's beyond me. But whatever, back on topic.

8. Never said I was wasting time, I said it took up time. If you feel like wasting your time, close the tab/window/whatever. Easy for you, it takes me 1 hour or so to write one of these.

Ignoring the facts and questions that I use to tear things down doesn't make them ineffective. And FYI, reading that takes more than a minute

1. So you're saying a magical being with a magic hat came and made everything out of nothing, arranged amino acids into DNA, made it variable and BOOM life came to be. Me, I can prove that DNA is the result of particle interaction, the variation of it is a result of particle interaction etc. You're putting a magical being behind everything because you don't know and want a peace of mind, I admit that I don't know. And particle interaction isn't random FYI. Irreducible complexity doesn't exist, you're just assuming. And life didn't have to start complex.

2. Desire to reproduce? It's a chemical reaction, there is no "desire" for single-celled organisms, how you explain that? It's a chemical reaction, just because you don't understand the reproduction of DNA doesn't mean you have to tell a story about how it was magically constructed by something higher. It's how life works. Capable of reproduction = passes genes on, incapable of reproduction = doesn't pass genes on. Natural selection is its name, remember? Why doesn't a brick have the "desire" to reproduce?

3. Not actually, there is no death-gene that we know of. Death is simple erosion. The body can't produce certain chemicals to renew certain types of cells(neurons for example). It's not "designed" to die off. If you claim so, provide evidence, please.

I'm not placing faith in arbitrary interaction of particles, but I can prove to you that life is a result of them. You can't prove that the cause of these interactions is controlled by a higher being. That's why I refuse to believe in bronze-age myths without evidence. I accept that I don't know(which you have a problem with admitting obviously), I don't draw conclusions out of nothing because I don't know.
And no, I'm claiming that admitting that you don't know is more intelligent and logical than trying to make up an answer without evidence. I'm asking for evidence of things popping into existence out of nothing, which you don't provide me with. That is when you fail at your attempts to prove creationism to be true.


BTW, where's tf?