[Sir Real]

Originally posted by Prime2U: I have never once stated that all forms of life have continued unchanged. I am a firm believer of natural selection as I have said many times. How is it that you misunderstand this? The proof of a big bang is sketchy at best. It is entirely possible that a big bang did happen. As you say, you cannot prove what caused it. I have an extremely hard time even trying to consider that it happened at random and everything turned out so perfectly, especially ANY type of life. The things that have been tacked on are (and these are even listed on the thread you yourself gave me as not really being part of the original definition of evolution): 1. all life began in the sea and evolved to how it is today 2. The big bang, especially the idea that the big bang was totally random 3. Some say not only did all land life came from the sea, but that all life began with one microbial organism None of these three has any proof whatsoever that it is true.

Natural selection is evolution to denny one is to denny the other.
As for 1.2&3 that proven stuff. Carbon and Uraiun dating and the sheer fact that sea life is discovered in the oldest levels of soil while anyform of land life is not in that level tells us that sea life came first. And if not a single ogamisn, what else?
The orgainal theory of evolution has been altered so it fits with our current knowlage, just like the old theorys of the universe have been changed as we know that everything doesn't go aroung us.

As for the big bang all spacal bodies can be traced back it there ever expanding course to a single point in space, is that just ramdom chance? Besides if the universe was one day to collapse upon itself it would proudce a graity well to shuch magnetiud that it could well fold time and expolde outward again as the big bang, but that just theory.

Originally posted by Prime2U: Ahhh, but to a person with faith, that faith makes things true. To a scientist with a theory, faith will not make it true. He must have proof. And he has none. so therefore he is deluding himself. you are viewing it solely from a scientific perspective, while I am viewing it from both sides, and I feel I am qualified to do so. From a scientific perspective, I cannot say that creation is false, unless I prove that evolution is true. At this point I cannot prove that, so for now I must accept creation as truth. Many scientists refuse to do this, even though they have no proof, as, IMO it means they aren't as all knowing as they like to think. My opinions come not from my faith, although this also screams them at me, but from a clear scientific perspective of the situation as it stands thus far, not clouded by a desire to disprove God in the universe.

So as one thing is unproven you chose a even less proven theory to be true? That is not science, that being a sheep! if they are proven to current science standerds, just like the theorys of gravity, realitive and many others which the basies of teaching stand upon, would you disclaim these?

'Many scientists refuse to do this, even though they have no proof, as, IMO it means they aren't as all knowing as they like to think. My opinions come not from my faith, although this also screams them at me, but from a clear scientific perspective of the situation as it stands thus far, not clouded by a desire to disprove God in the universe.

That a assumtion not all scientiest are tring to disprove god and you are doing just what you are having a go them for, It is pointless to contine this as you seem to stand on the basies that the bible is all truth while everything else is wrong and while you claim to be of a scietifict mind to is blantly overious that you are not because your mind is close anything different.



[This message has been edited by Sir Real (edited 10-31-2001).]