Written by whatsacow on 13.08.2010 at 06:08

Evolution has never ever been proven, so by scientific procedure alone it cannot be a fact. Also, you choose to believe in a mathematical improbability to belief in a creator. Personally, i believe in neither. Evolutionism is simply a religion, no matter how you put it. And all religion is a man made creation to answer the question of why. There is not a single religion imo that makes sense, and that includes evloution.

Written by TheBigRossowski on 13.08.2010 at 13:57

Written by whatsacow on 13.08.2010 at 06:08

Evolution has never ever been proven, so by scientific procedure alone it cannot be a fact. Also, you choose to believe in a mathematical improbability to belief in a creator. Personally, i believe in neither. Evolutionism is simply a religion, no matter how you put it. And all religion is a man made creation to answer the question of why. There is not a single religion imo that makes sense, and that includes evloution.

Seriously?...

Wow...

Go buy yourself some books on evolution, watch documentaries on it, read science magazines and then come back here with a clear head, man.

Written by whatsacow on 13.08.2010 at 15:54

Written by TheBigRossowski on 13.08.2010 at 13:57

Written by whatsacow on 13.08.2010 at 06:08

Evolution has never ever been proven, so by scientific procedure alone it cannot be a fact. Also, you choose to believe in a mathematical improbability to belief in a creator. Personally, i believe in neither. Evolutionism is simply a religion, no matter how you put it. And all religion is a man made creation to answer the question of why. There is not a single religion imo that makes sense, and that includes evloution.

Seriously?...

Wow...

Go buy yourself some books on evolution, watch documentaries on it, read science magazines and then come back here with a clear head, man.

No. I mean the big bang. It hasn't been physically proven. Evolution is a known fact. My sentence just came out wrong.

Written by TheBigRossowski on 15.08.2010 at 23:18

Written by whatsacow on 13.08.2010 at 15:54

Written by TheBigRossowski on 13.08.2010 at 13:57

Written by whatsacow on 13.08.2010 at 06:08

Evolution has never ever been proven, so by scientific procedure alone it cannot be a fact. Also, you choose to believe in a mathematical improbability to belief in a creator. Personally, i believe in neither. Evolutionism is simply a religion, no matter how you put it. And all religion is a man made creation to answer the question of why. There is not a single religion imo that makes sense, and that includes evloution.

Seriously?...

Wow...

Go buy yourself some books on evolution, watch documentaries on it, read science magazines and then come back here with a clear head, man.

No. I mean the big bang. It hasn't been physically proven. Evolution is a known fact. My sentence just came out wrong.

Haha, I realized that after I continued to read, lol. Well, in that case, just watch Lawrence Krauss' ''A Universe from Nothing''. Big Bang is almost as certain, Dude.

-Standard Candles measuring distance through the Universe
-Expansion of the universe, galaxies drifting apart
-ninjas

And continuing on evolution now...

Written by whatsacow on 16.08.2010 at 04:02

Written by TheBigRossowski on 15.08.2010 at 23:18

Written by whatsacow on 13.08.2010 at 15:54

Written by TheBigRossowski on 13.08.2010 at 13:57

Written by whatsacow on 13.08.2010 at 06:08

Evolution has never ever been proven, so by scientific procedure alone it cannot be a fact. Also, you choose to believe in a mathematical improbability to belief in a creator. Personally, i believe in neither. Evolutionism is simply a religion, no matter how you put it. And all religion is a man made creation to answer the question of why. There is not a single religion imo that makes sense, and that includes evloution.

Seriously?...

Wow...

Go buy yourself some books on evolution, watch documentaries on it, read science magazines and then come back here with a clear head, man.

No. I mean the big bang. It hasn't been physically proven. Evolution is a known fact. My sentence just came out wrong.

Haha, I realized that after I continued to read, lol. Well, in that case, just watch Lawrence Krauss' ''A Universe from Nothing''. Big Bang is almost as certain, Dude.

-Standard Candles measuring distance through the Universe
-Expansion of the universe, galaxies drifting apart
-ninjas

And continuing on evolution now...

Idk... to me both theories (creation and life from nothing) seem as empty as each other.

Written by TheBigRossowski on 16.08.2010 at 13:38

Written by whatsacow on 16.08.2010 at 04:02

Written by TheBigRossowski on 15.08.2010 at 23:18

Written by whatsacow on 13.08.2010 at 15:54

Written by TheBigRossowski on 13.08.2010 at 13:57

Written by whatsacow on 13.08.2010 at 06:08

Evolution has never ever been proven, so by scientific procedure alone it cannot be a fact. Also, you choose to believe in a mathematical improbability to belief in a creator. Personally, i believe in neither. Evolutionism is simply a religion, no matter how you put it. And all religion is a man made creation to answer the question of why. There is not a single religion imo that makes sense, and that includes evloution.

Seriously?...

Wow...

Go buy yourself some books on evolution, watch documentaries on it, read science magazines and then come back here with a clear head, man.

No. I mean the big bang. It hasn't been physically proven. Evolution is a known fact. My sentence just came out wrong.

Haha, I realized that after I continued to read, lol. Well, in that case, just watch Lawrence Krauss' ''A Universe from Nothing''. Big Bang is almost as certain, Dude.

-Standard Candles measuring distance through the Universe
-Expansion of the universe, galaxies drifting apart
-ninjas

And continuing on evolution now...

Idk... to me both theories (creation and life from nothing) seem as empty as each other.

Did you watch the video? ''Nothing isn't quite nothing any more''

Well, we'll probably never know, so it's best to just keep on searching and putting pieces of the puzzle together.

And evolution is also not an explanation of how life began, just how it evolved.

Written by akatana on 17.08.2010 at 09:46

Written by whatsacow on 17.08.2010 at 04:09


As i stated before, i dont have a problem with evolution, i believe life has evolved and adapted, but i dont believe life just came out of nowhere, as the big bang states. My thing is that all life comes from other life, and it doesnt make sense that the begining we just came from nothing.

The issue is not really the big bang. The big bang describes how matter was formed in the universe, or more exactly how the universe which we know today started. The difficulty in proving such a theory is that there is little evidence that scientists can use and mostly there are only mathematical models which confirm the few pieces of empirical evidence that we have (like the expanding universe). In such models there are also things that scientists cannot explain due to the lack of evidence but they are trying to find evidence. Dark matter is one problem with the big bang theory, the CERN collider was built in order to find exactly this dark matter. If it turns out that there is no dark matter then the theory needs to be revised, if dark matter is found, it is another piece of evidence supporting the big bang model. But most likely, we will never know for sure how the matter in the universe formed. There are also theories that state that the universe is eternal and it just shifts from energy to matter and back. Einstein famously proved that energy and mass are related ,through his E= mc^2, meaning that matter can turn into energy and back.

Now, while it is hard to find evidence for the origin of the universe it is much easier to find evidence for the origin of life on earth and for the evolution of life. It is important to see the difference in what the specific theories explain. Big bang explains the origin of the universe, abiogenesis explains the origin of life and evolution explains how complex life can evolve from simple life. The one starts where the other stops. While there is little evidence for the big bang, there is quite good evidence for abiogenesis and irrefutable evidence for evolution.

So the interesting question here is how life formed from non-life, which is what abiogenesis explains. Life did not form out of nothing, spontaneous generation has been disproven for centuries. Even the basic cell is too complex to have formed out of nothing by pure chance. So how did the first cell come into existence? In order to answer that we must first answer how the first self-replicating organic matter came into being. The first step is the formation of nucleotides which are the basic building blocks of DNA and RNA, the first self-replicating molecules. IT turns out that if you leave hydrogen cyanide and ammonia brew for some time in conditions similar to those on earth in the beginning, they produce adenine, which together with ribose and phosphates form one of the four nucleotides that make up DNA. These nucleotides then formed polynucleotides through natural processes. For nucleotides to join you need a catalyst and researchers have found that on the primordial earth there was exactly such a substance. Next, the polynucleotides formed RNA (ribo-nucleic-acid) are the first self-replicating molecules which can make copies of themselves. These RNA molecules combined with other substances that were present at that time such as lipids which are naturally bound to group together. Therefore RNA molecules that attracted these substance were protected in a mycell membrane. And this is the first self-replicating cell. Over a long period of time, RNA evolved to DNA. All these processes are entirely natural, the ingredients for life are basic chemistry, physics and time, a lot of time. That's it!

The research being conducted in this area is difficult because researchers have to emulate the conditions on earth billions of years ago and furthermore, the amount if information that is left is scarce. It is no surprise that progress is slow and the evidence for such a theory is not nearly as abundant as for evolution. Nevertheless, it has been shown that through entirely natural processes involving chemicals that could have formed on the primordial earth, life can come out of non-life. And this is where evolution starts.

Written by whatsacow on 17.08.2010 at 04:09


As i stated before, i dont have a problem with evolution, i believe life has evolved and adapted, but i dont believe life just came out of nowhere, as the big bang states. My thing is that all life comes from other life, and it doesnt make sense that the begining we just came from nothing.

Written by Zombie on 18.08.2010 at 03:16


And, i agree with 'whats-a-cow' argument, the odds of the big band theory being true is as the odds of the existence of god

Quote:

... yet some of us prefer religion, and some prefer science

Quote:

.. but both share a great amount of 'belief' that isn't based on fact, as seriously science is turning into a religion nowadays and scientific theories are its sacred bible. so, we dont need a new doctrine other than the already existing religious one.

Written by Guest on 18.08.2010 at 04:05

Written by Zombie on 18.08.2010 at 03:16


And, i agree with 'whats-a-cow' argument, the odds of the big band theory being true is as the odds of the existence of god

WHAT? I mean WHAAAAAAAAAT? How on Earth do you measure the likelyhood of God? I mean...what did I just read...the...I am not...confusion...how did you get....ugh...WHAT?

Furthermore, you can't argue likelyhood when arguing for the existence or non-existence of God, you have to argue necessity.

Quote:

... yet some of us prefer religion, and some prefer science

There is no such choice. Science is not an alternative to religion no more than philosophy is an alternative for poetry and vice versa.

Quote:

.. but both share a great amount of 'belief' that isn't based on fact, as seriously science is turning into a religion nowadays and scientific theories are its sacred bible. so, we dont need a new doctrine other than the already existing religious one.

There's a big difference between scientific and religious beliefs. One is the belief in something that might some day be proven scientifically (life from no life) and the other is belief in something that science can't touch - a noncorporeal nonmateriel God.
Science IS NOT turning into a religion no more than creationism or ID are turning into science and no one should think that it is just because people like Dawkins choose to write books on topics they know absolutely nothing about and people like Behe and Dembski try to sell math/philosophy as science.

Written by whatsacow on 18.08.2010 at 06:59

Ok, I thought science was supposed to be an open minded topic. I mean if Galileo didn't have an open mind and just believed what every scientist, the earth would still be the centre of the universe.

Quote:

Secondly, neither me or ezz said anything about there being a god, we just said that both theories are based on a large amount of belief in theories that haven't and aren't likely to be proven.

Quote:

Thirdly, you and your 'gods' of science are not lawmakers. Their words are merely theories. What your saying is that these things WILL be proved, which is like me saying Finland will win the next olympics. You don't know it for a fact, so don't treat us like idiots because we disagree with you.

Quote:

I mean how do you know there was a massive explosion and we were just here? It seems quite illogical to me: "Poof. Ooh ooh ah ah. Honey, I'm home." How do you know that happened. How do you know we arent the bacteria growing off a gigantic apple? I mean that sounds every part as scientific as god or the big bang theory.

Written by Guest on 18.08.2010 at 07:33

Written by whatsacow on 18.08.2010 at 06:59

Ok, I thought science was supposed to be an open minded topic. I mean if Galileo didn't have an open mind and just believed what every scientist, the earth would still be the centre of the universe.

Science can ask questions about the natural world, but that's where it ends. When you look at the natural world and draw any theological or anti-theological implications, you're not doing science anymore, you are doing philosophy. This is why a biology teacher can not talk about ID in the classroom. On the other hand, if a biology teacher says that Darwinian evolution saved mankind from superstition and disproved the creation myth, that's wrong too. God doesn't belong in biology class just like Vivaldi doesn't belong in math class.

Quote:

Secondly, neither me or ezz said anything about there being a god, we just said that both theories are based on a large amount of belief in theories that haven't and aren't likely to be proven.

The difference is that scientific theories are falsifiable. A scientific theory can be proven right or proven wrong. You can't falsify God.

Quote:

Thirdly, you and your 'gods' of science are not lawmakers. Their words are merely theories. What your saying is that these things WILL be proved, which is like me saying Finland will win the next olympics. You don't know it for a fact, so don't treat us like idiots because we disagree with you.

Just what do you mean by "gods" exactly? Do you mean people like Richard Dawkins? FYI: I don't like Richard Dawkins, because he's written a book on philosophy while being ignorant of philosophy. I certainly don't accept theories just because I like their philosophical implications, no one should, and I question everything to a reasonable extent. My point about belief in scientific theories is not that they will be proven to be true, but that they can be proven true or false. That is not the case with God. God is scientifically untouchable.

Quote:

I mean how do you know there was a massive explosion and we were just here? It seems quite illogical to me: "Poof. Ooh ooh ah ah. Honey, I'm home." How do you know that happened. How do you know we arent the bacteria growing off a gigantic apple? I mean that sounds every part as scientific as god or the big bang theory.

When did I ever say I accept or support the Big Bang theory? Frankly, I haven't studied the matter quite as much as I would like to have. I do know that the theory can explain the current shape of the universe, not it's existence. It was not "nothing" that started rapidly expanding. But this doesn't mean that "I know" how it happened. But God certainly doesn't explain how, after all it is an answer to the question who? or what? not how?

As for the: "Poof. Ooh ooh. Ah ah. Honey, I'm home!", that's just ignorant. I might just as well sum up your explanation with: it was a magical man on the clouds, and I would be no more misinterpeting the intellectual philosophical construct of God than you are misintepreting the evolution of the universe and of life.

Bacteria growing on a gigantic apple is actually a lot more scientific than God, because apples and bacteria are physical and therefore can be observed and empirically tested, which God can not. Please understand this: science can't deal with the non-physical. This doesn't prove that the non-physical doesn't exist (despite most atheists being materialists), it just means you're not doing science when arguing for God's existence, you're doing philosophy. That is ok, it doesn't have to be any other way. People who demand scientific proof that a God exists or does not exist, don't understand science or God.

Written by Zombie on 18.08.2010 at 03:16

please wake up people, and question things.

Written by Valentin B on 18.08.2010 at 08:54

it's like some people (not you) don't WANT to understand it and prefer to stay in the darkness of literal 7-day creation or the belief in a 6000-year old earth just for comfort.

Written by Valentin B on 18.08.2010 at 08:54

Written by Zombie on 18.08.2010 at 03:16

please wake up people, and question things.

i have to agree with taka here. i'm all for questioning and seeing through bullshit in whatever form it may arise, but the same scientific process that brought us computer screens and recorded music has continuously refined the theory of evolution up to the result we have today, which is a sound, working and proven theory/fact. there are still some loose ends but the general idea(that life morphs over time as a result of the weaker specimens of the species dying) is as true and simple as 2+2 = 4. it's so fucking simple, it's like some people (not you) don't WANT to understand it and prefer to stay in the darkness of literal 7-day creation or the belief in a 6000-year old earth just for comfort.

what kind of evidence do you have if you are so sure that evolution is wrong, aside from a hunch?

plus, if you noticed the table in this thread, the world-predominating view is that evolution is NOT the correct theory. "please wake up people, and question things" indeed

Written by whatsacow on 13.08.2010 at 07:48

Written by Zombie on 13.08.2010 at 06:33

Well, Evolution IS a fact, proven scientifically with hundreds of proofs... HOWEVER, nothing can disprove that the first life forms were 'created' and then evolved into the species we see today

Sorry... sentence is wrong. Evolution is correct, i was referring to the big bang THEORY.

Quote:

Quote:

The Big Bang theory however, is TESTABLE, and has be shown to work through numerous studies involving physics and maths. Compare this to the Gravitational theory. We know it exists, yet we can;t prove it 100%. Or houw about Pluto's orbit? Since it's discovery, we know it orbits around the sun..... but how? It takes 245 years or so to complete the orbit. We know from this kind of testing.

Quote:

Quote:

Written by whatsacow on 28.09.2010 at 09:00

The Big Bang theory however, is TESTABLE, and has be shown to work through numerous studies involving physics and maths. Compare this to the Gravitational theory. We know it exists, yet we can;t prove it 100%. Or houw about Pluto's orbit? Since it's discovery, we know it orbits around the sun..... but how? It takes 245 years or so to complete the orbit. We know from this kind of testing.

Please point me to these studies. I am actually genuinely interested.

Written by BasicMan on 18.11.2010 at 02:00

It is funny what is the perception of creationists and evolutionists.

Creationists, all being christians..... untrue, most creationists are Muslims, and Hindu's if we take the whole mass of creationists in the world there will be only a small percentage of christians in it.

Evolution as non compatible with religion.... as far as I know most people in the world are religious, and most people in the world believe in evolution. A lot of the leading paleontologists, physicists, geologists and biologists who have done research about the prehistoric past are christians of many denominations and jewish, and also I think the catholic church, has recently publicly advise the followers to regard creationism as a bunch of irrational ideas.

Written by BasicMan on 18.11.2010 at 02:00

It is funny what is the perception of creationists and evolutionists.

1.)Creationists, all being christians..... untrue, most creationists are Muslims, and Hindu's if we take the whole mass of creationists in the world there will be only a small percentage of christians in it.

2.)Evolution as non compatible with religion.... as far as I know most people in the world are religious, and most people in the world believe in evolution. A lot of the leading paleontologists, physicists, geologists and biologists who have done research about the prehistoric past are christians of many denominations and jewish..
3.)...and also I think the catholic church, has recently publicly advise the followers to regard creationism as a bunch of irrational ideas.

Written by Susan on 24.01.2011 at 08:13

^ It looks like that chart is surveying Americans of those religions, not people world wide. If this is a graph of just Americans then it's not representative of each religion as a whole, not in the slightest. Sorry.

Written by TheBigRossowski on 29.01.2011 at 11:51

Jesus and evolution are incompatible, not religion.

Written by Ernis on 29.01.2011 at 21:18

Can you provide a quote by Christ where He was discussing creationism/evolution?

Written by Hamird on 24.11.2010 at 18:33

About creation and evolution paradox the answer could be stated in one sentence. Evolution is all about what goes from simplicity to complexity, whereas Personal God is (in the eyes of a creationist) the most complex being in the whole world in the first place and started to create things exclusively! So there is a paradox in it!

Written by Guest on 29.01.2011 at 22:31

I'm pretty sure that what he meant was that if man evolved and was not created, then Adam didn't exist. If Adam didn't exist, then Adam did not sin. If Adam did not sin, then mankind did not fall from grace and Christ has no purpose, because there is nothing to redeem.