if not evolution

[harmonica]

if you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe a fully formed man just appeared/etc?
is this correct?

I presume you're a scientist, physicist, botonist, etc... with complete knowledge of all the impossibilities and contradictions of the universe.

what's your point?

 

[Compost]

If you believe in evolution, do you believe a single celled creature just appeared to get the ball rolling?

there is the possibility god created man through evolution--yes?

Of course it's possible. All things are possible with God.

so you do believe a fully formed man/woman just appeared--was created?

That's not what I said. I don't know how man was created. Your op presumed a belief in evolution. That's why I asked you a question along those lines. You've changed the wording of your op since I responded.

 

[Compost]

If you believe in evolution, do you believe a single celled creature just appeared to get the ball rolling?

there is the possibility god created man through evolution--yes?

Sure. There is also the possibility that the Great Spaghetti Monster created man, Or Zeus, or Odin, or Shiva, or any of a thousand other mythological deities. Do you discount any of them?

Thanks for your input, troll.

LOL. An honest question is now trolling? I don't think you understand the definition of the term trolling any more than you seem to understand the concept of evolution.

An honest question? You've wandered off topic. The OP offered two choices: evolution or creationism. Great Spaghetti Monster? You are being a troll. A tedious troll.

 

[Czernobog]

If you believe in evolution, do you believe a single celled creature just appeared to get the ball rolling?

there is the possibility god created man through evolution--yes?

Sure. There is also the possibility that the Great Spaghetti Monster created man, Or Zeus, or Odin, or Shiva, or any of a thousand other mythological deities. Do you discount any of them?

Thanks for your input, troll.

LOL. An honest question is now trolling? I don't think you understand the definition of the term trolling any more than you seem to understand the concept of evolution.

An honest question? You've wandered off topic. The OP offers two choices: evolution or creationism. Great Spaghetti Monster? You are being a troll. A tedious troll.

implying a specific creator. When one speaks of God, one generally thinks Judeo/Christian God, particularly when one speaks of humans springing forth fully formed.

 

[Indeependent]

if you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe a fully formed man just appeared/etc?
is this correct?

I presume you're a scientist, physicist, botonist, etc... with complete knowledge of all the impossibilities and contradictions of the universe.

what's your point?

Creationists have theories...not based on much of anything.
They always have this phrase for the untold number of things they can't explain..."it's almost as if a God did this".
I occasionally watch YouTube debate videos where Creationists can't answer many questions regardless of their impeccable credentials.

 

[80zephyr]

Truthfully, I don't believe in creationism or evolution. I don't know what happened, but both theories have major questions.

Mark

thanks for all replies
creationism is not a theory--but a belief, yes?

Yes.

Mark

 

[RWNJ]

if you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe a fully formed man just appeared/etc?
is this correct?

If you don't believe in a Creator, then you must believe that the universe, the physical constants, and life itself, just happened for no reason at all. Is this correct?

 

[RWNJ]

If you believe in evolution, do you believe a single celled creature just appeared to get the ball rolling?

there is the possibility god created man through evolution--yes?

Sure. There is also the possibility that the Great Spaghetti Monster created man, Or Zeus, or Odin, or Shiva, or any of a thousand other mythological deities. Do you discount any of them?

Thanks for your input, troll.

If you believe in evolution, do you believe a single celled creature just appeared to get the ball rolling?

there is the possibility god created man through evolution--yes?

Sure. There is also the possibility that the Great Spaghetti Monster created man, Or Zeus, or Odin, or Shiva, or any of a thousand other mythological deities. Do you discount any of them?

I personally don't believe in a god--as most others do
I believe evolution as the cause of humankind

You believe or know?

as stated in another post--evolution seems much more logical and feasible than a fully formed man just 'appearing'/etc
and I've yet to hear a scientific theory from creationist--at least the evolutionists have a theory

Evolution is not a theory. It is a hypothesis. I trust you recognize the difference. Evolution does not qualify as a theory because it cannot be disproven. There are no scientific experiments that can be conducted on it. There is no scientific evidence to back it up.

 

[Czernobog]

If you believe in evolution, do you believe a single celled creature just appeared to get the ball rolling?

there is the possibility god created man through evolution--yes?

Sure. There is also the possibility that the Great Spaghetti Monster created man, Or Zeus, or Odin, or Shiva, or any of a thousand other mythological deities. Do you discount any of them?

Thanks for your input, troll.

there is the possibility god created man through evolution--yes?

Sure. There is also the possibility that the Great Spaghetti Monster created man, Or Zeus, or Odin, or Shiva, or any of a thousand other mythological deities. Do you discount any of them?

I personally don't believe in a god--as most others do
I believe evolution as the cause of humankind

You believe or know?

as stated in another post--evolution seems much more logical and feasible than a fully formed man just 'appearing'/etc
and I've yet to hear a scientific theory from creationist--at least the evolutionists have a theory

Evolution is not a theory. It is a hypothesis. I trust you recognize the difference. Evolution does not qualify as a theory because it cannot be disproven. There are no scientific experiments that can be conducted on it. There is no scientific evidence to back it up.

Every non-religious source out there disagrees with you. I found literally one source that agrees with you, and guess what it was? Answers in Genesis. What a shock.

 

[ding]

If you believe in evolution, do you believe a single celled creature just appeared to get the ball rolling?

thanks for the reply
seems a lot more feasible than a complex human being, with regard to physics/nature/etc
much growth comes from a small bucket of water over just a ''short'' time''

"When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Physiology / Medicine - Scientific American, August, 1954.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Truthfully, I don't believe in creationism or evolution. I don't know what happened, but both theories have major questions.

Mark

thanks for all replies
creationism is not a theory--but a belief, yes?

Both Intelligent Design and Evolution are both theories and beliefs.

 

[ding]

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15

 

[MarkDuffy]

if you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe a fully formed man just appeared/etc?
is this correct?

If you don't believe in a Creator, then you must believe that the universe, the physical constants, and life itself, just happened for no reason at all. Is this correct?

Correct

 

[ding]

"I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence", he said. "Believe me, everything that we call chance today won't make sense anymore. To me it is clear that we exists in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance." Kaku

 

[ding]

Everything points to the laws of nature being in place before space and time were created. Laws which determined what was possible to exist and what was not possible to exist. Laws which controlled the evolution of matter since the beginning of time until today. Laws which ultimately produced intelligence from the matter that was created when space and time were created. A phenomenon whose potential existed before space and time itself. Now given that laws are a product of intelligence and that intelligence is the product of the evolution of matter, is it that hard to grasp the possibility that intelligence has always existed and will always exist. And rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of matter and life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

 

[MarkDuffy]

If you believe in evolution, do you believe a single celled creature just appeared to get the ball rolling?

there is the possibility god created man through evolution--yes?

Sure. There is also the possibility that the Great Spaghetti Monster created man, Or Zeus, or Odin, or Shiva, or any of a thousand other mythological deities. Do you discount any of them?

Thanks for your input, troll.

there is the possibility god created man through evolution--yes?

Sure. There is also the possibility that the Great Spaghetti Monster created man, Or Zeus, or Odin, or Shiva, or any of a thousand other mythological deities. Do you discount any of them?

I personally don't believe in a god--as most others do
I believe evolution as the cause of humankind

You believe or know?

as stated in another post--evolution seems much more logical and feasible than a fully formed man just 'appearing'/etc
and I've yet to hear a scientific theory from creationist--at least the evolutionists have a theory

Evolution is not a theory. It is a hypothesis. I trust you recognize the difference. Evolution does not qualify as a theory because it cannot be disproven. There are no scientific experiments that can be conducted on it. There is no scientific evidence to back it up.

Evolution is clearly a theory and even more, it is as close to a fact as science allows. Evolution is not an origin nor creation theory. Evolution occurs AFTER creation.

Intelligent Design is also a theory, but it is not a creation theory, especially not an origin theory. It starts with a God, which is AFTER creation.

 

[MarkDuffy]

If you believe in evolution, do you believe a single celled creature just appeared to get the ball rolling?

thanks for the reply
seems a lot more feasible than a complex human being, with regard to physics/nature/etc
much growth comes from a small bucket of water over just a ''short'' time''

"When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Physiology / Medicine - Scientific American, August, 1954.

LOL

Spontaneous generation experiments by Pasteur did not disprove abiogenesis. It just proved there are organisms not visible to the eye.

As for your god hypothesis, why only one God? Even then we have to ask the question ~ Who's God?

If we have to reduce ourselves to binary, then the possibilities are either science or magic

 

[Two Thumbs]

if you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe a fully formed man just appeared/etc?
is this correct?

I don't believe on coincidences and evolution is still called a 'theory' for a reason.

 

[ding]

If you believe in evolution, do you believe a single celled creature just appeared to get the ball rolling?

thanks for the reply
seems a lot more feasible than a complex human being, with regard to physics/nature/etc
much growth comes from a small bucket of water over just a ''short'' time''

"When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Physiology / Medicine - Scientific American, August, 1954.

LOL

Spontaneous generation experiments by Pasteur did not disprove abiogenesis. It just proved there are organisms not visible to the eye.

As for your god hypothesis, why only one God?

If we have to reduce ourselves to binary, then the possibilities are either science or magic

You are arguing with George Wald, not me.

Are you suggesting that you have proof that proteins self assembled themselves?

 

[ding]

it is as close to a fact as science allows.

That's a pretty bold statement.