The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Common descent
More Common descent
The Proof Is in the Proteins: Test Supports Universal Common Ancestor for All Life
I know, I know it's the great atheist scientific conspiracy again.
So how does any of that apply to creationism, exactly?
But you can for creationism eh? I see :comeout: :nono:
Lalalalalalalalala.... I can't hear you.
And how does your definition apply to creation myths?
Except that the Theory of Evolution is science and creationism is religion. This is getting boring.
Spoken like a well trained parrot. At some point life must have come from none life whether it was poofed by one of the many magic supernatural gods or whether it emerged naturally. Since no supernatural magic has ever been observed and everything that once was thought to be supernatural turns out to be perfectly natural, I plum for the natural. You must believe what ever floats your boat.
I will not repeat myself again. Further parrot-like repartition will be answered by the following:
religious platitude.
My personal favourite apologetic, which I heard years ago on another forum, was:
of course the serpent couldn't talk but Satan may have been throwing his voice from behind a bush. Brilliant! How elegant is that? The snake was Satan's ventriloquists dummy. Could have happened that way. But in a topsy turvy world where anything can happen it might not have even been Satan. What if it was a cheeky leprechaun playing games. Wouldn't that be something? A playful leprechaun causes original sin through Satan by proxy. Deep!
Are you quoting me there cause I don't remember saying that and I certainly wouldn't refer to the scientific Theory of Evolution as evolutionism so you've lost me on that bit.
So where did this "uncaused Creator" come from then? It either popped into existence from nothing or always existed in nothing, which is essentially the same thing, isn't it? I mean, there's no always in nothing. In fact, there's no anything in nothing. Nothing is just, you know...... nothing. But please try to resist with the usual apologetics..... god is outside of time blah blah. I've heard em all at least 4.5 billion times
The thing that strikes me as most odd about the god concept is that you guys take it seriously. Many centuries ago, pre-science, poor education etc, maybe such superstitious mumbo jumbo could appear viable. But in this age? Really?? Oh well. Takes all sorts I guess :think:
I don't buy it and I'm far from alone. Maybe I'm just a few centuries before my time....<insert meaningful French phrase here>
I don't know and neither do you. Therefore I can't tell you what I believe but I can tell you what I don't believe: I do not believe there was ever any such thing as "nothing". Nothing is a fantasy. From nothing, nothing comes. The Big Bang event may be responsible for the eye blink we call the universe but no one, including cosmologists and theologians, can possibly know the state of existence before then. There is no shame IMHO in admitting you don't know when such knowledge is not available. The only shame is pretending you do know or believing that ancient pre-science, superstitious people had the foggiest idea. They didn't' I don't. You don't, nor does anyone.
We can only make assumptions based on what we do know at this time. Energy cannot be created and cannot be destroyed but can change form. Why assume that has ever been any different? The transformation of energy goes on around us all the time. What did pre Big Bang energy mean....? Don't know, neither do you, nor does anyone.
Covered above.
Bald assertion and
religious platitude. Believe what you want, it's your mind.
Now, I've already wasted far too much time on this and, believe it or not, I do have a life outside this forum. So I really am done now. No really. I'm giving you last word. Fill your boots. Get original and tell us
what a wonderful time it is to be a Christian and how science supports the Biblical account. One more time can't hurt
:drum:......... It's your stage, don't hold back