# What if..



## bigreddwon (Oct 10, 2011)

What if.. 

1. Science was able to definitively PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution happened. They find ALL the missing pieces and it was not refutable. It is proved beyond a shadow of doubt. The Christian scientists who refute it now see _physical_ the evidence and concur. 

2. Scientist absolutely prove how life , and the galaxy originated, again _beyond any doubt_. Again, the evidence is shared with all scientists and its not refutable.

3. In short, physical evidence proves that creation is false, the bible is NOT factual and all Christian beliefs regarding creation, Adam and Eve, are not as it was.


Would you still believe in god? Would you still feel the bible is right, and the evidence put forth is false, even tho all scientist say it _IS_? Would you still keep your 'faith'? Would you still go to church?


----------



## fishinbub (Oct 10, 2011)

Your question is based on the false premise that it is possible to prove something did happen. If a scientist told me they could prove evolution happened and there was a natural origin to life, then I would completely disregard him as any type of scientific source. We can only disprove something. That's literally on the first page of most science textbooks. 

So, while you re-word your question, I'd like to put forward one of my own. What if we disproved natural origin of life? Would your beliefs change?


----------



## centerpin fan (Oct 10, 2011)

I'm a Christian because of the resurrection of Jesus.  Evolution doesn't enter into it.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 10, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> i'm a christian because of the resurrection of jesus.  Evolution doesn't enter into it.



x2.


----------



## bigreddwon (Oct 10, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> Your question is based on the false premise that it is possible to prove something did happen. If a scientist told me they could prove evolution happened and there was a natural origin to life, then I would completely disregard him as any type of scientific source. We can only disprove something. That's literally on the first page of most science textbooks.
> 
> So, while you re-word your question, I'd like to put forward one of my own. What if we disproved natural origin of life? Would your beliefs change?





> The Christian scientists who refute it now see physical the evidence and concur.



I put that just for you in the OP..

 Be cool man, just play along and answer the question. 

The big argument _most_ Christians use now is that not _all_ scientists agree, _or_ that not all the _physical_ proof is there. In _this_ hypothetical, roll with me for the sake of a really good discussion. I'm asking you If any piece of evidence that could be put forth, was. 

Help me rewrite the OP so its a question that helps get the point _you know_ I'm trying to make, maybe?


----------



## fishinbub (Oct 10, 2011)

bigreddwon said:


> I put that just for you in the OP..
> 
> Be cool man, just play along and answer the question.
> 
> ...



OK, something to the effect of, _what if scientists determined that a natural origin to the universe is physically possible_ would be more appropriate and warrant an answer. In that case, it would have little effect on my faith, which is based on the death and resurrection of Jesus. It's your faith that is based on the origins of the universe, remember?

Now, I played along for the sake of discussion, are you gonna do the same and answer my question?


----------



## bigreddwon (Oct 10, 2011)

If evolution _is proved_ tho.. Wouldn't _that_ mean that the 'story' of Adam and Eve was _just_ that, a _story_? If that book is just a story, could others be? Which ones?

 Surely this is one of the most important books of the bible, I would think. It being proven to not be how we came to be should shake some faith I'd think..


----------



## fishinbub (Oct 10, 2011)

bigreddwon said:


> If evolution _is proved_ tho.. Wouldn't _that_ mean that the 'story' of Adam and Eve was _just_ that, a _story_? If that book is just a story, could others be? Which ones?
> 
> Surely this is one of the most important books of the bible, I would think. It being proven to not be how we came to be should shake some faith I'd think..



Like I said, it can't be proven. You're fishing for an answer to the original question, which is based on a false premise. My answer is based on the revised question...

And you still have not answered my question...


----------



## bigreddwon (Oct 10, 2011)

You mean If somehow you were able to prove god really poofed us? For me personally I'd have to see it. 

*poof* God creates a human in front of me.. 

Sir.. My world _*would be rocked*_, I would repent my wasted life and recognize JESUS AS MY LOOOOOO'rD N SAVIOR.. Seriously, I would.


----------



## fishinbub (Oct 10, 2011)

bigreddwon said:


> You mean If somehow you were able to prove god really poofed us? For me personally I'd have to see it.
> 
> *poof* God creates a human in front of me..
> 
> Sir.. My world _*would be rocked*_, I would repent my wasted life and recognize JESUS AS MY LOOOOOO'rD N SAVIOR.. Seriously, I would.



No, I didn't say anything about God poofing a human. I said what if scientific law dictates that natural origin of the universe can't happen...

And just for reference. 
Supernatural~of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena;


----------



## bigreddwon (Oct 10, 2011)

I guess an even better way to as would be : What if whatever level of proof you would need personally to prove the story of Adam n Eve was false, That we evolved from monkeys, from goo in a lake, from a spark n space... 

For me, to be convinced of your point, I gave my level of proof that would sway me.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 10, 2011)

bigreddwon said:


> If evolution _is proved_ tho.. Wouldn't _that_ mean that the 'story' of Adam and Eve was _just_ that, a _story_? If that book is just a story, could others be? Which ones?



I do believe in evolution, but am still a Christian. There are many ways of looking at Genesis.  It does not have to be literal to be an illustration of God creating the universe and man becoming aware of what is right and wrong.  



bigreddwon said:


> Surely this is one of the most important books of the bible, I would think. It being proven to not be how we came to be should shake some faith I'd think..



The gospels are the "most important," if it must be categorized like that.


----------



## fishinbub (Oct 10, 2011)

bigreddwon said:


> I guess an even better way to as would be : What if whatever level of proof you would need personally to prove the story of Adam n Eve was false, That we evolved from monkeys, from goo in a lake, from a spark n space...
> 
> For me, to be convinced of your point, I gave my level of proof that would sway me.



I guess at that point I would exercise my faith, because at that point it would require faith...

You still have not answered my question...


----------



## bigreddwon (Oct 10, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I do believe in evolution, but am still a Christian. There are many ways of looking at Genesis.  It does not have to be literal to be an illustration of God creating the universe and man becoming aware of what is right and wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> The gospels are the "most important," if it must be categorized like that.



Ok. Thanks


----------



## bigreddwon (Oct 10, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> No, I didn't say anything about God poofing a human. I said what if scientific law dictates that natural origin of the universe can't happen...
> 
> And just for reference.
> Supernatural~of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena;



I don't know that I would jump right to GOD as the answer. 

For me, I find the Idea of an Alien life being the '_creator_' with technology we may not understand or know exists yet before God would be my conclusion. 

 The 'create em and leave em alone' theory would be how I see it now. Because an Omnipotent power wouldn't be needed to necessarily create 'life' or terraform a planet for all I know. The question was  more inline with it wasn't 'natural'. Lab experiments aren't 'natural', but they create some pretty cool things, just not life, at least not _ours_.

A more advanced civilization could have sparked it and left. 


Once you create something you don't have to know its future, its every thought from anywhere it is in the world. Things can be created without the creator being an omnipresent, Omnipotent being.


----------



## fishinbub (Oct 10, 2011)

bigreddwon said:


> I don't know that I would jump right to GOD as the answer.
> 
> For me, I find the Idea of an Alien life being the '_creator_' with technology we may not understand or know exists yet before God would be my conclusion.
> 
> ...



So, you would believe that there was some being, or beings, that are not bound by the laws of nature. Is that a correct statement?


----------



## bigreddwon (Oct 10, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> So, you would believe that there was some being, or beings, that are not bound by the laws of nature. Is that a correct statement?



You mean _our_ laws of nature, or our _*limited*_ knowledge of them right here, right now? Sure. I would believe aliens from another planet , another solar system before I believe that some Omnipotent being knows about every time Ive touched myself inappropriately for my entire life, knows when, where and how I will die and what I'm thinking right now.. As well as everyone and everything else.. 

Yup...


----------



## fishinbub (Oct 10, 2011)

bigreddwon said:


> You mean _our_ laws of nature, or our _*limited*_ knowledge of them right here, right now? Sure. I would believe aliens from another planet , another solar system before I believe that some Omnipotent being knows about every time Ive touched myself inappropriately for my entire life, knows when, where and how I will die and what I'm thinking right now.. As well as everyone and everything else..
> 
> Yup...



OK, that makes sense. You do realize my question wasn't hypothetical, don't you? The second law of thermodynamics states that the amount of energy available to do work in the universe is decreasing over time. The law of conservation of mass states that matter cannot be created or destroyed.


----------



## Jeff Phillips (Oct 10, 2011)

bigreddwon said:


> You mean If somehow you were able to prove god really poofed us? For me personally I'd have to see it.



OK, I can support that.

When a monkey turns into a human in front of me I'll believe we evolved from an ape.


----------



## bigreddwon (Oct 10, 2011)

They are just last week finding some of Einsteins theory's might not be 100% or that maybe there is the possibility of going faster that the speed of light. Our knowledge of our natural would is not LIKE the bible, _*written in stone*_. 

It will grow, _*new*_ knowledge will be discovered and old theory's dashed. It will teach us new things and take us farther than we can imagine.. The bible.. Religion, is just about the opposite... In every way.  My view of it anyways.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Oct 10, 2011)

Might could have asked this outside the atheist/agnostic section for maximum responses, fwiw.


----------



## fishinbub (Oct 10, 2011)

bigreddwon said:


> They are just last week finding some of Einsteins theory's might not be 100% or that maybe there is the possibility of going faster that the speed of light. Our knowledge of our natural would is not LIKE the bible, _*written in stone*_.
> 
> It will grow, _*new*_ knowledge will be discovered and old theory's dashed. It will teach us new things and take us farther than we can imagine.. The bible.. Religion, is just about the opposite... In every way.  My view of it anyways.



Theory~a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. 

Scientific Law~a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met

Are you comparing Einstein's theory with the fundamental laws of science?


----------



## bigreddwon (Oct 10, 2011)

Jeff Phillips said:


> OK, I can support that.
> 
> When a monkey turns into a human in front of me I'll believe we evolved from an ape.



Ya know.. after reading your post.. I would not need _near_ the *poof* a person proof in front of me.. He could... _merely_ 'talk' to me.. 

A burning bush, a ball of light. Whatever.. I'd take that too.. Right inside my head. I'm a pretty grounded person, I'd notice it. I've never heard voices of any kind to date. 

Ive only been married a year and a half so there's plenty of time for me to go crazy...


----------



## fishinbub (Oct 10, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> Are you comparing Einstein's theory with the fundamental laws of science?



Well?


----------



## bigreddwon (Oct 10, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> Well?



Settle down turbo..

I was using it as an example of the boundary's we now _*think*_ we know in science might _*move*_.. that's all. Its _still_ science, it's _not_ supernatural, its just the boundary of what _*is*_ natural can still move a whole bunch for us.

I don't really get where your going with this, but your going kinda hard n fast.


----------



## fishinbub (Oct 10, 2011)

bigreddwon said:


> Settle down turbo..
> 
> I was using it as an example of the boundary's we now think we know in science might move.. that's all. Its still science, it's not supernatural, its just the boundary of what is natural can still move a whole bunch for us.
> 
> I don't really get where your going with this, but your going kinda hard n fast.



But the fundamental laws of science don't change. They aren't theories. The question was, "what if scientific laws dictate that natural origin can't happen". I just demonstrated that that was the case, but your answer changed. Why?


----------



## bigreddwon (Oct 10, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> But the fundamental laws of science don't change. They aren't theories...



Your goin 75 yards deep for a 25 yard pass...


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 10, 2011)

If a unicorn came up and bit you on the back of the neck, would you:

A. Believe in unicorns
B. Realize the $40 you paid for mushrooms was worth it
C. Demand a retake of the Hogwarts final

Gimme a break.


----------



## fishinbub (Oct 10, 2011)

bigreddwon said:


> Your goin 75 yards deep for a 25 yard pass...



What did I say that was not accurate?


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 10, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> Theory~a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
> 
> Scientific Law~a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met
> 
> Are you comparing Einstein's theory with the fundamental laws of science?



I am curious.

What are the "fundamental laws of science"?


----------



## fishinbub (Oct 10, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I am curious.
> 
> What are the "fundamental laws of science"?



The scientific laws that our knowledge is based on. 90% of the science you learn in highschool is based on Newtons three laws, thermodynamics, and conservation of mass because they are constant. Unlike theories (like relativity) they do not change...


----------



## fishinbub (Oct 10, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> What did I say that was not accurate?



Anybody know how to cricket whistle?


----------



## Sargent (Oct 11, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> If a unicorn came up and bit you on the back of the neck, would you:
> 
> A. Believe in unicorns
> B. Realize the $40 you paid for mushrooms was worth it
> ...



2.

But $40 is too much.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 11, 2011)

#1

Unicorns ARE real.  My daughter sleeps with one every night and there is no way you're convincing her that it's not real.

#2

What if science proved the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth and that ice is actually NOT water in a different form?  None of those things are provable and neither is the question at hand.

The question in the poll is essentially saying, what if I could prove that God doesn't exist?  Would you believe God doesn't exist or, since you're just a dumb sheep who blindly follows a book, would you be so dumb as to continue to believe in the face of perfect evidence?

The objective is, once again, to prove that Christians are simple-minded blind followers of something their geography of birth and family of origin have caused them to believe in.  That they will simply believe in the face of evidence to the contrary just because "their ol' pappy" told them to believe and not question.  

That is simply not true and it is proven in this area every single day.


----------



## Bottle Hunter (Oct 11, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I am curious.
> 
> What are the "fundamental laws of science"?




 All depends which field of science one would be talking about, eh?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Oct 11, 2011)

C'mon HF... You're making this too easy 

Isn't there something else you hang on in this manner?



Huntinfool said:


> #1
> 
> Unicorns ARE real.  My daughter sleeps with one every night and there is no way you're convincing her that it's not real.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 11, 2011)

Oh.....yeh....and God is real.  I don't sleep with him every night.  But there's no way you're convincing me he's not real.


I'm feeling generous this morning XXX.  You're welcome!


----------



## TheBishop (Oct 11, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> #1
> 
> The objective is, once again, to prove that Christians are simple-minded blind followers of something their geography of birth and family of origin have caused them to believe in.  That they will simply believe in the face of evidence to the contrary just because "their ol' pappy" told them to believe and not question.
> 
> That is simply not true and it is proven in this area every single day.



I would disagree. LOL 


Bigreddwon It would seem as if you have some vendetta against christians.  Why? I'm by far a christian sympathyzer as most in here will attest, but I certainly won't invent pure hypotheticals just for the sake of seeing weakness in ones faith. I will debate any kind of logic in thinking wether it be a christian, jew, nazi, black, white or purple.  But you seem to want to alienate yourself against them.  Why? 

I can understand your wish to change someones way of thinking but tactics like this only serves to strengthen ones resolve agianst you. It is an attack and nothing more. Look at some of the pros in this forum, they bring up logical arguments, not hypotheticals.  They are here for discussion, to cause others to say hmmmm, not to belittle and degrade  (save that stuff for stupid reply's ) .  It is counter-productive.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 11, 2011)

Bishop...well done.

I need to take that advice a bit myself.  Appreciate the reminder.


----------



## fishinbub (Oct 11, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> tactics like this only serves to strengthen ones resolve agianst you. It is an attack and nothing more.



Bigred, If you're gonna stir the pot, at least do a better job. The only thing you've done in this thread is admit that you believe the universe was created by all powerful aliens...


----------



## TheBishop (Oct 11, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> Bigred, If you're gonna stir the pot, at least do a better job. The only thing you've done in this thread is admit that you believe the universe was created by all powerful aliens...



Well technically so have you. If you believe in god, and he is not of this world and he is all powerful wouldn't that make him an all pwerful alien?


----------



## fishinbub (Oct 11, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Well technically so have you. If you believe in god, and he is not of this world and he is all powerful wouldn't that make him an all pwerful alien?



Yup, my point exactly...


----------



## TheBishop (Oct 11, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> Yup, my point exactly...



Darn Christians and their alien worship!


----------



## fishinbub (Oct 11, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Darn Christians and their alien worship!



And atheists too, apparently...


----------



## TheBishop (Oct 11, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> And atheists too, apparently...



I don't think he has caught on to the fact that by admitting what he did, it precludes him from using the term athiest as a self description.


----------



## fishinbub (Oct 11, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> I don't think he has caught on to the fact that by admitting what he did, it precludes him from using the term athiest as a self description.



I'm pretty sure he's still in denial about the whole thing...


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Oct 11, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I'm a Christian because of the resurrection of Jesus.  Evolution doesn't enter into it.



x3    The resurrection is why I'm a Christian.    When you've met the Lord, there's no going back!


----------



## bigreddwon (Oct 11, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> #1
> 
> Unicorns ARE real.  My daughter sleeps with one every night and there is no way you're convincing her that it's not real.
> 
> ...



The question in the OP was more about seeing who's mind is open and who's it 'set'. No matter the evidence. It was about creation, or evolution. If you believe in creation as the First book describes I can't fully understand A continued belief in a God, if you had proof it didn't go down as written. Most true believers IMO claim their is in NO way enough proof, physical proof that evolution happened. The hypothetical was about, what 'if' there was. 



fishinbub said:


> Bigred, If you're gonna stir the pot, at least do a better job. The only thing you've done in this thread is admit that you believe the universe was created by all powerful aliens...




I did not admit that is what I _believe_. FB Introduced his own Hypothetical. I played along. I listed ONE of the conclusions that I would ponder IF his evidence was put forth and validated by every scientist. I don't _think_ Aliens put us here. I don't profess to know how life started, or what got the ball rolling. I still feel I have Atheist beliefs. But I am open.


> I said what if scientific law dictates that natural origin of the universe can't happen...





TheBishop said:


> I don't think he has caught on to the fact that by admitting what he did, it precludes him from using the term athiest as a self description.



The thread isn't an attack. If its come off that way I apologize. 

The questions in the Op aren't there to make you look stupid if your a Christian. A few Christians gave answers that I thought were pretty good. 

It shows me anyways that not all Christians are as rigid as others. 



> I'm a Christian because of the resurrection of Jesus. Evolution doesn't enter into it.





> I do believe in evolution, but am still a Christian. There are many ways of looking at Genesis. It does not have to be literal to be an illustration of God creating the universe and man becoming aware of what is right and wrong.



I didn't expect that one, cool, ya know..

As far as having a vendetta vs Christians I do not.. How I speak in person, how I come off in person if we were talking about this.. I don't think you'd get that impression. I DO NOT WRITE well IMO. I don't, not near as well as Atlas or bishop or Elfiii or MM, I could go on. Sometimes I get lucky and get my point across exactly as I meant it, sometimes not. 



> their geography of birth and family of origin have caused them to believe in.  That they will simply believe in the face of evidence to the contrary just because "their ol' pappy" told them to believe and not question.



If you knew me, you'd know I'd just come right out and ask this, pretty much like this if that's what I wanted to know.



> Might could have asked this outside the atheist/agnostic section for maximum responses, fwiw.





> It is an attack and nothing more.


I put it here so didn't come off that I was trying to convert Christians from their faith.  I see the Atheist section as a place an Atheist can ask any question he wants an answer to. If Christians come in here, they wanted to play. Their choice, If its not a thread they like or approve of,They don't have to respond. They had to go out of their way to respond IMO.

 I wouldn't have put this question in their section out of respect for them. Folks go there for support and guidance and I'm not trying to mess with that. I doubt Christians are coming in here for Christian guidance and support.


----------



## TheBishop (Oct 11, 2011)

Understood.  My sincere apologies if I came across a little crass.  I'm trying to get better about that.


----------



## Michael F. Gray (Oct 11, 2011)

With all due respect Sir, the line between Faith and Foolishness has been blurred. Not certain what you are trying to establish by asking God's people to question their Faith. Mine's unwaivering and frankly your survey is offensive. I choose not to participate.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 11, 2011)

> I can't fully understand A continued belief in a God, if you had proof it didn't go down as written.



But we don't.  Making a strawman/hypothetical/fairytale about "what if", when "what if" won't happen is just kind of silly.

If science proved that creation did not happen, then everything about Christianity would collapse and be exposed as fraud.  But since it hasn't and won't happen, it's a silly argument.  As I posted, it's like asked "what if science proved the earth was flat?"


----------



## fishinbub (Oct 11, 2011)

I never posed a hypothetical question. My question was based entirely on fact. I ask again, what part is incorrect?


----------



## TheBishop (Oct 11, 2011)

Michael F. Gray said:


> With all due respect Sir, the line between Faith and Foolishness has been blurred. Not certain what you are trying to establish by asking God's people to question their Faith. Mine's unwaivering and frankly your survey is offensive. I choose not to participate.



You just participated, and answered as expected.


----------



## bigreddwon (Oct 11, 2011)

Michael F. Gray said:


> With all due respect Sir, the line between Faith and Foolishness has been blurred. Not certain what you are trying to establish by asking God's people to question their Faith. Mine's unwaivering and frankly your survey is offensive. I choose not to participate.



Ok.


----------



## bigreddwon (Oct 11, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Understood.  My sincere apologies if I came across a little crass.  I'm trying to get better about that.



Me to. I'm _really_ trying to work on it as well.


----------



## bigreddwon (Oct 11, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> I never posed a hypothetical question. My question was based entirely on fact. I ask again, what part is incorrect?



I really am not a scientist, As far as I know they haven't proved anything about how the whole thing started, solar system, galaxy etc. It wasn't the discussion. The OP was about mankind's evolution, or creation.



> If science proved that creation did not happen, then everything about Christianity would collapse and be exposed as fraud. But since it hasn't and won't happen, it's a silly argument.



I disagree. I think science _has_ proved creation did not happen. The church _did not_ collapse. That wasn't proof to most Christians that Christianity was a fraud, as you said. 

You say it hasn't and wont happen, I think far more than enough proof has been discovered, and surely more will be found. 

But you are correct that some think it hasn't been proved and NOTHING found on earth will proves it, on that you are correct. 

That is, what it is. 

Silly argument? Maybe, I don't think so tho. I found it as entertaining as I do interesting.


----------



## fishinbub (Oct 11, 2011)

bigreddwon said:


> I really am not a scientist, As far as I know they haven't proved anything about how the whole thing started, solar system, galaxy etc. It wasn't the discussion. The OP was about mankind's evolution, or creation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Come on man, stop side stepping it. 

I asked, "what if scientific law dictates that natural origin of the universe can't happen?"

Scientific law does dictate that the natural origin of the universe cannot happen. You haven't even refuted what I said, you're just trying to side step around the whole thing. Either own up to it, or refute my evidence...


----------



## bigreddwon (Oct 11, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> Come on man, stop side stepping it.
> 
> I asked, "what if scientific law dictates that natural origin of the universe can't happen?"
> 
> Scientific law does dictate that the natural origin of the universe cannot happen. You haven't even refuted what I said, you're just trying to side step around the whole thing. Either own up to it, or refute my evidence...


I don't remember seeing your _'evidence_'.. You made a claim, that's not evidence. 
Scientist don't know. The have theories..

 One more time for ya FB.. You want to start a thread about the creation of the UNIVERSE, be my guest. This thread is not about that. It was about the creation or evolution of MAN.


----------



## fishinbub (Oct 11, 2011)

bigreddwon said:


> I don't remember seeing your _'evidence_'.. You made a claim, that's not evidence.
> Scientist don't know. The have theories..
> 
> One more time for ya FB.. You want to start a thread about the creation of the UNIVERSE, be my guest. This thread is not about that. It was about the creation or evolution of MAN.



No, I provided evidence, namely the second law of thermodynamics (which shows that the universe had a beginning) and the law of conservation of mass (which shows that matter cannot be created). So which scientific law is incorrect?


----------



## bigreddwon (Oct 11, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> No, I provided evidence, namely the second law of thermodynamics (which shows that the universe had a beginning) and the law of conservation of mass (which shows that matter cannot be created). So which scientific law is incorrect?



You've proved nothing except your kinda stubborn about the creation of the Universe.

Which part of "I'm not a scientist" is confusing you? I have no training on the laws of thermodynamics or the law of conversion of mass..Beyond high school where I was more worried with girls and my 50 hour a week job.. Those questions are above my pay grade. 

Also, what part of "start your own thread bout the creation of the universe" is confusing you?  again.


----------



## fishinbub (Oct 11, 2011)

bigreddwon said:


> You've proved nothing except your kinda stubborn about the creation of the Universe.
> 
> Which part of "I'm not a scientist" is confusing you? I have no training on the laws of thermodynamics or the law of conversion of mass..Beyond high school where I was more worried with girls and my 50 hour a week job.. Those questions are above my pay grade.
> 
> Also, what part of "start your own thread bout the creation of the universe" is confusing you?  again.



That's funny, you didn't seem to mind earlier in the thread. Now all of a sudden, you do. I wonder why that is...

A highschool education is plenty for this discussion. Shoot, this is middle school science, if that. If you are going to say I'm wrong, you better be able to back it up. I guess you haven't noticed that the more highly educated atheists haven't swooped in to save you. Heck, TheBishop even said you admitted to not being an atheist...


----------



## bigreddwon (Oct 11, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> That's funny, you didn't seem to mind earlier in the thread. Now all of a sudden, you do. I wonder why that is...
> 
> A highschool education is plenty for this discussion. Shoot, this is middle school science, if that. If you are going to say I'm wrong, you better be able to back it up. I guess you haven't noticed that the more highly educated atheists haven't swooped in to save you. Heck, TheBishop even said you admitted to not being an atheist...



I'm in no need of saving. If you say if basic stuff, you went to a far better school than I did, or you paid better attention. Good for you in both cases. 

I am an Atheist, but guess how much sleep I'll lose of folks thinking I'm not? If you guessed not a wink, you were right.

You were wrong with the lost books debate in the Adam and Eve thread and your upset, its ok. Were not all correct all the time, don't be so mad..

Start a thread bout the creation of the universe, stake your claim to " its been proven it cant be natural" and roll the dice. The science community is still looking for the answers, I guess they haven't got your memo. I'll forward it to them at our next meeting.. 

I'm done with you in this thread if you want to keep asking about the universe, this threads about the beginning of man.


----------



## fishinbub (Oct 11, 2011)

bigreddwon said:


> I'm in no need of saving. If you say if basic stuff, you went to a far better school than I did, or you paid better attention. Good for you in both cases.
> 
> I am an Atheist, but guess how much sleep I'll lose of folks thinking I'm not? If you guessed not a wink, you were right.
> 
> ...



Fine, what if the laws of science dictate that the natural origin of life is impossible? Then how would your beliefs change?


----------



## bigreddwon (Oct 11, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> Fine, what if the laws of science dictate that the natural origin of life is impossible? Then how would your beliefs change?



Post # 15 and 17 cover that. I would be right about where I am right now, I do not know. 

I just _know_ there's not a god, with the same certainty I know magic wizards, or fairy's or Santa, are man made make believe characters. 

As to how the first spark happened I'm open minded and waiting for the answers like everyone else who doesn't know yet.


----------



## fishinbub (Oct 11, 2011)

bigreddwon said:


> Post # 15 and 17 cover that. I would be right about where I am right now, I do not know.
> 
> I just _know_ there's not a god, with the same certainty I know magic wizards, or fairy's or Santa, are man made make believe characters.
> 
> As to how the first spark happened I'm open minded and waiting for the answers like everyone else who doesn't know yet.



In that case, google law of biogenesis and refer to post #40...


----------



## bigreddwon (Oct 11, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> In that case, google law of biogenesis and refer to post #40...



sigh... This is as far as was needed into the research of this intimidating word you demanded I look up.. 





> Biogenesis is the _*theory*_ of......





....now I'll read the first few links, get a few sites take on it because it interests me and a new outlook I haven't heard before is appreciated.  But I already know its JUST a theory and is PROOF of nothing already..

Read a few, its still just a theory.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 11, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> No, I provided evidence, namely the second law of thermodynamics (which shows that the universe had a beginning) and the law of conservation of mass (which shows that matter cannot be created). So which scientific law is incorrect?



What kind of grades did you get in high school science? 'Cause you got it all wrong.

The second law of thermodynamics is not a "LAW" of science, because no such thing exists. Science is a method we use to describe things.


----------



## fishinbub (Oct 13, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> What kind of grades did you get in high school science? 'Cause you got it all wrong.
> 
> The second law of thermodynamics is not a "LAW" of science, because no such thing exists. Science is a method we use to describe things.



Personal attacks on my education, very tasteful.  Thermodynamics is a scientific law. 

Scientific~of or pertaining to science

Scientific Law~Law of Science. It's the same thing. If a play on words and a blind jab at my education is all you've got, then you might need to re-evaluate your position. 

Bigredwon, 
I find it interesting that you used wikipedia as a resource, because we all know it is the deciding source on all things science. Did you happen to notice that biogenesis is separated into two different sections, one referring to the theory of biogenesis, and one referring to the law?


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 19, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> Personal attacks on my education, very tasteful.  Thermodynamics is a scientific law.
> 
> Scientific~of or pertaining to science
> 
> ...



I see well, I am not blind, and neither are my jabs. Thermodynamics is not a law, of anything. It is a branch of scientific study.

Here is a short interesting read describing that there is little difference between a law and a theory.

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

I think you get into trouble right about here:

_The scientific laws that our knowledge is based on._

I don't want to be lumped into the category of "our" knowledge.

I never claimed to be tasteful!!!!


----------



## fishinbub (Oct 21, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I see well, I am not blind, and neither are my jabs. Thermodynamics is not a law, of anything. It is a branch of scientific study.
> 
> Here is a short interesting read describing that there is little difference between a law and a theory.
> 
> ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 23, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics



Nice, wiki is your source. Thermodynamics is still not a law.

What does this mean about "The fundamental laws of science that our knowledge is based on"? How hot turns to cold? Entropy? Radioactive carbon dating?

I am not sure of what your point is.


----------



## fishinbub (Oct 25, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Nice, wiki is your source. Thermodynamics is still not a law.



Oh, I gotcha. Attack the source, ignore the evidence presented. Just like you question my education and intelligence. Since you are the resident scientist on the forum, would you care to explain the first and second laws of thermodynamics?


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 30, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> Oh, I gotcha. Attack the source, ignore the evidence presented. Just like you question my education and intelligence. Since you are the resident scientist on the forum, would you care to explain the first and second laws of thermodynamics?



Dude, your source is wikipedia, no attack neccasary.

I am unsure of the "evidence" you claim to have presented.

Your education and intelligence are mattering less and less, due to your posts.

As for the laws of TD, it is pretty simple. Read up on it.
http://www.physicsplanet.com/articles/three-laws-of-thermodynamics


----------



## fishinbub (Oct 30, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Dude, your source is wikipedia, no attack neccasary.
> 
> I am unsure of the "evidence" you claim to have presented.
> 
> ...



I thought there were no laws of thermodynamics...


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 31, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> x3    The resurrection is why I'm a Christian.    When you've met the Lord, there's no going back!



x4 No doubting the supernatural for me.

I'd be interested in knowing when evolution stopped though...why it stopped...and how did it start in the first place...exactly how it started.

If it all started with a spark, it makes sense it could have all started with a poof, too....not much difference is there, really?


----------



## Jeff Phillips (Oct 31, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> x4 No doubting the supernatural for me.
> 
> I'd be interested in knowing when evolution stopped though...why it stopped...and how did it start in the first place...exactly how it started.
> 
> If it all started with a spark, it makes sense it could have all started with a poof, too....not much difference is there, really?



Darwin accepted the requirement of a "Divine Spark" to start the process. He was not an Atheist...

"Even in the worm that crawls in the earth there glows a divine spark. When you slaughter a creature, you slaughter God."

Charles Darwin (1809 - 1882)


----------



## gtparts (Oct 31, 2011)

bigreddwon said:


> What if..
> 
> 1. Science was able to definitively PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution happened. They find ALL the missing pieces and it was not refutable. It is proved beyond a shadow of doubt. The Christian scientists who refute it now see _physical_ the evidence and concur.
> 
> ...



Your premise, expressed by 3 numbered stipulations, assumes that science can establish a 1st cause. That is an impossibility. No matter how far back you go to say, "This is the point in time when everything came into existence and here is absolutely how it happened.", the response will be, "What was there 2 minutes before that point in time? How can you scientifically know the first cause until you have exhausted your search in time and space?"

So, the question you pose is really just based on fantasy, but I will play anyway.

Because I know that there is a God, with whom I now have a personal, spiritual relationship and if, as you suggest, science is able to accurately describe the origin of all that is, then it is only reasonable that science has finally crossed the line of being able to fathom and accept spiritual things, i.e the very mind of God.

I'll "bottom line" this by saying, I would not only still believe in God, but science would have to concede that "God did it" in order to get it right. God is the creator of science, in order to allow us to understand and manipulate the physical world, but science is of no value when trying to describe the spiritual world. As long as science fails to grasp the spiritual (God), it will never comprehend the origin of all things physical. 

You can't arrive at the beginning when you have already ruled out the true source of the beginning.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 31, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> I thought there were no laws of thermodynamics...



Please see post #69 where I quoted you as saying that thermodynamics was a law. I explained to you that it was not a law, but a branch of scientific study. I did not say there were no laws of thermodynamics.

Enjoy your pop-corn.


----------



## fishinbub (Oct 31, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Please see post #69 where I quoted you as saying that thermodynamics was a law. I explained to you that it was not a law, but a branch of scientific study. I did not say there were no laws of thermodynamics.
> 
> Enjoy your pop-corn.


 
Go back to #67. Once again, another play on words. Thermodynamics is a branch of study, but it is also a scientific law (multiple laws, actually). But that is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Whether they are laws of science, or scientific laws, they still exist and they explain how the natural universe works. I reckon now you're having a grammatical debate about the origin of the universe.  

Once again, the laws of thermodynamics state that energy travels from areas of high concentration to areas of low concentration, and that the amount of energy available in the universe to do work is decreasing over time. In a nutshell, over time energy available to do work will cease to exist within a system.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 1, 2011)

Jeff Phillips said:


> Darwin accepted the requirement of a "Divine Spark" to start the process. He was not an Atheist...
> 
> "Even in the worm that crawls in the earth there glows a divine spark. When you slaughter a creature, you slaughter God."
> 
> Charles Darwin (1809 - 1882)


----------



## ted_BSR (Nov 1, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> Go back to #67. Once again, another play on words. Thermodynamics is a branch of study, but it is also a scientific law (multiple laws, actually). But that is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Whether they are laws of science, or scientific laws, they still exist and they explain how the natural universe works. I reckon now you're having a grammatical debate about the origin of the universe.
> 
> Once again, the laws of thermodynamics state that energy travels from areas of high concentration to areas of low concentration, and that the amount of energy available in the universe to do work is decreasing over time. In a nutshell, over time energy available to do work will cease to exist within a system.



Do you have a point?


----------



## fishinbub (Nov 1, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Do you have a point?



Yes. The point is, if the universe did not have a definite beginning, then there would be no energy available to do work.


----------



## ted_BSR (Nov 3, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> Yes. The point is, if the universe did not have a definite beginning, then there would be no energy available to do work.



Is there a dispute that the universe had a definite begining?


----------



## fishinbub (Nov 4, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Is there a dispute that the universe had a definite begining?



No, the dispute comes in AT the beginning. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed...


----------



## mwells353 (Nov 14, 2011)

Evolution has been debated, and argued over in all aspects. I do believe in evolution in the sense that in my lifetime it has happened to atleast a couple of species. I have a biology degree, and one day will hopefully finish it up with another four years towards my herpetology degree. In Evolutionary terms adaptation and color changes can be more then enough proof that a certain path of evolution has been chosen by a species to better its survival in any given habitat. The golden lanchead for one is already forming a third sex per say. Which will more then likely lead to asexual reproduction to form purer strains for future generations to spur off the effects of isolated inbreeding. Another good example I have very good knowledge of is in Dart frogs. This species over the course of many years has actually adapted its diet to spur off predation by other species. Take the same dart frog out of its habitat and feed it a diet of fruit flies, and what you will end up with is the same exact frog down to the t without its highly evolved poison. Evolution and adaptation do go hand and hand. I cannot prove 100% without a doubt that evolution happened to everything in this world, but to me it would seem highly unlikely that all creatures just popped up in there own special environments premade ready to live out thousands of years without some sort of change over time.


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 14, 2011)

mwells353 said:


> Evolution has been debated, and argued over in all aspects. I do believe in evolution in the sense that in my lifetime it has happened to atleast a couple of species. I have a biology degree, and one day will hopefully finish it up with another four years towards my herpetology degree. In Evolutionary terms adaptation and color changes can be more then enough proof that a certain path of evolution has been chosen by a species to better its survival in any given habitat. The golden lanchead for one is already forming a third sex per say. Which will more then likely lead to asexual reproduction to form purer strains for future generations to spur off the effects of isolated inbreeding. Another good example I have very good knowledge of is in Dart frogs. This species over the course of many years has actually adapted its diet to spur off predation by other species. Take the same dart frog out of its habitat and feed it a diet of fruit flies, and what you will end up with is the same exact frog down to the t without its highly evolved poison. Evolution and adaptation do go hand and hand. I cannot prove 100% without a doubt that evolution happened to everything in this world, but to me it would seem highly unlikely that all creatures just popped up in there own special environments premade ready to live out thousands of years without some sort of change over time.



I am not disputing you, but does it seem more likely than the things of this world evolved out of some space matter into what we have today? What do you think made things evolve, or, what made things have the want to survive, if not for a higher purpose?


----------



## Greaserbilly (Nov 14, 2011)

All matter, energy, space and time had a point when it came into being ex nihilo. Prior to the Big Bang, there was NOTHING, or as the Old Testament called it, "the void".

Evolution does not "prove" or "disprove" the Bible, and people attempting to show that fossils prove one thing or the other are missing the point.


----------



## Atlfinfan (Dec 21, 2011)

bigreddwon said:


> You mean If somehow you were able to prove god really poofed us? For me personally I'd have to see it.
> 
> *poof* God creates a human in front of me..
> 
> Sir.. My world _*would be rocked*_, I would repent my wasted life and recognize JESUS AS MY LOOOOOO'rD N SAVIOR.. Seriously, I would.



Yeah so............I came to the party late......Answer me this, sir........and this is not an attack, whatsoever......I just see it as a double standard...... Why do the Christians have to take the scientists word for something, but you have to SEE it before you believe it.  Science is only the latest best GUESS.  It is all theory on what happened.  You will or have put your faith in something, or someone already.  Everyone does.  Some believe in man, others believe in GOD.  If you have to see it to believe it, why believe in the big bang THEORY.  You didnt see that.  You, nor I, have seen evolution?  We have only heard of the theory put forth by a man who had no evidence of that theory, it was just his .......guess, on how things were.  

I will leave it at that.


----------



## ted_BSR (Dec 22, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> No, the dispute comes in AT the beginning. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed...



fishinbub - I just want to apologize to you for being a jerk to you on this thread. I just read it all back to myself, and I am sorry I acted the way I did. I honestly don't know why I did that, and my arguments were pretty lame.

Anyway, humble apologies.


----------

