Evidence for God from Science

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Nice storytelling.

Nice rebuttal.

Mastermind wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Nice storytelling.

Nice rebuttal.

You too. There's not much to say, really, other than it is nothing more than a story. A story taught as fact, yes, but a story nonetheless

A "story" with scientific evidence to back it up, unlike your YEC crap.

Door mat, lie down. This has nothing to do with age, you airheaded nincompoot (never used that word, it makes me laugh).

Evolution has nothing to do with age? I beg to difer.

I mean this has nothing to do with OEC vs YEC, that age dispute thingy that you seemed to forget about. You started attacking me randomly for YEC *********** etc.

Randomly? You're an YEC and attack somebody else by saying "you have no evidence". I found that ironic, amusing and irritating at the same time.

Should have used Preperation H

Tell me then, "idiot outside," what you think happened. You do seem to know a lot on the details of evolution for your age; it actually impresses me, (though one as uneducated as me in this area is easily impressed, and probably for the most part with things that deserve scoffing at instead of esteem- not being able to tell the difference.) What's your opposing theory?

Post subject: "Idiot" Defends Himself
Tell me then, "idiot outside,"

I knew changing my avatar would come back to haunt me.

I can't tell how much of what you're saying is sarcasm kateliz...who knows, none of might be.

Anyways...I don't know as much as you think I do (this is assuming you're not being sarcastic) or I know more than you think I do (this is assuming you are being sarcastic). What I know is that what Smithy said was a story because, there are no transitional forms. Therefore, what he says is hovering around theory. (I've read somewhat, and surfed the internet, so it's not that I'm a high and mighty scientist, I just read off and on (and at the moment, off, busy with a term paper I hate)). And my theory is that all life was created, not evolved. Shocking, I know.

And

I also think everything was created. What she is asking is the METHOD of creation.

Eye of newt, leg of dog, thigh of chicken, balls of man, left earlob of uncle buck, the remains of mastermind's brain, chlorox, and toilet water....and a dash of salt.

Mastermind, I would have thought you could have wrapped your mind around what I said:

And my theory is that all life was created, not evolved

Guess, not. My view is the 6 days that I get out of Genesis 1, the plants and animals made in the order that is said.

Oh, so "idiot" really is one? No, I was only sarcastic regarding your avatar, sadly changed. I used to eat Play-Doh for breakfast when I was a wee youngster, you know! I guess you got nothin' on me, Mr. Soap-Crates! No, j/k. I do have a lot of respect for you. But do you believe the six days of Creation were based on the rotation of the earth that was being formed, with no reference point with which to judge the rotation on? Apparently the meaning for "day" here could mean anything, but the only thing that it obviously wouldn't mean is the rotation of the earth. I too believe the Bible meant what it said exactly, but the question is... what did it mean? I'm currently, (and probably will forever remain,) a progressive creationist, though I'm still searching out all the questions I have and all of their possible answers.

Scientists would like nothing more than to have a time machine in order to collect any evidence they want, but instead they are restricted to whatever evidence that has remained. The further back you go, the less evidence remains. Scientists take painstaking efforts to try and gather as much evidence as possible about early life.

The origin of life remains an unknown question simply because absolutely no evidence from that far back remains. All people can do is tell stories, because there is no evidence available to lead to an actual theory.

Also very little evidence remains of early life, so most explainations that far back will be more assumption than hard evidence. For example it is known that plants and green algae share a lot of plant-specific genes in common, and that algae appear in the fossil record before plants. Therefore it has been assumed that green algae are a likely candidate for the ancestors of plants. I would say it is a good assumption, but you are quite justified in calling it story-telling. I am certainly not going to defend something with such little evidence. But lack of evidence isn't evidence of a lack.

Mastermind wrote:A "story" with scientific evidence to back it up, unlike your YEC ****.

K, you two really need to lay off - esspecially you MM. You have a lot of whacked-out theories too which I've come across many times, but I don't take random cheap-shots at your somewhat unorthodox beliefs. (Like the new earth is billions of years away, for instance). My point is that you don't know everything, and neither does KM, and neither do I. And nothing is gained by petty squabbling.

And to top it off, attacking KM for sticking to a plain interpretation of scripture in large part out of faith in the truthfullness of the Word of God, is blasphemy at worst, and immature at best.