I'm betting that not a one of you can refute the logical proof that you can read about here:
http://evolutionoftruth.com/index.htm
2007-11-08 02:19:53 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
(((Vishal)))
I'm still praying for you and for Eleventy, dear! Bless your little heathen hearts!
2007-11-08 02:29:38 · update #1
Haha... These sites are always funny to me... Scientists say, evolution offers an explanation for order and complexity, and creationists respond, "Yeah, but this is realllly complex and has sooo much order."
2007-11-08 02:23:42 · answer #1 · answered by Eleventy 6 · 6⤊ 0⤋
It's one of those "The Universe is too pretty and complicated, it must be God" websites
It's an absurd argument to make because:
1. How complicated or amazing something is does not reflect objective reality, only your physical primate reaction to it. It is in no way a proof of anything.
2. Unexplained means unexplained. Unexplained does not mean "God must have did it!" Once you put forth the magical sky fairy hypothesis, you now need proof of that hypothesis. None has ever been offered. See: god of the gaps and invisible pink unicorn.
3. The fact that the universe has a pattern proves only that the universe follows laws. Um ... we already know that. It proves that a god is unnecessary, not the other way around.
Of course, this is pointless. If you are willing to buy drivel like that website, you already drank the kool-aid and you're just not smart enough to break the spell.
2007-11-08 10:34:27 · answer #2 · answered by john_in_dc 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I got as far as irreducible complexity and then I had to stop to refute it. Even the measurements before hand can be explained by environmental influences such as gravity.
Well you see then the question was asked on this website "how do we explainirreducable complexity". Sorry to tell you this but evolution does explain it. It explains it very well. Like the eye for intance. You creationists and intelligent designers always say that the eye is irreducibly complex. Not true. There are certain cells that simply respond to light but don't see detailled images. Thus the eye may have built upon a function of simply responding to light and then becomming more detailled.
2007-11-08 10:28:07 · answer #3 · answered by penster_x 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I love the golden ratio. I have a theory, if anyone is interested. I think we have or will hit a wall in our scientific discoveries soon. I think if we could completely re-think our numbering system to coincide with the golden ratio...more things will fall into place naturally. Math and Physics require very very complex equations to explain things, but I think that is due to our numbering system rather than the complexity of the problem. If we could somehow come up with a numbering system to coincide with the golden ratio, I think equations would become very simple...thus math and physics becoming very simple. Just a theory...I don't have time or the knowledge to undertake such a mission. Maybe one of you can.
2007-11-08 10:31:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a website with an agenda. How can you possibly expect anyone to find it responsible? Yes. Many things have changed. Why? Someone asked a question, experimented and got the answer. If you ask no questions then you will not grow personally or as one who contributes to the world.
2007-11-08 10:26:07 · answer #5 · answered by Yogini 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I believe the "article"(propaganda) is very contradictory.
Evolution by definition is change and adaptation. Yes the true of today can be completely false tomorrow, this is a great.
The circle of life is the same in the micro and macro Universe.
2007-11-08 10:30:36 · answer #6 · answered by Lost. at. Sea. 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That one is easy. I trust evolution is the most likely cause of our being here because all the current facts support it. I will change my belief system if someone comes up with a better explanation. Having "faith" that a God did all this with ZERO proof will never replace the scientific evidence in my mind.
2007-11-08 10:24:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
It's interesting that the author has a 'god-proofed' disclaimer: If evolution existed, then perhaps it's god's way of creation.
Religious nuts always have a contingency plan when it comes to 'covering their asszes' and protecting their ignorance.
2007-11-08 10:43:18 · answer #8 · answered by stevemeister 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So because life shows some tendancy to follow particular mathematical concepts, that proves that your god exists?
That's lame, that's called working from a point that you're trying to prove and twisting information to fit around it.
Besides, your god already managed to show us how 'good' he is at maths in the Bible by suggesting that PI = 3.00.
2007-11-08 11:25:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Evolution is a THEORY based on inductive reasoning.
Belief in god is plain and simple conjecture. No amount of inductive or deductive reasoning will show that god exists.
How does the number SQRT(5)/2 prove existence of god? Early Greeks were the first to discover this "golden" ratio in nature and used it in their architecture.
2007-11-08 10:23:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋