Does God Exist?

So Darwin's theory of evolution means nothing to you?

 

Einstien thought very much that there was some structure to the universe, he wasnt religious but he was not an athiest either, and my picture wasnt an attack on science, it was a counter to the idea that many athiests hold that science and darwin are infallable

Darwin's theory of evolution has nothing to do with how life came to this planet or started, only who it evolved afterwards

 

I don't know anybody who thinks they are completely infallible. Quite the opposite actually, some of Darwin's ideas were flat-out wrong. Again, you have this picture of science built in your brain that's just wrong, there's no beating around the bush. That picture ridiculed the best idea that has come out of a century and a half of rigorous questioning. It wasn't an attack on the arrogance of atheists, it was an attack on the scientific method. I know what Einstein said and believed, but he was purely agnostic, and there are many agnostics like me who believe that what we learn in biology class is probably closer to the truth than what's taught at Church.

 

One of the theories about how life formed here on Earth is from comets. Apart from the threats they could pose, this is one of the reasons that NASA study them.


http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&so...qayQCg&usg=AFQjCNFjxa3QQyVwLCfmamQ9LC2TP1scjQ
Also, a comet is meant to come relatively close to us in October which will be visible in the sky from August.

 

Can you back that claim up? I can't say I'm aware of any atheist or scientist for that matter who would make that assumption as it completely contradicts scientific principles.

Only the pope claims to be infallable mate.

Are you stating as a matter of fact that life came to this planet from somewhere else? If so, can you back this claim up?

As for it having nothing to do with how life started, I'm afraid it shows your complete lack of understanding with regards to the subject, I don't mean this in a condescending way but what you've said undermines the theory of evolution right from the off.

Nothing comes close to refuting Darwin's theory of evolution as the evidence in it's favour becomes stronger with each technological advance. This is why it can be asserted, almost without doubt, that it is fact. And that doubt I speak of is the small chance that someone at some point in the future may bring a better explanation to the table and if that time arrives, any new hypothesis will be put through the same rigerous scientific tests as everything else in order prove it's fallability. If all gathered evidence swings in the direction of being "infallable" then it is with this confidence that science can assert what is "fact" and what is "fiction" however the door is never closed for new explanations, providing they can be backed up with evidence.

The whole point of science is to seek truth without bias.

If you enjoy reading, I'd pick up a copy of "The Greatest Show on Earth" and "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins aswell as "The Origins of Species" by Charles Darwin.

 

I actually have a pretty good idea of science thank you, and Einstien did attack athiests who used his words for their own purpose, i am not saying Einstien believed in a * perse but like me he believed that there was some order to the universe that we were not even close to understanding,

 

You are ignoring many points while getting in a cheap jibe, Darwins theory is not totally correct as diegan stated much of it has been disproved, all the same his theories never stated how life started, where the spark came from which is what I have been trying to say, darwins theory is not the all answering solution that many people claim it is

 

Are you serious?Havent you wa----, sorry, looked at your avatar recently?Evolution in action if ever i seen it! * bless Keeley.

 

Darwin’s only major failure was that he didn't understand inheritance correctly. He proposed his own theory of inheritance, called Pangenesis, but it was based on scant and unreliable evidence and has long been rejected.

In his publications he often talks about the inheritance of acquired characteristics, or evolution by ‘use and disuse’ – the famous example being that blacksmiths (who have big muscles) would pass on their bulk to their children.

Part of Darwin’s genius however was to realise that not understanding inheritance wasn’t a problem for his theory of natural selection. He had proof from his work on domesticated animals and plants, and from his reading and communication with other scientists, that characteristics can be, indeed are, inherited.

This was enough to build his theory. In "On the Origin of Species" Darwin leaves inheritance largely as a ‘black box’.

Had things gone slightly differently Darwin could have heard the answer, for only two years after Darwin’s death Weismann published his correct “Germ-Plasm” theory, and during Darwin’s own lifetime Gregor Mendel had published the results of his experiments on crossing peas which began the field of genetics.

Combining Darwin’s theories of evolution with Mendel’s genetics and Weismann's Germ-Plasm Theory was the most important breakthrough in biology since Darwin published TOGoS. The discovery of DNA and it’s structure and method of replication was the next great update, opening doors to whole new fields of research and a whole new world of evidence for evolution.

 

I dont think you are actually reading my posts, darwin never answers the question of where that life came from, the idea that single cell carbon base lifeforms is the currently populor idea being floated around academia but they dont know for sure, no one is arguing that humans and animals have evolved from earlier creatures but we are debating the origin of living orginisms, in not only this planet but the entire universe, where did they come from

 

:icon_mrgreen:

 

Read all the posts

Still believe

Each to their own.

Live & let live.:icon_mrgreen:

 

Same here mate :icon_mrgreen:

 

Exactly, but for like the 15th time, your poster wasn't about atheism. That attacked something which Einstein himself believed in. And yes, he did get upset at atheists (and theists) who used his words to further their causes, but I don't think he would ever be frustrated with someone saying they believed in Darwinian evolution. He would be frustrated at atheists saying that * absolutely does not exist and that they are certain of it.

Bullshit. The only thing I was referring to is what Marco clarified. I never said that "much of it has been disproved", just illustrated the fact that if you are wrong in science, even if you are Darwin, it will be attacked. Let's not try to put words in my mouth any more.

 

The universe is mathematical.

One of the Gods is a mathematician.

 

Hippy :icon_mrgreen:

 

sussed me !

 

I knew it all along :icon_mrgreen: never said hippies were bad though did I?:icon_mrgreen:

 

the picture was about athiesm, look at the context it was posted it it was a little fun people were having posting random pictures, in your opinion you think I am wrong but again that is because you believe in something different, so stop with the little snides