But how do you know the trees moving is because of the breeze? You don't KNOW it. Maybe we're using different definitions of the word "know", but you don't have conclusive evidence that the tree is moving because of the wind. I mean, it might be arboreal 60's night and it's partying down with the birch next to it or something. They may well lead you to fairly logical (though, not from my point of view, but from yours) assumptions, but it isn't knowledge. I'm not saying science is any MORE truth, by the way, but as Elryn says even though it's not certain it's just more logical. Neither are certain, one just has better answers than the other.

By better answers you mean unanswerd questions right?

Your right, in truth nobody knows anything. But its pointless to have a discussion using that type of language. The fact that we are even able to communicate via these words should be an amazing thing in and of itself.

How do you know that when I write 'eth' I really mean 'the'? How are you able to understand the funny accents people type in muds with? You shouldn't be able to becasue you don't "Know" what is being written.

Its interesting that you keep on refering to science as an -alternative- to G-d or religious ideas.

To be honest, I don't understand how one can be more logical than the other, I'm not even clear what that statment means. Logic is based on assumptions, so depending on what assumptions you accept would determine whether something is more or less logical. Logic can not lead you to one assumption over another. If you wanted to be honest with yourself you would have to look at the assumptions, and expand those assumptions to thier logical conclusion. Only at that point can you say that one is more logical than the other. It is through that method that I find the "Evolution leaps" to be a missrepresentation of reality. Some other process must be involved.

Well, I understand that it's rather silly to have an argument given that you can't "know" anything, so normally I wouldn't object, but I DO disagree when people go out of their way to say "I know this, 100% certainty, no way to disagree", because it just isn't true.

And by better answers, no, I don't mean unanswered questions. It's just the way science comes with answers that seem to have more evidence and corroberation (ignore spelling on that one) than creationism, which seems to try and explain it away with "God did it". I understand that it goes into more depth than that, that's just an overview, so to speak.

Creationism and evolutionism ARE alternatives. One's a religious viewpoint, the other's a more scientific viewpoint. One precludes the other, at least if you take creationism to mean that the world was created as is (okay, bar about 6000 years of adaptation or whatever it was) by God/gods/whatever.

And I don't know why one CAN'T be more logical than the other. What you just described is your opinion that creationism is more logical than evolutionism. I happen to disagree, and I also am not sure why you assume that we haven't both taken the theories through to their logical conclusion simply because we arrive at different ones. Logic can lead you to one assumption over another if the former has more corroberation than the latter. You believe one, I'll believe the other. I find that evolutionism is far more logical, you find the reverse.

On a side note... I often read that the main reason people don't believe in god is because of the question "why do bad things happen to good people?" And the fact that they never got a good answer or acceptable explanation. I'm wondering if that statement is at all true? For how many of you who find religion 'ilogical' or whatever, was the main issue "Bad things happening to good people, or good things happening to bad people?"

Not me. I always took care to remember that not all religions claim that God is good. (I really disagree with the concept that you need to have evil to have good. Yes, you won't KNOW it's good, since there's no contrast, but in an ideal world which was all good, does it really matter?)

I find the only difference between "creationism" and "evolution" is that in "evolution" everything is random, while in "creationism" there is a specific design. The explanation of "god did it" applies equally to both theories.

More and more scientiests, as was stated earlier with specific refrences, find the world to be highly detailed and designed and not quite so random.

My father who was a chemist would always repeat and be amazed at the fact that if Water had a bond of 44 degrees, or 46 degrees (as in the angle the molocules connected) Life would not be possible, because frozen water would sink instead of float.



A world in which no opposites can not exist. A world where opposites exist requires every thing to have an opposite.

Way I understand evolutionism, God didn't have to've done it, whereas in creationism, he did. Right? And well, scientists I still think are going up in number as far as atheism goes, even if the odd example doesn't. But the world in general's getting more atheist, anyway.

And I still think that yes, it's lucky the world's this way, but...so what? If it weren't we could see it. (We had this debate a few pages back.)

There is a World's of difference between something being the way it is just because it is, and having something set up so intricatly that if just one little bit is moved it all falls apart.

Take your average desktop computer for example. They break all the time in little minor ways. But overall the whole thing seems to work. When I copy and paste information around my computer, little bits of data get corrupted every time. However, the program is stable enough to be able to fix or ignore that corrupt data and move on.

When it comes to water molocules, DNA, ozone, Oxygen, the distance from the Earth to the sun, the angle at which the Earth sits, etc. etc. if just one tiny bit of any of those got corrupted, the earth would die and become a frozen rock.

And will, in time. The earth dying and becoming a frozen rock, that is.

EDIT: Uh...or...maybe not. But it'll screw up anyway. The point is that the "good/perfect" state thing it is in now isn't forever, so it's not even as though it's random chance and it will be perfect forever. It's going to fail eventually.

The muscle contraction is caused by the information sent by your brain. The arm rising is caused by the movement of muscles.

As to saying that creationism means there has to be a god.. while evolution saying there doesn't....

History has proven time and time again that no matter how much the truth is revealed, nobody has to believe anything.

If this were the 50's we would be arguing over a static universe vs an expanding universe. People who believe in religion would be arguing that the big bang happened and that universe will expand forever, while athiests would be arguing that the universe was static and had not begining and will have no end.

Go back a few thousand years. God says "Do not have any other gods before me!" /end -BOOM-. Israelites say "OH? Moses isn't looking, quick! make the golden calf!"

There is no stopping the ability for one to deny G-d's existance.

But...well, that's like having theism but not believing in a god. Isn't the very meaning of creationism that some extraneous being created it? That implies a god, doesn't it? Or a force anyway. Which I guess you could call a god. Hmm.

And what causes the brain to send that signal?

Perhaps it is an "involentary muscle spasm" as we were so fond to call them in elemetary school.

gravity is a force. do you call that a god?
entropy is a force, is that called a god?

I always use gravity, because the gravitron has yet to be found or identified.

The theory is now called "intelegent design"

the big bang implied a god, but those who insist on denying god found it to mean that god must not exist. Go figure.

If you want to go cause and effect like that, we'd have to go to when you were first conceived and farther back to the beginning of time (if there -is- a beginning of time, which I am inclined to doubt (although there is most certainly a beginning of our universe)).

But that signal sent by your brain was sent due to a complicated process wherein the signals sent to your brain, and ultimately, the process ended in the signal sent to your arms.

Time is defined by motion, so without a universe or things to move there can be no time. As Einstein proved, Time is relative based on the motion of objects.

I like how you use the term "complicated process." Every scientific answer always has to include the WHAM affect.

Well, if you really would, I could go back through the timeline of every force ever enacted within your body or to your body. Unfortunately, I sincerely doubt that would accomplish much.

So yes, use the 'wham' effect.

If your going to claim that it is the sum of all forces that makes me move my hand this way or that, than why not just say that neither the muscle nor the brain is moving the arm, but rather it is the collection of nuetrenos and other subatomic particles that cause biological systems to act in a certain way?

That works, but the immediate cause and effect is brain signal-arm.