Post
Experience Project iOS Android Apps | Download EP for your Mobile Device
trueproblem trueproblem 18-21, M 23 Answers Sep 10, 2012 in Religion

Your Response

Cancel

E for evidence.

Best Answer

I imagine that you need a creation before any evolution actually happens.

Best Answer

No, you just need the right conditions to cause organic matter to form.

Best Answer

I am voting F like she said.. dang can't we think of new Q&A or have we done it all..

Best Answer

I didnt know, and if you answered already why are you answering here to?

Best Answer

because the dinosaur told God to tell me to do it twice.. and it was a comment to her answer and this is mine.. stfu

Best Answer

I believe in a hybrid of the two. Can I say CE?

Best Answer

E, although they aren't mutually exclusive ideas. You can believe in both.

Best Answer

No you can't. Creationism is the doctrine that specifically mandates evolution did not, nor cannot occur. To believe that a god created everything, and evolution was the natural means by which he/she did it, is still evolution...it's just theistic. Creationism rejects all evidence of evolution, and demands the belief that all things spontaneously arose in their current forms from dust, etc.

Best Answer

I needed both. I can't create without the help of evolution and things can't evolve without creative processes.

Best Answer

How do you know this?

Best Answer

I am American. I can have both.

Best Answer

E

Best Answer

God C'd E.

Best Answer

C. EVEN IF YOU BELIVE in evolution there still had to be the creation to start the evolution. Hare Krishna

Best Answer

Oh so was it Bramha who created all??

Best Answer

Krishna is the creator, Bramha is an incarnation of Krishna

Best Answer

Who are Devaki and Vasudev then? krishna created them?

Best Answer

Ah. these two wonderful personalities are Krishnas mother and father and yes He created them also. But remember they were His parents when he was born onto this planet.

Best Answer

What evidence do you have that there had to be a creation to start evolution?

Best Answer

Besides the religious Scientist of today, i say religious because they keep an open mind to all evidence. non religious tend to not allow an open mind to the fact that there was a supreme being that created all, and in that way dismiss allot of information. however to answer your question. you would not only need to read everything written over the past 30 years about our universe, but also start to read the Bhagavatam as well. this is Vedic writings. These writings are over 5000 years old and yet describe in detail our solar system, of which we have confirmed with science. they also describe things like DNA, the atom, and many other things that we have been led to believe was only recently discovered. on youtube you can find some good videos of these things, but is best to read all the books yourself.
Everything has a start. science has proven this. and since everything has a start or have a creation, evolution naturally follows. Not only does all the scriptures from all the different religions speak of this, but modern day science also confirms that there was a beginning.

Best Answer

Religious scientists? So rather than base your understanding on evidence based reason and logic, you would rather abandon these in favour of a person's opinion? No matter how educated they are, no matter how smart and and experienced they are, their personal opinion is meaningless to the merit of reality. Einstein was wrong on many things about physics. Furthermore, you wish to construct an appeal to popularity fallacy based on an overwhelming minority? Religious scientists make up a mere 7% of the National Academy of Sciences, which did a study of the religiosity of scientists in America. Turns out 93% do not express any belief in any god. Further analysis showed the higher the scientist was in his/her field, the less religious they were. Also, the majority of religious scientists fell into non pure science fields, like engineering and mathematics. Pure sciences, like chemistry, physics and biology, all showed higher levels of atheism/agnosticism. Your appeal to authority is fallacious as a fallacy.***religious keep an open mind to all evidence huh? What about the evidence from the National Center for Biotechnology Information, which contains a database of all peer-reviewed reports in biology, which confirms no requirement for an initial cause to evolution beyond naturallyrics occurring processes? Religious minds falsely claim to be open, but let's put it to the test and ask you: If all the evidence in the world indicated that no god exists, would you accept it? It is not open minded to believe in things which don't show evidence. That is an argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy. I can easily counter this by saying you yourself do not adhere to it, unless you yourself personally believe in every single god. So you accept Allah as supreme ruler to all, except the Flying Spaghetti Monster who reigns over all with his boldly appendage? I can easily demonstrate the fallacy of this "open mind" by saying I have an invisible wood gnome sitting on my forehead. He has no mass, no form and requires faith to see. By your definition of "open minded" you necessarily must believe in him. Do you? Why or why not?***I would recommend that you read everything about our universe from the past 30 years (or 70 to be more accurate), as your logic defies everything we currently know scientifically. You may want to read "A universe from nothing" by Lawrence Krauss, as it very well demonstrates the fallacy of your claim for a necessary cause for existence to begin, or a "creation". And it certainly isn't alone. You can follow the KOBE satellite as it tracks the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, giving us actual photographic evidence of the beginning of the universe from the Big Bang. You can visit the NCBI database and see all the experiments that have successfully formed the necessary elements for life to arise, and evolution to begin free from a creation. Indeed it is the mark of an open mind not to reject that which one does not know, but that doesn't mean making false claims about it being possible and/or what happened. A case in point, it is rather a closed mind, that will say it absolutely must have a creation for life to evolve. For one simply cannot demonstrate such a point is true. ***your false assertions of scientific prophecies from ancient religious texts are made by every single religion. I've heard of the same prophecy from the Quran, the bible, etc. How can all of these prI've divine writing by gids who cannot coexist? The simple psychological fact is that we humans see what we want. Prophecies work by making vague statements that require personal interpretation. How one interprets this is necessarily affected by the period we live in. If this ancient script mentioned DNA, why was it unknown to say this to everyone of your faith, until it was scientifically discovered? Do you surely believe that people 5000 years ago interpreted it the same as you? The only way to demonstrate literature contains knowledge is to show it actually said the knowledge, not a symbolic interpretation subject to our experiences. Show me the verses that mention DNA please. Everything has a start and science has proven this? Ignoring for a second that the word proof is unscientific, let's see you show us the scientific literature or experiments that "prove" everything has a start. Furthermore, that in and of itself makes god a scientific impossibility, for if everything requires a start, god could not physically exist to create existence without he himself having a start. Your god becomes an infinite regress that Rushmore scientifically impossible than no god. It is, of course, a fallacy, as science certainly does not say, let alone "prove" that everything requires a start. Modern science does confirm our universe had a beginning, but it makes no such claim that the singularity from which our universe began, had or required a beginning. It is far more open minded to accept and say we simply don't know, than it is to claim an absolute causation
With no evidence, and demand it be the only explanation.

Best Answer

that was great. I see you have done much work in your life constructing evidence that supports your own opinion, and then you chose to use this knowledge to insult and criticize other people for their opinions, that is what makes a for bad conversation, i do not join in bad conversations. but thank you for the insults.. you may have noticed i have not addressed any of your points, because there would be no use in doing so. you seem to be very firm in your belief that there is no God. i would accomplish nothing in trying to explain why i believe God does exist, not when i know i would simply be insulted for it. if you are simply going to come back with some remark that has the intention of insulting me or causing anger in me, i am afraid that wont happen my friend. May you live long and prosper. I do pray that you have a very good life. Hare Krishna

Best Answer

If the truth is insulting to your beliefs, then I apologize, but that simply isn't my problem. When you make false claims from a scientific methodology about something that you cannot present evidence for, then you are going to be called out for such lies and deception. No one is denying your right to believe...rather it is your belief that is attempting to deny the right for others to speak the truth. No where does any religious text mention DNA, atoms, or any other information you falsely claim they do. This is an outright false claim that attempts to deny the truth. No, scientists today do not base their findings on opinion, and as such their religious perspectives have zero measure of their science. If you have a problem with that, well, too bad. That's formal logic for you...and whether you feel uncomfortable with the truth or not, does not change what is true. No, stating facts as I have does not make for a bad conversation. Outright lies and deceiving psuedoscientific claims about an area one is ignorant of makes for a bad conversation. You have made several scientifically false claims, and then had the audacity to claim scientists support, nay, even suggest this...and outright lie. Science claims zero of the things you claim it does. Scientists disagree with literally everything you say...yet this doesn't stop you from voicing an opinion about science in a scientific forum...and then cry victim when someone presents real science to demonstrate you wrong? You can hide behind your religious beliefs all you want, but don't attempt to justify them by means of science if you cannot handle reality. It's about time the world stops granting this immunity from logic and truth to religion. Your feelings are not more important than the truth, especially when you attempt to trump science with them.
****
"but thank you for the insults.. you may have noticed i have not addressed any of your points, because there would be no use in doing so."

You haven't addressed them, because you can't.
****

" you seem to be very firm in your belief that there is no God. i would accomplish nothing in trying to explain why i believe God does exist, not when i know i would simply be insulted for it."

And therein lies the difference between the two of us. While I choose not to accept belief in something for which there is no evidence, you demand we treat such evidence free belief on the same page as demonstrable science. While I may be firm in not believing, you are concrete in believing. All that is required to change my mind is evidence. Again I ask you, if all the evidence in the world indicated no god, would you actually accept it?

Best Answer

You just can't help it can you, you seemed to be compelled to insult others, it saddens me that you have this kind of hate in your heart, this can not be a good way to live, to always be angry and ready to lash out at people. I hope this will end this madness you are trying to create with me. 1. read the Bhagavatam. 2. yes if all the materialistic evidence in this world showed there was no God, i still Believe. Because my friend, i have felt it in my heart, i have seen it with my eyes, the miracles of God, you will ask me to prove this i am sure but there would be no use to do so as you are very much firm in your belief and very quick to call me a liar no matter what it is i tell you. True belief in God does not come from some material evidence, it comes from the heart. I know you wont be able to help yourself and you will need to try comment in someway that insist i and crazy for Knowing of God. that is fine if that is what will make you feel better. But no matter what evidence you show me, it will only confirm to me that God does exist. that you again for your insults. As for you saying science trumps religion. my friend, God is the greatest scientist. that is why we Hare Krishnas dont call what we believe a religion, we call it a science. Please read the bhagavatam one day. i truly do pray you are able to let go of the hate in your heart one day. you may not believe, but i will pray for you anyway. Hare Krishna

Best Answer

If the truth is insulting to you, then perhaps you should learn to be truthful yourself. ;)

That you take such offense to people asking you questions is hilarious and telling.

***YOU made the positive claim that evolution requires creation to begin. I merely asked you to present evidence to support this - you failed.

***YOU made the claim that science and scientists are or show religion. I merey asked you to present evidence to support this - you failed....and when you did, I presented the real evidence which contradicts this lie.
***YOU made the claim that your religious text confirmed DNA, atoms, the solar system, etc. I merely asked you to present evidence to confirm this - you failed.

***Indeed we can see why you would find the truth so insulting. You want to voice your opinion to the world about what the truth is, then expect to be asked for evidence. You want to voice false claims and outright lies, then expect to get called out for them. Your right to practice free speech and free religion does not grant you immunity from having to listen to others, and it certainly does not grant you immunity from the truth. If you cannot handle people questioning your positive claims, then I suggest that you stop making these positive claims in public.
*******************************************
" Because my friend, i have felt it in my heart, i have seen it with my eyes, the miracles of God, you will ask me to prove this i am sure but there would be no use to do so as you are very much firm in your belief and very quick to call me a liar no matter what it is i tell you."

---No, I would much rather point out the obvious fact that Muslims have felt in their heart the 'real' experience of Allah and Mohammad. Christians have felt the 'real' evidence of Jesus Christ and Yahweh....now how can they all be right? Since the Abrahamic god gave out ten commandments, and the first one was "I am the lord your god, you shall not have any false gods before me", the most fundamental and necessary requirement for his existence is that no other god does. Thus, if he exists, then your gods do not. Thus the followers of his religions that have "felt" or experienced his miracles with their own eyes, have heard him speak personally to them, necessarily must be wrong in their experience in order for your experience to be true...and if their experiences are subject to the fallible interpretation of humans, making it possible for them to be wrong, then it necessarily means that you can be as well. Thus your personal experiences are no evidence at all. True evidence is demonstrable, and that means it can be viewed, experienced, etc. by every single person. An example: gravity. I say gravity exists. You say prove it. I say, gravity is the force of attraction of objects of mass, thus, when I let go of this pen, it necessarily must fall to the ground. I let go of the pen, and it falls. I say see? You say, let me try...and you let go of a pen, it too falls. This is demonstrable. It is capable of repeated demonstration by all. NO, and I mean NO god would rely on relaying the ultimate truth through personal experience, as it would mean denying the majority of people the opportunity that you had. Such selfish actions are hardly god-like. Special revelation, that is, personal experiences with a god/gods, is the strongest argument one can make against the existence of a god/gods...and this is easily demonstrable by simply pointing out the conflicting religious personal experiences of every single faith that "just know in their hearts" the truth. If these other religious people can be wrong, then so can you...and since one must necessarily be wrong, it means it is just as likely to be you. Not all beliefs can be right, but the most certainly all can be wrong.
*******************************************

"True belief in God does not come from some material evidence, it comes from the heart."

---Then why did you claim to have scientific evidence in the first place? Either you do not truly believe this, or you have no respect for the truth.

*******************************************
"But no matter what evidence you show me, it will only confirm to me that God does exist."

---which shows you have zero respect for the truth. Unlike you, I will not ever say that I will know the conclusion, before I read the story. I will never jump to a preconceived notion before considering the evidence. Thus, you have admitted that you have closed your mind to reality, and thus you have demonstrated the limitations in your thinking...which may be the strongest case against your own beliefs. I do not attack your beliefs, I attack your lack of logic...and that is precisely the point. If you wish to form a religious belief, go right ahead. But do it for logical reasons. Apply reason and truth to it, not delusion and absence of thought.

*******************************************
"As for you saying science trumps religion. my friend, God is the greatest scientist."

---then why can you show no science to support this claim? Your disrespect for the truth is beyond measure.

*******************************************
"that is why we Hare Krishnas dont call what we believe a religion, we call it a science."

---Then it necessarily MUST be subject to scientific scrutiny and the scientific process...so show me what scientific evidence you have that makes it a science. Your religion is not science, it is religion masked in pseudoscience.

The scientific method is fundamentally dependant on dynamic positioning...that is to say science ALWAYS changes with the evidence. The single most unscientific thing anyone can say is: "yes if all the materialistic evidence in this world showed there was no God, i still Believe."

Best Answer

Oh very good. you are getting better at your insults. Please continue. but also know that no matter how much you try. I do not only believe God exist. I absolutely without a doubt know God exist, and that comes from my heart. but may i ask you.. Since we have never met, and you do not know me personally, i can safely say that it is not me that you are angry at. so what has happened in your life that has created so much anger towards people who believe in God. I mean something tragic must have happened for you to have this anger. because if you simply did not believe in God that would be one thing, and you have that right. but to not believe and then have anger for those who do, well that is something else. would you like to talk about it. i am here if you need to talk about it.
i will give you some things hear to read, i cant wait to be insulted some more after you read them so please read very soon.
http://www.krishnapath.org/quantum-physics-came-from-the-vedas-schrodinger-einstein-and-tesla-were-all-vedantists/
this is a video, please enjoy
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/scientific-verification-of-vedic-knowledge/

Best Answer

"I do not only believe God exist. I absolutely without a doubt know God exist, and that comes from my heart."

---Which is a statement of a closed mind. Thank you for demonstrating which of us does in fact have the open mind. ;)

*******************************************
" but may i ask you.. Since we have never met, and you do not know me personally, i can safely say that it is not me that you are angry at. so what has happened in your life that has created so much anger towards people who believe in God."

---Logical fallacy called begging the question. No where have I displayed anger. Learn to read and you will see this quite well. My asking you to back up your lies is hardly anger, it's just skepticism to claims you falsely make with no evidence to support them. And scince it was YOU that said it isn't a religion, it is a science, YOU have put yourself into a position of having to meet the criteria set forth in the scientific method....which by the way is rejection until demonstrated by evidence. Thus, scientifically speaking, there is no evidence to support the notion that your god exists. ;)

*******************************************
" I mean something tragic must have happened for you to have this anger. because if you simply did not believe in God that would be one thing, and you have that right. but to not believe and then have anger for those who do, well that is something else."

---Indeed it is - it's a red herring fallacy, in which you attempt to deflect from your inability to justify your flat out lies, by deflecting the topic to an attack of my character. Nice try though....but even if I was a bitter ******* full of rage and hate, it still wouldn't take away from the fact that your statements are nothing short of false lies.

*******************************************
"would you like to talk about it."

---Yes I would. I get irritated by people making **** up, and lying about it being 'scientific' then refusing to back up such lies with real science. So therefore all you have to do to stop me from criticising your claims, is back them up. So where is your evidence already? ;)

*******************************************
" i will give you some things hear to read,"

---How about you go read some things for once. ;) It might help you clarify the glaring difference between real science, and the pseudoscience you call a religion.

You may want to start with the following:

***http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html***


--Which shows that 93% of the National Academy of Sciences does not believe in a god of any kind.

Or how about:

***http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13056598***
--Which clearly shows no creation required to begin the process of evolution.

Or maybe even:

***http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=3***
--Which clearly shows that the universe began without a specific 'creation'

Or if you are feeling extra open minded, and willing to challenge the false beliefs you claim as 'science', may I recommend:

***https://www.radcliffe.harvard.edu/news/radcliffe-magazine/universe-nothing***

--Which demonstrates the absolutely positive ability for something to have come from nothing. ;)

*******************************************
"http://www.krishnapath.org/quantum-physics-came-from-the-vedas-schrodinger-einstein-and-tesla-were-all-vedantists/"

---So you have to lie about scientists in order to form an appeal to authority fallacy? Even if these scientists were of your faith, which none were, it would not make one shred of difference to the scientific facts....of which you have shown you have none. But since you brought this bullshit up, let's take a look at the facts about the scientists this website lied to you about being of your faith:

***"Nobel Prize winner, Laureate Niels Bohr (1885-1962) (pictured above), was a follower of the Vedas."

---Actually, Niels Bohr was an atheist, raised in a Jewish family.[1][2][3] He became non-religious during his studies of science. Funny that his ground-breaking work in Quantum mechanics turned him away from religion. Hmm...
***"Then, in the 1920′s Erwin Schrödinger (1887-1961), an Austrian-Irish physicist (pictured below), who won the Nobel prize, came up with his famous wave equation that predicts how the Quantum Mechanical wave function changes with time"

---Erwin Schrödinger was born to a Catholic father and Luthern mother, Erwin Schrödinger called himself an atheist.[4][5]

***"In the 1920′s Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) formulated his famous uncertainty principal, which states when a physicist attempts to observe a subatomic particle, the experimental apparatus inevitably alters the subatomic particle’s trajectory."

---Werner Heisenberg was a devout Luthern Christian, mixed with Calvinism.[6][7]
***" Einstein’s famous quote on the Bhagavad-gita is: “When I read the Bhagavad-gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous.” He also wrote in his book The World as I See It, “I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research” (p. 24-28)."7
--Albert Einstein may be the most abused scientist by all religious groups. There have been claims laid that he was Jewish, he was not. There have been claims made that he followed Jesus and the bible, he did not. And now you claim that he was a Hindu...well...how about instead of claiming for him what he believed, we listen to the very words of Albert Einstein himself?

**************************************************
I came—though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents—to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic **** of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Mistrust of every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social environment—an attitude that has never again left me, even though, later on, it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal connections. It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which was thus lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the 'merely personal,' from an existence dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive feelings. Out yonder there was this huge world, which exists independently of us human beings and which stands before us like a great, eternal riddle, at least partially accessible to our inspection and thinking. The contemplation of this world beckoned as a liberation, and I soon noticed that many a man whom I had learned to esteem and to admire had found inner freedom and security in its pursuit. The mental grasp of this extra-personal world within the frame of our capabilities presented itself to my mind, half consciously, half unconsciously, as a supreme goal. Similarly motivated men of the present and of the past, as well as the insights they had achieved, were the friends who could not be lost. The road to this paradise was not as comfortable and alluring as the road to the religious paradise; but it has shown itself reliable, and I have never regretted having chosen it." -Albert Einstein [8]

**************************************************

"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve." - Albert Einstein [9]

**************************************************
"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." - Albert Einstein [10]

**************************************************
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature." - Albert Einstein [11]

**************************************************
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." - Albert Einstein[12]

**************************************************

...and directly in response to your precious article's claim that quantum mechanics led these men to religious liberation, Einstein wrote in a letter to Max Born, the following:

"You believe in a God who plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world which objectively exists, and which I in a wildly speculative way, am trying to capture. I firmly believe, but I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find. Even the great initial success of the quantum theory does not make me believe in the fundamental dice game, although I am well aware that some of our younger colleagues interpret this as a consequence of senility."[13]

**************************************************

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance—but for us, not for God." -Albert Einstein[14]

**************************************************
About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church... As long as I can remember. I have resented mass indoctrination. I cannot prove to you there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws" -Albert Einstein[15]

**************************************************

And of course, the most relevant quote from Einstein of all. In response to the claims during his life, that Albert Einstein was religious, Einstein replied on 24 March 1954 the following:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -Albert Einstein[16]

******************************


So yah...you can stop with the lies about who these men, who are no longer alive today to defend themselves, were. They most certainly were not sharing in your religious faith, and apart from one of the listed men, Dr. Heisenberg, not a one of these men believed in any god...and in a time in which we knew far less about the origins of existence than we do today. Looking at modern scientists will tell an even more damning case against your flat out brainwahsed lies.


[1] Stewart, Melville Y. (2010). Science and Religion in Dialogue, Two Volume Set. Maiden, Massachusetts: John Wiley & Sons. p.416. ISBN 978-1-4051-8921-7.
[2] Faye, J.; Folse, H., eds. (2010). Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy. Springer. p.88. ISBN 978-90-481-4299-6.
[3] Aaserud, Finn; Heilbron, J. L. (2013). Love, Literature and the Quantum Atom: Niels Bohr's p.110. 1913 Trilogy Revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-968028-3.
[4] Walter J. Moore (1994). A Life of Erwin Schrödinger. Cambridge University Press. pp. 289–290. ISBN 9780521469340.
[5] Andrea Diem-Lane. Spooky Physics. MSAC Philosophy Group. p. 42. ISBN 9781565430808.
[6] http://www.adherents.com/people/ph/Werner_Heisenberg.html
[7] (Margenau 1985, Vol. 1).Margenau, Henry. 1985. “Why I Am a Christian”, in Truth (An International, Inter-disciplinary Journal of Christian Thought), Vol. 1. Truth Inc., in cooperation with the Institute for Research in Christianity and Contemporary Thought, the International Christian Graduate University, Dallas Baptist University and the International Institute for Mankind. USA.
[8] Einstein, Albert (1979). Autobiographical Notes. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company, pp. 3-5.
[9] Calaprice, Alice (2000). The Expanded Quotable Einstein. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 217. Einstein Archives 59-797
[10] Dukas, Helen (1981). Albert Einstein the Human Side. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 39. Letter to a Baptist pastor in 1953.
[11] Einstein, Albert (1999). The World as I See It. Secaucus, NJ: Citadel Press, p. 5.
[12] Calaprice, Alice (2000). The New Quotable Einstein. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, p. 216; Letter to M. Berkowitz 25 October 1950; Einstein Archive 59–215.
[13] Adams, John (1995). Risk. London: University College London Press, p. 17
[14] Dukas, Helen (1981). Albert Einstein, The Human Side. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 66
[15] Hermanns, William (1983). p. 132.
[16] Dukas, Helen (1981). Albert Einstein the Human Side. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 43. Einstein Archives 59-454 and 59-495

Best Answer

And because you clearly refuse to read....just to clarify again:
**********************
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -Albert Einstein

Best Answer

Let me quote Einstein further: “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”
This is beginning to be fun. you spend allot of time on here typing, all just to tell me i am lying. Just because I believe in God and you dont, this must certainly mean i am lying right. see the reason why i dont spend the amount of energy sitting here typing up things that would be proof that God exist, is because you would simply say its a lie. you really like that word "Fallacy" it seems to be your favorite. is it because you just like that way it sounds. it is somewhat poetic in a way. Anger does not mean yelling and shouting, for you it is displayed in your insults, and choice of words. cussing to be more precise. oh wait i just got a call. i am going to go help someone set up their Christmas tree. speaking of Christmas do you celebrate it. do you offer and take gifts. do you take that day off from work or participate in any of the things that is celebrating the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ? because if you even except one single gift, does that not contradict your beliefs. i will return. this is becoming a very interesting conversation.

Best Answer

So you have been called out for your laughably absurd attempt to use a report chalked full of quote mine fallacies as evidence that these scientists somehow prove your religion true, by being shown quotes from them, and references to their own authbiographoical workings that say they were not (and in many of their cases, were in fact atheist), and think that further committing quote mining fallacies will somehow help your case?
Sadly, you are so one track minded as to think that anyone simply asking for evidence is committing some hate crime against your beliefs...and it becomes painfully clear when you both misrepresent not only my position, but that of a dead man who cannot defend himself. Look back on what I have said. You will see that no where have I stated Einstein was an atheist, and no where have I even attempted to cover up the truth of him (like you have). We can continue to quote mine him all our lives, and it will not change any of the facts. Einstein said of himself "You may call me agnostic" when asked to put a label on his views. He also clearly stated that any aspect of religiousness in him was his pure admiration for the universe so much as science has shown us. I do not need to disrespect the great Albert Einstein by misrepresenting him as supporting my views, like you do, as it makes no difference to reality. So rather than continue with this patheticly laughable fallacious argument of quote mining him to show that he believed in something, or not. Let's leave it with this juicy little nugget from Einstein:

***RE = (Lambda) E^-1/2 = c over the square root 4(pi)Gp***

---Einstein's equation of the universe. It was of course, WRONG. Yes, that's right, even the great mind of Albert Einstein was fallible...and this means his personal beliefs on religion or none, or his views of agnosticism, or what some call a pantheistic view, which Einstein himself said was similar to that of Spinoza's god, are irrelevant. This is exactly why science has no authorities. This is exactly what an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy...and why every real scientist knows that science stands and falls on its own merit, and not on the merit of the person making the claim...which is also what makes it perfectly clear that you and your indoctrinated religion are not science.

****************************************
"Just because I believe in God and you dont, this must certainly mean i am lying right."

---Sadly for you, you are jumping to conclusions, as I have never stated whether or not I believe. No, it is not because you believe that you are lying, it is because you are smearing science, and lying about having "evidence", and saying your religion isn't a religion, it's "science"

****************************************

"see the reason why i dont spend the amount of energy sitting here typing up things that would be proof that God exist,"

---Yes, because you have none. The first comment I made in response to you was thus: ***"Reply by Me Dec 16th, 2013 at 3:18AM
What evidence do you have that there had to be a creation to start evolution?"***

---as of yet, you have still not offered anything, thus confirming that you have none, and your only attempt to justify claiming such a non-evidence based view as 'science' is to smear science by means of quote mining. Twist these intellectuals all you want, they didn't agree with you religiously, nor philosophically, as all of them made it painfully clear that their, nor anyone's, personal opinions, are meaningless in terms of science, of which you claim your religion is. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...and what you present without evidence can easily be dismissed without evidence.

****************************************

" is because you would simply say its a lie."

--No, but unlike you I know the difference between subjective opinion and objective evidence. The use of subjective opinion as 'science' is in fact, a lie. YOU claimed your religion is not a religion but it is science: ***Reply by bhaktagerald Dec 17th, 2013 at 10:19AM "that is why we Hare Krishnas dont call what we believe a religion, we call it a science."***

---and this is based on what evidence please? If you cannot present any known evidence, then yes, this statement is by definition, a lie.

****************************************

" you really like that word "Fallacy" it seems to be your favorite."

---As it is a term in formal logic. Look it up. ;)

***http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies***

****************************************

"Anger does not mean yelling and shouting, for you it is displayed in your insults, and choice of words."

---I'm sorry that you find evidence to be so hostile and insulting. That truly is a shame.

****************************************

"i am going to go help someone set up their Christmas tree. speaking of Christmas do you celebrate it. do you offer and take gifts. do you take that day off from work or participate in any of the things that is celebrating the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ? "

---
Yes, I do celebrate the ancient traditional festival Christians relabelled as Christmas. Like you, I partake in the Etruscan and Greek tradition of laying wreaths. Like you, I partake in the Druid practice of kissing under the Mistletoe, the Roman Saturnalia festival holiday of decorating the spruce tree to protect it from the winter months. Like you, I partake in the Norse celebration of the Yule, with the Yule log, awaiting the Norse god Odin, whom you call Santa to fly above our houses on his wild hunt, waiting for him to bring gifts for children. And yes, like you, I celebrate the birth of the sun, Mithras, on December 25, whereas Jesus was born some time between April and September. Indeed...how hypocritical it is of me to celebrate a holiday for which I do not believe in the mythology of right? ...you know...unlike you. ;)

*****************************************

"because if you even except one single gift, does that not contradict your beliefs"

---You may want to ask yourself that same question. ;)

Best Answer

Einstein called belief in God “childish superstition”. The actual quote is: “I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a CHILDLIKE [NOT CHILDISH] one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervour is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”In fact, Einstein’s humility comes through in that his own attitude is childlike, which is indeed the attitude human beings must have in relation to God. (I will justify the use of the term ‘must’ because the scriptures of all religions enjoin on us an attitude of humility, and not pride, before the majesty of God.)

funny how both side can quote Einstein to prove their case. i truly fine that to be ironic. ok. you like facts. i have been avoiding that because i found it to be useless because you clearly keep calling everything i say a lie. but lets play the game anyway. could be fun. i just finished helping with the Christmas tree. now i am going to go and do some painting. when i return i will then post for you some facts. did you read what i posted before, did you watch the video. or simply brush it off in a rush to post your own back to me?

Best Answer

1. The logical fallacy here is a straw-man. An attempt to build a straw-man of the argument to attack, instead of the actual argument. I never quoted Einstein as saying childish, or childlike, so to attack that is nothing short of a deflection of what was really said - a straw-man fallacy.
2. Semantics: Merriam-Webster defines both as follows:

***Childlike: of, like, or appropriate to a child.
***Childish: of a child or typical of a child; especially : having or showing the unpleasant qualities.

***To argue that Einstein somehow confirms your faith, by then saying he refered to it as child-like, and not childish, is still to say he said it is child-like. Furthermore demonstrating that he did not agree with the label you attempt to smear him with. Einstein was an agnostic, who self-admitedly did not accept the notion of any deity god.

3. Since of the two of us, I am the only one whom has presented sources from Einstein, we shall go with my quotes as factual until you demonstrate otherwise....you know...with that pesky thing you find insulting: evidence.

*****************************************

"In fact, Einstein’s humility comes through in that his own attitude is childlike, which is indeed the attitude human beings must have in relation to God."

---A blatant and disrespectful lie...especially after YOU yourself just quoted Einstein as saying: "You may call me an agnostic..." To claim Einstein as anything other than this is a blatant lie. He simply did not share your beliefs, plain and simple. So to use him as evidence of reality for sharing your beliefs is not only fallacious in an appeal to authority fallacy, which does not demonstrate anything to do with reality, but also is a spit in the face of Einstein himself. Such disrespect is nothing short of disgusting and pathetic. Shame on you, and anyone that would intentionally lie is misrepresent someone else for the advance of their own personal agenda....let alone an agenda that flies directly in the face of what this man worked so hard to clear his name from. Shame on you.

***The fallacy of appealing to authority, that is to say, attempting to use an authority in a field as evidence of the existence of their personal opinion, can easily be demonstrated with none other than physics founding father himself, Sir Isaac Newton. Sir Isaac Newton is arguably the most influential person in the history of science (he was also born on December 25 too, unlike Jesus for whom you falsely celebrate the birth of). Sir Isaac Newton's work in science, and the laws of mechanics, motion, and gravity, that he has implemented, to this very day, play absolutely zero credibility to his personal opinions of philosophy. Yes, Sir Isaac Newton was Christian (as was the whole western world he lived in at the time)...but he was also an alchemist. Did his ground breaking work in science somehow prove the existence of alchemy? You cannot pick and choose which personal beliefs of authority figures are 'proven' by unrelated science, and then disregard the rest. Even if Einstein was of your faith (which you have even admitted he was not, as you quoted him saying he was agnostic), it would mean that you necessarily MUST believe in alchemy in order to believe that. So do you believe in alchemy?

*****************************************

"funny how both side can quote Einstein to prove their case"

---except they can't. Your use of quotes to make him religious are exactly what Einstein himself was speaking against when he wrote the following:

***"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -Albert Einstein***

Not to mention that if both sides can use him as "evidence" of their claims, then it only serves to show that he is not evidence...which I have been stating all along. Glad you finally caught up. ;)

Best Answer

So now that you have even admitted your own smear campaign of quote mining and appeal to authority fallacies is utter bullshit, let's get back to the original question you refused to answer: What evidence do you have that a creation was required in order to evolution to occur?

Best Answer

Its pretty simple. i order for something to evolve it had to be created first. but in reality, there has never ever not once been any proof whatsoever of evolution, in the terms of a species evolving into a different species, Darwin himself admitted that. ( i did some research so i recant my first reply. evolution is a Fallacy) I love that fact you feel the need to spend so much time writing all this nonsense to prove something you can not. Yes of course you can quote people too, but it proves nothing.. you should watch Terry Smith on youtube, "the theory of everything" ok last question. i say last, because you will not be able answer it and without ans answer to this there is no reason to continue this conversation that will ultimately do nothing but waste more of my time. because you will not concede to the fact God exist, and i will NEVER stop believing God does exist. so here is the questions, you put all your faith in these scientist and what they tell you. Ok every single great scientist admits that information MUST come from a source, information can not just suddenly appear, DNA in all living things on this planet holds information. one strand holds enough to fill books that can reach the moon. this is exact information. now since information MUST come from a source. where did the information come from to create life? And please watch that video from terry smith, because he can give all the scientist names and source to collaborate this information. please take your time and take notes. and enjoy your Christmas celebrations before replying i dont wish to interfere with that. also if you wouldnt mind, just to broaden my education, use a different word than fallacy, not that its needed i just want to see if you can. kinda like a game. God Bless. Hare Krishna my friend

Best Answer

"Its pretty simple. i order for something to evolve it had to be created first."

---That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Unless you can present evidence that this is true, then there is no reason to believe that it is. Simply put, merely asserting that this is true is pointless, and does nothing to show it is. If evolution had to be created first, then show us how and why.

********************************
"but in reality, there has never ever not once been any proof whatsoever of evolution, in the terms of a species evolving into a different species, Darwin himself admitted that."
---Darwin also lived 200 years ago. Are you seriously, and foolishly asserting that we have not made any new advances in science since the 1830s? In fact, we have....and not only have we observed species evolve into new ones, but we have also observed purely natural means of evolution, as well as purely natural means for the formation of life without creation. I suggest that you take the time to look up the facts you assert, before asserting them...it will save you from looking foolish in the future.

********************************

"( i did some research so i recant my first reply. evolution is a Fallacy)"

---Which only demonstrates that you do not understand what a fallacy, or logic, is.

********************************

"I love that fact you feel the need to spend so much time writing all this nonsense to prove something you can not."

I don't. I doesn't take that long to reply to things you actually know about, and don't have to rely on google or other cultic papers to tell you what to think. ;)

********************************

"Yes of course you can quote people too, but it proves nothing.."

---Precisely my point. Glad you finally came around. If it proves nothing, then it is pointless. If I cannot prove anything by quoting someone, then neither can you. If your quotes prove nothing, then they are pointless. About time you realized this. ;)

********************************

"you should watch Terry Smith on youtube, "the theory of everything""

---and you should learn to think for yourself instead of relying on youtube videos to do it for you. ;)

********************************
"ok last question. i say last, because you will not be able answer it and without ans answer to this there is no reason to continue this conversation that will ultimately do nothing but waste more of my time."

---A statement of assertion made prior to the evidence. Thus demonstrating your mentality, and you willingness to live in delusion. To jump to conclusions prior to the evidence is pseudoscience, a fallacy, and down right stupidity. Unlike you, I claim no foreknowledge, no special knowledge, nor any concrete absolute knowledge that forces me to accept a conclusion for a question or explanation that I have not yet seen...and therein lies the difference between us.

********************************

"because you will not concede to the fact God exist, and i will NEVER stop believing God does exist"

---Actually, I have stated that I would concede to the fact god exists (if it were a fact)...therefore only YOU are the one who is absolute in belief. Therefore YOU are the only one who has closed their mind to new information.

********************************
"so here is the questions, you put all your faith in these scientist and what they tell you"

---I don't have to. I can do the experiments for myself and see the evidence of their work first hand. The difference between the two of us, is that I actually understand how incredibly stupid it is to blindly put faith in anyone. The greatest scientists all accept the scientific ethos, stating that there are no authorities. This is to say, that the greatest scientists, even Albert Einstein himself, did not want people to simply believe what he said, but to look at the evidence. Science stands and falls on its own merit, not on the merit of the scientist presenting it. I do not have to believe anything a scientist says, as the evidence speaks louder than said scientist ever could. The truth is not determined by what others tell you to believe. The truth is determined by what the facts tell you.

********************************

"Ok every single great scientist admits that information MUST come from a source"

---Prove it. That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Untill you show the list of every single scientist admitting this, then this claim is false. Such an absolute statement as this is so easily destroyed, that all I have to do is name a single scientist who disagrees with you, and it proves your point is false....and I can easily do that by pointing out that the great physicist Lawrence Krauss, ranked as one of the top physicists in the world today, wholeheartedly disagrees that information requires a source.

********************************
"information can not just suddenly appear"

---A logical fallacy called a 'false dichotomy'. The options are not to necessarily believe that information either comes from a source, or that it suddenly appears. The slow process of chemical formations that take millions to billions of years, cannot be accurately described as sudden. There have been successful experiments that have formed the basics of the information of DNA in labs without a source. I suggest that you educate yourself on modern science, not 1000 year old philosophy.
********************************

"DNA in all living things on this planet holds information. one strand holds enough to fill books that can reach the moon. this is exact information."

---DNA hold polymers. By this definition of information, when I dump olive oil into a pan of water, the separate droplets of oil that form are information. Information is a human concept to describe the ability for replication of patterns. That it is possible for us to replicate a pattern does not mean it is necessarily required that we, or an even more intelligent being, are required for this process. DNA, or Deoxyribonucleic acid, is a chemical compound or organic molecules. It is a polymer, that is to say, a large molecule consisting of several repeated monomers, or subunits. These subunits are a mixture of several types of nucleotides, and sugars. Their pattern of arrangement is what we call information, and is what determines the genetic code of life. They are replicable through reproduction. The result of this replication is, like all things, imperfect. Such imperfect self replications result in the mutation of genes, causing evolution. This information is nothing more than the chemical arrangement of monomers. This information is the same as the information of atoms and protons, neutrons and electrons. Their arrangement and numbers determine what element it is...and the arrangement of nucleotides and sugars determine the same in DNA. Replication of this 'information', is nothing more than chemicals arranging in a pattern. There is not a person out there that would argue that if you took all the balls on a pool table and threw then in the air an infinite number of times, their arrangement would, on occasion, form numerical patterns. This simple experiment does not confirm the random pattern of evolution, but it certainly does disprove the silly notion that information cannot occur naturally. Our labelling of the balls with a number is the same as our labelling of chemical compounds in DNA with a letter (which depicts their chemical makeup). To think that it is impossible for a code that we have assigned to them to naturally coincide to infinite random patterns is not only beyond reality, it is simply absurd. Thus we can conclude that it is possible for the human concept of information to occur by purely natural means. This means that it certainly cannot be asserted that intelligence is required for information, such as DNA. That chemical compounds can align in any pattern is not the product of intelligence. That this chemical compound can replicate is also not the product of intelligence. Thus, the product of information from DNA is not necessarily the product of intelligence.

********************************

"now since information MUST come from a source."

---Does it really? I have shown you that it doesn't. You might want to visit the NCBI databse of biology experiments that have successfully caused the primitive arrangements and formation of these 'information' blocks completely natural and with no 'source'.

********************************

"where did the information come from to create life?"

---Go read up on the work began by the Miller-Urey experiment, which has since then seen countless other experiments also succeed in answering that entirely.

*******************************

"And please watch that video from terry smith, because he can give all the scientist names and source to collaborate this information."

---And scientists' names are irrelevant, as scientists are not facts. In science, there are no authorities. So any scientist claiming to be one without evidence, is in defiance of what science is, and is being very unscientific. I don't care what the scientists say. I care about what the facts say...and the facts say that information can result from purely natural means...the NCBI contains the peer-reviewed reports that demonstrably show this with actual experiments and evidence, not personal testimony.

*******************************
"also if you wouldnt mind, just to broaden my education, use a different word than fallacy, not that its needed i just want to see if you can. "

---It is needed, as it is the word that defines the point being made. I suggest that you take the time to educate yourself on the use of formal logic.

***http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy***

Best Answer

I think you just like to have the chance to use big words. I am glad i was able to give you that opportunity. Now if i can offer some advice, i wish to help you out. If it is your mission to prove to others that God dont exist, You should try to do it in such a way that is not offending them or insulting them, those like you are actually some of our (God Believers) best assets, because people listen to you and see how you speak, using cuss words, getting angry when you speak, insulting others and they think, "why would i want to be like that, at least God teaching people to be kind to one another" Krishna says in the Bhagavatam that it is His pure Devotees that He send back down to earth to be Atheist because they are the best way to bring people back to God. you simply Strengthen my belief in Him. See i have a pretty good freind in my life that is also an atheist, but she is kind, respectful, considerate, and a loving person. we get along wonderfully, but you, even with all your big words, and your knowledge of articles and all that stuff you quote from the computer think that you are somehow better than other people because of it and then feel a need to have to insult people who simply have a different opinion than yours. If you really with to get people to come to the dark side, you should try to be a bit more respectful and friendly. now i offer this advice because i do care about ya, God did say Love everyone, and i truly do. so i want you to succeed in life. In the Bible Jesus says. "Seek and ye shall find" you are seeking in your life to prove to yourself that God dont exist and you are finding it, because God is loving father and wants you to have what you most desire. good news is in your next life you will have thought about God so much in this life that you will return as a great devotee of God. Karma cant escape it. anyway i have enjoyed this conversation, i will say again in closing that YES i still believe in God. Hare Krishna my friend.

Best Answer

That you are so quick to judge a person on the internet, based on their decision to debate you about your beliefs (which stemmed from nothing more than a simple question asking for evidence of your scientific claims, not religion at all), is quite telling of yourself. That you attempt to dismiss someone's intellect for using 'big words' of which YOU initially brought up, is even more telling to the nature with which you are willing to listen to others. You criticize me for just wanting to force my views on others....yet it was I that asked for the evidence in support of your views. Had you the evidence that you claim, you would have succeeded in changing my mind....yet, despite the evidence I did present, you still state:

"yes if all the materialistic evidence in this world showed there was no God, i still Believe."


***So now I ask you, which of us is showing the closed mind, and which of us is showing the open one? The person who is accepting of all evidence, no matter what it says, and follows what it says, no matter what, or the person who denies acceptance of evidence in favour of an already held belief?

***That you cannot see the difference between someone 'attacking' you, and someone 'attacking' your beliefs, is precisely to my point. Unlike you, I do not think a person is defined by their beliefs. I do not think that when someone criticizes what I think, they are criticizing me as a person. That you do tells wonders as to the magnitude of how much such faith based opinion has controll over your life...and the story of the 'atheist friend' has been heard millions of times over, with as much weight as the "I'm not racist, I have a black friend" statement. I know many theists of many different religions as well....and none of them are alike...simply because their religion does not define who they are - they do! I know even more religious people, as I grew up in a religious home in a religious community. I attended mass and went to a Catholic school. When I chose not to believe in their faith anymore, it was not I that ended our relationships. It was they who did...and for the same reasons as you attack non-belief in your god/gods/....whatever you call them. That someone will remove an important member of their life, or even family, simply for disagreeing with them, speaks much, much louder than I ever could. It is one of the most profoud experiences nearly all atheists have to struggle with...and it isn't us that do not accept others. You are free to believe whatever you wish, but if you wish to bring that into the public forum with statements of how it isn't religion, it is science, and then make 'scientific' claims, then expect for people to stand against such nonsense.

***Your attempts to claim superiority in "winning the battle" against atheism, because atheist's attitudes push people to religion, is the furthest thing from the truth. The facts do not lie, and there are far, far, far less people that convert to religion from atheism/agnosticism, than the other way around. Non-belief in religion is fastly growing, while belief in such, is rapidly declining. If your argument were true, this would be an impossibility.

***I cannot help it if you take criticism of false claims you make to be insulting...but that does not make them truly so. You stated that you cannot have evolution without creation, and I simply asked you to support evidence of this claim (as true science demands evidence in order to accept a claim). That you took rejection of acceptance of an unfounded opinion with no evidence, to be insulting, is not making me rude or insulting....but rather, is making you unwilling to challenge what you believe and consider the truth. It is quite telling of how little respect you have for the truth. Some of us actually care about the truth, and are not afraid to offend those who attempt to deny it. I am not offending anything...and if you choose to pretend that I am, then that's your choice, but the evidence speaks volumes, and it doesn't need emotional input from me to try to sway people like you are doing.

***

"In the Bible Jesus says. "Seek and ye shall find" you are seeking in your life to prove to yourself that God dont exist and you are finding it,"

---He also said to uphold the ten commandments, of which the first reads: "I am the Lord your God, you shall not have any false gods before Me." Now I wonder what Jesus and his holy father would think of Krishna?

**************
"Karma cant escape it."

---So the twelve year old girl who was brutally beaten, raped, and bludgeoned to death by a group of kids whom she thought were her friends, here just a few years back, deserved it?

Best Answer
20 More Responses

E

Best Answer

I needed both. I can't create without the help of evolution and things can't evolve without creative processes.

Best Answer

I always subscribed to the idea that some "superior being" for want of a better desc<x>riptor, mixed a lot of stuff in a bowl, dumped it out and said to no one in particular: "Here it is; everything you'll need. See what you can do with it". Then there was The Big Bang, and well, the rest is history.

Best Answer

I guess I will not reply with any letter, as I do not believe in neither creationism nor evolution. I 'believe' in evolution as much as I 'believe' in gravity, the Earth orbiting the Sun, medicine, surgery, forensics, etc.. I 'believe' in evolution as much as I 'believe' in the theory of flight. One does not believe in evolution or not, they simply accept reality, or they don't. I believe in neither. I accept the empirically documented fact that evolution occurs, and I do accept the theory of evolution as our understanding of it as much as the theory of flight from which we build and fly aircraft.

Best Answer

you have the right to your beliefs. may you be successful in life. Hare Krishna

Best Answer

Evolution is not a belief.

Best Answer

Related Questions