while there are some evidence in support of evolution, it also comes with its own loopholes. our dating methods can be somewhat...flawed.

some creationists believe in the young earth theory. while outrageous, it does come forth with its own plausible explanations (if you believe in a higher power)

if one chooses to refute without prior study of a proposed theory then it would just be plain ignorant. there are hundreds of theories in this world, yes. but if one were to reject thoughts without first considering them, then they would be no different from those 'religious people' back in the day.

i take no stand on the matter but i find that evolutionists have great faith in their beliefs. i mean, to believe that everything came out of randomness, well i dont think even creationists have that great a faith.

i guess your understanding of the word faith in the context i use it is different. (or lacking)

on the contrary, the more i look around me, the harder it is for me to believe that it is the product of random occurrences
on ur example. wrong. religious ppl will also say sand is created by water crashing on rock, causing erosion, leaving sand. that is general knowledge. but look at the sunset on the same beach. yes, we all know the scientific part to it, but for something so beautiful happening and for it to be appreciated by us, it's hard to believe that something like that is random.

i duno, how can you ever see it as a random by-process of the big bang? it isnt very statistically viable, our chances of right here right now.

let me give u one of the definitions:

-loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person; "keep the faith"; "they broke faith with their investors"

the key word here being loyalty and allegiance to the cause or a belief. in this case, randomness.

the word faith is not exclusive to religion.

Random: -lacking any definite plan or order or purpose; governed by or depending on chance.

let's put it this way. say things are created instead of being random. the universe works on certain laws. and these laws are also on earth. we call it physics, or math. based on these laws and formulas (which define the law) the world works. think of a computer program that is built and then allowed to run, where everything happens because of something (sounds like the matrix i know). cause and effect. these are things that phycisists are constantly studying to understand things around us better. this can also be applied to gambling and almost everything in the world.

would an event that happened because of explainable causes still be called random? (e.g: a gambler rolls a couple of dices in a cup but it turns out that the dices landed on different sides to what he was hoping for. he loses the round. it seems he lost by chance in something random, like rolling dices, but everything that he did and his surroundings contributed to how the dices ended up. the strength in which he rolled it, the technique in which he rolled it, the work of gravity, the atmosphere, the material of the cup, etc. there are all these calculable contributing factors and causes in this 'random' occurrence.)

randomness is when people do not bother to/could not study/control the outcome of their choices and what they see, thus not being able to predict or to expect an outcome. this does not mean that there are no mechanics leading to the event.

so instead of attributing everything to randomness, it is better to find a cause to the effect that we study using the knowledge we have on how things work. there is a pattern in everything.

now how did all this come to be? where do we get something out of nothing? we have a number of hypothesis but a hypothesis is a hypothesis.

from what i read here, it sounds like you do not have a clear idea of what i mentioned. i apologise if you feel patronised.

my definition of faith is just simply the strength of your beliefs. in this case i was suggesting that, considering all arguments proposed, believing in a creator is much easier than believing that everything comes from randomness. im not suggesting taking the easy way out. im merely saying that it takes much more to believe that everything is from randomness.

in answer to you thoughts. i do not plead allegiance to any side of this argument. both sides have their points. i merely enjoy bringing up opposing arguments to gauge peoples' responses. i also find no need to disclose my religious beliefs in relation to this topic.

looks like you agree with my definition of randomness. okay. as outlined in my previous post the world works on laws, and the laws are there to govern therefore yes u can say that no divine will was at play in dice throwing as the movement of the dice is already being manipulated by what is around it.

if we know the cause of something and if we know that the outcome of something can be predicted, then it is not randomness anymore.

about pattern, you cannot refute the existence of a pattern in which things work. again this is physics that is why we have formulas, because of these patterns we can effectively expect or predict how things work. being able to identify and manipulate patterns in everyday things are one of the characteristics that make the human brain so powerful.

indeed if laws and existence were forever there then "randomness" is possible (not statistically viable but possible). it stems down to whether 'everything' was always there (your definition of randomness), or was 'everything' created.

and frankly, there is no scientific proof that one side is more probable or true. saying existence is forever is as much taking a shot out in the dark as saying there is a God (scientifically speaking) as there is so much more that we do not know of the natural world. our reasoning at this stage in civilisation is akin to a child barely learning to crawl. i find it fairer to not make any conclusions.

---

Added on October 26, 2009, 5:59 pmi do not believe we have any control over our evolution (progress) whether genetically or culturally. unless mankind manages to unite as a single entity. otherwise there will always be disagreement and the sense of self preservation which is akin to the theory of 'survival of the fittest' and makes our evolution no different from darwin's finches.

This post has been edited by b3ta: Oct 26 2009, 05:59 PM

ah but i have not mentioned anything about attributing something to be 'just created by God and is therefore beautiful'. what im saying is that altho it looks nice it has something behind it that makes it look that way. and being able to grasp patterns is what makes the human mind beautiful. without it, we would never have a rough understanding of what's happening around us. without it, you wouldnt even be able to read what i'm writing. and do you mind explaining the logic behind grouping patterns and proving God as false?

the same can be said about your point. just because we know that something exists now, doesnt mean it will continue existing, nor does it mean it has existed for an infinite amount of time. the behaviour of the universe which is constantly changing (and you can actually see this) and where nothing is everlasting implies this.
coming to a conclusion based on the idea that one has based on a limited understanding or data is not very scientifically sound. the key word here being conclusion. one can merely hypothesize.

like i said, my religious beliefs do not come into this debate at all. i am not putting anything on the line (trolling, if you will). see? u cant make a conclusion based on something u do not know as yet. deists have this sense of detachment from what they perceive as God nor do they believe in 'miracles' or any intervention from their creator, so to speak. i beg to differ.

edit: read again. i didn't say it cannot be done. i said it cannot be done UNLESS mankind manages to unite into a single entity. go communism!

This post has been edited by b3ta: Oct 29 2009, 01:26 PM