Re: Evolution
 

Remember keep it to Factual flaws in Darwin's Theory (Lamarck's has been disproved), NOT opinion.

Re: Evolution
 

Atoms are held together by charges. Electrons have negative charges and protons have positive charges. Electrons are attracted to protons and vice versa because of the opposite charge of the respective particles. You can test this in magnets by lining up the north and south poles of the magnets and watch them attract each other. Similar. That something holding the atom together is not 'invisible' as you say. We see it all the time. Look up at the sky during a thunderstorm. Lightning. An example of this effect. Charge moves from the clouds to the earth to neutralize the clouds. Ive studied physics. Dont argue.

I believe in the big crunch theory. A universe imploded causing a big bang, leading to this universe. Just a theory.

Otherwise we could always go with the theologians theory: A 'supreme' being created everything. Hmm...using your logic, we could go ahead and ask the same question. Where is this 'supreme' being from? How did he get here? etc.

Or we could just put both scintific and theological theories together to create a whole new theory:

God was walking down the road of nothing (composed of absolutely nothing) and he came across a giant floating molecule (made of something). He then decided to proceed to blow it up with his 'supreme' powers resulting in a mass explosion and God being thrown into the realm of space called 'Heaven' where he was confined and couldnt do anything until his accidental creations (humans) proceeded to destroy themselves and the universe. The End.

You choose which to believe. Me? Big Crunch.

Re: Evolution
 

I still think it was a giant meth lab explosion :D

Re: Evolution
 

There, we all seem to agree, evolution is just a theory (open to change), big bang/crunch is just a theory (open to change), and ID is irrefutable fact to believers (unchangeble, god created all, thats the end of it). Places we disagree include macro-evolution does/does not occur (posting countless links of apparant animals who look slightly similar and declaring it as fact is useless.) And another disagreement is the athiest belief that everything came from nothing, and the ID belief that a God who is every where, lives through all time (not bound by time,) came from no where (always was here,) created everything (and more we cant possibly imagine.) After all, god cannot be defined any other way, otherwise the idea of God not being almighty, is impossible, and therefor Evolution is the only answer if this is the case.

Re: Evolution
 

So your job isn't to prove why creationism is the correct way? Why nitpick at one theory when you don't want to defend your own?

Re: Evolution
 

Reread the first post by Nordicvs outlining the point of this thread. You've obviously missed it.

Re: Evolution
 

how does disproving evolution help prove creationism? you have to prove that god created us then only creationism will be accepted. try that instead of rubbishing evolution

Re: Evolution
 

it doesn't but then they dont feel like all stupid.. They already found out that god exists, but they hid the evidence :p

Re: Evolution
 

There is no other logical answer aside from evolution or creationism. Once one is gone, the other must be correct. Basically purpose vs chance. Otherwise please provide any other theories aside from the two most logical ones.

Re: Evolution
 

i propose that an alien came seeded the earth not god . i believe that it was an alien that created us . isnt that a theory too?