warwgn

I didnt say I belive in aliens If I did I would provide proof to suport my claims though

and faith doesnt make shit work, if you have faith your alarm will go off and science fails to supply power to it that shit aint gonna go off, your faith wont make it work!!!

No that would be opinion not evidence or proof.

I ignore it since it is not fact, I have not seen nor heard of anybody trying to re-create the big bang, I think that is just a tad beyond our scope to re produce under controlled conditions. If you really want I can find information on that subject like I did for dating the earth. I would rather have you provide your proof of your claims though, still havent seen any evidence yet!!

some more info All the major continents contain a core of very old rocks fringed by younger rocks. These cores, called Precambrian shields, are all that remain of the Earth

you are wrong on dating the earth try that link for how it's really done!! The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204. here is an even better link that explains it in great detail......CLICK ME

I guess you missed that part, I am still waiting on your proof???

nice try but read my post again, it shows how anything is possible if you cant disprove it which is what you are basing your whole argument on, not the fact you have no proof but that we cant disprove your claims. In science the one making the claim has the burden of proof. We say evolution and the big bang is the most likely thing based on the gatherd information and physical evidence and laws of physics, then we show the collected evidenve as proof of our claims. Creationist say we are wrong and it has to be god, but they offer no proof or real evidence to support the claim. Provide the burden of proof for your claims and that doesnt mean trying to dis prove our methods or evidence just to leave a void thats says it must be god. It means show proof of your claim that can be proven in the real world, and repeated as proof. Thats what science does we say here it is, this is why, this is the evidence, this is how we got the results, this is what verifys the results, now have someone else do the same thing to make sure i did it right. SO the burden of proof is on you!!

can you disprove it was aliens and not god that did the same thing, and that there really is no god but some advanced race of beings just running an experiment?? I would rather deal with the physical facts we can prove than speculation and opinion.

THAT WAS A GOOD BURN!!! Brooke you walked right into that, I was surprised by that my self And madona used to be hot and had good music, 20 years ago, but I could care less about her now.

At least we agree on something

so the massive dinosaur fossils we find did not evolve, god made those too!! One day suddenly there was nothing and the next day a t-rex?

a simplified version of the Galileo case: how an oppressive Church shamed and condemned the gallant, pioneering physicist for arguing that the Earth revolves around the sun. The truth, though not pretty, is somewhat more complex. While Galileo had considerable evidence to support his heliocentric theory -- for example, the phases of Venus and the existence of moons orbiting Jupiter -- he could not prove it. As Owen Gingerich of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics says in a recent article, "In the end the pope's conservative advisers won out, and Galileo... was forced to abjure a `vehement suspicion of heresy' and to recite a humiliating confession. In essence the verdict was imposed for disobeying orders, not heresy." In October 1992, Pope John Paul II accepted the conclusions of commissions he had appointed to restudy the Galileo affair. Since the great physicist had never been charged with a sin, there was no question of forgiving him. The Holy Father admitted that the Church, in preferring an overly literal interpretation of Scripture to persuasive scientific evidence, had committed a serious error of judgment and justice. The pope said: "Paradoxically, Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more perceptive [in the interpretation of Scripture] than the theologians who opposed him...." Galileo's 1633 trial has come to symbolize conflict between science and established Christianity, a conflict marked by resistance to explanations of nature that threatened, more and more, to equate religion with magic and superstition. Organized religion's response to Charles Darwin 250 years later is only the most famous of the many skirmishes the two sides have fought since Galileo's day. Broad historical currents have also played major parts in driving the religious and scientific communities apart. The naive optimism of 18th century Enlightenment philosophers that all of reality would yield its secrets to experiment and rational analysis undermined Christian claims to truth. Perhaps most importantly, the vicious Catholic-Protestant warfare of the post-Reformation period branded religion in many people's eyes as a dark and bloody force that must be eliminated for the sake of human harmony. As I said eventualy science will prove to be correct!!

fossil records, physics, history all of which is 99.999% fact for most people who forgo religon for common sence. Have we explained everything to 100% certinty, NO, you can argue anything if you really want to and still leave a doubt in there. But I'll take 99.999% fact over blind faith. You got to make up your own mind about everything and live your life accordingly, but for some it seems unless the bible says your right you better change you mind or go to hell.

there is a thought I havent seen in awhile religon will fal eventualy, the more we can explain with truth the less place there will be for god!!

I already said most of that so I agree 100%, but they wont listen or see reason for fear god will know their doubts and send them to hell. Let them belive what they want I dont care if they choose to belive in moon men, just dont dispute a know fact, and dont tell me your right if you have no proof to back it up.

our brains evolved from millions of years of trial and error, and specificly the right and wronglongata region of the brain, which is smaller and just below the lookthreresadumbass sphere which is highly developed in my brain, and everytime I read one of your posts it goes straight to that spot

the same way anybody with half a brain does, make up my own mind. Do you need a book to tell you right form wrong? first one that came up in google, figure a stupid question deserved a stupid answer

so if I say I am an alien from another planet, since you cant prove I'm not I must be!! I will prove that the so-called Dilemma of the Chicken and the Egg is, in reality, not a dilemma at all. The question, which of the two was there first, is a simple question, that can be solved. It was Darwin who made it possible to provide the correct answer, as I will do in this scholarly article, but also before Darwin there can never have been a Dilemma, as all myths about the Creation I know of speak of the creation of animals, not of eggs. The famous Dilemma of the Chicken and the Egg, in other words, is nothing but a sham. Nowadays we know that chickens, or eggs, for that matter, were not created by God, but that they are the product of a long evolution, and that makes the Dilemma more difficult to solve. But it can be done. To begin with, we have to specify that we will be speaking about chickens and chicken's eggs, not about chickens and any kind of eggs, because in that case, the answer is trivial and uninteresting. This seems evident, but I mention it because of its importance further in this discussion. Let us call the animal which preceded chickens in the evolution of the species the primeval chicken, or p-chicken for short. The difference between chicken and p-chicken is probably small and arbitrary, but it must be possible to differentiate between them, although the criterion we will use will be chosen more or less arbitrarily by biologists. In the remainder of this article I will speak about chickens and p-chickens as if we all know the difference; what exactly this difference is, is unimportant to us philosophers. One day a p-chicken must have laid an egg, out of which a modern chicken emerged. The arrival of this strange chicken has maybe happened on several occasions independently, and the first modern chicken might not be the ancestor of all our chickens, or it might even have died childless, but this is of no importance for our discussion. The only factor of importance is, whether the egg out of which the first modern chicken was born, was a real chicken's egg. If this egg actually was a chicken's egg, then the Egg existed before the Chicken, if not, it can only have originated later. Now we still have to define a chicken's egg. At first sight, there seem to be three possibilities: a chicken's egg is an egg laid by a chicken (we might call this the popular definition of a chicken's egg), or a chicken's egg is an egg out of which a chicken is born, or a chicken's egg is an egg laid by a chicken, out of which a chicken is born. In fact, only the first definition can be right, because also the eggs we eat, which most certainly do not contain chickens, are called chicken's eggs. And on top of that, if eggs were named after what they contained, there would also have to exist cock's eggs. No, the genitive form can only refer to the maker, not to the inhabitant of the egg. So, as the egg, out of which the first chicken emerged, cannot have been a chicken's egg, because it was laid by a p-chicken, and as we have clearly stated that the Egg in the Dilemma of the Chicken and the Egg can only have been meant as a chicken's egg, I conclude that the Egg came into existence after the Chicken. With the remark, that for once the old creation myths and modern science have come to the same conclusion, I finally put an end to this learned discussion.

There is no proof that god does exist! I find it unlikely, but that is just opinion, I'm talking facts only. It does not matter what Darwin belived, but it is the facts that have been revaled since he formed his theory that are important. And there is no facts to support GOD as a real thing that had any effect on life at all.

no you are, I'm not saying why we evolved or how, just that we did. And we didnt evolve from nothing we came from something. I am saying adam didnt come from nothing and suddenly apear then have a rib taken out and then there was eve and we all came from that. That is retarted and there is not a shread of evidence to even make it seem remotely possible!!!

Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

1. Is there evidence for evolution? In the 150 years since Darwin proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection, a mountain of evidence has accumulated to support the theory. A greatly expanded fossil record since Darwin's time, the discovery of DNA and the process of genetic replication, an understanding of radioactive decay, observations of natural selection in the wild and in laboratories, and evidence in the genomes of many different organisms, including humans, have all bolstered the validity of the theory of evolution. Learn More Evidence for Evolution 2. How can you know what happened millions of years ago if no one was there to see it? Evidence and observation are the building blocks of all scientific inquiry; evolutionary science is no different. Evidence in the form of the fossil record, geological formations, and genetics attest to change having taken place and give clues to how evolution works. The theory of evolution puts these clues together into a cohesive explanation of the diversity of living things. Like all theories, the theory of evolution relies on tangible evidence as well as inference for those things that can't be observed directly. It is important to remember that Earth itself contains evidence of life in the past, and that this evidence provides critical support for the theory of evolution. Learn More What Is Science? 3. Does the fossil record tell us the whole story? Opponents of evolution point to gaps in the fossil record as proof that the theory is invalid. They say the fossil record fails to show what are called "transitional forms," generally the in-between stages as one type of creature evolved into another. The fossil record certainly has gaps, mostly because the conditions required to create fossils have been rare ever since life began on Earth. A very small percentage of animals that have lived and died ever became fossils. Thus, many pieces of the puzzle are missing; some will never be found. Nonetheless, we have many, many fossils that illustrate evolutionary transitions between fish and amphibians, between reptiles and mammals, between dinosaurs and birds, and in many lineages such as whales and horses. And new fossils continue to reveal transitional forms that some said don't exist. Learn More What Killed the Dinosaurs?

I found it In his later years, Darwin was plagued by fatigue and intestinal sickness, thought by some historians to have been caused by Chagas' disease, contracted during his travels in South America. He died on April 19, 1882, and lies buried in Westminster Abbey. so he was probally think "OH SHIT"