AJ Philips>>I also don’t respect runner’s views. They’re rubbish and based on nothing but assertions. How you can consider the two to be equally valid is baffling.<<

AJ, what I said to Runner was “your opinion that there is a creator is as valid as the evolutionist’s theories”. Unless you can explain the genesis of matter, then you must leave open that it was created by design.
AJ, you then say “The furthest back physicists can go is to the point where all matter was condensed into an infinitely dense singularity. At that point all the laws of physics break down”.
Exactly, the physics break down, leaving open an alternative, something that does not obey the laws of physics, something ethereal perhaps.

As David F said “Darwin also published no speculations or judgement on how matter originated”.
That was probably a sane call, given heresy was a constant threat to scientists back then. It seems the answers to effect are there for us to see and understand, but the cause could be as ethereal as a creator.

sonofglioin,

I know that’s what you said to runner…
<<AJ, what I said to Runner was “your opinion that there is a creator is as valid as the evolutionist’s theories”. Unless you can explain the genesis of matter, then you must leave open that it was created by design.>>

Leaving open the possibility is very different to attributing an equal probability to each scenario. We already sorted this idiocy of yours out at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547&page=0

I thought, too, that david f had adequately explained to you that the origins of matter have nothing to do with evolution. Even if you could prove that the origins of the universe and life required a god, you still wouldn’t have disproven evolution.

Heck, you could disprove abiogenesis (you’ll have to look that one up, I presume, given how scientifically illiterate you are) but you still won’t have disproven evolution. Evolution is one of the most proven and well-established theories of science. You may as well be questioning gravity as the Intelligent Falling mob are.

Don’t tell me you’re one of those idiots too?

<<Exactly, the physics break down, leaving open an alternative, something that does not obey the laws of physics, something ethereal perhaps.>>

Perhaps. You just never know, do you? But it still doesn’t suggest that a god may exist.

<<It seems the answers to effect are there for us to see and understand, but the cause could be as ethereal as a creator.>>

The cause could also be the fairies that live at the bottom of my garden. The evidence for a god is just as reliable as that so I am offended that you failed to include my garden-dwelling pixies in your list of possibilities.

By trying to shoehorn a god into the unknowns of the universe, you only demonstrate yourself to be an idiot with very little in the way of brain matter. Until you find some evidence for your magic man, your theory is no better than that of mine which consists of universe-creating pixies that live that the bottom of my garden,

They’re invisible, of course.

How about Big Bang Day? After all we wouldn't be here if the Big Bang hadn't created all of that hydrogen. We just wouldn't be the stuff of stars.

So the guy discovered how our bodies came to be - what's the big deal?

Facts are facts - not a reason to celebrate.

Celebrate instead those who discover how to overcome greed, lust, anger, malice, vanity, envy, dullness, fear and selfishness.
Celebrate those who discover how to attain love, compassion, courage, wisdom, steadfastness, self-control, contentment and inner peace.

Dear Yuyutsu,

What Darwin did is a very big deal. By acquainting us with our origins we can understand better what we are and why we do what we do. We can learn about the origins of our greed, lust, anger, malice, vanity, envy, dullness, fear and selfishness. The sciences and the arts give us the tools to discover how to attain love, compassion, courage, wisdom, steadfastness, self-control, contentment and inner peace.

The scientific method provides us not only with facts but a way to attack problems. We look at the evidence. By observation and experiment we make conclusions. If our goal is to make a better life we can get there by reason more reliably than by the mumbojumbo of religion.

Religion can lead us astray. We create gods and other mumbojumbo. We are encouraged to look down on those who subscribe to a different mumbojumbo. Some wise people have realised the folly of religion.

James Madison (1751–1836), the fourth president of the US, wrote: “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect.”

Science can also be wrong, but there is a corrective. The scientific method incorporates the idea of the reproducibility of results. A scientific theory may be questioned by observation and experiment and proven false. There is no corrective for the mumbojumbo of religion. Doubt is heresy and condemned.

The arts can give us insights into our frailties. A good work of fiction can guide us to realise why we do what we do. When I was a teenager, “The Way of All Flesh” by Samuel Butler told me a lot about me.

One of the themes in philosophy is the question of a good life and how to lead it. Darwin devoted his life to expanding human knowledge. He led a very good life.

Darwin led a good life, but does his work offer a moral guide?

http://www1.umn.edu/ships/evolutionofmorality/context.htm deals with that question.

Each one of us can try to overcome our flaws. Self-knowledge gained through the sciences and the arts gives us tools for the task.

Dear david f, I like your comment

'Each one of us can try to overcome our flaws. Self-knowledge gained through the sciences and the arts gives us tools for the task.'

Wouldn't it be nice if most of the politicians and business leaders had a knowledge of the sciences and arts. Maybe there would be a lot less Stuart Roberts in the world.

Anyone for a free $40K Rolex?