Apple CEO Tim Cook Publicly Comes Out as Gay in Letter Declaring Support for Equality

[Night Spring]

In reality, Islam is nothing more than a humanistic religion that praises a human who glorified himself by taking and twisting elements of Christianity and Judaism.

And Jesus could be a delusional man who claimed himself to be God. What evidence is there that Jesus is God? We only have his word (and the words of his followers) for it.

There's being religious, and there's being delusional. In my view, truly religious people understand that there is no rational basis for their faith, and that to a non-believer, both Jesus and Mohammed come off as equally delusional. If you understand that, and still believe in Jesus, kudos to you. But if you don't see how irrational religion seems to outsiders, then you are just parroting what you were taught, without any true understanding of what you believe.

----------

No. I did not put gays into the same category. Sinning is sinning. It doesn't matter if it robbery, rape, homosexuality, cursing, lying, etc. All sins are equally bad in God's eyes. I apologize if that was misconstrued by my post. I was trying to elucidate the fact that sin is equal no matter what it is.

Ever hear of mortal vs venial sin?
https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/mortal_versus_venial.htm

 

[Altemose]

Wall of text incoming...

The doughnut gif represents two simple ideas, one being the idea of the universe repeating it's creation and destruction over and over. Some believe the big bang is a result of the big crunch, which in turn expends out and then retracts again over and over forever. The other idea is that a black hole is what is feeding the universe. In some theories, what goes in, has to come back out at not only some point in time but somewhere in either this universe or another. It's a pretty simple concept in principal, though the actual math and science behind it is far from simple. Whether or not it's true is a debate that will be had for a very long time. We may never know the answer as some of the technology and science may just be out of human reach. After all current technology hardly lets us reach other planets within our own solar system, to reach a black hole light years away is hundreds of years away if it will ever possible at all.

Your problem is you're looking for a end all say all theory that can not only explain everything this instant but be backed up with hard evidence that is simply put, out of our reach at our current moment in time. Because of this you simply dismiss any notion that we are capable of understanding the universe to a whole. Which makes it easier for you to jump to a conclusion that humans can't provide the answers you seek therefore god did it. If you had any basic understanding of science, you'ed understand why it's not currently possible. That simply put is not how science works. Science does not lead to a conclusion that god did it just because we get stuck on a problem. It's pure ignorance to think anything like that.

Think about it like this. A hundred years ago before we even started flying, when we looked up at the moon, theories about the moon could only be made from basic observations. We didn't have the technology to study it any other way. Then we started flying, built rockets that could take us to space, then that could take us to the moon. Once we could reach the moon via man missions and satellites, our window into the moon opened us up 1000 fold. We went from looking up at the moon and guessing about it to standing on it and bringing back samples that could be studied. That was 50 yrs ago and even to this day we are still learning about the moon and finding out we still have a lot to learn about it. We will still be learning new stuff about the moon a hundred years from now. In our exploration of the universe so far, we have learned that the universe is built on a set of natural laws. Everything we have come across can be broken down through science. Science has never come across something, be it on our own planet or anywhere in the universe that even remotely suggests that something so bizarre that man has said "gee we can't understand this and the ONLY thing that makes sense is a supernatural power has to be behind it". That's never happened and there is zero reason to think it ever will.

Man was full of ignorance about what we thought we knew about the moon as well as the other planets we have begun to explore over the last 50 yrs. Ignorance isn't a bad thing, it simply means we just didn't have the knowledge. You have that same ignorance. It's ignorance to think that we should even remotely be able to have all answers now regarding theories of the creation of the universe. It's also ignorance to think that because of this we should look to god for the answers. That's not how science works. There is zero reason to say science will only lead to god in the end. That's the ignorance in your thinking, simply because you don't have the knowledge to understand the science. The only way to get over that ignorance is to not limit yourself to just thinking god can only do it, other wise you'll remain ignorant.






Biblical principle are not really original, many of those commandments predate the 10 commandments that Moses brought down from mount sinai. Murder, adultery, theft were laws and views held long before then. Some of the other ones hardly apply today, even for some of the more devout religious. Sin is sin for only those that believe in it. Lust for example is natural, practically everyone has it at some point if not daily. It's one of the reasons it's labeled a sin because everyone has it and the idea that we should feel bad for feeling it is just silly. Then again I find most religious views silly, including the idea of a god. Seeing that you're only 16, I can only hope that you continue to ask questions, just don't be so eager to accept "god did it" just because there isn't a proper answer yet.

I do not accept things because it is an easy answer. I do not accept things because I am told to. I accept things by evaluating evidence supporting the claims, applying basic logic, and following through with thorough study. All of the answers for creation lie in Genesis 1. Even when a scientist can prove how the universe was made, there will be another top scientist to discredit their findings and apply their own. The earth is a beautiful place, a working system. I fail to understand how a rotating donut of the beginning and the end as well as how a big bang could form the earth's system. I suppose that you believe in evolution and something along the lines of that we came from a rock. A big bang of gas explosions doesn't suddenly make particles into living beings.

And Jesus could be a delusional man who claimed himself to be God. What evidence is there that Jesus is God? We only have his word (and the words of his followers) for it.

There's being religious, and there's being delusional. In my view, truly religious people understand that there is no rational basis for their faith, and that to a non-believer, both Jesus and Mohammed come off as equally delusional. If you understand that, and still believe in Jesus, kudos to you. But if you don't see how irrational religion seems to outsiders, then you are just parroting what you were taught, without any true understanding of what you believe.

----------



Ever hear of mortal vs venial sin?
https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/mortal_versus_venial.htm

Mortal and venial sins is a view held primarily by the Catholic church. I am sure some denominations hold it as well, but I go by the Biblical answer. Christ was born of a virgin Mary, lived his life sinlessly, and died on the cross to save us from sin. We have to accept Christ to receive his forgiveness.

I hope that we are not derailing this thread with this subject. I am more than happy to discuss it elsewhere if it is not the appropriate thread to do so.

 

[localoid]

... A big bang of gas explosions doesn't suddenly make particles into living beings.

The Big Bang wasn't (literally) an explosion, although the expansion that followed it was (figuratively) an explosively rapid expansion of space-time.

This short video gives a brief overview of the theory...

 

[mudslag]

I do not accept things because it is an easy answer. I do not accept things because I am told to. I accept things by evaluating evidence supporting the claims, applying basic logic, and following through with thorough study. All of the answers for creation lie in Genesis 1.

By all means provide said evidence. It should be noted, that Genesis it not evidence. It's an ancient story but there is no supportive evidence to back it up. Im going to take a not so wild guess and correct me if Im wrong, but do your share the same religion as your parents? Most people in terms of religion are a product of their parents religion and their parents before them as well as the area you grew up in. I say most because obviously some people change their religious views and even change from believers to nonbelievers. So for the most part the religious view you hold is heavily influenced by your family and the area you grew up in. You were essentially indoctrinated by these aspects.

Even when a scientist can prove how the universe was made, there will be another top scientist to discredit their findings and apply their own.

What makes you think it's that easy to discredit? It's just as possible that one of the leading theories on the universes creation is right and will continued to be supported as showing it's right. Science evolves, that generally means ideas are added to current views. Sure something are discredited but that usually involves bad science. An example of bad science would be that of the doctor that claimed vaccines cause autism, which turned out his claims were BS.

The earth is a beautiful place, a working system. I fail to understand how a rotating donut of the beginning and the end as well as how a big bang could form the earth's system. I suppose that you believe in evolution and something along the lines of that we came from a rock. A big bang of gas explosions doesn't suddenly make particles into living beings.

I explained the doughnut image as simply as I could, if you still fail to grasp such a basic understanding that goes to show more about your own ignorance. The big bang and our solar systems are two completely different things. The only thing they share to one another is that the big bang needed to happen before our solar system could exist. Pretty much your entire post I quoted here shows just how little you actually understand about the big bang, let alone basic evolution of both life and the solar system. Which again are both two completely different things. You being 16 is not an excuse for being ignorant. It's your choice to be ignorant on these subjects but at the same time, you're doing yourself a disservice by not understanding the subjects in which you are attempting to participate in.

 

[flat five]

By all means provide said evidence. It should be noted, that Genesis it not evidence. It's an ancient story but there is no supportive evidence to back it up. Im going to take a not so wild guess and correct me if Im wrong, but do your share the same religion as your parents? Most people in terms of religion are a product of their parents religion and their parents before them as well as the area you grew up in. I say most because obviously some people change their religious views and even change from believers to nonbelievers. So for the most part the religious view you hold is heavily influenced by your family and the area you grew up in. You were essentially indoctrinated by these aspects.

heh, yeah.. you somehow have to make him realize/admit he believed in 'god' prior to reading genesis etc..

he already believed it to be true so when reading genesis, he read it as truth..
so it's a b.s. argument to say "genesis tells you everything you need to know about creation" when he himself didn't come to his conclusion upon reading the bible.. he already knew it was the truth.. and probably can't even remember when it became truth to him (ie- 18month old kid sitting on grandma's lap... that's when it became truth)

 

[Altemose]

The Big Bang wasn't (literally) an explosion, although the expansion that followed it was (figuratively) an explosively rapid expansion of space-time.

This short video gives a brief overview of the theory...

YouTube: video

What I was referencing is that even if you can prove fully that the Big Bang Theory is truth, how could you get living beings out of all dead objects? I understand that you probably believe in evolution, however, something must have been alive first in order to support that theory.

By all means provide said evidence. It should be noted, that Genesis it not evidence. It's an ancient story but there is no supportive evidence to back it up. Im going to take a not so wild guess and correct me if Im wrong, but do your share the same religion as your parents? Most people in terms of religion are a product of their parents religion and their parents before them as well as the area you grew up in. I say most because obviously some people change their religious views and even change from believers to nonbelievers. So for the most part the religious view you hold is heavily influenced by your family and the area you grew up in. You were essentially indoctrinated by these aspects.


Image





What makes you think it's that easy to discredit? It's just as possible that one of the leading theories on the universes creation is right and will continued to be supported as showing it's right. Science evolves, that generally means ideas are added to current views. Sure something are discredited but that usually involves bad science. An example of bad science would be that of the doctor that claimed vaccines cause autism, which turned out his claims were BS.





I explained the doughnut image as simply as I could, if you still fail to grasp such a basic understanding that goes to show more about your own ignorance. The big bang and our solar systems are two completely different things. The only thing they share to one another is that the big bang needed to happen before our solar system could exist. Pretty much your entire post I quoted here shows just how little you actually understand about the big bang, let alone basic evolution of both life and the solar system. Which again are both two completely different things. You being 16 is not an excuse for being ignorant. It's your choice to be ignorant on these subjects but at the same time, you're doing yourself a disservice by not understanding the subjects in which you are attempting to participate in.

heh, yeah.. you somehow have to make him realize/admit he believed in 'god' prior to reading genesis etc..

he already believed it to be true so when reading genesis, he read it as truth..
so it's a b.s. argument to say "genesis tells you everything you need to know about creation" when he himself didn't come to his conclusion upon reading the bible.. he already knew it was the truth.. and probably can't even remember when it became truth to him (ie- 18month old kid sitting on grandma's lap... that's when it became truth)

I am not ignorant to anyone's thoughts. I appreciate you offering evidence on your behalf of your viewpoints of the theories you believe in. I do not hold the same religion as my parents or the extended family. I am a non-denominational Christian by my own choice. I was not "sitting on grandma's lap" when I accepted the Bible as truth.

So the Big Bang Theory states that there was the "singularity" where there was a time where the universe that we know was so small. It also was so hot that it was unbearable to live in for most any organism. I do bring up the question though, how do you get life out of nothing but regular objects like rocks? If the singularity was true, all life would have been wiped out of the universe.

Say that the universe was eternal, and Earth was created as a collection from the Big Bang. How do you get the life that we see on Earth today as well as the perfection of the systems in place on Earth?

 

[flat five]

I do not hold the same religion as my parents or the extended family. I am a non-denominational Christian by my own choice. I was not "sitting on grandma's lap" when I accepted the Bible as truth.

so you went into with a blank state.. studied all the religions.. read all the different bibles etc.. checked out other non-religious findings..

then

concluded the christian bible is real and everything else is baloney?

 

[Altemose]

so you went into with a blank state.. studied all the religions.. read all the different bibles etc.. checked out other non-religious findings..

then

concluded the christian bible is real and everything else is baloney?

If you look at the different primary religions, Judaism does not follow Christ and focuses mainly on the Old Testament, and Islam is a humanistic religion. Christianity makes sense and the Bible is the source.

 

[flat five]

If you look at the different primary religions, Judaism does not follow Christ and focuses mainly on the Old Testament, and Islam is a humanistic religion. Christianity makes sense and the Bible is the source.

Judaism and Christianity are the primary religions? (edit- nvmnd.. missed Muslim the first time around.. but still, there are other 'primary' religions)
and besides, you completely dodged my question

 

[skottichan]

If you look at the different primary religions, Judaism does not follow Christ and focuses mainly on the Old Testament, and Islam is a humanistic religion. Christianity makes sense and the Bible is the source.

Fun bit of trivia, the 3 largest religions do not include Judaism.

the 3 "main religions" by population are; Christianity, Islam and Hindu.

if you want to split hairs, more people fall in the "not religious/secular/agnostic/atheist" brand than Islam or Hinduism.

So, again how was Christianity proven to be the "correct" religion over all the others?

 

[localoid]

What I was referencing is that even if you can prove fully that the Big Bang Theory is truth, how could you get living beings out of all dead objects? I understand that you probably believe in evolution, however, something must have been alive first in order to support that theory.
...

How you get living things out of "dead objects" is explained via abiogenesis, the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.

 

[grahamperrin]

… abiogenesis, the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.

Fascinating. From that page:

"… Extra-terrestrial complex organic molecules, including RNA precursors, have recently been discovered to be relatively common both in interstellar space and in the solar system, and may have assisted in the development of more complex chemicals on Earth. …"

Elsewhere:



– and from a conversation that includes the page for that image,

… At least people think asteroids are cool. Knowing exactly where they are isn't life altering

Vaguely back on topic: if God has been around as long as some people reckon, I'd appreciate his opinion on the suitability of the optimised version of Helvetica Neue as a system font for OS X.

 

[Renzatic]

Vaguely back on topic: if God has been around as long as some people reckon, I'd appreciate his opinion on the suitability of the optimised version of Helvetica Neue as a system font for OS X.

Before I do that, I'd have to know how to pronounce "neue" first. You gotta be proper about these things.

...I mean, is it pronounced like "new"? "New-eh"? "Ne-we"? I DON'T KNOW! STUPID WORD!

 

[Meister]

Before I do that, I'd have to know how to pronounce "neue" first. You gotta be proper about these things.

...I mean, is it pronounced like "new"? "New-eh"? "Ne-we"? I DON'T KNOW! STUPID WORD!

Neue is pronounced noia.

----------

Fascinating. From that page:
Elsewhere:

[url=http://sajri.astronomy.cz/asteroidgroups/hitrfix.gif]Image[/URL]

– and from a conversation that includes the page for that image,



Vaguely back on topic: if God has been around as long as some people reckon, I'd appreciate his opinion on the suitability of the optimised version of Helvetica Neue as a system font for OS X.

I found the whirly donut much more mesmerizing.

 

[Altemose]

Judaism and Christianity are the primary religions? (edit- nvmnd.. missed Muslim the first time around.. but still, there are other 'primary' religions)
and besides, you completely dodged my question

Fun bit of trivia, the 3 largest religions do not include Judaism.

the 3 "main religions" by population are; Christianity, Islam and Hindu.

if you want to split hairs, more people fall in the "not religious/secular/agnostic/atheist" brand than Islam or Hinduism.

So, again how was Christianity proven to be the "correct" religion over all the others?

Yes. I have reviewed other religions and I accepted Christ as my Lord and Savior as the Bible holds true to all situations.

How you get living things out of "dead objects" is explained via abiogenesis, the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.

In simple terms, I fail to see how organic compounds can become living at all. That is like saying that I can go get a rock and turn it into a dog over the course of millions/billions of years.

 

[Night Spring]

Yes. I have reviewed other religions and I accepted Christ as my Lord and Savior as the Bible holds true to all situations.

Okay, good for you. But other people have reviewed the various religions, and decided that another one was more acceptable to them, or none was acceptalbe. The reasons for picking a religion are subjective -- just because you think the Christian Bible "holds true to all situations" doesn't mean that other people will feel the same.

In simple terms, I fail to see how organic compounds can become living at all. That is like saying that I can go get a rock and turn it into a dog over the course of millions/billions of years.

I don't think there is any "like" about it. I think that's exactly what the theory of evolution says -- that under the right conditions and millions / billions of years, yes, you do get a dog from a rock.

And actually, this theory isn't incompatible with the view that God created the Universe and life. It just could be that the way God goes about creating life is from a rock, over billions of years.

 

[tkermit]

Are you guys serious? Almost 3000 posts later, this thread is still going?!

 

[localoid]

...In simple terms, I fail to see how organic compounds can become living at all. That is like saying that I can go get a rock and turn it into a dog over the course of millions/billions of years.

All earth's living organisms are made up of organic compounds.

 

[mudslag]

What I was referencing is that even if you can prove fully that the Big Bang Theory is truth, how could you get living beings out of all dead objects? I understand that you probably believe in evolution, however, something must have been alive first in order to support that theory.






I am not ignorant to anyone's thoughts. I appreciate you offering evidence on your behalf of your viewpoints of the theories you believe in. I do not hold the same religion as my parents or the extended family. I am a non-denominational Christian by my own choice. I was not "sitting on grandma's lap" when I accepted the Bible as truth.

So the Big Bang Theory states that there was the "singularity" where there was a time where the universe that we know was so small. It also was so hot that it was unbearable to live in for most any organism. I do bring up the question though, how do you get life out of nothing but regular objects like rocks? If the singularity was true, all life would have been wiped out of the universe.

Say that the universe was eternal, and Earth was created as a collection from the Big Bang. How do you get the life that we see on Earth today as well as the perfection of the systems in place on Earth?

Im sorry but you clearly haven't done any real reading into the theory itself if your post here is seriously how you view this topic. First off life couldn't exist without the universe first existing. The big bang, we'll just keep calling it this for simplistic reasons, is the cause of the universe. Life at least on our planet, didn't come into existence til billions of years after the big bang event took place. Life has nothing to do with the big bang, again they are two completely unrelated separate things.

Life didn't just popup out of nothing, as localoid provided some basic reading material on abiogenesis that should help you understand, that is as long as you actually read it. Saying the big bang would have wiped out the universe is putting the cart before the horse. So I have to say this again, life did not exist before the big bang, therefore it could not wipe out something that didn't even exist yet.

The Earth existing is a result of the creation of our solar system, again a process that took place a few billion years after the big bang. Earth is a double edge sword in terms of life. Earth's placement in the solar system is in what is called the goldilocks zone or habitable zone. To close to the sun and the planet would burn, the water and atmosphere would burn off. If it was to far away from the sun, the planet would freeze. But even Earth being in that right zone, still is far from perfect for life. Some life can survive in one part of the planet but not another part. Even for us humans, we learned to adapt to parts of the planet there were not hospitable for our type of life. For example, for us to live in colder climates, we had to adapt not only our own bodies but our clothes and shelters to survive the extreme environments. That goes for any extreme environment on the planet which humans and other life live. We conformed to the planet, though we have learned to conform the planet to our needs in many aspects.

Since our technology has increased over the last 40 yrs, we have begun to find other planets in other solar systems. Some of these planets are within that goldilocks zone of their own systems. Given what we know how life exists, there is a strong possibility of finding life in the future on those other planets. We just have to wait for the technology to get up to par to find them. You were born in a time of human history that could find out that we are not alone but that life is practically everywhere in the universe.

----------

In simple terms, I fail to see how organic compounds can become living at all. That is like saying that I can go get a rock and turn it into a dog over the course of millions/billions of years.

Sorry but I don't believe that you're actually doing any reading of the material being offered to you. It's one thing if you don't understand the material but to jump from a rock to a dog over X period of time goes to show you're not actually paying attention.

----------

All earth's living organisms are made up of organic compounds.

I honestly think he's just not ready and willing to put effort into educating himself on these subjects.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

I think it is sad religion even has to figure when accepting another human being. I read threads like this and boy is my life simple without religion. No pressure or written guides to how I should feel. I am not an atheist and hate that word. I don't practise a form of none believing I was just brought up well and tolerant. I really do hope Apple loses some of the people with negatives views on this thread. A moral gain is far more valuable than a financial loss in the long term. Good in Tim for being honest.

 

[Altemose]

Okay, good for you. But other people have reviewed the various religions, and decided that another one was more acceptable to them, or none was acceptalbe. The reasons for picking a religion are subjective -- just because you think the Christian Bible "holds true to all situations" doesn't mean that other people will feel the same.



I don't think there is any "like" about it. I think that's exactly what the theory of evolution says -- that under the right conditions and millions / billions of years, yes, you do get a dog from a rock.

And actually, this theory isn't incompatible with the view that God created the Universe and life. It just could be that the way God goes about creating life is from a rock, over billions of years.

The issue that I see with the abiogenesis theory is that there is such an array of living things on Earth today. How is it possible that you and I hold a relation to a tree? Though this is understood to have occurred over many billions of years, how could one ascertain being related to a tree, weed, grass, or even a lizard?

All earth's living organisms are made up of organic compounds.

Of course! I believe that humans are some 60% water in the average adult. There is no denying that we all contain organic carbon compounds.

Im sorry but you clearly haven't done any real reading into the theory itself if your post here is seriously how you view this topic. First off life couldn't exist without the universe first existing. The big bang, we'll just keep calling it this for simplistic reasons, is the cause of the universe. Life at least on our planet, didn't come into existence til billions of years after the big bang event took place. Life has nothing to do with the big bang, again they are two completely unrelated separate things.

Life didn't just popup out of nothing, as localoid provided some basic reading material on abiogenesis that should help you understand, that is as long as you actually read it. Saying the big bang would have wiped out the universe is putting the cart before the horse. So I have to say this again, life did not exist before the big bang, therefore it could not wipe out something that didn't even exist yet.

The Earth existing is a result of the creation of our solar system, again a process that took place a few billion years after the big bang. Earth is a double edge sword in terms of life. Earth's placement in the solar system is in what is called the goldilocks zone or habitable zone. To close to the sun and the planet would burn, the water and atmosphere would burn off. If it was to far away from the sun, the planet would freeze. But even Earth being in that right zone, still is far from perfect for life. Some life can survive in one part of the planet but not another part. Even for us humans, we learned to adapt to parts of the planet there were not hospitable for our type of life. For example, for us to live in colder climates, we had to adapt not only our own bodies but our clothes and shelters to survive the extreme environments. That goes for any extreme environment on the planet which humans and other life live. We conformed to the planet, though we have learned to conform the planet to our needs in many aspects.

Since our technology has increased over the last 40 yrs, we have begun to find other planets in other solar systems. Some of these planets are within that goldilocks zone of their own systems. Given what we know how life exists, there is a strong possibility of finding life in the future on those other planets. We just have to wait for the technology to get up to par to find them. You were born in a time of human history that could find out that we are not alone but that life is practically everywhere in the universe.

----------




Sorry but I don't believe that you're actually doing any reading of the material being offered to you. It's one thing if you don't understand the material but to jump from a rock to a dog over X period of time goes to show you're not actually paying attention.

----------




I honestly think he's just not ready and willing to put effort into educating himself on these subjects.

I did read through the information posted. The issue that I see with that theory is that though it supposedly occurred over billions of years, how do you get such a wide array of creatures and a working ecological system?

Since scientists cannot measure before the supposed "Big Bang", how is it possible for scientists to accurately say that there was no life before it?

I do enjoy your argument of how some live in colder climates and adapt. That being said, that is more of a process of natural selection than supposed evolution. I do understand that natural selection is a sub-process of evolution, but it really does not disagree with the Biblical teaching, where as evolution does.

I think it is sad religion even has to figure when accepting another human being. I read threads like this and boy is my life simple without religion. No pressure or written guides to how I should feel. I am not an atheist and hate that word. I don't practise a form of none believing I was just brought up well and tolerant. I really do hope Apple loses some of the people with negatives views on this thread. A moral gain is far more valuable than a financial loss in the long term. Good in Tim for being honest.

Exactly. There is no reason that any person of any religion should be judging another. As a Christian, the Bible tells us that we are not to sit on the seat of judgment. Basic humanity tells us we should not judge others for differences. I am sure other views hold similar convictions.

 

[APlotdevice]

The issue that I see with the abiogenesis theory is that there is such an array of living things on Earth today. How is it possible that you and I hold a relation to a tree? Though this is understood to have occurred over many billions of years, how could one ascertain being related to a tree, weed, grass, or even a lizard?

The evidence is encoded in your very DNA. ~50% of it is identical to a banana.

I did read through the information posted. The issue that I see with that theory is that though it supposedly occurred over billions of years, how do you get such a wide array of creatures and a working ecological system?

----

I do enjoy your argument of how some live in colder climates and adapt. That being said, that is more of a process of natural selection than supposed evolution. I do understand that natural selection is a sub-process of evolution, but it really does not disagree with the Biblical teaching, where as evolution does.

Sub-process? No, it's pretty much the whole process. Organisms which have an advantage are more likely to survive long enough to pass on their genes, thus propagating their traits to future generations. Conversely traits which disadvantage the organism make it less likely to survive long enough to pass on its genes. Evolution is basically just this repeating itself over a very long period of time.

Since scientists cannot measure before the supposed "Big Bang", how is it possible for scientists to accurately say that there was no life before it?

The reason we cannot measure what was before the big bang is because before that point there was no universe. No space, no matter. Without space or matter you obviously cannot have molecules, and therefor cannot have life as we know it.

 

[mudslag]

I did read through the information posted. The issue that I see with that theory is that though it supposedly occurred over billions of years, how do you get such a wide array of creatures and a working ecological system?

http://evolution.about.com/od/LifeOrigins/tp/The-Geologic-Time-Scale.htm

Since scientists cannot measure before the supposed "Big Bang", how is it possible for scientists to accurately say that there was no life before it?

I know you're trying but really? That's like asking how do we know you didn't exist before your parents conceived you. Can you explain how life could exist before the universe did?

I do enjoy your argument of how some live in colder climates and adapt. That being said, that is more of a process of natural selection than supposed evolution. I do understand that natural selection is a sub-process of evolution, but it really does not disagree with the Biblical teaching, where as evolution does.

Natural selection is a key part of evolution, though human's adaption to different environments on the planet are man made adaptions, not natural ones.

 

[Altemose]

I know you're trying but really? That's like asking how do we know you didn't exist before your parents conceived you. Can you explain how life could exist before the universe did?





Natural selection is a key part of evolution, though human's adaption to different environments on the planet are man made adaptions, not natural ones.

I am referencing that in that video that was posted that they described that the universe itself was eternal, and that there was a "singularity", also called the Big Bang, where the universe heated. That being said, it is possible that life existed before the big bang according to that video. Now if I misunderstood it please correct me.

I agree that natural selection takes place. There is no denying that a bird with this style beak will survive better in place X due to the food supply. That actually aligns with Biblical principles.

 

[skunk]

I am referencing that in that video that was posted that they described that the universe itself was eternal, and that there was a "singularity", also called the Big Bang, where the universe heated. That being said, it is possible that life existed before the big bang according to that video. Now if I misunderstood it please correct me.

I agree that natural selection takes place. There is no denying that a bird with this style beak will survive better in place X due to the food supply. That actually aligns with Biblical principles.

There is no mention in Genesis of species adapting over time. What "Biblical principle" are you referring to?