Should evolution be taught in schools?

The universe cannot have 'always been' because then everything would be at the same temperature.

I can ascribe a likelihood perfectly well - take your rolling ball rolling down the street.

Simple solution: Someone kicked it

Complex solution: An alien space ship flying past fires a laser that knocks a bit off a satellite that comes down through the atmosphere and burns up just enough to hit the ball with just enough impact to send it gently rolling.

A is more likely than B.

There's an old expression in medicine: "If you hear hoofs, don't think zebra's"

Whats the difference between faith and delusion?

Scrubs?

LOL I'd love for you to explain this one....

Just because an alien is an inprobable answer is doesn't mean that someone pushed it?!?!?!?

We have no knowledge of what caused the ball to move, it may of always been moving, an alien could of pushed "or" an action unknown to us could of occurred....

All of your claims are comical... but keep digging.

No problem at all.

If you have a room at 20 degrees, and bring in a cup of tea at 30 degress and a glass of water at 10 degrees, they thermally equilibrate.

At 5 minutes the tea is maybe 28 and the water 12.

At 30 the tea 25 and water 15

After a week, everythings at 20 degrees.

Don't just take my word for it, ask Steven Hawking (who does know the difference between weight and mass)

.

Happy?

admit you were wrong... be a big man.

?

there is no way of knowing what caused the universe to come into existence... nevermind determine how complex the force was.

not only does this not apply to cosmology... but this is also only applicable to steady state.

In a battle against logic, the theologian is always bound to lose.

If you think Steven Hawking is wrong, perhaps you should drop him a line, outlining why your 'faith' and collection of bronze age myths outweighs his observations and experiments in the validity stakes.

I'll be interested to hear his response.

Your explanation is doomed by its absurd complexity and absence of evidence.

I'm not saying God couldn't have made it - I'm saying its hilariously unlikely (more unlikely, in fact, than a graet many things we're happy to call 'impossible' today).

?

When has stephen hawking EVER said that the universe deffinatly hasn't always existed?!?!??

Are you incapable of admiting you were wrong? This has nothing to do with my argument - it's to do with you stating on the complexity of whatever caused the universe to come into existence... STOP SQUIRMING AND BE A MAN

OK Joe

I'm wrong. The sponatenous formation of a being capable of making the world almost certainly did happen. It's very likely that this occured before there was a universe for Him to exist in. It's very likely he then made the universe. It's entirely plausible that he magiced up the world, and the earliest forms of life. It makes perfect sense that he then abandoned them to evolve for 1 billion years, intervening briefly to add eyes to trilobytes. Once complex humanity had been around, it's obvious that he should reappear, pick one not-at-all-special tribe in the desert (of the many tribs) to worship him and gave us all 'souls' at this point only. Non of the other tribes that had had religions for thousands of years before were given 'souls'. He then micromanaged his trbie, and coordinated a string of war crimes against other tribes. He then flooded the world to punish every being except those equipped with gills for 'sinning'. He then fucked off for a bit, and left them to it, and has never been heard from since. This is a perfectly rational explanation and a 5000 year old book of myths and a quick injection of 'faith' is all the evidence we need to convince us that this must be true, nothing further is required.

LIVING THE CREATIONIST DREAM!!!!

:fart:

Why do assume that God was created, brought about, introduced, evolved or whatever? And why do you think He needs a universe to exist in?

If you're happy with the idea of God just being there forever, then you may as well just content yourself by saying that the universe and life have 'always been there' too, and if you're happy with that then fine.

Essentially what you're saying is that no rational or evidence based argument could ever be used on god, because he defines himself outside of rationality and evidence. (I suspect the creationist would be quick to jump on a rational argument FOR god, if one actually existed)

Which is fine until you try to present god as a rational belief.

lol andy I never mentioned a G-d!

You stated that whatever brought the universe into existence would of been simple.... There is absoloutly no evidence known to man that supports this!!!

Forget about G-d and admit you made a stupid comment that you have no way of substantiating.

You can post up all the creationist jokes you like, but it doesn't change the fact you made a truelly retarded comment

I said very clearly that it was more likely to be simple than complex.

And it is.

LOL how on earth can you say that?!?!?!?

Is a mother less complex than her child?

Evolution may be unique to this universe, we don't know if exists in other universes or whatever came prior to the existence of ours.

We don't know what brought the universe into existence, it may of been born from a more advanced universe, it may of been created by a spirritual entity, it may be alien mucus.... WE DONT FUCKING KNOW.

Science is the art of observation - at our current level of knowledge there is nothing observable in this universe that gives us any indiciation of what caused our universe to come into existence.

Why do you find it so hard to accept you were wrong?

I'm not wrong

Go and read about Occams razor.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam"]Ockham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/Fileisambig_gray.svg" class="image"><img alt="Disambig gray.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Disambig_gray.svg/30px-Disambig_gray.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/5/5f/Disambig_gray.svg/30px-Disambig_gray.svg.png[/ame]'s_Razor

Look it's perfect:

"All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities.