It All Came Out Of Nothing?
Friends or should I say comrades, this is one of the question which proves how limited Evolutionism is: Did it all come out of nothing? It is more logical to believe that it was caused by something?
I will be looking at more of these debates but this is William Craig and I have to do homework on what he has to say.
Breaking news Dawkins has announced he is about to retire from his position and there will be a new occupant of the Proferssorship. I am sure he will still be a busybody after he has left that position.
Dawkinswatch 
ex nihilo? Um, no. No one postulates that the chemicals of life – nucleic and amino acids, etc. – popped into existence ex nihilo.
So what’s up with the blatant strawman?
Dan
February 15, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Oh, and I love this myopic and contradictory train of logic:
1. Anything that exists must have a cause.
2. God exists.
3. God does not require a cause.
Dan
February 15, 2008 at 2:29 pm
As the above commentators have mentioned, your position is completely invalid because you claim that things require a cause and that god is that cause, but that begs the question of what was the percipitating cause of god.
So, who or what created god? Is he eternal and uncaused and if so, why is he the only entity or object that can have that quality?
I await your answers eagerly in what I fear is the vain hope that you will actually provide them.
Mike
February 15, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Without doubt, dawkinswatch is the poster child for all of theism’s problems.
J. Frantz
February 15, 2008 at 4:12 pm
You have not answered the questions which were posed in the video.
For you the difficulties are real, I happen to believe that God exists.
But you have to answer the question, can something come out of nothing?
Who created God? God was always was, God is not limited by time God exist today in the future.
dawkinswatch
February 15, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Notice how the statement “God always was” doesn’t mean anything, because time began with the Big Bang.
J. Frantz
February 16, 2008 at 5:34 am
1. The origin of the universe could be the result of rainbow snakes, which have been observed by Australian aboriginals. No gods necessary and thus the existence of the universe is not evidence Gods exist. If you accept no existence without cause then the cause of the Christian God is an issue, else you’re not applying the same logic to the answers. It’s very easy to accept the existence of Thor if you stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to pay attention to other assertions.
2. Universally verified and never falsified? That would again suggest that the Christian god was created by another cause. This contradicts your assertion that God is uncaused. How can God come out of nothing? Rainbow snakes could have created him.
3. The quote would seem to confirm the existence of Rainbow snakes. The rainbow snakes would sing the big bang into existence, their cause coinciding with the big bang. Hence the music of the spheres etc.
It’s pretty condemning evidence against Christianity. Have you adopted aboriginal beliefs and ditched Michael Cremo’s Hinduism now?
Alun
February 16, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Have you ever seen a demonstration of Occam’s Razor Dawkinswatch?
Here it is here:
You really must understand that just because we don’t have a definitive answer on the nature of the universe(s) – we are simply not compelled to believe that the Judeo-Christian sky daddy dunnit, or that the Bible is his literary efforts. Just as, before we could explain thunder in scientific terms, we had no need to accept that it was Thor having a tantrum.
Believing in something transcendent BECAUSE of a lack of another explanation is the wellspring of every religious/superstitious belief on this planet. And let me tell you, it is not only absurd and irrational, particularly in this day and age when we really ought to know better – but it is also completely infantile, relying on tales just to satisfy your need to explain the currently unexplainable.
Has it ever occurred to you that the universe itself could infinite in space and/or time and is eternal, and didn’t have a “start” or a “cause”? It would certainly explain why the universe is such a vast wasteland so far as life is concerned, and why, in all that space, there is just one pale blue dot where life not only thrives, but where a portion of the inhabitants think that the universe was made for them.
Heather
February 17, 2008 at 4:47 pm
“I happen to believe that God exists.”
What is it like, having imaginary friends?
“…can something come out of nothing?”
Of course not! Who is suggesting that even the Big Bang came out of nothing? Not physicists or cosmologists, that’s for sure.
The real question is – why are you pursuing this maddening strawman?
Dan
February 17, 2008 at 6:39 pm
To understand why God doesn’t need a cause is to understand His nature. Unfortunately, unbelievers don’t understand the bible because they’ve never read it, and are always making arguments about things they know nothing about. Let me break it down logically:
God is infinite (if He wasn’t, He wouldn’t be much of a God would He?). That’s the first thing to understand about His nature. If we all can agree that God is infinite, then logic tells us that He has no beginning and He has no end. Agreed? So if God has no beginning, and He has no end, then He must be the beginning and the end.
Revelation 21:6 – Then He said to me, “It is done I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of water of life without cost (NOTE: Notice His promise to you…oOoOoO)
Revelation 22:13 – “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end”
John 1:1,14 – In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 14And the word became flesh…
Our belief doesn’t make the bible true… the bible is truth, that’s why we believe it…
Pete
February 18, 2008 at 11:02 am
“You have not answered the questions which were posed in the video.”
No, I likely didn’t. I no longer waste my time with your silly videos, having watched a few and found them to be of no value. I just comment on the silly things you actually say.
“For you the difficulties are real, I happen to believe that God exists.”
How nice for you. Of course, you hold that belief the same way a child believes in Santa. You accept an inane idea with zero supporting evidence. At least the child is only building a month or so of their life around their delusion, you are wasting your entire life.
“But you have to answer the question, can something come out of nothing?
It’s very funny that you demand an answer while making a foolishly inconsistent claim, but here is the answer: I don’t know.
My goodness, how I do enjoy saying those three words; ‘I don’t know’. It means there are realms new to me waiting for the touch of my hand and mind. It means there are challenges awaiting the talents and endeavors that humanity can put towards them, the benefits and wonders that may come from the answers wholly unknown to us now and tantalizingly just out of view. What a magnificent thing it is to be able to say ‘I don’t know’ when you have the spirit and ability to do something about it, to find an answer.
It is here that I truly pity the poor theist. To look at the great questions about the world around us and who and what we are and to shrug and turn away, saying only “god did it”, is small and banal. How very, very sad.
You have my answer.
“Who created God? God was always was, God is not limited by time God exist today in the future.”
Why, if that is possible for you idea of god, do you find it so hard to concieve of it in other things?
Mike
February 18, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Pete,
Your personal credulity regarding the truth of the bible is not any kind of argument in favor of it’s divine nature. Using quotations from a text in dispute is of zero value. You have said nothing other then “I believe in the Bible!”, which is nice for you but of no real interest.
Mike
February 18, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Mike,
C’mon now… “your personal credulity regarding the truth of the bible is not any kind of argument in favor of its divine nature” isn’t an argument against my statement. What I brought forward was a simple notion of God’s nature. Once again: if God was not infinite, He wouldn’t be much of a God would He? Are you saying that this statement is wrong? Or are you saying (like the Pharisees I might add) “well, if I say no, then that’s blatent stupidity and would mean anyone can be a god, and if I say yes… then I would have to agree with his logic… hm… I’ll just say he’s wrong in an articulate way that laymen people don’t understand”
And Mike, please please please understand my last statement in my first post: “Our belief doesn’t make the bible true… the bible is truth, that’s why we believe it” Someone who uses words so eloquently can fo’ sho’ understand this statement. “My personal belief regarding the truth of the bible is not any kind of argument in favour of its divine nature” CORRECT! What I believe about God doesn’t make Him God… you are so right. But the bible says He’s the beginning and the end, and my logic tells me that God is infinite, and if you put those two together, you get what I believe. Do you see the difference between how you view this issue and how I view it?
Mike, I must apologise in advance if any of my words seem like a personal attack on yourself. When debating behind a computer, its hard to convey calmness. In debates like these, things can get pretty heated. But I hope we ALL can debate this issue without making personal attacks like “Without doubt, dawkinswatch is the poster child for all of theism’s problems.”
Just one more thing you must understand: I quote bible verses because that is my basis of belief. In the same way, you’d quote authors of journals and the like because that is your basis of belief. I can’t make a statement without first making sure its biblical. If I did, it would be heresy, which is why you have the people in white clothes carrying bibles coming to your door saying “Hello! We are the from the church of Mormons!” or “Howdy! We are Jehovah’s witnesses!….”.
Pete
February 19, 2008 at 10:00 am
I do understabd your point on remaining calm. I try very hard to do so.
Since you do not accept my simply pointing that you are unfortunately engaging in the fallacy of personal credulity, I will engage your argument in more detail. First we have the claim that god is infinite, else he is an inadequate god. This is what we call an unsupported assertion. You are making two assumptions not in evidence. One, that a deity exists. Two, that any deity is required to be infinite. I accept neither assertion. I can easily imagine a deity of less then infinite capacity who would still be well capable of the creation and managment of our universe. If you can provide any evidence or clear reasoning for them, we can proceed.
Do you see how I can disagree with your “logic”? I’m sorry to say this, but it isn’t logical at all.
Thank you for calling me eloquent. I do try, but I feel compelled to add that I am a layman. I have only a bachelor’s degree (which is in neither a hard scientific or philosophical field).
Mike
February 19, 2008 at 11:23 am
Personally, Mike, I think that you’re exerting entirely too much energy here to explain the position, when the existence of god(s) can be boiled down to much simpler statements.
For instance, all you need to do is point out that you don’t believe in imaginary friends, as the religionists do. Or point out that you don’t believe in superstitious things like prayer, or magic such as miracles.
Dan
February 19, 2008 at 11:33 am
Or you could just follow the religionist train of thought to its logical conclusion. They claim:
(i) God is omnipotent; (ii) God is good. I think we can also acknowledge that bad things exist.
How, then, could a benevolent God coexist with bad things? That’s logically impossible.
Dan
February 19, 2008 at 11:43 am
Dan, you are of course correct on both counts and both of your arguments are completely valid.
The sad truth about me is that I am an eternal, unrealistic optimist. I hold out some hope (a hope I admit to being badly arrogant) that I can by reasoned argument, pull one or two theists out of their self-imposed demon-haunted darkness (that Sagan had a way with word for an astronomer, didn’t he?). It worked for me. Maybe I can pass the good that was done for me on to someone else.
Mike
February 19, 2008 at 4:23 pm
I’m glad that we can both come to an agreement to remain calm on our arguments and hopefully no personal attacks =)
Ok, say there isn’t a god. What is your presupposition on the creation of humans? Do you take on Darwin’s view of evolution? We evolved from monkeys, etc. I’ve heard that we evolved from goo or something…
Dan, why is it that everyone on earth is destined for Hell? I know you don’t believe in the heaven and hell thing, but say there is a heaven and hell. Why would it be that everyone is destined for Hell? Can you think of a reason why? (Hint: The answer is in the question you asked)
Pete
February 20, 2008 at 9:25 am
Creation of humans? I don’t think I’d use that wording – were you created, or were you descended from your ancestors?
Evolved from monkeys? Sorta. Primates, specifically, with Proconsul and Australopithecus (among others) as intermediates between our monkey-like ancestors and ourselves.
Evolved from ‘goo’? Again, sorta. We’re made of ‘goo’, also, although we actually use slightly more technical terms, usually.
Destined for ‘Hell?’ Where’s that? Is it close to New Jersey? 😉
Dan
February 20, 2008 at 9:40 am
When you say “we”, who do you mean? Are you a scientist? I’m just trying to gauge who you are where you’re coming from.
But you believe in evolution theory right? ie, That all organisms evolve to their surroundings?
I don’t know if benevolent is the word to use in your argument, but I think you meant “good”. God, being perfectly good, cannot live in a world full of sin, which is why He made a plan from the very start to rekindle that broken relationship (Genesis 3:15 – “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel”) after the fall of Adam and Eve.
Everyone is destined to Hell because we all sin and God cannot accept sin (Romans 3:23 – For all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory). So I hope that answers your question about how can God, being perfectly good, co-exist with bad. Basically, I’m agreeing with your argument… God cannot co-exist with anything “bad”, which is why people go to Hell…
That in itself seems harsh, but God cannot comprimise His perfect nature. But! The fact that God is benevolent; willing to help this inevitable situation, is why He sent His Son to die on the cross, conquer death, rose, so we too would die, conquer death, and rise. (John 3:16-17 – “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him”)
Anyway… back to the topic.
Pete
February 20, 2008 at 11:13 am
Mike,
You said in a different post that you were a Christian? Can I ask if you were Catholic or Christian?
Pete
February 20, 2008 at 11:17 am
Of course I believe in evolution. It is a fact that species, ecosystems, etc. change.
This good and omnipotent friend of yours, God – sounds like he either can’t or won’t deal with evil and imperfection, or is imaginary. Or maybe he just likes playing games with you, but then he wouldn’t be good, would he?
And again, where is this ‘Hell’ you speak of? Never-Never Land? You certainly seem to have a penchant for imaginary friends and places.
Dan
February 20, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Pete,
I have no presupposition on the “creation” of humans. I do suggest that your presuppositions are made clear by your word choice. In any case, I await good evidence for any position. Right now, evolution wins. Real evidence to the contrary would, of course, change my opinion.
You state:
“Dan, why is it that everyone on earth is destined for Hell? I know you don’t believe in the heaven and hell thing, but say there is a heaven and hell. Why would it be that everyone is destined for Hell? Can you think of a reason why?”
First, I will meet you part way and allow for the sake of argument the existence of heaven and hell. There’s no evidence for either, but I’ll play. Given that they exist, why would one accept that all humans are destined for hell. It is not inherent in the above baseless asumption. Are you asking me to accept yet another unfounded idea?
Mike
February 20, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Pete,
I said I was a layman in a scientific sense. That does not mean “christian”. I am an atheist after breaking free from the bonds of a baptist upbringing.
By the way, catholic is a subset of christian, just as (most likely) your particular brand of mythology is. They are not seperate classes.
Mike
February 20, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Ever heard of Epicurus, reasoning on the question of evil:
Is God is willing to prevent evil but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him God?
A very good website to answer the question of evil and God’s nature is this: http://bible-truths.com/lake2.html
#10 Pete,
Your way of reasoning is strictly circular.
But for a start: What can ANYONE know about the nature of God? There is not a shred of evidence for anything you can say about God. God is solely in the imagination of people.
That is the reason why there are so many different religions and even the so called Christian religions differ greatly and bitterly on this question!
According to the present Pope no-one will go to heaven, who is not a Catholic, according to you, Catholics are not even Christian. Wow!
Fact is, anybody’s idea about a god is (almost) just as good as anybody else’s, because God only “exists” in people’s minds but not in reality. Save for logic.
The Chrisitan God is a logical impossibility, as Bertrand Russel pointed out a long time ago:
Christians are said to believe God to be the highest entity. And they say that God is good.
This is logically impossible, for in order to be good, God has to place himself under the category of good and evil and at that very moment he ceases to be the highest entity, as good and evil become superior to him.
“Our belief doesn’t make the bible true… the bible is truth, that’s why we believe it…”
Sorry, but your reasoning is very shoddy. You could only KNOW that the bible was truth. If you believe/assume its truth, it can well be that the bible is not true.
And if you read AND understand the bible, you will realize that the bible is not true, because it contains so many mutually exclusive statements. You may still believe that SOME of the things the bible says are true, but you can never be sure, which ones these are. And consequently most people cannot be brought to agree on what is ture in the bible, even if they claim to accept it as a whole.
Ask ten people from ten different denominations about some “truths” the bible “reveals” to them and you are likely to end up with a number of different answers, some of them mutually exclusive. How then, can you be so arrogant and believe that YOUR way of seeing the “truths” in the bible is the only correct one? But that is exactly what all of you self-proclaimed Chrisitans do.
If there is any truth in the bible it is only because some of its authors have accidentally stumbled upon it, they cannot have KNOWN it to be true.
Wolf Potter
February 24, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Daaaaaaamn…. so much to respond to lol.
Ok, I don’t think you understand when I say “we don’t believe the bible to make it true, it is truth, therefore we believe it”. You seem to think that this is an assumption that I’m making, but if the bible says its true, then I can believe that. I don’t assume that the bible is true, in the same way that I don’t assume that icecream is cold. But I have a feeling we’re never going to come to an agreement on this issue as you can’t see my point of view. But that’s ok, just dwell on it a little.
God has dealt with evil… on the cross.
I want to discuss evolution with you guys. I just want to make you guys think… that’s all. Forget about religion, but lets think about evolution:
Dan: “Of course I believe in evolution”. Ok, so that is your basis of truth, just as the bible is my basis of truth.
Wikipedia defines evolution as “the changes seen in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next”. According to Darwin’s theory, we evolved from monkeys/primates (not sure what the correct term to use is sry) and progressed from there. So obviously the wikipedia definition sustains. We can also see that other animals have evolved as they adapt to their environment. So the question I want us to think about is this: Why aren’t we growing more hair on our bodies? If we are suppose to adapt to our surroundings, why haven’t we grown more hair? And why did the first primate decide to wear clothes? (clothes is an unnatural way of adapting to our environment).
My bible tells me it was “shame” that made us wear clothes (Genesis 3:7).
On a side question… Dan and Mike (or anyone else)… do you believe it is random chance that things happen? Because obviously if there is no God to make things happen at exactly the right time, then things must happen by chance right? (And I think Richard Dawkin’s subscribes to this theory, correct me if I’m wrong)
Pete
March 3, 2008 at 10:40 am
““Of course I believe in evolution”. Ok, so that is your basis of truth, just as the bible is my basis of truth.”
No. Evolution is not the basis of truth. It is just a fact. Like gravity or heliocentrism. Because I believe in gravity, is that my basis for truth? Of course not, it’s just a fact.
“…do you believe it is random chance that things happen?”
Ah, the ol’ question of chance vs. necessity (or determinism). I’m actually reading a book on that at the moment, entitled Singularities: Landmarks on the Pathways of Life, by Christian de Duve. In it, he enumerates the various ways chance and necessity are determined by the 7 mechanisms of singularity.
But to answer your question – random chance is involved, yes, but is not the sole explanation of anything. There are usually selective and restrictive factors that limit the role of chance.
Dan
March 3, 2008 at 10:55 am
And no, I don’t think Dawkins, or anyone, subscribes to the notion that everything is up to chance. Clearly, there’s far greater likelihood of some possibilities over others, invoking non-random chance.
Dan
March 3, 2008 at 10:58 am
Dan… evolution is not fact… its a theory…
But anyway… that hair thing was just something for all of us to think about. It’s a good question to dwell upon I think. If you really think about, if evolution is true, we really should be growing more hair to adapt to our environment, but we’re not. Doesn’t it make you think, “why?”
Or how about this? If evolution is true, why isn’t the monkey extinct? We see that everything that has been superceded has become extinct. We are the advanced versions of monkies, yet they still exist… interesting… yet the neanderthal doesn’t… hm… interesting…
So if everything is not by chance, and something restricts chance, does that mean you subscribe to a higher being? I don’t think there is a grey area to this question. The world is either influenced by chance or influenced by a higher being, don’t you think?
Pete
March 6, 2008 at 10:30 am
Mike,
“Given that they exist, why would one accept that all humans are destined for hell. It is not inherent in the above baseless asumption. Are you asking me to accept yet another unfounded idea?”
If you’re talking about “unfounded” as in physical proof of us being destined for Hell, well there is none that will suffice in your worldview. First of all, its a God’s Law. You can’t prove law till you see the outcome. If you went to Africa and someone told you shaking hands with a woman meant you had your hands chopped off, well… isn’t that “unfounded” till you actually try it? In the same way, I can’t prove God’s Law till you actually end up in Hell.
Secondly, I thought after meeting me half way and understanding God’s nature would be enough reason to understand why we’re going to Hell. If you knew your dad to be a drunk (not saying he is, just an example) and came home violent every single time, would it be baseless to assume that you will get beaten if you are at home? You know your dad’s nature, yet you’re at home… the only baseless assumption would be to assume you wouldn’t get beaten. In the same way, if you know God’s nature of perfection, that is your base of knowing that you’re going to Hell as we are imperfect because of sin.
Pete
March 6, 2008 at 10:40 am
Wolf Potter,
I’m curious, you gave a Christian website, but you seem to argue there are many contradictions in the bible. Are you Atheist? Religious?
The argument that God is both good and evil is incorrect. You are arguing the premise of duality. Basically, you are saying that life and death can exist together, which is totally not true, in a physical sense anyway. Not sure if you’re going to reply, but if you do, I’ll elaborate. I come here every now and then.
Pete
March 6, 2008 at 10:50 am
Actually it’s both a fact and a theory, as is gravity.
On hair – we don’t need hair to survive or have offspring, do we? No. The reason why people of some cultures have more or less hair than others more likely has to do with sexual selection and cultural preference – some people prefer to marry and have children with a particular body type, and those people have more offspring, thus more people have that body type, etc. The fact that sexual selection is at play is self-apparent by the observation that the genders are not identical in this respect.
Re: Monkeys – Humans and other apes are descended from a common ancestor whose population split to become two (and more) lineages. The question is rather like asking, “If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?” (See #2)
Re: Chance – You don’t really understand the concept of probability, do you? See here and learn. (or see #1)
Dan
March 6, 2008 at 11:02 am
Dan,
Evolution is not fact, its theory. That’s why the word “theory” follows after “evolution”. If you’re using the term “fact” in a scientific sense, well that isn’t the same as the term “fact” that you use to argue against people of belief is it?
I didn’t read all of the pdf on probability sorry. I will when I get the time, but from the little that I read (half a page), probability of something happening gets better as the occurance of it is more frequent. Once again, this is a theory. If you throw a rock up in the air, no matter how many times you throw it, it’ll always come down. God made the world with very complex laws and nature that does not faulter with frequency. If randomness is in effect in this world, then we should be able to see consistant randomness, eg, every now and then, when you throw a rock up, it will stay up. Please clarify if I have misunderstood the pdf you gave me.
Your argument about Americans, Australians and Europeans isn’t a very good one, as “Americans”, “Australians” and “Europeans” is a term used to describe a person of nationality. It’s got nothing to do with an innate trait. The comparison of my argument and your argument does not align. That’s why I say its not a good one sorry. Correct me if I’m wrong of course.
But yeah… I’ve heard that argument before about splitting… but it makes me wonder if that is a theory made up to conform to your worldview, or did the person who hypothesised this actually see it happen to consider it fact? Is there any way you can substantiate that claim?
I mentioned the hair thing not talking about survivability, but of adaptation. Of course you don’t need hair to survive, but I would think you would need it to adapt with the climate changes. Especially if we weren’t wearing clothes… and according to evolution, isn’t adaptation one of the primary causes of evolving? “Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment” (www.wikipedia.org)
But yes, its interesting that you mention survivability. I’m just wondering, how does monkies evolving to humans improve survivability? They seem to be doing ok so far…
hm… some things to think about.
Pete
March 13, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Dan,
I just had a funny thought… were there chinese monkies? arabian monkies? or even chinese neanderthals or arabian neanderthals? black neanderthals? Interesting to think about ay? If there were, I guess evolution theory would be somewhat consistant. If there wasn’t, it would make us question the validity of evolution theory.
Pete
March 13, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Forgot to add,
Acts 17:26 says “and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation”
That’s my basis of truth to answer my funny thought.
Pete
March 13, 2008 at 12:49 pm
“Evolution is not fact, its theory. That’s why the word “theory” follows after “evolution”.”
Actually, as I said, it’s both. The theory of evolution regards how it change happens, and how it works. As I said in my previous comment, the same is true of the theory of gravity. Gravity happens, that’s just a fact, but the explanation of how it works is a theory.
On nationality not being a specific trait – you do realize that species is not a specific trait either. Both are categories defined by which group an individual belongs to. So yes, the comparison aligns nicely.
If you’re not going to read and learn though, how can you discuss the matter intelligently?
I’m just wondering, how does monkies evolving to humans improve survivability?
The way you’ve worded this question suggests that you think that environments are static, and that species are “perfecting” themselves to those static environments. You’re mistaken on both counts – environments and ecosystems change, and species aren’t “improving,” they’re just the ones that are “surviving.”
were there chinese monkies? arabian monkies? or even chinese neanderthals or arabian neanderthals? black neanderthals?
There are ecogeographical rules that have been discovered by ecologists. Of course that’s just a few general rules of thumb, as opposed to fixed natural laws, but should answer your question.
Dan
March 13, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Also, on the evolution as fact and theory bit, if you’re interested in learning, there’s an article by T.R. Gregory out recently explaining Evolution as fact, theory, and path.
Dan
March 13, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Dan you do not know the difference between scientific laws and theories?
Where shall we start?
dawkinswatch
March 13, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Oh this is going to be good…
Have at it then – I’d love to see you get something right for a change.
Dan
March 13, 2008 at 7:20 pm