"I ask you one more time:"

The reason I havnt answered your question is because it's a pointless question.
You state in your question
"whatever was before the existence of our universe is not of any relevance"

Well , thats like me asking you ,

If a mcdonalds french fry explode billions of years ago , and created everngy and atoms , is it no possible they somehow combined ?

Well , I would guess there would be some timeme of probability (something like 0.0000001% , but there would be some.

However , what is the probability of a mcdonalds french fry exploding to create this energy ?
And thats what we're talking about , so your question is pointless and irrelevant, and a trick question at that , and you still dont provide any solutions to the actual problems with the theory, you just want to somehow assume there is a tiny ounce of possibility it could have happened , to believe in it.

There really are fossils (found) of older species than the dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are old, but they are not the 'beginning' of life on land or something. Dinosaurs had evolutionary ancestors just the same, it's a gradual evolution. Besides, don't forget the countless amount of for example maritime fossils that are usually much older, but many lived at the same time and beyond.



A view of a solely progressive evolution is a very narrow one, as much as it's possible for a species to evolve into something more complex, it's probably as possible to devolve into something 'less complex'. Still, there's really no shred of evidence for a constant devolution of species.




Lol, yeah, follow the road down to never-never-land... :p

So.., as long as there are believers it's a valid theory worth "wasting" time on? That's funny, because it would only take uuuuhm 1 person to believe in something and all joke-theories or 'possibility'-theories aside I don't think there are people out there that propose theories they totally do not believe in or couldn't theoretically believe in.

If you only include theories that have 'active preachers' you'll come across all kinds of totally silly things that take little to no effort to refute.

Yes Phemox , provide evidence and proof to dismantle my arguments , you seem to see you can't , but still ridicule religion

"Lol, yeah, follow the road down to never-never-land... :p "

Yet , you choose to believe in the magical bean of eternity , and this isn't never-never-land ?

Can you Phemox , explain to me , how a magican bean of eternity is a more coherent explanation to the universe's existance than an all eternal God ?
Why do you believe the bean is a more realistic approach ?

I didn't talk about probabilities or chances, I gave two cases, one if favour of your theory, and one on contrary of yours. I asked if you agree with both, so if you would agree you would say that:

1. when a designer/creator created life, evolution AND chaos cannot exist, and atoms do not bind themselves spontaniously.

2. when atoms bind themselves spontaniously, a creator/designer never existed and evolution is the answer of life.

This is how black and white you see the world?



Oh, and the probability of a mcdonalds french fry exploding creating this energy is 100% when the universe is endless.

So now they appear to be shifting gear in theory

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/02/qa_turok

LOL , eventually physicists and scientists are going to come to the conclusion that we dont exist , and we arent actually here, LOL.

I assume almost ANY theory we can think of , can be accepted , as long as you can convince the other scientists to believe it , then you will have a theory they will teach in school , LOL.

"According to Turok, who teaches at Cambridge University, the Big Bang represents just one stage in an infinitely repeated cycle of universal expansion and contraction. Turok theorizes that neither time nor the universe has a beginning or end."

LOL , so we're back to the steady state theory , only with expansion and contraction added.How wonderful , lol .

I know. Sad, right?

But our solutions will be so much better, why ask him to waste his time putting down lies for us to see? Instead, it's best if WE put OUR solutions up so they can see how easily it all comes together!!!

So in order to move forward in defining this replacement theory, I still need the following from you:

1) Confirmation that in the realm of religion, we will use believers as a gauge of what to include in our RWV and what to exclude.

2) A set of criteria by which we can do the same to all the different evolutionary theories and thus select what goes into our RMV and what doesn't.

Well apart from the fact that "expansion and contraction" are the opposite of "steady state", that steady state means the universe "always was steady", not "always was changing", and that no model, steady state or otherwise, for what happened prior to the big bang is taught anywhere in any school (researched, yes. taught, no), why bother with this?

Isn't this proof that we should be focusing on our replacement theories so we can settle this question once and for all? Come on! Let's get back to work on our Replacement World View... this article is old news!!!!

PS: I found some pretty damning proof that Turok supports the Young Earth Creationists and their evolutionary belief that man and dinosaurs co-existed... providing yet more proof that scientists are on a campaign of misinformation by believing one thing but publicly saying another.

What arguments?

There's nothing that really supports your view. Don't get me wrong I'm not out to ridicule your own personal religion, just religion in general. Religions are based upon 'faith', you can hardly call that evidence. Hence, why I tend to ridicule it.

It doesn't make sense to follow an idea, just because you like what it promises or how it's described in some modern book. A total lack of evidence is what makes it impossible for me to really take these religious theories seriously. Sure, theoretically there's still a possibility that God does exist and that he's laughing his ass off or disappointed, but until there's some real proof I can believe in because it's right in front of my nose so to speak... I can't believe in a theoretical being that allegedly has the ability of divine intervention and what not more.



No offense, but if you were less ignorant about science in general, you would have known better. Again and I can't say this often enough, science doesn't claim to have absolute truths, but is very aware of the limitations and dependence on research and knowledge. Contrary to science that actively searches for evidence for theories, religions simply state something is true, because it was written in some book. Apparently the ink on some paper proves God exists? What kind of proof is that? Where are the experiments that can prove without any doubt that God is not a myth? Even when it comes to thought-experiments, philosophy for example has proven over and over again that a God being is pretty unlikely to exist, in fact, determining our own existence is pretty complicated in the philosophical and theoretical sense, let alone the theoretical existence of a God. Obviously this has a lot to do with questions that can not be answered, for example when it comes to divine intervention. What sense does it make to believe in a allegedly powerful God, when it can not be determined whether or not some 'unknown' God-like being has some sort of control over how and when things happen? I simply can not believe in this without some reliable evidence. I would however definitely be among the first to convert if there ever would be such evidence, as it's also how science works. If facts contradict the theory, the theory is wrong and needs to be adapted.



It's simple, it's the difference between knowing because you've researched it enough to get reliable information and believing just for the sake of believing and feeling comfortable.

Apart from that, and life really shows this all the time (even in my very nice life), if something sounds too good to be true, it usually is. I also am convinced that religion is simply a social tool to control people on a psychological level. There are several religions that have gotten so damn much money for all kinds of promises they make to people in exchange for money. Really commercial religions can't ever be right...

BUMP

Hey why_do_I_die, are we going to keep working on our Replacement World View or do we have to admit to ourselves that there is nothing better to replace current theory?

After a spectacularly showing how science is on the wrong path, I thought you'd be chomping at the bit to show how the right path explains everything (or just points 1 through 6) better and morally.

C'mon, why_do_I_die... I can't do the work by myself. I need you to guide me in creating a better post-evolution, post-science world! Help me Help you! Help me Help you!