The punishment may not have been equal, we od not know what happened to them in the next life. Those who were were not as guilty as others may be spending eternity in heaven with God, while those who are guilty suffer in hell. So to say everyone got punished equally even though some people MAY have sinned worse than others is wrong, because we do not know how God judged them in the next life.

I am sorry about my last post it was supposed to obtain a quote from a previous post.

[quote=Troianii;156909]Alright, it could, but at this point it still requires assumptions.


[quote=Demarcoa;155270]Stephen Hawking is a theoretical physicist, not an evolutionary biologist. How did he get into this thread?

Far greater assumptions are required to theorize that evolution does not occur than to theorize that evolution does occur. There was a lot of evidence before we could do DNA analysis, and it was confirmed and radically increased by DNA analysis. Anyone who isn't interested enough or technologically schooled enough (most of us) can theorize to THEMSELVES that evolution just ain't so, no matter if proof is found, or has already been found, or not.
Nevertheless, as long as this planet remains habitable at least for microorganisms, evolution will roll on long after we and all our assumptions are dead.

Maybe I am just not creative enough, so can you help me out in imagening how a new born or 1 year old baby is able to have broken God's laws?

Their number hardly was small back then, and if they were the sole who were spared, they were doomed as well.

Your law does not seem to be "death for murder", but "death for every crime, no matter how small". Whereas I guess the babies committed the crime of crying too much or eating with not enough manners...

I don't assume that you are defending creationism. You are trying to set a scientific theory onto a comparable level of a religious pre-enlightment dogma.

I contest this by all means.

This "neither are proven" is an absolute nongoer. In the very strict sense of the word NO scientific theory can be ultimatively proven. Not that the earth is not flat, not that the stars are stars rather than nice night laterns hanging on the sky, not that gravity exists...

This is misleading those however who think science is about ultimative proofs, because its not as those proofs would be impossible. Scientific theories can however be confirmed and some theories have been confirmed time over times again. Some of them even had the chance to get confirmed by means that the inventor of the theory could not foresee that they should ever exist. In this case the confirmation by those new means gets an extra value because the inventor of the theory had no chance to adopt his theory to be supported by those new means.

One of those most solidely confirmed scientific theories is the one of evolution. Other theories like the one about gravity for example are far less confirmed. (Maybe the Large Hadron Collider at CERN has the chance to change that and put also the gravity theory on more stable grounds, we will see)

Your lines of, "both base on assumptions" reads for me like the argument "but its not fact but only a theory". Its an attempt to fool those who are not used to scientific terminology and practice, its an attempt to relativize it in comparision to creationism.

Evolution and Creationism can not be compared for a simple fact: they dont play along the same rules. Some might trust the rules of relgion, their choice and their right, but I am proud that the enlightment managed it to emancipate science from the rules of religion and to be honest I would be pretty glad if this stays that way. I have nothing against religion, as long as it is not tried to compete with science on their homefield. Creationism and the ideologic son of ID is such an attempt.

Those assumptions are not only not random guesses, they are based on good scientific practice (and have to face continous scrutiny) and not on something that is written in a 2000 year old religious text.

ID is no scientific theory. It does not play in the same liga as evolution either.

The nature of those assumptions is completely and fundamentally different, this does not find any expression in your claim, so I can't help myself other than believing that you are trying to relativize the fundamental difference between the evolutionary theory and creationism.

Perhaps because he is one of those damn assumption makers (others call them theoretical scientists) as well? jk

Evolution is the truth, we did not just appear as we are in the beginning, we had to evolve. Science proves that evolution is real. You can't just pretend that it is not. Things evolve to be able to do things that they once could not, to be able to live in a new environment, to become greater than they once were. I am not saying that there is no god, no, for how else would have things came to be? I am not saying that there is no Jesus, no and he did do everything they said they did. I am not saying that your beliefs are false, no just how you say evolution is false. You cannot pretend that it doesn't exist. The bible is the truth as well.

Things do not just appear out of thin air.

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes."-Pope John Paul II

Everything has to have a cause. That is a well established fact. Nothing in this universe could ever have existed without a cause. God is that cause and made mankind as He said He did in the Bible. He is outside the requirements to have a cause and that is why He was able to create the universe.
Evolution is totally false and has no basis in anything but the person biases of many scientists.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolu...nces/intro.htm

__________________
"Good intentions are a noble thing, but you have to look at the end result to see if those intentions are well placed."
-- LessGovMrPrez

"I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have."
-- Thomas Jefferson