The "God" Argument ... (Moved from another thread)

Discussion in 'Odds & Ends' started by Bungalo Bill, Jul 17, 2006.

  1. Bungalo Bill

    Bungalo Bill G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,885
    Well I can but you would have to listen to a long story of my life. For those that dont believe in God prove that He doesn't exist.
     
    #51
  2. Slazenger

    Slazenger Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,074
    "when I think about the Lord,
    How He saved me,
    How He raised me,
    How He filled me,
    With the Holy Ghost,
    How He healed me, to the uttermost.

    When I think about the Lord,
    how He picked me up, and turned me around,
    How He placed my feet, on solid ground,

    Makes me want to shout!
    Hallelujah,
    Thank you Jesus
    Lord your worthy
    Of all the glory,
    Of all the honour,
    and all of the praise"


    I LOVE this song.
     
    #52
  3. Bungalo Bill

    Bungalo Bill G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,885
    But remember, faith also exists for the Atheist, the Evolutionist, and the Religious. It takes faith for their own beleifs because no one can prove their "theory" out. Plus, remember EVERYONE believes in some God. I tmay not be the Christian God, but even the atheist serves someone.

    So we must take a different approach. We must examine why a person believes in what he believes.

    For me, it is long line of archeological proof about the historical information in the Bible. The Bible's historical information has been proven and is still being proven as well as other things. In other words, I just dont take someone elses word, especially a preachers word. I read it for myself and study it for myself.

    Christ made a prediction, that He will return. Not only did He prophesy this but it also was prophesized by others throughout the Old Testament even as far back as Genesis:

    I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel." This is a prophetic message of Jesus Christ's first coming to earth.

    Who is the woman? Is it Israel? Who would have enmity against the woman? Is it possible this is happening today? Who is the offspring?

    Now, consider, this is one of many and it was written well before His birth. Even science can show that. :) So, wouldn't this cause me to think that maybe everyone has it all wrong? Religion was not invented in Genesis and Genesis clearly shows God is always seeking man, even at the fall.

    When they heard the sound of the LORD God moving about in the garden at the breezy time of the day, the man and his wife hid themselves from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. The LORD God then called to the man and asked him, "Where are you?" He answered, "I heard you in the garden; but I was afraid, because I was naked, so I hid myself."

    It is obvious by these words that this God is seeking a relationship with man not a religion. Can God speak to us today?

    The last days of the Bible have been used and misused by Christians and other doomsday sayers for quite sometime. It has rendered a very important part of the Bible as a folk lore or a belief for only lunitics. But I dont usually stop there when people are acting like idiots - especially Christians.

    However, just because someone has cried wolf, doesn't mean there is no wolf. The rise of China's and its ability to field a enormous army concerns me because it is scriptural. The fall of Russia concerns me because it is scripture in another way. The current growing world perpexity concerns me because in the last days - the world will have no way out of its problems until the brief time the Anti-Christ rises using a world government. The fact that a chip can realistically be implanted in a dog concerns me as technology evolves.

    These are not just words, they are predictions, predictions that happened thousands of years ago. Is this coincidence? Is it a coincidence that this is all happening at the time Israel is a nation?
     
    #53
  4. MordredSJT

    MordredSJT Rookie

    Joined:
    May 10, 2006
    Messages:
    297
    Hey look...those first two sentences rhyme!!!

    Seriously man, step back for a second and look at what I posted. I posted a response to tennis nerd's absolute butchery of a strawman of modern cosmology and evolutionary biology. It was directed at him. He was dismissing those theories based on his incomplete and untrue pictures of them. I made no assumptions about your knowledge of anything. I can handle any questions that you want...but you have to actually understand what I am saying in context first...

    I made no statements as to your knowledge outside of what you explicitly demonstrated in your response to my initial post. If you have something beyond the shallow level that you chose to show me then why didn't you use it?

    Never made that assumption...although some of your statements since make me wonder if you ever seriously studied evolutionary biology from a scientific perspective.

    I was "crying" where exactly?

    Hey, I know...let's repeat what you said before and I already replied to...because that gives it that much more force.

    It isn't meaningless...to commit suicide is to end one's existance for all time! That's kind of a major thing. Yet, what right do I have to stop a person from making that choice? How is it my business what another person chooses to do with their own life if it does not have any direct adverse effects on me?

    And what in the hell does this have to do with what we were talking about? hehe

    Ummm...ok then...is that supposed to convince me that the Christian Bible contains this path to this supposed God? Because I read it, and am thoroughly unconvinced.

    No...explain in greater depth what you mean by evolutionist...because to me it is just a made up term. I'm not an evolutionist. I'm a scientist. I also happen to be an atheist. Those things don't have to go together. The idea that the universe could only have been created by some higher intelligence is a persupposition...it is not a necessary logical statement. There are plenty of possible natural explanations for the existance of the universe.

    Where is this intelligence exactly? What proves it's existance? What proves that it is necessary?

    Is this supposed to be a reason to believe?

    Wow man...are you trying to tell me that you have studied evolutionary biology and you are not aware of how incredibly obvious a strawman this is? Is the exploding rocks part supposed to be about big bang cosmology? Because again...wow...

    Ding, ding, ding!!! We have a winner. Now go back in the thread to where I said, "Did I make an argument anywhere that scientific theories have disproven the existance of a god? No, I didn't. They don't have to. They aren't trying to. That is not their purpose, and I never intimated that it was..."

    I'm not out to disprove the existance of a god...I don't have to. I'm just trying to get a kid to read some freakin' science books! And from what I've seen you might need to revisit a few yourself Bungalo Bill. Seriously...exploding rocks?

    Why is it that certain theists can't seem to grasp a belief system that doesn't contain a deity of any kind? Why must you insist that my belief system really is just like yours in the end? It isn't.
     
    #54
  5. Andy Hewitt

    Andy Hewitt Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,293
    Location:
    SHEEE-KAH-GO!
    OH MY GOD! It's Bungalo Bill!
     
    #55
  6. MordredSJT

    MordredSJT Rookie

    Joined:
    May 10, 2006
    Messages:
    297
    The burden of proof rests on those making the claim. You claim a god exists. It is up to you to prove it. If you cannot produce sufficient evidence or logical argument, then I am not obligated to believe it.
     
    #56
  7. acetennisman

    acetennisman Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2005
    Messages:
    156
    Guys are you blind, federer is obviously god
     
    #57
  8. 35ft6

    35ft6 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    6,557
    Theory and law are often considered to be pretty much the same, but there is gravitational theory. It's a law in that its existence is taken at face value, the theory part is understanding its mechanisms. Scientists please correct me if I'm messing this up.
    No, the point doesn't stand. Science is ALL about new evidence, disproving hypothesis, updating our understanding. Our understanding of how evolution manifests is constantly being updated but the theory/fact still stands.
    Huh? Furthering ones understanding even at the expense of having to discard previously held notions is how good science ALWAYS works. A hypothesis is presupposition and it's a mainstay of science, not a weak link.
     
    #58
  9. D-man

    D-man Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    752
    Interesting discussion concerning the probability of the existence of God.

    I don’t follow the logic that asserts common sense (whatever that is) must dictate our beliefs.

    There’s no reason to think that just because humanity comes up with the idea something exists, it necessarily negates the possibility of its existence. As to your specially made analogy, who’s to say the hole was not dug out by someone? Sometimes holes are made to serve a useful purpose and sometimes not, and we have ways we determine whether they were or not.

    Good point, we need to specify exactly what God means. I would assume it would fall under the general category of a Supreme Being, rather than some inferior type being (whatever ideas claim a supreme being above all).

    Here we have common sense again :rolleyes: . If it was so common we’d all agree ;) . However, you make an interesting point, that intricately organized complexity would seem to negate the possibility of its construction by purely natural (commonly observed) forces. I also think it’s a valid point that a human’s self-examination could lead him to conclusions about something beyond and above himself. A person could make the deduction that only complexity begets complexity, since the complexity of the mind is the only thing observed actually creating beyond a certain degree of organized complexity in nature. Thus, only the organized complexity of a supreme mind could account for the organized complexity observed in nature. Sure there is a lot of chaos, as someone pointed out, but this doesn’t explain the degrees of organized complexity we observe that go beyond what chaos could ever seem to produce, even if it only exists in rare amounts relatively.

    I strongly disagree with your claim that there is no logical type of thinking that could induce one to propose the probability of the existence of God being above zero percent. Also, to compare God as an idea equal to observable nature is a logical fallacy. They would not be in the same class. According to our best science observable nature once did not exist, since time cannot exist without matter, and the initial point of the big bang would have no matter or time, hence nothing at all (this is debatable, I admit, but what I consider our best science says is probable). Something that always existed, whatever that something would be, would be incomparable to something that did not always exist. You could argue that observable nature always existed, but that idea seems highly improbable according to much of modern scientific ideas that I have studied.

    What people fight to death over is irrelevant to a rational argument. People have fought to the death over women. Does that make women bad? No, not at all.

    You can claim there is no evidence for God, but ”evidence“ and ”proof“ can have different methods and forms. Different amounts of evidence persuade different people to believe different things. As for a deep-seated psychological need, that is merely one possible explanation among many, and besides, in and of itself, it would prove nothing, as perhaps God would create that need beforehand (chicken or egg—take your pick).

    Well, it is easy to demand proof but hard to prove something. I could ask you to prove 1 + 1 = 2, but what if I said your ”proofs“ weren’t sufficient? Besides, 100% proof is impossible in observable science. Science only deals with probabilities. How could I theoretically prove the existence of God to you, anyway? If it were to be visibly, we could think of many other reasons for some visible aberration, such as hallucinations. If it were to be mentally, who is to say what is a water-tight argument, and what isn’t? Let us not be so flippant in discussing these weighty matters.
     
    #59
  10. simi

    simi Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,929
    Location:
    Laurentia
    re: evolution

    Sorry, didn't read the whole thread, but will later.

    On evolution, which somehows always gets tied up with religion.

    Evolution is not a theory, and does happen. It is true. A good example are dogs. They have "evolved" to the point where we humans have the ability can create new breeds and have them acknowledged for purposes of "contests".

    Humans have evolved too! Today, in general, on average, humans are taller, weigh more, and live a whole lot longer than in centuries past. A lot of this is due to dietary insights, sanitation, and desease prevention.

    However, a dog is still a dog and we are still hommo sapiens. We have not, and never will, "evolve" into an entirely new species.

    I always make the distinction between "evolution" and "darwinism". They are two different things. "Evolution" happens and can be proven to have happened, and continues to occur. "Darwinism" is a theory, and in my personal opinion, a load of basura.

    There is abundant evidence that evolution happens, but not a single provable instance of darwinism, or of one species changing into an entirely different species.
     
    #60
  11. ambro

    ambro Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,307
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    This post is a perfect example of it. You obviously have absolutely no comprehension of evolution whatsoever, so you need to wait until you understand at least the basics of it before talking about it.


    Do you know what a theory is? A theory is something that can be accepted as logical proof (aka the truth) if certain ideas are accepted.

    That means that a theory is basically 100% truth except for one minor detail. In the case of the evolution theory, it is how the big bang occured/where all the material in the universe came from originally.

    And by this definition, religion is also "still only a theory".

    I agreed with your whole post until I read this. We have evolved from previous (now extinct) species. Some of these species include Australopithecus afarensis, Hom0 erectus, etc. Directly, we (Hom0 sapiens sapiens) evolved from Hom0 sapiens neanderthalensis (Neanderthals). They are our most recent ancestors.

    And eventually, Hom0 sapiens sapiens will evolve into another species that is very, very, very similar to us, with a few minor differences, yet enough to make a new species. That is the whole concept of evolution.

    I'd love to go more in depth about this, but I need to go to sleep. I'll probably add another response to this thread soon.

    PS - I wrote it as Hom0 because TW's censor would not allow the use of the word Ho.mo. HAHA! :)
     
    #61
  12. malakas

    malakas Banned

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    15,791
    Location:
    Greece
    Well I didn't read the whole thread yet,too.
    Though simi,only in the last 50 years,there have been 2 proofs,scientific recorded,of evolution in the verges of what you call "darwinism".
    In fact only in the 50 years,the NEW sub-species,which if I remember correctly was species of tuna in a lake in Michigan,could not mate with the mother-species.Only in 50 years.
    Now..imagine in 100 years..or actually with the chronology and time that darwin-theory deals with.
    Everybody started with the same mono-cyte organism in the depths of a dark sea.And now,you have dolphins,cows,chickens,snakes,and..humans..
    The entire era of life in earth,is huge proof of one species evolving and dichotom(ing?) to new one(s).
    Different evolutionary paths.Other succesful,other not.
     
    #62
  13. malakas

    malakas Banned

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    15,791
    Location:
    Greece
    Wonderful post.
    Thank you.:)
    I hope I would read more posts like that.
     
    #63
  14. spaceman_spiff

    spaceman_spiff Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,517
    Location:
    The crappest town in Britain
    Difference Between Evolution and Big Bang

    Ok, I've been reading through a lot of these posts and can tell that a very large number of you did not pay attention in your science classes. The biggest point you are missing is that EVOLUTION AND BIG BANG ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THEORIES.

    Evolution is not a counter-argument to the existence of a god. Darwin grew up in a Christian country and as far as I know was not an atheist. Also, even the Vatican has said that evolution does not conflict with Catholocism. Evolution is not a theory that discusses the origins of the earth or the universe. All it does is try to explain the behaviour of life after the creation of the earth, without trying to argue about how or who created the earth. And for all you who argue against it in overly simplistic methods, evolution does not say that frogs turned into monkeys and monkeys turned into people. Evolution says that life transitioned from single-cell organisms to some multi-cell organisms. Then, those multi-cell organisms grew more and more complex and, over millions and millions of years, very slowly changed into the organisms we see today. However, this is not an argument against the idea that a god created the universe; there is nothing in true evolution theory that argues about anything other than the beginnings and behaviour of life, and it is theoretically possible to have evolution in a world that was created by a god.

    Now, on the other hand, big bang is a theory about the creation of the universe. It tries to show that the universe was not formed by a god and was, in fact, created when a huge mass of matter exploded into a million pieces, with gravity taking over as the main force causing some of this matter to join back together, forming stars, planets, etc., etc. This is really the theory that people who believe in a god should be arguing against, since this theory has less direct evidence and is harder to prove. (It also raises further questions, like who created this large mass of matter that exploded, etc.)

    The main thing that bothers me about the types of arguments here is the ignorance so often common on all sides of the arguments (even the ignorance people show in the very thing for which they are arguing). Please, try to learn more about all sides of the argument before arguing for or against them.

    BTW, here is a short proof of evolution. Every year, we create and administer new forms of flu vaccines, yet every year flu viruses change and even some of those who have been vaccinated catch the flu. Flu viruses are a form of life, a form that is ever changing. The less effective forms of this life die out as they are not able to survive in their environment, while the more effective forms prosper and reproduce. This is what is called evolution. This is not proof for or against the existence of any god, it's just a description of the behaviour of a form of life.

    My final words on this are, please pay more attention in the schools that we spend so much money for us all to attend. It could really do everyone a lot of good.
     
    #64
  15. MordredSJT

    MordredSJT Rookie

    Joined:
    May 10, 2006
    Messages:
    297
    I'm glad that you jumped in and pointed out the difference between cosmology and evolutionary biology, as I was about to do the same in response to what ambro said. However, you might take your own advice about learning and apply it to big bang theory. While your description of it is a good deal better than the others so far in this thread it is not entirely accurate. There was no large mass of matter that exploded. It also makes no comments about whether or not there is a god. Now, one can make some interesting philosophical conclusions based on the fact that there exists an extremely plausible natural explanation for the creation of the universe...but that is not inherent in the theory itself.

    If you wish to integrate big bang theory into a belief system that includes a god, you need only do exactly what you need to do with evolution...the big bang is merely the mechanism by which this god chose to create the universe...just as evolution is the mechanism by which this god chose to create the various forms of life.
     
    #65
  16. slice bh compliment

    slice bh compliment G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,050
    I just need a li'l clarification here, 35ft6.
    Are you talking about Richard Dawkins, that English guy known for his revolutionary evolutionary funkmanship......or Darryl Dawkins, the basketball player from the planet Lovetron? I'm guessing Chocolate Thunder -- 'cause he so eloquently named his every dunk.
     
    #66
  17. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    I agree...spot-on, Pete.
     
    #67
  18. nickybol

    nickybol Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2005
    Messages:
    515
    Evolution is against christianity because it teaches us that Adam and Eva were not the first human being, but that we slowly evolved out of single-celled organisms.
     
    #68
  19. spaceman_spiff

    spaceman_spiff Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,517
    Location:
    The crappest town in Britain
    Good point. I was focusing too much on evolution and I gave an overly simplistic description of the big bang (though I really thought that I had been taught it was a large mass that exploded; I'll check on that). There really is a lot to it that is very interesting.

    As far as big bang contradicting a belief in a god, most of the scientists I have seen that argue for the big bang theory also include the implications it has for the idea of time. They say in very mathematical tones that time began with the big bang, which was like a point zero. Thus, if that is when time began, and mathematically speaking nothing could predate the beginning of time, then there is no point trying to describe what was before then, since in their opinion there is no such thing as "before" the beginning of time.

    Again, this is just the views that I had been taught when learning about the big bang theory. This view on time is a bit hard for me to believe, since I still have a feeling of time being infinite (in both directions), but it is what I have heard from a number of scientists.

    Anyways, I think all of this is just whetting my appetite for some physics/astronomy reading. Mmmmm.
     
    #69
  20. spaceman_spiff

    spaceman_spiff Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,517
    Location:
    The crappest town in Britain
    I suggest that, if you want to continue a belief in Christianity, you do not take a literal belief in what the Old Testament says, because there is just too much evidence to the contrary. If you believe the literal translation, then any evidence that shows the many forms of life on earth that predate human existence will probably cause you major problems.

    In addition to that evidence, there is the simple fact that we can see objects that are millions or even billions of light years away. Now, if you agree that light travels at a certain speed, i.e., it takes time to travel from one point to another, and we can mathematically prove the measurements of the distances to these objects we can see, then you would come to the conclusion that the universe is as old in years as the distance to the most distant object we can see and measure. That is, if the farthest object we can see and measure is 15 billion light years away (a light year is the distance that light travels in a year), then the universe is at least 15 billion years old.

    In order to argue against that, you would have to argue against at least one of many points. First, you could try to argue that light is infinitely fast and does not actually take time to travel from one point to another. This would be quite difficult because of the number of experiments that prove the speed of light. Second, you could try to disprove our entire system of mathematics, but I think that would be even more difficult (too many mathematicians could prove you wrong in that argument). Third, you could try to dispute the measurements. You might have a better chance in this, but the scientists who make these measurements have conducted loads of tests to prove the validity of these, so it would be a tough fight. Fourth, you could try to disprove the theories these measurements are based on (the whole idea of blue shift, red shift, and so on). This might be your best bet, but you would really need to hone your math skills to disprove these theories (I'm talking Stephen Hawking level of math/physics skills here).

    If none of that suits you and you still want to maintain your literal belief of the Old Testament, then you will just have to ignore all forms of evidence that contradict your belief.

    Or, you could accept that the Old Testament was just a story written thousands of years ago to convey the general idea of how the universe was created. This is a belief less on the literal writing of the book and more of the ideas it conveys. This does not require you completely drop your belief in God.
     
    #70
  21. Dopke

    Dopke Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Messages:
    647
    Yes, no doubt there is archaeological evidence of biblical events. My point was in response to "wheres the proof?" and that regardless of the amount of evidence or lack thereof, we are saved by grace through faith, and through faith alone. We are not saved by physical evidence or by what someone says or by archaelogical evidence.

    And as you said, wheres the proof he doesn't exist.

    And no one here is shoving Christianity down other people's throat (atleast I hope not) and same with atheism or darwinism or other religions. I hope that this is just an opportunity for people to discuss what they believe and in turn give everyone a broader perspective.
     
    #71
  22. Bungalo Bill

    Bungalo Bill G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,885
    Yes, science wants to define God. They want to analyze God and be able to put God in their own scientific terms and understanding. But if God is real, how can God reduce Himself to man's rules?

    Anyway, there are other ways to show the Bible's accuracy and facts. We have other sciences and prophecies that are being uncovered and fulfilled all the time.

    The key area to be concerned with is Israel. Israel is now a nation, this starts the time clock of what Daniel spoke about years and years ago. The other aspects to watch is what goes on with Israel. I would have to look it up but I do remember studying that once Israel is brought back together "God" will not allow her enemies to destroy her.

    It was amazing how the 6-day miracle war transpired, Desert Storm and the number of "scud" missles not exploding. Including just the other day a missle was launched and never exploded.

    Coincidence? Maybe if it was taken by itself, but when one studies propehesy, the old testament, and the new testament, it is far from coincidence - something is going on. Something is guiding it.

    Now, when I consider this, I turn to science and see what it is discovering. What I can't help seeing is the intricate design and the intelligence that goes into making the world work together. Everything from the laws of nature to the ecology system. It is uttlerly amazing to see the intelligence in it all. Certainly, someone created this. There is no question in my mind. The question is who? :)
     
    #72
  23. MordredSJT

    MordredSJT Rookie

    Joined:
    May 10, 2006
    Messages:
    297
    The big bang is less of an explosion than it is a rapid expansion...there is a difference. It's kind of like the difference between a balloon being popped and sending little pieces flying off everywhere and a balloon being rapidly inflated. It is not accurate to say that there was a large mass either, because there was no matter in existance at the moment of the big bang. In fact matter as we know it did not come into existance until some point after the initial event when the universe had "cooled" and symmetry breaking began to occur.

    The idea of a big ball of stuff that explodes outward is a gross oversimplification that dates back to the very origins of the big bang theory. It is not really applicable to the theory today.

    Space, time, spacetime...it's difficult to talk about them as unrelated entities in cosmology. The idea of time having a zero point, a beginning at the instant of the big bang is definately something you will run into...but this does not trouble those that believe in a god. The theologians merely reply that their god exists outside of time. Their god is not a part of the universe, is not bound by it, and exists outside of it. That there was no "before" the big bang for us does not matter as a god can exist in a timeless state. No matter how far you push our natural understanding of the universe, even all the way back to the very instant that it began...there is always a way to sneak a god into the show. Being supernatural and very nebulously defined has that advantage.
     
    #73
  24. simi

    simi Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,929
    Location:
    Laurentia
    Reminds me of something that a preacher once told me, (paraphrased and updated).

    Here you have a country that is relatively young, less than 60 years old that is populated by slightly more than 6 million people and surrounded by 280 million arabs who live in fear of that small country are bound and determined to destroy it, but cannot.

    Gives a different twist to the phrase, "the mouse that roared".

    (population sources:
    http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=860
    https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html)
     
    #74
  25. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,827
    The single most common misconception that people have about evolution is

    "It's only a theory."

    Wrong!

    Evolution is a fact and a theory. Confusion arises when this distinction is not recognised. This misconception is expressed regularly in my email, on my message board, and pretty much everywhere else on the internet that the subject is discussed. (This article addresses the issue, partly so I don't have to keep repeating myself on a weekly basis.)

    This misconception invariably arises out of plain ignorance. That is not to say that evolution deniers are generally ignorant people, but when it comes to the subject of evolution they usually have wild misunderstandings about pretty much everything to do with it. A bit of a sweeping generalisation, maybe, but fairly valid as anyone who has had to deal with creationists will tell you. (Many people do have a good depth of knowledge about it, but still choose not to accept it, mostly because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.) When it comes to, say, the history of Thailand, I am certainly ignorant - I know practically nothing about it whatsoever. If I then started sounding off about it, and explaining to someone what I thought about some issue to do with Thailand, my ignorance of the subject would be instantly obvious to anyone who had actually read up on the topic. This does not make me a stupid or ignorant person, but it does expose my misconceptions and lack of basic knowledge - the same applies to many of the people who say "Evolution is only a theory."
    Fact

    Life evolves. That is a fact. One of the simplest definitions of evolution is the change in the frequency of genes in a species over time.

    For example, imagine if you will a rabbit farm high on a mountain. The farmer buys a thousand rabbits, some have longer fur and some have shorter fur - it's a quite mixed group of rabbits. The length of the fur on the rabbits is determined by their genetic makeup. Some have genes for long fur, some for shorter. Now, this farm (or ranch, if you prefer) is in an area that gets extremely cold for most of the year. The rabbits survival depends upon having enough fur to keep them warm. Those with short fur will freeze to death and die (our fictional farmer doesn't have much business sense).

    Because of the situation these unfortunate creatures are in, they are subject to natural selection. There is a selection pressure for longer fur. More baby rabbits are born than can possibly survive in the environment. This is an important part of the process. Their genetic makeup is a determining factor in their survival. Rabbits that die of cold will not pass on their short-fur genes to their offspring (as they won't have any), whereas rabbits with long fur will be more resistant to the cold and therefore much more likely to reproduce, passing on their genes for long fur.

    Over many generations, the farm will consist almost entirely of long-fur rabbits. The frequency of genes for short fur has decreased, and the frequency of genes for long fur has increased. Far fewer short-haired rabbits, and eventually none at all, will be born - their genes will have been lost from the gene-pool.

    Some rabbits may have developed genetic mutations which further increase the length of their fur. These mutations will clearly give those rabbits an advantage in their environment, and those beneficial mutations will spread through the gene pool of the population. Mutations that are detrimental to the survival rate will clearly be lost quickly, as those unfortunate rabbits will have a reduced chance of surviving long enough to mate. In this way, useful mutations stay on in the population. It's a positive feedback loop - this is the second important thing to remember.

    These rabbits have evolved. It's really that simple.

    Evolution is a directly observable phenomenon. There is no debate among scientists as to whether or not evolution occurs, any more than there is debate about the Earth orbiting the Sun. Gene pools change - evolution happens. This is obviously a rather contrived example, but it serves to demonstrate some of the basic principles.

    Now, objectors will say "Ah, but they're still rabbits, aren't they? That's not the same as amphibians turning into reptiles, and then mammals, is it? That still doesn't explain how a human can evolve from an ape-like ancestor, does it?"

    Yes, it does. The change from mixed-fur rabbits to long-fur rabbits (in this example) is often referred to as micro-evolution - a minor change within a species. Larger changes are known as macro-evolution, and take far longer to occur, but the process involved is exactly the same - genes changing over time. It is a cumulative process - the minor changes build up over many generations into major changes. Given time, the descendants of these rabbits could become an entirely novel species of rabbit, and eventually a creature that can no longer be called a rabbit.

    To say that you accept micro-evolution but not macro-evolution is akin to saying that it is possible to walk to the end of your street, but it is somehow impossible to walk to the next town. The process involved, putting one foot in front of the other, a single step at a time, is exactly the same although the end results may be completely different.

    Evolution is a fact. This is not open to debate.
    Theory

    Darwin's Theory Of Evolution is not evolution. In the same way, the theory that the Earth orbits the Sun is not the Earth orbiting the Sun - it is a description and explanation of it.

    The theory of evolution is an explanation of the facts of evolution.

    If nobody had ever developed the theory, it would not change that fact that living things evolve over time - evolution happens whether there is a theory or not.

    Furthermore, Darwin's theory of evolution may be totally, hopelessly and utterly wrong. Even if it were, and Darwin and every biologist who had contributed to the theory since were incorrect, evolution would still exist and continue. Evolution is totally independent of the theory of evolution. The theory is simply an attempt to explain the observed facts of nature that we call "evolution".

    If another theory came along to replace the theory of evolution, it would have to explain the facts at least as well as Darwin's theory has done for the last 150 years. No such replacement has ever been produced.

    If there is a debate or controversy within the scientific community about the theory of evolution, creationists see this as evidence that "evolution is in crisis". Nonsense - it is merely that scientists disagree (often bitterly) over details of the theory of evolution. That evolution actually happens is beyond question, but the theory of evolution is - and always should be, like every other scientific theory - probed, tested and scrutinised. Again, even if the theory were to collapse, that would still not magically disprove evolution or cause species to cease evolving.
    What it is not

    Evolution is not about the origins of life on Earth. Evolution is about the development of living things over time. The study of the origins of life is known as "abiogenesis" and any web search engine will find you many examples of current literature on the subject.

    Evolution is not about the Big Bang theory, nor the formation of the Sun and Earth. These are subjects for cosmology, not biology. Some creationist websites like to put up list of supposedly tricky questions for evolutionists - if you read them carefully you often find lots of questions that actually have nothing at all to do with biological evolution.

    Random. Evolution is often mistakenly compared to "a hurricane blowing through a junkyard and building a fully functional Boeing 747". This is incorrect, as evolution is a very slow, gradual process directed by the actions of natural selection (as shown above in the rabbit farm). Mutations may indeed be random events, but whether or not they remain in the gene pool is certainly not random, as it depends on how those genes affect the creature's survival in the environment. It works as a positive feedback loop.

    Evolution is not about attempting to prove that the Bible, Qu'ran, or any other holy book is false. It is simply the study of living things and how they develop over time. Whether or not that conflicts with a particular interpretation of a particular scripture is not a consideration. There is no conspiracy amongst scientists to disprove the teachings of any of the thousands of religions who happen to make claims about the processes of life.

    Evolution is not about monkeys turning into men, or showing that humans are "merely" animals. Evolution does show that humans developed from an ape-like ancestor, along with other modern apes such as the chimpanzee. We did not develop from apes, but alongside them, in the same way that different branches grow from the same trunk of a tree. The development of humans is one minor aspect of the study of evolution, but most biologists will find more interesting creatures to study.

    http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/factandtheory.html
     
    #75
  26. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,827
    There can be many different forms of a gene. All of the versions of the genes in a population of a species are together called the gene pool. The gene pool does not always stay the same. Over generations, small changes in the amount of each type of gene can happen for a number of reasons.

    * Gene mutation: An error during cell division can create a new type of gene. That new gene is a small part of the gene pool. It can be passed on to the next generation. If the new gene is useful, it might become a common part of the gene pool.
    * Gene flow: if new individuals of the species move into or out of the region, it can affect the gene pool. For instance, the only people in North America were once Native Americans. Immigration from other parts of the world over the last several hundred years has changed the gene pool a lot.
    * Genetic drift: The amount of each gene in a gene pool can change over time because of chance events. For instance, if a few individuals leave a population and establish a new one, by chance their gene pool may not have the same frequency of genes as in the population they left. For example, plants that get to islands as seeds stuck to the feet of birds or in their stomachs may not be typical of their species, but they become the gene pool on the island.
    * Natural selection: Some genetic differences will improve the chance of survival of individuals that have them. For instance, hawks with large sharp talons may be more likely to survive than hawks with small talons. Since the surviving ones make the next generation, the genes for large talons are more likely to be passed on. Eventually, the gene pool shifts towards large talons.

    Microevolution is changes in the gene pool of a population over time that result in changes to the varieties of individuals in a population. Examples of microevolution include bacteria that have become unaffected by antibiotics, or a change in a species' coloring or size. If the changes are over a very long time and are large enough that the population is no longer able to breed with other populations, it is considered a different species. This is called macroevolution.

    http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Life/genetics_microevolution.html

    Observed everywhere and anywhere, at almost any time.
     
    #76
  27. Kaptain Karl

    Kaptain Karl Hall Of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    5,236
    Location:
    The High Country of Colorado
    It also amazes me to read the arguments posed by those so vehemently opposed to Biblical Creationism ... who so obviously know so little *about* the Biblical position.

    Here's a question: If God is able to speak the universe into existence, why can He not also "create" the light enroute to Earth from far distant stars? (IOW, you are trying to "prove" your anti-Biblical views by limiting (the premise of the faithful) that "God is all-powerful.")

    [I'm *not* getting into this debate anymore. I just couldn't resist making an observation or two....]

    - KK
     
    #77
  28. malakas

    malakas Banned

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    15,791
    Location:
    Greece
    No.
    I disaggree very much with that.For me,no OTHER morality is better than any other.
    Every society,civilization has teached its citizens to accept a code of behaviour.Any other is considered weird and wrong.
    I find the morality of...let's say..Iran wrong and the one of MY society better.
    If I had been teached and lived all my life by that moral,I would find MY moral better.
    For me,no morality is better than any else.
     
    #78
  29. MordredSJT

    MordredSJT Rookie

    Joined:
    May 10, 2006
    Messages:
    297
    This is one of the obvious strengths of the theists position in regards to the creation of the universe. An omnipotent being can create the universe in any way it sees fit. This offers great flexibility in regards to fitting observation with whatever version of creation story you happen to be arguing for. Of course, it also raises some interesting philosophical problems. If a god can create the universe with apparent or false signs of age (such as light from distant stars enroute to us), how do I know that a god did not create the universe as it is, with all evidence of its past existance, when I started writing this post? The validity of all past events is thrown up in the air.
     
    #79
  30. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,827
    Makes thing not worth while don't you think?

    The thing is God is all being and all knowing, thus the future has already happend, what you do is not really a choice, there is no reason for judgment or at least no reason for us to play out a cherade like this as the out come is already known.

    You see many times the theist gets traped in their own infinitely broad reasoning.

    Thus the argument is moot, this whole post becomes a cherade, enjoy as people ignore reality and it's logic:mrgreen:
     
    #80
  31. malakas

    malakas Banned

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    15,791
    Location:
    Greece
    Uhm..from what I know,as being a christian,God has given people Free choise.
    That means that future hasn't happened yet.
    We make our own lives.Our future.
     
    #81
  32. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,827
    Very insightful, and make a note that these people's religion teaches them not to do the very thing they do everyday and that many of their churches are based on.

    Realise that Jesus was a comunist, and belived that any thing that you had that was not a necessity was a sin and needs to be given away or made so that it can benefit those that need it.

    Yet here we are with poverty, no health care, coruption of every goverment around the world ect.

    Don't ever ever let anyone con you into believing that they are more moral than you, as saying so is hipocritical.



    Further more do realise that there are many complex animal societies that live in better peace than us and they know nothing of no god.

    Top it off with evil does not exist with humans yada yada yada.

    I came to the conclusion to just live my life and not be an extremists living in blance as Buddha suggested
     
    #82
  33. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,827

    See there is a conundrum there then, if god is all knowing he knows all that has been and ever will be, furhter more if god is all being he must then be everything which would make you and I both part of god.
     
    #83
  34. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,827
    We once lived in a world controlled by holy books from the Americas all the way to the Arabs, there was no science and everything had to go through the church.

    Do you know what this time peroid was called? The dark ages, don't forget the multiple crusades.


    I challenge anyone to live with out science for one day, good luck
     
    #84
  35. malakas

    malakas Banned

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    15,791
    Location:
    Greece
    Hm..the way I think of it how about many multiple possible realities?
    (LOL..yeah..I know too much Dune..:cool: )

    All being?But is the creation a part of the creator?
    I quess the answer is dhete(?).Yes and no.
    You are a part of your creator but you are also an independent creation.
    But,that's more philosophical than theological question..;)
     
    #85
  36. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,827
    That is the thing, it is indeed writen that that is the FACTS as writen by the holy books.

    So you have 3 types of people

    #1They belive their belief, religion, holy book, ect is 100% law/fact
    #2 They belive that it has many good things to fallow, but only fallow the ones they like/believe in the ones they like
    #3 Think that our world are based on the facts that we depend on just to live in this world, also believe that we don't know enough to come to a conclusion, but know that things are magical and thus many of the things these people/books say are just stories.
     
    #86
  37. malakas

    malakas Banned

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    15,791
    Location:
    Greece
    I think that's a bit too simplified isn't it?;)

    People evolve and change.I don't think that it's right to label someone about faith.You can change what you believe in,as you learn more,discover or even through life...
     
    #87
  38. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,827
    of course, but at any one tme you will fit one of those thee described.

    life is simple only humans make it complicated
     
    #88
  39. malakas

    malakas Banned

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    15,791
    Location:
    Greece
    Hm..OR
    life is complicated..AND Only humans,have the abillity to understand it's complexity!;)
     
    #89
  40. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,827

    not really everything in the universe has two things in comon the are born and they die
     
    #90
  41. malakas

    malakas Banned

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    15,791
    Location:
    Greece
    that would be correct..IF you knew about the life-spans of EVERY living creature on earth.And..IF you knew about the existence and life-span of other (possible) creatures outside of earth!
    You see,our knowledge about the animal kingdom is mush less than we tend to believe.
     
    #91
  42. tennis-n-sc

    tennis-n-sc Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,261
    What an intellectual and true statement. Of course, it is what occurs in between the being born and the dying that makes us what we are. Obviously, you are missing this part, just sitting around waiting on the dying part. You, sir, are missing the most important part of our existence. Very sad, indeed.
     
    #92
  43. 35ft6

    35ft6 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    6,557
    Does "time" die? What about the universe itself?
     
    #93
  44. malakas

    malakas Banned

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    15,791
    Location:
    Greece
    time and universe...
    How can they die if they do not live???
    Or..according to the widely accepted definition of life WE have created..they don't.;)
     
    #94
  45. Dunlopkid

    Dunlopkid Guest


    And WHY has every society and civilization taught it's citizens to accept a code of behavior? Because they believe THEIR code of behavior will further their society BETTER than someone else's. They believe their code is better. They believe it is better to be civilized than to be barbaric. The Real Morality jumps up in the middle again.
     
    #95
  46. Bungalo Bill

    Bungalo Bill G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,885
    Taken from God and Science http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html

    Did Albert Einstein Believe in a Personal God?
    by Rich Deem


    I get a fair amount of e-mail about Albert Einstein's quote on the homepage of Evidence for God from Science, so I thought it would be good to clarify the matter. Atheists object to the use of the quote, since Einstein might best be described as an agnostic. Einstein himself stated quite clearly that he did not believe in a personal God:

    "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

    So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

    "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

    It is the second part of the quote that reveals the reason Einstein rejected the existence of a personal God. Einstein compared the remarkable design and order of the cosmos and could not reconcile those characteristics with the evil and suffering he found in human existence. How could an all-powerful God allow the suffering that exists on earth?

    Einstein's failure to understand the motives of God are the result of his incorrect assumption that God intended this universe as His ultimate perfect creation. Einstein could not get past the moral problems that are present in our universe. He assumed, as most atheists do, that a personal God would only create a universe which is both good morally and perfect physically. However, according to Christianity, the purpose of the universe is not to be morally or physically perfect, but to provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. It would not be possible to make this choice in a universe in which all moral choices are restricted to only good choices. Einstein didn't seem to understand that one could not choose between good and bad if bad did not exist. It's amazing that such a brilliant man could not understand such a simple logical principle.

    These days, those who fail to understand the purpose of evil not only reject the concept of a personal God, but also reject the concept of God's existence altogether. If you are an agnostic or atheist, my goal for you would be to recognize what Albert Einstein understood about the universe - that its amazing design demands the existence of a creator God. Then, go beyond Einstein's faulty understanding of the purpose of the universe and consider the Christian explanation for the purpose of human life and why evil must exist in this world.
     
    #96
  47. Dunlopkid

    Dunlopkid Guest

    Right on, BB.
     
    #97
  48. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    I'd rather stay out of the theological issues in this thread, but, Bill, you give God a lot of credit, and very little to the Israeli people and their skill at defending themselves against their enemies. That's not fair to them.

    The "6-Day Miracle" was only a miracle for those Arabs who managed to survive the Israel attack. Israel is are surrounded by enemies, but enemies who have never proven themselves able to get past the petty bickering and prejudices among themselves and truely unify against Israel. Even if they could, there's not guarantee that they could defeat a seasoned, disciplined, highly trained and well-armed war machine. That is no "miracle"-it is the vigillance of Israel. That is why they have, again and again, defeated their enemies.

    Secondly, A LOT of SCUD's exploded in Israel, but as with any weapons system that is based on WW II technology and has been sitting in a desert warehouse or storage facility for years, there will be duds. If you fire enough missles, some are going to be duds-that's not God's hand...that's man's.

    It's easy to attribute to God every event that "goes your way" or falls in line with your beliefs, but if you had even a smidgeon of knowledge about Middle East politics, society and warfare, you'd probably make more responsible statements (not meant as a flame, just, as I see it, the reality of what you posted). It's way too easy to cover one's ignorance on an issue or an event with the all-encompassing explanation that "It's God's work." This is why religion is a lot easier and less taxing on the brain than actually knowing something. I'm ignorant too, on MOST subjects, but if I have the time, I'd rather try to understand what I don't know than just shrugging and saying that God will take care of it.

    Give Israel and its people a little more credit, just as you, as an American, would do for your own country and people.
     
    #98
  49. malakas

    malakas Banned

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    15,791
    Location:
    Greece
    Because otherwise it would be an-archy.Every society has it's moral rules.the approved behaviour.Moral.
    Barbaric?
    do you know what barbaric really means?
    <<Πας μη έλλην,βάρβαρος εστί>>
    Now..of course has changed..but it can give a pretty good pic of how subjective that adjective is.
    To call someone or a moral barbaric is.. as subjective as possible..
     
    #99
  50. malakas

    malakas Banned

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    15,791
    Location:
    Greece
    Exactly.
     

Share This Page