PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Religon Debates
     Why do people deny god
       such as in materialistic evolution?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
serp

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

For some it is a matter of pride.  If god is close enough to uphold the workings of atoms, cells, planets, and galaxies then why allow people to be treated - as they are in the world - as slaves?  The tension between the outward and inward person is unbearable to some because of pride.

For others this tension is unbearable because they are spiritual weaklings.  They are such inward slaves to darkness that they take a subconscious perverse satisfaction in denying and shaming the truth.

Finally, some have been so indoctrinated in an environment of deception that old patterns of thinking do not fall away easily.  


-------
All truth is found within the
healthy soul.
 


Posts: 48 | Posted: 12:52 PM on March 15, 2006 | IP
314

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Many see no need for a god. They feel there is no evidence for God's existence, and they feel there are no mysteries that cannot be explained without religion. Many of these people deny the existence of God for the same reason that you might deny the existence of a purple space monster that lives on the dark side of the moon and uses magical mind rays to boil the water in teapots in England. Sure, it's possible (remember, the monster is magic), but there's no convincing reason to believe it.

Of course, this whole topic depends on how you define 'god'. I realize that the above example is most analogous to specific religious mythology rather than the more abstract question of the existence of a 'god' figure. I provided that example since religious mythology is the aspect of religion that atheists tend to deny most strongly, and the absurdity of certain myths leads many people to doubt deeper aspects of religion. Someone might deny god because they disbelieve the specific teachings of  specific religions.

My question for you is why believe in God? I, like most people, choose to only believe in things I have a reason to believe. The burden of 'proof' is thus on people who claim God exists.

Of course, the topic asks "why do people deny god" and I have primarily responded to why people don't believe in god. I think you'll find that most atheists, when pressed, will not deny that god exists. Rather they will claim that it's impossible to completely 'prove' or 'disprove' the existence of 'god', but they think god's existence is very 'unlikely', so they choose not to 'believe' in god. (I decided to use lots of quotes (' ') since all these words are rather ambiguous and mean different things to different people.)

(Edited by 314 3/16/2006 at 05:53 AM).
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 05:32 AM on March 16, 2006 | IP
serp

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I beg to differ with you that there is no evidence for the need of god (or at least a higher invisible intelligence).  There is indirect evidence for that need based on the statistical impossibility of mechanistic evolution.  Refer to the thread "The reality of spirit/the absurdity of evolution" to examine my position on this issue and respond there if you like.

There are specific emotional reasons both conscious and unconscious that I gave originally concerning the nature of god in the world which elicit vehement denials in some concerning the necessity of a higher intelligence in life processes.  There are also circumstantial reasons such as indoctrination which may encourage denial of the necessity of a higher intelligence.

As to why I believe in god, see the thread "The spirit and light of Jesus Christ" for an extended explanation of why I believe.


-------
All truth is found within the
healthy soul.
 


Posts: 48 | Posted: 3:22 PM on March 16, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I beg to differ with you that there is no evidence for the need of god (or at least a higher invisible intelligence).  There is indirect evidence for that need based on the statistical impossibility of mechanistic evolution.  Refer to the thread "The reality of spirit/the absurdity of evolution" to examine my position on this issue and respond there if you like.


Any problems associated with the Theory of Evolution have absolutely nothing to do with one's belief in God. A form of naturally-occuring life that is less complex than cells with nucleic acid could have occured and prospered long enough to create the form of life we know of today. (Edit: By that I do not mean the life evolved into life found on earth, but that it planted it here.) Further, I do not speak for everyone, but I have very little doubt that the word "God" implies more than just a supernatural force--but a being who thinks and makes decisions. Whether a supernatural being is required as opposed to merely a supernatural force that acts unintelligently, is a difference no one will ever conclude in this world. So, in other words, no, problems with a scientific explanation are by no means 'indirect evidence' toward anything of the contrary, the same way that a jury only aquits the defendant--they do not find him innocent.

There are specific emotional reasons both conscious and unconscious that I gave originally concerning the nature of god in the world which elicit vehement denials in some concerning the necessity of a higher intelligence in life processes.


That statement is speculative to an extreme degree, and it's not even taking into account the fact that people can still have completely materialistic viewpoints without denying the possibility of the existence of a god whatsoever. I, for lack of a better example, do not deny the possibility that a god could exist. I nonetheless accept scientific explanations for how the world works, but you will receive no vehement denial of any sort from me, nor any other agnostic who knows what their perspective entails.

There are also circumstantial reasons such as indoctrination which may encourage denial of the necessity of a higher intelligence.


That's a much more logical inference, but once again, the words you chose did not necessarily apply. Denial of an organized religion doesn't forfeit any belief in a higher power, and it especially does not line up with a denial of a god. As for the necessity of a higher intelligence... you once more overlook the millions of people on this planet who are devoutly religious yet accept materialistic explanations for how the world works. There are people who, even though religious, do not believe that the existence of a god is at all necessary to the maintenance of life.




(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 3/17/2006 at 02:53 AM).

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 3/17/2006 at 02:54 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 02:52 AM on March 17, 2006 | IP
zerocool_12790

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Serp,

There are of course an innumerable amount of reasons why people choose to deny God. (I'm going to assume you are specifically referring to the God of the Christian/Jewish Bible).

Now I realize that the reasons people choose to deny God not only depends on age, sex, and race, but also on the era and culture they grow up in. I will list some of the more practical and common reasons why I personally believe people deny God referring specifically to people in America.

1. Most people just don't care. It's true, most people don't care about the issue of God. They care more about their current needs and problems such as earning money, feeding their children, and surviving. So these type of people don't really care about belief in God because they don't see how having that "belief" will put food on the table.

2. A lot of people grew up in traditional Catholic homes where the parents were harsh and strict and beat "religion" into their kids (not physically) and sternly commanded strict adherence to "no sex," "go to Church," "do this and don't do that." Of course when the children got old enough they completely rebelled, ditched Church, immediately started having lots of sex, hated religion, and cared only about the pleasures of this life.

3. Self-denial. A lot of people whether consciously or unconsciously deny that God exists and use lots of excuses to validate their denial. This is of course the position the NT holds in reference to how people willfully choose to deny God even though He clearly manifests Himself in the things that are seen (a.k.a. The universe, earth).

4. Sin is fun. If it wasn't people wouldn't do it. People like the temporary (and fleeting) high of sin. They of course gloss over and choose to deny the inevitable consequences (death, suffering, pain, etc.). But regardless, sin is quite tempting and it pays off (if only temporarily) and believing in God would mean they'd have to stop. Who would want to do that?

5. Pop-culture. "Rational," "civilized," and "educated" minds have persuaded our culture, which inevitably persuaded our media, (which in turn persuaded our culture even more), that there is no absolute right or wrong, and that all of us are free to do what we "feel" is right and wrong. Once you take away absolute right and wrong God becomes a rather huge contradiction, and no one likes believing in a contradiction. If there are no absolutes, then God is not "the" truth. Anything can be the truth, and these types of people believe all roads lead to Rome.

6. Finally I think some people think belief in God is unnecessary. Modern science has "removed the need for God". Science is the end-all be-all of truth. Science has given us the ability to stop plagues and diseases, grow abundant amounts of food, and invent a "satisfying" theory on origins. We are now "enlightened" and have "evolved" past the need for the ancient "savage" and "simple" idea of God. Who needs God when man can do anything he wants?

These are merely my opinions but I suspect it's more true than not (I've met enough people who fit all those categories to say so). I'm sure you knew some of these already but I hoped this helped.


best wishes,



zerocool_12790


-------
---There is a common belief rapidly spreading, which states that scientists are unquestionably ethical and objective. This is a gross myth that must be stopped before scientists claim it’s true.
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 06:07 AM on March 17, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In brief, I at least partly agree with number's 1, 2, 5 and 6.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 5:08 PM on March 17, 2006 | IP
serp

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To zerocool: thanks for rounding out my harder edges.  I tend to be rather militant on these forums  concerning creationism because we are in a minority position when it comes to "scientific viewpoints."  Partly because of my personality, I see these forums as war zones in which the love of Christ has little opportunity to manifest itself in softer tones.  I was trying to give a taste for a more "universal law of denial" if such a thing exists.  Many people I suspect have been confronted with the reality that to follow Christ, i.e. to be meek, lowly, honest, means to suffer in the world.  I proposed that this is the heart center for conscious and unconscious denial of Christ.  I want to be clear that it is better to deny God outright than to say you believe in Christ but do not follow him.  I have been doing more research on "the mark," and I believe it is related to the hardened use of the name of Christ and the perversion of the example of Christ.  I will hopefully update the thread I did on the mark soon.

To Entwick: I may respond in the "Reality of spirit..." thread when I get a chance.  This I will say here:  for a Christian given the knowledge of the truth ("to whom much is given, of him shall much be required") belief in an invisible intelligence, i.e. God, in the upholding of life is necessary.  If a "Christian" disagrees with this, they live in darkness.  "...that they should seek God, if they might feel and find him, though he be not far from every one of us.  For in him we live, move and have our being..."


-------
All truth is found within the
healthy soul.
 


Posts: 48 | Posted: 3:14 PM on March 18, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


To Entwick: I may respond in the "Reality of spirit..." thread when I get a chance.  This I will say here:  for a Christian given the knowledge of the truth ("to whom much is given, of him shall much be required") belief in an invisible intelligence, i.e. God, in the upholding of life is necessary.  If a "Christian" disagrees with this, they live in darkness.  "...that they should seek God, if they might feel and find him, though he be not far from every one of us.  For in him we live, move and have our being..."


Those citations do not show any need to belief God is required for the very maintanence of our world, though. All Christians will agree that to be a Christian, you must have loyalty to and faith in God, but where in the Bible does it say God is the one responsible for making the beach ball fall back down to earth every time someone hits it over the net? In a computer, the mechanics allow it to sustain itself. The creator of the computer is not constantly reworking wires, feeding power, and working on all the computer programs.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 9:42 PM on March 18, 2006 | IP
serp

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 9:42 PM on March 18, 2006 :

Those citations do not show any need to belief God is required for the very maintanence of our world, though. All Christians will agree that to be a Christian, you must have loyalty to and faith in God, but where in the Bible does it say God is the one responsible for making the beach ball fall back down to earth every time someone hits it over the net? In a computer, the mechanics allow it to sustain itself. The creator of the computer is not constantly reworking wires, feeding power, and working on all the computer programs.



I never said there weren't mechanistic structures and processes in the universe.  I wrote a thread on scaled spiritual systems which expresses my position on this.  I disagree that the above citation (and others like it) doesn't imply that the universe's continuance (as well as each individual's) depends upon God's hierarchy of spirits and supervising intelligent input.


-------
All truth is found within the
healthy soul.
 


Posts: 48 | Posted: 11:56 PM on March 18, 2006 | IP
zerocool_12790

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

EntwickelnCollin,

You wrote:
"...but where in the Bible does it say God is the one responsible for making the beach ball fall back down to earth every time someone hits it over the net?"

Nowhere in the Bible does it specifically mention God's participation in the motion of beach balls, but, the Bible does mention God's power in the universe that would essentially include God's involvement with the beach ball and it's motion. Three passages from the NKJV come to mind:

1. Colossians 1:15-17,
He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist [cohere, are held together].

2. Hebrews 1:1-3,
God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son [Jesus], whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high...

3. John 5:17,
But Jesus answered them, "My Father [God] has been working until now, and I have been working."

Now I listed all the verses so you can look them up and see if my interpretation is true but from these verses it appears that Jesus (who is God) holds all things together, meaning everything in the entire universe according to 1. Jesus also upholds all things by His power, meaning He maintains and sustains everything in the entire universe according to 2. And finally according to the 3rd one in the passage the religious authorities are angry with Jesus because He healed someone on the Sabbath. Since the Sabbath was the day God "rested" no one was supposed to do any work (including healing people). Jesus implies that God never really did stop working, that even on the seventh day of creation where God "rested," He still continued to "work" by maintaining and sustaining everything in the universe. Jesus affirms that God currently continues to sustain the universe.

So to answer your question, the Bible does indeed state that God is actively involved in upholding the universe. Though I personally believe that God largely set up the universe to operate under physical laws (gravity, nuclear-weak, nuclear-strong, motion, etc.) God still cannot help but continue to hold all things together by His power since the universe is dependent on Him, if anything, on a very deep level which we cannot see. This of course is all based on faith but your question was whether the Bible states if God affects beach ball motion. Though the motion is easily explained by the laws God has set up, He never-the-less is still the one who makes sure those laws continue to operate. By faith I truly believe that if God removed His active sustaining power from us and our universe, everything would immediately fall apart. (And I'm referring to something more than just entropy since that exists already).

Hope this answered your indirect question.

best wishes,


zerocool_12790


-------
---There is a common belief rapidly spreading, which states that scientists are unquestionably ethical and objective. This is a gross myth that must be stopped before scientists claim it’s true.
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 06:50 AM on March 19, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Hope this answered your indirect question.


It does. Thank you for looking in the Bible for those requested citations, too.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 08:43 AM on March 19, 2006 | IP
serp

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Zerocool:

**** Beginning of edit

Though I thought at one point that the father supplied the most elemental glue to the spirit structures of the word, I no longer believe this and so hereby confess and correct my error.  I outline my present understanding of the roles of father, son, and holy ghost as follows:

The father: the infinite source of all spirit, the overstretching watcher, the first source of inspiration and light.

The word: the source of all spirit structures and differentiated spirits in the father which is infinite (this means the word is also the "glue" which holds structures together.)

The holy ghost: the helper and refresher of the word as a spirit.

*** end of edit

The center of my battle with Entwick is whether spirit is at all involved in the intelligent operations of the universe above the lowest levels such as with "micro-evolution."



(Edited by serp 7/19/2007 at 01:24 AM).


-------
All truth is found within the
healthy soul.
 


Posts: 48 | Posted: 09:44 AM on March 20, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The center of my battle with Entwick is whether spirit is at all involved in the intelligent operations of the universe above the lowest levels such as with "micro-evolution."


No no, this was not what concerned me in your thread we had that feud in. You claimed that both Evolution and Intelligent Design are not science. I argued that the ToE is science, and furthered the position that ID is not science.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 9:51 PM on March 20, 2006 | IP
serp

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Though I doubt you don't understand the intent of what I am saying, let me re-word:

The center of my battle with Entwick is whether spirit (some invisible intelligence) is at all necessary in the intelligent operations of the universe above the lowest levels such as with "micro-evolution."


-------
All truth is found within the
healthy soul.
 


Posts: 48 | Posted: 2:01 PM on March 21, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't think of myself as not believing in a god.  i don't have beliefs that aren't direct relations to the world around me.  this idea of a god has no real definition.  we can say that a god is a creator of all the universe, but that still doesn't explain what god is, it only describes him through an association.  this is a major fallacy in religions because everyone interprets a different god.  to me, god is time, cause & effect, universal constants, the fundamental force upon which all interaction is determined.

i think organized religions like christianity and islam and judaism create an idea of a weak god.  their god is constrained by so many things, as you can see reading the bible.  his creation is not even described.  religion tells us nothing about universal interactions, but tells us much about human interaction.

yet, at the same time, scriptures like the bible can be interpreted metaphorically to relate accurately to physical truths.  whether on purpose or not, people have found scientific information (provable after interpretation, but unprovable as to whether it was intended that way) from examining the bible and the koran, as well as other scriptures.  personally, i would like to attribute this to the ingenuity of man rather than a vague and abstract presumed entity.

my main problem with organized religions, as well as the general populous of civilization, is that they do not notice that all language is a metaphor, and so automatically the bible is completely metaphorical.  this is especially true since almost 2 millenia ago, when the bible was written, human language was even more vague and metaphorical.  it was more common that words were recognized by context and tone, things that were different back then than today.  the best way to find the truth is to look for as many ways to describe the same thing as you can, not to look as as many things as you can from the same perspective.

i think that the relatively recent spread of scientific thinking is partly in passive retaliation to what i have been describing, if only subconsciously.  science is based on data, information that is as objective as can be, constrained only by an individual's disassociation from their bias.  its like a new form of language, one that isn't nearly as metaphorical as our everyday language.  it is based on math; logic, statistics, natural interactions of quantities.  science is a way of more accurately conveying ideas and interactions that we have observed.  it is a method of thinking of these interactions such that we are better able to figure out how they work.

i think a theist would say that i don't believe in a god, but i would say that the theist doesn't know or even try to know what god really is.  i think that theology doesn't question its own beliefs enough.  in every thing there is always room for change.  there are so many differing views and opinions in science, it is constantly changing, but it religion there is always an orthodox--a strict belief that one must adhere to without a doubt.  you could say that science has something like this too, but there is a difference.  in science this orthodoxy is based on universal constant, something that anyone can observe for themselves.  in religion the orthodoxy is based on interpretation of literature and assumptions based on these interpretations.

i have never observed any evidence of something, living or not, that could not be logically explained by cause and effect.  i believe that if there were a god like the one said to exist in the bible, then he would have set forces to work in the universe just as science theorizes.  or perhaps his interaction with the universe is dirctly through these forces, including evolution.  the mere fact that these forces working on living and non-living thins should be evidence enough that they are the main causes of change in our universe.  whether it is god or not doesn't matter, what matters is how these forces work and trying to understand them.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 12:12 PM on April 3, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i believe that if there were a god like the one said to exist in the bible, then he would have set forces to work in the universe just as science theorizes.  or perhaps his interaction with the universe is dirctly through these forces, including evolution.  the mere fact that these forces working on living and non-living thins should be evidence enough that they are the main causes of change in our universe.

Although we disagree at a fundmental level as to what God is (or how weak he is), I do agree with you on the above snippet.  The only difference I have on this point is my view of mutation verses evolution.  I still have to admit that it was a very well thought out post and, as you are describing your viewpoint, I have absolutely nothing to argue.  It makes me a little sad.  



-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 5:16 PM on April 3, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 5:16 PM on April 3, 2006 :
i believe that if there were a god like the one said to exist in the bible, then he would have set forces to work in the universe just as science theorizes.  or perhaps his interaction with the universe is dirctly through these forces, including evolution.  the mere fact that these forces working on living and non-living thins should be evidence enough that they are the main causes of change in our universe.

Although we disagree at a fundmental level as to what God is (or how weak he is), I do agree with you on the above snippet.  The only difference I have on this point is my view of mutation verses evolution.  I still have to admit that it was a very well thought out post and, as you are describing your viewpoint, I have absolutely nothing to argue.  It makes me a little sad.  




thanks, i'm glad to hear agreement.  in retrospect, i think i was really fumbling around for words when saying that organized religions' god is weak.  i dont think i meant it like it came across.  i think i meant that many people don't think on as grand a scale as a lot of scientists and other analytical thinkers and because of this they try to describe god's creation through metaphors that aren't even as impressive as what is theorized to happen in science.  in short, what i meant was that, to me, scientific theory presents a much more impressive development of the universe than what religion assumes.  its more awe-inspiring and... i guess more real to me.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 09:21 AM on April 4, 2006 | IP
zerocool_12790

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

RoyLennigan,

I'm unaware of the Bible using any "metaphors" when describing the creation account in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. Would you please enlighten me on these abundant metaphors that the Bible uses in Genesis 1 and 2?

You wrote:
"...scientific theory presents a much more impressive development of the universe than what religion assumes.  its more awe-inspiring and... i guess more real to me."

God stating that He merely needed to "speak" things into existence and it was so, is infinitely more impressive than anything science has come up with. Let's compare shall we?

-On the one hand we have God's version of creation where He states that He commands and makes things happen by His very will. He speaks, and it is so. His immeasurable power is unmatched by anything, and all creation was designed by the most intelligent being that will ever exist. All things are beatifully designed and infinitely complex because it was created by intelligence.

-Then on the other hand we have the science version: a tiny singularity with imeasurable heat and energy was brought into existence by unknown forces expanded by unknown forces and cooled, at which point particles started to form and matter gained the advantage over anti-matter by unknown processes at which point these particles became hydrogen atoms that then combined by unknown forces to coalesce to form a star by unknown forces and then galaxies formed by unknown forces and then our solar system was created by unknown forces. Then a stroke of luck happened! Just the right amino acids for life were formed by unknown forces and mysteriously combined by unknown forces to form proteins by unknown processes, several thousand different proteins were all created at the same time by the same unknown processes to form the first DNA molecule against ridiculous odds. But that's not all! Miraculously at the same time the very first cell formed by unknown forces and against all rational thought, instead of this cell, and this DNA, being created on opposite sides of the world, it just so happens that they are both created at the same time, right next to each other, and they are completely compatible which occured by unknown forces. They team up and combine for unknown reasons. The DNA in this cell then replicates itself and mutates over time increasing in genetic information by unknown forces and through the incredible mysterious forces of the universe evolve and change until we arrive and find ourselves staring at this computer screen and questioning whether this is really a better explanation than Genesis 1+2.

But whatever's more "real" to you bro.

best wishes,


zerocool_12790


-------
---There is a common belief rapidly spreading, which states that scientists are unquestionably ethical and objective. This is a gross myth that must be stopped before scientists claim it’s true.
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 06:06 AM on April 5, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 06:06 AM on April 5, 2006 :
RoyLennigan,

I'm unaware of the Bible using any "metaphors" when describing the creation account in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. Would you please enlighten me on these abundant metaphors that the Bible uses in Genesis 1 and 2?

yes, its called written language.

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 06:06 AM on April 5, 2006 :You wrote:
"...scientific theory presents a much more impressive development of the universe than what religion assumes.  its more awe-inspiring and... i guess more real to me."

God stating that He merely needed to "speak" things into existence and it was so, is infinitely more impressive than anything science has come up with. Let's compare shall we?

that would be your opinion.  to me, its a cop out just to say that god merely spoke and something was fully formed.  it does not explain how it was formed, or for what specific purpose.  science explains everything as fully as possible.  it is based on the idea that nothing should be left ambiguous.

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 06:06 AM on April 5, 2006 :-On the one hand we have God's version of creation where He states that He commands and makes things happen by His very will. He speaks, and it is so. His immeasurable power is unmatched by anything, and all creation was designed by the most intelligent being that will ever exist. All things are beatifully designed and infinitely complex because it was created by intelligence.

-Then on the other hand we have the science version: a tiny singularity with imeasurable heat and energy was brought into existence by unknown forces expanded by unknown forces and cooled, at which point particles started to form and matter gained the advantage over anti-matter by unknown processes at which point these particles became hydrogen atoms that then combined by unknown forces to coalesce to form a star by unknown forces and then galaxies formed by unknown forces and then our solar system was created by unknown forces. Then a stroke of luck happened! Just the right amino acids for life were formed by unknown forces and mysteriously combined by unknown forces to form proteins by unknown processes, several thousand different proteins were all created at the same time by the same unknown processes to form the first DNA molecule against ridiculous odds. But that's not all! Miraculously at the same time the very first cell formed by unknown forces and against all rational thought, instead of this cell, and this DNA, being created on opposite sides of the world, it just so happens that they are both created at the same time, right next to each other, and they are completely compatible which occured by unknown forces. They team up and combine for unknown reasons. The DNA in this cell then replicates itself and mutates over time increasing in genetic information by unknown forces and through the incredible mysterious forces of the universe evolve and change until we arrive and find ourselves staring at this computer screen and questioning whether this is really a better explanation than Genesis 1+2.


yes, pretty much, except for the fact that none of those were caused by 'unknown forces'  we know much of what directly caused each step you stated.  also, you said that there were "ridiculous  odds" for some of the things forming, particularly life.  for one, they are not odds when every event preceding it was direct cause and effect; i mean to say that the formation of life is a result of an almost infinite chain of events such that life was inevitable at the very time that it first formed.  the idea of randomness derives solely from our inability to comprehend the complexity of some processes.  things that are random are static noise, or the roll of a dice; even then it can be linked to specific causes.  processes are not random.

look at it like this:
you shuffle a deck of cards and lay them out one by one, writing down what each card is.  look the order of the cards you dealt.  The probability that those cards would come up in that exact order is about 1 in 10^68.  And yet you did it on the first try, imagine that!

i am more in awe of discovering how light is diffracted through glass, or angular momentum around a revolving sphere, or the forces of electromagnetism, gravity, strong and weak.  these things let me understand the interactions that occur everday around me.  they help me understand the experience i constantly gain.

genesis explains next to nothing to me.  it doesn't explain interactions of our environment.  it doesn't tell me how god was able to form the universe, and from what.  it doesn't tell me where god himself came from.  i do have to say, though, that the bible can be a good guideline for human morality and dealing with conflict.



(Edited by RoyLennigan 4/5/2006 at 1:20 PM).

(Edited by RoyLennigan 4/5/2006 at 1:21 PM).

(Edited by RoyLennigan 4/5/2006 at 10:25 PM).
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 12:28 PM on April 5, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

double post

(Edited by RoyLennigan 4/5/2006 at 1:19 PM).
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 1:19 PM on April 5, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

look at it like this:
you shuffle a deck of cards and lay them out one by one, writing down what each card is.  look the order of the cards you dealt.  The probability that those cards would come up in that exact order is about 1 in 10^68.  And yet you did it on the first try, imagine that!


That's one of the best examples I've seen offered on the subject.  (No one worry, I'm not turning into an evolutionist, just giving credit where due).


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 1:27 PM on April 5, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 1:27 PM on April 5, 2006 :
[b]That's one of the best examples I've seen offered on the subject.  (No one worry, I'm not turning into an evolutionist, just giving credit where due).


thanks, i can't take full credit, i saw someone on another forum give this example, i just paraphrased from memory.  but it really is a good way of conveying that idea.  i really respect your ability to agree while disagreeing.  its people like you that make me believe that religion and science are not inherently conflicting.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 10:23 PM on April 5, 2006 | IP
zerocool_12790

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

RoyLennigan,

Metaphor: a figure of speech containing an implied comparison, in which a word or phrase ordinarily and primarily used of one thing is applied to another.

Language: a system of vocal sounds and combinations of such sounds to which meaning is attributed, used for the expression or communication of thoughts and feelings, as well as the written representation of such a system

I fail to see how you answered my question asking where all the metaphors you claimed in Genesis 1+2 were by answering, “yes, its called written language.” This did not answer my question. Language is not a metaphor. Metaphors are applied using language. Either you’re confused or too lazy to look up the definitions of the words you use. In any event my question still remains, either show me these metaphors, or retract your claim.

I was quite amazed at the duplicity of your analogy where you calculated the odds of randomly choosing cards and laying them down. At first it appears that you are correct in your calculations and that life is not only possible, but very probable. And that would have worked just fine, except that your entire reasoning is based on an assumption, that there's no such thing as randomness. You of course fail to substantiate that initial assumption of yours and in fact use your assumption to prove that your assumption is correct. Bravo!

The problem with your initial assumption is that you believe all outcomes have equal probability of happening. But nothing could be further from the truth! The probability of life isn’t the same as the probability for non-life. That’s because we are looking for a specific pattern in order for life to exist.
Example: Let’s say that we have 52 cards in a deck (no jokers). Lets say the exact pattern of cards for life to exist is that all the cards you pick at random must be in sequential order and all of the suits must be in the order of spades, hearts, diamonds, and clubs. If you want the exact probability of achieving that at random I’ll tell you but the number is very large with many zeros after it. Now let’s contrast that against the odds of any random mix of the cards. If I shuffle a deck and then lay out all the cards it appears that I will get a random mixture of them. Some might be paired, there might be some groups of the same suit, but what’s important to notice is that it’s fairly randomized (meaning no set pattern). Now if I perform this exercise 10 times I will find that 10 out of 10 times I will have a random mix of the cards. (random meaning any combination but the one needed for life that we chose). The error in your logic here is that you think that all possibilities (including our very specific combination for life) are equal, when in fact what we really see is that the probability of a jumbled mix are practically 100% to happen, whereas the probability of us randomly selecting the exact sequence of cards we need will never happen (very remote). You are thus confusing probability with possibility! In fact I will further expose your flawed reasoning. Instead of us wondering what the odds of laying out all the cards in sequential order with the suits mentioned, let’s say that the combination needed for life is for all the suits to alternate between red and black, all the numbers must never pair with the same number from another suit, and the first and last cards must be Queens. Once again you will find that if you perform this shuffle a billion billion times you will never reach this exact sequence.

The entire scenario changes once you choose a specific sequence needed. For example, any random sequence other than the one we want will not give you life. So the chance of you drawing a sequence that doesn’t generate life is obviously going to be 99.9999% ad infinitum. Contrasted against the probability of us getting the exact sequence for life it appears that drawing a sequence for non-life is almost essentially assured. Once you pick a specific sequence, that sequence then becomes almost impossible to obtain. That is why the formation of life on earth is statistically improbable to the nth degree. In fact, a mathematician would call that event a miracle. Because it is so unlikely to happen that it’s deemed impossible. I hope now that you see the hole in your logic. Once again, your number assumes that all we’re trying to determine is the probability of “any” sequence. But we’re talking about life, as opposed to non-life. In reality only 1 specific sequence will give us life, any other sequence is deemed non-life. Now this is analogous to me asking you to name a card every time I drew, and the card being the correct card, for all 52 cards, in the first try! All those combinations are not equal. The chance of producing non-life from our scenario is near 100%, whereas the probability for life is not so “equal” in chance (In fact it’s practically 0% chance). (Once again though it may seem like the chances of producing "any" sequence from cards are all equally possible, and you may even think probable, this is by no means analogous to the chances of life forming on earth as I will describe below).

You’re confusing probability with possibility. Currently scientists haven’t even come close to creating a functioning cell, and frankly I doubt they ever will. They realize the immeasurable difficulty in trying to create something as complex as a living cell. Just getting the right life-specific amino acids to mix is difficult let alone manipulating them into useful proteins. Even if scientists get to the point of creating a protein they still are a far cry away from life. Next they have to create hundreds of different proteins, find a way to then combine them all together, and then even if they somehow arrive at creating DNA they still have to create a cell. The glaring problem is that DNA is useless without a cell. But without a cell DNA cannot replicate. Without DNA a cell cannot be made. So here is the most fundamental problem of Darwinian evolution! Unless both were created at the same time, then it didn’t happen. Then they have to somehow have the cell able to read, understand, and carry out the instructions of the DNA. All of this is so immensely complex that the probability of each step in the chain to creating life (assuming that we have the right idea in the first place) is outlandishly high. And when you take several extraordinarily unlikely events and link them together to get a statistically impossible result, that my friend is called a miracle.

To further show the absurdity of Darwinian evolution (to all those that say that evolution doesn’t deal with the process of the first organism, you’re simply in denial, begging the question, and full of guile), lets look at the probability of creating just one of the dozens of proteins necessary for life to exist in the most basic form.
Consider a smaller than average protein of just 100 amino acid residues. IF all the necessary left-handed amino acids were actually available, and IF the interfering compounds, including right-handed amino acids, were somehow eliminated, and IF our pool of amino acids were somehow able to join individual amino acids together into protein chains faster than the proteins normally fall apart, then the chances of this random 100 amino-acid protein having the correct sequence would be 1 in 200^100 (200 to the 100th power) possible sequence combinations; 20 available amino acids raised to the power of the number of residues in the protein, i.e., 1 in 1.268*10^130 (*=multiplied by), or 1 in    12,680,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!
To put this into perspective, the earth has a mass of around 5.97*10^27 grams. If the entire mass of the earth were converted to amino acids, there would be in the order of 3.27*10^49 amino acid molecules available. If all of these molecules were converted into 100-residue proteins (proteins containing 100 amino acids each, which is smaller than most proteins in nature), there would be 3.27*10^47 proteins. Since there are 1.27*10^130 possible combinations of amino acids in a 100-mer protein (see above), a division of the number of possibilities by the number of proteins present on our hypothetical globe shows that the chances of having just ONE correct sequence in that entire globe of 100-mer proteins is 1 in 3.88*10^82!!!

Even if each of these 3.27*10^47 100-mer proteins could be rearranged many times over into different sequences during the time span of the earth, the chances that one correct sequence would be produced are still not close to being realistic. Consider that there are “only” 1.45*10^17 seconds in the mythical evolutionary age of the earth. It can be calculated that each and every 100-mer proteins in that hypothetical earth would need to rearrange itself an average of 2.67*10^65 times per second in order to try all possible combinations! The 100-amino-acid molecules could not even come close to assembling and disassembling that quickly. It is physically impossible. I bet evolutionists wished they’d picked a larger number for the age of the earth. And remember, the same calculations could be performed considering that we need around 75 proteins to have a self-replicating system. If all proteins were the same size as mentioned above, the probability of obtaining the correct sequence for all of them comes to 3.7779*10^9700!!! (that’s about 9,700 zeros.)

Even if there were oceans full of amino acids just trying all kinds of different combinations, a correctly formed molecule in the Indian Ocean is not going to be able to cooperate very easily with another correctly formed molecule in the Atlantic Ocean. Nor would a correct sequence of amino acids be able to interact with another functional protein which happened to occur in the same physical location but one year later. Truly, the thought of even one functional protein arising by chance requires blind faith that will not or cannot grasp the numbers! Such thoughts are pure fantasy and have nothing to do with science.
It’s no wonder that evolutionists have not come up with any specific scenarios that would explain how life arose from non-living chemicals. The stories that are put forward are like fairy tales with some science thrown in to make them sound educated. There is absolutely no physical evidence for the transition of life from non-life (which just about equals the transition of one species transitioning into another).

So your reasoning that the probability of “anything” happening are equal to the probability of “something specific” happening is flawed. And your claim that:
“…the formation of life is a result of an almost infinite chain of events such that life was inevitable at the very time that it first formed.” is complete hogwash and entirely unsubstantiated. Unless you’d like to prove otherwise.

Also your claim that;
“…we know much of what directly caused each step you stated” in referencing the processes and forces of cosmological evolution is as well unsubstantiated. Seeing as cosmologists, physicists, and astronomers cannot even agree on the actual origins of the universe and it’s evolution, let alone even agree on the age of the universe, your statement is rather absurd. We know neither where the energy for the universe came from, nor why matter dominated over anti-matter, nor how stars have formed (despite claims otherwise). Scientists don’t know why galaxies look the way they do, don’t know where 90% of the universes’ mass is, or even “what” it is, don’t know why the universe is so uniform, don’t know how our solar system formed, and have no clue how the first organism arose. Before I get responses telling me how scientists “know” all of these things let me just state for the record, that what cosmologists have are “hypotheses,” physicists have “theorems,” and evolutionary biologists have “guesses.” Don’t get me wrong, scientists have figured out quite a few things. But the truth is that scientists don’t even know the fundamental basics of how anything formed. Sure theories and guesses are great, but without any actual evidence, it’s rather hard to place any real faith in what they say. Hmm…I wonder if evolutionists wonder why they place so much faith in man-derived science that was created and is interpreted by fallible men…

Also your statement;
“to me, its a cop out just to say that god merely spoke and something was fully formed.  it does not explain how it was formed, or for what specific purpose.” Is also inaccurate. First your claim that Genesis doesn’t say what purpose God had in creating the universe is a gross error. A cursory examination of Genesis 1+2 gives you the very purpose of God’s creation. And the rest of the Bible elaborates on that purpose. Second it says how it formed, God spoke it, it happened. Let’s try again, God spoke it, it happened. Did you get it that time? What makes you think that God’s creative processes can be studied by the man-derived scientific method? Why would you “need” to know how it happened? Is that necessary to believing it? I drive my car everyday. I don’t need to know how the car was formed or how it works in order to use it and accept that it exists. What do you think?

best wishes,


zero cool_12790



-------
---There is a common belief rapidly spreading, which states that scientists are unquestionably ethical and objective. This is a gross myth that must be stopped before scientists claim it’s true.
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 09:12 AM on April 9, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 04:12 AM on April 9, 2006 :
RoyLennigan,

Metaphor: a figure of speech containing an implied comparison, in which a word or phrase ordinarily and primarily used of one thing is applied to another.

Language: a system of vocal sounds and combinations of such sounds to which meaning is attributed, used for the expression or communication of thoughts and feelings, as well as the written representation of such a system

I fail to see how you answered my question asking where all the metaphors you claimed in Genesis 1+2 were by answering, “yes, its called written language.” This did not answer my question. Language is not a metaphor. Metaphors are applied using language. Either you’re confused or too lazy to look up the definitions of the words you use. In any event my question still remains, either show me these metaphors, or retract your claim.

why don't you try looking outside the box, instead of consulting every "absolute" source you can.  when i say something to you, is that statement an exact mirror of the reality it is associated with?  no, its not.  therefore it is like a metaphor in that it cannot convey full truth, it is almost completely subjective and left to interpretation.  the only reason any of us know what each other is talking about is because we have similar--similar, keep this in mind, it means that our language is not definite--associations to the symbols and words we hear/see.  the word dog is a symbol that reflects association to the memory of a collection of living cells that make up a certain mammal.  'dog' itself is not that mammal and cannot transfer all the information of the animal it stands for.

so i hope you now see that language is the ultimate metaphor.

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 04:12 AM on April 9, 2006 :I was quite amazed at the duplicity of your analogy where you calculated the odds of randomly choosing cards and laying them down. At first it appears that you are correct in your calculations and that life is not only possible, but very probable. And that would have worked just fine, except that your entire reasoning is based on an assumption, that there's no such thing as randomness. You of course fail to substantiate that initial assumption of yours and in fact use your assumption to prove that your assumption is correct. Bravo!

you might have missed my substantiation of the assumption that randomness is impossible (in some cases).  or perhaps you did not understand, as you did not understand the previous statement of mine.  again, randomness is simply a word used to describe our inability to decifer a complex process.  the reason why we call the process of throwing dice random is because we are not advanced enough to determine exactly how the force of the throw and the environment on which the dice lands affects how they stop moving.  with enough understanding, anything becomes predictable, this is why nothing is truly random.  there will always be a direct cause for an effect.  the roll of the dice is not a chance of fate, but a process dependant upon many different variables.  or, you could say that fate is just a matter of cause and effect.

now, how absurd would it be to say that the universe had no cause to come into existance, that it just simply came to be without any antecedent?  this is the kind of absurdity i think of when someone says that evolution is random.

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 04:12 AM on April 9, 2006 :The problem with your initial assumption is that you believe all outcomes have equal probability of happening. But nothing could be further from the truth! The probability of life isn’t the same as the probability for non-life. That’s because we are looking for a specific pattern in order for life to exist.

from the start, all outcomes do have equal probability.  but as soon as the first action takes place, that probability drastically changes and all effects are dependant upon the present, changed state.  the probability of a universe that develops life could be less than the probability of a universe that doesn't develop life, but has an equally exotic composure.  or it could be a greater probability, who knows.  but as soon as the first card is drawn, probabilities don't really exist anymore, its a matter of cause and effect.  and cards don't show that as well as processes do.

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 04:12 AM on April 9, 2006 :Example: Let’s say that we have 52 cards in a deck (no jokers). Lets say the exact pattern of cards for life to exist is that all the cards you pick at random must be in sequential order and all of the suits must be in the order of spades, hearts, diamonds, and clubs. If you want the exact probability of achieving that at random I’ll tell you but the number is very large with many zeros after it. Now let’s contrast that against the odds of any random mix of the cards. If I shuffle a deck and then lay out all the cards it appears that I will get a random mixture of them. Some might be paired, there might be some groups of the same suit, but what’s important to notice is that it’s fairly randomized (meaning no set pattern). Now if I perform this exercise 10 times I will find that 10 out of 10 times I will have a random mix of the cards. (random meaning any combination but the one needed for life that we chose). The error in your logic here is that you think that all possibilities (including our very specific combination for life) are equal, when in fact what we really see is that the probability of a jumbled mix are practically 100% to happen, whereas the probability of us randomly selecting the exact sequence of cards we need will never happen (very remote). You are thus confusing probability with possibility! In fact I will further expose your flawed reasoning. Instead of us wondering what the odds of laying out all the cards in sequential order with the suits mentioned, let’s say that the combination needed for life is for all the suits to alternate between red and black, all the numbers must never pair with the same number from another suit, and the first and last cards must be Queens. Once again you will find that if you perform this shuffle a billion billion times you will never reach this exact sequence.

no, you're simply not understanding the meaning of the analogy.   the point was not to say that all probabilities are equal.  the point is that it is not about the probability of life occuring.  it is that life occured despite the probabilities.  the cards you picked out at random had a very very small chance of being picked in that order, and yet you were able to do it on the first try.  that is the same as saying the probability that life were to develop is very very small, but it still happened.

the flaw in your logic is that you are putting the requirements before the actions.  you are trying to play god with your analogy, when in evolution there is no required directing force (though there is no contradiction of one either).  the processes that created this universe were not exactly right in order to develop life as it is; life as it is formed as a result of the exact circumstances of the development of the universe.

life is the result of an almost infinite number of actions beginning at the start of the universe (we could even say before that, with the cause of the start of the universe, or if you want, with god).  it is not an order of cards chosen 'at random'.  the first effect in our universe allowed for the next cause with brought the next effect which made the next cause and so on until we have complex forms of certain sustaining chemical compounds which begin replicating and evolving to become what we now call life.

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 04:12 AM on April 9, 2006 :The entire scenario changes once you choose a specific sequence needed. For example, any random sequence other than the one we want will not give you life. So the chance of you drawing a sequence that doesn’t generate life is obviously going to be 99.9999% ad infinitum. Contrasted against the probability of us getting the exact sequence for life it appears that drawing a sequence for non-life is almost essentially assured. Once you pick a specific sequence, that sequence then becomes almost impossible to obtain. That is why the formation of life on earth is statistically improbable to the nth degree. In fact, a mathematician would call that event a miracle. Because it is so unlikely to happen that it’s deemed impossible. I hope now that you see the hole in your logic. Once again, your number assumes that all we’re trying to determine is the probability of “any” sequence. But we’re talking about life, as opposed to non-life. In reality only 1 specific sequence will give us life, any other sequence is deemed non-life. Now this is analogous to me asking you to name a card every time I drew, and the card being the correct card, for all 52 cards, in the first try! All those combinations are not equal. The chance of producing non-life from our scenario is near 100%, whereas the probability for life is not so “equal” in chance (In fact it’s practically 0% chance). (Once again though it may seem like the chances of producing "any" sequence from cards are all equally possible, and you may even think probable, this is by no means analogous to the chances of life forming on earth as I will describe below).

but, the 109823rd sequence is dependant upon the 109822nd sequence which is dependant on the 109821st sequence and so on.  it is not a probability of the entire process.  each probability (since you seem to like to look at it this way) is based on the last event.  which means that life becomes more and more likely as time progresses, as long as the first events are favorable for it.  so that chances are lowered and become more likely for life to occur.

my analogy was not to show how the probability of any sequence was, but how one particular order was.  sure, they are the same for every possibility, but that is not the point of the argument.  the universe is not like a deck of cards.  the relationship i was trying to explain is still valid though.  my point was that statistics explains next to nothing when concerned with processes.

also, how are you to know that any deviation in how the universe progressed would not bring about life?  how are you to know that life doesn't exist elsewhere in the universe, or that a minor change in our universe would not allow for life to develop?  how are you to know that life is inherently like we imagine it is, we that are so isolated in our miniscule planet within a seemingly endless expanse of stars and galaxies.  all we know is that if the progression of the universe had deviated just slightly, all events onward would have deviated just slightly, obviously building up so that at a parallel time to ours, it would be greatly different.  but perhaps the inherent state of the universe would be similar, because it had a similar starting point.

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 04:12 AM on April 9, 2006 :You’re confusing probability with possibility. Currently scientists haven’t even come close to creating a functioning cell, and frankly I doubt they ever will. They realize the immeasurable difficulty in trying to create something as complex as a living cell. Just getting the right life-specific amino acids to mix is difficult let alone manipulating them into useful proteins. Even if scientists get to the point of creating a protein they still are a far cry away from life. Next they have to create hundreds of different proteins, find a way to then combine them all together, and then even if they somehow arrive at creating DNA they still have to create a cell. The glaring problem is that DNA is useless without a cell. But without a cell DNA cannot replicate. Without DNA a cell cannot be made. So here is the most fundamental problem of Darwinian evolution! Unless both were created at the same time, then it didn’t happen. Then they have to somehow have the cell able to read, understand, and carry out the instructions of the DNA. All of this is so immensely complex that the probability of each step in the chain to creating life (assuming that we have the right idea in the first place) is outlandishly high. And when you take several extraordinarily unlikely events and link them together to get a statistically impossible result, that my friend is called a miracle.

im sorry, when did we start talking about scientists ability to develop a cell?  what does that have to do with the argument?  still, you're hung up on probability.  you'll never understand evolution if you keep thinking its a matter of random events.  let me tell you this, 13.7 billion years is quite enough time for even humans to figure out how to create a cell.  i have faith that the universe is a much better engineer than us, though.

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 04:12 AM on April 9, 2006 :To further show the absurdity of Darwinian evolution (to all those that say that evolution doesn’t deal with the process of the first organism, you’re simply in denial, begging the question, and full of guile), lets look at the probability of creating just one of the dozens of proteins necessary for life to exist in the most basic form.
Consider a smaller than average protein of just 100 amino acid residues. IF all the necessary left-handed amino acids were actually available, and IF the interfering compounds, including right-handed amino acids, were somehow eliminated, and IF our pool of amino acids were somehow able to join individual amino acids together into protein chains faster than the proteins normally fall apart, then the chances of this random 100 amino-acid protein having the correct sequence would be 1 in 200^100 (200 to the 100th power) possible sequence combinations; 20 available amino acids raised to the power of the number of residues in the protein, i.e., 1 in 1.268*10^130 (*=multiplied by), or 1 in    12,680,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!
To put this into perspective, the earth has a mass of around 5.97*10^27 grams. If the entire mass of the earth were converted to amino acids, there would be in the order of 3.27*10^49 amino acid molecules available. If all of these molecules were converted into 100-residue proteins (proteins containing 100 amino acids each, which is smaller than most proteins in nature), there would be 3.27*10^47 proteins. Since there are 1.27*10^130 possible combinations of amino acids in a 100-mer protein (see above), a division of the number of possibilities by the number of proteins present on our hypothetical globe shows that the chances of having just ONE correct sequence in that entire globe of 100-mer proteins is 1 in 3.88*10^82!!!

Even if each of these 3.27*10^47 100-mer proteins could be rearranged many times over into different sequences during the time span of the earth, the chances that one correct sequence would be produced are still not close to being realistic. Consider that there are “only” 1.45*10^17 seconds in the mythical evolutionary age of the earth. It can be calculated that each and every 100-mer proteins in that hypothetical earth would need to rearrange itself an average of 2.67*10^65 times per second in order to try all possible combinations! The 100-amino-acid molecules could not even come close to assembling and disassembling that quickly. It is physically impossible. I bet evolutionists wished they’d picked a larger number for the age of the earth. And remember, the same calculations could be performed considering that we need around 75 proteins to have a self-replicating system. If all proteins were the same size as mentioned above, the probability of obtaining the correct sequence for all of them comes to 3.7779*10^9700!!! (that’s about 9,700 zeros.)

when you start talking about how they actually form, and not the statistics of their forming, maybe i'll listen to you.  amino acids do not form due to their probability of forming.  they form if the right components are there.  there's no 'chance' about it, it happens or it doesn't.

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 04:12 AM on April 9, 2006 :Even if there were oceans full of amino acids just trying all kinds of different combinations, a correctly formed molecule in the Indian Ocean is not going to be able to cooperate very easily with another correctly formed molecule in the Atlantic Ocean. Nor would a correct sequence of amino acids be able to interact with another functional protein which happened to occur in the same physical location but one year later. Truly, the thought of even one functional protein arising by chance requires blind faith that will not or cannot grasp the numbers! Such thoughts are pure fantasy and have nothing to do with science.

what you have to keep in mind is that once these amino acids did start working together, they sustained themselves, whereas the ones that didn't work fell apart.  it is not a chance that these peptides or whatever they were formed, it is because of the chain of events that led up to their formation.

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 04:12 AM on April 9, 2006 :It’s no wonder that evolutionists have not come up with any specific scenarios that would explain how life arose from non-living chemicals. The stories that are put forward are like fairy tales with some science thrown in to make them sound educated. There is absolutely no physical evidence for the transition of life from non-life (which just about equals the transition of one species transitioning into another).

on the contrary, there is much evidence.  the problem is there is so much evidence, it is hard to put it in order, or find the evidence that matches the problem they are trying to solve.  i don't know what 'stories' you are reading, but either they are not very reliable, or you are misinterpreting them.  the problem with finding out how life arose from non-living components is because of how complicated the order of events is.

imagine a line of dominoes set up so that when you push the first one down, it sets a reaction to knock them all down in order.  now say this line weaves around, in and out of itself, but still keeping a general direction.  now imagine they are knocked over and a kid runs through the middle of them, kicking some out of place from where they fell.  now imagine trying to piece together the order in which they were set up, down to the very pattern on each domino and where it was respective of the others.  this is sort of like what evolutionary scientists have to deal with.

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 04:12 AM on April 9, 2006 :So your reasoning that the probability of “anything” happening are equal to the probability of “something specific” happening is flawed. And your claim that:
“…the formation of life is a result of an almost infinite chain of events such that life was inevitable at the very time that it first formed.” is complete hogwash and entirely unsubstantiated. Unless you’d like to prove otherwise.

again, you are misinterpreting my claims.  my analogy was not to say that one event is equal to any other, but to show that statistics alone cannot be used to determine the likeliness of an event like this.  i still very much stand by my claim that “…the formation of life is a result of an almost infinite chain of events such that life was inevitable at the very time that it first formed.”

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 04:12 AM on April 9, 2006 :Also your claim that;
“…we know much of what directly caused each step you stated” in referencing the processes and forces of cosmological evolution is as well unsubstantiated. Seeing as cosmologists, physicists, and astronomers cannot even agree on the actual origins of the universe and it’s evolution, let alone even agree on the age of the universe, your statement is rather absurd.

its less absurd that saying what you said, which was that the universe developed through completely uknown forces and improbable odds.

"We know neither where the energy for the universe came from" (our current laws of physics shows that it is impossible to know where this energy came from, due to the fact that the singularity destroyed all former information) "nor why matter dominated over anti-matter, nor how stars have formed (despite claims otherwise)" (are you so sure?  a star is simply a creation of gravity acting on a very large, dense mass.  once the mass grows large enough, the gravity acting on it causes atoms to fuse)  "Scientists don’t know why galaxies look the way they do, don’t know where 90% of the universes’ mass is, or even “what” it is, don’t know why the universe is so uniform" (the uniformity of the universe actually supports the idea of an expanding universe), "don’t know how our solar system formed" (i advise you to look up the nebular hypothesis concerning the formation of our solar system), "and have no clue how the first organism arose" (oh they have a clue, hypotheses formed on evidence.  i think you are mistaking research for ignorance). Before I get responses telling me how scientists “know” all of these things let me just state for the record, that what cosmologists have are “hypotheses,” physicists have “theorems,” and evolutionary biologists have “guesses.” (Actually they all use hypotheses and there are theories for all of these things).  Don’t get me wrong, scientists have figured out quite a few things. But the truth is that scientists don’t even know the fundamental basics of how anything formed. Sure theories and guesses are great, but without any actual evidence, it’s rather hard to place any real faith in what they say. Hmm…I wonder if evolutionists wonder why they place so much faith in man-derived science that was created and is interpreted by fallible men…"

i think you have some deep rooted problems concerning science.  you understand little of the process of science and therefore make ignorant assumptions based on it.  for one, nothing can be known for sure, and science has figured out many things concerning cosmology, biology, physics, chemistry, and so on in every field.  but none of these things are known for sure because nothing can be known for sure.  but they are known in the sense that this knowledge can be used confidently to determine other things, or for some purpose.  the truth is that only scientists know the fundamentals of how anything is formed because they take the time to observe it firsthand.

Quote from zerocool_12790 at 04:12 AM on April 9, 2006 :Also your statement;
“to me, its a cop out just to say that god merely spoke and something was fully formed.  it does not explain how it was formed, or for what specific purpose.” Is also inaccurate. First your claim that Genesis doesn’t say what purpose God had in creating the universe is a gross error. A cursory examination of Genesis 1+2 gives you the very purpose of God’s creation. And the rest of the Bible elaborates on that purpose. Second it says how it formed, God spoke it, it happened. Let’s try again, God spoke it, it happened. Did you get it that time? What makes you think that God’s creative processes can be studied by the man-derived scientific method? Why would you “need” to know how it happened? Is that necessary to believing it? I drive my car everyday. I don’t need to know how the car was formed or how it works in order to use it and accept that it exists. What do you think?

i think that i know how to use my car better if i know how it works.

also, everything has different ways of being explained in our language (hence the metaphor).  so i doubt that the only way of explaining god's creation is that "he spoke it, it happened."  i am sure that (if the bible is truth) then there is a physical explanation for how god created the universe.  i am sure of this because there is a physical explanation for everything that i have ever observed.

Quote from zerocool_12790 best wishes,

zero cool_12790



and to you too.


(Edited by RoyLennigan 4/9/2006 at 1:30 PM).

(Edited by RoyLennigan 4/9/2006 at 1:31 PM).
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 1:29 PM on April 9, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

we should probably move this argument to creationism vs evolutionism.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 1:40 PM on April 9, 2006 | IP
the_general

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

God does not exist.

The whole Bible sounds like a little fantasy land.

The last time humans allegedly saw anything to do with God was over 2000 years ago.

Our only proof is a book which could be a lie, the documents to prove it was always the same or a lie would have been chiseled on stone which can break or paper which can burn.

Evolution, however has proof, albeit fossils, carbon tests that show how old these fossils are, evidence like WOOLY MAMMOTHS FROZEN IN ICE SO YOU CAN SEE EXACTLY WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE! and pre homo-sapien fossils.


-------
Religon=Opium of the Masses, except for Buddhism, thats about inner peace.

F.Y.I. to the Catholics/Christians...JESUS SAID LOVE ALL EQUALLY, HE NEVER SAID GAY PEOPLE ARE THE EXCEPTION!!!

IN AMERICA RELIGON IS NOT A GOOD REASON FOR ANY LAW!!! Period.

The idea of marriage was made in a time where being gay would be a good reason to torture you to death.

Before you say it im straight, but believe it or not im also, God forbid, tolerant.

If being gay is a choice then you accept being straight is too.

If God existed and couldn't accept gay people because he doesn't like them (guess where sins come from!) then he's imposing HIS beliefs on YOU!

If you aren't religous you can still be moral.

Where in the Bible does it say being gay is wrong, cuz if it wasnt in the first draft whats the big deal. Yes the Bible HAS been revised.

Race-does not matter
Religon-does not matter
Sex-does not matter
Sexuality-shouldn't have to matter, cuz it's not like whites don't befriend blacks , Christians don't befriend aetheists, and Men dont befriend Women, so...why make being straight or gay matter? Wanna know what does matter? We're alive. Shouldn't that be more than enough?
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 02:59 AM on July 17, 2006 | IP
Unriggable

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

On the subject of amino acids...

http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast05apr_1.htm

They exist on comets. No need for random probabilities now are there?


-------
"Without Judgment"
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 9:44 PM on April 22, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So much for letting another mad rant from the general die a peaceful death.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 9:54 PM on April 22, 2007 | IP
Unriggable

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 9:54 PM on April 22, 2007 :
So much for letting another mad rant from the general die a peaceful death.


That's what happens when you don't do your homework.


-------
"Without Judgment"
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 4:26 PM on April 29, 2007 | IP
Zoetherat

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't deny God. I don't believe he exists. There's a difference. I don't think you can deny something that you don't believe is real.
 


Posts: 48 | Posted: 8:02 PM on June 20, 2010 | IP
Gaunt

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You want to know why people deny your particular version of your god?

Take out a piece of paper and a pencil.

Write down all the reasons you deny the existence of Odin, Thor, Freya and the rest of the Norse dieties.

There you go.




-------
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane... or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." (R Dawkins, 1989).

Direct quote from Lester10, in a post referencing Creationism:
"There's absolutely no evidence for it ever having happened. It remains imaginary and philisophical."
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 10:25 AM on July 15, 2010 | IP
catstye cam

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Gaunt wrote...

You want to know why people deny your particular version of your god?

Take out a piece of paper and a pencil.

Write down all the reasons you deny the existence of Odin, Thor, Freya and the rest of the Norse dieties.

There you go.


I believe that God is One and has no partners...therefore I cannot believe in Odin etc.

So what is the reason you don't believe in my God?




 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 12:30 AM on July 23, 2010 | IP
Gaunt

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from catstye cam at 6:30 PM on July 22, 2010 :
I believe that God is One and has no partners...therefore I cannot believe in Odin etc.

So what is the reason you don't believe in my God?



Is that also the reason you don't believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth fairy, leprechauns and unicorns? Because your god tells you not to?


-------
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane... or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." (R Dawkins, 1989).

Direct quote from Lester10, in a post referencing Creationism:
"There's absolutely no evidence for it ever having happened. It remains imaginary and philisophical."
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 07:42 AM on July 27, 2010 | IP
Zoetherat

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from catstye cam at 12:30 AM on July 23, 2010 :

Gaunt wrote...

You want to know why people deny your particular version of your god?

Take out a piece of paper and a pencil.

Write down all the reasons you deny the existence of Odin, Thor, Freya and the rest of the Norse dieties.

There you go.


I believe that God is One and has no partners...therefore I cannot believe in Odin etc.

So what is the reason you don't believe in my God?







You're essentially saying you don't believe in other gods because you believe in your particular God. That misses the point, which is that the reasons why ppl believe in one god are, by and large, the same reasons why other ppl believe in other gods (upbringing, prayer, spiritual experiences, etc). So if you find these reasons unconvincing when applied to other gods, then, for the sake of consistency, you must also find them unconvincing when applied to your own.

Asking why we reject god is different than asking why we don't believe in him. Rejection implies that he exists and that we're aware of his existence, so it's a loaded question. But if you want to find out why i don't believe in a God, here's what i wrote about the issue on another thread-

"We all have evidence of the natural world. So if we base our beliefs on evidence, then we reach the conclusion that the natural world exists. Any supernatural entity requires additional evidence to be included among the things we believe exist. In other words, atheism is the fall back option and the burden of proof is on the ppl making supernatural claims to provide sufficient evidence for those claims. Follow me so far?

So let’s discuss the reasons why religious ppl believe in their religious beliefs. By far, the biggest factors that shape a person’s religious beliefs are what they were raised to believe and what culture they grew up in. And if religious beliefs were based on objective evidence, then this wouldn’t be the case. Religious ppl with confirmation bias sometimes claim they have objective evidence, but it’s usually only convincing to other ppl who share their bias.  

Then there’s subjective evidence, but the problem with that is that every religion, denomination, sect, and cult has that, and many of them are mutually exclusive. And it can just as easily be explained by modern psychology.

And then there are the arguments where you say that the supernatural can explain something (morality, the existence of the universe, etc) that natural phenomena can’t. But saying that God did something is epistemologically no different from saying that magic did it; it can be used to explain absolutely anything, by absolutely anyone, while explaining absolutely nothing. It’s an argument from ignorance rather than being based on positive evidence.

So ultimately, God and religions should be logically rejected due to the fact that there’s not enough evidence to justify having a belief in them."

(Edited by Zoetherat 7/31/2010 at 08:47 AM).
 


Posts: 48 | Posted: 08:34 AM on July 31, 2010 | IP
catstye cam

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gaunt wrote....
Quote from catstye cam at 6:30 PM on July 22, 2010 :
I believe that God is One and has no partners...therefore I cannot believe in Odin etc.

So what is the reason you don't believe in my God?







Is that also the reason you don't believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth fairy, leprechauns and unicorns? Because your god tells you not to?


I am quite sure that God is capable of creating the beings you mentioned if He wishes, just as He created angels and jinn, for example.
But since I find no mention of them in the Qur'an, then I see no reason to give them any thought.
 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 12:49 AM on August 5, 2010 | IP
catstye cam

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Zoetherat wrote....
You're essentially saying you don't believe in other gods because you believe in your particular God. That misses the point, which is that the reasons why ppl believe in one god are, by and large, the same reasons why other ppl believe in other gods (upbringing, prayer, spiritual experiences, etc).


No, the reason is not necessarily the same.
I don't believe in their gods because my God is One and has no partners.
But do their gods forbid them  to believe in mine?


We all have evidence of the natural world. So if we base our beliefs on evidence, then we reach the conclusion that the natural world exists.

Yes, I agree the natural world exists....but does that mean it exists on its own?
You go on to say...
Any supernatural entity requires additional evidence to be included among the things we believe exist. In other words, atheism is the fall back option and the burden of proof is on the ppl making supernatural claims to provide sufficient evidence for those claims.

Yes, I agree.
And I believe that God has sent us proof, by revealing His books to His Messengers.
Also, His creation itself stands as a proof of His existence.

By far, the biggest factors that shape a person’s religious beliefs are what they were raised to believe and what culture they grew up in. And if religious beliefs were based on objective evidence, then this wouldn’t be the case.


Firstly, I think it is right for parents to bring up their children according to their own beliefs, since they are responsible for their children's welfare.
When they're old enough to understand they will no doubt ask questions concerning those beliefs, and I think those questions should be encouraged, and they should be encouraged to constantly investigate and think about their beliefs, their lives and the world around them.
This is what my religion teaches.
That way, if the religion is based upon truth, it will stand this test.
If not, it is likely to be rejected.

Then there’s subjective evidence, but the problem with that is that every religion, denomination, sect, and cult has that, and many of them are mutually exclusive. And it can just as easily be explained by modern psychology.


Well yes, and you can have a spiritual experience by taking drugs, too.
So I don't think that necessarily proves anything, but it is still an important part of the belief of each individual.

And then there are the arguments where you say that the supernatural can explain something (morality, the existence of the universe, etc) that natural phenomena can’t. But saying that God did something is epistemologically no different from saying that magic did it; it can be used to explain absolutely anything, by absolutely anyone, while explaining absolutely nothing. It’s an argument from ignorance rather than being based on positive evidence.


Saying that God did something is entirely different from saying that magic did it.
How many magicians do you know of who are capable of conjuring up even a grub from nothing?
We are talking about the creation of the whole universe,
That is far, far beyond the scope of any magician's trickery.






 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 02:18 AM on August 5, 2010 | IP
Gaunt

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from catstye cam at 6:49 PM on August 4, 2010 :
Is that also the reason you don't believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth fairy, leprechauns and unicorns? Because your god tells you not to?


I am quite sure that God is capable of creating the beings you mentioned if He wishes, just as He created angels and jinn, for example.
But since I find no mention of them in the Qur'an, then I see no reason to give them any thought.


Well other people, who believe their stories just as much as you believe your stories, believe something different. In the absence of any evidence for any of these divinities whatsoever, how is your god any more or less believable than the Norse pantheon, or for that matter, Santa Claus or the easter bunny?

And saying the cause for your belief is your belief isn't an argument, its a self-rationalisation.


Yes, I agree.
And I believe that God has sent us proof, by revealing His books to His Messengers.


(sigh) this again.

Your supposed holy book is no more proof of your god than the holy book of any of the other thousands of religions that have lived and died is proof of THEIR god.

It is not proof, it is not evidence, it is a book filled with passages you listen to selectively, while ignoring others, which talks about the supposed wonders of your religion.

In that sense it is exactly the same level of 'proof' as the Lord of the Rings is 'proof' for the existence of trolls.

Also, His creation itself stands as a proof of His existence


No it doesnt. Pointing to a product as 'proof' of the fantastic means of its creation is silly, and is exactly the same logic as my claiming I created your computer with my mind, and then pointing to the existence of your computer as 'proof'.

I think you need to go and refresh your memory regarding what the word 'evidence' actually means.


Firstly, I think it is right for parents to bring up their children according to their own beliefs, since they are responsible for their children's welfare.
When they're old enough to understand they will no doubt ask questions concerning those beliefs, and I think those questions should be encouraged, and they should be encouraged to constantly investigate and think about their beliefs, their lives and the world around them.
This is what my religion teaches.
That way, if the religion is based upon truth, it will stand this test.
If not, it is likely to be rejected.


So, are you saying it is just a coincidence that 98% of religious children are the same religion as their parents?

Or is it possible that religion has nothing at all to do with 'truth', but just what parents brainwash their kids to believe?


Saying that God did something is entirely different from saying that magic did it.
How many magicians do you know of who are capable of conjuring up even a grub from nothing?
We are talking about the creation of the whole universe,
That is far, far beyond the scope of any magician's trickery.


So, the only reason you dont accept that a magician could have done this is because you dont know of any magicians powerful enough?



-------
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane... or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." (R Dawkins, 1989).

Direct quote from Lester10, in a post referencing Creationism:
"There's absolutely no evidence for it ever having happened. It remains imaginary and philisophical."
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 06:04 AM on August 5, 2010 | IP
catstye cam

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well other people, who believe their stories just as much as you believe your stories, believe something different. In the absence of any evidence for any of these divinities whatsoever, how is your god any more or less believable than the Norse pantheon, or for that matter, Santa Claus or the easter bunny?


I don't think anyone has ever worshipped Santa Claus or the easter bunny, so they don't count as divinities.
As for the norse gods, they come across as a group of created beings ...they are strong warriors, but they share human weakness and vulnerability, eg Odin had to  hang on the world tree in order to gain knowledge.
Who was the giver of that knowledge?
Also, they die, as all created beings die.


Your supposed holy book is no more proof of your god than the holy book of any of the other thousands of religions that have lived and died is proof of THEIR god.


Except that my religion hasn't died yet.

It is not proof, it is not evidence, it is a book filled with passages you listen to selectively, while ignoring others, which talks about the supposed wonders of your religion.


No it is a book we have to live by, every day of our lives....and it never lets us down.

In that sense it is exactly the same level of 'proof' as the Lord of the Rings is 'proof' for the existence of trolls.


For me, my Book is proof that its Author is who He claims to be..ie the Sopreme Creator and Sustainer of the universe.
So if you want to make an analogy between that and 'Lord of the Rings', then it should be,
'In that sense it is exactly the same level of 'proof' as the Lord of the Rings is 'proof' for the existence of its author, Tolkien.'
My answer to that is that Tolkien never claimed to be any more than a human being, and this is easily proved by his book, 'Lord of the Rings.'

Pointing to a product as 'proof' of the fantastic means of its creation is silly, and is exactly the same logic as my claiming I created your computer with my mind, and then pointing to the existence of your computer as 'proof'.



Well, if you make that claim, I will  investigate my computer.
And I think that I will conclude that my computer is very definitely the product of an intelligent mind.
Whether it is the product of your mind, and whether your mind actually has the ability to produce a computer out of thin air would require further evidence.

As regards the creation, the more I investigate it,  the more I am convinced it is the product of incredibly superior intelligence.
As for the source of that intelligence, that too requires further evidence, which I believe is found in the Qur'an.

are you saying it is just a coincidence that 98% of religious children are the same religion as their parents?


No, I am unaware of any statistics on this.

Or is it possible that religion has nothing at all to do with 'truth', but just what parents brainwash their kids to believe?


Do you think it is brainwashing when you tell your children not to lie or steal?
We all have our values which we want to pass on to our children.
And actually, I don't think you can force anyone to believe...that comes from God Himself.

So, the only reason you dont accept that a magician could have done this is because you dont know of any magicians powerful enough?


No. I am saying that to compare the might of the Creator with the trickery of magicians is a false comparison.

 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 01:09 AM on August 8, 2010 | IP
Gaunt

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from catstye cam at 7:09 PM on August 7, 2010 :
I don't think anyone has ever worshipped Santa Claus or the easter bunny, so they don't count as divinities.


No, but they count as unevidenced fairy tales that YOU choose not to believe in. That is really the only thing that separates them from the fairy tale you DO choose to believe in, your belief. Certainly not evidence of any kind...



Your supposed holy book is no more proof of your god than the holy book of any of the other thousands of religions that have lived and died is proof of THEIR god.


Except that my religion hasn't died yet.


Firstly, thats irrelevant: your holy book is no more 'proof' of your god than THEIR 'holy book' was proof of their god. But even if your irrelevant claim held any weight, so what about the countless religions that DO still exist in some part of the world? How is your god any more true than the Iroquois creation myth, or the Hindu, or any other? All have zealots like you who CHOOSE to believe without any evidence. Yet you pretend they MUST all be wrong and you MUST be right, based on nothing.

It is not proof, it is not evidence, it is a book filled with passages you listen to selectively, while ignoring others, which talks about the supposed wonders of your religion.


No it is a book we have to live by, every day of our lives....and it never lets us down.


Really? Tell me something, how does your wife (and the police) react when you beat her with a stick when she disobeys you, as proscribed in the Koran?

How do the police and authorities react when you slay anyone who follows a different god wherever you find them, as you are explicitly commanded to do in the Koran?

How do your friends react to you raping your female slaves, even the married ones, as you are explicitly permitted to do in the Koran?

Shall I continue? You know I can easily...

You pick and choose which verses you WANT to believe, while discarding and ignoring others.


For me, my Book is proof that its Author is who He claims to be..ie the Sopreme Creator and Sustainer of the universe.


Again,. you need to pick up a dictionary and look up the word' proof', as you dont seem to understand what it means.

Fine, you dont like Tolkien as a metaphor? How about 'battlefield earth'? is that proof that the scientologists are right?


are you saying it is just a coincidence that 98% of religious children are the same religion as their parents?


No, I am unaware of any statistics on this.


You being unaware is not my problem. Look it up, its true.


Do you think it is brainwashing when you tell your children not to lie or steal?


Irrelevant. Again.

Children believe because their parents teach them to in their formative years. Period.




-------
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane... or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." (R Dawkins, 1989).

Direct quote from Lester10, in a post referencing Creationism:
"There's absolutely no evidence for it ever having happened. It remains imaginary and philisophical."
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 08:51 AM on August 24, 2010 | IP
Goldsword

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would say that many people deny there is a God because of fundamentalists who insist on Christians living up to rediculously high moral standards like in the no sex before marriage topic.

Fundamentalism puts people off God. They make it look like becoming a Christian is having no life at all. Look how the preacher in this film clip promotes the Christian message in a none fundamentalists way stressing that God's greatest message is to love him and to love each other; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQUgiWa-pfI

If all preachers were like him there would be a lot more Christians and a lot less athiests.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 09:37 AM on August 31, 2010 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by:
ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.