does god exist. substantiate ur answer please.
(it is not ur conclusion that we look for, but ur reason for the conclusion)
I hereby resurrect the grand old debate on the existence of god.
A debate like this is not intended to fuel the dogma of a believer or the ego of an atheist.
A debate of this sort is aimed at enriching our philosophical wisdom, and strengthening our moral moorings.
so lets begin this healthy debate. men have reached greatness by simply pondering over some of life's unanswered questions like this one.
answers may not be obtained at the end of the debate, but surely, we will emerge as wiser men.
let the debate begin..
god does not exist.
my reasons
1. when one begins to ask the question who created the earth ., the answer would be the big bang. then who created the big bang?-- god?? this is how the existence of god substantiated by many.
i will disprove this explanation for god now. according to the above reason matter is not made out of nothing. a big bang is needed to create the universe. and god is needed to creat the big bang. going by the same logic---- who creaed god??? if god were to be created by someone else then he is not omnipotent anymore! if he is not omnipotent anymore then he is not god anymore!! he he
there is another reason that believers use to substantiate the existence of god.
2. some say that entire nature was so designed as to support our existence.
im remimded of voltaire's remark when i hear this. voltaire said," perhaps the nose was so designed as to befit the spectacles".. lol .. nature doesnt really care who thrive or who dont!! it just so happens that we have evolved in a way to suit our environment.. god didnt take pains to make any environment for us!!
some say that god is compassionate and al forgiving.
y wud such a compassionate god create evil in the world and spreae suffering ??
y wud an all compassionate god have to judge u at the end of ur life and cast u into hell and subject u to all sorts of devilry..
first of all.. the line between right and wrong is not definite .. it is only in scales of gray..
if god wanted us to do wat is right then he wud have given us a clear idea of wat is right and wat is not. he hasnt given us a clear idea of right and wrong in the world, then how can he judge us at the end of our life??
seriously, good and bad arose as a result of survival rules that were laid down as men began to form communities. it is only men who judge others. and therefore good and bad is only for orderly communities.. tomorrow when u land ina deserter island the rules of good and bad of ur community are not there anymore...
since there is no good and bad, there is no god to judge us too!!
so chill and enjoy life and do wat u must for ur survival and excellence.
One cannot rely on a book or another to believe in God. We must, instead, rely on mere reason that God exists.
What is that reason?
Well, when I look outside, I see how everything works in harmony. All of the natural cycles, everything ticking together like a clock. How does it all fit so perfectly? And, more importantly, how could it work so perfectly unless someone/something put it together?
Atheism, to me, is the ultimate form of pride. It is saying, I am human, I know all... But really, we do not. There is an infinitely expanding universe out there, and until anyone comes up with an iota (which, for thousands/millions of years has proved impossible) of evidence to contradict God, then maybe we'll talk.
But until then, something/someone exists.
| Soulfire wrote: |
One cannot rely on a book or another to believe in God. We must, instead, rely on mere reason that God exists.
What is that reason?
Well, when I look outside, I see how everything works in harmony. All of the natural cycles, everything ticking together like a clock. How does it all fit so perfectly? And, more importantly, how could it work so perfectly unless someone/something put it together? |
This is the watchmaker fallacy (William Paley..1802). There are practical and logical reasons for most of the 'order' we see in the natural world. There is absolutely no need for a 'designer'. Evolution is the mechanism whereby things 'fit so perfectly'. A more important criticism of this naieve view is that, in actual fact, things do NOT fit so perfectly.
| Quote: |
| Atheism, to me, is the ultimate form of pride. It is saying, I am human, I know all... But really, we do not. There is an infinitely expanding universe out there, and until anyone comes up with an iota (which, for thousands/millions of years has proved impossible) of evidence to contradict God, then maybe we'll talk. |
Atheism has nothing to do with pride. Atheists simply make the statement "I do not believe in God". What is prideful about that? You imply that the natural state is to believe in God and that anyone who doesn't is claiming that they know everything. That is complete nonsense.
You do not have to know much about the universe to not believe that there is a small teapot in orbit around Jupiter. I can't prove that there is not a small teapot in orbit around jupiter, but I don't believe that there is. In the same way, I cannot prove that there is not a God, but I don't believe there is.
The onus is not on the disbeliever to prove that God does not exist - we simply don't believe that he does exist. If you have some convincing evidence to the contrary then, as a rational person I am happy to consider it and perhaps change my view. | Soulfire wrote: |
One cannot rely on a book or another to believe in God. We must, instead, rely on mere reason that God exists.
What is that reason?
Well, when I look outside, I see how everything works in harmony. All of the natural cycles, everything ticking together like a clock. How does it all fit so perfectly? And, more importantly, how could it work so perfectly unless someone/something put it together?
Atheism, to me, is the ultimate form of pride. It is saying, I am human, I know all... But really, we do not. There is an infinitely expanding universe out there, and until anyone comes up with an iota (which, for thousands/millions of years has proved impossible) of evidence to contradict God, then maybe we'll talk.
But until then, something/someone exists. |
Really? Reason tells me that God does not exist. Atheism, to you, may seem that way. But sometimes we don't see reality for what it is. Hence, the belief in God. There is nothing wrong with pride itself. What's wrong with being proud of who you are, and of what you believe? It is not saying "I am human, I know all". Atheism is not a religion. "As a philosophical view it [atheism] is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism" - nothing else.
I view atheism as a way to preserve the self, and religion as the destruction of the self.
When I look outside I see how everything works, and accept it for what it is, even when I don't necessarily understand it. It is always changing. Right now, the earth is creating and destroying itself. Just as the universe is, without the interference of any God. The world is somewhat like a chain reaction. Everything has a cause and effect, whether you have knowledge of it or not. You're right, it all is a natural cycle. But what you are identifying as the creation of God is actually the creation of Nature. Nature is the creation of Nature. I really don't know how to elaborate myself at this point. -sigh-
Last edited by JessieF on Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:26 pm; edited 1 time in totalTo make it short:
I am god
I do exist
The purpose of this thread is to remember 
everyone is god
So come on and be as godly as you really are, every day, every second... Take a group - call it A
Take a property - call it X
Make a statement - All members of A have property X
Since there is no example of NOT X, the statement is a tautology - ie it adds no information, since X is implicit in A.....
The statement all men are God tells us nothing about the property of divinity since divinity is therefore a property of man. The question arises, therefore, why define it? You need to specify 'God' as a set of properties seperately for it to have any meaning.
Normally we assume a set of properties for God, such as immortality, omniscience, omnipotence etc. If you are saying that these properties are implicit in man then I beg to differ.
Last edited by Bikerman on Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:55 pm; edited 3 times in total
| Soulfire wrote: |
One cannot rely on a book or another to believe in God. We must, instead, rely on mere reason that God exists.
What is that reason?
Well, when I look outside, I see how everything works in harmony. All of the natural cycles, everything ticking together like a clock. How does it all fit so perfectly? And, more importantly, how could it work so perfectly unless someone/something put it together?
Atheism, to me, is the ultimate form of pride. It is saying, I am human, I know all... But really, we do not. There is an infinitely expanding universe out there, and until anyone comes up with an iota (which, for thousands/millions of years has proved impossible) of evidence to contradict God, then maybe we'll talk.
But until then, something/someone exists. |
A statement of that sort is as ignorant and, well stupid, as saying following a religion is the ultimate form of weakness. | still_water06 wrote: |
| it just so happens that we have evolved in a way to suit our environment.. |
That has got to be the stupidest, no the funniest, in fact the stupidest AND funniest thing I have heard all of 2008. 
I guess everything 'just so happens' with atheism right? 
It 'just so happens' that we "evolved" into needing oxygen in an environment coincidently full of it!
It 'just so happens' that we need water as a primary substance, when, by coincidence, we are on a plane that is 2/3 water!
It 'just so happens' that the Earth rotates at a rate in which a human can get exactly the right amount of sleep and day time!
It 'just so happens' that we have a moon that reflects light for us at night!
It 'just so happens' that our planet is the perfect distance from the sun to support life!
I could go on all day. See how many things "just so happen", so perfectly? 
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| still_water06 wrote: | | it just so happens that we have evolved in a way to suit our environment.. |
That has got to be the stupidest, no the funniest, in fact the stupidest AND funniest thing I have heard all of 2008.
I guess everything 'just so happens' with atheism right?
It 'just so happens' that we "evolved" into needing oxygen in an environment coincidently full of it!
It 'just so happens' that we need water as a primary substance, when, by coincidence, we are on a plane that is 2/3 water!
It 'just so happens' that the Earth rotates at a rate in which a human can get exactly the right amount of sleep and day time!
It 'just so happens' that we have a moon that reflects light for us at night!
It 'just so happens' that our planet is the perfect distance from the sun to support life!
I could go on all day. See how many things "just so happen", so perfectly? |
You fail at knowing the history of this planet. You fail at Biology 101. You fail at knowing astronomy. Just stop.
And honestly, don't try to be logical as a person who follows religion and believes there is a big bearded guy in the sky who said "let there be light, and it was good." It doesn't work that way. You seem to think you're superior because you believe in something that is unproven and has no backing evidence in any shape or form. And as has been said dozens on these forums by different people specifically towards you, the universe/nature abide by certain laws and they abide by them very strictly. You think this is just some unorganized thing that fell together? I would suggest you do some research if so. Not only that, but the universe and nature are far from perfect...don't act like they are.Really? I guess we should all believe that there was nothing, than an atom appeared out of nowhere, and pop! Here we are.
I believe in the Big Bang. I believe in God. I believe God caused the Big Bang.
It is said that matter cannot be made from nothing. And the big bang started as an atom.
So where did this atom come from?
GOD I SAY. What do you say? Really, I want to know what you think
| liljp617 wrote: |
| the universe/nature abide by certain laws and they abide by them very strictly. |
Who made these laws? How did they come into being? What force decided that every action has an equal and opposite reaction? That gravity pulls and doesn't push? It's not like they just appeared...
Please, enlighten me. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
Really? I guess we should all believe that there was nothing, than an atom appeared out of nowhere, and pop! Here we are.
|
Really? I guess we should all believe that there was nothing, then a ("THE") God appeared out of nowhere, and pop! Here we are. I guess God can appear out of no where, but not the almighty atom that makes up our world. This logic makes sense, eh? (No, you're the only one that believes that). No one really knows for sure, which is why people are still pondering and researching to this day. Instead of making fun of the people who're the ones looking for the real truth, stop sucking your thumb and leave the fairy tales to children. Seriously. I've been pondering over the bible for years. I've been agnostic for years without even knowing. How old are you to be believing in such fairy tales?
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
I believe in the Big Bang. I believe in God. I believe God caused the Big Bang.
|
I seriously wonder who was the first to come up the with "God" theory. I don't understand how God could truthfully, scientifically, explain the origins of life. If the "He just was" concept could work with this God, why can't this concept work with the world. "It just is". It's far better than the God concept if you aren't able to understand science.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
It is said that matter cannot be made from nothing. And the big bang started as an atom.
So where did this atom come from?
|
I am not quite sure of that. If you put anti-matter and matter together you get a big explosion. But it destroys things, it doesn't create....is there another thing about matter that we're missing?
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
GOD I SAY. What do you say? Really, I want to know what you think
|
I say nature, the laws of science, and cause and effect (which isn't merely by coincidence, an action always has a reaction(there can be more than one possibility, meaning more than one possible reaction, which is the chance of this or that happening. There's a difference between cause and effect and coincidence)).
| liljp617 wrote: |
| the universe/nature abide by certain laws and they abide by them very strictly. |
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
Who made these laws? How did they come into being? What force decided that every action has an equal and opposite reaction? That gravity pulls and doesn't push? It's not like they just appeared...
Please, enlighten me. |
Why does there have to be a creator? Just because your brain is too inferior (or too stubborn to think outside the box) to ponder the concept of life without God doesn't make you right.What I am saying is, how were these laws made? What is the reason that gravity pulls and does not push (as an example)?
Why does gravity pull, and not push? Why do other physical laws work the way they do? Since I believe in God, I have an answer, which is that God chose for gravity to push instead of pull, etc...
What I don't understand is, if you don't believe in God, where do you believe the laws of physics came from?
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
What I am saying is, how were these laws made? What is the reason that gravity pulls and does not push (as an example)?
Why does gravity pull, and not push? Why do other physical laws work the way they do? Since I believe in God, I have an answer, which is that God chose for gravity to push instead of pull, etc...
What I don't understand is, if you don't believe in God, where do you believe the laws of physics came from? |
The problem with theory, is that things will happen a certain way no matter what. You mentioned the law of gravity. Why does it pull things down? It pulls things down because God made it that way. Okay, that's an explanation. Now let's pretend God doesn't exist for a moment (although in the minds of many people, we aren't pretending). If God didn't exist, gravity would still have to do something. Are you saying that the mere fact that we and this world exists, and that everything does something is proof that God exists? If I hit you and blood came out, would you say that blood comes out of a body because God made it that way? Let's say, theoretically, that when you were asleep someone somehow replaced your blood with something else, and you somehow manage to still live. If I hit you now, and something else came out would you say that God made it that way? Everything has to do something, and according you your theory, nothing would do ANYTHING without God existing. That's the flaw in what you said.
You also asked, "What I don't understand is, if you don't believe in God, where do you believe the laws of physics came from?"
This is along the same line. Everything has to do something. Gravity had to do something, so why not pull? If gravity pushed, you would say the same thing, "God made it that way." Also, things will only work under certain situations. If gravity didn't pull, the world wouldn't function. The universe is huge, so why haven't we found life in other places? The conditions don't occur everywhere. This is the counterargument for your theory. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Let's say, theoretically, that when you were asleep someone somehow replaced your blood with something else, and you somehow manage to still live. If I hit you now, and something else came out would you say that God made it that way? |
No, if one day you bleed blood and the next day you bleed a substance that someone else replaced your blood with, then that person caused it to happen.
So what caused the laws of physics to happen? Sure, things lead to one another, like a chain, but where did the first link of that chain come from? Why? | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | Let's say, theoretically, that when you were asleep someone somehow replaced your blood with something else, and you somehow manage to still live. If I hit you now, and something else came out would you say that God made it that way? |
No, if one day you bleed blood and the next day you bleed a substance that someone else replaced your blood with, then that person caused it to happen.
So what caused the laws of physics to happen? Sure, things lead to one another, like a chain, but where did the first link of that chain come from? Why? |
Could probably come from the place where you think the first link of the chain creating god came from? You're arguing against yourself as much as you are against me. The difference being there are libraries full of scientific theories and hypotheses that discuss the beginning of the planet or the universe as we know it. Sure, they're not full proof or proven beyond a doubt yet, but they go a long way more than, like I have said, a big guy in the sky saying let there be light and it was good.
And I'm not gonna act like I know everything about everything. However, I know I don't believe a god exists and until proven otherwise with even a shrapnel of tangible evidence I'll continue to believe this. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | Let's say, theoretically, that when you were asleep someone somehow replaced your blood with something else, and you somehow manage to still live. If I hit you now, and something else came out would you say that God made it that way? |
No, if one day you bleed blood and the next day you bleed a substance that someone else replaced your blood with, then that person caused it to happen.
So what caused the laws of physics to happen? Sure, things lead to one another, like a chain, but where did the first link of that chain come from? Why? |
You're completely missing the point.
My point was this: assume you never knew about blood. If you began to bleed water, and you didn't know any better, you would simply say that water comes out of the body when it gets punctured because God made it that way. Right now you're saying that we bleed blood because God made it that way. It doesn't matter what comes out of the puncture. According to your theory it happens because God made it that way. But my point is that something has to come out of us, so if we didn't bleed blood maybe we would bleed water (of course we wouldn't be able to live, then). I don't find "God made it that way" to be very convincing because something has to be in our bodies regardless if God put it there or not.
About the laws of physics: I already told you where they come from. They come from the mere fact that everything has to do something. You said that gravity pulls things down because God made it that way, and I said that gravity pulls because it either has to pull or push, and that's a 50/50 chance.Okay, so gravity either has to pull or push, but where did gravity come from? Where did this 'force' come from, no matter what it does?
Does God exist? It's a hard question. In the end I think many people are trying to answer it, although human knowledge is few and tends to be narrow minded. Subjective thoughts and doubtful comparisons emerge with ease.
So I answer that with a "don't know". Sometimes yes or no aren't the only answers.
Some say "no" and I wonder how they know that. Others say "yes" and I wonder about community or family influence on their creeds.
Why are there so many Muslims in Arabia and so many Catholics in Italy? Because they believe in God? Yes they would say they believe in God. What God are they talking about? That's the one, the almighty, you know, - but I don't.
In the end, happy new year for all "God teams" (believers, agnostics or ignorants such as I).
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | Let's say, theoretically, that when you were asleep someone somehow replaced your blood with something else, and you somehow manage to still live. If I hit you now, and something else came out would you say that God made it that way? |
No, if one day you bleed blood and the next day you bleed a substance that someone else replaced your blood with, then that person caused it to happen.
So what caused the laws of physics to happen? Sure, things lead to one another, like a chain, but where did the first link of that chain come from? Why? |
If there has to be a plausible, provable answer as to where gravity came from, God would not be the proper answer. If God answers where the world came from, I ask you, where did God come from? If you was to say he always was, then how come Gravity can't have always been?
If you were to say dust, etc, then where did that come from. Obviously this world can function quite well without a god. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Okay, so gravity either has to pull or push, but where did gravity come from? Where did this 'force' come from, no matter what it does? |
Where did 'God' come from? You can counter that same question. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Okay, so gravity either has to pull or push, but where did gravity come from? Where did this 'force' come from, no matter what it does? |
Again, the question is asked to you: Where did god come from? If god can simply "be" then why is it that gravity can't just have come about? Again, you're arguing much against yourself as you are against others.I think the point HalfBloodPrince is trying to make is that God, by defination, is outside of time, space and matter and thus is an unmoved mover, or in other words, something that wasn't created but has the power to create. The stuff around us though seems to follow the rule that it can't create itselt and can't come out of nothing. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Yet somehow the big bang theory is counter intuitive in that it does create matter, which goes against the very laws this would it is creating is bound by. This means that the argument of "well, who created God" is irational due to the defination of God.
Reguardless of your beliefs in the big bang theory, or the theory of evolution, science has no theory or explinatinon as to how life was created. Big bang has decient explination as to how all the matter got here, all the chemicals, but nothing on the fact that life exists. Evolution is post the spark of life starting from the first life form to today but says nothing about how the first life form evolved from non-life. Life cannot come from non-life, no has ever seen it happen, and there is no theory on how it occured. Unless my science textbooks have been lying all along and there is some holy grail theory as to how life came about...
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| still_water06 wrote: | | it just so happens that we have evolved in a way to suit our environment.. |
That has got to be the stupidest, no the funniest, in fact the stupidest AND funniest thing I have heard all of 2008.
I guess everything 'just so happens' with atheism right?
It 'just so happens' that we "evolved" into needing oxygen in an environment coincidently full of it!
It 'just so happens' that we need water as a primary substance, when, by coincidence, we are on a plane that is 2/3 water!
It 'just so happens' that the Earth rotates at a rate in which a human can get exactly the right amount of sleep and day time!
It 'just so happens' that we have a moon that reflects light for us at night!
It 'just so happens' that our planet is the perfect distance from the sun to support life!
I could go on all day. See how many things "just so happen", so perfectly? |
Yes, it "just so happens".
If there were a planet with an (ok, this is just hypothetical, so don't bite my head off if the science isn't right) ammonia atmosphere, and a spark in the primordial soup on that planet touched off the right combination for life to start - lets say silicate based life, rather than carbon based. Then the plants and animals (or whatever) that evolve on that planet would 'just so happen' to breath ammonia -- because if they breathed anything else they would die. They would 'just so happen' to have a diurnal pattern that would match the rotation rate of that planet. Perhaps their blood would just so happen to be green because it's copper based instead of iron based. Perhaps that planet is a little closer to its star, so the creatures living there would have evolved to withstand higher temperatures. If God plopped human beings down on that planet, they would die. If those creatures visited our planet they would die in our atmosphere.
We are the way we are because if we were any other way on this particular planet we wouldn't be equipped to survive, and we wouldn't be able to multiply and be fruitful. Our cells mutate all the time, most of those mutations have no effect, many of them that do express themselves physically turn into diseases and harmful syndromes that, in the wild, would die off. Occasionally, one of those mutations turns out to be something beneficial, making it's owner stronger, faster, able to see, or fly, or stay warmer, or deal with harsh desert sun better, and that individual will survive and pass on it's genes - that's evolution, and that's why we 'just so happen' to fit our planet so well. Millions and millions of years have shaped organisms that are beautifully fitted to survive on our planet.
That's how it works - we evolved to be successful in our environment.
It doesn't take God to do that.
It's an infinite Universe, and in infinity all possibilities exist - including the unlikely possibility of monkeys that wear clothes, build computers, and debate the existence of a creator.
And somewhere out there, there might just be a planet being orbited by a small teapot. | coeus wrote: |
| Reguardless of your beliefs in the big bang theory, or the theory of evolution, science has no theory or explinatinon as to how life was created. Big bang has decient explination as to how all the matter got here, all the chemicals, but nothing on the fact that life exists. Evolution is post the spark of life starting from the first life form to today but says nothing about how the first life form evolved from non-life. Life cannot come from non-life, no has ever seen it happen, and there is no theory on how it occured. Unless my science textbooks have been lying all along and there is some holy grail theory as to how life came about... |
It would appear that your science textbooks have been lying all along. Because there are actually dozens of theories on how life can come from non-life. The technical term is abiogenesis.
What you may be confused about is the fact that we are not sure how life actually came about here on Earth. That is not only not a real problem, it's to be expected.
Suppose there was a mountain that you knew well, then you went into suspended animation for a million years and when you woke up, the mountain was gone. You don't know what happened to it, but you can certainly think of several ways that it could have been destroyed: earthquake, erosion, etc. If i were to ask yo, "what happened to the mountain?" the only honest answer you could give is, "i don't know". But if i were to turn around and tell everyone that you didn't know how it could happen, i would be a liar. Why? Because you do know how it could happen... you just don't know how it did happen. You know several ways that it could happen, but you don't have enough information to determine precisely which of those ways (and it could be a combination of more than one!) actually did happen.
So it goes with abiogenesis. We know tons of ways that it could happen. We don't know how it did happen.
HOWEVER
Even if science could not explain abiogenesis at all... that doesn't open the door for a god. It is an old fallacy - and you'd really think we'd know better by now - to jump on any gap in science and call it evidence of a god. Everyone chuckles smugly at the ignorance of cavemen who said, "we don't know how a thing like lightning can be caused naturally... so it must be the work of a god!"... but what really is the difference between that and "we don't know how life came from non-life naturally... so it must be the work of a god!"
In the end, is that really just arguing for the existence of a god from scientific ignorance? Isn't that really, in effect, saying: "science cannot provide any evidence against a god (that is, evidence for purely naturalistic causes) in this specific case (for example, abiogenesis), therefore, there is a god." And... doesn't that sound remarkably like this?
There's one more thing to comment on:
| coeus wrote: |
| I think the point HalfBloodPrince is trying to make is that God, by defination, is outside of time, space and matter and thus is an unmoved mover, or in other words, something that wasn't created but has the power to create. The stuff around us though seems to follow the rule that it can't create itselt and can't come out of nothing. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Yet somehow the big bang theory is counter intuitive in that it does create matter, which goes against the very laws this would it is creating is bound by. This means that the argument of "well, who created God" is irational due to the defination of God. |
Perhaps, perhaps. Sure sounds like a solid argument on the face of it.
However....
Why do you think that the universe needs a mover? Why can it not be unmoved in and of itself, causa sui, the cause of itself? You have already answered that question: because everything we have knowledge of seems to require a cause. Thus, you conclude, the universe - following the pattern of everything else we know - requires a cause... which you call "God".
So far so good... but then you make the totally irrational and illogical step of just making something up and saying "but the rules don't apply here". Excuse me? If you can say the rules just don't apply for "God"... why can't you say that they don't apply for Big Bang? You don't explain that, you just say it's so. If "God" doesn't need a cause... why does the universe itself? Just because?
Sorry, doesn't fly.
Even worse, your... attempt?... at a rationalization - that "God" is, "by definition", outside of the scope of science (matter, space, time, etc.) - is just plain wrong... by definition. ^_^; Really. Because - by definition! - God created the universe. Which means that he must have had an observable effect on things that are within the scope of science (matter, etc.). And any observable effect on the fabric of the universe is within the scope of science. Which means that, even if i were to grant you your claim that God is "outside" of the scope of anything science can touch, he is still within the field of science (or, at the very least, while God himself may be outside of science, science can still detect his presence, and quantify his actions), and, hence, does have to stand up to scientific enquiry.
Or to put it in plain, short, English... either God's totally out of the universe, completely totally, including all interaction up to and and including creation... or he's in it, at least partially, and thus, can be described, at least partially, by science. You can't have it both ways. If God created the universe, science can, and will, eventually pin him down... and he will have to stand up to scientific enquiry.
Thus far, of course, to paraphrase Laplace, we have found no need for that particular hypothesis. And simply saying "but, well, science can't explain X" does not mean that we suddenly need a god to explain X.You know, it really doesn't take ten pages or rocket science to decide the existence of God. Look around at life around us. See the complexity of it all: the functions performed and served, human nature in general, how we survive, and the individuality of us all. No two people are exactly alike in every way, science tells us that. Moving away from characteristics of humans and other life, look at the sun. How does it keep on burning on and on and on? YOu can argue any way that you could possibly ever want, but every question can be turned right back to the fact that there is a God, whether you want to believe it or not. The complexity of the universe around us demands that there is a creator. You could argue for the Big Bang Theory, which as you know, basically states that a mass of gases exploded and created the first form of life. This form of life supposedly evolved into the world as we know it today. If this were true, where did the gases come from? As for the evolution theory, it is impossible, because take for instance the myth that the human race came from apes. If we really evolved from apes, then why are there still apes and why aren't these apes giving birth to more humans. If you still don't see the fact that there is a creator, you should definitely read : Case For a Creator by Lee Strobel. Even if you don't really want to, at least you could enrich your knoweledge of the world.
God Bless! 
| aames_prov356 wrote: |
| You know, it really doesn't take ten pages or rocket science to decide the existence of God. Look around at life around us. See the complexity of it all: the functions performed and served, human nature in general, how we survive, and the individuality of us all. No two people are exactly alike in every way, science tells us that. |
Well, science tells us some people are genetically identical at birth and psychology tells us that they then develop differently according to their environment....so your point is?
| Quote: |
| Moving away from characteristics of humans and other life, look at the sun. How does it keep on burning on and on and on? |
That would be fusion of hydrogen. And your point is? | Quote: |
| YOu can argue any way that you could possibly ever want, but every question can be turned right back to the fact that there is a God, whether you want to believe it or not. |
Well so far you have produced no arguments for it. | Quote: |
| The complexity of the universe around us demands that there is a creator. |
No it doesn't. Complex systems do not necessarily need a creator. Very simple rules can produce extremely complex outcomes. | Quote: |
| You could argue for the Big Bang Theory, which as you know, basically states that a mass of gases exploded and created the first form of life. |
Yes I could argue for the BB and no it doesn't state anything of the kind. | Quote: |
| This form of life supposedly evolved into the world as we know it today. |
What form of life? | Quote: |
| If this were true, where did the gases come from? |
For that you would have to actually read some science which you appear either not to have read or not to have understood. | Quote: |
| As for the evolution theory, it is impossible, because take for instance the myth that the human race came from apes. |
Evolution doesn't say that. You really need to check your facts before launching on this type of tour-de-force. | Quote: |
| If we really evolved from apes, then why are there still apes and why aren't these apes giving birth to more humans. |
I'd explain but I really don't think you'd get it. See below for a basic primer in evolution theory | Quote: |
| If you still don't see the fact that there is a creator, you should definitely read : Case For a Creator by Lee Strobel. |
No. Honestly. You really shouldn't. It's complete pants, produced by a 'journalist' who believes in Creationism. | Quote: |
'Even if you don't really want to, at least you could enrich your knoweledge of the world. |
LOL...considering your lack of knowledge of the world, I would suggest that you should maybe read something else...quick. Maybe some basic science would help..
Basic Evolution Theory
Basic Cosmology Tutorial
My own Cosmology primer
When you have read these you should be able to understand what Indi and others are debating above..Hey Bikerman... I have just had a read through your Cosmology Primer, and I must say it's a very good read , one thing that does strike me as odd is
"This is a very difficult thing to understand even if you can’t build a mental picture you must accept it."
It must be taken on "Faith" ?
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
Hey Bikerman... I have just had a read through your Cosmology Primer, and I must say it's a very good read , one thing that does strike me as odd is
"This is a very difficult thing to understand even if you can’t build a mental picture you must accept it."
It must be taken on "Faith" ? |
Well, yes and no. The point is that to follow the rest of the primer you have to accept that particular point. I am NOT saying that it is unproven or that it is impossible to conceive the idea but I am conceding that some people find it difficult. I could have gone into a mathematical demonstration of the concept (I think I could, anyway) but that would be beyond the scope of this basic primer so I simply ask the reader to believe that what I am saying is true, even if they cannot themselves fully grasp it.
Unfortunately much of science has to be dealt with like this. Many concepts in physics cannot be analogised and require math to adequately explain. Without a mental picture or the necessary math it is very difficult for most people to get a handle on them. That is not to say that they require an act of faith, it is simply to say that the explanation for this may be beyond the abilities of the reader at this time. | aames_prov356 wrote: |
| As for the evolution theory, it is impossible, because take for instance the myth that the human race came from apes. If we really evolved from apes, then why are there still apes and why aren't these apes giving birth to more humans. |
Well Bikerman already shot down everything you said, except for this line. He didn't want to elaborate because he figured that you wouldn't understand it, but I'll give it a shot.
Evolution does NOT theorize that we came from apes. That nonsense is only said by ignorant Christians who want to try and have a counterargument to the theory of evolution but don't actually know anything about evolution. What is theorized is that we both came from a common ancestor known as "the missing link." These common ancestors evolved differently in different environments and so apes and humans began to evolve. This is the dumbed down version, so hopefully everyone will understand it. So if you want to try and bash down evolution, at least know what you're talking about.Well, I'd better clarify here. (I'm not criticising your posting, merely clarifying)....
We do not descend from apes - we ARE apes (Primates of the Hominid family)....
Kingdom - Animal : Phylum - Chordata (backbone) : Class - Mammalia (mammary glands) : Order - Primates (single pair of mammary glands) : Family - Hominidae (erect, two-footed walk) : Genus - Homo : Species - sapiens (Homo sapiens).
| Bikerman wrote: |
Well, I'd better clarify here. (I'm not criticising your posting, merely clarifying)....
We do not descend from apes - we ARE apes (Primates of the Hominid family)....
Kingdom - Animal : Phylum - Chordata (backbone) : Class - Mammalia (mammary glands) : Order - Primates (single pair of mammary glands) : Family - Hominidae (erect, two-footed walk) : Genus - Homo : Species - sapiens (Homo sapiens). |
That was pretty much my point; I just said that I was going to dumb it down a lot by saying that we came from a common ancestor, not from them, and leaving it at that. I didn't want to get too technical with these people, getting into the Hominoidea family of primates...
Last edited by Afaceinthematrix on Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:32 am; edited 1 time in total | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| That was pretty much my point; I just said that I was going to dumb it down a lot by saying that we came from a common ancestor, not from them, and leaving it at that. |
As I said - no criticism was implied 
I never understood how we could be considered to be so close to apes when we have reason and thought. Somehow cognitive thought wasn't much of an evolutionary jump?
| coeus wrote: |
| I never understood how we could be considered to be so close to apes when we have reason and thought. Somehow cognitive thought wasn't much of an evolutionary jump? |
Human beings aren't the only animals that think. We aren't too far from the rest of the ape family. Many other apes have social structures amazingly close to those of human-beings. Many apes have been known to have wars, commit murder, and have similar interactions between each other.
I also found this article right now:
| Quote: |
All the apes are generally thought of as highly intelligent, and scientific study has broadly confirmed that they perform outstandingly well on a wide range of cognitive tests - though again there is relatively little data on gibbon cognition. The early studies by Wolfgang Köhler demonstrated exceptional problem-solving abilities in chimpanzees, which Köhler attributed to insight. The use of tools has been repeatedly demonstrated; more recently, the manufacture of tools has been documented, both in the wild and in laboratory tests. Imitation is much more easily demonstrated in great apes than in other primate species. Almost all the studies in animal language acquisition have been completed with great apes, and though there is continuing dispute as to whether they demonstrate real language abilities, there is no doubt that they involve significant feats of learning. Chimpanzees in different parts of Africa have developed tools that are used in food acquisition, demonstrating a form of animal culture.[9]
|
You also have to realize that evolution is a very slow, gradual process. There were several steps in between us and whatever common ancestor we shared with the great apes of today. For example Homo erectus. There were also unsuccessful offshoots like Neandertal, which, according to one of the more recent articles I read about them, weren't a direct ancestor of ours, but a side branch of the Hominid family that were intellegent, used tools, wore clothes, and even may have used fire, but they couldn't compete.
| coeus wrote: |
| I never understood how we could be considered to be so close to apes when we have reason and thought. Somehow cognitive thought wasn't much of an evolutionary jump? |
So you maintain that Apes do not think and reason? Most psychologists would disagree with you there. Afaceinthematrix has provided one quote but there are many papers on this issue. Unfortunately the best ones tend to be subscription only, but here's a couple:
http://www.hhmi.org/news/shadlen20070603.html
http://www.leaonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15516709cog2403_2 | Quote: |
Well, I'd better clarify here. (I'm not criticising your posting, merely clarifying)....
We do not descend from apes - we ARE apes (Primates of the Hominid family)....
Kingdom - Animal : Phylum - Chordata (backbone) : Class - Mammalia (mammary glands) : Order - Primates (single pair of mammary glands) : Family - Hominidae (erect, two-footed walk) : Genus - Homo : Species - sapiens (Homo sapiens). |
So we might have some of the same characteristics as apes, but I still don't see how we ARE apes. Why? FOr instance, look at their... oh what's the word... personality traits? It's something like that. We act completely different than apes.
Sorry if this question is redundant, but I still don't get the logic behind your answer. | aames_prov356 wrote: |
| Sorry if this question is redundant, but I still don't get the logic behind your answer. |
If you genuinely want to understand then start by reading the primer on evolution that I referenced for you on page 1. Once you have read it we can discuss this without me having to constantly re-iterate the basics. | aames_prov356 wrote: |
| Quote: | Well, I'd better clarify here. (I'm not criticising your posting, merely clarifying)....
We do not descend from apes - we ARE apes (Primates of the Hominid family)....
Kingdom - Animal : Phylum - Chordata (backbone) : Class - Mammalia (mammary glands) : Order - Primates (single pair of mammary glands) : Family - Hominidae (erect, two-footed walk) : Genus - Homo : Species - sapiens (Homo sapiens). |
So we might have some of the same characteristics as apes, but I still don't see how we ARE apes. Why? FOr instance, look at their... oh what's the word... personality traits? It's something like that. We act completely different than apes.
Sorry if this question is redundant, but I still don't get the logic behind your answer. |
First off, you can't look at personality traits to determine biological characteristics. If you look in the animal kingdom, many animals that are related behave differently.
Second, human beings don't act that differently from other apes. Many ape species have been known to commit murder, have wars, and have similar social interactions with each other that humans have. Gorillas, for instance, have their own families and family structures and they'll fight to the death to protect each other.
Third, what's this nonsense about human beings acting completely different from apes? WE ARE APES! That's like saying that pit bull is completely different than dogs. We are a type of ape biologically, no matter what you want to say about psychological differences. And until you can understand basic biology, you will be unable to understand basic evolution. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
Third, what's this nonsense about human beings acting completely different from apes? WE ARE APES! That's like saying that pit bull is completely different than dogs. We are a type of ape biologically, no matter what you want to say about psychological differences. And until you can understand basic biology, you will be unable to understand basic evolution. |
Lol, we are? That's interesting. What are you basing that on? I certainly don't hope on the idea that we are close to chimps in DNA, what? 97%? 98%? 99%?.. see http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/03/57892
Haven't you ever heard the expression "don't judge a book by it's cover". Sure we share simularities to chimps, doesn't mean we are clearly part of their species branch. It's THEORIZED that we are on the same branch, not proven science. | coeus wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
Third, what's this nonsense about human beings acting completely different from apes? WE ARE APES! That's like saying that pit bull is completely different than dogs. We are a type of ape biologically, no matter what you want to say about psychological differences. And until you can understand basic biology, you will be unable to understand basic evolution. |
Lol, we are? That's interesting. What are you basing that on? I certainly don't hope on the idea that we are close to chimps in DNA, what? 97%? 98%? 99%?.. see http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/03/57892
Haven't you ever heard the expression "don't judge a book by it's cover". Sure we share simularities to chimps, doesn't mean we are clearly part of their species branch. It's THEORIZED that we are on the same branch, not proven science. |
It's fairly proven that DNA acts as an evolutionary tape measure. In the simplest explanation, the closer DNA is related, the closer the organisms are related. Likewise, the less DNA is related, the less the organisms are related. Obviously not some great explanation, but it's hard to go into anything deep with people who aren't all too open to it or don't have basic background biological knowledge.
And nice little phrases such as "don't judge a book by its cover" don't work with science. Science has given libraries full of evidence and information that very much supports our specific relations to apes. | coeus wrote: |
| Haven't you ever heard the expression "don't judge a book by it's cover". Sure we share simularities to chimps, doesn't mean we are clearly part of their species branch. It's THEORIZED that we are on the same branch, not proven science. |
Ho hum...the same thing comes up so often. I wish people would read the sticky in the science forum.
Anyway, to reiterate quickly;
Science does not prove things, it theorises and then tries to disprove the theory. Proven science is a theory which has not been disproved. In science theories are what we have - we don't say 'only a theory' because all science is 'theory'.coeus wrote:
Haven't you ever heard the expression "don't judge a book by it's cover". Sure we share simularities to chimps, doesn't mean we are clearly part of their species branch. It's THEORIZED that we are on the same branch, not proven science.
Ho hum...the same thing comes up so often. I wish people would read the sticky in the science forum.
Anyway, to reiterate quickly;
Science does not prove things, it theorises and then tries to disprove the theory. Proven science is a theory which has not been disproved. In science theories are what we have - we don't say 'only a theory' because all science is 'theory'.
to add onto that, scientific theories can be disproven. on the other hand, there is no way to "disprove" intelligent design, if one says that go just "helped evolution along"
Quote:
If you still don't see the fact that there is a creator, you should definitely read : Case For a Creator by Lee Strobel.
No. Honestly. You really shouldn't. It's complete pants, produced by a 'journalist' who believes in Creationism.
I meant to say this earlier, but I kinda forgot.
Lee Strobel is a journalist, yes. However, the fact that you either don't know or want to recall about him is that when he was a journalist, he was an atheist, like you, and he set out to topple the creation theory in an article for the paper he was writing for(the name just slipped my mind). This article turned into a year of investigation where he found the truth and struggled with it a great deal before laying down his pride and admitting that he was wrong. His major findings over this year were compiled into the books that he has written: THe Case for a Creator, THe Case for Christ, ect...
Another author you might be familiar with is Josh McDowell. He wrote Evidence that Demands a Verdict. He was the exact same as Lee Strobel. He was in college, had Christian friends who were always on his case about his atheistic ideas and he set out to prove them wrong. His findings became the book that I mentioned before.
Like I said, I meant to add clarification to your thought earlier, but I forgot.
I also wanted to ask you: WHy are you so willing to tell me what I should read in all those links you posted, but you aren't willing to look into what I have? 
God Bless! [/i] | Quote: |
| It's THEORIZED that we are on the same branch, not proven science. |
Then why is the evolution theory being taught as truth? A note on what I mentioned in my last post. I do believe that there is evolution to an extent, the whole adaptation to changes in climate and such.
| aames_prov356 wrote: |
| Quote: | | It's THEORIZED that we are on the same branch, not proven science. |
Then why is the evolution theory being taught as truth? |
You need to understand what 'theory' means. I explained it, in brief, above. We teach the theory of Gravity, with no controversy, because it is the best theory we have to explain how bodies attract each other. Evolution theory is taught as the best theory we have for how the various species came to be, including man. There are no serious alternative theories. Creationism (Intelligent Design) is not a serious alternative because it does not explain the available data and relies, instead, on a scriptural source as the only 'evidence'. Creationism/ID does not abide by the fundamental rule of science - if observation/experiment produces results which are contrary to, or not explained by, the theory, then the theory must change or be abandoned.
Evolution is a genuine scientific theory which means, like all scientific theories, one single counter-example can destroy the theory. It explains the mechanism (genetic mutation followed by natural selection). It explains the available empirical evidence (the fossil record), and it makes predictions which can be tested with reference to that empirical evidence.
If one single fossil was found to be in the wrong place in the fossil record (eg if you found a human fossil at a lower geological level than, say, a T-Rex) then the whole theory would have to be junked. The fact is that this has not happened and the millions of fossil samples that have been recovered all fit into the evolutionary framework. That is not to say that the fossil record is complete - it isn't. Neither is it to say that there are not still surprises out there - there undoubtedly are. It IS to say, however, that the theory is robust and explains all the available data. That is as good as it gets with a scientific theory. The simple fact is that the theory works.
PS - One should also bear in mind the background to this debate of teaching ID. It arises largely because certain religious groups in the US wanted Creationism/ID to be taught , in science classes, as an alternative to evolutionary theory. The US courts decided, quite rightly in my opinion, that ID/Creationism is NOT science and therefore should not be taught in science classes. There is nothing to stop schools teaching creationism in Religious Education classes and many do.
Last edited by Bikerman on Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:53 pm; edited 6 times in total | aames_prov356 wrote: |
Like I said, I meant to add clarification to your thought earlier, but I forgot.
I also wanted to ask you: WHy are you so willing to tell me what I should read in all those links you posted, but you aren't willing to look into what I have? |
It's a fair question which deserves an answer.
The reason I won't buy Strobel's book is because I have read the reviews and I don't particularly want to give him any of my money. The views of a journalist are of little interest to me in this debate since I would much prefer to read the source material from which such views arise. I have, therefore, read much of the original work which Strobel and others actually base their views and opinions on (this would include the works of Behe, Dembski, Kramer and others).
I have also had a lot of experience debating creationism/ID in various forums, on the internet and in 'real life', over many years. You can assume therefore that I am pretty well versed in the arguments.
The reason I suggested source material to you is that I feel that you have not explored the scientific explanations very thoroughly yet and I simply wanted to point you towards sources which would give you a basic grounding. The problem with most Creationist/ID material is that it pretends to be scientific but is actually either bad science or pseudo-science. In order to spot this you need to have a good grounding in the genuine science under discussion. | Bikerman wrote: |
Ho hum...the same thing comes up so often. I wish people would read the sticky in the science forum.
Anyway, to reiterate quickly;
Science does not prove things, it theorises and then tries to disprove the theory. Proven science is a theory which has not been disproved. In science theories are what we have - we don't say 'only a theory' because all science is 'theory'. |
That was my point bikerman....It is a theory that we are related to apes, based on the fact that we look like them. It is not 100% proven, but it is also not like the theory of gravity. We can see Gravity, we cannot see evolution transforming us from ancient apes into the humans and the various types of monkies we see today, so to say we ARE Apes, is accepting the theory as fact and ignoring all other possibilities, divine or not. which... is NOT science..it is faith. | coeus wrote: |
| That was my point bikerman....It is a theory that we are related to apes, based on the fact that we look like them. It is not 100% proven, but it is also not like the theory of gravity. We can see Gravity, we cannot see evolution transforming us from ancient apes into the humans and the various types of monkies we see today, so to say we ARE Apes, is accepting the theory as fact and ignoring all other possibilities, divine or not. which... is NOT science..it is faith. |
No you still aren't getting it. We don't 'see' gravity. We see the effects of it, for sure, but you cannot see gravity. Gravity is a theory in exactly the same way that evolution is a theory. You can disprove the Newtonian theory of gravity by performing an experiment and showing that the formula F=G*m1*m2/(d*d) doesn't work. To some extent Einstein modifies Newtonian gravity (by extending it) and there is every possibility that the theory of evolution will be extended in the future. You can disprove the theory of evolution by showing a fossil that is in the wrong stratum. Both Gravity and Evolution are theories. Both are scientific (ie they can be tested). Both are accepted as the current 'best' theory because both are supported by a host of observational and experimental data and neither has been refuted.
It is true that you cannot do experiments in real-time with evolutionary theory, but neither can we do such experiments with many other theories (some areas of cosmology being the obvious example). That does not make the theory any less valid.
The idea that we are related to apes (actually, as I said, the idea is that we ARE apes) is not because we look like them at all. A shark looks like a dolphin but they are from completely different families in evolution. It is because the fossil record shows a clear progression, because the biologies share various common physiological features and because the DNA shows important common features.
There is no such thing in science as "100% proven" | coeus wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
Third, what's this nonsense about human beings acting completely different from apes? WE ARE APES! That's like saying that pit bull is completely different than dogs. We are a type of ape biologically, no matter what you want to say about psychological differences. And until you can understand basic biology, you will be unable to understand basic evolution. |
Lol, we are? That's interesting. What are you basing that on? I certainly don't hope on the idea that we are close to chimps in DNA, what? 97%? 98%? 99%?.. see http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/03/57892
:)
Haven't you ever heard the expression "don't judge a book by it's cover". Sure we share simularities to chimps, doesn't mean we are clearly part of their species branch. It's THEORIZED that we are on the same branch, not proven science. |
Ok, first off you have you realize that the term "ape" is a man-made term. Scientists have defined an "ape" as any species in the family Hominoidea. We are in the family Hominoidea, therefore we are apes. The fact that we're apes is a simple matter of knowing the definition. If you want to know why we are classified as apes, and put in to the family Hominoidea, then I'd suggest reading this:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/prim_8.htm | Bikerman wrote: |
| coeus wrote: | | That was my point bikerman....It is a theory that we are related to apes, based on the fact that we look like them. It is not 100% proven, but it is also not like the theory of gravity. We can see Gravity, we cannot see evolution transforming us from ancient apes into the humans and the various types of monkies we see today, so to say we ARE Apes, is accepting the theory as fact and ignoring all other possibilities, divine or not. which... is NOT science..it is faith. |
No you still aren't getting it. We don't 'see' gravity. We see the effects of it, for sure, but you cannot see gravity. Gravity is a theory in exactly the same way that evolution is a theory. You can disprove the Newtonian theory of gravity by performing an experiment and showing that the formula F=G*m1*m2/(d*d) doesn't work. To some extent Einstein modifies Newtonian gravity (by extending it) and there is every possibility that the theory of evolution will be extended in the future. You can disprove the theory of evolution by showing a fossil that is in the wrong stratum. Both Gravity and Evolution are theories. Both are scientific (ie they can be tested). Both are accepted as the current 'best' theory because both are supported by a host of observational and experimental data and neither has been refuted.
It is true that you cannot do experiments in real-time with evolutionary theory, but neither can we do such experiments with many other theories (some areas of cosmology being the obvious example). That does not make the theory any less valid.
The idea that we are related to apes (actually, as I said, the idea is that we ARE apes) is not because we look like them at all. A shark looks like a dolphin but they are from completely different families in evolution. It is because the fossil record shows a clear progression, because the biologies share various common physiological features and because the DNA shows important common features.
There is no such thing in science as "100% proven" |
lol, you arn't getting it. We CAN see gravity. Gravity is a term used to describe that when I hold up and object and let go it will fall at a predertermined rate and so forth as described by the forumal you noted. So, when I hold something up and let go, I can see it fall, I see gravity in action. "Theory" in science covers a ton of stuff, from everything that we know is true, but might in chance be disproven, but not very likely...such as gravity, to things that are just an idea of a story of how something happened based on some observable facts, such as the evolution of humans. The fact is we have fosils in the ground, some resembling us, some resembling ape and they are mixed together in the ground in stratas. The faith part comes in believing those particular stratas are in fact time capsles and not just evidence of a massive flood. Dolphins and sharkes are simular, and if they lived on land you would find fossils of them together, doesn't mean they are related. You want to believe in a theory...sure, just don't call it science. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
Ok, first off you have you realize that the term "ape" is a man-made term. Scientists have defined an "ape" as any species in the family Hominoidea. We are in the family Hominoidea, therefore we are apes. The fact that we're apes is a simple matter of knowing the definition. If you want to know why we are classified as apes, and put in to the family Hominoidea, then I'd suggest reading this:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/prim_8.htm |
lol, did you read over what you just said... The term 'ape' is a man-made term. Scientists have DEFINED the species....who to say they didn't get it wrong? You know, a lot of trees look alike, but are in actuality not close at all
The more we learn the more we come close to the truth. Go check out the link I gave above...in fact here it is again: http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/03/57892
Fact != what we want to believe. | coeus wrote: |
| lol, you arn't getting it. We CAN see gravity. Gravity is a term used to describe that when I hold up and object and let go it will fall at a predertermined rate and so forth as described by the forumal you noted. So, when I hold something up and let go, I can see it fall, I see gravity in action. "Theory" in science covers a ton of stuff, from everything that we know is true, but might in chance be disproven, but not very likely...such as gravity, to things that are just an idea of a story of how something happened based on some observable facts, such as the evolution of humans. The fact is we have fosils in the ground, some resembling us, some resembling ape and they are mixed together in the ground in stratas. The faith part comes in believing those particular stratas are in fact time capsles and not just evidence of a massive flood. Dolphins and sharkes are simular, and if they lived on land you would find fossils of them together, doesn't mean they are related. You want to believe in a theory...sure, just don't call it science. |
{sigh}
1) Gravity is a force. You cannot see forces.
2) Yes you can see gravity in action, but what you are seeing is something fall. That could be due to Angels pushing or Devils pulling. The law (theory) of Gravity is specific and is defined using the formula I gave.
3) 'Theory' in science does NOT cover a 'ton of stuff'. It has a specific meaning. The word is frequently misused to cover hypotheses (ie unsupported by observation/experiment), but scientists know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Evolution is a theory. A theory is an accepted explanation of a group of phenomena, supported by experimental or observational data and subjected to extensive peer review. All scientific knowledge is expressed in theories.
4) I've already pointed out that the resemblance between apes and humans is not the important factor. You said that this was the important factor in deciding that humans were apes, not me. Remember what you said?: | Quote: |
| It is a theory that we are related to apes, based on the fact that we look like them |
As I said, it isn't. This is illustrated by the fact that other animals that look similar (sharks and dolphins) are in fact only distantly related.
5) The evidence that different stratas represent different geological times is overwhelming and is supported by a multitude of evidence using many different techniques. It really isn't in question.
6) The flood hypothesis is pseudo-science (ie contradicted by evidence) and could certainly not account for the distribution of geological strata and the fossils within those strata.
7) It is not me that decides on the definition of science, it is a generally agreed definition. There is no faith involved with evolution. The theory is clearly stated, there is plenty of evidence to support it and there is no evidence to refute it so, as in all such cases, it is accepted as the current best theory. Could evolution be proved wrong? Yes, in the sense that any scientific theory, including gravity, could be proved wrong. Has it been? No. Are there any competing theories? No.
BTW - have you actually read the link you keep providing? What do you think it demonstrates? Do you think it is saying that man is not an ape? It isn't, it is merely looking at the 1.5% difference in the genome between Chimp and Human and showing that the differences are larger (in this 1.5%) than previously thought. It is interesting but hardly world-shaking. | coeus wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
Ok, first off you have you realize that the term "ape" is a man-made term. Scientists have defined an "ape" as any species in the family Hominoidea. We are in the family Hominoidea, therefore we are apes. The fact that we're apes is a simple matter of knowing the definition. If you want to know why we are classified as apes, and put in to the family Hominoidea, then I'd suggest reading this:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/prim_8.htm |
lol, did you read over what you just said... The term 'ape' is a man-made term. Scientists have DEFINED the species....who to say they didn't get it wrong? You know, a lot of trees look alike, but are in actuality not close at all :)
The more we learn the more we come close to the truth. Go check out the link I gave above...in fact here it is again: http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/03/57892
Fact != what we want to believe. |
Yes, I read what you said, and I read the article that you posted the link to. But you're completely missing the point. How can scientists get a term mixed up when they invented it?
A dictionary is a book with a set of words and definitions for a given language. That is a man-made word and object. Therefore, anytime I see a book with words and definitions for a language I know it's a dictionary. There is no "getting it wrong." I haven't ever heard someone say, "You know, I don't think that Webster's Dictionary is really a dictionary. They must have gotten it wrong."
When coming up with the term "ape," scientists decided to make anything with all of these characteristics an ape (I might be missing some. I had to go to a website to refresh myself because I couldn't remember all of the characteristics, so I ended up just copying them from http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/Primates/Facts/Primateness/default.cfm):
* Large brain
* Large size
* Long arms
* Long curved fingers
* Very stable elbow joint
* Relatively spherical humerus head that allows for 360-degree shoulder rotation
* High limb mobility
* Long and robust clavicle
* Bony broad sternum
* Short and stable lumbar region of the back
* Broad pelvis
* No tail
* Primitive rounded molars
It comes down to this, a species either has these characteristics or doesn't have these characteristics. Scientists decided to call species with these characteristics "apes." This isn't a debate about anything. This thread was supposed to be debate about the existence of God, but I felt it necessary to define the word "ape" first.
You can decide if you believe about our close relationship with other species of apes (or lack of relationship). You can decide about the extent of evolution, the existence of God, how we came to be here, or anything else related to this post. But one thing is clear: by definition, human beings are apes and that is not debatable, it's a fact. | videoguy wrote: |
coeus wrote:
Haven't you ever heard the expression "don't judge a book by it's cover". Sure we share simularities to chimps, doesn't mean we are clearly part of their species branch. It's THEORIZED that we are on the same branch, not proven science.
Ho hum...the same thing comes up so often. I wish people would read the sticky in the science forum.
Anyway, to reiterate quickly;
Science does not prove things, it theorises and then tries to disprove the theory. Proven science is a theory which has not been disproved. In science theories are what we have - we don't say 'only a theory' because all science is 'theory'.
to add onto that, scientific theories can be disproven. on the other hand, there is no way to "disprove" intelligent design, if one says that go just "helped evolution along" |
It's not a scientific theory. Why would anyone attempt to scientifically disprove a non-scientific story/idea?Short answer, yes. "God does not believe in atheists therefore atheists do not exist."
Last edited by medievalman26 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | Hey Bikerman... I have just had a read through your Cosmology Primer, and I must say it's a very good read , one thing that does strike me as odd is
"This is a very difficult thing to understand even if you can’t build a mental picture you must accept it."
It must be taken on "Faith" ? |
Well, yes and no. The point is that to follow the rest of the primer you have to accept that particular point. I am NOT saying that it is unproven or that it is impossible to conceive the idea but I am conceding that some people find it difficult. I could have gone into a mathematical demonstration of the concept (I think I could, anyway) but that would be beyond the scope of this basic primer so I simply ask the reader to believe that what I am saying is true, even if they cannot themselves fully grasp it.
Unfortunately much of science has to be dealt with like this. Many concepts in physics cannot be analogised and require math to adequately explain. Without a mental picture or the necessary math it is very difficult for most people to get a handle on them. That is not to say that they require an act of faith, it is simply to say that the explanation for this may be beyond the abilities of the reader at this time. |
| Bikerman wrote: |
| 13.7 billion years ago there was nothing. Not space, really nothing. That is impossible for us to imagine because we think of space as nothing. Hopefully now we can understand or even picture space as something – it is not important what and whether it is correct or not at this stage, the importance is the distinction between Space-time and nothingness. This is a very difficult thing to understand even if you can’t build a mental picture you must accept it. To this end I will present 2 analogies for the expansion of the universe. |
...... I have put a more complete quote just incase anyone wonders what the hell I am going on about ....
What I dont understand is ,why I have to accept there was absolutely nothing so the evidence that the universe was once smaller and hotter makes sence , Is there any evidence of an absolute nothingness ?, I would hazard a guess it could'nt be measured even if there was. | medievalman26 wrote: |
| Short answer, yes. "God does not believe in atheists therefore atheists do not exist. |
That's not an answer.I think what medievalman26 is trying to make a point.
Some atheists, maybe not all, but some, think that since they don't believe in God that God doesn't exist. I personally think that He is trying to say, by what he said two posts above, that just because you don't believe in God, it doesn't mean that He doesn't exist. Just as if God said atheists don't exist, it doesn't mean that they don't. Because they do.
God Bless!! | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| What I dont understand is ,why I have to accept there was absolutely nothing so the evidence that the universe was once smaller and hotter makes sence , Is there any evidence of an absolute nothingness ?, I would hazard a guess it could'nt be measured even if there was. |
OK - fair question, let's see if I can answer it.
Firstly you don't have to accept that there was absolutely nothing. The theory indicates, however, that in OUR universe there was absolutely nothing. There may be other universes (multiverse) and there are respectable scientific hypotheses which indicate this possibility - m-theory for example*. For the universe that we exist in, however, the theory indicates that time and space (spacetime) came into existence at the point of the Big Bang.
Why do we think this?
Well we know the universe is expanding and therefore we can 'run the film backwards' and see that it must previously have been smaller. Continue the process and we arrive at a 'singularity'. This was just a hypothesis until 1964, and there were other hypotheses which were possible, the steady-state universe being chief amongst them.
The BB theory makes predictions, however, which can be measured. The main prediction was that the original 'Bang' would have left traces in the form of radiation which could be measured. In 1964 it WAS measured and it conformed pretty exactly to the predictions of the BB theory. We now call this the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.
This does not, in itself, prove that there was 'nothing' before the BB. When, however, you take into account Relativity theory, we arrive at the conclusion that not only was the mass of the universe 'created' at the moment of the BB, but spacetime itself must also have been created at that instant. The mathematical proof of this is very involved - some, indeed much, of it is beyond my abilities. It is, however, consistent and logical, and it explains what we see today. There is no other theory which does this and therefore we accept the BB hypothesis (modified by inflation and other 'add-ons') as the current best theory for explaining the observable universe.
The theory is not complete and there are still questions to answer - Dark Matter & the Cosmological constant being two 'biggies'. There is, however, no competing theory (ie a hypothesis which has been confirmed by observation) and, therefore, BB, modified by inflation is accepted generally.
* Even if m-theory is validated by experimental or observational data it will not refute the BB theory since M-theory postulates alternative 4 dimensional 'membrane universes' floating in an 11th dimension. Our particular universe would still have come into being as the BB theory states, but m-theory might explain how that happened (by 'collision' of membranes).first of all god did not create the big bang, there wasnt one, and the earth did not come to existance by chance, for example if i shake a box of linkin logs maybe by chance i will get a log cabin? NO i have to put it together piece by piece. like god did, and you should not dishonor God he gave his son which was glorified in heaven to die FOR YOU
| cody4camp wrote: |
| first of all god did not create the big bang, there wasnt one, and the earth did not come to existance by chance, for example if i shake a box of linkin logs maybe by chance i will get a log cabin? NO i have to put it together piece by piece. like god did, and you should not dishonor God he gave his son which was glorified in heaven to die FOR YOU |
Well, since I don't believe in God and therefore I don't believe that he gave his son to die for me, I obviously don't accept that I am dishonouring anybody. If that is your belief then you are welcome to it, but I don't share it and I don't appreciate being told what to believe by a religious zealot.
As for your argument for 'design', it is an old one and has been comprehensively refuted many times in this and other threads so I won't bother wasting time yet again with it. | aames_prov356 wrote: |
| I think what medievalman26 is trying to make a point. |
Is that what you think? i'd be curious to see some evidence of a point being made... or even attempting to be made.
| aames_prov356 wrote: |
| Some atheists, maybe not all, but some, think that since they don't believe in God that God doesn't exist. |
To my knowledge there is not a single atheist in the entire world that thinks that. Not a single godless one of them. Of course, atheists are notoriously diverse bunch, so i suppose there may be some outlyer somewhere deep in the wilds of wackyland that buys into some bizarre new age religion like the one from What the ****** do we know? and believes that whatever he thinks manifests as reality. i wouldn't bet on it though.
However, it is true that many atheists believe that since God does not exist, they don't have to believe in him.
| aames_prov356 wrote: |
| I personally think that He is trying to say, by what he said two posts above, that just because you don't believe in God, it doesn't mean that He doesn't exist. Just as if God said atheists don't exist, it doesn't mean that they don't. Because they do. |
Actually... technically, if God said that atheists don't exist, they wouldn't, unless God is either ignorant or a liar.
Keep trying, though.