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 cant 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 cant 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 Kφhler demonstrated exceptional problem-solving abilities in chimpanzees, which Kφhler 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 cant 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 cant 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.athiests really dont exist you end up believeing something, god gives every man atleast 1 chance to come to christ
| cody4camp wrote: |
| athiests really dont exist you end up believeing something, god gives every man atleast 1 chance to come to christ |
If you could provide me evidence that atheists do not exist, i would be most grateful. i hate paying taxes. | 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 |
Perhaps you shouldn't press your beliefs on people in such a manner. It makes you look silly.
| cody4camp wrote: |
| athiests really dont exist you end up believeing something, god gives every man atleast 1 chance to come to christ |
I really wish people would know the definition of atheist and what the actual word means.Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
God does not exist. When you look in history you will see a very clear line in theism whilst humanity progresses. First, when humans understand almost nothing, they have a god for almost everything: polytheism. When they start to understand more there is only need for one god: monotheism. Nowadays, people understand lots of things better and thus, have no need for the reinsurrance of a god: atheism.
God is a product of humans, not the other way around.
| Coen wrote: |
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
God does not exist. When you look in history you will see a very clear line in theism whilst humanity progresses. First, when humans understand almost nothing, they have a god for almost everything: polytheism. When they start to understand more there is only need for one god: monotheism. Nowadays, people understand lots of things better and thus, have no need for the reinsurrance of a god: atheism.
God is a product of humans, not the other way around. |
Evidence is in the eye of the beholder...seeing the theism throughout history from the beginning up until this very discussion I see evidence for there to be the possibility for something divine.
Just out of curiousity what do you mean by "a very clear line in theism" ?
Seems you are trying to connect lack of understanding with a belief system, however there are plenty of scientists (with whom you seem to attach knowledge) who have a belief in something divine. Maybe people don't believe due to a "need for reinsurrance" but rather because they believe it is the way it is. | coeus wrote: |
| seeing the theism throughout history from the beginning up until this very discussion I see evidence for there to be the possibility for something divine. |
The fact that theism evolves is one of the things that makes me confinced there isn't a god. Because people change the images they have of gods, and because those changes can be seen whilst looking back, is proof for me there is no god. And look at the enourmous number of religions. Which one would be true? None? All? I say none of them is true. There is no god, we create things. Maybe we, in a way, are god as we created him ourselves.
| coeus wrote: |
| Just out of curiousity what do you mean by "a very clear line in theism" ? |
The line in theism I described is that when humans understand virtually nothing about nature they have lots of deites or devine creatures/gods. When they begin to understand more they say: Ah well, they don't excist because we know nature does those things and we understand how (and why) it happens. When fewer things remain, the need for gods dissapears. Gods are only thought of to explain the unexplainable. So we end up with one god to explain things we don't know. That is the line I'm talking about. People hardly understand anything - polytheism, people start to understand more - monotheism, people find out they do not need gods to understand - atheism.
That's the line I'm talking about.
| coeus wrote: |
| Seems you are trying to connect lack of understanding with a belief system |
That is very true, it is exactly what I'm doing. Every aspect of nature has his/her own god in polytheism and they cause natural effects such as thunder and rain. It isn't just a claim, it's reality. As monotheism "evolved" from polytheism when people began to understand more the entire fact of believing came from a lack of understanding.
Of course nowadays people mostly believe out of fear or because of doctrine. If religion was true and scientifically proven then sciene would support it and we would see more people becoming religious. In fact, it is the other way around. There is an increasing number of people who stop believing into god(s).
| coeus wrote: |
| Maybe people don't believe due to a "need for reinsurrance" but rather because they believe it is the way it is. |
Maybe some do. I for one, however, see most people believing either out of fear or because of doctrine and that is why most people believe. Actually starting to believe because you found solid proof for it is only fooling yourself as there is no scientifcal proof and there never will be.
Last edited by Coen on Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:39 pm; edited 1 time in total | Quote: |
| 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 |
I agree with what you are saying about God sending Jesus to die for us. (I am a Christian for the record), but I do want to point out that we don't know for sure if the Big Bang theory is true or not. Science does show us that there is still radiation from what could have been the big bang, but we don't know for sure. That is why it is a theory. However, if it were true, which again we don't know for sure because we weren't there, I would have to ask what caused the Big Bang? Some might say chance, but me personally, and I am going to assume, that you too would say it would be God.
GOd Bless!!
ps Try WHEN SKEPTICS ASK by Norman L. Geisler. It's a very good read (though it requires a lot of deep thought) It might help you out some in this thread. It contains scietific and philosophical proof for the existence of God and a great number of other things. I think it is really good, personally. | coeus wrote: |
| Evidence is in the eye of the beholder...seeing the theism throughout history from the beginning up until this very discussion I see evidence for there to be the possibility for something divine. |
Which Divinity would that be then? Yaweh, Jesus, the Holy Ghost? Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva? Apollo, Mars, Venus? Anubis, Ra, Osiris? The sun, moon, stars? What evidence do you see? | aames_prov356 wrote: |
| I agree with what you are saying about God sending Jesus to die for us. (I am a Christian for the record), but I do want to point out that we don't know for sure if the Big Bang theory is true or not. Science does show us that there is still radiation from what could have been the big bang, but we don't know for sure. That is why it is a theory. However, if it were true, which again we don't know for sure because we weren't there, I would have to ask what caused the Big Bang? Some might say chance, but me personally, and I am going to assume, that you too would say it would be God. |
So you are saying that we cannot know something for sure unless we were there? Where you there when the bible was written?
You still confuse the word 'theory' in science. Scientific theories are explanations of phenomena that are as certain as it is possible to be. The word theory is loosely used outside science to mean just a guess or a possibility, but in science it means considerably more than that.
If you have to ask what caused the Big Bang, why do you not feel it is necessary to ask 'what caused God'.? Do you really think it is more likely that a complex being or Divinity existed 'forever' than it is that complete nothingness existed 'forever'?
Another problem with that question has already been explained in this thread - the problem of causality. Indi's posting deals with this in detail.
Last edited by Bikerman on Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:51 pm; edited 1 time in total | aames_prov356 wrote: |
| I agree with what you are saying about God sending Jesus to die for us. (I am a Christian for the record), but I do want to point out that we don't know for sure if the Big Bang theory is true or not. Science does show us that there is still radiation from what could have been the big bang, but we don't know for sure. That is why it is a theory. However, if it were true, which again we don't know for sure because we weren't there, I would have to ask what caused the Big Bang? Some might say chance, but me personally, and I am going to assume, that you too would say it would be God. |
From your point of view it cannot be god. In other threads I have seen you citate things out of the bible and take it literally. God created the world in seven days, he did not use a big bang at all. What you are saying can't be true. At least, not for you. It defies certain things you said in the past.
| Quote: |
| ps Try WHEN SKEPTICS ASK by Norman L. Geisler. It's a very good read (though it requires a lot of deep thought) It might help you out some in this thread. It contains scietific and philosophical proof for the existence of God and a great number of other things. I think it is really good, personally. |
How long do I have to keep repeating myself? IF and only if there was scientifical proof for the excistance of god, sciene would back it up. Do they? No. Conclusion: There is no scientifical proof for the excistance of any god. | Coen wrote: |
The fact that theism evolves is one of the things that makes me confinced there isn't a god. Because people change the images they have of gods, and because those changes can be seen whilst looking back, is proof for me there is no god. And look at the enourmous number of religions. Which one would be true? None? All? I say none of them is true. There is no god, we create things. Maybe we, in a way, are god as we created him ourselves.
|
It is like we are looking at a dusk sky and disagreeing if it's still day or the start of night. You see it the above way and I see the abundance of religion as a giant world-wide telephone game. There is a truth out there, but being spread over and over people inserted their humanism and thus we have different views of God. But the fact that there is discussion, there is variety, tells me there is a definate possibility of truth out there.
| Coen wrote: |
Of course nowadays people mostly believe out of fear or because of doctrine.
|
It is unfortunate people do believe for that reason... there is a lack of intelligence in the world 
| Coen wrote: |
If religion was true and scientifically proven then sciene would support it and we would see more people becoming religious. In fact, it is the other way around. There is an increasing number of people who stop believing into god(s).
|
How could science ever prove religion? Science deals with the laws of nature...God (obviously) created them and is thus outside those laws. Anything that violates the laws of nature is written off by science as unexplained and ignored as an impossibility for explaination by science due to the fact that you can't explain something outside of the laws of nature by something bound by them. So if you reason for religion being false due to a lack of science backing I would really rethink that logic. | coeus wrote: |
| It is like we are looking at a dusk sky and disagreeing if it's still day or the start of night. You see it the above way and I see the abundance of religion as a giant world-wide telephone game. There is a truth out there, but being spread over and over people inserted their humanism and thus we have different views of God. But the fact that there is discussion, there is variety, tells me there is a definate possibility of truth out there. |
You agree that people have inserted humanism into religion. What made them think of religion in the first place. God? As I have said, and proven, before. Humans created polytheism and everything just "snowballed" from there on.
| coeus wrote: |
| Coen wrote: |
Of course nowadays people mostly believe out of fear or because of doctrine.
|
It is unfortunate people do believe for that reason... there is a lack of intelligence in the world |
There is indeed, and it shows by, not my words, but by people that keep believing in thins that are scientifically incorrect and are so obviously incorrect that there would be no maintaining them if anyone came up with them today.
| Coen wrote: |
If religion was true and scientifically proven then sciene would support it and we would see more people becoming religious. In fact, it is the other way around. There is an increasing number of people who stop believing into god(s).
|
How could science ever prove religion? Science deals with the laws of nature...God (obviously) created them and is thus outside those laws. Anything that violates the laws of nature is written off by science as unexplained and ignored as an impossibility for explaination by science due to the fact that you can't explain something outside of the laws of nature by something bound by them. So if you reason for religion being false due to a lack of science backing I would really rethink that logic.[/quote]Science does not only deal with laws of nature. Science deals with coming up with a theory and attempting to falsify that theory.
And how science can prove religion? Science doesn't work that way. You come up with something and try to prove it is wrong so you can improve your theory and start all over again. That is the main principle of science. Sciene cannot prove religion to be there but it doesn't have too. It can prove that religion, or what is in religious books, is wrong and thus that religion is irrealistic. | Coen wrote: |
Science does not only deal with laws of nature. Science deals with coming up with a theory and attempting to falsify that theory.
And how science can prove religion? Science doesn't work that way. You come up with something and try to prove it is wrong so you can improve your theory and start all over again. That is the main principle of science. Sciene cannot prove religion to be there but it doesn't have too. It can prove that religion, or what is in religious books, is wrong and thus that religion is irrealistic.
|
The problem is that Science by definition is based on the scientific method which is all about making a hypothesis, testing it and drawing a conclusion based on the testing. If you can't test a hypothesis then it is out of the realm of science. You can theorize all you want, but if you can't test that theory then it isn't science. Unless I am missing the definition of science.
Things of God are incapable of being tested for they are not repeatable. I can't just say ok, I am going to pray for a sandwich on this empty plate in front of me, then *boom* it happends...that would be science. | coeus wrote: |
| The problem is that Science by definition is based on the scientific method which is all about making a hypothesis, testing it and drawing a conclusion based on the testing. If you can't test a hypothesis then it is out of the realm of science. You can theorize all you want, but if you can't test that theory then it isn't science. Unless I am missing the definition of science. |
No, that is a pretty accurate summary.
| Quote: |
| Things of God are incapable of being tested for they are not repeatable. I can't just say ok, I am going to pray for a sandwich on this empty plate in front of me, then *boom* it happends...that would be science. |
But you can test whether prayer works on a statistical sample. In fact this has been done. Known as the 'great prayer experiment', a study was conducted in 2005-2006 into the effects of prayer on sick patients. The Templeton Foundation sponsored the study and it was conducted using strict double-blind experimental protocol (ie it was scientifically valid).
The Great Prayer Experiment
1802 patients were monitored, all of whom had undergone coronary surgery.
There were 3 groups - - Group A received prayers and did not know it.
- Group B received prayers and did know it.
- Group C (control) received no prayers and did not know it.
The prayers were said by the congregations of 3 churches in different states (Minnesota, Missouri and Massachusetts). The praying congregations were given the first name and initial of the person they were praying for.
The results were published in the American Heart Journal in April 2006 and were quite conclusive.
There was no difference between those who had been prayed for and the control group (Group C).
Even more damningly there WAS a difference between Group A and Group B - Group B did worse than Group A.
The conclusion
Praying for a sick person does not seem to help their recovery in any measurable way and telling someone you will pray for them seems to hinder their recovery.
Last edited by Bikerman on Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:27 pm; edited 1 time in totalYou can't think of God as an old man with a beard.
God is an eternal, governing force. Gravity is a force, it pulls things down, but it is not an old man in with a beard named Gravity pulling things down.
Just like that, God is the ultimate force, who's physical state/shape cannot be imagined by us, just like gravity can't.
| Bikerman wrote: |
But you can test whether prayer works on a statistical sample. In fact this has been done. Known as the 'great prayer experiment', a study was conducted in 2005-2006 into the effects of prayer on sick patients. The Templeton Foundation sponsored the study and it was conducted using strict double-blind experimental protocol (ie it was scientifically valid).
The Great Prayer Experiment
1802 patients were monitored, all of whom had undergone coronary surgery.
There were 3 groups - - Group A received prayers and did not know it.
- Group B received prayers and did know it.
- Group C (control) received no prayers and did not know it.
The prayers were said by the congregations of 3 churches in different states (Minnesota, Missouri and Massachusetts). The praying congregations were given the first name and initial of the person they were praying for.
The results were published in the American Heart Journal in April 2006 and were quite conclusive.
There was no difference between those who had been prayed for and the control group (Group C).
Even more damningly there WAS a difference between Group A and Group B - Group B did worse than Group A.
The conclusion
Praying for a sick person does not seem to help their recovery in any measurable way and telling someone you will pray for them seems to hinder their recovery. |
Matthew 4:7
again, God is outside the realm of science no matter what you do.So God is, by that definition, of no importance. If God does not intervene physically in our universe then what use is the concept of God? If God DOES intervene physically in our universe then he/she/it is not beyond science.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| So God is, by that definition, of no importance. If God does not intervene physically in our universe then what use is the concept of God? If God DOES intervene physically in our universe then he/she/it is not beyond science. |
I didn't say God doesn't intervene, although I don't think he has to under some views of meaning of life. I just said you can't test Him.Think of life as a video game, and God made that game.
If I were to make a game, and made it so that characters can walk right or left and jump, and that's it, well I made the video game, but I'm not IN the video game.
Can a pixel generated character understand how their environment was made? No.
| coeus wrote: |
| I didn't say God doesn't intervene, although I don't think he has to under some views of meaning of life. I just said you can't test Him. |
If he intervenes then you can test him. Any intervention must be via a contravention of physical or statistical laws, otherwise there is no intervention. Any contravention of physical or statistical laws can be measured and therefore tested. | Bikerman wrote: |
| coeus wrote: | | I didn't say God doesn't intervene, although I don't think he has to under some views of meaning of life. I just said you can't test Him. |
If he intervenes then you can test him. Any intervention must be via a contravention of physical or statistical laws, otherwise there is no intervention. Any contravention of physical or statistical laws can be measured and therefore tested. |
God is different, it is claimed that you shall not test God. Thus do you think God will allow you to test Him? Certainly not, so you set up this prayer test, of course God knows this and knows the purpose behind the tests, you don't want to heal the person, you want to test God so He doesn't answer...thus God is unable to be tested by science for he will simply ignore it all. | coeus wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | coeus wrote: | | I didn't say God doesn't intervene, although I don't think he has to under some views of meaning of life. I just said you can't test Him. |
If he intervenes then you can test him. Any intervention must be via a contravention of physical or statistical laws, otherwise there is no intervention. Any contravention of physical or statistical laws can be measured and therefore tested. |
God is different, it is claimed that you shall not test God. Thus do you think God will allow you to test Him? Certainly not, so you set up this prayer test, of course God knows this and knows the purpose behind the tests, you don't want to heal the person, you want to test God so He doesn't answer...thus God is unable to be tested by science for he will simply ignore it all. |
So God only intervenes when nobody is looking? LOL. | Bikerman wrote: |
So God only intervenes when nobody is looking? LOL. |
nope, just when you arn't testing and come to him with an honest heart.
James 4 talks about "When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures."
Now this is talking in context of asking out of a pleasure, with the wrong heart. Same would apply with testing God. If you are asking to see if God will come through He won't. But when you ask out of faith He will.All I see here are desperate attempts to justify something which cannot be justified. There has been a simular experiment in Holland too. People that were about to undergo surgery and had a risk of dieing during the procedure were divided in the same three groups. A group for which was not prayed, a group for which was prayed but did not know and a group which was being prayed for and they knew it.
It turned out that the group people that knew there were others praying for them had more deaths then the group with people for whom wasn't prayed at all.
| Quote: |
nope, just when you arn't testing and come to him with an honest heart.
James 4 talks about "When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures." |
That doesn't work though. What if you ask out of an honest heart - like the church congregations in the experiment. Their motives were pure - they were genuinly praying for the recovery of people. They did not know that they were testing God and they had no impure or personal reasons for their prayers, so James 4 does not apply. | coeus wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
So God only intervenes when nobody is looking? LOL. |
nope, just when you arn't testing and come to him with an honest heart.
James 4 talks about "When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures."
Now this is talking in context of asking out of a pleasure, with the wrong heart. Same would apply with testing God. If you are asking to see if God will come through He won't. But when you ask out of faith He will. |
So you call it a wrong motive to prove he really exists? Strange... | Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: | nope, just when you arn't testing and come to him with an honest heart.
James 4 talks about "When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures." |
That doesn't work though. What if you ask out of an honest heart - like the church congregations in the experiment. Their motives were pure - they were genuinly praying for the recovery of people. They did not know that they were testing God and they had no impure or personal reasons for their prayers, so James 4 does not apply. |
You are getting into the theological issue. Ever seen Bruce Almighty? God couldn't answer every's prayers for many conflict. God draws lines, he has to, there is no logical way to answer A and !A. But that comes down to theological questions of figuring out God's thought process, which is also seemingly impossible. | Coen wrote: |
So you call it a wrong motive to prove he really exists? Strange... |
yes, for testing God and getting an answer would destroy faith for you would have a solid answer. This idea is not by itself meant to make sence, for there are others things to consider why added onto it make it click in your head. things such as reason for life, love, grace, etc. | coeus wrote: |
| You are getting into the theological issue. Ever seen Bruce Almighty? God couldn't answer every's prayers for many conflict. God draws lines, he has to, there is no logical way to answer A and !A. But that comes down to theological questions of figuring out God's thought process, which is also seemingly impossible. |
That's OK...I can cope. I studied theology for 4 years. What we are saying here is that God didn't answer any prayers - not one of the 1802. We don't need to understand God's thought processes to see whether he grants prayers or not and all the evidence we have is that he doesn't. We can make a scientific statement, therefore, that praying does not work. Until evidence is produced to the contrary, this is valid. | Bikerman wrote: |
| That's OK...I can cope. I studied theology for 4 years. What we are saying here is that God didn't answer any prayers - not one of the 1802. We don't need to understand God's thought processes to see whether he grants prayers or not and all the evidence we have is that he doesn't. We can make a scientific statement, therefore, that praying does not work. Until evidence is produced to the contrary, this is valid. |
Yup and I am going to say you will never get that evidence. | coeus wrote: |
| Coen wrote: |
So you call it a wrong motive to prove he really exists? Strange... |
yes, for testing God and getting an answer would destroy faith for you would have a solid answer. This idea is not by itself meant to make sence, for there are others things to consider why added onto it make it click in your head. things such as reason for life, love, grace, etc. |
God used to manifest himself in the bible many times. He didn't seem to care much back then, why would he now? He helped his people by actually proving he excisted. His people had great fortune and all others had bad fortune. I don't see that nowadays. | Coen wrote: |
God used to manifest himself in the bible many times. He didn't seem to care much back then, why would he now? He helped his people by actually proving he excisted. His people had great fortune and all others had bad fortune. I don't see that nowadays. |
Wish I had the actual bible verse and if you want me to hunt I can but it talks about that, how even revealing himself to us we still doubted. Look at the people who followed moses, they just saw moses do all kinds of stuff including parting a freakin sea, he goes up a mountain for a few days and they already doubt and are worshiping other idols. So obviously that didn't work. So God tried something else. He sent His son. Under this new covenant He doesn't do things like that anymore, instead he uses His people to do thing. You want to see God's love demonstrated go check out Christian organizations and missions across the world. You see it through God's people. | coeus wrote: |
| Wish I had the actual bible verse and if you want me to hunt I can but it talks about that, how even revealing himself to us we still doubted. Look at the people who followed moses, they just saw moses do all kinds of stuff including parting a freakin sea, he goes up a mountain for a few days and they already doubt and are worshiping other idols. So obviously that didn't work. So God tried something else. He sent His son. Under this new covenant He doesn't do things like that anymore, instead he uses His people to do thing. You want to see God's love demonstrated go check out Christian organizations and missions across the world. You see it through God's people. |
He probably had to do that because he never let Moses enter the promised land. He could see how perfect and green it was, which doesn't match with the Isreali climate in that time period, but he didn't let him enter it.
It is true that christian organisations do a lot of good. On the other hand, there are also a lot of other non-religious organisations who do a lot of good too. Thus we would not need god.
I also see a lot of people killing others in the name of god. Yeah, real good. | Coen wrote: |
He probably had to do that because he never let Moses enter the promised land. He could see how perfect and green it was, which doesn't match with the Isreali climate in that time period, but he didn't let him enter it.
|
God's bigger than the climate. He didn't let them in because like I said the people started to worship idols instead of Him.
| Coen wrote: |
It is true that christian organisations do a lot of good. On the other hand, there are also a lot of other non-religious organisations who do a lot of good too. Thus we would not need god.
I also see a lot of people killing others in the name of god. Yeah, real good. |
You don't need or follow God to do good works, you follow Him out of love, because you want to side with Love and not Evil and live eternally in Heaven. As you stated, anyone can do good works, but only His children can enter His house.
And there are a lot more deaths in the name of worldly things than in the name of God. But that is beside the point that true Christians don't kill people. If a "Christian" kills in the name of God, s/he is no Christian at all. A common misconception, I forgive you for making the mistake of bashing Christianity because of some idiots. | coeus wrote: |
| Coen wrote: |
He probably had to do that because he never let Moses enter the promised land. He could see how perfect and green it was, which doesn't match with the Isreali climate in that time period, but he didn't let him enter it.
|
God's bigger than the climate. He didn't let them in because like I said the people started to worship idols instead of Him. |
Yes, and punish Moses because he had done what god asked of him. He has a good sense of justice, that god of yours.
| Quote: |
| Coen wrote: |
It is true that christian organisations do a lot of good. On the other hand, there are also a lot of other non-religious organisations who do a lot of good too. Thus we would not need god.
I also see a lot of people killing others in the name of god. Yeah, real good. |
You don't need or follow God to do good works, you follow Him out of love, because you want to side with Love and not Evil and live eternally in Heaven. As you stated, anyone can do good works, but only His children can enter His house.
And there are a lot more deaths in the name of worldly things than in the name of God. But that is beside the point that true Christians don't kill people. If a "Christian" kills in the name of God, s/he is no Christian at all. A common misconception, I forgive you for making the mistake of bashing Christianity because of some idiots. |
One word: Crusades
Organized and approved by the pope and done by christians for their mercifull lord. | Coen wrote: |
Yes, and punish Moses because he had done what god asked of him. He has a good sense of justice, that god of yours.
|
That was between Him and Moses, who are you to judge the righteousness of God? You don't know the circumstances, neither do I. God has His reasons and if I knew what they were I would stand beside God's decision for I know He is just.
| Coen wrote: |
One word: Crusades
Organized and approved by the pope and done by christians for their mercifull lord. |
typical response.
I will say again... anyone who kills in the name of Jesus Christ is not a follow of His teachings. Plain and simple.
Same with the inquisition.
But if you wish to consider them, that's 2 wars.
Off the top of my head, wars not about religion:
The Peloponnesian War
Civil War
World War I
World War II
Revolutionary War | coeus wrote: |
| Coen wrote: |
Yes, and punish Moses because he had done what god asked of him. He has a good sense of justice, that god of yours.
|
That was between Him and Moses, who are you to judge the righteousness of God? You don't know the circumstances, neither do I. God has His reasons and if I knew what they were I would stand beside God's decision for I know He is just. |
If you are right he made me the way he wanted me to be so he wanted me to question him and he wanted me to be sceptical about religion. I question his actions because they do not stroke with what he says as all people should and do with, for example, political or other leaders.
| Quote: |
| Coen wrote: |
One word: Crusades
Organized and approved by the pope and done by christians for their mercifull lord. |
typical response.
I will say again... anyone who kills in the name of Jesus Christ is not a follow of His teachings. Plain and simple.
Same with the inquisition.
But if you wish to consider them, that's 2 wars.
Off the top of my head, wars not about religion:
The Peloponnesian War
Civil War
World War I
World War II
Revolutionary War |
Typical? Why? God let his people slaughter others in the bible, he doesn't seem to mind. | Coen wrote: |
That was between Him and Moses, who are you to judge the righteousness of God? You don't know the circumstances, neither do I. God has His reasons and if I knew what they were I would stand beside God's decision for I know He is just. |
If you are right he made me the way he wanted me to be so he wanted me to question him and he wanted me to be sceptical about religion. I question his actions because they do not stroke with what he says as all people should and do with, for example, political or other leaders.
[/quote]
God is not like us, he has laws for us, not himself. We don't know all the issues at hand there to make a logical assumption of God being just or unjust. You don't know the reason behind His actions, or even the purpose of His actions, so don't bother trying to figure it out.
| Coen wrote: |
Typical? Why? God let his people slaughter others in the bible, he doesn't seem to mind. |
Different circumstances, different people, different times, different world. God didn't ask the crusades to happen, show me how the crusades are biblically sound please. (Don't start pulling old testament wars out of context for this purpose, we live in a post Jesus world and simply put, the rules are different.)Agreed. There's a reason it's called the Old Testament, and the Bible and Quran are the New and Final testaments...
| coeus wrote: |
| God is not like us, he has laws for us, not himself. We don't know all the issues at hand there to make a logical assumption of God being just or unjust. You don't know the reason behind His actions, or even the purpose of His actions, so don't bother trying to figure it out. |
How do you know god is not like us? Lets say there is a god, for just one moment lets presume there is and that the bible is correct. God created us to his own image and the entire bible explains his ways. I'd say we can explain his actions very well. Most christians also explain some of his actions until they stumble across one they can't explain because it's cruel. Then they'll say: "We can't explain them. It's god." now that's not really logical now, is it.
| coeus wrote: |
| Coen wrote: |
Typical? Why? God let his people slaughter others in the bible, he doesn't seem to mind. |
Different circumstances, different people, different times, different world. God didn't ask the crusades to happen, show me how the crusades are biblically sound please. (Don't start pulling old testament wars out of context for this purpose, we live in a post Jesus world and simply put, the rules are different.) |
Diffrent world? How can that be? Did the world flip over in the time it took us? The entire purpose of those wars in the bible was to slaughter those who did not believe in God. The crusades served a simular purpose. And god did not ask for them? There have been many people who said they either saw god or Jesus in a vision and he told them to go with the crusades in order to free the holy land. God did approve them.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Agreed. There's a reason it's called the Old Testament, and the Bible and Quran are the New and Final testaments... |
So just because they are older they are not just anymore? That means Genesis isn't correct either. And in the new testament there are other flaws which can be pointed at, no real diffrence there. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Agreed. There's a reason it's called the Old Testament, and the Bible and Quran are the New and Final testaments... |
So the Old Testament doesn't hold truth anymore?I'm not saying that. According to the Christians' belief, the Bible is more accurate/updated than the Old Testament with both being God's words, and according to Muslims' belief, the Quran is more accurate/updated than the Bible, which is more accurate/updated than the Old Testament, but all three the words of God.
Thus the names Old Testament, New Testament, Final Testament.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
I'm not saying that. According to the Christians' belief, the Bible is more accurate/updated than the Old Testament with both being God's words, and according to Muslims' belief, the Quran is more accurate/updated than the Bible, which is more accurate/updated than the Old Testament, but all three the words of God.
Thus the names Old Testament, New Testament, Final Testament. |
Wrong. Firstly, the Christian Bible is the Old Testament AND the New Testament. Secondly there is no assumption in Christian theology that the NT is more accurate than the OT. Thirdly, if both OT and NT are God's word then how can one be accurate and the other inaccurate?Changes for the better were made to make people convert.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Changes for the better were made to make people convert. |
How can you change the word of God and still say it is the word of God? Did God change his/her/it's mind?
How can something be 'better' than the word of God? How do you improve on perfection?
Is it justified to change the word of God simply to get more converts? That strikes me as pragmatic, not divine. | Coen wrote: |
How do you know god is not like us? Lets say there is a god, for just one moment lets presume there is and that the bible is correct. God created us to his own image and the entire bible explains his ways. I'd say we can explain his actions very well. Most christians also explain some of his actions until they stumble across one they can't explain because it's cruel. Then they'll say: "We can't explain them. It's god." now that's not really logical now, is it.
|
Didn't mean for it to sound like that, more like, "we don't know the whole story so we can't judge His actions." For example, say it said in a book I killed someone. Pretty cruel you'd say eh? What if the book didn't mention that the person held me at gunpoint and I was trying to disarm him and in the struggle he was shot and died. Still hold the same grudge? Tell me the exact example of God being cruel and we can work through it, but I don't know every story off the top of my head and thus will need some references from you to look them up.
| Coen wrote: |
Diffrent world? How can that be? Did the world flip over in the time it took us? The entire purpose of those wars in the bible was to slaughter those who did not believe in God. The crusades served a simular purpose. And god did not ask for them? There have been many people who said they either saw god or Jesus in a vision and he told them to go with the crusades in order to free the holy land. God did approve them.
|
World as in culture, China is a different world from where I am currently at.
Purpose in the bible was NOT to slaughter those who did not believe in God, but those who directly disobeyed God. Huge difference in meaning. Also, God Himself came down and directed the people to do so, as you would read in the bible. However....much like the flood brought on different times and a different view on us from God, Jesus did the same. No more was he going to slaughter tribes of people for their lack of sacrafice, instead He brought down His son as the ultimate sacrafice, for the entire World.
Jesus preached love your enemies as your friends and your friends as yourself thus the crusades is ENTIRELY ANTI-Jesus, thus I say again, those were not Christians. Just because they said they heard from God, doesn't mean they did. God would NEVER go back on His word, never has and never will. Jesus preached love and tolerance, NOT war. As far as the holy land...why would Jesus ask people to take over the holy land in His name? Jesus didn't give a crap about a building or land, he gave a crap about your heart, thus he would tell you to go after peoples hearts, show them His love....how the heck can you do that if you kill them? You can't, so anyone "hearing from God" to kill in His name is a moron, plain and simple.
| Coen wrote: |
So just because they are older they are not just anymore? That means Genesis isn't correct either. And in the new testament there are other flaws which can be pointed at, no real diffrence there. |
Nope, means you actually have to take a min and think about what your reading, and actually look at the context. Most of the old testament was speaking to a specific group of people...and it states that. Thus reading it now and using it for gay bashing or slavery now, would make you look like a fool, lacking in wisdom. To the rest of the world you would be giving them the wrong impression.god is your nature
it is your innermost core
when everything else has been stripped away God is what remains
but if you have some idea, you will not be able see
someone is asking ' does God exist? '. this is not something that can be settled by rational argument. you think God is constrained to the rational ? look around, look at people. God appears not only to be completely irrational but also to have a tremendous sense of humour.
but each religion has some idea of God, each claims God according to their idea. and these idiots go on fighting each other..
god is nobody's idea
so you ask 'Does God exist?' have you searched for god? or would you like someone to do the work for you? if someone says to you ' yes God exists because I have found it' will you be happy with that answer? how could you? surely you will say ' to settle this I have to meet god myself'. so where are you going to search? the Christian will tell you to search in a cathedral - he will tell you not to bother with the mosque: these guys are misled and confused. a Muslim will tell you just the opposite. the Hindu will tell you 'god is everywhere'. a zen master will tell you that you are what you seek. a Buddhist will offer a path to enlightenment.
you will have to look within. at first you will see your mind. do not mistake this for the goal. many people do and breed confusion. they hear the teacher say ' if you wish to find God, look within ' and to look within and see their mind. and they think this is God. now they are worse off than they were for - they have a God delusion. mind has to be transcended,
this has been known therough the ages, has been taught by Jesus, Buddha, countless individuals who have come home.
it will not be settled by any amount of assertion or rational argument
Are yo asaying that there is a god in every one of us? Jesus din't teach that.
| coeus wrote: |
| Didn't mean for it to sound like that, more like, "we don't know the whole story so we can't judge His actions." For example, say it said in a book I killed someone. Pretty cruel you'd say eh? What if the book didn't mention that the person held me at gunpoint and I was trying to disarm him and in the struggle he was shot and died. Still hold the same grudge? Tell me the exact example of God being cruel and we can work through it, but I don't know every story off the top of my head and thus will need some references from you to look them up. |
I don't recall the exact place of it in the bible but I've been once read a part which says that you need to take care of your enemy and be kind to him, I actually though the part made sense. However, then it changed and it told me to put hot coles on my enemies heads and that god would praise and love me for doing so. I would definatly call that cruel.
| coeus wrote: |
World as in culture, China is a different world from where I am currently at.
Purpose in the bible was NOT to slaughter those who did not believe in God, but those who directly disobeyed God. Huge difference in meaning. |
It is today but think of the time in which the bible was written. They used to slaughter those who did not want to be converted. The church themselves have burned thousands of people as sinners too. It might be a diffrent thing now, but it wasn't back then.
| coeus wrote: |
| Nope, means you actually have to take a min and think about what your reading, and actually look at the context. Most of the old testament was speaking to a specific group of people...and it states that. Thus reading it now and using it for gay bashing or slavery now, would make you look like a fool, lacking in wisdom. To the rest of the world you would be giving them the wrong impression. |
The old testament is being used for all the people in the world nowadays. And if I take a minute and think about what I'm reading I see even more contradictions and flaws in the story instead of things that actually make sense. Even on the first couple of pages of Genesis it says the humans and animals were created and later it was the animals first and the humans after that. When you look at what we know now we see that humans are descended from animals so that part isn't true at all. | Coen wrote: |
| ...animals first and the humans after that. When you look at what we know now we see that humans are descended from animals so that part isn't true at all. |
You just proved your point, and the validity of the Bible if you believe in Evolution.
"animals first and humans after that" So first there were animals and then humans. You say we came from animals. That means animals were before us. Thusly, animals came first.
Thank-you. | Coen wrote: |
I don't recall the exact place of it in the bible but I've been once read a part which says that you need to take care of your enemy and be kind to him, I actually though the part made sense. However, then it changed and it told me to put hot coles on my enemies heads and that god would praise and love me for doing so. I would definatly call that cruel.
|
Yeah, that's not in the bible. Unless you are reading something other then old/new testament in a typical christian translation, or the original hebrew/greek.
| coen wrote: |
It is today but think of the time in which the bible was written. They used to slaughter those who did not want to be converted. The church themselves have burned thousands of people as sinners too. It might be a diffrent thing now, but it wasn't back then.
|
The bible hasn't changed in meaning just the culture has grown to understand it better and also not allow for the wrong leaders to tell them what to do. I am not going to stick up for the catholic's churches wrong doings. Those were human leaders doing very bad, very anti-biblical things. Don't blame the book for the wrong translators.
| coen wrote: |
The old testament is being used for all the people in the world nowadays. And if I take a minute and think about what I'm reading I see even more contradictions and flaws in the story instead of things that actually make sense. Even on the first couple of pages of Genesis it says the humans and animals were created and later it was the animals first and the humans after that. When you look at what we know now we see that humans are descended from animals so that part isn't true at all. |
Contridiction is in the eyes of the reader and the theory you are going by.
If you go in thinking the bible is wrong and nitpick your own ideals then yes, you will see contridictions. If you realize it was written you will see human type errors, althought some people have some pretty godo explinations for those seemingly contridictions which say they actually arn't contridictions.
The genesis contridiction is not such in my eyes. I don't read it as animals first than humans, then a little later humans first then animals. I see it as animals first than humans. Then it goes in to more depth with creation of humans and after humans were created the animals that were already created before humans were brought to Adam to be named and to find a 'helper' I see no contridiction. | Quote: |
| I don't recall the exact place of it in the bible but I've been once read a part which says that you need to take care of your enemy and be kind to him, I actually though the part made sense. However, then it changed and it told me to put hot coles on my enemies heads and that god would praise and love me for doing so. I would definatly call that cruel. |
Yes, the Bible does say to take care of your enemy, but no where does it command you to put hot coals on their head. You must have been skimming, because it says that by being kind to those who are unkind to you, you heap hot coals on their head. If you are nice to someone who isn't very nice to you, it willl carry an even more powerful message if you called them every thing besides white.
| Quote: |
coen wrote:
It is today but think of the time in which the bible was written. They used to slaughter those who did not want to be converted. The church themselves have burned thousands of people as sinners too. It might be a diffrent thing now, but it wasn't back then.
The bible hasn't changed in meaning just the culture has grown to understand it better and also not allow for the wrong leaders to tell them what to do. I am not going to stick up for the catholic's churches wrong doings. Those were human leaders doing very bad, very anti-biblical things. Don't blame the book for the wrong translators. |
exactly. Not every leader in every church is hypocritical like that. You just have to look.Regarding Bikerman's mention of the prayer experiment, i see it as pretty damning evidence - not necessarily that no gods exist - but that prayer is worthless. And several of the theist rebuttals have explained why.
Given the negative results of the experiment, you can come to only three possible conclusions:
- Prayer works, but the experiment failed to show it. Further experimentation would show it.
- Prayer works, but no experiment can possibly show it. ("God can't/won't be tested').
- Prayer doesn't work.
The general atheist position seems to be 3. That's about where i stand, and not just by virtue of this experiment alone (one experiment is hardly conclusive), but because of other reasons (that i will explain if anyone cares).
The general theist position seems to be 2.
Either way, it sure sounds like further testing would be a waste of time, so someone should probably tell the Templeton group to spend their money elsewhere.
--------------------
Now, the general theist response - option 2 - that a god exists and actually responds to prayer but adamantly refuses to be caught doing it... is utter rubbish. And if one were to accept such an idiotic idea as true, one should leave the rest of us in human society alone, lock themselves in a closed room, and bury their head in the dirt there. Why would i say something so harsh? Actually, i'm not being harsh. i'm giving you friendly advice that will help you. Here's why.
Let's assume the claims the theists have been making so far are true: some god exists - let's just assume one and call it "God" - and occasionally responds to prayer requests. However, God refuses to allow the efficacy to prayer to be tested.
Let's further assume that a devout theist has a horrible disease and is very likely to die, and that they would like to petition the grace of God for a cure to their illness. This is just a temporary assumption for the sake of illustration - we'll make a less stringent assumption later.
How would that theist go about praying to God to get healed?
Well, let's consider some facts. If that theist is being monitored by medical professionals, and he suddenly makes a miraculous recovery... then there would be evidence that prayer works! But as many of the theists in this thread have asserted, God will not allow evidence. A doctor who wanted to see if God answered prayers would simply have to monitor the patient without his knowledge or consent, and he would witness the prayer being answered. If the theist wants to be sure this won't happen, he would have to eschew any kind of medical observation. In summary: if our sick theist wants to be sure his prayers have a chance of being answered, they will have to avoid any kind of medical testing.
That's pretty bad, but in all honesty, there are faith-healing groups that advocate just that. Maybe they're on to something.
But do those groups go far enough? Let's consider....
Suppose someone wanted to test if prayer works, and to do it they monitored people who prayed with diseases vs. those who didn't pray with diseases - without letting anyone know - and saw if there was a difference. The faithful person could be avoiding medical testing, but anyone can see they're sick, and everyone knows they're praying. If they suddenly get better, the tester has found evidence of prayer... but that can't be allowed!... which means that God will not cure the sick person, even though the sick person has no idea that his prayers are being tested.
So what can the sick person do? They can hide the fact that they are praying... but if they are asked whether they prayed or not, what are they going to do: lie? That doesn't sound like something God would be pleased with. They can't really hide the fact that they're sick as long as they're publicly visible. So they're screwed. If they pray, they have no way of knowing that no one's using their prayers to test God.
The only solution for our poor, sick friend is to go into hiding - to hide the fact that he's sick, and his recovery. That way there will be no way to collect evidence of prayer. But if they go into hiding after they get sick, they have to stay in hiding for the rest of their lives - or else someone will have their evidence that prayer works. If anyone ever sees that they've been cured... there would be the evidence. So to be sure that will not happen, the theist would have to go into hiding before they get sick. That way after they get sick and are cured by prayer, no one would have known, so no evidence that prayer works would exist.
In other words, if our poor theist wants to use prayer, he would have to cut himself off from the rest of humanity at the earliest possibly opportunity. Otherwise, there is a chance someone could be watching him, and use him to gather evidence that prayer works, thus negating its efficacy. In fact, if any theist, not just a sick one, really believes that God will never allow prayer to be tested, but really wants to use prayer in a way that's real (rather than just as a placebo), they should cut themselves off from society and live in a place where they cannot be observed.
Wow, that's pretty extreme. But if these theists are right about their claims that God will not be tested, then this is the only way to give prayer meaning. Otherwise, it's useless.
But... have i gone far enough? There is one more person who is testing the efficacy of prayer, isn't there? Yes, the theist.
If the theist knows he's sick, then he prays, and - having no other other treatment - gets better, then the theist will have tested prayer and found out that it works! But... that can't be allowed! Therefore, in order for the theist to pray meaningfully, the theist will have to avoid collecting any evidence themselves!!! The only way to do that is to, essentially, bury one's head in the dirt and pray. They must do everything possible to ensure that they are not collecting evidence that they are sick or healthy - no looking in the mirror to see if the face is flushed or sweaty, no getting out of bed to see if the muscles are weak or not - otherwise they negate the power of prayer.
So in summary... if the claims being made here are true... if a god exists, and answers prayers that are not being tested... then the only way to make a meaningful prayer is to ensure you are not allowing it to be tested... and the only way to do that, ultimately, is to cut yourself off from all humanity and bury your head in the dirt.
Otherwise, you might as well pray to your shoes for all the good you can expect it might do. | aames_prov356 wrote: |
| Quote: | | I don't recall the exact place of it in the bible but I've been once read a part which says that you need to take care of your enemy and be kind to him, I actually though the part made sense. However, then it changed and it told me to put hot coles on my enemies heads and that god would praise and love me for doing so. I would definatly call that cruel. |
Yes, the Bible does say to take care of your enemy, but no where does it command you to put hot coals on their head. |
Perhaps not...
... but it does tell you that when one of the slaves that you own tells you they love you, you are to nail them to the door by their ear.
That would be New Testament, i believe, but it's been a while so i'm not sure without checking.All I see here is a circular argument. It is pointless. Plain and simply put, you have your belief, and I have mine. Neither side thinks the other is right. Why bother with the conversation? All it is turning into is a flaming match. There is no winning or losing this argument. Only way to get a sure answer is to die. I have no intention of doing that to prove my point. So let's agree that each party here is equal and can't prove or disprove the other and lay it to rest. I know that half of you are going to say something to the effect that I am just a fool for saying this. I frankly don't care. You are arguing in a circle no end to the debate. So, I am done arguing with you.
This assumption of 'equity' is a problem.
It is impossible to prove that God does not exist (so goes the argument), therefore it is equally likely that God does or does not exist.
Nope, non-sequeter alert!
It is, indeed, in my opinion, impossible to prove that God does not exist. That does not, however, mean that it is 50% likely that he does. I would hesitate to put statistical probabilities on this, since the data is incomplete, but I would put the statistical chances much, much lower if we are using science as the measure. In science it is impossible to state anything with 100% certainty. What we can do is say that something is probable, and give the range of potential error. That does not mean that we do not adopt various theories as being 'true', it simply means that science is 'honest' about it's scope.
Answer to question: Yes
Proof: uhh
Reason: Because!
If god is all, god is nothing too... If god is all, it exists and
does not exist...
i dont know if GOD exists
but when theists claim that GOD exists and provide rubbish evidence and arguments, then that's the time when I can say that their claim that GOD exists is false.
I think God exists in some form. Who put everything in place. EVERYTHING needs a creator. NOthing happens by chance is what i believe. HOW God was created....that I dont know
and dont ask me HOW
I think God exists in some form. Who put everything in place. EVERYTHING needs a creator. NOthing happens by chance is what i believe. HOW God was created....that I dont know
and dont ask me HOW
| Fake wrote: |
I think God exists in some form. Who put everything in place. EVERYTHING needs a creator. NOthing happens by chance is what i believe. HOW God was created....that I dont know
and dont ask me HOW
I think God exists in some form. Who put everything in place. EVERYTHING needs a creator. NOthing happens by chance is what i believe. HOW God was created....that I dont know
and dont ask me HOW |
There are very specific laws that state why nature is the way it is. And everything is not in its place perfectly. The world (as in nature) is not perfect.
On a side note: Why make a claim then limit people from asking you certain questions? Seems like you don't want to hear anything different. | liljp617 wrote: |
There are very specific laws that state why nature is the way it is. And everything is not in its place perfectly. The world (as in nature) is not perfect.
On a side note: Why make a claim then limit people from asking you certain questions? Seems like you don't want to hear anything different. |
How do you know it is not perfect? Do you know what perfect is? | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: |
There are very specific laws that state why nature is the way it is. And everything is not in its place perfectly. The world (as in nature) is not perfect.
On a side note: Why make a claim then limit people from asking you certain questions? Seems like you don't want to hear anything different. |
How do you know it is not perfect? Do you know what perfect is? |
That is a good question which may be examined more thoroughly in another thread.
The general point, however, is that nature is not free from observable problems/errors. We can, in a general sense, call these imperfections in the sense that it is possible to imagine a better 'solution'.
Whether there is, in fact, an ideal which we could call 'perfect' is, as I say, another question.Well where as imperfect humans we die usually before the century mark, nature is still going strong after ____ years. (I don't know the number I bet one of you do). But until Nature dies...I'd say its bid for perfection is indeed the strongest.
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| Well where as imperfect humans we die usually before the century mark, nature is still going strong after ____ years. (I don't know the number I bet one of you do). But until Nature dies...I'd say its bid for perfection is indeed the strongest. |
This seems to assume that perfection is measured by longevity (ie if something lasts longer then it is more perfect). Is that a logical assumption? Could not something imperfect outlast something perfect? | Bikerman wrote: |
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | | Well where as imperfect humans we die usually before the century mark, nature is still going strong after ____ years. (I don't know the number I bet one of you do). But until Nature dies...I'd say its bid for perfection is indeed the strongest. |
This seems to assume that perfection is measured by longevity (ie if something lasts longer then it is more perfect). Is that a logical assumption? Could not something imperfect outlast something perfect? |
Here again we do not know what exactly "perfect" is. If we ever observed perfection we very well may not even know we're looking at it. Indeed something imperfect could outlast something perfect. Examples being true love found in a couple that dies 20 years into their relationship while a couple that cannot stand each other may last until old age consumes them both. Nature has it's way of working. That way is still working. We could be observing perfection...but then again...what is perfect? | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: |
There are very specific laws that state why nature is the way it is. And everything is not in its place perfectly. The world (as in nature) is not perfect.
On a side note: Why make a claim then limit people from asking you certain questions? Seems like you don't want to hear anything different. |
How do you know it is not perfect? Do you know what perfect is? |
I assumed we knew what it was since many of the religious people in this thread have said things along the lines of "if there's no creator then why is everything in such great order and why does everything seem to fit perfectly." | liljp617 wrote: |
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | | liljp617 wrote: |
There are very specific laws that state why nature is the way it is. And everything is not in its place perfectly. The world (as in nature) is not perfect.
On a side note: Why make a claim then limit people from asking you certain questions? Seems like you don't want to hear anything different. |
How do you know it is not perfect? Do you know what perfect is? |
I assumed we knew what it was since many of the religious people in this thread have said things along the lines of "if there's no creator then why is everything in such great order and why does everything seem to fit perfectly." |
Well many religious people do not know how to debate. I'm not all that well at it either but I give it my best try. I do believe that God is the creator. Whether or not he did create nature, the order is how it is. It works. This kind of fits into the Intelligent Design thread because many are saying "It could not be so perfect if it was not created." But even they do not know what perfect is.liljp617 wrote:
Bryan_Bezzle wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
There are very specific laws that state why nature is the way it is. And everything is not in its place perfectly. The world (as in nature) is not perfect.
On a side note: Why make a claim then limit people from asking you certain questions? Seems like you don't want to hear anything different.
How do you know it is not perfect? Do you know what perfect is?
I assumed we knew what it was since many of the religious people in this thread have said things along the lines of "if there's no creator then why is everything in such great order and why does everything seem to fit perfectly."
Well many religious people do not know how to debate. I'm not all that well at it either but I give it my best try. I do believe that God is the creator. Whether or not he did create nature, the order is how it is. It works. This kind of fits into the Intelligent Design thread because many are saying "It could not be so perfect if it was not created." But even they do not know what perfect is.
Bryan, you are incorrectly assuming that because things "work" God must exist. This is faulty reasoning.
| videoguy wrote: |
liljp617 wrote:
Bryan_Bezzle wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
There are very specific laws that state why nature is the way it is. And everything is not in its place perfectly. The world (as in nature) is not perfect.
On a side note: Why make a claim then limit people from asking you certain questions? Seems like you don't want to hear anything different.
How do you know it is not perfect? Do you know what perfect is?
I assumed we knew what it was since many of the religious people in this thread have said things along the lines of "if there's no creator then why is everything in such great order and why does everything seem to fit perfectly."
Well many religious people do not know how to debate. I'm not all that well at it either but I give it my best try. I do believe that God is the creator. Whether or not he did create nature, the order is how it is. It works. This kind of fits into the Intelligent Design thread because many are saying "It could not be so perfect if it was not created." But even they do not know what perfect is.
Bryan, you are incorrectly assuming that because things "work" God must exist. This is faulty reasoning. |
Actually, I was just stating my belief to be known no matter what or where the argument is or goes. You are incorrectly stating that I assume that because things work, God must exist. I just stated my belief. Then stated that things work. I didn't say one had to do with the other. Read my quote that you quoted. You my friend are the faulty one. | liljp617 wrote: |
| Fake wrote: | I think God exists in some form. Who put everything in place. EVERYTHING needs a creator. NOthing happens by chance is what i believe. HOW God was created....that I dont know
and dont ask me HOW
I think God exists in some form. Who put everything in place. EVERYTHING needs a creator. NOthing happens by chance is what i believe. HOW God was created....that I dont know
and dont ask me HOW |
There are very specific laws that state why nature is the way it is. And everything is not in its place perfectly. The world (as in nature) is not perfect.
On a side note: Why make a claim then limit people from asking you certain questions? Seems like you don't want to hear anything different. |
the world is perfect or was, everything has a purpose and it does it job except us, we destroy (a lot of the time).
think about it when we kill off 1 species several others are effected and its not natures faults its ours because for some reason we cant co exist with it.....hence why we have problems, what you think global warming was caused by a rabbit a fox and a dog? | Bannik wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | Fake wrote: | I think God exists in some form. Who put everything in place. EVERYTHING needs a creator. NOthing happens by chance is what i believe. HOW God was created....that I dont know
and dont ask me HOW
I think God exists in some form. Who put everything in place. EVERYTHING needs a creator. NOthing happens by chance is what i believe. HOW God was created....that I dont know
and dont ask me HOW |
There are very specific laws that state why nature is the way it is. And everything is not in its place perfectly. The world (as in nature) is not perfect.
On a side note: Why make a claim then limit people from asking you certain questions? Seems like you don't want to hear anything different. |
the world is perfect or was, everything has a purpose and it does it job except us, we destroy (a lot of the time).
think about it when we kill off 1 species several others are effected and its not natures faults its ours because for some reason we cant co exist with it.....hence why we have problems, what you think global warming was caused by a rabbit a fox and a dog? |
If we're assuming that perfect means there is room for improvement or there are obvious better options in the way something occurs, then we can say nature has its flaws and imperfections. Of course, you have to define perfect first...which was pointed out earlier (something I now agree with). There are numerous lists of things in the human body that could be made more efficient/useful. Using the previously mentioned "definition" of perfect, I can say the human body alone has imperfections. And the human body is an amazingly minute aspect of nature.
-.- And I'm not sure what global warming or humans causing destruction has to do with this. Kind of irrelevant.Well defining perfect should not be too difficult.
How about:
perfect : complete and without blemish, defect or flaw.
That would seem to be a reasonable working definition...
| Bikerman wrote: |
Well defining perfect should not be too difficult.
How about:
perfect : complete and without blemish, defect or flaw.
That would seem to be a reasonable working definition... |
The only problem with that definition is what if something requires a flaw to become perfect.
(example would be a character, "perfect attitude" would be dull and so they give him a flaw to complete his character which makes him the perfect character--or--nature requires a particular animal to die for another animal to eat and in that way perfects the flow of nature so it can live on)
Does that make sense?Not really. Another word for a flaw is an imperfection. You can't have something perfect which contains an imperfection.
I suppose you could use the word as in 'corresponding to an ideal standard' and then define that standard as containing a flaw - but I'm not sure that would be a good use of the word. Perhaps a better word would be 'ideal' rather than 'perfect' (although I'm not sure we are avoiding circular reasoning here...)
| Bikerman wrote: |
Not really. Another word for a flaw is an imperfection. You can't have something perfect which contains an imperfection.
I suppose you could use the word as in 'corresponding to an ideal standard' and then define that standard as containing a flaw - but I'm not sure that would be a good use of the word. Perhaps a better word would be 'ideal' rather than 'perfect' (although I'm not sure we are avoiding circular reasoning here...) |
You are right I guess. The character would be ideal as well as nature is ideal instead of perfect. But are there other definitions of perfect? And can we per say create a term such as absolute-perfect which would be unattainable because there can always be improvements made?It's a very good and deep question.
This would actually be a good topic for a philosophical essay (I'm planning to announce an essay competition for FRIH$ soon). In order to avoid pre-empting any such essay I'm not going to develop this point right now, other than to restate one of the well known paradoxes of perfection.
Something which is perfect must be incomplete otherwise it cannot develop, therefore perfection is imperfect. (This is similar to the argument you were developing and is attributed to the philosopher Empedocles).
The solution to the paradox is to divide perfection into two distinct concepts - regularity/appearance, and utility/function.
Good idea so if anyone would like to return to the original topic of this post I say God exists.
God exists yes God exists. Criticism anyone? I will go ahead and say God exists because I believe we were created through him. I believe he is God, Allah, Jehovah. I believe he sent prophets like Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, and yes, Buddha. I believe a faith in a higher power is healthy. Life isn't always in our control but we need to be able to think someone's taking care of us when we cannot save ourselves.
Oh Bikerman I didnt catch your edit but I believe Empedocles used good logic. Just coin me with the term absolute-perfect if this goes anywhere. Well you should enter the contest when Indi and I sort the details out (should be soon).
| Bikerman wrote: |
It's a very good and deep question.
This would actually be a good topic for a philosophical essay (I'm planning to announce an essay competition for FRIH$ soon). In order to avoid pre-empting any such essay I'm not going to develop this point right now, other than to restate one of the well known paradoxes of perfection.
Something which is perfect must be incomplete otherwise it cannot develop, therefore perfection is imperfect. (This is similar to the argument you were developing and is attributed to the philosopher Empedocles).
The solution to the paradox is to divide perfection into two distinct concepts - regularity/appearance, and utility/function. |
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| What contest? |
That one maybe Back to the point of this thread which is whether or not YOU believe God exists and why would you think he does or does not?
Frankly, there is no hard evidence one way or the other. If you would like to post an experience you have had that brought you closer to God then do so. Likewise, you can post an experience that made you deviate from believing in God.
Have none of you ever asked God for something and then received what you asked for? I know many may think he ignores their requests, but what are you doing to block him from favoring your wish?
Some experiences strengthening my faith in God?
Here's a funny one I remember. In eighth grade I truly and utterly despised my math teacher. One day I am sitting at home, praying from my heart to God to make her GO AWAY. Blah blah, I cool off, forget about it, then next day... "Kids...last night my husband's office called, telling that he's been transferred so I'm leaving next week."
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
Some experiences strengthening my faith in God?
Here's a funny one I remember. In eighth grade I truly and utterly despised my math teacher. One day I am sitting at home, praying from my heart to God to make her GO AWAY. Blah blah, I cool off, forget about it, then next day... "Kids...last night my husband's office called, telling that he's been transferred so I'm leaving next week." |
That is crazy but I believe it.
I used to work at a chiropractors office and most of the people who went there were elderly and usually very religious. Well one woman who I had a great friendship with called her self a prayer warrior and told me the correct way to pray. I never really thought about doing it but I entertained them and listened. Well, her husband had cancer and everytime she came it seemed like it was getting worse. He went from driving her there and staying in the car, to staying home, to going to the hospital, to not being able to leave the hospital. It eventually drained her so much that she looked exhausted everytime she came in and she finally told me the doctor told her that he wouldn't have long to live. Now not that night, but a few nights later I decided to put the prayer she taught me into use. I basically meditated. I thought over and over again of good thoughts and things that make me happy. I was praying for my family and just when I was about to end my prayer and go to sleep she came into my mind out of nowhere. Her name just shot across the old skull and I began praying for her husband. I thought about how happy they would be if he recovered. I visualized them eating at a park and laughing hysterically loving the life they had together. I built up all those happy emotions and then released them to God. Asking him to let Mr. Ken live.
The next day at work, she was not scheduled to come in but she called in. When she came in she looked totally different and told us that the doctor told her that morning that Mr. Ken was going to fully recover. She said she thought it was a miracle. I was listening and it hit me hard I actually started to tear but I didn't let noone see that. But I did tell her that I prayed for them out of nowhere the night before and she was so happy. She knew, she told me that that was why he was going to live. She always told me it worked. I've made it work. I've seen it work.
Sorry for the long story but it is very true.Is too easy: YAHWEH (Whom is called as God) does not exist, he is (Period)
| mesianica wrote: |
| Is too easy: YAHWEH (Whom is called as God) does not exist, he is (Period) |
Uh huh. -_- And i'm sure that makes sense in the exact same way that allows IPU, may Her Hooves never be shod, to be both invisible and pink at the same time, right?I also have a great story, one time i was walking down the street and i stepped in a pile of dog poo and my friend who was with me laughed at me, so I prayed for a moment and he also stepped in a pile of poo, coincidence, no holy vengeance.
| Indi wrote: |
| mesianica wrote: | | Is too easy: YAHWEH (Whom is called as God) does not exist, he is (Period) |
Uh huh. -_- And i'm sure that makes sense in the exact same way that allows IPU, may Her Hooves never be shod, to be both invisible and pink at the same time, right? |
Ahh...talk about scratching an itch? I'm amazed I haven't come across IPU before - it is exactly the allusion I have been seeking for some while now. I was stuck with teapots and spaghetti monsters, but IPU is a much better 'role model' | Bikerman wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | mesianica wrote: | | Is too easy: YAHWEH (Whom is called as God) does not exist, he is (Period) |
Uh huh. -_- And i'm sure that makes sense in the exact same way that allows IPU, may Her Hooves never be shod, to be both invisible and pink at the same time, right? |
Ahh...talk about scratching an itch? I'm amazed I haven't come across IPU before - it is exactly the allusion I have been seeking for some while now. I was stuck with teapots and spaghetti monsters, but IPU is a much better 'role model' |
Ah! A potential convert! i will introduce you to my creed, and turn you away from the heretical Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the lies they teach! i will put you on the true path to salvation from Her Holy Hoofiness, and rescue you from the clutches of the Purple Oyster! | Indi wrote: |
| Ah! A potential convert! i will introduce you to my creed, and turn you away from the heretical Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the lies they teach! i will put you on the true path to salvation from Her Holy Hoofiness, and rescue you from the clutches of the Purple Oyster! |
Is there an initiation ceremony? A donning of celestial spectacles or a symbolic ham and pineapple pizza?I myself believe that God was 'invented' as an answer to all questions with one. And that Heaven and Hell are just to restrain humans for violent behaviour. Thus God exists but only in our heads, mentally He has accomplished something (religous war and peace) but had no physical changes to the world.
| still_water06 wrote: |
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. |
This is frankly a insane defense to saying God does not exist. You say that God does not give us a definite vision of right and wrong. Besides just saying the Bible what do you call the ten commandments. Second if you consider that God created us he gave us a innate sense of right and wrong. Even if you take a situation where we know something is wrong to do how many of you can deny your instinct or that gut feeling that screams Bad Idea. God was very clear on what we should and should not do. Simply if I look at my neighbors wife and think thoughts of perversion. Oops theres a direct commandment saying for me to not covet my neighbors wife. There is no gray area I think its pretty clear. | DavidkChase wrote: |
| This is frankly a insane defense to saying God does not exist. You say that God does not give us a definite vision of right and wrong. Besides just saying the Bible what do you call the ten commandments. Second if you consider that God created us he gave us a innate sense of right and wrong. Even if you take a situation where we know something is wrong to do how many of you can deny your instinct or that gut feeling that screams Bad Idea. God was very clear on what we should and should not do. Simply if I look at my neighbors wife and think thoughts of perversion. Oops theres a direct commandment saying for me to not covet my neighbors wife. There is no gray area I think its pretty clear. |
So, presumably, God did not create those people who have a distorted or, by your definition, non-existent sense of right and wrong?
Presumably sociopaths/psychopaths were created by the Devil - since they have no 'innate' 'instinct' that 'screams bad idea' ?
Which God are you talking about here? I presume you mean the Christian God? Do you think that other Gods are simply delusions and that only the Abrahamic God of the bible is 'real' ?I have no idea where you came up with me saying that God did not create those people. No where in my quotations did I put "non-existent sense of right or wrong". I have no doubt people are born without the ability to discern right from wrong no matter what the case may be. This was about if God exist or not and the person I quoted said God does not give us a black and white guideline to go by which is insane. So this has nothing to do with did God create those who cant tell the difference. And the God I am referring to is the One who sent Christ to die for us and yes it is the One I believe in. So if you want to retort to what I said maybe you can use what I said to disprove that God exists since I to will Presume something and that you don't believe in any God. As far as do I think that other Gods exist I will say this. From what I understand a lot of believes and story's all stem from the same God. There were many versions of how it happened including the flood such as what the Sumerians believe. I just choose to believe in the one I mentioned.
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| I have no idea where you came up with me saying that God did not create those people. No where in my quotations did I put "non-existent sense of right or wrong". I have no doubt people are born without the ability to discern right from wrong no matter what the case may be. |
Err...but you said; | Quote: |
| Second if you consider that God created us he gave us a innate sense of right and wrong. |
That would seem to apply to everyone, or did you mean it only to apply to some people?I didn't realize that I should of put those of us who are born except those who aren't. What does this have to do with what I was saying. We call this a straw-man argument lol.
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| I didn't realize that I should of put those of us who are born except those who aren't. What does this have to do with what I was saying. We call this a straw-man argument lol. |
OK..let's do this slowly.
You say that if God created us he gave us an innate sense of right and wrong.
OK so far?
Now, I say that some people do not have an innate sense of right and wrong.
Still OK?
Therefore either God did not create such people, or your original statement is wrong.As Pascal once stated
"If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation)."
I could believe in a God that created the beginning of the universe, but I can't believe in a God that is currently determining everything I do. I can't believe in a deterministic fate.
| roninmedia wrote: |
As Pascal once stated
"If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation)."
I could believe in a God that created the beginning of the universe, but I can't believe in a God that is currently determining everything I do. I can't believe in a deterministic fate. |
And what exactly makes your religion right is the real question to consider. Because, according to religions, we're all going to hell seeing as how the majority of religions promise eternal damnation (or something like it) to those who do not believe in [insert god].
There are also things you do lose by saying god is a reason for every single thing that occurs in your life. | Bikerman wrote: |
| DavidkChase wrote: | | I didn't realize that I should of put those of us who are born except those who aren't. What does this have to do with what I was saying. We call this a straw-man argument lol. |
OK..let's do this slowly.
You say that if God created us he gave us an innate sense of right and wrong.
OK so far?
Now, I say that some people do not have an innate sense of right and wrong.
Still OK?
Therefore either God did not create such people, or your original statement is wrong. |
My statement is not wrong I simply said God creates us with a innate ability for right and wrong. So just because someone is born for what ever reason with such problems as you described doesn't mean
God didn't create them. If I said God creates humans with 2 legs and 2 arms are you going to try to tell me that if someone is born without a arm that God didn't create them. So pretty much you didn't even address what my original post was and tried to attack the easiest thing you could. So if yous say that people do not have a innate sense of right or wrong do you mean to say that you don't either. Meaning if no one ever told that murder is wrong are you telling me that you could commit it. Are you saying that nothing inside of you would say hey bad idea. So my innate right or wrong is really a thing called a conscious. | DavidkChase wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | DavidkChase wrote: | | I didn't realize that I should of put those of us who are born except those who aren't. What does this have to do with what I was saying. We call this a straw-man argument lol. |
OK..let's do this slowly.
You say that if God created us he gave us an innate sense of right and wrong.
OK so far?
Now, I say that some people do not have an innate sense of right and wrong.
Still OK?
Therefore either God did not create such people, or your original statement is wrong. |
My statement is not wrong I simply said God creates us with a innate ability for right and wrong. So just because someone is born for what ever reason with such problems as you described doesn't mean God didn't create them. |
Err...yes it does.
| Quote: |
| If I said God creates humans with 2 legs and 2 arms are you going to try to tell me that if someone is born without a arm that God didn't create them. |
Since (you say) God creates humans with 2 arms and 2 legs and since a person is born without 2 arms and/or legs then it follows that either God did not create that person or that person is not human. What other possibility is there? | Quote: |
| So pretty much you didn't even address what my original post was and tried to attack the easiest thing you could. So if yous say that people do not have a innate sense of right or wrong do you mean to say that you don't either. Meaning if no one ever told that murder is wrong are you telling me that you could commit it. Are you saying that nothing inside of you would say hey bad idea. So my innate right or wrong is really a thing called a conscious. |
No - I am attacking your silly generalisations. The fact that you attribute moral sensibility to God is another issue - which has already been dealt with - but which I will happily deal with again if you like.
My problem is with your sweeping generalisations. Not all people are born the same (whether we are considering sense of right/wrong, number of limbs or whatever). Sweeping generalisations make for poor discussion.
(PS - I think you mean conscience, not conscious - and not all consciences are the same).You are correct I misspelled that word. I am saying that God created all. So if I say that God creates human with two arms and two legs that would be a generalization. If I said God creates All humans with two arms and legs then you could have something to say. If I believe God created everything then yes I am saying he created people that have a conscience and those who don't. You think the things I say are silly but to me this is just a play on words. If I ask you and I do were you born with a conscience what would you say. If you say yes then I say God created you which then he created the conscience in you. It is a gift from God. But you seem to continue to insist that I am saying if God created man with a conscience then He did not create those who dont. I never said or implied that.
Well, you have now stopped generalising - so let's discuss the rest of the issue sensibly.
You say God created all. What is the evidence for this? The theory of evolution adequately explains how I evolved as a human. Big Bang theory (plus Inflation theory) adequately explains how the observable universe came to be. We are left with a God who (possibly) caused the Big Bang to happen and then sat back and watched. If that is your 'God' then I cannot really give any arguments against it (well, I can - Occam's Razor being chief amongst them - but let's leave that for the moment). If, however, you are saying that God created me then I disagree - my parents created me with no need for a supernatural agency.
Now you state that God creates the sense of right and wrong that most of us share - call it a conscience if you like. I disagree. I think what you call a conscience is a result of evolution. We are social animals - like chimps, for example. One can observe shame and fear in chimps when they contravene the social 'rules' that bind their groupings. Does that mean that chimps have a conscience? I think it probably does. Does that mean that God gave the chimps a conscience? That is something that you, as a theist, must address.
We see similar 'conformity' to social norms in other animal populations. Whenever animals live in social groupings there has to be a certain level of conformity for the grouping to work - selection pressure will 'weed out' non conformists. When one couples this selection pressure to self-awareness/consciousness then one gets what you would call a conscience.
As I am about to go to bed I must make this quick but I wanted to point out you had told me that evolution has been proven. If that is so then you would of said the fact of evolution or simply evolution but you said it yourself.
| Quote: |
| The theory of evolution adequately explains how I evolved as a human |
By your own admission you admit that it is only a theory. | DavidkChase wrote: |
As I am about to go to bed I must make this quick but I wanted to point out you had told me that evolution has been proven. If that is so then you would of said the fact of evolution or simply evolution but you said it yourself.
| Quote: | | The theory of evolution adequately explains how I evolved as a human |
By your own admission you admit that it is only a theory. |
Another one. When will they catch on? When you wake up, look up the scientific explanation of a theory. It has nothing to do with the common, every day use of the word. | DavidkChase wrote: |
As I am about to go to bed I must make this quick but I wanted to point out you had told me that evolution has been proven. If that is so then you would of said the fact of evolution or simply evolution but you said it yourself.
| Quote: | | The theory of evolution adequately explains how I evolved as a human |
By your own admission you admit that it is only a theory. |
I think you will find that I avoid the word proven in this context (if I did use it then I should not have done, since it is a sloppy use of English). I should have used the word demonstrated (I'm pretty sure I would have done).
That does not mean, however, that there is any real doubt. Gravity is a theory - do you doubt that you will fall from a tall building if you step over the edge?
In science the word theory is used for the best current explanation. It is not used in the everyday sense of 'just a theory'. A theory in science is a rigorously tested hypothesis that has survived peer-review, experimental and observational evidence and the test of time. It is the result of the work of many scientists over a long period of time.
Theories are all science offers - science does not claim to offer 'truth' since such an offer would disallow any further development or refinement of the theory.As you can see when I used the word proven it was my not yours but thank you ever so much for pointing out my sloppy English. My point is that take the word theory however you want, seems to me its changed since the last time I had to look it up in the dictionary, nonetheless, you may have facts that support evolution but you can not tell me that you can prove evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt. Same goes for me and God we have facts that would support our claim but we simply cant prove it.
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| As you can see when I used the word proven it was my not yours but thank you ever so much for pointing out my sloppy English. My point is that take the word theory however you want, seems to me its changed since the last time I had to look it up in the dictionary, nonetheless, you may have facts that support evolution but you can not tell me that you can prove evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt. Same goes for me and God we have facts that would support our claim but we simply cant prove it. |
Err..no it's not the same at all.
With evolution I can make tests. If you can find one fossil in the wrong layer of rock (for example, find a hominid fossil in a strata more than 40 million years old) then the theory of evolution falls. That is why it is a scientific theory - it can be, and is being, tested.
What test do you propose for God? What evidence have you for God?There is nothing I personally can test for what I believe but instead what I have learned over the years just seems to make more sense than evolution. I will start with one example. A study over which covers 400 years shows that the sun shrinks at 5 feet per hour. So if the sun is getting smaller then it must have been bigger. Now with evolution the time of our universe varies depending on who you ask but the main one I have heard is 4.6 billion years old so I will go with that one. So if the sun used to be bigger and its at a rate of 5 feet per hour how big would the sun be 4.6 billion years ago. The sun would have been so large it would have inhabited the space earth currently fills. So that would really leave us no where. Unless you somehow want to say that as the sun got smaller it spit off a rock which is now the earth. However which where this makes sense to me is if the world is around 6-7 thousand years old such as the Bible tells then it would make since that we have found fossils in the north and south poles of tropical plants. So the only way those plants could get there is either it used to be a tropical area or during say a world wide flood some plants were drifted up there but I doubt that could happen in the time given. Now I imagine is where you tell me that the scientists who did the study were either crazy or just wrong like most evolutionist do. Provided the sun is exactly how it is which could be described as perfectly designed to sustain life on earth it would make since there has to be a designer.
This is what you get for listening/reading creationist nonsense.
The Creation Institute got hold of a faulty study, published in 1987 from the Paris Observatory. The study claimed that data from eclipses between 1666 and 1719 showed a 2000 kilometer change in the diameter of the Sun to the present day. Unfortunately they made a major blooper - they wrongly calculated the 1715 path of totality which gave them the misleading figure. When the figure was recalculated, using the correct path, guess what? No change.
(The scientists involved were very embarassed about the error and immediately retracted their paper - needless to say the creationists never mention that bit).
However - I will not just simply tell you that the scientists were wrong - I'll prove it to you in true scientific manner.
The fact that the sun does not change size significantly is hardly surprising given that the Sun is powered by fusion which releases a huge amount of energy from a comparatively tiny amount of matter. You have to understand physics before you can make meaningful statements about it - something the Creationist Institute never seem to get their heads around.
If you want some numbers, here's two calculations which show how absurd the creationist claim is.
Firstly let's look at the future of the sun:
(I'll do this calculation in grams)
The Sun looses about 4.289*10^12g per second (hydrogen mass converted to energy via fusion).*
That works out at about 1.353*10^20g per year.
If we assume that the Sun will burn for another 5*10^9 years then, in it's remaining lifetime (on the main sequence) it will 'loose' 1.353*10^20 * 5*10^9 = 6.8*10^29g
Now, the current mass of the sun is around 2*10^33g.
So over the next 5 billion years the Sun will loose (6.8*10^29)/(2*10^33) = 0.034% of it's total mass.
In other words, at the end of the main-sequence lifetime of the sun it will still have 99.966% of it's current mass. I don't think we need to get worried, do you?
(PS - this is, of course, ignoring all the mass that the sun will gain during this period from capturing meteors/comets/asteroids).
Now let's look at the past history.
(This time I'll use a different unit to make it easier. Rather than having lots of exponents and grams, I'll use 'Earth Masses' as the unit).
Assuming the sun is (and we are fairly certain it is) around 4.6 billion years old, then up to now it will have consumed about 100 Earth Masses in fuel.
The Sun's mass is around 333,000 Earth Masses.
100/333,000 = 0.03%
(That makes sense as it compares pretty well with the figure we get for the future use of fuel, basing the calc on grams. It's always good to do a common-sense check of the numbers).
So in other words the sun has, over the last 4.6 billion years, lost about 0.03% of its mass.
You can see what difference that would make to the diameter of the Sun, roughly, by using the figure for the volume of a sphere (4/3pi*r^3) but it really isn't worth it for two reasons. Firstly the difference is obviously going to be pretty insignificant and secondly the relationship between size and mass is a bit more complex than simply calculating volume (we have to consider gravitation and temperature). You can take my word for it, however, that any change in the suns diameter is very very tiny indeed.
Now what do you think of your theory?
*The mass lost by the sun to fusion is calculated as follows:
Absolute luminosity of the sun is 3.86*10^33 erg/sec
Speed of light is 2.99*10^10 cm/s
e=mc^2 therefore m=e/c^2
3.86*10^33/(2.99*10^10)^2 = 4.289*10^12 g/s
It should be noted that the sun also loses mass to Solar Flares and Coronal Mass Ejections but I don't have any solid data for the amount.
Last edited by Bikerman on Tue May 06, 2008 12:12 am; edited 1 time in total
Oh yes - I forgot your point about fossils at the North and South Poles.
What you forgot to mention is that fossils do not form in a 6000 year timescale. Fossils normally take millions of years to form. The fossils in question (certainly the ones from the North Pole) date back over 400 million years. If you study plate-techtonics and continental drift you will see that, when the fossils were plants, the land lay near to the equator.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020607072227.htm You always seem to amaze me so before I take much longer to retort to your posting let me say this. There is no way I could try to call you a stupid man, but some who common sense seems to elude you.
With every single post I put you not only destroy me but its more like this. I am standing on a giant hill with glowing neon signs pointing at me while you sit in the death star and as you tell Stephen Hawkings what to put in his next book you push one single button firing the death ray at me. So yet that seems to happen every single time you surely know what limitation of knowledge I have on science you post what you did. So you had of known that when I read this all I heard in my head was the waa waa waa from the teacher in the comic peanuts. I will have to take your word on those equations or whatever they are but perhaps next time you could dumb it down a little for me.(or a lot)
In what way does common-sense elude me?
I'm sorry if my back of the envelope calcs were a bit too involved - I tried to keep it fairly simple (I didn't use calculus or anything tricky - just simple arithmetic).
Actually I've been consulting with a few physicist friends over on my home forum and I've got some tentative figures for the bits I left out (the mass lost by the sun to Solar Flares, the Solar Wind and Coronal Mass Ejections - they are simply big explosions where the sun ejects a lot of mass into space).
If I convert the masses to tonnes then that might be easier.
The amount of mass lost by the sun by fusion (that is the process by which it 'burns' - it smashes four hydrogen nuclei together to produce one helium nucleus and a lot of energy) is about 4 million tonnes per second.
My physics friends tell me that a lot more mass is lost to the solar wind/flares/CMEs. This brings the total up to about 60 million tonnes per second. If you plug those figures into a simple calculation to work out how many tonnes will be burned in the next 5 billion years and you divide by the mass of the sun, you get a figure of 0.5% (ish). That is the sun will loose about 0.5% of its mass over the next 5 billion years. Bear in mind that this is an extremely liberal figure (in reality a lot of the mass ejected by the sun is later recaptured by gravity) so the real figure is likely to be much smaller.
If you do a back of the envelope calculation you will find that this equates to a decrease in diameter of approximately 0.13% which is about 1600 km - in 5 billion years.
Now this is a very rough calculation and does not factor in temperature and gravitation differences but it gives you an indication of the ball-park figures. In short the sun will hardly change in diameter at all and has hardly done so over the previous 4.6 billion years.
It WILL change when it exhausts all the hydrogen fuel - it will then start to fuse helium and the greater temperatures will cause the sun to grow in size (not shrink) until it might engulf the earth completely. This will not happen, however, for several billion years (5 billion is a reasonable estimate).
The general point is - if you want science then ask a scientist. If you want lies then ask a creationist - particularly Kent Hovind.
HERE are some more dismissals of Kent Hovind's ridiculous claims (yes - it was Hovind who originated this claim about the sun - surprise surprise) I am still researching but honestly man you should learn to take a joke. I mean come on I continue to get smashed by someone who calls himself Bikerman. There is humor in that.
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| I am still researching but honestly man you should learn to take a joke. I mean come on I continue to get smashed by someone who calls himself Bikerman. There is humor in that. |
I have a reasonable sense of humour but I do tend to get a bit tetchy when these sort of creationist claims are made. Many people are taken in and actually believe Hovind's nonsense. This particular claim has been around for about 20 years and was soundly refuted at the time - yet it continues to rear its ugly head (together with other claims from this nut-case).
Be honest - YOU believed it didn't you? So do a lot of other people.
PS - If you want to genuinely research things like this then I would advise against sites like the Creation Institute, Kent Hovinds homepages and other similar material - they just tell lies which are easily debunked (as I hope I have shown).I already knew that scientist tried to say that the original paper was false due to wrong results. I also know that since the original paper it has been revisited by a few people. The last I know of is Ronald Gilliland and his findings did not show a increase but a decrease just not of what Eddy and Boornazian found to be. So here is what I see. These two scientist come out with their findings and some accepted it and some didnt. Later there was the mercury report, it did not agree with what Eddy and Boornazian found. So my first question which is that I would like you to show me a article that actually says the retracted their paper. So pretty much they come out with their report and then Parkinson, Morrison and Stephenson take it and examine it and say oh this is wrong due to instrumental and observational defects. So it was a claim unless you can prove it to me. Also it was a creationist site where I learned that they were said to be wrong. If anything evolutionist are the ones who hide the truth.
| Quote: |
| PS - If you want to genuinely research things like this then I would advise against sites like the Creation Institute, Kent Hovinds homepages and other similar material - they just tell lies which are easily debunked (as I hope I have shown). |
Let make one thing clear I do have google alot of what I find, I have had this debate before but it has been a few years. When I look up something I do look at all sites not just ones that fit my needs. There will always be creationist who will discredit what evolutionist find thru science but it also goes the other way. Which is why we will be dancing this dance for a long long time.Let's be clear. When I said they retracted, I misspoke. In fact Eddy and Boornazian never published a paper on this issue. They presented their findings at a conference - 1979 meeting of the American Astronomical Society.* The findings were presented as a 'puzzle' in order to stimulate criticism and more work on the matter. In science papers are not held to be valid until published in the professional journals and submitted for peer-review. Eddy and Boornazian knew that their findings were not ready for peer-review so they chose not to publish and, instead, presented their findings in a seminar. This is an example of sound scientific method and Eddy and Boornazian behaved perfectly correctly. You will find - for this very reason - that their initial findings were never published.
Their findings were immediately challenged (as they knew they would be) and various papers WERE published that showed that firstly the shrinkage was much less than the Boornazian/Eddy presentation suggested, and that the shinkage was well within the range of measurement error one would expect from telescopy at the time of the measurements.
Eddy himself published a paper in 1984 in which he showed an increase in solar diameter of 8 feet per hour between 1967 and 1980 which fits with the 80 year cycle.
Let's also be clear - the sun's diameter DOES change. This is well established. It changes over an 80 year cycle (although a recent paper suggests it may be a 76 year cycle). It does not, however, significantly change over a prolonged period for the reasons demonstrated in the math previously.
The simple fact is that things have moved on since 1979. We now have satellites dedicated to observation of the sun and our data is much more precise. No atronomers seriously believe the creationist nonsense - ask them.
*Secular decrease in the solar diameter, 1863-1953, Eddy and Boornazian, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society 11:437 (1979)
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/1986/PSCF9-86VanTill.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/vx41h71612584xq0/
Last edited by Bikerman on Tue May 06, 2008 3:19 am; edited 1 time in total Those two sites you put on there I had already found before I posted so I hope you dont believe that I only look at Creation sites. I will put it like this if you could prove evolution to me I would believe it. Although I dont need to see to believe, I do believe what I see.
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| Those two sites you put on there I had already found before I posted so I hope you dont believe that I only look at Creation sites. I will put it like this if you could prove evolution to me I would believe it. Although I dont need to see to believe, I do believe what I see. |
Well if you have read the material I provided on the talkorigins site then I really don't see how you could not accept evolution...Just because I read it doesnt make we want to believe in evolution. I will make a huge statement which I am sure you will not approve. The only thing you can prove is micro-evolution. Nothing more. But you believe you came from monkeys or cosmic dust. So heres the deal you or I cannot prove nor falsify evolution. Meaning that since you believe in something you cannot prove then you have faith that its true. I believe in God and the Bible which you or I again cannot prove or falsify. So because I believe in something I cannot prove I must have faith. So you and I are in the same boat but only with one foot in each. So what makes sense to you doesnt to me and what makes sense to me doesnt to you. But if you consider the outcome of whoever is right I would think that my Heaven is alot better than your hole in the ground.
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| Just because I read it doesnt make we want to believe in evolution. I will make a huge statement which I am sure you will not approve. The only thing you can prove is micro-evolution. Nothing more. But you believe you came from monkeys or cosmic dust. So heres the deal you or I cannot prove nor falsify evolution. Meaning that since you believe in something you cannot prove then you have faith that its true. I believe in God and the Bible which you or I again cannot prove or falsify. So because I believe in something I cannot prove I must have faith. So you and I are in the same boat but only with one foot in each. So what makes sense to you doesnt to me and what makes sense to me doesnt to you. But if you consider the outcome of whoever is right I would think that my Heaven is alot better than your hole in the ground. |
You can easily falsify evolution - get a shovel and go digging. Show me a fossil at the wrong stratum of rock. Alternatively show me how the observations of speciation in the lab were faked (and this is not micro-evolution but speciation - what you creationists wrongly call macro-evolution). Alternatively explain how atavistic and vestigeal structures can occur without evolution. Alternatively show me how the fossil transition record has been falsified. Alternatively show me how the molecular and genetic evidence has been falsified.
I don't 'believe' in evolution - I have studied the evidence and find it irrefutable therefore I accept it as the best theory for explaining the origin of species and bio-diversity. If someone can demonstrate it is wrong (and there are many ways - see above) then I will cease to accept it. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the creationist bunnies... | Quote: |
| don't 'believe' in evolution - I have studied the evidence and find it irrefutable therefore I accept it as the best theory for explaining the origin of species and bio-diversity. If someone can demonstrate it is wrong (and there are many ways - see above) then I will cease to accept it. |
How can you say you dont believe in it but you accept it.
To quote the dictionary.
believe
| Quote: |
| intransitive verb1 a: to have a firm religious faith b: to accept as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>2: to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something <believe in exercise>3: to hold an opinion : think <I believe so>transitive verb1 a: to consider to be true or honest <believe the reports> <you wouldn't believe how long it took> b: to accept the word or evidence of <I believe you> <couldn't believe my ears>2: to hold as an opinion : suppose <I believe it will rain soon> |
accept
| Quote: |
| 1 a: to receive willingly <accept a gift> b: to be able or designed to take or hold (something applied or added) <a surface that will not accept ink>2: to give admittance or approval to <accept her as one of the group>3 a: to endure without protest or reaction <accept poor living conditions> b: to regard as proper, normal, or inevitable <the idea is widely accepted> c: to recognize as true : believe <refused to accept the explanation>4 a: to make a favorable response to <accept an offer> b: to agree to undertake (a responsibility) <accept a job>5: to assume an obligation to pay; also : to take in payment <we don't accept personal checks>6: to receive (a legislative report) officiallyintransitive verb |
they seem alot alike to me. to accept as true/to recognize as true.
point is you have faith in something you cannot proveThe difference is semantic and people have different takes on it. Dictionaries are not always the best source for such differences, but I agree they are a good starting point. To avoid confusion I will try to elaborate.
Belief does not imply evidence. You can believe something without evidence. Indeed you can believe something DESPITE evidence - we call that FAITH. This is what you do with creationism. You start from a belief and then try to prove it correct (regardless of counter-evidence).
In science you propose a theory and then try to demolish it. You design experiments and you study the evidence. If the theory stands up to scrutiny you then accept it as the best available explanation. If the evidence shows the theory to be wrong then you ditch the theory.
That is the difference.
Let's give a simple illustration
Radiometric dating shows the Earth is over 4 billion years old. If you 'believe' in creationism then you will seek ways to wriggle out of that and not accept it. If you accept the science then you cannot believe the Earth is 6000 yrs old (or however old the latest bible interpretation makes it).
| Bikerman wrote: |
Let's give a simple illustration
Radiometric dating shows the Earth is over 4 billion years old. If you 'believe' in creationism then you will seek ways to wriggle out of that and not accept it. If you accept the science then you cannot believe the Earth is 6000 yrs old (or however old the latest bible interpretation makes it). |
Not really; I totally accept the world is 4 billion years old. I don't believe that the '6 days' in which God made the universe/earth was 6 days as in 144 hours. Perhaps 6 of some cosmological cycle we will soon learn about. Also, I'm not even totally against the whole theory of evolution; perhaps God let organisms evolve but in a direction that He wanted, and when we came to our present forum (more or less), God made Adam the first human-human.Well that is a strange mish-mash of creationism, guided-evolution and mysticism..
But if God exists that still makes a little more sense, no?
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| But if God exists that still makes a little more sense, no? |
Well, perhaps it is slightly less loopy than the Genesis account but it still has problems.
What you get is evolution of everything except man and then a sudden act of creation and man appears (Adam and Eve). It still makes no sense in evolutionary terms, and it is contradicted by the fossil record and genetic evidence. | Bikerman wrote: |
The difference is semantic and people have different takes on it. Dictionaries are not always the best source for such differences, but I agree they are a good starting point. To avoid confusion I will try to elaborate.
Belief does not imply evidence. You can believe something without evidence. Indeed you can believe something DESPITE evidence - we call that FAITH. This is what you do with creationism. You start from a belief and then try to prove it correct (regardless of counter-evidence).
In science you propose a theory and then try to demolish it. You design experiments and you study the evidence. If the theory stands up to scrutiny you then accept it as the best available explanation. If the evidence shows the theory to be wrong then you ditch the theory.
That is the difference.
Let's give a simple illustration
Radiometric dating shows the Earth is over 4 billion years old. If you 'believe' in creationism then you will seek ways to wriggle out of that and not accept it. If you accept the science then you cannot believe the Earth is 6000 yrs old (or however old the latest bible interpretation makes it). |
Honestly now, evolutionist do not try to demolish evolution, they do everything they can to protect it, however I am not pointing fingers because creationist do it as well.
You are simply trying to elude what I have stated. So you accept evolution. You cant say that you dont beleive in what you accepted. So if I asked you, Do you believe that evolution is the starting of the world, universe, all living things. You would say yes. You said yourself
| Quote: |
| I have studied the evidence and find it irrefutable |
do I need to tell you the definition of irrefutable.
So again you accept(whatever) in something that you cannot prove. That still says faith to me.
And you can say no you dont all you want but its nothing but you running around the statement.
Oh and radiometric dating is not as accurate as we once thought.
Last edited by DavidkChase on Wed May 07, 2008 12:41 am; edited 1 time in total | Quote: |
| What you get is evolution of everything except man and then a sudden act of creation and man appears (Adam and Eve). It still makes no sense in evolutionary terms, and it is contradicted by the fossil record and genetic evidence. |
how does the fossil record contradict genesis, if anything it proves the flood | DavidkChase wrote: |
| Quote: | | What you get is evolution of everything except man and then a sudden act of creation and man appears (Adam and Eve). It still makes no sense in evolutionary terms, and it is contradicted by the fossil record and genetic evidence. |
how does the fossil record contradict genesis, if anything it proves the flood |
Oh dear. Where to start....
OK - here's a very gentle (pro-religion) site which will explain a couple of the main problems.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/oldearth2.htm | DavidkChase wrote: |
| Honestly now, evolutionist do not try to demolish evolution, they do everything they can to protect it, however I am not pointing fingers because creationist do it as well. |
There are many biologists, geneticists, palaeontologists, archeologists and other scientists who would simply LOVE to show that evolution was wrong. It would mean a Nobel prize (at least)! The fact is that scientists have to display scientific method and that means you cannot ignore evidence. Scientists, unlike creationists, have to display integrity and honesty in their professional life - if you get caught telling porkies in science that will be the end of your career. Creationists lie all the time - check the web.
| Quote: |
You are simply trying to elude what I have stated. So you accept evolution. You cant say that you dont beleive in what you accepted. So if I asked you, Do you believe that evolution is the starting of the world, universe, all living things. You would say yes. You said yourself
| Quote: | | I have studied the evidence and find it irrefutable |
do I need to tell you the definition of irrefutable.
|
What has the start of the world and the universe got to do with evolution? You seem confused again.
I have studied the evidence available and there are NO serious refutations of evolutionary theory available. That could possibly change in the future, so maybe I should have said 'the evidence is not currently refuted' to be strictly accurate, but the chances are so remote we can say with a fair degree of certainty that the theory is correct. Do you 'believe' you had great grandparents or do you accept that you did? It is possible you didn't have, and some pioneering mad scientist or little green alien actually cloned you, so we should say, to be accurate, that your great grandparents are actually only a theory. We don't normally do that though, do we? Well, in science we do. When discussing science we use the word theory to indicate things we are pretty certain of. If there is some doubt then the word hypothesis would be used.
| Quote: |
So again you accept(whatever) in something that you cannot prove. That still says faith to me. And you can say no you dont all you want but its nothing but you running around the statement.
|
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory which I accept. It requires no faith since everything can be checked-out. I have already given you the numerous lines of evidence used to validate the theory. It makes predictions about the sequence of the fossil record - these can be, and are being, checked-out constantly. It makes predictions about genetic and molecular biology - these have been and are being checked-out. It is as 'true' as any scientific theory. The fact that scientists do not like to use the word truth means that I am careful about using it myself - that does not mean that there is any real doubt.
| Quote: |
| Oh and radiometric dating is not as accurate as we once thought. |
LOL - says who? Your creationist buddies? Come on then, let's have the latest creationist 'proof'.. | Quote: |
Web site logo
CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE BIBLE'S
FLOOD STORY AND THE FOSSIL RECORD
horizontal rule
Sponsored link.
horizontal rule
Background:
The theory of evolution requires a very old earth -- billions of years of age. A main part of this theory is the belief that fossil-bearing rock layers were laid down over an interval of hundreds of millions of years. Fossils thus represent evidence of the evolution of various species over that a very long interval.
Many creation scientists are young-earth creationists. They interpret the Genesis account of creation as describing an young earth -- one which is only 6,000 to 10,000 years of age. A main component of this theory is that the flood of Noah, as described in Genesis 7, laid down layers of sediment that later hardened into the fossil bearing rock layers that we see today. This took only 150 days, circa 2349 BCE according to the Schofield Reference Bible, as described in Genesis 7:24.
Most North American adults are quite certain that one of these theories is right and the other is wrong. They might assume that there are some indicators in the fossil records and/or in the rock layers which will indicate which is correct.
There appear to be two indicators that the flood is not the source of the fossil bearing sedimentary rock. We have never been able to find a valid rebuttal to either indicator. Of course, one may be found in the future.
horizontal rule
A conflict based on the number of fossils observed:
Creation scientists teach that the fossil remains of land animals which have been found trapped in the many rock layers were all actually alive at the time of Noah's flood. These few generations of animals all drowned. Some turned into fossils and were trapped in the layers of sedimentary rock which were laid down during the 150 days of the flood.
With our present knowledge, it appears impossible to harmonize this belief with the actual number of fossils in existence.
Robert Schadewald wrote: "Robert E. Sloan, a paleontologist at the University of Minnesota, has studied the Karroo Formation [in Africa]. He asserts that the animals fossilized there range from the size of a small lizard to the size of a cow, with the average animal perhaps the size of a fox. A minute's work with a calculator shows that, if the 800 billion animals in the Karoo formation could be resurrected, there would be twenty-one of them for every acre of land on earth." 1 That is, if all of the fossils of animals in the Karroo Formation had been alive at one time, were drowned during the flood of Noah, and ended up evenly spaced around the entire land surface of the earth, there would be 21 animals per acre. 2 A very conservative estimate is that there are about 100 fossils elsewhere on earth for each fossil in the Karroo Formation in Africa. Thus, assuming that all of these animals were evenly distributed, there would have been over 2,100 living animals per acre of land - "ranging from tiny shrews to immense dinosaurs" when the flood hit. This is clearly impossible.
To make the creation science story even more unlikely, only a small percentage of animals ever form fossils when they die. Assuming that 1 of each 1,000 land animals is fossilized, (an outrageously high number) then there would have been about 50 land animals per square feet of land wandering around at the time of Noah. The Earth would have been packed "wall-to-wall" with creatures. Animals would have been stacked on other animals to form multiple layers. Even if, as many creation scientists believe, the land area on earth Earth was much greater than it is today -- that is, closer to 100% than to 25% -- the number of animals alive at the time of Noah would have had to be enormous -- massively beyond the ability of the Earth to support.
To make the creation science story even more unlikely, animals could not be evenly distributed around the entire land mass. This means that the piles of animals covering some areas would be even deeper.
Scientists have concluded that the world's fossils came from millions of generations of animal life spread out over many hundreds of millions of years. Since all of the fossils were formed over a very long interval, then only a very tiny fraction of the animals would have been alive at any one time. The Earth could and did accommodate them all.
We have not been able to find a creation science rebuttal for this observation. This may be a "killer" observation that makes a major part of the young-earth creationism an untenable theory. |
Now I read this and to be honest it doesnt prove anything.
Some guy named Robert Broom in 1932 makes a estimate that there is 800 billion fossils there.
Now he doesnt show how he got his number at all as far I as I can find if you can show it to me then I will believe it.
Second when director of the Bernard Price Institute for Paleontology in Johannesburg was asked how many fossils were actually found he answers that he estimates only 40,000.
In what equation did he find 800 billion out of 40,000.
Now for all of those fossils to form they would of had to be buried directly after death.
So either there was a world wide flood or many small flash-floods.
So about the area problem.
I could not find anything giving a number of fossils in the world so for them to say that the karoo formation is only 1 percent of all of them I would like to see proof.
However by there numbers there is 126 billion acres on earth and 30 percent of that is land.
If they are going to do their calculations correct instead of trying to instantly bash it they have to estimate actually how much land was covered by water before the flood. Now If i had to guess according to the Bible saying that it had never rained before the flood and all plants were watered via mist then I would say that only 20 percent of the world was actually covered by water.
So in this theory of mine lets see how the numbers come out.
So if the world is 80 percent land then that would be roughly 100 billion acres and if there is 800 billion animals dispersed then that would be about 8 animals per acre.
But lets say that we do that 1 percent thing then there would be around 80 animals per acre but I highly doubt that 800 billion is 1 percent of all of the fossils in the world at least around a fox's size | DavidkChase wrote: |
Now I read this and to be honest it doesnt prove anything.
Some guy named Robert Broom in 1932 makes a estimate that there is 800 billion fossils there.
Now he doesnt show how he got his number at all as far I as I can find if you can show it to me then I will believe it. |
The figure was arrived at by guestimation. It's not scientifically accurate - to be sure - and there must be a large range for error. The reason it is given, however, is that it is the one that creationists normally use to support their own arguments. Strange but true.. | Broom wrote: |
| Compared with any other fossil deposit in the world the Karroo [modern spelling Karoo] must be regarded as phenomenally rich. Our fossil beds cover an area of about 200,000 square miles [518,000 square kilometres] in almost any area of which fossils may be found. Some areas are rather poor; others are extremely rich. Great areas are covered by wind-blown dust, and vegetation; and as a rule it is only in water courses, and on slopes that fossils can be seen. I estimate that there are lying today exposed to view the fossil remains of five animals on average in every square mile [1.93 animals on average in every square kilometre]. In some areas there are 100; in some none. For every fossil that is exposed to view there must be a 1,000 hidden by dust and talus. If there are the remains of 1,000 animals on the shale surface on an average in every square mile [386 animals in every square kilometre], there would be in the Karroo [Karoo], if the wind-blown sand and dust could be removed, 200,000,000 fossil animals exposed to view. The fossiliferous beds are of great thickness. In some areas they must be 4,000-5,000 feet [1,200-1,500m] thick; in others perhaps only 2,000 feet [600m]. It would be a very conservative estimate that would put the average thickness at 2,000 feet [600m], and at every few inches we have another page of the book, and another series of fossils to be revealed. I thus estimate that in the whole Karroo [Karoo] formation there are preserved the fossil remains of at least 800,000,000,000 animals. |
| Quote: |
Now for all of those fossils to form they would of had to be buried directly after death.
So either there was a world wide flood or many small flash-floods. |
Well, a wordwide flood would hardly leave a sedimentary layer sufficiently deep to form a mile of rock with fossils evenly distributed through it. Or do you think it would?
| DavidkChase wrote: |
So about the area problem.
I could not find anything giving a number of fossils in the world so for them to say that the karoo formation is only 1 percent of all of them I would like to see proof. |
Get a shovel and go digging then. The assumption is that there is nothing unique about the Karoo and that animals would therefore be distributed in similar numbers in other places. It is an assumption, of course, but not an unreasonable one I would say.. | DavidkChase wrote: |
However by there numbers there is 126 billion acres on earth and 30 percent of that is land.
If they are going to do their calculations correct instead of trying to instantly bash it they have to estimate actually how much land was covered by water before the flood. Now If i had to guess according to the Bible saying that it had never rained before the flood and all plants were watered via mist then I would say that only 20 percent of the world was actually covered by water.
|
Really? Why? Based on what? | DavidkChase wrote: |
So in this theory of mine lets see how the numbers come out.
So if the world is 80 percent land then that would be roughly 100 billion acres and if there is 800 billion animals dispersed then that would be about 8 animals per acre.
But lets say that we do that 1 percent thing then there would be around 80 animals per acre but I highly doubt that 800 billion is 1 percent of all of the fossils in the world at least around a fox's size |
I think you might need to check your math. 8x100 = 800 per acre, not 80.
This, of course, assumes that every animal was fossilised...
Anyhoo, I notice that you don't address the second part of the reference I gave (the fact that there is no 'mixing' of the fossils within the sedimentary layers and that the fossils appear in an order which is predicted by evolutionary theory. This, to be honest, is a far stronger point since it does not rely on assumptions and can be verified empirically without resorting to guestimation.
Should that not be sufficient then you can always consider the rest of the arguments against a global flood (there are LOTS).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
I mean, we can happily go on to consider such matters as:
How do you build a 450ft wooden boat? How do you collect the animals? Would they fit (some dinosaurs are pretty big)? How would you care for them? Where did the water come from/go?
and so on..... | DavidkChase wrote: |
You always seem to amaze me so before I take much longer to retort to your posting let me say this. There is no way I could try to call you a stupid man, but some who common sense seems to elude you.
With every single post I put you not only destroy me but its more like this. I am standing on a giant hill with glowing neon signs pointing at me while you sit in the death star and as you tell Stephen Hawkings what to put in his next book you push one single button firing the death ray at me. So yet that seems to happen every single time you surely know what limitation of knowledge I have on science you post what you did. So you had of known that when I read this all I heard in my head was the waa waa waa from the teacher in the comic peanuts. I will have to take your word on those equations or whatever they are but perhaps next time you could dumb it down a little for me.(or a lot) |
How can you argue against something you have very little knowledge of? No offense of course. I just don't understand the concept of devoutly arguing against something if you plainly admit you're fairly ignorant of it.I can't say God is Exist or Not.
But surely I don't believe the God which written in the Holy Bible and later continue by Al Quran
is the God who create everything.
some of my reason are:
If God such mighty powerfull i don't think He need SEVEN DAYS to create this world or universe
and and need Rest, it should in miliseconds.
if Hell is only inferno , anything will bore to burn there and later will adapted inside there,
I don't think this kind it's call punisment. you afraid of burned that because now you get hurt and will die. but if you're eternity, both paradise and hell are the boring place if you stay forever.
this is stupid punishment and reward , God will not make this thing.
by choose something or someone God already doing unfair, don't care they are jews or arabian.
why not indian, japanese, russian, etc. why not bring someone which are not from any race of this world.
God pathetically make a incomplete book and have to update and upgrade His lesson over centuries.
can we call it 'Almighty'.
I think if somebody talking to or meet the Angel/God is a very funny story, Imagine that.
If God create this world with His magic, this world will not far from that. there will be
a lot of magic user include some animal and trees .
If God need us to pray for Him, He will not hide. also what benefit He get if we pray everyday to
Him. I don't believe God want us to wasting our time for that. testing of loyalty? why not He just directly put a loyality inside us.
looking to the universe do you still believe we are still the ONE having moral and inteligent created by God?
unfortunaly those book send by GOD become the reason of so many WAR.
is there something wrong with His Almighty? what kind of lesson He give to us?
if he don't like human why just create the new who he will like.
don't have to said we are born in sin. got someone to save us.
why I still can't believe Him, can He do something so I and the people like me
don't have any reason again not to believe Him anymore.
there are still lot of reason ...
just suggestion for Bible and Al Quran followers:
today Bible is still ok , at least most of them is teaching how to love others
but better you leave Al Quran because that teach you how to submit to the God by sacrifice anything if necessary. that's why some of them become very fanatically and extreme.
if you believe in GOD better you pray your ancestor GOD. if their GOD is truth
your ancestor GOD will not fake. those are originally Jewsish's GOD which later
copied and upgrade by Arabian.
once again I'm not saying God is really not exist but
I don't believe the God which written in the Holy Bible and later continue by Quran
is the ONLY God who create everything.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| DavidkChase wrote: | You always seem to amaze me so before I take much longer to retort to your posting let me say this. There is no way I could try to call you a stupid man, but some who common sense seems to elude you.
With every single post I put you not only destroy me but its more like this. I am standing on a giant hill with glowing neon signs pointing at me while you sit in the death star and as you tell Stephen Hawkings what to put in his next book you push one single button firing the death ray at me. So yet that seems to happen every single time you surely know what limitation of knowledge I have on science you post what you did. So you had of known that when I read this all I heard in my head was the waa waa waa from the teacher in the comic peanuts. I will have to take your word on those equations or whatever they are but perhaps next time you could dumb it down a little for me.(or a lot) |
How can you argue against something you have very little knowledge of? No offense of course. I just don't understand the concept of devoutly arguing against something if you plainly admit you're fairly ignorant of it. |
No offense taken but I will tell you why. Every time I debate this guy he may be beat me but in the end I know more than I did before. What doesnt kill us only makes us stronger. | Quote: |
DavidkChase wrote:
So in this theory of mine lets see how the numbers come out.
So if the world is 80 percent land then that would be roughly 100 billion acres and if there is 800 billion animals dispersed then that would be about 8 animals per acre.
But lets say that we do that 1 percent thing then there would be around 80 animals per acre but I highly doubt that 800 billion is 1 percent of all of the fossils in the world at least around a fox's size
I think you might need to check your math. 8x100 = 800 per acre, not 80.
This, of course, assumes that every animal was fossilised...
|
126 bill x .80(percent)=100.8 acres of land above water
800 billion animals divided by by 100.8 billion acres=7.93 billion animals per billion acre=
7.93 animal per acre
now if 800 billion is only 1% of all fossils
800 billion x 100=80 trillion
80 trillion /100.8 billion=793.65 billion
ok you were right I some how multiplied 8x10 I was in a rush I was leaving to see a movie.
I will also tackle the second part of what you sent me I just have not had time to do so. | Quote: |
Quote:
Now for all of those fossils to form they would of had to be buried directly after death.
So either there was a world wide flood or many small flash-floods.
Well, a wordwide flood would hardly leave a sedimentary layer sufficiently deep to form a mile of rock with fossils evenly distributed through it. Or do you think it would? |
OK first off
| Quote: |
| Rock strata (called sedimentary rock) is formed when moving water deposits silt, mud, ash on top of other material. It can be deposited very quickly. During the eruption of Mt. St. Helens we saw hundreds of feet of finely striated strata put down in hours. http://www.sixdaycreation.com/facts/flood/march2004.html |
So yes it would
| Quote: |
| Get a shovel and go digging then. The assumption is that there is nothing unique about the Karoo and that animals would therefore be distributed in similar numbers in other places. It is an assumption, of course, but not an unreasonable one I would say.. |
Again if we are talking about the flood then we would have to go along with what the Bible says to explain other factors, that is if your going to test theorys.
So if all of those fossils are the result of a world wide flood then it would make it very unique.
| Quote: |
Broom wrote:
Compared with any other fossil deposit in the world the Karroo [modern spelling Karoo] must be regarded as phenomenally rich. Our fossil beds cover an area of about 200,000 square miles [518,000 square kilometres] in almost any area of which fossils may be found. Some areas are rather poor; others are extremely rich. Great areas are covered by wind-blown dust, and vegetation; and as a rule it is only in water courses, and on slopes that fossils can be seen. I estimate that there are lying today exposed to view the fossil remains of five animals on average in every square mile [1.93 animals on average in every square kilometre]. In some areas there are 100; in some none. For every fossil that is exposed to view there must be a 1,000 hidden by dust and talus. If there are the remains of 1,000 animals on the shale surface on an average in every square mile [386 animals in every square kilometre], there would be in the Karroo [Karoo], if the wind-blown sand and dust could be removed, 200,000,000 fossil animals exposed to view. The fossiliferous beds are of great thickness. In some areas they must be 4,000-5,000 feet [1,200-1,500m] thick; in others perhaps only 2,000 feet [600m]. It would be a very conservative estimate that would put the average thickness at 2,000 feet [600m], and at every few inches we have another page of the book, and another series of fossils to be revealed. I thus estimate that in the whole Karroo [Karoo] formation there are preserved the fossil remains of at least 800,000,000,000 animals.
|
I mentioned that the director of the Bernard Price Institute for Paleontology in Johannesburg was asked how many fossils were actually found he answers that he estimates only 40,000. Thats a big difference of saying that 200,000,000 would be seen IF the wind-blown sand and dust could be removed, so when did he say this back in 1932 which Bernard Price said this around 1995 I believe.
So if they only found around 40,000 in 200,000 square miles, by that logic they would have to have around 4 trillion square miles.
| Quote: |
DavidkChase wrote:
However by there numbers there is 126 billion acres on earth and 30 percent of that is land.
If they are going to do their calculations correct instead of trying to instantly bash it they have to estimate actually how much land was covered by water before the flood. Now If i had to guess according to the Bible saying that it had never rained before the flood and all plants were watered via mist then I would say that only 20 percent of the world was actually covered by water.
Really? Why? Based on what? |
As I said If I had to guess. Which is based off that the Bible states that it did not rain before the flood , so if there was not enough water to make rain then it could not be much which was my GUESS of around 20 percent earth under water.I'm getting bored with you now.
You display the typical creationist dishonesty, and I find it irritating and not really worth my time.
Specifically you -
- ignore points you can't deal with and cherry pick others
This is classic creationist tactics Whereas I have tried to tackle all your questions head-on, you have constantly refused to deal with any arguments that you find either too difficult or can't be bothered to read.
- carry on regardless when your points are refuted
I have alread explained how science works. You provide your hypothesis and if any evidence contradicts it you ditch the hypothesis. You don't keep repeating the same flawed hypothesis like a punch drunk boxer.
- use pseudo-science and lies from creationist sites without first checking them.
You have previously said that you don't just use creationist sites. I see no evidence of this since the majority of your points can be refuted with a simple google.
Example -
During the eruption of Mt. St. Helens we saw hundreds of feet of finely striated strata put down in hours. Err, you would do. It was a damn volcano, not a flood. What you DO NOT SEE is an even and progressive distribution of dead animals (future fossils) throughout the Mt St Helens sediminent. Why do you think that is ? Duh!
- make completely baseless, even stupid, statements and try to build an argument around them
Examples -
they only found 40,000 fossils in 200,000 square miles therefore you would need 4 trillion square miles.. Stupid argument. They didn't dig up the whole 200,000 square miles - have you any idea how long that would take and how much manpower you would need? Palaeontologists work in measured squares and I doubt they would have excavated more than a few hundred yards.
I would say that only 20 percent of the world was actually covered by water. OK - you say it is a guess. Based on what? Why not 1%? Why not 3%? Why not, for that matter, 0%? It's not just a guess, it's a completely meaningless figure and there is no point trying to build a case around a figure you just pluck from nowhere. That is not only unscientific, it is plain silly.
It's fairly clear that you are not interested in getting to the facts. I suspect you are only interested in practicing your arguments so you can use them against others without the scientific knowledge or ability to properly refute them. I have no interest in training another creationist troll - there are far too many of them as it is.
As you have previously said | Quote: |
| I have faith in God and the Bible which neither will I be able to prove or not prove. But since I already have my side not based by science I don't need to make a decision. |
The flood is a scientific hypothesis - it makes testable claims. Those claims have been comprehensively tested and the hypothesis doesn't work. Therefore, from a science perspective, it didn't happen. If you want to maintain your faith-based belief that it did happen then that is up to you, but there is no point debating the matter, is there? There is nothing dishonest about how I handle this. I;m sorry if all my friends didnt come from MIT or know how to make a nuclear bomb. I dont live in a science lab so all I find i what I see on the internet and I give you the chance to prove me wrong. So if you want to have a hissy fit because I dont know the proper way to come up with scientific hypothesis and all I have is my common sense or what makes sense to me then thats your problem. I dont believe I have ignored anything and if you want I can show you plenty of times you have ignored what I said. If I have ignored anything you proposed please tell me and I will address it but bear in mind that the second part of the last site you gave me was next on my to do list.
Give me one example where I have made the same argument twice after you actually answering it the first time. Do that and I will apologize.
About the volcano that was a example showing that strata can make hundreds of feet in a few hours.
So my point was that if that can happen then surely a world wide flood could do the same thing. I say it can happen if you dont think so then explain to me how it cant.
my stupid example as you put it was me saying this- if they were going to use a equation to figure out
how many fossils where down there and if I wrong it please tell me the correct one.
which I guess I was mistake I assumed(sorry)that the 200,000 square miles was finished product.
40,000 x
________ = _____________
200,000 total amount of land that has fossils which you dont really know until you dig
Also you misquoted me I said by this logic not therefore, in other words I didnt not say yes this is fact
I was saying my the logic that makes sense to me in my head this is what I see.
I am most def interested in getting to the facts and if you dont want to debate any more then fine.
but to honest with you all I know is if I come up with something you dont have a scientific answer or fact for you completely ignore it.
Like your last response instead of giving me facts for what I have proposed which if you do I will admit your right, you revert to I dont want to do this anymore because I'm the stupid one.
You remind me of my cousin which is extremely smart but when I asked him one day what color the giraffes tong was because he did not know he simply kept telling me that he could not hear me.
So dont accuse me of beating around a bush.
I dont just believe the flood because its in the Bible. I believe contrary to what you say that the science shows that it could happen. That is why we debate about this perticular subject.
I apologize for my misspelled words I just woke up and so I am not completely with it yet.
| Bikerman wrote: |
I mean, we can happily go on to consider such matters as:
How do you build a 450ft wooden boat? How do you collect the animals? Would they fit (some dinosaurs are pretty big)? How would you care for them? Where did the water come from/go?
and so on..... |
Sorry for being a few posts late, but how the hell did Noah get dinosaurs on his Arc? Dinosaurs were over ~120 million years ago, no? As you say, creationists believe the earth to be ~6000 years old. Now, according to your idea of creationists, let's give Adam and the following prophets after him some time, and that leaves us with 5000 years? So dinosaurs were 5000 years ago? I wouldn't have thought!That would be the idea that around 4000 years ago when we believe the flood happened Noah had dinosaurs on the boat. As far as size I would think that he would taken baby dino's.
| doomz wrote: |
| If God such mighty powerfull i don't think He need SEVEN DAYS to create this world or universe and and need Rest, it should in miliseconds. |
Well, as a Muslim I, along with other Muslims, certainly don't believe God took any 'rest' after creating the universe. As an individual, however, I believe that God created the very very very very very first atom/whatever that resulted in the Big Bang, etc. which scientists have so much trouble explaining. After this, God set the universe, His Creation, on its due course.
The earth has changed in form since its beginning, of course, and so 6 rotations would not be 144 hours all the time. Also, it could not be 6 days as what we think of 6 days because the earth was not created before the universe 
Perhaps the '6 days' reference refers to some kind of cosmological cycle which completed it's process in six phases; ie. 6 'days'. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | I mean, we can happily go on to consider such matters as:
How do you build a 450ft wooden boat? How do you collect the animals? Would they fit (some dinosaurs are pretty big)? How would you care for them? Where did the water come from/go?
and so on..... |
Sorry for being a few posts late, but how the hell did Noah get dinosaurs on his Arc? Dinosaurs were over ~120 million years ago, no? As you say, creationists believe the earth to be ~6000 years old. Now, according to your idea of creationists, let's give Adam and the following prophets after him some time, and that leaves us with 5000 years? So dinosaurs were 5000 years ago? I wouldn't have thought! |
LOL...yes, it's a fairly 'tangled web they weave'. The bible account puts the flood, according to one interpretation, at about 1300 years before Solomon built the first temple (950 BCE).* That would be around 2250 BCE. Other accounts put it somewhere between 2500 BCE and 2300 BCE *
There is a fairly good historical record from that time (from both Egypt and Mesopotamia). Needless to say, neither of the historical accounts mention Dinosaurs (nor, for that matter, do they mention a global flood).
*Kings 6:1 And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.
**Josephus, Ussher, and other scholars disagree slightly on some of their dates. But most agree that a straightforward reading of the Bible indicates the Deluge must have taken place in the third millennium before the birth of Jesus Christ probably between 2500 BC and 2300 BC.Well there are some things they cant explain about the big bank for example:
There is the scientific law of conservation of angular momentum which means if smaller objects fly off of a much bigger object when they fly off they will be rotating in the same direction as the larger object.
So when the big bang happened depending on who you ask either all the material in the universe or just some of it came to a point in space and began rotating and after heating up it exploded.
If this is true and If I am mistaken in how the big bang happened I welcome someone to explain it to me, then all of the planets, stars, well everything should be rotating the same way. But they dont 8 out of 91
moons spin backwards.
The Quran doesn't give a date, however.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| ignore points you can't deal with and cherry pick others |
| DavidkChase wrote: |
| If I have ignored anything you proposed please tell me and I will address it |
LOL.
So what do we see? A classic example of trying to distract debate. You can't deal with the historical record so you pluck something else out of the air - the Big Bang - which is totally unrelated to the flood or evolution theory.
Unfortunately you haven't the first clue about the Big Bang so it doesn't really work.* Try dealing with the issue under discussion.
*Where on earth did you come up with that nonsense about angular momentum? Ahh...that would be a creationist site. It's complete garbage. There is a law of conservation of angular momentum but it doesn't operate in the way you state. You really don't know enough physics for any explanation to make sense so there is little point elaborating. If you really want to understand the concept then you could start with wiki but I'm pretty certain you won't bother because you are only interested in presenting creationist nonsense (even when you don't really understand it). The Big Bang is well beyond your competence to dicuss sensibly, so I should stick to the debate if I were you.honestly you are a jerk man I was responding to what someone else put which you have done during our conversations. Im not trying to distract anything I am waiting for you to respond to what I wrote to you.
So who brought up the Big Bang then? How is that a response to a previous posting?
LOL
The point made was that the historical record does not support the idea of dinosaurs (even baby ones) at the supposed time of the flood. Neither does it support the idea of the flood itself.
The BB was raised by you as a red herring, so why not deal with the point in question?
Last edited by Bikerman on Wed May 07, 2008 8:57 pm; edited 1 time in total
| Quote: |
| *Where on earth did you come up with that nonsense about angular momentum? Ahh...that would be a creationist site. It's complete garbage. There is a law of conservation of angular momentum but it doesn't operate in the way you state. You really don't know enough physics for any explanation to make sense so there is little point elaborating. If you really want to understand the concept then you could start with wiki but I'm pretty certain you won't bother because you are only interested in presenting creationist nonsense (even when you don't really understand it). The Big Bang is well beyond your competence to dicuss sensibly, so I should stick to the debate if I were you. |
ok you are right what i read had nothing to do with I said so I was wrong. So I will ask you then since you are the expert. If I had a bunch of marbles on a merry-go round and I spun the merry-go round fast enough to make the marbles fly off. If the merry-go round is going clockwise which way would the marbles rotate and would all of them be the same? You say I ignore points which I try not to do so please dont ignore my question Im sure it will take you all but 2 seconds to state the answer. | Bikerman wrote: |
So who brought up the Big Bang then? How is that a response to a previous posting?
LOL |
ok genius maybe you should look at the last posting on page 7. | DavidkChase wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | So who brought up the Big Bang then? How is that a response to a previous posting?
LOL |
ok genius maybe you should look at the last posting on page 7. |
I did - it's yours. The BB is not mentioned.
Last edited by Bikerman on Wed May 07, 2008 9:09 pm; edited 1 time in total | DavidkChase wrote: |
| ok you are right what i read had nothing to do with I said so I was wrong. So I will ask you then since you are the expert. If I had a bunch of marbles on a merry-go round and I spun the merry-go round fast enough to make the marbles fly off. If the merry-go round is going clockwise which way would the marbles rotate and would all of them be the same? You say I ignore points which I try not to do so please dont ignore my question Im sure it will take you all but 2 seconds to state the answer. |
It would take much longer than 2 seconds to explain Big Bang theory. Marbles and merry-go-rounds have nothing to do with it. If you want an explanation of BB (or even of marbles and merry-go-rounds) then start a thread in the science forum and I will answer it. That, however, has nothing to do with the current thread discussion. | Bikerman wrote: |
| DavidkChase wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | So who brought up the Big Bang then? How is that a response to a previous posting?
LOL |
ok genius maybe you should look at the last posting on page 7. |
I did - it's yours. The BB is not mentioned. |
I didnt say it was in my posting I was responding to this
| Quote: |
| Sorry for being a few posts late, but how the hell did Noah get dinosaurs on his Arc? Dinosaurs were over ~120 million years ago, no? As you say, creationists believe the earth to be ~6000 years old. Now, according to your idea of creationists, let's give Adam and the following prophets after him some time, and that leaves us with 5000 years? So dinosaurs were 5000 years ago? I wouldn't have thought! |
However in my last post on page 7 I asked you many questions which I am waiting for you to respond to that not about BB. But since you want to make it so hard I will post that question in the science forum soon but honestly I'm not looking for a explanation all you have to say is- Yes/No/Depends the marbles would go the same direction of the merry-go round and Yes/No they will be rotating the same way..You want to say that I have ignored your points well lets look at who ignored what.
I asked you-Are you saying that nothing inside of you would say hey bad idea?
no answer from you
You asked-What test do you propose for God? What evidence have you for God?
I answered
(quote)There is nothing I personally can test for what I believe but instead what I have learned over the years just seems to make more sense than evolution. I will start with one example. A study over which covers 400 years shows that the sun shrinks at 5 feet per hour. So if the sun is getting smaller then it must have been bigger. Now with evolution the time of our universe varies depending on who you ask but the main one I have heard is 4.6 billion years old so I will go with that one. So if the sun used to be bigger and its at a rate of 5 feet per hour how big would the sun be 4.6 billion years ago. The sun would have been so large it would have inhabited the space earth currently fills. So that would really leave us no where. Unless you somehow want to say that as the sun got smaller it spit off a rock which is now the earth. However which where this makes sense to me is if the world is around 6-7 thousand years old such as the Bible tells then it would make since that we have found fossils in the north and south poles of tropical plants. So the only way those plants could get there is either it used to be a tropical area or during say a world wide flood some plants were drifted up there but I doubt that could happen in the time given. Now I imagine is where you tell me that the scientists who did the study were either crazy or just wrong like most evolutionist do. Provided the sun is exactly how it is which could be described as perfectly designed to sustain life on earth it would make since there has to be a designer.(/quote)
You asked me-Now what do you think of your theory?
*The mass lost by the sun to fusion is calculated as follows:
Absolute luminosity of the sun is 3.86*10^33 erg/sec
Speed of light is 2.99*10^10 cm/s
e=mc^2 therefore m=e/c^2
3.86*10^33/(2.99*10^10)^2 = 4.289*10^12 g/s
It should be noted that the sun also loses mass to Solar Flares and Coronal Mass Ejections but I don't have any solid data for the amount.
I did not answer because I have no idea what any of that means.
You said
(quote)Oh and radiometric dating is not as accurate as we once thought.
LOL - says who? Your creationist buddies? Come on then, let's have the latest creationist 'proof'..(/quote)
I apologize I did not respond because we went on with the flood so I will asnwer this very soon.
You asked me
(quote)How do you build a 450ft wooden boat? How do you collect the animals? Would they fit (some dinosaurs are pretty big)? How would you care for them? Where did the water come from/go?
and so on.....(/quote)
I have not answered simply because we are not there yet.
So my last posting on page 7 so that we are clear this is what I am asking you.
Show me where I have made the same argument twice after you correcting it.(consider that maybe I did not realize that I made it twice and if I did I will apologize)
Also show me where besides what I posted that I ignored what you asked of me.
(quote)Well that is a strange mish-mash of creationism, guided-evolution and mysticism..(/quote)
This is something you responded to Halfbloodprince during our conversation so dont try to say that I am trying to distract debate
Last edited by DavidkChase on Wed May 07, 2008 9:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
| DavidkChase wrote: |
I didnt say it was in my posting I was responding to this
| Quote: | | Sorry for being a few posts late, but how the hell did Noah get dinosaurs on his Arc? Dinosaurs were over ~120 million years ago, no? As you say, creationists believe the earth to be ~6000 years old. Now, according to your idea of creationists, let's give Adam and the following prophets after him some time, and that leaves us with 5000 years? So dinosaurs were 5000 years ago? I wouldn't have thought! |
|
So what has the BB got to do with that? The evidence for an 'old earth' does not rely on the acceptance of Big Bang theory.
| Quote: |
| However in my last post on page 7 I asked you many questions which I am waiting for you to respond to that not about BB. |
I see no questions that have not already been dealt with. If you care to restate the questions I will deal with them (providing they have not already been addressed).
| Quote: |
| But since you want to make it so hard I will post that question in the science forum soon but honestly I'm not looking for a explanation all you have to say is- Yes/No/Depends the marbles would go the same direction of the merry-go round and Yes/No they will be rotating the same way.. |
The reason I won't answer here is because these questions require a more involved answer and I am not going to give you ammunition for your creationist nonsense. I will happily give more complete answers in the science forum where such questions belong.
Why am I being so specific? Experience! I have debated creationists many times and I know what dishonest, sneaky people they often are. Give an explanation in one context and all of a sudden you find that explanation used out of context and 'edited' to support some creationist nonsense. I am not falling for that one. | DavidkChase wrote: |
| You want to say that I have ignored your points well lets look at who ignored what. |
Well by your own admission you have ignored several points (you make it 3 - I think it is more since I gave you a more complete list of topics at talkorigins which you have not addressed).
The only one I missed was the | Quote: |
| Are you saying that nothing inside of you would say hey bad idea? |
The reason I didn't answer directly is simple - I had already demonstrated that conscience is individual and that, in fact, some people (psychopaths) have no recognisable conscience. The question was - does God create EVERYONE with a conscience. The answer is NO.
If you want a specific answer then yes, I have a sense of right and wrong which you could call a conscience. It is, however, not relevant to the debate.
You ask questions which you do not understand and then think the fact that you do not understand the answer absolves you from any responsibility to deal with such answers. As I said - typical creationist.
My response to a question by HBP did nothing to distract from the thread - it was common courtesy.Here is a link to the question
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-92312.html#769346
Now I will tell you what I will do. Perhaps I to quickly try to make my points or answer them so I will finish the second part of the last site you gave me. I will look at everything I find and present my case to you and it will take me a while to do so. Then we can either move on the rest of the flood questions or we can do your talkorigins site. You pick. | DavidkChase wrote: |
Here is a link to the question
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-92312.html#769346
Now I will tell you what I will do. Perhaps I to quickly try to make my points or answer them so I will finish the second part of the last site you gave me. I will look at everything I find and present my case to you and it will take me a while to do so. Then we can either move on the rest of the flood questions or we can do your talkorigins site. You pick. |
So I presume you do not accept the 'fossil numbers' argument - the fact that the fossil numbers indicate an unsustainable number of animals at the time of the flood?
I presume you don't accept the historical record argument - the fact that there is no reference in the historical record, circa 2500 BCE, to either dinosaurs or a global flood?
I presume you maintain that dinosaurs actually walked the earth circa 2500 BCE despite no actual evidence?
LOL.
OK - start with the second part - the lack of fossil mixing in the fossil record. I will be happy to consider your 'case'.God is always the answer whenever someone can't think of an answer to a solution. I personally do not believe in him but I'm not here to prove that he doesn't exist but to point something out....
I've always wondered... what created us? Start Dust? Big Bang? What created all those things? GOD?
Well then my question is... What created God? There is never a starting point for something. When you think about it, every "start" is because of another's "end" so God can't be all mighty and powerful as everyone really claim. That's something that I've always pondered.
Anyways I don't believe in god because then he would've made the world set up in a way that it was possible to believe in him and it was possible to make him exist. I just believe that he's a fictional character that people make up in their own mind set.
Good debate though, I'm not going to lie.
This might sound somewhat controversial to say, but God exists because believe it or not we ARE god. All of us. You are god, I'm god, he's god, she's god. People get so caught up in this idea that God is this big man with a long beard that's floating up somewhere in the sky. I'm going to have to disagree, although he can be that if you want because the concept is extremely flexible and God can entail any form or shape anyone would like Him to be. I believe that God is connected to our higher selves. When we search for enlightment, when we search to better ourselves we search to be connected to the Higherself that is within us: the God part of ourselves. God shows through us. God lives and breathes through me everyday. Every piece of matter that exists that resonates energy is god. We get so lost in this idea that God has judgments and expectations for us. He just IS. like we all just ARE. everything just IS. when we let go of this definition of how we should define God, we let go of what defines us. We are not creatures meant for definiton, meant for explanations, meant for specific clear cut answers. We are an everflowing source of energy and everything that comes in through us, good or bad is just there for helping us grow as individuals. When we try to overanalyze, we lose the real purpose behind our thought, which is to just let things be. ALL things are IMPERFECT. and by being imperfect, they are PERFECT. By trying too hard to make things so called perfect, it becomes imperfect. When we let things be imperfect, when we are at peace with WHAT IS, perfection shows THROUGH the imperfection.
This is self-contradictory. On the one hand you say that God shows through when we search for enlightenment and to better ourselves. On the other hand you say we are not 'meant for' definitions, explanations and clear-cut answers. How are we supposed to seek enlightenment and to better ourselves without seeking for explanations and definitions?
I also disagree - I think that one of the defining characteristics of humans is their compulsion to seek for meaning/pattern in existence. In fact I think that this is one important reason that religion arose in the first place.
