Weaknesses of Evolution.

[pwnaz0r]

Weaknesses of Evolution


Prologue
Alright, now I know that the majority of the world accepts the idea of evolution. When you enter this topic, you probably think to yourself "this is another one of those crazy creationalists". This may be your thoughts, it may not. I encourage you not to look at this thread as an insult to evolution, but you do need to question it if that is what you believe.

We are both people. I am not like other creationalists, I once believed in evolution. You must understand that you and I are both human being searching for real meaning in this life. If I am wrong and if you can bring creditable, factual information that would disprove my thoughts, then by all means please tell me so I can conform.

I write this not becase I am some radical, not because I am uneducated.. I write it because I see no other options for explaining. This thread will explain all of my knowledge of things do not make sense inside the evolutionary belief. It is not a thread for you to bash and critise Me or Intelectual Design. It is a thread for you to attempt to answer these questions.


About me

I am a simple 16 year old guy, never asked for much in life. I was in public school until the 5th grade, afterwhich I moved to a private school. Now I know you are all saying "A private schooler, that makes sense he believes this", but let me explain something to you. There is almost no difference between the behavior of the people in private school and the behavior of them in public school. More than half of the people in my private school do not belief or care about a God. I didn't at first ethier... Then I read a book "The FARCE of evolution". This brought things into perspective for me. I decided to do more research and I continued to do so until the evidence was too overwhelming to belief otherwise. Looking at this statement, I try to analyze what you are thinking, and of course it is "Oh no, not again", but please, bear with me. You will soon question yourself, I guarentee you.



Scientists must continuely tell themselves that what they see has not been created, but evolved.


Keep this quote in mind ;).


This thread

This thead was meant only to educate you on the arguements against the creditability of evolution. This thread is not for bashing creationalism because of you personal beliefs and that you do not care about anything, it is for basic conversation and debate. This thread is NOT meant for convincing you of any specific denomination, as they will vary. My only goal is to get you to consider Intellegent Design. NO FLAMING.


Past Experience

Well, with my past experience, I have talked to a few people here about intellegent design, a few of my close friends here. I once spoke with Mastaraymond, in which we talked for a 24 page long conversation about this. By the end of our discussion, I had him understanding that evolution is SO HIGHLY IMPROBABLE that he admitted that it could not be true, yet there must be another way. Of course, Mastaraymond should not take this as an insult because it was meant as a compliment ;). He was an awesome example, thank you Mastaraymond for being an openminded person.



Charles Darwin

Ah yes, Charles Darwin. A great mind, no doubting it. Let me explain to those who do not know him a little about him. Charles Darwin was a great naturalist. I believe he was born in austrilia and he moved to england, of course this information might be wrong. I do know, however that he went to school to be a preacher, but dropped out soon because he was simply not interested in becoming one. He liked to collect things, all different species of things. Plants, animals, you name it, he liked to collect it. NATURAL SELECTION is the idea that animals evolve over time to fit with their enviroment. He is in fact the inventor of this true idea. Yes I said it is true. He came to this conclusion after studying breeds of finch birds off of an island his ship The Beaglestopped off at a nearby island. During his studies of the finches on this island, he examined that during years of drought, the finches with longer beaks would survive because they could burrow deeply into tree trunks and get food, as well as break open dried fruit on the ground and get food easier. The finches with the long beaks would live and the ones with the short beaks would die, thus the phrase "Survival of the Fittest". He then went on studying these and after awhile, he published his book The Origin of the Species. Now, here is where I start not to agree with the common thought. Of course the finches did evolve. What your textbooks do not tell you, is that after a year or so the drought would end and the finches with short beaks would flourish again. This is called de evolution, which does not occur in our society, or the idea of EVOLUTION would be broken. This is my weakest point, but it is not meant to be one. In a sense, all I am trying to say is that your textbooks will not tell you what they cannot explain, just like a teacher will not start a chapter on something they cannot teach. They are not shielding you, they are just blind ;).


The Unvierse

:).

Now, I am not going to build up to the arguements. You know the only necissary piece of information of evolution in my opinion. Of course someone else might think some other part is important, and please feel free to post it if that makes you feel better, else let's get to some points. Now, I am going to compile some information I have asked a few individuals and ask you them, they include many things about the universe.

Infinity

Infinity, what a strange topic. If you do not know what this is, it is defined as the charateristic of never ending. The number line however does extend to infinity. Yet, think about this. It does not only extend to infinity going from 0 to 1 to 2 and so on, or as mathematicians would call in, in consecutive order. It extends backwards infinity too. As in, it wil go on forever from 0 to -1 to -2 to -3 etc. The number line is also infinity in between. This is something most do not think about. there is an infinite number of numbers inside two whole numbers. For instance, in between 0 and 1, there is .1, .01, .001, .0001, .00001, and so on. This is not a difficult idea. NO SCIENTIST OR MATHEMATICIAN WILL EVER ARGUE THE FACT THAT THE NUMBER LINE IS NOT INFINITE IN ALL OF THESE ASPECTS. Only a moron would belief it wasn't. But you see, whenever God is called infinite, others push him away and say it is not true. Why? Of course, I see no answer you could say except that you cannot see God but you can see the number line. Of course, the number line is a thing in your head and only because we have put it down on paper can you see it, but of course I will give you that one and go on to say that although some animals may have the capacity to understand the number line, most do not. Some do however. My question is how is this different from our society and God ;).

The Chance

Now, you should have an open mind. I have showed you that this could be at least slightly possible, so please do not rule out God. People think that you have to be a lunatic to believe in God, but last time I checked, you have to have faith to believe in evolution too, because you would have to know everything about conditions of the world throughout all history, every single stage we went through to become what we are know, fully understand DNA and all its 4 billion nitrogen gases in every cell in your body, what all their functions are, and you must have experience in anantomy and be able to explain much more to know. So, please agree to be open, not biased. Now, the chance. Every single thing that happens in our universe is cause and effect. The universe depends on it. Things inn the universe do not happen without a cause, or it would be considered chaos. I could go through a whole list of examples of things that have causes and effects, but I will not to save time. If you can find one thing that can come without cause, please do tell. There is nothing, believe me I have searched. Everything in space has a cause.

In the 2002 movie, Space Oddessy, mankind found a strange obelisk on the moon. This of course is a fictional story, but bear with me. To suggest to anyone who has read the book or seen the movie that the obelisk was not created would be considered a fool. Yet somehow, with our universe, which is far more complex and vast, people think otherwise. This is one of the most obvious, yet not one of the most convincing. Please someone explain this to me.

Let me explain a simple mathematic equation :). Now, let me give you a quote I gave Boreas down below in this page just so I don't have to write this out.


Again, you forget that the probability of even one single cell evolving in the primordial seas would take much more time than it takes a single ameba to transport ever single atom into our universe one universe over. It takes an ameba 15,000 years to move the width of a hydrogen atom. Our universe is 55 billion light years long. There are 2.7 (trillion ? maybe billion :)) miles in a light year. So do 55 billion * 2.7 trillion and thats how many miles that ameba must travel. So how many hydrogen atoms are in a mile? If you have even studied any sort of science that involves atoms, you know that the hydrogen atom is of course the smallest atom, and that number is too high for you are I to count. so lets see. 55 billion * 2.7 (trillion, again might be billion) * (the amount of hyrdrogen atoms in a mile, which is astronomical) * 15,000 years. Thats how long it would take to move one atom there. Don't forget it must go back also. Imagine it did this for all you family, friends, their cars, their houses, all the water on the earth, everything on the earth, the sun, everthing in space, everything in the universe. If you want the exact number, I believe it is 10 to the 161,091 power. Thats 161,091 zeroes after the 1. The chance is even slimmer than that.

Don't believe me? This was an evolutionist mathematician (he had a major in math at the university of princeton) who believed this at first, who later became a creationalist. Now, our extrememly advanced scientists today can't make a cell in a lab with much more resources, way more chemicals to choose from, and an actual plan to look at to make one. Heck, they can't even make a cell membrane, the easiest part of a cell. Anyways, by saying that this "cell" evolved in the primordial seas contridicts the who purpose because oxygen would rush so fast into the cell that it would explode. Now scientists are trying to find evidence that it could have evolved in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, which they have not found it can survive by the way.

Keep in mind, that equation above is just for a cell, not for anything like amino acids, the "random" make-up of the 4 billion perfectly designed nitrogen bases in the double-helix shape of DNA, which by the way is the perfect design(go figure) for unzipping and zipping as well as packaging the DNA inside the nucleus.



Irreducible Complexity
Information from OurWorld.Compuserve.com


In Darwin’s time the cell was believed to be a ‘homogeneous globule of protoplasm’, but it is now known to contain systems of mind-boggling complexity. Some cells swim using a cilium, a structure that looks like a hair and beats like a whip. Cilia are very complicated molecular machines, containing about 200 different kinds of protein parts. It is an example of what Michael Behe calls an ‘irreducibly complex system’ – i.e. a system which ceases to function if any one of its interrelated parts is removed. Such systems, he says, cannot be produced in the gradual, step-by-step manner that Darwin envisaged, and would have to arise all at once.

Another irreducibly complex system is the rotatory flagellum – a sort of outboard motor that some bacteria use to swim. The device includes a long tail that acts as a propeller; the hook region, which attaches the propeller to the drive shaft; the motor, which uses a flow of acid from outside the bacterium to the inside to power the turning; a stator, which keeps the structure stationary in the plane of the membrane while the propeller turns; and bushing material to allow the drive shaft to poke up through the bacterial membrane. In the absence of the hook, the motor, the propeller, drive shaft, or most of the 40 types of proteins necessary for the construction and operation of the flagellum, either no flagellum is produced or one that does not work at all.1
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/flagellum.jpg
Fig. 7.4. Drawing of a bacterial flagellum showing the filament, hook, and the motor imbedded in the inner and outer cell membranes and the cell wall.2

Other examples of irreducible complexity include vision, blood clotting, and the intracellular protein transport system. Behe points out that the technical literature is essentially silent when it comes to explaining in any detail how such intricate systems might have evolved in a darwinian fashion; most of the papers in molecular biology journals are concerned with DNA sequence analysis. Darwinism has become stuck in the world of imagination.

Darwin admitted that the belief that an organ as perfect as the eye could have been formed by natural selection is ‘enough to stagger anyone’, but appealed to the enormous period of time available. Even more staggering is the current belief that camera-type eyes (like our own) evolved randomly and independently at least seven times. Like Darwin, Richard Dawkins thinks that the eye evolved step by step through a series of intermediate stages. But even the ‘light-sensitive spot’ that Dawkins takes as his starting point is a multicell organ, each of whose cells makes the complexity of a motorcycle or television look paltry in comparison. Dawkins merely adds complex systems to complex systems and calls that an explanation. Behe comments:

This can be compared to answering the question ‘How is a stereo system made?’ with the words ‘By plugging a set of speakers into an amplifier, and adding a CD player, radio receiver, and tape deck.’
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/eye.jpg

I simply did not write this because they explained it and had all the pictures already made.


DNA

ah yes, DNA. Probably my favorite one. Most people do not understand the complexity of DNA.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/DNA_Overview.png/220px-DNA_Overview.png

Now, look at this DNA Model. Scientists cannot make one of these. They have no idea how it formed this way, such a complex shape, perfect for packaging in a cell. Perfect for unzipping and letting RNA come in and get the exact right information every time. By the way, how do these mindless, evolved enzymes find their way through 4 billion nitrogen bases and get the exact right information? Scientists do not know. Compare it to looking blindly through 10 million libraries and finding the exact 5 books you need to do your book report, there are no double copies in these libraries though. Also pretend you do not know how to read (because remember, the cell was evolved, so the RNA goes in as the enyzme unzips the DNA all at once, and just as the RNA assembles one RNA base, the DNA zips back up, so when this RNA exits the nucleus, the protein that folds it into its exact right shape everytime would not know what it was doing, remember, its random... the organizing of 400+ amino acids.), yet you still write the report and get a 100...

If you saw the picture above in New York city, imagine each nitrogen base is a level of floor (10 feet standard). This would be 40 billion ft tall, although I do not know meters, I believe it would be around 13 billion meters? Anyways, look at the design, you can see it. It's a double helix, for goodness sake. Even Watson and Crick, the two scientists who discovered the shape of DNA said that it was too complex not to be designed. I bet you hadn't heard that in science class right? Please remember not to forget that this random makeup of 4 billion nitrogen bases into the perfect shape, a double helix of all things, with always matching pairs out of the 4 bases used, which is smaller than even a cell's nucleus, yet it codes for you entire body, everything that makes you and if you have ever taken anatomy you know thats alot, is all random ;).


A quick edit


I wanted to post this here, it has some good points :). You will find I quote myself to save typing time quite often.


yes... but think about it. Look through the past few posts, I have answered tons of why does God do this and why did he do that (Boreas asked some, as well as the Claw and Markus. Probably more). That is because they are questioning Religion, they ar asking why. I am asking how could you take so many chances, especially how many there are. I wouldn't even take one, much less all of them. We do have proof to our theory, and I have asked if anyone could bring one fact about evolution forth twice, this will be the third.

Of course I cannot prove God, but I am not pretending to try, they think that God is a weakness in our arguement because they can't see him. They think that he is so out of porportion, they think of him as a fairy tale, when he really isn't.

An athiest came to my school today. He was not skilled in speech, I could have easily won him over. There were questions brought up that I will ask you..

Q1: Why did the big bang happen if there was only anti-matter. Isn't this a cause an effect universe?

A1: I don't know... no one knows... I'm not sure we can. Its one of those things we can't know and it makes no sense but we know it happened. I admit that we cannot explain it, but I have to have faith in our scientists. (wait, I thought evolution was purely scientific. It takes just as much faith, if not more, to believe in evolution. Why? Both of us do not know exactly how it happened. The only difference is I believe it was not caused by chance, and you do, astronomical chances that repeadily happen over and over again. Get the fact of God out of your minds and just think intellegent designer.)

Q2: Do you believe in human conciesness(spelled wrong ;))? If so, how do you think that evolved from impersonal matter. If not, would you say we don't hav free will? Also, why if we have no conciessness, do we feel pain(emotional), love, etc.

A2: He said that his scientific background made him want to say we don't have a conciesness(he was a behavioral analysis), but he would like to believe that he has free will and can love. That is not a valid answer at all, as he basically said both. He passed off a joke about not wanting to go on a date with an unconcious person....

Q3: How do you explain irreducible complexity?

A3: He said it just didn't make sense to him.. This isn't a straight answer ethier. It also shows hints off underly-educated guesses.


I am tired of answering petty questions about my view of God, so please stop asking them. The fact remains that God designed us or He didn't they are two extremes. ONE MUST BE TRUE. Get that through your head. Since I cannot prove, and you canno disprove God, we must use reason. If you are right, then I am wrong (unless there is some wierd concidence, where I still think that even if evolution occured, God must have helped design it, cause the big bang, etc), and if I am right then you are wrong (except the thing in parenthesis, which you wouldn't believe this since you don't believe in God). It must be that way. So stop bringing up God, and start focusingon defendind evolution. That is where the battle is, that is what this thread is about, that is the only subject I say I am completely educated in (since I don't know everything about God). We are fighting on evolutions grounds if you will, so stop bringing God into it. That is how we will ever come to a conclusion. You must prove your theory or we must disprove. It would even seem as though you had the advantage, because you are "playing on the home field" or "fighting on your own turf", yet, like it or not, evolution is a theory in crisis, unless you prove otherwise.

A scientific paradigm is so until it has too many anomalies to be overlooked, which is exactly where evolution is. So, I am tired of answering the questions, you:

1. Tell me one Fact, not related to theory, must be fact. Do not make your reason for it because the scientists say so, it must be truely possible in your mind. The scientists have been wrong, just as they were about the cell in darwin's time.

2. Explain the questions above.

3. Explain how we got the DNA for the backbone even though the first cell didn't have it, because it was a one celled organism.

4. Explain how dna is so complex at a size of 20-400 nano meters (one nanometer = 1 millionth of a milimeter, which is the size of a pen head), with over 4 billion nitrogen bases.

5. Explain how iron ions could be used as enzymes for the first cell's dna.

6. Explain how antimatter was suddenly overpowered by the non existant element that is matter and suddenly banged.


Let's test your knowledge. If you can answer those purely scientific questions, I will then ask more.

[pwnaz0r]

reserved

[pwnaz0r]

reserved.

[mickaliscious]

Wow. Taking a break. I still have alot more to go . Only two out of around 13.

I'll be waiting for the rest. If you need more space, tell me and I'll delete this post or edit it with what you want or something.

[pwnaz0r]

hah ;). thank you. but I have two posts reserved. I have only told the two worst points I have so far so be watching this thread ;).

[bullzeye95]

NO SCIENTIST OR MATHEMATICIAN WILL EVER ARGUE THE FACT THAT THE NUMBER LINE IS NOT INFINITE IN ALL OF THESE ASPECTS. Only a moron would belief it wasn't. But you see, whenever God is called infinite, others push him away and say it is not true. Why? Of course, I see no answer you could say except that you cannot see God but you can see the number line.
Numbers are (I think the word I am looking for) abstract. You can not touch them. They are used in place of something. God, on the other hand, is said to do stuff, to be able to touch things, to be able to cause things. Numbers cannot. They were simply created to help out with different cases.
Are there any flaws in that? I might have used words completely wrong :p

Your post is very well thought out and organized. Good job with it.

EDIT: What exactly are you asking on "The Chance" section?

[Boreas]

bullzeye I think you used the words correctly.

With the improbability aspect, don't forget the size of the universe (nobody can comprehend it, but I mean don't forget its huge). These are just random numbers here, but if the chance of evolving from amino acids to humans is 1 in 1,000,000, if there are 10,000,000 planets, statistically there could be 10 planets with that situation.

[pwnaz0r]

bullzeye I think you used the words correctly.

With the improbability aspect, don't forget the size of the universe (nobody can comprehend it, but I mean don't forget its huge). These are just random numbers here, but if the chance of evolving from amino acids to humans is 1 in 1,000,000, if there are 10,000,000 planets, statistically there could be 10 planets with that situation.

Again, you forget that the probability of even one single cell evolving in the primordial seas would take much more time than it takes a single ameba to transport ever single atom into our universe one universe over. It takes an ameba 15,000 years to move the width of a hydrogen atom. Our universe is 55 billion light years long. There are 2.7 (trillion ? maybe billion :)) miles in a light year. So do 55 billion * 2.7 trillion and thats how many miles that ameba must travel. So how many hydrogen atoms are in a mile? If you have even studied any sort of science that involves atoms, you know that the hydrogen atom is of course the smallest atom, and that number is too high for you are I to count. so lets see. 55 billion * 2.7 (trillion, again might be billion) * (the amount of hyrdrogen atoms in a mile, which is astronomical) * 15,000 years. Thats how long it would take to move one atom there. Don't forget it must go back also. Imagine it did this for all you family, friends, their cars, their houses, all the water on the earth, everything on the earth, the sun, everthing in space, everything in the universe. If you want the exact number, I believe it is 10 to the 161,091 power. Thats 161,091 zeroes after the 1. The chance is even slimmer than that.

Don't believe me? This was an evolutionist mathematician (he had a major in math at the university of princeton) who believed this at first, who later became a creationalist. Now, our extrememly advanced scientists today can't make a cell in a lab with much more resources, way more chemicals to choose from, and an actual plan to look at to make one. Heck, they can't even make a cell membrane, the easiest part of a cell. Anyways, by saying that this "cell" evolved in the primordial seas contridicts the who purpose because oxygen would rush so fast into the cell that it would explode. Now scientists are trying to find evidence that it could have evolved in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, which they have not found it can survive by the way.

Keep in mind, that equation above is just for a cell, not for anything like amino acids, the "random" make-up of the 4 billion perfectly designed nitrogen bases in the double-helix shape of DNA, which by the way is the perfect design(go figure) for unzipping and zipping as well as packaging the DNA inside the nucleus.

[R0b0t1]

What limits the human mind is inconceivability of time and of infinity.


If you understand the universe is infinite, then the conditions within the universe are infinite. That also means there may be sentient beings close to 'Godliness'.

You can not disprove either theory as of yet, but if people wish to continue bickering about it, I guess nothing is stopping them.

[pwnaz0r]

What limits the human mind is inconceivability time and of infinity.


If you understand the universe is infinite, then the conditions within the universe are infinite. That also means there may be sentient beings close to 'Godliness'.

You can not disprove either theory as of yet, but if people wish to continue bickering about it, I guess nothing is stopping them.

I see you are trying to help my point, however I am fairly sure both parties agree that both parties agree that all matter was created thus finite. There are other factors that limit the human mind, such as his own nature, and unwilliness to do things.

However, the arguement was not if things could be close. I do not think anything inside this creation could be close to godliness just because their enviroment is, just like we can not conduct photosynthesis because our enviroment can (I am assumming you mean enviroment when you say the universe and things living in it, universe would be the enviroment ;)).

Of course the point still remains that netheir can be proved, yet I can show you the high improbability of evolution, and then human reason alone will bring you to your conclusion, for if you have two choices, and one is disproved, the other must be true.

[bullzeye95]

If you understand the universe is infinite, then the conditions within the universe are infinite. That also means there may be sentient beings close to 'Godliness'.

You know... I was just thinking the exact same thing. I've always argued that since the universe is infinite, every scenario has been/will be created. But until just before I read your post, I had never thought about powerful beings being created. That opens up doors for both arguments. I will forever stay out of these debates now.

[Method]

I skimmed through your post, but here are my thoughts on what (from my perspective) you're trying to say:

It sounds like you're trying to discredit evolution entirely (except for your little paragraph on Charles Darwin) by saying it's impossible for all life as we know it to just happen in space. Evolution is such a diverse topic that it encompasses more than just the beginning of all life, which I'm sure you understand. Your post, however, comes across differently, though. (Micro)evolution is present in laboratory experiments dealing with bacteria and other organisms in the short term, so it's obvious that evolution, on some levels, is factually proven.

Evolution and intelligent design are debates based on almost entirely beliefs because we have no proof. However, trying to discredit either because the "chance" of something happening is no way to go about it. As of now, I see no reason to believe in God, intelligent design or even evolution fully until someone either: proves evolution (as in the creation of life and everything we know) did happen and we're here after evolving over millions (billions even?) years of time or that God or another creator really does exist and created us as we know it.

Let me know if I'm being completely absurd here, please. I'm a bit tired right now and am writing this while studying for some finals tomorrow.

[pwnaz0r]

I skimmed through your post, but here are my thoughts on what (from my perspective) you're trying to say:

It sounds like you're trying to discredit evolution entirely (except for your little paragraph on Charles Darwin) by saying it's impossible for all life as we know it to just happen in space. Evolution is such a diverse topic that it encompasses more than just the beginning of all life, which I'm sure you understand. Your post, however, comes across differently, though. (Micro)evolution is present in laboratory experiments dealing with bacteria and other organisms in the short term, so it's obvious that evolution, on some levels, is factually proven.

Evolution and intelligent design are debates based on almost entirely beliefs because we have no proof. However, trying to discredit either because the "chance" of something happening is no way to go about it. As of now, I see no reason to believe in God, intelligent design or even evolution fully until someone either: proves evolution (as in the creation of life and everything we know) did happen and we're here after evolving over millions (billions even?) years of time or that God or another creator really does exist and created us as we know it.

Let me know if I'm being completely absurd here, please. I'm a bit tired right now and am writing this while studying for some finals tomorrow.

What I have not gotten around to writing, and thus my regret to not writing it all at once is that al christians should believe in micro evolution. I'm not sure our definitions are the same, but natural selection does occur within a species, which is my definition of micro evolution. However, Macro evolution, or the belief that new species are evolved, has no proof etheir. People sometimes find it hard to belief in God because it takes faith, yet I find it easier. Doesn't it take faith to believe in evolution? But most people say "Well, you see those scientists, and yeah they prove things yada yada." Scientists are biased, because they have never been taught different. There is no evidence of any transition fossils between mankind and ape. There have been scientists who have faked these skeletons, which have then since been disproved, also drawings of a fetus in a womb which was supposed to show stages of evolution going on inside a developing child. Guess what, the drawings were photo copied if you will. See, most people are just not open. Unless you were personally there to see those animals evolve, you have no proof for evolution. Carbon dating? I love this point. You see, carbon dating is not creditable after around 1,000 years, which I will explain later.

Of course, like I said. I cannot give you solid proof there is a God, but I can disprove evolution fairly well. As for the chance comment you made, it kinda made me laugh. You must take chance into this as a factor. Like saying chance isn't a factor is like me going to the point "God works in mysterious ways (props to sp0rky ;))". Especially when it is such a large scale. The amount of years it would take to even come close to becoming a cell in these vast primordial seas with limited resources is inconcievable, especially when you compare it with the 5 or so billion years scientists date the earth back too. Thats not even 1/100 of the way for one trip there for an ameba, much less back and every atom in this universe.

If there was a pyramid on the moon, I'm sure you would not defend this with chance ;).

[Hobbit]

I too go to a private school. But I'm in the group you mentioned. I am very skeptical that there is a God, but I do not believe in Evolution. There are way way too many flaws. And creation seems to much of a fantasy land to be true.

So, here are some points to back up pwnaz0r that evolution is false.

Eyeless Fish
There is a cave (I forget where) where all the fish are born with no eyes. No they did not begin like this. The people who found the cave believe the fish swam there an a part of the cave collapsed trapping them is, or how else did they get there? Well because of a negative mutation and inpurities in the DNA pool, some fish were born without eyes. Now, becuase it was a sealed cave, there was no light. All the fish who had eyes swam around blindly running into the rocks causing their eyes to pop and become infected. The fish soon die because of the infection. But the ones with no eyes survive because they have no eyes to pop, then over time as more and more fish were dieing off and since the eyeless fish can no longer produce fish with eyes because they do not contain that part of DNA, soon all the fish are now born without eyes.

Now, some scientists would say "Oh this just proves evolution."

WRONG

The mutations stated in evolution happen because of a gain in DNA information. The situation with the fish is, they LOST the DNA information allowing them to have eyes. Through this they were able to survive.
Here is an example of what evolution says happens when a species evolves
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gene-duplication.svg Found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mutation)

Now, there is not one single example in the history of the earth where there has been a mutation where DNA has been gained.


Another example.

Stone Teddy Bears.

Stalagmites and Stalactites are said to take thousands of years to form, and that the large caves of them formed over millions of years. Well a man (I forget his name) placed some teddy bears under Niagra Falls and 5 months later he came back to find this.
http://creationtruthministries.org/images/493_DSC03441.JPG

Now if small stalactites take thousands of years to form, why did this bear completely petrify in 5 months?

Or there is this example. A man in the states stuck a pipe in the ground in a hotspring in his property. 40 years later it has created a stalagmite over 20 feet high and 15 feet in diameter (Post pic later)

I have more but will post later, run out of time.

[Method]

You seem to think evolution only applies to gains in the gene pool. This is not true. If you look up definitions of evolution, you'll see that evolution is a change in the genes or inherited traits through generations in a population, not only an addition (or subtraction). Taking a look at the very first line on the page in your link only discredits your point more.

[mickaliscious]

You seem to think evolution only applies to gains in the gene pool. This is not true. If you look up definitions of evolution, you'll see that evolution is a change in the genes or inherited traits through generations in a population, not only an addition (or subtraction). Taking a look at the very first line on the page in your link only discredits your point more.

Not exactly, if there is 'no evidence' that genetic material has been added... How did we come to have 46 chromosomes without starting out with more? His argument is valid.

[pwnaz0r]

I too go to a private school. But I'm in the group you mentioned. I am very skeptical that there is a God, but I do not believe in Evolution. There are way way too many flaws. And creation seems to much of a fantasy land to be true.

So, here are some points to back up pwnaz0r that evolution is false.

Eyeless Fish
There is a cave (I forget where) where all the fish are born with no eyes. No they did not begin like this. The people who found the cave believe the fish swam there an a part of the cave collapsed trapping them is, or how else did they get there? Well because of a negative mutation and inpurities in the DNA pool, some fish were born without eyes. Now, becuase it was a sealed cave, there was no light. All the fish who had eyes swam around blindly running into the rocks causing their eyes to pop and become infected. The fish soon die because of the infection. But the ones with no eyes survive because they have no eyes to pop, then over time as more and more fish were dieing off and since the eyeless fish can no longer produce fish with eyes because they do not contain that part of DNA, soon all the fish are now born without eyes.

Now, some scientists would say "Oh this just proves evolution."

WRONG

The mutations stated in evolution happen because of a gain in DNA information. The situation with the fish is, they LOST the DNA information allowing them to have eyes. Through this they were able to survive.
Here is an example of what evolution says happens when a species evolves
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gene-duplication.svg Found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mutation)

Now, there is not one single example in the history of the earth where there has been a mutation where DNA has been gained.


Another example.

Stone Teddy Bears.

Stalagmites and Stalactites are said to take thousands of years to form, and that the large caves of them formed over millions of years. Well a man (I forget his name) placed some teddy bears under Niagra Falls and 5 months later he came back to find this.
http://creationtruthministries.org/images/493_DSC03441.JPG

Now if small stalactites take thousands of years to form, why did this bear completely petrify in 5 months?

Or there is this example. A man in the states stuck a pipe in the ground in a hotspring in his property. 40 years later it has created a stalagmite over 20 feet high and 15 feet in diameter (Post pic later)

I have more but will post later, run out of time.

I mean, I kinda get where you are coming from, but I don't think only those two will prove on evolution.

Wait until I get all my points up there.

[R0b0t1]

I was not trying to support your point.

[mickaliscious]

I was not trying to support your point.

To quote you here:


http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/funny-pictures-bird-cat-cage.jpg


Edit: You make his point that creation could have occured valid, but you don't support his argument against evolution. So you're kind've right.

[pwnaz0r]

Numbers are (I think the word I am looking for) abstract. You can not touch them. They are used in place of something. God, on the other hand, is said to do stuff, to be able to touch things, to be able to cause things. Numbers cannot. They were simply created to help out with different cases.
Are there any flaws in that? I might have used words completely wrong :p

Your post is very well thought out and organized. Good job with it.

EDIT: What exactly are you asking on "The Chance" section?

ah ok, maybe you edited or it was so late that I did not see this post. Of course, did we create numbers? Nope. Think about it, they have always been here even before we were, the concept at least, so technically we did create them. God is never said to be able to touch things, yet he is a cause. Still, you state this fact... So? this fact does not prove anything and if you understand arguementation at all, it is called a falicy, or misdirection. You send a fact at me, though it proves nothing it just points in the direction of the subject if you will.

EDIT:

:p. I don't know if you mean me epic fail or him, but as you can see, he brought no arguement against my post.

EDIT EDIT: And yes, I see that now ;).

[R0b0t1]

Are you stuck on the idea that life originated on Earth? Yes, it may have taken more time for life to evolve that the earth has been around, but that is not necessarily a limiting factor.

And who says that cilia must have been created at once? There is no proof that they must have been -- only the idea that they are complex and would be hard to replicate.

[Jackrawl]

The Evolution Theory just doesn't work in my mind. It's difficult to write about, but it relies on organisms to build themselves up, then find a way to reproduce. Competition makes this a little difficult. To me the whole thing is exaggerated. Intelligent design comes first, Evolution can come later.

[pwnaz0r]

Are you stuck on the idea that life originated on Earth? Yes, it may have taken more time for life to evolve that the earth has been around, but that is not necessarily a limiting factor.

And who says that cilia must have been created at once? There is no proof that they must have been -- only the idea that they are complex and would be hard to replicate.

You amuse me r0b0t. Let me ask you what creditable scientist believes that man could have originated somewhere else? No one. Let me explain.


Man cannot go past the moon (himself) hardly right now. We cannot even make it to mars. I do not know the exact figure of time it takes for us to get to the moon in a rocket which goes ove 500 miles per hour, but I know its more than a day. I beleive it is around a week. I doubt a tiny cell could have done that journey at all.
By saying the this cell came from another planet, you are "screwing yourself over", because cells must have oxygen to survive. They also must feed on something, get energy. There were no living things at this time, so it must have eaten minerals. Now, if you have ever studied space, you know there might be a good solid single atom every... O wait. Space is actually the absence of elements, thus the name space. So where did it get nutrition in these weeks of traveling through space. And don't give me a "It could have happened" answer, I need proof. I don't bring any points like "God works in mysterious ways" up against you now do I ;)?
Scientists have not yet found a planet suitable for any kind of life yet. Mars may have been, but again, that is ruled out because there are no seas to randomly push these molecules into a cell, nor wind. There have been slight caverns found on mars where water could have been, yet the water would have been still and nothing would have moved. Also, it has not been proven that mars would have the gravity to sustain water ;).



So here are you choices:

We could not have evolved on other planets and then "floated" here, because the conditions were not right.
We could not have been made on a commet or some moving object because the conditions would change too rapidly for us to develop, not to mention the speed those things move at which I believe would play some effect in it.
We could not evolve in "mid-space" because, if you say this, you obviously have no idea how much space there is, the scarecity of atoms at that time, and the wideness of the few types of elements there where.

[pwnaz0r]

5 / 13 points. taking another break.

[Method]

Not exactly, if there is 'no evidence' that genetic material has been added... How did we come to have 46 chromosomes without starting out with more? His argument is valid.

What are you talking about? Why would we need to start out with more than 46 chromosomes (actually, we did and two of them merged together)? Unless I don't understand what you're trying to say (which is probably the case, as I'm guessing at what you meant right now), I was right in the first place.

[WT-Fakawi]

There is not a single shred of evidence for the existence of a "God" or "Gods". There is a lot of proof for Natural Selection. I am a convinced Darwinist and Atheist and I think that Religion is a ridicously oldfashioned and unfair concept. Religious people have a monopoly on the "Thruth". Religion has brought and still brings a lot of misery to the world. Religion is obscurantism. Its all a matter of scale and perspective.
"God" is simply way too impropable. Please believe in yourself, thats hard enough.

Read Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion". It helps :)

[Hobbit]

I mean, I kinda get where you are coming from, but I don't think only those two will prove on evolution.

Wait until I get all my points up there.

I was on your side... I wasn't proving evolution. And I have way more points, I just didn't have time. Also I'm not very good at wording them to make sense...

No there is no evidence for God, and I am very skeptical that there is one. But there is also no evidence so far that has been accepted by the scientific community as substantiated evidence.

I believe there must be some other answer out there.

[Ruroken]

There is not a single shred of evidence for the existence of a "God" or "Gods". There is a lot of proof for Natural Selection. I am a convinced Darwinist and Atheist and I think that Religion is a ridicously oldfashioned and unfair concept. Religious people have a monopoly on the "Thruth". Religion has brought and still brings a lot of misery to the world. Religion is obscurantism. Its all a matter of scale and perspective.
"God" is simply way too impropable. Please believe in yourself, thats hard enough.

Read Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion". It helps :)

How about guided evolution?

[Jackrawl]

There is not a single shred of evidence for the existence of a "God" or "Gods". There is a lot of proof for Natural Selection. I am a convinced Darwinist and Atheist and I think that Religion is a ridicously oldfashioned and unfair concept. Religious people have a monopoly on the "Thruth". Religion has brought and still brings a lot of misery to the world. Religion is obscurantism. Its all a matter of scale and perspective.
"God" is simply way too impropable. Please believe in yourself, thats hard enough.

Read Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion". It helps :)

A lot of people feel this way, but I have disagree. I'd say the belief in a superior being is far more probable than the evolution of bacteria to man. Also, there is proof in the bible.

[pwnaz0r]

Listen. There are two choices. We were designed or we were not. Use your human reason, they are two extremes. It must be one or the other. If I show you how improbable evolution is and you use human reason, you will understand the odds are far to great and you will see that if evolution is so improbable, that it is considered uneducated in any sort of natural science.

@Fawki
I seriously do wonder what the scientists tell you today. There is no evidence, not a single piece, that any sort of macro evolution occured.



The fossil record will bear me out. I openly admit that if there are no transitional fossils found, the whole theory of evolution would be uterly crushed.


Well guess what, none have been found. Let's get that out of the way.

I have seen this has turned towards the direction of getting hot, so let me tell you that Darwin was in fact, a school drop out in three different subjects who thought that a cell was no more than a blob. Now there is so much complexity found in a cell that it is in my opinion, plain stupidity to not think that there was a design to start with.



There is not a single shred of evidence for the existence of a "God" or "Gods".


Correct. But there is not any proving him false ethier. This point is invalid since it is neutral.



There is a lot of proof for Natural Selection.


Yes, but within a species and only for short periods of time.



Religious people have a monopoly on the "Thruth"


I do not think we do, I think you must completely understand things such as the motor in some bacteria, things like giraffes neck, explain how a duck-billed platypus can evolve to find food by using electrity receptors in its nose, which remember, that has never been found in animals. So how did that enter into the gene pool? You tell me. How did the thousands of nitrogen bases that code for backbones magically get thrown into the gene pool at the beginning of time. How do you explain how the big bang happened? Everything in this universe has a cause and effect. If you think otherwise, you are a fool.

JackLKrawl, you have to play their game. They will not allow us to use our own information because it is not good enough for them (the bible). So even when all the odds of the planets, irreducible complexity, cause and effect theory, the chance of even just a cell forming in the primordial seas, not including amino acids, or actually survivng, which it could do because of the surplus of oxygen found in the atmosphere at that time (it would take in to much oxygen becuase of the pressure and exploded). Even against all those odds, they still think it is harder to believe in God, which is almost the exact same concept as time, yet it can perform actions. Time is their answer to everything and God is the answer to ours. Time somehow magically makes everything more probable. So its etheir you pick this magic element which is time and chance, or you choose to believe that things like why (not how, why)death occurs, and what emotions are, are not just a fluke and that we might actually have a purpose on this earth.

[Jason2gs]

There is not a single shred of evidence for the existence of a "God" or "Gods". There is a lot of proof for Natural Selection. I am a convinced Darwinist and Atheist and I think that Religion is a ridicously oldfashioned and unfair concept. Religious people have a monopoly on the "Thruth". Religion has brought and still brings a lot of misery to the world. Religion is obscurantism. Its all a matter of scale and perspective.
"God" is simply way too impropable. Please believe in yourself, thats hard enough.

Read Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion". It helps :)

*Sigh*

Crap, gotta add you to the list of higher-ups going to Hell...

I'm surprised people with such great minds can be so blind. Can you tell me why the idea of God is so improbable?

[pwnaz0r]

No, he cannot. Because it is him who makes it improbable, no fact does.

It makes me mad when I see posts like that. I hate to say it, but that was highly unthought out and I doubt you even read my post. I worked pretty hard on compiling these and have done days worth of work trying to come to an answer, just so in one post you can dismiss it, CLAIMING there is evidence, and claiming that just because we do not have anything to prove God that it is not true.

[Jackrawl]

*Sigh*

Crap, gotta add you to the list of higher-ups going to Hell...

I'm surprised people with such great minds can be so blind. Can you tell me why the idea of God is so improbable?

Neg, Fakawi is too good to go to hell.
I found this site while I was searching for 'non-christian salvation,' while I didn't find it, I'm pretty sure it is there. I'll look again later.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-grace/hell-and-god.html

[pwnaz0r]

Bring forth your evidence. Also, take a look at the first post. If you can tell me one thing that is fact about evolution, that does not tie in with your "theory". One proven fact, then it will be the first time I have ever gotten one. And if you are thinking of asking me the same, please do. Because I do have many facts that are proven in my theory.

[Secet]

all christian guys try to proof existance of god by finding "faults" of evolution or science, yet they don't give any proofs of god without science, they just try to turn science upside down. i dont know the right words in english to explain this, but i hope you got it right.

[Hobbit]

evolutionists do the same thing. I don't believe in either so I'm unbiased enough to see that. The whole "There is no proof for God" is the EXACT SAME concept as the "There is no evidence for evolution".

Now the battle between them is in a stalemate and will forever be in a stalemate until someone comes up with substantiated evidence that is accepted in the scientific community as factual evidence. It is as simple as shifting the focus of the debate.

Example:
SRL-Member: Hobbit you haven't released any scripts why the *bleep* are you a Mod???!!
Hobbit: All you do is spam and swear, are you mature enough to be a member?

Simple as that, I shifted the focus of the argument from me not releasing scripts (that you know of)...to the immaturity of the fictional SRL Member... It happens ALL the time around the forums.

[Jason2gs]

I found this site while I was searching for 'non-christian salvation,' while I didn't find it, I'm pretty sure it is there. I'll look again later.

http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/5831/emotlolbm4.gif

John 14:6,

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

You think you're going to find another way on the Internet?!

[Jackrawl]

http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/5831/emotlolbm4.gif

John 14:6,

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

You think you're going to find another way on the Internet?!

Neg, wrong one.

[Jason2gs]

'Scuse me?

[R0b0t1]

*sigh*...


The first micro-organisms did not need oxygen, and I'm not sure most actually do (as some bacteria perform photosynthesis). If you look into the Domain classification of Archae (or 'Ancient'), you will find those organisms in this classification usually use different chemical energy rather than energy from oxides or sugars.

And besides, there are some species that are known to be able to survive over 300 years without water, in a vacuum, at almost absolute zero. At 300x the radiation that humans can stand... Now, thats not to say there is something tougher. Cells are just a collection of proteins, and as long as materials in the cell do not change with the extreems of the enviroment, the cell will survive. So if a cell could withstand the absence of water, which I'm sure many may, and it was exposed to extreme cold, the cell would stiffen, but the water would not expand and rupture the cell. You might then be able to expose it to a vacuum, I'm not sure.

[Boreas]

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/05/the_big_bang_1.html

I know it's an exaggeration, but genie nodding her head and god snapping his fingers and saying 'Let there be <insert everything>' are pretty much the same. However low evolution is on the probability scale, that will always be too ridiculous to even put it on the scale.

[Hobbit]

And evolution is?

We came from a slime, some how that slime turned into us......

[SKy Scripter]

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/05/the_big_bang_1.html

I know it's an exaggeration, but genie nodding her head and god snapping his fingers and saying 'Let there be <insert everything>' are pretty much the same. However low evolution is on the probability scale, that will always be too ridiculous to even put it on the scale.

When i think of that, i think of how the bible is very symbolic.
Meaning, God Explains what is going on with a different picture, Yet Still pointing out a relation ship between the two making a point.

This goes back to showing that the universe was not just created, like "Let there be light!" and there was light.. It is another symbolic term of explaining his power. I believe strongly, that Gods power is Knowledge and Wisdom.

ok, you probably don't believe me, but let me show you some other "clues".
Genesis Chapter 1.
if you read this chapter you may find some key words, that simply mean something, for example:


Quote 1
"It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him." Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every birds of the air;"

Unfortunately, this goes to show i believe there is a true fact of how we were created by Gods way, because God doesn't have Genie Powers.
But it is not for me to say that it was the theory of evolution.


Quote 2
"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place."

Now, why? exactly would the lord put Adam to sleep? then take a Rib out.
If his powers were so "Genie Like" then why not magically appear Eve?

You May or May Not find my idea meaning full, but it just goes to show that God's intelligences are far beyond "Ours". And there is no way to say that he magically made things appear. So, Really my point is, the God i believe in is not a "Genie" who can make things "Appear" as a Genie would do,
but maybe a A Superior Being that has the knowledge / Wisdom to do almost anything he pleases...

So When you say "Genie", It is understandable to see why he is not believed, but for saying a Superior being is much different.

[Santa_Clause]

Just read your whole post pwnaz0r...Rep++. I've never been interested in such long topics...but hell, I enjoyed that.

[n3ss3s]

I feel like god damn neg repping you for spitting a shitload (more than one meter ffs) of text to one thread omg...

The good thing is, that people like me who read the three first words can understand the whole text by three pictures.

Pic one - The text says... MOTOR!
Pic two - The text says... EYE!
Pic three - The text says... the text says... MOTOREYE!

[mastaraymond]

I feel like god damn neg repping you for spitting a shitload (more than one meter ffs) of text to one thread omg...

The good thing is, that people like me who read the three first words can understand the whole text by three pictures.

Pic one - The text says... MOTOR!
Pic two - The text says... EYE!
Pic three - The text says... the text says... MOTOREYE!
Spam much?

[n3ss3s]

Sorry, I was supposed to say something real, but its just... to smart?

There is no point in starting to argue about people's faith to start =/

[Jackrawl]

When i think of that, i think of how the bible is very symbolic.
Meaning, God Explains what is going on with a different picture, Yet Still pointing out a relation ship between the two making a point.

This goes back to showing that the universe was not just created, like "Let there be light!" and there was light.. It is another symbolic term of explaining his power. I believe strongly, that Gods power is Knowledge and Wisdom.

ok, you probably don't believe me, but let me show you some other "clues".
Genesis Chapter 1.
if you read this chapter you may find some key words, that simply mean something, for example:


Quote 1
"It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him." Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every birds of the air;"

Unfortunately, this goes to show i believe there is a true fact of how we were created by Gods way, because God doesn't have Genie Powers.
But it is not for me to say that it was the theory of evolution.


Quote 2
"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place."

Now, why? exactly would the lord put Adam to sleep? then take a Rib out.
If his powers were so "Genie Like" then why not magically appear Eve?

You May or May Not find my idea meaning full, but it just goes to show that God's intelligences are far beyond "Ours". And there is no way to say that he magically made things appear. So, Really my point is, the God i believe in is not a "Genie" who can make things "Appear" as a Genie would do,
but maybe a A Superior Being that has the knowledge / Wisdom to do almost anything he pleases...

So When you say "Genie", It is understandable to see why he is not believed, but for saying a Superior being is much different.

7 days, it's one or the other.

[Wizzup?]

There is no point in starting to argue about people's faith to start =/

I have to agree 100% on that.

[WT-Fakawi]

There is no point in starting to argue about people's faith to start =/ Like I say, every Religion has a monopoly on the Truth, whether Muslim, Jew or Christian. I am sorry if I offended anyone. Just be at peace with your "God" whatever you concieve it to be. (quote Max Ehrmann 's "Desiderata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderata)")

[n3ss3s]

Cmon what did I do to deserve being talked to with complicated words?


I neither believe in god, and I hate it when stupid people in Fear Factor say "Oh my god god please help me god!" when trying to eat a worm to get million dollars, but its their own thing, its really weird but only word I can get outta my mouth to describe what I'm trying to say is... Local Variable.

Yes, Program World and the Procedure USA; Variable Faith.

Most people there consider Faith := God.


Well, then again Procedure Fawki; Variable Faith.

Fakawi doesn't believe in god, but, that doesn't mean he wouldn't believe in something - he believes in what can be proved or something like that.


Belief doesn't mean belief in a religion.

Am I making sense?

[R0b0t1]

Its still useless.

[n3ss3s]

What is?

[Jackrawl]

Cmon what did I do to deserve being talked to with complicated words?


I neither believe in god, and I hate it when stupid people in Fear Factor say "Oh my god god please help me god!" when trying to eat a worm to get million dollars, but its their own thing, its really weird but only word I can get outta my mouth to describe what I'm trying to say is... Local Variable.

Yes, Program World and the Procedure USA; Variable Faith.

Most people there consider Faith := God.


Well, then again Procedure Fawki; Variable Faith.

Fakawi doesn't believe in god, but, that doesn't mean he wouldn't believe in something - he believes in what can be proved or something like that.


Belief doesn't mean belief in a religion.

Am I making sense?

People who do stuff like that are not Christian.

[pwnaz0r]

But you see, it does matter. It is ultimately what your life's purpose is, whether it is to serve a God or intellegent designer, or whether it is meaningless. I read since my last post and the only one who seems to have done his research some is r0b0t1. I just woke up and have to go eat breakfast but I will respond to the cell arguement you made.

Boreas, I do believe in the Big Bang. But, according to your evolutions, nothing was even there.

Here is an example. If you found a military base in the middle of the desert, you would be saying that it came here by chance and out of nothing. No matter to make this base was even in the desert. I am saying that a God caused it.

[n3ss3s]

People who do stuff like that are not Christian.

Did I say I am christian?

I'm Finnish.


nothing was even there.


Virtual matter-antimatter pairs.

[pwnaz0r]

Did I say I am christian?

I'm Finnish.



Virtual matter-antimatter pairs.

How can you prove that? did you know they don't even know how matter overpowered anti-matter? The chance was given 1 in 30 million. The molecules were traveling at hyper speeds, yet because the universe is rapidly cooling and expanding, space was extremely huge at that time. It would be highly improbable that they would outnumber anti-matter so quickly.

It is suspected that this occured a few hundred years after the Earth was created. They estimate the earth forming (I think the exact number was?) 600 years after the big bang.

What I am trying to say, is that it is very unlikely that this 1 in 30 million chance occured in around 1200 years.

Anyways, I believe in the Big Bang just like almost everyone here, so I don't see why we are argueing about this point. Again, I point you to the base in the desert, which you did not respond to.

[Jackrawl]

Did I say I am christian?

I'm Finnish.



Virtual matter-antimatter pairs.

I was talking about the people attempting to add drama by asking god for stuff.

[SKy Scripter]

This site really explains, what i believe...


http://www.answersincreation.org/old.htm



Let me pull a quote out, defining the seven days..



7 days, it's one or the other.




Read this.



The Word "Day"

The first thing you should come to grips with is the concept of "time" in the creation account. It all revolves around this question: How long the "days" of Genesis 1? Young earth creationists have written many thousands of pages of material, arguing that you can only interpret the Hebrew as a 24-hour day. Our argument here is much simpler, and will only take a few sentences.

How long is a day in Genesis Chapter 1? Consider this…the Bible says a day to the Lord is as a thousand years to man (II Peter 3:8). Remember, Adam was created on the sixth day, and these “days” were as God sees days, because only God was here…not man. Man was only here at the very end of the sixth day.

Therefore, it doesn’t matter how I interpret the word day in human languages…the question is, ‘What is a day to God?’ Think about this…if you are in the middle of space, and you are the all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal God of the universe, who never sleeps, then what is a “day” to you? If you are eternal, what meaning does time have for you? Wow, there goes another million years! It won’t matter because you have billions more!

If you are convinced that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and you are convinced the world was created, and did not happen by chance, then you must come to the conclusion that a day for God is a long period of time. God gives us the term day so that limited, finite man can better understand the creation story.

Is this against the Hebrew use of the word translated Day ("Yom") in Genesis as the young earth proponents claim? Not at all. Yes, you can argue for a literal 24-hour day, but it is just as easy to find Hebrew scholars who believe in an old earth, and say that "day" is a long period of time. So, as a believer, it is up to you to decide who is right.

Consider the use of the word "Yom" by Moses. In the Genesis creation account and in Psalm 90 (written by Moses), it is used four different ways!

1.

12-Hour Period. In Genesis 1:5, it says "God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day." This use of "Yom" is for a 12-hour period.
2.

24-Hour Period. In Genesis 1:14, it says "And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,…”. This use of "Yom" is for a 24-hour day.
3.

The Entire Creative Week. In Genesis 2:4, it says "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens." Here, "Yom" refers to the entire six-day creative week.
4.

A Long Period of Time. Psalm 90:4 says, "For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night." In this instance, Moses says "Yom" is like a thousand years.

In each case, it is the same author, Moses, who uses the word "Yom" to represent a different period of time. Thus, young earth creationist claims that "Yom" is only a 24-hour day are completely unfounded by Scripture. For more, see Word Study: Yom.

[Jackrawl]

This site really explains, what i believe...


http://www.answersincreation.org/old.htm



Let me pull a quote out, defining the seven days..




Read this.

Who knows is all I can say.

[R0b0t1]

Wait... Is Fakawi saying each religion has its own version of Monopoly?


... I bet the muslim one is 'killer'.

[Jackrawl]

Wait... Is Fakawi saying each religion has its own version of Monopoly?


... I bet the muslim one is 'killer'.

I think he was talking about how "Each religion is right in some way," so yeah...but you're talking about Islam, and Islam is a peaceful religion.

[Secet]

If Christian people belive in God and heaven, why do they usually still fear death? Christians say that in heaven there is no sorrow, only joy and eternal life. So why not to kill yourself if you are so certain about it? After all, it's the only way to find out.

[R0b0t1]

I think they think suicides go to hell... Its an escape clause to prevent mass-suicide.



I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians, for you Christians are so unlike your Christ.

[Jackrawl]

If Christian people belive in God and heaven, why do they usually still fear death? Christians say that in heaven there is no sorrow, only joy and eternal life. So why not to kill yourself if you are so certain about it? After all, it's the only way to find out.

Neg, Christians do not fear death, Christians believe that we were put on this Earth for a reason, so we will stay until we go into 'retirement.' Of course, no Christian wants to die...


I think they think suicides go to hell... Its an escape clause to prevent mass-suicide.

Suicide is a sin, Mormons believe that suicides go to hell, but Mormons are not considered Christian because they deify a minister.

If a Christian truly believe in Christ, then he is a Christian. Otherwise, you are not a Christian, you are just up for the title. If you believe Christ loves you as he does, then you will not commit suicide, and you are a Christian. So I guess you could consider it that 'Suicides go to hell' but thats a belief for Mormons, and they believe 'Suicides go to hell' for a different reason.

[Dan Cardin]

i think that believing in God is taking the easy way out.

[SKy Scripter]

Neg, Christians do not fear death, Christians believe that we were put on this Earth for a reason, so we will stay until we go into 'retirement.' Of course, no Christian wants to die...



Suicide is a sin, Mormons believe that suicides go to hell, but Mormons are not considered Christian because they deify a minister.

If a Christian truly believe in Christ, then he is a Christian. Otherwise, you are not a Christian, you are just up for the title. If you believe Christ loves you as he does, then you will not commit suicide, and you are a Christian. So I guess you could consider it that 'Suicides go to hell' but thats a belief for Mormons, and they believe 'Suicides go to hell' for a different reason.


Actually, Mormons (As I Am) Believe That You Will Go To Hell For only one Reason:

When you believe in God and know he is True and Then Deny Him.

It Is unsure of who will go to Hell because we are not to Judge Others.. it is Just A Assumption That those following people may go to hell. So Do not Take That Wrong ;)


Also, It is Wrong to commit Seleucid. Obviously, if you believe in God, He has sent us her for a Reason and if you choose not to complete the reason's...
who knows What happen's...


If Any Christians are afraid of Death, it is more then likely to because of three Reasons:

1. there Goals of life are not completed and they are not ready.
2. Pain, of Dieing.
3. After Life, This May be being Judged to go to Hell, Maybe They Feel they have done something Bad in Life...

[Jackrawl]

Actually, Mormons (As I Am) Believe That You Will Go To Hell For only one Reason:

When you believe in God and know he is True and Then Deny Him.

It Is unsure of who will go to Hell because we are not to Judge Others.. it is Just A Assumption That those following people may go to hell. So Do not Take That Wrong ;)


Also, It is Wrong to commit Seleucid. Obviously, if you believe in God, He has sent us her for a Reason and if you choose not to complete the reason's...
who knows What happen's...


If Any Christians are afraid of Death, it is more then likely to because of three Reasons:

1. there Goals of life are not completed and they are not ready.
2. Pain, of Dieing.
3. After Life, This May be being Judged to go to Hell, Maybe They Feel they have done something Bad in Life...

Really? I thought it was different from that. I stand corrected.

i think that believing in God is taking the easy way out.

It's also more comfortable :)

[Boreas]

Why do believers believe that you need a god to have a purpose in life? I think I am perfectly capable of deciding my own purpose without a preacher or book.

[pwnaz0r]

Why do believers believe that you need a god to have a purpose in life? I think I am perfectly capable of deciding my own purpose without a preacher or book.

And why do you non believers think that you are the most important thing in this world?

Anyways, this isn't about purpose. It's about your views of if this all really could have been random against the odds.

Let me explain my view so you can understand better.

People that do not believe in God are ignorant. The odds are so overwhelming against them, yet they still don't want to be held accountable. They use time as their magic factor, but do not allow us to use God for ours? That I do not understand. They can bring nothing against a God, and they have nothing to prove there isn't one. The only way this arguement will go anywhere is if one disproves another wrong. I believe you are so highly uneducated about the human body, cells, DNA and things if you believe these. The reason most athiests are so is because they were brought up that way and it is just accepted. Use that thing called human reason, combine it with the chance of evolution and maybe we can get somewhere.

I came to the conclusion that there is a God, not because I had a need for a purpose. In fact, I was just fine. But I used my reasoning.

The phrase I continually go back to: If there are two answers and one is disproved, the other must be right. Now I cannot disprove it, but use your human reasoning. Never rule out a higher being. Just like a sheep does not know how the sheperd feeds him and why the sheperd leads him to new fields, thats the same way we are about God. We don't know much about him, or why he does some things, but it is always for the best (this doesn't mean he won't allow us to suffer)

[Dan Cardin]

The odds are so overwhelming against them, yet they still don't want to be held accountable. They use time as their magic factor, but do not allow us to use God for ours? That I do not understand. They can bring nothing against a God, and they have nothing to prove there isn't one. The only way this arguement will go anywhere is if one disproves another wrong. I believe you are so highly uneducated about the human body, cells, DNA and things if you believe these.
20 years ago we thought the odds of many things were overwhelming. We thought a lot of things were impossible. I'm using time as my magical factor not by saying "15 billion years was enough" but by saying that we cant explain everything yet. Just because we dont know how everything works now doesnt mean that we wont know it in 20 years.

Also using time isnt even a magical factor. It is impossible to disprove God. Even if we prove evolution, many people will still believe in God. So you cant say "the only way to get anywhere is to prove one or the other wrong" because its a one way argument. You cant disprove God. So all you can do is to try and make it seem like its impossible to have it any other way.

EDIT: and you keep saying. "theres 2 ways. either we were created or not." But thats not necessarily god or evolution.

[R0b0t1]

What happened to my 'life from other worlds' argument? You haven't forgotten it, right? :(


But if you are so sure that this God must exist, and that the overwhelming odds point to his existence, and like you've said, you opened up to the possibility of a God. So whats saying you shouldn't open up to other views on evolution (what I was arguing about wasn't necessarily evolution, just why we might not have a God).

[Killerdou]

http://www.frams.alife.pl/
I suppose you cant proof that god doesnt exist, but on the other hand, you cant proof he does. A more interresting question would be, what works best in everyday life, what can we use best to describe our world. The way i see it, a combination of both would be best, I'll describe an experiment i did with the program you can get from the link i gave. What i did was a set up a reasable sized world, with 10 food units. The selection was based on age and they can only survive longer then default if they manage to eat the food units. The way i thought of it, they would devellop a system to find the food, but thats not what happened. When i ran it for a night, they were really long and rolling across the field to eat as much food as possible. Now to get to my point, in this case I was a 'god' setting the parameters for what is good/usefull etc. However the humans(the creatures in the program) could still evolve and find a solution to the problem, not intended by their creator. This is pretty much how the universe is build, there are a lot of very suspicious values which must have been implemented by some kind of creator. However, this creator can not get involved in our universe directly, else we all would have noticed. I dont see god as a perfect being, but rather the creator and judge of a game called life, I am in no way sure of this, but it seems to be the most comfortable idea for me to live with.
[edit]
should i make paragraphs?

[Markus]

If God existed, who created Him? Who designed Him? And who designed that guy?
Why do all organisms have DNA? Because He is too lazy to create more differences in the animals?
Why do some animals have rudiments? Like we got still some parts of some kind of tale? And whales some kind of legs?

[Killerdou]

There is some proof in favour and against evolution(some cases it works, some cases it doesnt, sometimes you can interpret it both ways), there is some indirect evidence god 'must' exist but it is impossible to proof he doesnt(except with some historical/geographical facts, but then they usually give the argument: you never looked good enough) and markus, try to give answers, not raise questions;)

[Jackrawl]

If God existed, who created Him? Who designed Him? And who designed that guy?
Why do all organisms have DNA? Because He is too lazy to create more differences in the animals?
Why do some animals have rudiments? Like we got still some parts of some kind of tale? And whales some kind of legs?

1. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
2. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
3. Because God wanted them to survive with the changes taking place in their environments.
4. Because he is too lazy to answer the next question.
5. And the next question.
6. Neg?
7. Because then this wouldn't happen? (http://www.perp.com/whale/video.html)

[Boreas]

And why do you non believers think that you are the most important thing in this world?

Anyways, this isn't about purpose. It's about your views of if this all really could have been random against the odds.

Let me explain my view so you can understand better.

People that do not believe in God are ignorant. The odds are so overwhelming against them, yet they still don't want to be held accountable. They use time as their magic factor, but do not allow us to use God for ours? That I do not understand. They can bring nothing against a God, and they have nothing to prove there isn't one. The only way this arguement will go anywhere is if one disproves another wrong. I believe you are so highly uneducated about the human body, cells, DNA and things if you believe these. The reason most athiests are so is because they were brought up that way and it is just accepted. Use that thing called human reason, combine it with the chance of evolution and maybe we can get somewhere.

I came to the conclusion that there is a God, not because I had a need for a purpose. In fact, I was just fine. But I used my reasoning.

The phrase I continually go back to: If there are two answers and one is disproved, the other must be right. Now I cannot disprove it, but use your human reasoning. Never rule out a higher being. Just like a sheep does not know how the sheperd feeds him and why the sheperd leads him to new fields, thats the same way we are about God. We don't know much about him, or why he does some things, but it is always for the best (this doesn't mean he won't allow us to suffer)

I can use time as a reason because I can see it exists because it is the reason for other things. You have mentioned 'meaningless' a few times in this thread, which is why I brought this up.



As to the chicken and egg thing, the answer is chicken if you properly understand evolution.

I get if atheists believe in evolution but think that god started the big bang or something, which a lot do. But there is so much hard evidence for evolution that traditional creationism is on the level of the tooth fairy. There is not 100% evidence, which is why it called the theory of evolution (the most widely accepted theory among scientists and institutions), but there is more evidence than there is for a god. Finding incomplete parts of a theory does not make an even more incomplete theory into a valid one.

Look at this way. Pretend that no religion existed before. Nobody preached to you about god. You didn't find a centuries old book to read. Your parents were not religious. You are then presented with the current body of research done by scientists on both sides. You go through the whole thing, and get any degrees or take any courses needed to understand it all. You then reflect on everything you have read. Now remember you have not come in contact with notion of a god before. After reading that you and I would both say, 'hmm, that doesn't quite cover everything' (missing link etc). But would you then go on to say this? 'Nope that's not good enough, that can't possibly be it. There must be another reason, perhaps some all powerful being created everything?' Be honest, after looking at the research and not having grown up with religion (hearing god bless america after every speech and on every dollar bill counts too!) around you, would you really disagree? I contend that any rational person would not.

[pwnaz0r]

I can use time as a reason because I can see it exists because it is the reason for other things. You have mentioned 'meaningless' a few times in this thread, which is why I brought this up.



As to the chicken and egg thing, the answer is chicken if you properly understand evolution.

I get if atheists believe in evolution but think that god started the big bang or something, which a lot do. But there is so much hard evidence for evolution that traditional creationism is on the level of the tooth fairy. There is not 100% evidence, which is why it called the theory of evolution (the most widely accepted theory among scientists and institutions), but there is more evidence than there is for a god. Finding incomplete parts of a theory does not make an even more incomplete theory into a valid one.

Look at this way. Pretend that no religion existed before. Nobody preached to you about god. You didn't find a centuries old book to read. Your parents were not religious. You are then presented with the current body of research done by scientists on both sides. You go through the whole thing, and get any degrees or take any courses needed to understand it all. You then reflect on everything you have read. Now remember you have not come in contact with notion of a god before. After reading that you and I would both say, 'hmm, that doesn't quite cover everything' (missing link etc). But would you then go on to say this? 'Nope that's not good enough, that can't possibly be it. There must be another reason, perhaps some all powerful being created everything?' Be honest, after looking at the research and not having grown up with religion (hearing god bless america after every speech and on every dollar bill counts too!) around you, would you really disagree? I contend that any rational person would not.


I Kind of understand where you come from. But, I did not grow up religious, no one did preach to me about God. Nothing got through to me anyways, because I was a young child. I want to see the evidence Boreas. Tell me one fact about evolution. One thing that is not based on theory, one thing that is fact. Not one person has been able to answer this. It was asked at the Science Departmental meeting and the University of California. There was one answer, it should be taught in more high schools. You claim to have proof, LET ME SEE IT. If I was in that situation, I must also assume I had never been in a science class and never been told about evolution (we are taking away both sides to be fair). Now I would look at the world and I would say, where does this come from, why am I here, which is were most people are today. I would not say that it was by evolution.

AGAIN, it is the same exact thing as the obelisk on the moon. This is the third time I have said this, also would be the fourth time about the military base in the desert. Both you and I would say that someone designed it, it had a plan. Why is the earth so different???? No one has answered me that.

About time, have you ever talked to time? Do you know how it started? Do you know how or why it works?(If you do, can it be stopped? Does it stop by itself, because technically you wouldn't know).

Where did the concept of order even come from? Why isn't DNA unordered at all, because remember, it was random. Why does a cell work so orderly and efficiently?

Who determines what is good and bad? If it is selfbased, why would you think it is wrong if I stole your credit card. All these ideas, they are here before you can think. For example, a baby, around 6 months old. When you tell them "no", they kind of smile and do it anyway, even though they wouldn't have done it if you hadn't said anything. How do they know the difference between right and wrong.

I think the reason that most people push away God is that they do not understand what he is like, or they have the wrong impression if you will. Please Boreas (since you are being rational and not making ranting posts ;)), tell me, if there was a God, what do you think he would be like. Some people think that God may contridict himself, such as some sites that try to find contradictions in the Bible. I read one site thoroughly the other day and it amused me, the material they use, and taking things out of context. However, I do want to know what you think about God in the next post(if he were real, what do you think he would be like).

Also, you must understand that a Creationalists arguement asks how (how could you rely on chance, how did the first cell form against the odds, how did we get here on earth with the exact right conditions, etc.), and an Atheists arguement is based on why (why does God do certain things, etc). If you think about it, even if we take away our biased opinions, you must admit that how would be a stronger arguement than why.

[footballjds]

If Christian people belive in God and heaven, why do they usually still fear death? Christians say that in heaven there is no sorrow, only joy and eternal life.

because they are human!

Everybody wants to go to Heaven, but nobody wants to die
Once upon a time there lived a man and his name was Hezekiah.
He walked with God both day and night, but he didn't wanna die.
He cried "Oh Lord, please let me live,
death is close I know" God smiled down on Hezekiah;
he give him fifteen years to go

(chorus)
Everybody wants to go to Heaven, but nobody wants to die.
Lord I wanna go to Heaven, but I don't wanna die.
Well, I long for the day when I'll have new birth, but I like livin' here on earth,
Everybody wants to go to Heaven, but nobody wants to die

When Jesus lived here on this earth, he knew his Father's plan.
He knew that he must give his life to save the soul of man.
When Judas had betrayed him, his Father heard him cry,
He was brave until his death but he didn't wanna die, Oh

(chorus x 2)

[pwnaz0r]

I did not even see that quote. The thing is, we shouldn't, but it is human nature. We would not fear life after death, the two things you said are different. Death would be the act of dying, which might be painful. Heaven is a place of no sorrow, but death and an afterlife would be two different things. Anyways, I am not trying to prove this, since it is opinion and it is highly on the philosophical side, so please, go two posts up and ignore this post.

By the way, I am not afraid of death.

EDIT: I am just now readin some of the posts.

EDIT 2:


If God existed, who created Him? Who designed Him? And who designed that guy?
Why do all organisms have DNA? Because He is too lazy to create more differences in the animals?
Why do some animals have rudiments? Like we got still some parts of some kind of tale? And whales some kind of legs?

Wow. Way to be mature and act rude. So if I answer all of them, do I get to rub it in your face? These are all philosopical, which I which the atheists would stop going to because I am not even argueing that there is a god. That doesn't mean I don't think there is one, it just means I am only trying to established this was designed.

1. God has always existed. To you, it would be like time or infinity. Its the same as me asking you where they came from. Have they always existed or were they created. This is would be a technique that you have probably heard, it uses reflection.

2. God created DNA because there is order. How much different could animals get? There are flying, swimming, walking, crawling, hybrids, etc. They reproduce different, eat different things, each communicate in their own ways. How could make something that is so unique and carefully constructed sound so "lazily created".

Stop bringing up philosophical questions and using arguement techniques, I know them all.. Nice try...(now back to being mature ;)).


http://www.frams.alife.pl/
I suppose you cant proof that god doesnt exist, but on the other hand, you cant proof he does. A more interresting question would be, what works best in everyday life, what can we use best to describe our world. The way i see it, a combination of both would be best, I'll describe an experiment i did with the program you can get from the link i gave. What i did was a set up a reasable sized world, with 10 food units. The selection was based on age and they can only survive longer then default if they manage to eat the food units. The way i thought of it, they would devellop a system to find the food, but thats not what happened. When i ran it for a night, they were really long and rolling across the field to eat as much food as possible. Now to get to my point, in this case I was a 'god' setting the parameters for what is good/usefull etc. However the humans(the creatures in the program) could still evolve and find a solution to the problem, not intended by their creator. This is pretty much how the universe is build, there are a lot of very suspicious values which must have been implemented by some kind of creator. However, this creator can not get involved in our universe directly, else we all would have noticed. I dont see god as a perfect being, but rather the creator and judge of a game called life, I am in no way sure of this, but it seems to be the most comfortable idea for me to live with.
[edit]
should i make paragraphs?

yes please make them paragraphs. i got about as far as it should be a mixture of the two, then got lost. I do believe it was a mixture of the two. That is EXACTLY what I think. I do not think it could be random. However, it is not whatever is the easiest for everyday life. I would pick athiesm if I wanted that and never touch this arguement. That would be easier : we are not accountable to anything, we have no purpose.

However, I want the truth and I have pushed hard to find it.

[Boreas]

If god was real he must be high 24/7. Duck billed platypus anyone? Male genitals on the outside? Child rape? Tsunamis? Planting fake fossils?

I actually think that the how and why are switched. God making something out of clay has less how to it than the explanations of cells, natural selection, DNA, etc. The why is that he wanted to fill the planet or something (long time since I read the bible). There is less of a why are we here for science.

[pwnaz0r]

If god was real he must be high 24/7. Duck billed platypus anyone? Male genitals on the outside? Child rape? Tsunamis? Planting fake fossils?

I actually think that the how and why are switched. God making something out of clay has less how to it than the explanations of cells, natural selection, DNA, etc. The why is that he wanted to fill the planet or something (long time since I read the bible). There is less of a why are we here for science.


The first part does not really make sense to me. The duck billed platypus proves my point, since no other animal has the DNA to search for electrical impulses for food... or maybe I misunderstood you. Of course, child rape and tsunami's area question of why do they happen. And man did it to himself, God allows man to do it because he wants man to have free will and not be a robot.

God made man out of the materials of the earth,exactly in scripture. That means elements, the EXACT same elements you say the first cell was made of, except we don't know how many. This isn't really a good point because we both think they were made out of the materials on the earth.

WOW. Hah, I am going down your post now as I am reasponding, but I have no idea what you are saying. Can you repost a bit more clear?

Um, you must have misworded you first sentence second paragraph. Natural Selection does occur... among the same species. Some facts....

No one has been able to prove natural selection making a new species because

1. You were not there, nor was anyone else(when the first cell was made, if it even was).
2. There have been no valid transitional fossils.

Darwin said that the fossil record would bear him out... it hasn't. He was a school dropout(not that this really matters, but some didn't know this :)).He observed finch birds on an island and their beaks, which I remind you is still in the same species. He wrote The Origin of the Species when the cell was no more than an incompetant blob of unorganized goo... Please move past him.

[Killerdou]

No harsh feelings, but we have seen bacteria evolve in labratory environment. And i try to find out the truth aswell, but the problem is, none of us know the entire story and just believes what they learn at school/parents. Just like me.

Emagine you are on a ship and it is broken on the middle of the sea. If you would take apart the ship and rebuild a new one from scratch, you would drown, but if you repair it part by part, you will survive.

Its the same with this debate, no one can accept that what they think is completely wrong. We must decide on each little difference who is right, one by one, not such important things as evolution/creationism. We wil never be able to convince each other.

Furthermore i think evolution and creationism can live alongside each other when they don't claim to be true and the other to be wrong and I think they shouldn't, simply because they are both so obviously wrong.

[Jackrawl]

As to the chicken and egg thing, the answer is chicken if you properly understand evolution.


Do you understand what you just admitted to?

http://www.frams.alife.pl/
I suppose you cant proof that god doesnt exist, but on the other hand, you cant proof he does. A more interresting question would be, what works best in everyday life, what can we use best to describe our world. The way i see it, a combination of both would be best, I'll describe an experiment i did with the program you can get from the link i gave. What i did was a set up a reasable sized world, with 10 food units. The selection was based on age and they can only survive longer then default if they manage to eat the food units. The way i thought of it, they would devellop a system to find the food, but thats not what happened. When i ran it for a night, they were really long and rolling across the field to eat as much food as possible. Now to get to my point, in this case I was a 'god' setting the parameters for what is good/usefull etc. However the humans(the creatures in the program) could still evolve and find a solution to the problem, not intended by their creator. This is pretty much how the universe is build, there are a lot of very suspicious values which must have been implemented by some kind of creator. However, this creator can not get involved in our universe directly, else we all would have noticed. I dont see god as a perfect being, but rather the creator and judge of a game called life, I am in no way sure of this, but it seems to be the most comfortable idea for me to live with.
[edit]
should i make paragraphs?
To the edit, yes.

You're making it sound like God is a hacker.


If god was real he must be high 24/7. Duck billed platypus anyone? Male genitals on the outside? Child rape? Tsunamis? Planting fake fossils?

I actually think that the how and why are switched. God making something out of clay has less how to it than the explanations of cells, natural selection, DNA, etc. The why is that he wanted to fill the planet or something (long time since I read the bible). There is less of a why are we here for science.

If you asked me, I'd say your Evolution was high 24/7.

Child rape - Adam and Eve at the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

To the second paragraph, God created a perfect place. He didn't create Earth as we know it. Read above - Child rape.

@Pwn, I think what he's trying to say is that 'How' is for science and 'Why' is for religion, and that we are posing questions that he cannot answer.

[Jason2gs]

Alrighty. We have a large box, with absolutely nothing in it.

Boreas, according to your 'body of research', how can something appear out of nothing?

Unless you're arguing that something was there to begin with.

In which case, I ask you this: If there was no God to create the material objects in the big box of nothingness, then how did it get there?

[Jackrawl]

Alrighty. We have a large box, with absolutely nothing in it.

Boreas, according to your 'body of research', how can something appear out of nothing?

Unless you're arguing that something was there to begin with.

In which case, I ask you this: If there was no God to create the material objects in the big box of nothingness, then how did it get there?

The ...WAIT! I KNOW! AN EXPLODING GINORMOUS STAR OUTSIDE THE LARGE BOX!

[Jason2gs]

Unless you didn't catch that, the big box of nothingness was the universe.

It doesn't matter, though. Where did the material to create the bang come from?

*Refreshes the screen to make sure there aren't any new posts*

Lol ^_^

Edit: *Reads back a few pages*

Oops. Didn't know you were against evolution. My bad!

[Jackrawl]

Unless you didn't catch that, the big box of nothingness was the universe.

It doesn't matter, though. Where did the material to create the bang come from?

*Refreshes the screen to make sure there aren't any new posts*

Lol ^_^

Edit: *Reads back a few pages*

Oops. Didn't know you were against evolution. My bad!

lol yeah, I did. I just felt like having fun. Hey was it cardboard?

[Jason2gs]

http://www.ensisjv.com/Portals/0/cardboardbox.jpg

Cardboard box? ^^

Kinda. But just a little bit bigger.

[Jackrawl]

http://www.ensisjv.com/Portals/0/cardboardbox.jpg

Cardboard box? ^^

Kinda. But just a little bit bigger.

I don't think a massive explosion would be good news for that cardboard box!

[pwnaz0r]

Do you understand what you just admitted to?

To the edit, yes.

You're making it sound like God is a hacker.



If you asked me, I'd say your Evolution was high 24/7.

Child rape - Adam and Eve at the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

To the second paragraph, God created a perfect place. He didn't create Earth as we know it. Read above - Child rape.

@Pwn, I think what he's trying to say is that 'How' is for science and 'Why' is for religion, and that we are posing questions that he cannot answer.


yes... but think about it. Look through the past few posts, I have answered tons of why does God do this and why did he do that (Boreas asked some, as well as the Claw and Markus. Probably more). That is because they are questioning Religion, they ar asking why. I am asking how could you take so many chances, especially how many there are. I wouldn't even take one, much less all of them. We do have proof to our theory, and I have asked if anyone could bring one fact about evolution forth twice, this will be the third.

Of course I cannot prove God, but I am not pretending to try, they think that God is a weakness in our arguement because they can't see him. They think that he is so out of porportion, they think of him as a fairy tale, when he really isn't.

An athiest came to my school today. He was not skilled in speech, I could have easily won him over. There were questions brought up that I will ask you..

Q1: Why did the big bang happen if there was only anti-matter. Isn't this a cause an effect universe?

A1: I don't know... no one knows... I'm not sure we can. Its one of those things we can't know and it makes no sense but we know it happened. I admit that we cannot explain it, but I have to have faith in our scientists. (wait, I thought evolution was purely scientific. It takes just as much faith, if not more, to believe in evolution. Why? Both of us do not know exactly how it happened. The only difference is I believe it was not caused by chance, and you do, astronomical chances that repeadily happen over and over again. Get the fact of God out of your minds and just think intellegent designer.)

Q2: Do you believe in human conciesness(spelled wrong ;))? If so, how do you think that evolved from impersonal matter. If not, would you say we don't hav free will? Also, why if we have no conciessness, do we feel pain(emotional), love, etc.

A2: He said that his scientific background made him want to say we don't have a conciesness(he was a behavioral analysis), but he would like to believe that he has free will and can love. That is not a valid answer at all, as he basically said both. He passed off a joke about not wanting to go on a date with an unconcious person....

Q3: How do you explain irreducible complexity?

A3: He said it just didn't make sense to him.. This isn't a straight answer ethier. It also shows hints off underly-educated guesses.


I am tired of answering petty questions about my view of God, so please stop asking them. The fact remains that God designed us or He didn't they are two extremes. ONE MUST BE TRUE. Get that through your head. Since I cannot prove, and you canno disprove God, we must use reason. If you are right, then I am wrong (unless there is some wierd concidence, where I still think that even if evolution occured, God must have helped design it, cause the big bang, etc), and if I am right then you are wrong (except the thing in parenthesis, which you wouldn't believe this since you don't believe in God). It must be that way. So stop bringing up God, and start focusingon defendind evolution. That is where the battle is, that is what this thread is about, that is the only subject I say I am completely educated in (since I don't know everything about God). We are fighting on evolutions grounds if you will, so stop bringing God into it. That is how we will ever come to a conclusion. You must prove your theory or we must disprove. It would even seem as though you had the advantage, because you are "playing on the home field" or "fighting on your own turf", yet, like it or not, evolution is a theory in crisis, unless you prove otherwise.

A scientific paradigm is so until it has too many anomalies to be overlooked, which is exactly where evolution is. So, I am tired of answering the questions, you:

1. Tell me one Fact, not related to theory, must be fact. Do not make your reason for it because the scientists say so, it must be truely possible in your mind. The scientists have been wrong, just as they were about the cell in darwin's time.

2. Explain the questions above.

3. Explain how we got the DNA for the backbone even though the first cell didn't have it, because it was a one celled organism.

4. Explain how dna is so complex at a size of 20-400 nano meters (one nanometer = 1 millionth of a milimeter, which is the size of a pen head), with over 4 billion nitrogen bases.

5. Explain how iron ions could be used as enzymes for the first cell's dna.

6. Explain how antimatter was suddenly overpowered by the non existant element that is matter and suddenly banged.


Let's test your knowledge. If you can answer those purely scientific questions, I will then ask more.

[Dan Cardin]

the two extremes are we were created, or we were not. Not were created by God or we were not. Also the or not part doesnt necessarily mean or evolution.

And like i said we dont know know everything. Thats why its called a theory. and...i forgot what i was going to say so ill keep going with something else.

I dont see why micro-evolution itself wouldnt prove evolution. You told me you believe in micro evolution. But the only difference between micro and macro is one is on a big scale one is on a small scale.

[pwnaz0r]

the two extremes are we were created, or we were not. Not were created by God or we were not. Also the or not part doesnt necessarily mean or evolution.

And like i said we dont know know everything. Thats why its called a theory. and...i forgot what i was going to say so ill keep going with something else.

I dont see why micro-evolution itself wouldnt prove evolution. You told me you believe in micro evolution. But the only difference between micro and macro is one is on a big scale one is on a small scale.

AGAIN, you did not answer any questions. However, you proved what I was saying, the whole point I have been trying to make is I am not trying to prove that God created us, just that we were designed.... And it does mean evolution for the latter because there is no other plausible explaination yet proposed by scientists, the leaders in the evolutionary movement. therefore, since you are so dependant on your facts from them, you must go with a theory thought by then. What else is there? Unless another theory arises, you must go with evolution to think we were not designed. I do not see much room inbetween to find another explaination?

[Eugeniu]

the two extremes are we were created, or we were not. Not were created by God or we were not. Also the or not part doesnt necessarily mean or evolution.

And like i said we dont know know everything. Thats why its called a theory. and...i forgot what i was going to say so ill keep going with something else.

I dont see why micro-evolution itself wouldnt prove evolution. You told me you believe in micro evolution. But the only difference between micro and macro is one is on a big scale one is on a small scale.

I guess you could think of it this way. Say you were born with sight. But you were also born with a disease that very slowly takes away your vision until you are blind. You evolved blindness. So now your other sense are improved such that you can hear better, smell better, and feel better. But what if you have kids? Will they be blind like you? No, they will be just normal humans.

[pwnaz0r]

I guess you could think of it this way. Say you were born with sight. But you were also born with a disease that very slowly takes away your vision until you are blind. You evolved blindness. So now your other sense are improved such that you can hear better, smell better, and feel better. But what if you have kids? Will they be blind like you? No, they will be just normal humans.

Exactly, also that would be micro evolution.

[R0b0t1]

You've continually asked for evidence of evolution that is not theory, please give me the same for a creator.

[Jackrawl]

You've continually asked for evidence of evolution that is not theory, please give me the same for a creator.

Tower of Babel, Pangaea. Pwn took a while to write that, stop skipping ahead.

[pwnaz0r]

You've continually asked for evidence of evolution that is not theory, please give me the same for a creator.

I am not even going to comment since you obviously have no respect, nor the time to read my posts. Please read the post above yours and then respond...

EDIT: HERE I will help you:

yes... but think about it. Look through the past few posts, I have answered tons of why does God do this and why did he do that (Boreas asked some, as well as the Claw and Markus. Probably more). That is because they are questioning Religion, they ar asking why. I am asking how could you take so many chances, especially how many there are. I wouldn't even take one, much less all of them. We do have proof to our theory, and I have asked if anyone could bring one fact about evolution forth twice, this will be the third.

Of course I cannot prove God, but I am not pretending to try, they think that God is a weakness in our arguement because they can't see him. They think that he is so out of porportion, they think of him as a fairy tale, when he really isn't.

An athiest came to my school today. He was not skilled in speech, I could have easily won him over. There were questions brought up that I will ask you..

Q1: Why did the big bang happen if there was only anti-matter. Isn't this a cause an effect universe?

A1: I don't know... no one knows... I'm not sure we can. Its one of those things we can't know and it makes no sense but we know it happened. I admit that we cannot explain it, but I have to have faith in our scientists. (wait, I thought evolution was purely scientific. It takes just as much faith, if not more, to believe in evolution. Why? Both of us do not know exactly how it happened. The only difference is I believe it was not caused by chance, and you do, astronomical chances that repeadily happen over and over again. Get the fact of God out of your minds and just think intellegent designer.)

Q2: Do you believe in human conciesness(spelled wrong ;))? If so, how do you think that evolved from impersonal matter. If not, would you say we don't hav free will? Also, why if we have no conciessness, do we feel pain(emotional), love, etc.

A2: He said that his scientific background made him want to say we don't have a conciesness(he was a behavioral analysis), but he would like to believe that he has free will and can love. That is not a valid answer at all, as he basically said both. He passed off a joke about not wanting to go on a date with an unconcious person....

Q3: How do you explain irreducible complexity?

A3: He said it just didn't make sense to him.. This isn't a straight answer ethier. It also shows hints off underly-educated guesses.


I am tired of answering petty questions about my view of God, so please stop asking them. The fact remains that God designed us or He didn't they are two extremes. ONE MUST BE TRUE. Get that through your head. Since I cannot prove, and you canno disprove God, we must use reason. If you are right, then I am wrong (unless there is some wierd concidence, where I still think that even if evolution occured, God must have helped design it, cause the big bang, etc), and if I am right then you are wrong (except the thing in parenthesis, which you wouldn't believe this since you don't believe in God). It must be that way. So stop bringing up God, and start focusingon defendind evolution. That is where the battle is, that is what this thread is about, that is the only subject I say I am completely educated in (since I don't know everything about God). We are fighting on evolutions grounds if you will, so stop bringing God into it. That is how we will ever come to a conclusion. You must prove your theory or we must disprove. It would even seem as though you had the advantage, because you are "playing on the home field" or "fighting on your own turf", yet, like it or not, evolution is a theory in crisis, unless you prove otherwise.

A scientific paradigm is so until it has too many anomalies to be overlooked, which is exactly where evolution is. So, I am tired of answering the questions, you:

1. Tell me one Fact, not related to theory, must be fact. Do not make your reason for it because the scientists say so, it must be truely possible in your mind. The scientists have been wrong, just as they were about the cell in darwin's time.

2. Explain the questions above.

3. Explain how we got the DNA for the backbone even though the first cell didn't have it, because it was a one celled organism.

4. Explain how dna is so complex at a size of 20-400 nano meters (one nanometer = 1 millionth of a milimeter, which is the size of a pen head), with over 4 billion nitrogen bases.

5. Explain how iron ions could be used as enzymes for the first cell's dna.

6. Explain how antimatter was suddenly overpowered by the non existant element that is matter and suddenly banged.


Let's test your knowledge. If you can answer those purely scientific questions, I will then ask more.










Even my name real name is private. I wasn't mad at you, you misunderstood. Don't posts msn convos, emails, or pms without permission. -Boreas

[n3ss3s]

I'm unable to have a deep conversation about existance of god and evolution nor read posts longer than 10 lines, but as an example, in South Park when saddam hussein was building weapons of mass destruction in heaven, masked as a cookie factory he fooled everyone, so if god exists, why do like TEH BAD THINGS happen, like yes, someone raping a child is their own decision, but what about the meteor that hit earth and pwnt half o' planet, that doesn't support any kind of idea of filling earth.

Or what about if a massive gammashit (I don't know the real English word) or a supernova would explode near earth, would god protect earth?

I find it very (crossargument raw translated) that "god is everywhere", BUT, hey, earth isn't the only thingie here, imagine some sort of drawing of space in your mind, place a blue ball somewhere there and a god around it, and then again god did everything, why is he around earth - ahhhh my brains - /scar

[Jackrawl]

I'm unable to have a deep conversation about existance of god and evolution nor read posts longer than 10 lines, but as an example, in South Park when saddam hussein was building weapons of mass destruction in heaven, masked as a cookie factory he fooled everyone, so if god exists, why do like TEH BAD THINGS happen, like yes, someone raping a child is their own decision, but what about the meteor that hit earth and pwnt half o' planet, that doesn't support any kind of idea of filling earth.

Or what about if a massive gammashit (I don't know the real English word) or a supernova would explode near earth, would god protect earth?

I find it very (crossargument raw translated) that "god is everywhere", BUT, hey, earth isn't the only thingie here, imagine some sort of drawing of space in your mind, place a blue ball somewhere there and a god around it, and then again god did everything, why is he around earth - ahhhh my brains - /scar

Because Adam and Eve, the first humans, ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. In the beginning, man was innocent and unable to sin, because they did not know how. Thus, they were kicked out of the Garden of Eden - the perfect place God created, onto Earth.

Thats from our Genesis, even though it can't be proven, if you think about it, it explains how a Perfect, All-knowing God could exist if one does exist.

If there was a supernova around Earth, it would be because God allowed it.

[Santa_Clause]

Anything that happens is what God wants to happen. Now, why would God make a Supernova explode next to Earth if he didn't want the Earth to be destroyed?

Edit: Didn't see Jack's post.

[Killerdou]

Because Adam and Eve, the first humans, ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. In the beginning, man was innocent and unable to sin, because they did not know how. Thus, they were kicked out of the Garden of Eden - the perfect place God created, onto Earth.

So, if man was innocent, how could they be judged for eating from the Tree if they can not decide what is bad or good. Only after they ate it, they could realise they did something bad. So God cant punish them for that, can he? Also, if everything that god wants happens, then god wanted them to eat from the Tree and therefor god is bad.

I believe in both evolution and creationism. However, I dont think our creator is the god the bible teaches us. For the simple fact that there are so many wrongs in the bible. Really, I dont see how evolution and creationism can't go hand in hand, what if our creator wanted to have evolution?

Please dont ask me what our creator would be then, cause i have absolutely no idea. It could be anything.

[n3ss3s]

Sorry, IMO, saying that "God wants it to be so" isn't... a valid excuse?

[Jason2gs]

So, if man was innocent, how could they be judged for eating from the Tree if they can not decide what is bad or good. Only after they ate it, they could realise they did something bad. So God cant punish them for that, can he? Also, if everything that god wants happens, then god wanted them to eat from the Tree and therefor god is bad.

He didn't tell them to think about whether or not it was good. He simply told them to not eat from the tree. It didn't matter if it made sense to them or not.

And God is in control of everything. We still have free will, though.

(It's not supposed to make sense to humans. Deal with it.)

[Killerdou]

He didn't tell them to think about whether or not it was good. He simply told them to not eat from the tree. It didn't matter if it made sense to them or not.

No, but how can god(if he even exist) punish someone for doing something bad if that person doesnt know what is right and what is wrong, how is he/she supposed to know that what god says has to be done.



And God is in control of everything. We still have free will, though.

Thats a contradiction.


(It's not supposed to make sense to humans. Deal with it.)

If that is true, then why has it been published in the bible? Also it is not relevant to the topic since pwnaz0r clearly stated that reason should be the base of this discussion and that is clearly no reason, it's called dogmatic believe.

[n3ss3s]

(It's not supposed to make sense to humans. Deal with it.)

Sorry, gets even more... blah to me, IMO explanations like that are too "wide", its the same is I'd say "Everyone give me your geepeez! Don't ask why!"

EDIT: No offense, ofcourse.

[Santa_Clause]

God didn't tell them to differentiate between right and wrong. He told them not to eat from it...he didn't tell them it was wrong. The sin was disobeying God, not eating from the tree.

No...not a contradiction. God gives us free will and let's us do whatever we want, but if he wanted/needed to interfere, he would.

It's published in the Bible for people that actually open their minds to other ideas. Those are the people that might actually convert to Christianity. The Bible is also proof that God exists ;)

[Jackrawl]

So, if man was innocent, how could they be judged for eating from the Tree if they can not decide what is bad or good. Only after they ate it, they could realise they did something bad. So God cant punish them for that, can he? Also, if everything that god wants happens, then god wanted them to eat from the Tree and therefor god is bad.

I believe in both evolution and creationism. However, I dont think our creator is the god the bible teaches us. For the simple fact that there are so many wrongs in the bible. Really, I dont see how evolution and creationism can't go hand in hand, what if our creator wanted to have evolution?

Please dont ask me what our creator would be then, cause i have absolutely no idea. It could be anything.

He didn't cast Adam and Eve out because he blamed them, he did it because they were unable to live innocently and they directly disobeyed him.

Santa has the same thoughts as I do.

No, but how can god(if he even exist) punish someone for doing something bad if that person doesnt know what is right and what is wrong, how is he/she supposed to know that what god says has to be done.


Thats a contradiction.

If that is true, then why has it been published in the bible? Also it is not relevant to the topic since pwnaz0r clearly stated that reason should be the base of this discussion and that is clearly no reason, it's called dogmatic believe.

God is the judge, not people. You aren't in the legal system when you die.

Depends on how you look at it. When it boils down, God is in control of all things, but before it boils down, we get first pick.

Why do you think they call Evolution a theory? Oh, so Evolution and the stuff pertaining to it is not dogmatic belief? Look around you before you pull something out of the air like that. What would the logical person choose? Another idea scientists have picked up? Or a religion that has existed for over 2000 years, and has still yet to be proven wrong, that can't be proven wrong?

[Dan Cardin]

Why do you think they call Evolution a theory? Oh, so Evolution and the stuff pertaining to it is not dogmatic belief? Look around you before you pull something out of the air like that. What would the logical person choose? Another idea scientists have picked up? Or a religion that has existed for over 2000 years, and has still yet to be proven wrong, that can't be proven wrong?

thats a really bad reason to believe in God. "Oh yea God cant be proven wrong, so thats a good choice :)" Well evolution cant be proven wrong either. And if i said we were created by some aliens out in space, you cant prove that wrong either.

And if any of the stories in the bible are real (i havent read it front to back, so...plus i cant really prove any of its wrong anyway -.-) then the story of adam and eve is probably one of the ones i'd say its more of a story that you are supposed to interpret instead of take literally

[Jackrawl]

thats a really bad reason to believe in God. "Oh yea God cant be proven wrong, so thats a good choice :)" Well evolution cant be proven wrong either. And if i said we were created by some aliens out in space, you cant prove that wrong either.

And if any of the stories in the bible are real (i havent read it front to back, so...plus i cant really prove any of its wrong anyway -.-) then the story of adam and eve is probably one of the ones i'd say its more of a story that you are supposed to interpret instead of take literally

Thats not the reason I believe in God.

I'll consider religion as a 'theory.' Which theory has had more time to be disproved? Judaism, Christianity, or Evolution? Which was created with more human knowledge? Which was created with less human knowledge? Can any be disproved using human knowledge? Which would be the logical answer?

Your first paragraph is sad. You completely missed the point. Think of it linearly. Science is something that disproves things with time, why is it having so much trouble with Christianity? Evolution can't have been around for a tenth of Christianity's existence, even with the mass slaughter to prevent Christians from existing. Evolution is a 'fad of the century.'

I don't think you even read the cover based on the second paragraph. Which branch are you?

[Jason2gs]

Being created by some aliens out in space is still being created, and it's still having an intelligent creator. That would be creationism, and that's the point Clay is trying to make.

And it is possible to prove evolution wrong. If you read back to a post of mine directed at Boreas, you'll find the question I posed: If you have a large box filled with absolutely nothing (the universe), and you want to say that everything we have today was caused by a 'big bang' somewhere inside of it, then where did the material to create the big bang come from?

[Killerdou]

Or a religion that has existed for over 2000 years, and has still yet to be proven wrong, that can't be proven wrong?
Then believe in the old egyption gods? Those are WAY older.

The problem with religion is, that you CANT prove it is wrong OR right. Well, you will know when you died(or you wont know) if god exists or not. You can't quite tell it to anyone living anymore though. How can the bible be proof of gods existence, it only is if god exists(circular reasoning). However, you can proof if evolution is right or wrong.

Science can evolve, if a scientist proofs something to be wrong, we move on and try to find the real answer. But what if the pope would say god doesnt exist? (...) Science evolves, religion doesnt, simply because it can't as 'god' has determined the rules and those are always true.

Just one more thing, if you proof god exists, you made god a science and not a religion anymore because he exists and you dont have to believe in him anymore because you know he exists.



And it is possible to prove evolution wrong. If you read back to a post of mine directed at Boreas, you'll find the question I posed: If you have a large box filled with absolutely nothing (the universe), and you want to say that everything we have today was caused by a 'big bang' somewhere inside of it, then where did the material to create the big bang come from?

That doesnt prove evolution to be wrong, if something created us, why couldn't it have created evolution along with us? And why do you guys want god to be the creator...

Wait a second, isnt chirstianity evolution aswell? Only the best(by gods criteria) people go to heaven. Thats selection right? Sometimes people dont do the right things, or do the good things better, thats mutation right? The good ones survive longer since they go to heaven. That sounds like evolution to me?

[Jackrawl]

Then believe in the old egyption gods? Those are WAY older.

The problem with religion is, that you CANT prove it is wrong OR right. Well, you will know when you died(or you wont know) if god exists or not. You can't quite tell it to anyone living anymore though. How can the bible be proof of gods existence, it only is if god exists(circular reasoning). However, you can proof if evolution is right or wrong.

Science can evolve, if a scientist proofs something to be wrong, we move on and try to find the real answer. But what if the pope would say god doesnt exist? (...) Science evolves, religion doesnt, simply because it can't as 'god' has determined the rules and those are always true.

Just one more thing, if you proof god exists, you made god a science and not a religion anymore because he exists and you dont have to believe in him anymore because you know he exists.



That doesnt prove evolution to be wrong, if something created us, why couldn't it have created evolution along with us? And why do you guys want god to be the creator...

Wait a second, isnt chirstianity evolution aswell? Only the best(by gods criteria) people go to heaven. Thats selection right? Sometimes people dont do the right things, or do the good things better, thats mutation right? The good ones survive longer since they go to heaven. That sounds like evolution to me?

lol, do you think that the Egyptian 'religion,' where they worshiped a ball of gas, is still around?

No, Christianity isn't Evolution, no, not only the best people go to heaven, NO CHRISTIANITY IS NOT POLYTHEISTIC. ARGH.

WHERE are you people coming up with this stuff? We aren't Buddhists, we don't believe in karma, Killer, you just named none of the stuff we believe in. You're thinking of Buddhism entirely.

[Dan Cardin]

evolution cant be proven wrong. Unless we find a way to go back in time and see it without dying. Technically you could suggest anything and it cant be proven wrong. I was just trying to get at the way he said it it sounded like- "logical people would choose to believe in God because its been around for 2000 years and cant be proven wrong."

and the front of the bible says Holy Bible :p but im serious about that. Yes, a tree of knowledge and a tree of life :o tree of life makes people immortal. Doesnt seem very realistic to me. There have been movies about living forever. The fountain of youth. and they have been labeled as fantasy.

God's command not to eat from the tree that was to give Adam and Eve free choice and allow them to earn, as opposed to receive, absolute perfection and intimate communion with God, a higher level than the one on which they were created.
;)

I dont see why he needs us to come to earth, where there is death, and "evil" when we could just go straight to heaven. Why not just create us already with "intimate connect with God". (retorical cuz u cant answer)

(not retorical, i want to know)could adam and eve die? jw if death is something adam and eve brought into the world

EDIT: yea they probably wouldve lived forever because if they cant eat then they have to live forever, or else God would just be starving them =\
and in the case that they wouldve lived forever then how would they get intimate contact with God :(

[Jackrawl]

evolution cant be proven wrong. Unless we find a way to go back in time and see it without dying. Technically you could suggest anything and it cant be proven wrong. I was just trying to get at the way he said it it sounded like- "logical people would choose to believe in God because its been around for 2000 years and cant be proven wrong."

and the front of the bible says Holy Bible :p but im serious about that. Yes, a tree of knowledge and a tree of life :o tree of life makes people immortal. Doesnt seem very realistic to me. There have been movies about living forever. The fountain of youth. and they have been labeled as fantasy.

;)

I dont see why he needs us to come to earth, where there is death, and "evil" when we could just go straight to heaven. Why not just create us already with "intimate connect with God". (retorical cuz u cant answer)

(not retorical, i want to know)could adam and eve die? jw if death is something adam and eve brought into the world

EDIT: yea they probably wouldve lived forever because if they cant eat then they have to live forever, or else God would just be starving them =\
and in the case that they wouldve lived forever then how would they get intimate contact with God :(

To your 'retorical' question. BECAUSE THAT IS OUR PUNISHMENT.
To your 'not retorical' question. "If you eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you will surely die," and they did not continue to eat from the Tree of Life.

To your first paragraph, the logical person would choose Judaism first, second Christianity if they believed that Christ was the son of God, and third Evolution if they had a completely materialistic mind.

The fountain of youth is labeled as fantasy because there is no record of it. Try Atlantis next.

[pwnaz0r]

I'm unable to have a deep conversation about existance of god and evolution nor read posts longer than 10 lines, but as an example, in South Park when saddam hussein was building weapons of mass destruction in heaven, masked as a cookie factory he fooled everyone, so if god exists, why do like TEH BAD THINGS happen, like yes, someone raping a child is their own decision, but what about the meteor that hit earth and pwnt half o' planet, that doesn't support any kind of idea of filling earth.

Or what about if a massive gammashit (I don't know the real English word) or a supernova would explode near earth, would god protect earth?

I find it very (crossargument raw translated) that "god is everywhere", BUT, hey, earth isn't the only thingie here, imagine some sort of drawing of space in your mind, place a blue ball somewhere there and a god around it, and then again god did everything, why is he around earth - ahhhh my brains - /scar

Ok n3ss3s, read until I say stop so you don't have to read much :).

Again, I continually say I am not trying to prove a God. I am saying that there is evidence of previous design, and you must believe in God first to ask those questions. That is considered a petty question about God's nature to me, and I will be glad to tell you my opinion if you like, but that has nothing to do with the arguement of intellgent design.


God is not all about this arguement, none, and I repeat none, of the intellegent design ideas have anything were the answer is just "God". I have scientific fact for everything I believe, unless you get into the philosophical side, which is mostly opinions.

/stop readin n3ss3s.


So, if man was innocent, how could they be judged for eating from the Tree if they can not decide what is bad or good. Only after they ate it, they could realise they did something bad. So God cant punish them for that, can he? Also, if everything that god wants happens, then god wanted them to eat from the Tree and therefor god is bad.

I believe in both evolution and creationism. However, I dont think our creator is the god the bible teaches us. For the simple fact that there are so many wrongs in the bible. Really, I dont see how evolution and creationism can't go hand in hand, what if our creator wanted to have evolution?

Please dont ask me what our creator would be then, cause i have absolutely no idea. It could be anything.

No. God told adamand eve not to eat of the tree before they ever did. It was a "relic" if you will, one thing were God said "you cannot eat of this" so that man would always have a reminder that God was higher than him. In other words, God would be higher because he said "you cannot eat this". That is why it was in the middle of the Garden, because man would always pass by it.


Sorry, IMO, saying that "God wants it to be so" isn't... a valid excuse?

It isn't for me ethier, but nethier is "time makes chance more probable. Especially since the date of the earth has declined from inifnity to 18 billion years all the way down to 4.55-4.6 billion years in this decade alone.

[R0b0t1]

I have been reading your posts... Dipshit.


And all I've gathered is you must just accept some things for the whole creator thing to work out. Sure, you need to do that with evolution, but in some ways each in turn is more plausible than the other.

[pwnaz0r]

I have been reading your posts... Dipshit.


And all I've gathered is you must just accept some things for the whole creator thing to work out. Sure, you need to do that with evolution, but in some ways each in turn is more plausible than the other.

your 12 year old humor never ceases to amuse me.

I do not think that the posts from the last two pages ave really been worded properly by people on here.

Stop ruling intellegent design. Its just as plausible as evolution. Evolution cannot be proved, if so why this debate?

If I get anything through to you, let it be this: The only way we can get anywhere in this arguement is i must disprove evolution or you must prove it. Leave the God side out of it. You are so good at arguement techniques, so use your brain. If we were designed or we were not, and I disprove you, I am right, and vice versa.

I will stop there for now since I want you to see that.

Intellegent design is 100% possible. They are both theories. It is your opinion, and i am showing you that mine is just as plausible as yours, and if you say its not possible, you are jeparidizing you own theory.

I am rather done being nice, the chance of evolution happening is far less than that of intellegent design. They are both theories, so you must use reason to find out. You choose.

[Jackrawl]

This is what I love about this debate. You wind up exactly where you started.

[pwnaz0r]

No one seems to listen to any of my posts, even though they are very valid. The whole thing about how we are going to get anywhere, that I am not trying to prove a God, that that is just a cheap technique they use because it is philosophical, that my whole theory is based on fact, etc. You need to stop being so ignorant and listen, and don't say I need to because I once was an evolutionist, so you can't. You may say evolution is the new age, yet intellegent design is a newer idea than evolution. It is not the same as religion, even though it might lead to it.

[Gumleren]

I'm suprised how many people in here believe in intelligent design or creationism or whatever you like to call it. Personally I believe I believe (yes, I believe I believe in it) in evolution without a creator. I haven't read the whole thread (oh, boy, my eyes hurt from just a couple of pages), so I don't know all your arguments for a creator.


lol, do you think that the Egyptian 'religion,' where they worshiped a ball of gas, is still around?
I'll just ignore your ignorance to the ancient Egyptian religion (there were actual gods as we know them from other religions - I know there is only one god in Christianity and all that).. But! If God is everywhere isn't he some sort of ball of gas too?

[Jackrawl]

No one seems to listen to any of my posts, even though they are very valid. The whole thing about how we are going to get anywhere, that I am not trying to prove a God, that that is just a cheap technique they use because it is philosophical, that my whole theory is based on fact, etc. You need to stop being so ignorant and listen, and don't say I need to because I once was an evolutionist, so you can't. You may say evolution is the new age, yet intellegent design is a newer idea than evolution. It is not the same as religion, even though it might lead to it.

Was that directed at me?

I'm suprised how many people in here believe in intelligent design or creationism or whatever you like to call it. Personally I believe I believe (yes, I believe I believe in it) in evolution without a creator. I haven't read the whole thread (oh, boy, my eyes hurt from just a couple of pages), so I don't know all your arguments for a creator.


I'll just ignore your ignorance to the ancient Egyptian religion (there were actual gods as we know them from other religions - I know there is only one god in Christianity and all that).. But! If God is everywhere isn't he some sort of ball of gas too?
Polytheistic and DEAD at the same time? Yeah, I knew that. Reread the page, I don't care if your eyes hurt.
In turn, I'll ignore your ignorance of Christianity.

[pwnaz0r]

Was that directed at me?

Polytheistic and DEAD at the same time? Yeah, I knew that. Reread the page, I don't care if your eyes hurt.

No, it was directed at people like Gumerlen or whatever, who did not even read the above post.


No one seems to listen to any of my posts, even though they are very valid. The whole thing about how we are going to get anywhere, that I am not trying to prove a God, that that is just a cheap technique they use because it is philosophical, that my whole theory is based on fact, etc. You need to stop being so ignorant and listen, and don't say I need to because I once was an evolutionist, so you can't. You may say evolution is the new age, yet intellegent design is a newer idea than evolution. It is not the same as religion, even though it might lead to it.

If I get anything through to you, let it be this: The only way we can get anywhere in this arguement is i must disprove evolution or you must prove it. Leave the God side out of it. You are so good at arguement techniques, so use your brain. If we were designed or we were not, and I disprove you, I am right, and vice versa.

I will stop there for now since I want you to see that.

Intellegent design is 100% possible. They are both theories. It is your opinion, and i am showing you that mine is just as plausible as yours, and if you say its not possible, you are jeparidizing you own theory.

I am rather done being nice, the chance of evolution happening is far less than that of intellegent design. They are both theories, so you must use reason to find out. You choose.

[Gumleren]

Polytheistic and DEAD at the same time?
Who died? Yes, the Egyptians believed in polytheism - but what's with the dead part?

[Jackrawl]

No, it was directed at people like Gumerlen or whatever, who did not even read the above post.

OK, I was worried you misunderstood my circles comment. BRB JELLO!!!!

Who died? Yes, the Egyptians believed in polytheism - but what's with the dead part?

Ex. Latin is a dead language.

Is it just me, or does this section lag a whole lot? I'll often find one or two posts before mine after I revisit the thread, that I don't see on a refresh.

[pwnaz0r]

I am going to have to keep posting this because it is essential that all the evolutionists see it and it does have to do with the arguement.


No one seems to listen to any of my posts, even though they are very valid. The whole thing about how we are going to get anywhere, that I am not trying to prove a God, that that is just a cheap technique they use because it is philosophical, that my whole theory is based on fact, etc. You need to stop being so ignorant and listen, and don't say I need to because I once was an evolutionist, so you can't. You may say evolution is the new age, yet intellegent design is a newer idea than evolution. It is not the same as religion, even though it might lead to it.

If I get anything through to you, let it be this: The only way we can get anywhere in this arguement is i must disprove evolution or you must prove it. Leave the God side out of it. You are so good at arguement techniques, so use your brain. If we were designed or we were not, and I disprove you, I am right, and vice versa.

Intellegent design is 100% possible. They are both theories. It is your opinion, and i am showing you that mine is just as plausible as yours, and if you say its not possible, you are jeparidizing you own theory.

I am rather done being nice, the chance of evolution happening is far less than that of intellegent design. They are both theories, so you must use reason to find out. You choose.

[Gumleren]

But pwnaz0r, many of the other guys are trying to prove God - we have to deal with them too.
EDIT: Oh, whatever! I'm tired. I'm going to bed.

[pwnaz0r]

EDIT: Oh, whatever! I'm tired. I'm going to bed.

*another one admits defeat?*

EDIT: O didn't see that. But you see, this is my thread, so pay attention to me.



No one seems to listen to any of my posts, even though they are very valid. The whole thing about how we are going to get anywhere, that I am not trying to prove a God, that that is just a cheap technique they use because it is philosophical, that my whole theory is based on fact, etc. You need to stop being so ignorant and listen, and don't say I need to because I once was an evolutionist, so you can't. You may say evolution is the new age, yet intellegent design is a newer idea than evolution. It is not the same as religion, even though it might lead to it.

If I get anything through to you, let it be this: The only way we can get anywhere in this arguement is i must disprove evolution or you must prove it. Leave the God side out of it. You are so good at arguement techniques, so use your brain. If we were designed or we were not, and I disprove you, I am right, and vice versa.

I will stop there for now since I want you to see that.

Intellegent design is 100% possible. They are both theories. It is your opinion, and i am showing you that mine is just as plausible as yours, and if you say its not possible, you are jeparidizing you own theory.

I am rather done being nice, the chance of evolution happening is far less than that of intellegent design. They are both theories, so you must use reason to find out. You choose.

[Jackrawl]

But pwnaz0r, many of the other guys are trying to prove God - we have to deal with them too.
EDIT: Oh, whatever! I'm tired. I'm going to bed.

Shame, I got a bowl FULL of Jello. I've only answered people questioning Christianity. No one here has tried to prove it. It isn't the right place to do that.

[Gumleren]

Alrighty then, I'll try again - pretend like I've never been here before: pwnaz0r, you're trying to get "us" evolutionists to believe that the evolution-theory is incomplete and can't be proven right. Right? If thats so.. Yeah, you're right. I was confused by all those countless numbers of post saying "GOD DOESN'T EXIST!!111@@222!!".

[me_ntal]

Now i understand how much of a touchy subject this is so ill try and keep my questions simple and please remember that they are not challenging anyones beliefs they are just me attempting to understand them better.

The simple question every scientist who argues for evolution ask, but creationist cannot answer:
Who created god?

You have to remember that evolution isn't a single theory it is used in combination with several hundreds of theory's, such as the big bang.


Now, here is where I start not to agree with the common thought. Of course the finches did evolve. What your textbooks do not tell you, is that after a year or so the drought would end and the finches with short beaks would flourish again. This is called de evolution

To refer to it as de-evolution is actually incorrect, its one species becoming the more successful. So for example during a long drought period the birds with longer beaks will still be able to achieve a greaters amount of food and thus still be able to reproduce at a constant rate, compared to the shortbeaks which will only have a few being able to get the food. Now after the period of drought has ended the longbeak species is the dominant and more populated species but over an even greater period it restores to both species being equal.

You have to remember that charles darwin commenced his work during a different time and without the technology we have today.

[Jackrawl]

Alrighty then, I'll try again - pretend like I've never been here before: pwnaz0r, you're trying to get "us" evolutionists to believe that the evolution-theory is incomplete and can't be proven right. Right? If thats so.. Yeah, you're right. I was confused by all those countless numbers of post saying "GOD DOESN'T EXIST!!111@@222!!".

...You made the exact same post.

Now i understand how much of a touchy subject this is so ill try and keep my questions simple and please remember that they are not challenging anyones beliefs they are just me attempting to understand them better.

The simple question every scientist who argues for evolution ask, but creationist cannot answer:
Who created god?

You have to remember that evolution isn't a single theory it is used in combination with several hundreds of theory's, such as the big bang.



To refer to it as de-evolution is actually incorrect, its one species becoming the more successful. So for example during a long drought period the birds with longer beaks will still be able to achieve a greaters amount of food and thus still be able to reproduce at a constant rate, compared to the shortbeaks which will only have a few being able to get the food. Now after the period of drought has ended the longbeak species is the dominant and more populated species but over an even greater period it restores to both species being equal.

You have to remember that charles darwin commenced his work during a different time and without the technology we have today.

De-evolution is correct. As result, the 'longer beaks' go back to being 'shorter beaks.' Actually, it's evolving with a better beak, and evolving with a better beak, the way I see it. The birds with longer beaks wouldn't need long beaks, so why keep them?

[Gumleren]

...You made the exact same post.

And what part of my post, which you quoted, didn't you understand? I thought it had evolved to a question about whether or not God exists - that's why I posted what I posted. Besides, I never stated that God doesn't exist. I merely said that the Egyptian ball of gas is similar to "your" God.

[pwnaz0r]

Alrighty then, I'll try again - pretend like I've never been here before: pwnaz0r, you're trying to get "us" evolutionists to believe that the evolution-theory is incomplete and can't be proven right. Right? If thats so.. Yeah, you're right. I was confused by all those countless numbers of post saying "GOD DOESN'T EXIST!!111@@222!!".

Ok the only reason for this post is to point those out and possibly say that intellegent design is much more likely. Now, as far as being designed by who or what, that is for you to answer.

[Jackrawl]

And what part of my post, which you quoted, didn't you understand? I thought it had evolved to a question about whether or not God exists - that's why I posted what I posted.

Go to sleep.

[Yakman]

I've noticed some of you saying something along the lines of,

"so what that theres no proof for god, there is no proof against"

the way I see it, this pushes the existence of god into some kind of limbo.

I think we should take a look at the legal system for inspiration, a suspect is said to be innocent until proven guilty.

Speaker: Good morning Judge, the suspects God and Evolution were both seen running away from the scene of the crime, so it was either one or the other who did it.
Evolution evidence against, there was blood on his shirt for a start, but God has no evidence.

the typical response of the judge is.
Judge: Send Evolution to prison for 10 years.

however, we seem to be using the response
Judge: Send them both to prison for 5 years each.


I haven't seen any pro-God evidence, but I've seen some pro-Evolution evidence.
I've noticed some of you saying "no there isn't any evidence for evolution", well there is, the situation about a species slightly changing to make it better, one counter-argument is "this only happens within species, not between them"
well "species" is an abstract idea, it was invented by humans to describe life forms.
evolution does not care for man or species, when stuff changes, you might as well call it another specie, or use a word that describes it better.

another thing I noticed was people saying "life cannot survive in space because there is no oxygen", this is slightly misleading, most current life today requires oxygen to survive, but the first life didn't, in face, when life first start to use photosynthesis to produce oxygen, it killed of much life which couldn't handle it, in fact, in our immune system, white blood cells use oxygen to kill some malicious life forms.

OK, let say all I wrote about is wrong, its possible, but I still dislike God, I would go so far as to say I hate him.
God produces disease, natural disasters, holy wars and misery for millions of people, if i saw Him in the street, I would shout abuse, spit, throw things and generally express my distaste as His existence. Although I stand no chance, He would strike me down with lightning, meteorites or whatever method He preferred at that moment.

If God exists, He is no God but a Demon which the world would be much better off without.

Does anyone remember in the year 2000, the Observer newspaper printed an obituary for God, saying He has becomes obsolete.
How wrong they were, I can probably place the rise of religion in the new millennium at 11th September 2001, this was a perfect example of conflict between religions. A part of the Islamic world takes out many of the top people in the top Christan capitalist organisation.
In response to that, peoples religions grow, Christianity is seen as a perfect way to counter Islam, and vis versa, and unto infinitum, so religions grow and grow in an arms race.

I'd like to make it clear that not all Islamic people are "terrorists" and not all Christan people are "freedom fighters".

I once read an article which claims that the human brain evolved to incorporate some kind of religion, we can clearly see in all cultures there is some kind of religion.
Why does DNA evolve again? to make it survive, and it will do this by any means possible, (called Selfish Gene), and this programmed-in religion is a useful way of stopping Cavemen committing suicide when their food runs out, cause God will be angry.

[Gumleren]

Go to sleep.Oh, shut up and read my posts properly!

[pwnaz0r]

Now i understand how much of a touchy subject this is so ill try and keep my questions simple and please remember that they are not challenging anyones beliefs they are just me attempting to understand them better.

The simple question every scientist who argues for evolution ask, but creationist cannot answer:
Who created god?

You have to remember that evolution isn't a single theory it is used in combination with several hundreds of theory's, such as the big bang.



To refer to it as de-evolution is actually incorrect, its one species becoming the more successful. So for example during a long drought period the birds with longer beaks will still be able to achieve a greaters amount of food and thus still be able to reproduce at a constant rate, compared to the shortbeaks which will only have a few being able to get the food. Now after the period of drought has ended the longbeak species is the dominant and more populated species but over an even greater period it restores to both species being equal.

You have to remember that charles darwin commenced his work during a different time and without the technology we have today.

I may agree about the de evolution part, but again, the fact still remains that they are still evolving, then going back.

As for who created God part, I can answer. You obviously did notread the infinity arguement, but I will answer with another.

God and time are basically the same essence of things. They are both things we cannot see but know are at work (well at least I know God is :)). We cannot see, touch, or question time and/or God. The question is, why do you not question where time came from? The reason you ask this is because you do not correctly look at it. Everyone believes in time, and no one has ever questioned where it came from.

The best way to teach is through examples, thus this post. i hope that helps. I could give you another if you like.

[Jackrawl]

But pwnaz0r, many of the other guys are trying to prove God - we have to deal with them too.
EDIT: Oh, whatever! I'm tired. I'm going to bed.

What am I misreading? Seriously, you'll think a little better when you wake up.

[me_ntal]

maybe we should change the topic title to "The Intelligent design", which is the commonly used term for argument of god. That way we could keep the 3 year olds out.

[Jackrawl]

maybe we should change the topic title to "The Intelligent design", which is the commonly used term for argument of god. That way we could keep the 3 year olds out.

We're just waiting for evolutionists to answer pwnazor's questions. And we have brains too you know.
Actually, I have a question of my own. Why would bacteria, whatever the first organism was, need to evolve? The only changing factor is temperature.

[Gumleren]

What am I misreading? Seriously, you'll think a little better when you wake up.

That's not the post you quoted, Brainiac. I said that I was confused from the people screaming "GOD DOESN'T EXIST" and therefore I thought the discussion was about whether or not God existed. I didn't even say anything about God existing or not.

[me_ntal]

Its called variety in a species, For an easy example lets take the common flu bug, Every year most people have an their flu shots, this in theory should stop them from the strains of influenza that the shot is modelled off, however after every year the flu shot becomes outdated, with a new speices being developed this supports the theory of evolution. Over the past 10 years their has been over 1,000 different strains of flu, with the flu advancing and also returning to previous designs.

[Jackrawl]

That's not the post you quoted, Brainiac. I said that I was confused from the people screaming "GOD DOESN'T EXIST" and therefore I thought the discussion was about whether or not God existed. I didn't even say anything about God existing or not.

lol What are you talking about? You have me confused. You said you were tired and your eyes hurt right? I'm not taunting or looking down on you or anything..


Its called variety in a species, For an easy example lets take the common flu bug, Every year most people have an their flu shots, this in theory should stop them from the strains of influenza that the shot is modelled off, however after every year the flu shot becomes outdated, with a new speices being developed this supports the theory of evolution. Over the past 10 years their has been over 1,000 different strains of flu, with the flu advancing and also returning to previous designs.

Isn't that and the finch just, like third grade science books say, "Adaptation"?

[Gumleren]

lol What are you talking about? You have me confused. You said you were tired and your eyes hurt right? I'm not taunting or looking down on you or anything..

No, but it looks like you quoted one thing and commented on another. Anyway, it doesn't matter, we all love each other, right? :cartman: I've gotten the topic right, and now we can discuss. Or.. you can. I'm going to bed. ;)

[Jackrawl]

No, but it looks like you quoted one thing and commented on another. Anyway, it doesn't matter, we all love each other, right? :cartman: I've gotten the topic right, and now we can discuss. Or.. you can. I'm going to bed. ;)

OK, Good night!

[pwnaz0r]

I've noticed some of you saying something along the lines of,

"so what that theres no proof for god, there is no proof against"

the way I see it, this pushes the existence of god into some kind of limbo.

I think we should take a look at the legal system for inspiration, a suspect is said to be innocent until proven guilty.

Speaker: Good morning Judge, the suspects God and Evolution were both seen running away from the scene of the crime, so it was either one or the other who did it.
Evolution evidence against, there was blood on his shirt for a start, but God has no evidence.

the typical response of the judge is.
Judge: Send Evolution to prison for 10 years.

however, we seem to be using the response
Judge: Send them both to prison for 5 years each.


I haven't seen any pro-God evidence, but I've seen some pro-Evolution evidence.
I've noticed some of you saying "no there isn't any evidence for evolution", well there is, the situation about a species slightly changing to make it better, one counter-argument is "this only happens within species, not between them"
well "species" is an abstract idea, it was invented by humans to describe life forms.
evolution does not care for man or species, when stuff changes, you might as well call it another specie, or use a word that describes it better.

another thing I noticed was people saying "life cannot survive in space because there is no oxygen", this is slightly misleading, most current life today requires oxygen to survive, but the first life didn't, in face, when life first start to use photosynthesis to produce oxygen, it killed of much life which couldn't handle it, in fact, in our immune system, white blood cells use oxygen to kill some malicious life forms.

OK, let say all I wrote about is wrong, its possible, but I still dislike God, I would go so far as to say I hate him.
God produces disease, natural disasters, holy wars and misery for millions of people, if i saw Him in the street, I would shout abuse, spit, throw things and generally express my distaste as His existence. Although I stand no chance, He would strike me down with lightning, meteorites or whatever method He preferred at that moment.

If God exists, He is no God but a Demon which the world would be much better off without.

Does anyone remember in the year 2000, the Observer newspaper printed an obituary for God, saying He has becomes obsolete.
How wrong they were, I can probably place the rise of religion in the new millennium at 11th September 2001, this was a perfect example of conflict between religions. A part of the Islamic world takes out many of the top people in the top Christan capitalist organisation.
In response to that, peoples religions grow, Christianity is seen as a perfect way to counter Islam, and vis versa, and unto infinitum, so religions grow and grow in an arms race.

I'd like to make it clear that not all Islamic people are "terrorists" and not all Christan people are "freedom fighters".

I once read an article which claims that the human brain evolved to incorporate some kind of religion, we can clearly see in all cultures there is some kind of religion.
Why does DNA evolve again? to make it survive, and it will do this by any means possible, (called Selfish Gene), and this programmed-in religion is a useful way of stopping Cavemen committing suicide when their food runs out, cause God will be angry.

Ah, as I highly respect you and you put some time into your post, I will respond to your posts about God.

First you seem to question our own term "species". You seem to trick yourself. My definition of micro and macro evolution are based on our current way of organizign things.

It is not set in stone that the definition of macro-evolution is the evolving between species, because you have re defined species to be something abstract.

Macro evolution would be an example of one organism evolving new traits never before seen in DNA, in which it has significant differences to its ancestors, and these evolvings happen against enourmose(wrong spellig :)) chances and because of malefunctions in the current structure of the animal or the failure to copy DNA right.

Now, God did not create things the way they are now. He gave man free will, because he wanted to delight in the fact man would worship him of his own free will(wouldn't be much of an accomplishment if say robot's did), and they corrupted things. Man causes war because of things such as jealousy, hate, and the quality of not being self-controlled.

Now, I could go into each type of disease, but you should tell me which one. Most disease corrupt DNA. God cannot defy His own promises, and he let man choose between right and wrong, and man has corrupted it.

Man has put himself where he is, and I'm sure you would agree with that being an evolutionist, so why is it different when you put God into the equation.

[Eugeniu]

evolution cant be proven wrong. Unless we find a way to go back in time and see it without dying. Technically you could suggest anything and it cant be proven wrong. I was just trying to get at the way he said it it sounded like- "logical people would choose to believe in God because its been around for 2000 years and cant be proven wrong."

and the front of the bible says Holy Bible :p but im serious about that. Yes, a tree of knowledge and a tree of life :o tree of life makes people immortal. Doesnt seem very realistic to me. There have been movies about living forever. The fountain of youth. and they have been labeled as fantasy.

;)

I dont see why he needs us to come to earth, where there is death, and "evil" when we could just go straight to heaven. Why not just create us already with "intimate connect with God". (retorical cuz u cant answer)

(not retorical, i want to know)could adam and eve die? jw if death is something adam and eve brought into the world

EDIT: yea they probably wouldve lived forever because if they cant eat then they have to live forever, or else God would just be starving them =\
and in the case that they wouldve lived forever then how would they get intimate contact with God :(

You're right, nothing can be proven wrong. But that's where we have to go with what's more logical. Both ideas are confusing but the evolution/big bang theory starts with something completely impossible (an atom millions of times smaller than the tip of a needle exploding to something 10^1000000^1000000^1000000^1000000^etc larger than its self in a time when time doesn't even exist) and has many, many addons that just *might* make a bit of sense when placed in this theory.

To explain why Adam and Eve weren't supposed to die anyway, I might as well tell you that Eden was supposed to be heaven (or something like it) where you would experience no sadness (unless you wanted to..), tiredness, fatigue, ugliness, etc. Many people believe that Eden was lifted off the Earth and (symbolicly) transformed into the place called heaven.

And all the 'fantasy' movies, stories, etc are all based on you getting to live forever as a human on Earth.

EDIT: You guys make two more pages while I type this?? lol...

Anyway, to add on to pwnaz0r's post, look at any species in this world not including humans. Each animal type is either slightly more intelligent than the other. There is always one species that has another species that is a few notches higher, and another species that is a few notches lower except for the highest and the lowest. But it stops with apes/monkeys. They are supposedly the closest relative to humans. But notice the EXTREMELY large gap in intelligence. Apes, like all other animals rely primarily on instinct. They don't build things off of things. They don't progress. They can't even speak to each other. But on the other hands, humans have created so many things. Millions if not billions of words and millions of ideas. Can you teach an ape multiplication? No. Why? Because no animal can remember what the 'x' symbol means and what 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 means. They will simply not learn. In fact, they can't even do the simplest things like farm.

Anyway, my point is that God has an answer to why and evolution doesn't. God's answer? He put humans on the earth to test them. Not animals. Evolution doesn't know why this happened, or they're just ignorant...

EDIT2:


maybe we should change the topic title to "The Intelligent design", which is the commonly used term for argument of god. That way we could keep the 3 year olds out.

Funny how I've never heard of that phrase until pwnaz0r pointed it out xD.

[pwnaz0r]

Its called variety in a species, For an easy example lets take the common flu bug, Every year most people have an their flu shots, this in theory should stop them from the strains of influenza that the shot is modelled off, however after every year the flu shot becomes outdated, with a new speices being developed this supports the theory of evolution. Over the past 10 years their has been over 1,000 different strains of flu, with the flu advancing and also returning to previous designs.

Although I think Jack is being immature (nothing against you Jack, you are argueing on my side and I appreciate it :D), you have to understand that the conditions of a flu virus and the first bacteria are different.

For one, a virus is not alive, it does not have all 5 of the characterists of living things. A bacteria is.

He brings up a valid point because in your example, this is an illness. It also assumes that everything has already evolved. The flu evolves not because it wants to be a variety, but because it is constantly changing to continue to infect cells. It also travels through different organisms in this cycle, so it is changed.

This example isn't very good, because the first cell was by itself, therefore, nothing was "trying to cure it", etc. Re-read it and tell me if you think it is :D

EDIT: again eungeniu lets not bring God into this arguement, nor eden.

[Jackrawl]

Although I think Jack is being immature (nothing against you Jack, you are argueing on my side and I appreciate it :D), you have to understand that the conditions of a flu virus and the first bacteria are different.

For one, a virus is not alive, it does not have all 5 of the characterists of living things. A bacteria is.

He brings up a valid point because in your example, this is an illness. It also assumes that everything has already evolved. The flu evolves not because it wants to be a variety, but because it is constantly changing to continue to infect cells. It also travels through different organisms in this cycle, so it is changed.

This example isn't very good, because the first cell was by itself, therefore, nothing was "trying to cure it", etc. Re-read it and tell me if you think it is :D

EDIT: again eungeniu lets not bring God into this arguement, nor eden.

=( So you agree that that is just adaptation? It isn't evolving, becoming something else. It's just making subtle changes so that it can exist.

[Eugeniu]

Although I think Jack is being immature (nothing against you Jack, you are argueing on my side and I appreciate it :D), you have to understand that the conditions of a flu virus and the first bacteria are different.

For one, a virus is not alive, it does not have all 5 of the characterists of living things. A bacteria is.

He brings up a valid point because in your example, this is an illness. It also assumes that everything has already evolved. The flu evolves not because it wants to be a variety, but because it is constantly changing to continue to infect cells. It also travels through different organisms in this cycle, so it is changed.

This example isn't very good, because the first cell was by itself, therefore, nothing was "trying to cure it", etc. Re-read it and tell me if you think it is :D

EDIT: again eungeniu lets not bring God into this arguement, nor eden.

Crap...-.-. I think I got mixed up with a post about eden on page 5 with the one I was replying to...I guess I'll edit that out then...

EDIT: Wait no...I'm confusing myself o_O. The eden part was explaining why adam and eve weren't supposed to die...

[Jackrawl]

Although I think Jack is being immature (nothing against you Jack, you are argueing on my side and I appreciate it :D), you have to understand that the conditions of a flu virus and the first bacteria are different.

For one, a virus is not alive, it does not have all 5 of the characterists of living things. A bacteria is.

He brings up a valid point because in your example, this is an illness. It also assumes that everything has already evolved. The flu evolves not because it wants to be a variety, but because it is constantly changing to continue to infect cells. It also travels through different organisms in this cycle, so it is changed.

This example isn't very good, because the first cell was by itself, therefore, nothing was "trying to cure it", etc. Re-read it and tell me if you think it is :D

EDIT: again eungeniu lets not bring God into this arguement, nor eden.

What would happen if I accused you of being un-immature?

[R0b0t1]

I was not personally bringing God into the argument, but I had no other word for a sentient force that created everything. Do you have a better word you would like me to use?

This is getting annoying and going nowhere, I just wanted to show you that they are both theories with infactual proof, and that neither can win. But you knew that, didn't you?

[pwnaz0r]

I was not personally bringing God into the argument, but I had no other word for a sentient force that created everything. Do you have a better word you would like me to use?

This is getting annoying and going nowhere, I just wanted to show you that they are both theories with infactual proof, and that neither can win. But you knew that, didn't you?

of course, but I see it that we should choose one, (assuming you mean the two extremes), and I choose the one that has a better chance of actually happening.

And as for accussing me of being un-immature, I would have to say that you are right. :spot:

[SKy Scripter]

Pwnaz0r I Still Believe Strongly, That God Will not Allow you To Prove His Existence. If There Was a God, Why Send Us Here to Find Out He Exist through Human Science? Im Sure God would rather be believed in through the hearts of the people who have "tried" to learn and accept his teachings.

For those who dont believe in God, if would like to know if he is True, Then i would recommend setting your input to neutral ( The Middle of the Line, Between Both Ideas) and learn about God. Rather then Accepting He Is False Because there is no proof.

Because i believe in God, I don't want you to take things personal.

But I Dont Think That No Human Science Can Prove Him, So It is your choice to take the Route Just "Learn" To Choose Wisely. ;)

[Yakman]

Now, I could go into each type of disease, but you should tell me which one. Most disease corrupt DNA. God cannot defy His own promises, and he let man choose between right and wrong, and man has corrupted it.

The part about most diseases corrupting DNA is misleading, the only thing which does and is harmful to humans is cancer, which can be caused by may things (including breakfast cereal if you read The Daily Mail :rolleyes:)

lets take another disease, like Cholera, it is caused by bacteria which go into your bowels and produce a toxin which stops them doing their job of soaking up water, so you get very very watery diarrhoea.
your body tries to fight it off it off somehow (dont remember the details) but in all cases, the DNA of both your body and the cholera bacteria are whole and unbroken.
it is the symptoms of a disease that kill you, not the disease itself, like you die of cholera because your body runs out of water and all other nutriants that you lose in diarrhoea.

If we want to talk about a disease, lets talk about plague, it has some religious conotations, like God sending a plague to a city because they were bad.

this brings me onto another point, if God does not want to control or influence us, how come He is allowed to destroy the world with a great flood and save Noah, or punish Babylon by making everyone speak a different language.

Edit: I realised it wasnt Babylon that was punished like this, but Babel

[The Claw]

AGES AGO:

Man: The world is round.
The Church: Nah, that goes agaisnt our whole idea of heaven being up and hell being down. you're a heretic, we're gonna lock you up.

...a couple of hundred years later....

The Church: OK Guys, our mistake........we admit the world is round..but hey, heaven and hell still exist dont get me wrong!!! we dont know how, since there is no up or down but it still works!!

-------

Man: O, the earth revolves around the sun which is just a small part of a massive galaxy with billions of other stars. and yeh there are billions of galaxies too, really we arent actually the center of the universe

The Church: nah, we are the center of the universe. since god made us and the universe, and he put us in the center since we are the most important things to him. also dont be stupid, of course everything revolves around us we are the 1 lifeform. we're gonna lock you up, you heretic.

...a couple of hundred years later....

The Church: ok sorry, you were right. but dont worry god still made us and all!! just he didnt make us the center of the universe.

religion is rapidly dying out as technology advances, disproving all the foundations of it. and as more people start thinking and figuring things out for themselves. those 2 things i just mentioned show that really the churches dont have any idea about stuff they say, they make alot of it up to suit their arguments - that god made us etc etc. the churches are losing more power daily. it seems to me that they are constantly trying to catch up to what science is now able to prove, and changing their very base to try and keep up.

btw, i suggest to anyone who wants to learn more about religion to take a look at how modern religions started. key word: modern. its pretty interesting, from what i can gather the bible is just a collaboration of stories and myths from all different ancient religions, except instead of worshiping the forces of nature and life, the writers of the bible changed it to be people, to suit their needs...theres more too, like deliberate errors in translation but i wont go into it.

and yer like yakman said, say for a minute that god DOES exist - isnt he meant to be made of love, and all friendly? to me he seems to be a bit of a prick :rolleyes: what with all the famine and suffering some people have been put through while others live the high life very comfortably.....

Present time

Man: lol, god didnt make us, we evolved.

The Church: no, he made us. you are crazy

...soon in the future when we have solid 100% proof for evolution.....

The Church: ok guys, you were right, we were wrong again. but wait - we all evolved because god wanted us too!!! thats right, he planned the whole thing, haha. we win again!!

[n3ss3s]

Thanks for making a shorter thing pwnaz0r :p

I like your way of knowing so much about your point of view, and I can imagine that if I were you, I would feel the same way about the things you are talking about here as I feel now about my own point of view :)

[Jason2gs]

Could everyone please stop lumping all religions and churches together?

You think some pompous catholic (? England, right?) priests represent everyone who believes in God.

[The Claw]

Could everyone please stop lumping all religions and churches together?

You think some pompous catholic (? England, right?) priests represent everyone who believes in God.

england, italy, greece, whatever its all the same - there either is a god or there isnt

[SKy Scripter]

@ Tha Claw, Who Says God couldnt have created us with evolution?

suppose it is actually the people who make the world as it is?
didnt God Give us our Free Agency?

Im sure it says that in the Bible ;)

[Wizzup?]

Im sure it says that in the Bible ;)

That is kind of the whole problem.

[SKy Scripter]

That is kind of the whole problem.

Yea, Lol, but My point was,

Saying bad things are happening to the world isnt God's Fault because it says in the bible God gave us our choice to choose ect..

so therefore using that against religions is stupid.

[Gumleren]

Yea, Lol, but My point was,

Saying bad things are happening to the world isnt God's Fault because it says in the bible God gave us our chose to choose ect..

so therefore using that against religions is stupid.
I think what Wizzup? meant was that the whole holy book (also known as the Bible) was the problem. At least that's my point of view and it sounded as if Wizzup? meant that too. ;) Did you, Wizzup? Did you!?

[Jackrawl]

I think what Wizzup? meant was that the whole holy book (also known as the Bible) was the problem. At least that's my point of view and it sounded as if Wizzup? meant that too. ;) Did you, Wizzup? Did you!?

Yeah the books are the source of all problems? Burn them?

[Killerdou]

the people that believe the books are the problem... :stirthepot:

[Jackrawl]

the people that believe the books are the problem... :stirthepot:

Neg, the people who can't interpret( in the common way) the books are the problem. Islam is a peaceful religion, yet people blow themselves up for it.

[Killerdou]

no, they use the islam as an excuse to blow themselves up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKa0vLqh5OQ

[mickaliscious]

"God does not roll dice"
- Albert Einstein... Arguably one of the greatest men in all of science, past and present.

I realize this is not a valid argument but I just thought some people would be interested in this fact.

[Wizzup?]

Neg, the people who can't interpret( in the common way) the books are the problem. Islam is a peaceful religion, yet people blow themselves up for it.

Thats not true. Did you read the Qur'an?
It very clearly states that the Islam is the only religion.

And that all others must be erradicated. (Of this I am not sure, but I think it was like that)

[pwnaz0r]

AGES AGO:

Man: The world is round.
The Church: Nah, that goes agaisnt our whole idea of heaven being up and hell being down. you're a heretic, we're gonna lock you up.

...a couple of hundred years later....

The Church: OK Guys, our mistake........we admit the world is round..but hey, heaven and hell still exist dont get me wrong!!! we dont know how, since there is no up or down but it still works!!

-------

Man: O, the earth revolves around the sun which is just a small part of a massive galaxy with billions of other stars. and yeh there are billions of galaxies too, really we arent actually the center of the universe

The Church: nah, we are the center of the universe. since god made us and the universe, and he put us in the center since we are the most important things to him. also dont be stupid, of course everything revolves around us we are the 1 lifeform. we're gonna lock you up, you heretic.

...a couple of hundred years later....

The Church: ok sorry, you were right. but dont worry god still made us and all!! just he didnt make us the center of the universe.

religion is rapidly dying out as technology advances, disproving all the foundations of it. and as more people start thinking and figuring things out for themselves. those 2 things i just mentioned show that really the churches dont have any idea about stuff they say, they make alot of it up to suit their arguments - that god made us etc etc. the churches are losing more power daily. it seems to me that they are constantly trying to catch up to what science is now able to prove, and changing their very base to try and keep up.

btw, i suggest to anyone who wants to learn more about religion to take a look at how modern religions started. key word: modern. its pretty interesting, from what i can gather the bible is just a collaboration of stories and myths from all different ancient religions, except instead of worshiping the forces of nature and life, the writers of the bible changed it to be people, to suit their needs...theres more too, like deliberate errors in translation but i wont go into it.

and yer like yakman said, say for a minute that god DOES exist - isnt he meant to be made of love, and all friendly? to me he seems to be a bit of a prick :rolleyes: what with all the famine and suffering some people have been put through while others live the high life very comfortably.....

Present time

Man: lol, god didnt make us, we evolved.

The Church: no, he made us. you are crazy

...soon in the future when we have solid 100% proof for evolution.....

The Church: ok guys, you were right, we were wrong again. but wait - we all evolved because god wanted us too!!! thats right, he planned the whole thing, haha. we win again!!


I could get mad. I could call you an ignorant fool who does not examine the world around him, cannot learn to read posts, and needs to learn to look at both sides of the situation. I could call you biased, only thinking what you think because you want the easy way out. But I will not ;).

You need to learn to read, as I never liked how the catholic church worked, they never said it was pure fact, it is not in the Bible, we never said that God "told" us. You know, science also thought the world was flat? That's why the church did? OOO but wait, science is allowed to change. After all, the science of one day may not be the science of the next.

You see, there are wayyyy to many times where science changes, and they think nothing of it. But when the church does it, its "against the rules", even though nothing is different in the situation, just its not science, its the church.

I am not even defending the church, I am just pointing out. I just beat you and your little tricks at your own game so please keep on topic and keep God out of it, or do not reply at all.

EDIT: I am starting to get annoyed by the religion specifics talk. Wizzup, if you would like a piece of my mind about certain religion, I can give it to you, just over msn. This would be considered thread jacking, and I will infract ya ;).

Just kidding but seriously, stop taking it over with religion specific. you are simply shifting the arguement over from what you cannot answer to what you think we cannot know. I have adequately answered, as well as brought up several points about, questions about evolution. My whole theory is based on fact.

[Dan Cardin]

you dont answer questions that you dont know. So you try and disprove evolution. Evolutionists dont answer questions that they dont know. So they are trying to disprove God. Which basically means you arguing with them isnt really going to do anything until scientists come up with more facts. So, maybe end the argument?:) because no one is getting anywhere.

and you've already written your topic at the beginning to disprove evolution so no need to keep an unending argument going

[pwnaz0r]

Actually I have accomplished much.

I have convinced many that are not ignorant, especially on msn, and I have nothing at the moment I cannot answer. By the way, I never use "Because God did it" as an answer.

You also conviently forgot that evolutionists must be able to answer them for their theory to be true, because everything happens naturally, and they pretend to know the answers.

So basically, I have my view, which I have no questions I cannot answer and I don't use cheap answers like "because God wanted it to", then you have evolutionists who can't even tell me one fact about evolution that is proven true, cannot answer what they pretend to know but really don't, and they must know because it happened randomly is not a good enough answer and you do not base a theory on things you do not know, while also using cheap techniques. That is how it is going right now.

[Jackrawl]

Actually I have accomplished much.

I have convinced many that are not ignorant, especially on msn, and I have nothing at the moment I cannot answer. By the way, I never use "Because God did it" as an answer.

You also conviently forgot that evolutionists must be able to answer them for their theory to be true, because everything happens naturally, and they pretend to know the answers.

So basically, I have my view, which I have no questions I cannot answer and I don't use cheap answers like "because God wanted it to", then you have evolution who can't even tell me one fact about evolution that is proven true, cannot answer what they pretend to know but really don't, and they must know because it happened randomly is not a good enough answer and you do not base a theory on things you do not know, while also using cheap techniques. That is how it is going right now.

I'm sure you've had this question asked, and I think I know what the answer will be, but...

Do you believe that man was man as it is now during the time of the Garden of Eden? Supposedly Archaeologists have found 'Monkey Men.'

[pwnaz0r]

I'm sure you've had this question asked, and I think I know what the answer will be, but...

Do you believe that man was man as it is now during the time of the Garden of Eden? Supposedly Archaeologists have found 'Monkey Men.'

Well, I would have to say I do. however, do not let them mislead you, there have been fake fossils, and altered fossils, but no true transitional fossils have been found and anyone who says other wise it uneducated concerning the matter. That would not be my fault etheir ;).

I'm sure no one disagrees with this statement, since evolution was supposed to occur over millions of years for small changes.

[The Claw]

@ Tha Claw, Who Says God couldnt have created us with evolution?

no one, but thats what im getting at - the religions say that we were made by god himself, until science starts proving we werent. then the religions quickly change their story and say "but wait god did that on purpose, too."


I could get mad. I could call you an ignorant fool who does not examine the world around him, cannot learn to read posts, and needs to learn to look at both sides of the situation. I could call you biased, only thinking what you think because you want the easy way out. But I will not .

Thats actually pretty offensive. Considering I spend my time making an intelligent post, hoping to get some good conversation and instead I get this shit in return. But look, you are always talking about "looking at both sides", "examining the situation", and "bias". Out of all the religious discussions we have had on these forums I am the only one who has done this. You just spout religious babble that has been doctrined into your life since birth, and then abuse anyone who points out the flaws in your story. You dont look at my points. you dont look at anyone elses points. you dont rebut them, you dont argue them, you just say they are wrong without backing that up in any way.


You need to learn to read, as I never liked how the catholic church worked, they never said it was pure fact, it is not in the Bible, we never said that God "told" us. You know, science also thought the world was flat? That's why the church did? OOO but wait, science is allowed to change. After all, the science of one day may not be the science of the next.

another insult. and one of the stupidest portions of text i have ever read (i can insult too). of course science is "allowed" to change? with science theres no one sitting up at the top of a massive building telling everyone whats right and whats wrong like the church, thats the big difference. as technology advances, so does our knowledge of the world. my point is, as above, religion are so sure they know everything. heaven and hell, etc. and yet, with every passing day, more things are discovered which shows that religion was wrong, again. religion laid the groundwork, science is breaking it.


You see, there are wayyyy to many times where science changes, and they think nothing of it. But when the church does it, its "against the rules", even though nothing is different in the situation, just its not science, its the church.

of course the church shouldnt be changing, they have been teaching all their stuff for thousands of years, you would think they should have it right by then. bit embarrasing for them when they are proven wrong so often.


I am not even defending the church, I am just pointing out. I just beat you and your little tricks at your own game so please keep on topic and keep God out of it, or do not reply at all.

lol?????????? you beat me and my little tricks, at my own game? all you said was "religion is allowed to change too bawwwwwwwwww :( :( :( :( :(" not beating me at all mate. sorry.


you are simply shifting the arguement over from what you cannot answer to what you think we cannot know. I have adequately answered, as well as brought up several points about, questions about evolution. My whole theory is based on fact.

again, lol????????? not at all mate.

look i dont think i will post in here again, i advise everyone else not to either. pwnaz0r if you want an intelligent conversation then wake up and look around, actually take my posts on board and discuss them maturely and intelligently. seriously wtf is the point in me posting if you are just going to say "no you are wrong." without backing your claims up. you religious folks are all the same. you say you want the truth yet when we all try and find it you crack the shits, start insulting people and dont even listen to the other posters!! open your mind, what we say could be correct, probably is. yeh i have looked from the viewpoint of religions/church too, many times, and what i post is what i come up with.


I have convinced many that are not ignorant, especially on msn, and I have nothing at the moment I cannot answer. By the way, I never use "Because God did it" as an answer.

hahaha, oh wow. so you are preaching to the less ignorant of us? lol. you beleive in some dude dying then coming alive 3 days later? who can walk on water? and turn water into wine? and yet you refuse the possibility of something as simple and logical as evolution, which goes hand in hand with natural selection - i see from your sig you believe in that?

so to sum up: either look at my posts, take them on board and rebut each one of my arguements clearly and intelligently. none of this shit which you have been posting lately. no preaching please. no turning this into a game which you have also been doing. open your mind, look at it from both sides, and actually see for 1 second how absurd the religions are. if you dont do that, then i wont be posting here again. theres no point, you are a lost cause.

[R0b0t1]

I have convinced many that are not ignorant, especially on msn, and I have nothing at the moment I cannot answer. By the way, I never use "Because God did it" as an answer.


You give me a infraction for calling you a dipshit, but you state that everyone that does not believe in some kind of creator is ignorant. . . ?

[SKy Scripter]

@ The Claw, Uhmmm, Im not sure what you mean... i have always believed that.

"Out of the Ground the Lord God Formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air"

What does he mean by "Ground" Exactly?

So it is not of all religions, who have decided to change. ;)

[Hobbit]

This is the Final and only warning.
Stay ontopic and stop bickering or else this thread will be closed.
R0b0t you infraction was reversed by Wizzup? so lay off and forget it.
You're in deep enough already.

Stay on topic and keep it civilized!

LAST WARNING

[Jackrawl]

The bible was written by hundreds of scholars over a long time, they didn't have God proofreading over their shoulders. What, did you think that Jesus was some sort of journalist?

Another thing, being religious doesn't mean being ignorant to the things around you. I don't see Christians standing around howling that the Earth is flat, do you? Yeah, we were wrong, so were most astronomers and most everybody at the time. Christians neither claim to be perfect or right, we simply follow Christ.

[The Claw]

The bible was written by hundreds of scholars over a long time, they didn't have God proofreading over their shoulders. What, did you think that Jesus was some sort of journalist?

yep, and contains many errors in translation and other ways, some are said to be done on purpose, some not. for example, its said that jesus never claimed to be god's son, but the priests/scholars who wrote that part of the bible deliberately changed it. Instead of "we are all god's children" to "i am god's child" or something. i dunno if its true but thats just one of the things i read. it wouldnt suprise me though, it would suit the needs of the catholics/christian priests much better.

but i guess my point overall is this, if the church and religions were so wrong about so many things in the past, which were all integral to their teachings, how can you trust them to be right with anything? i predict that in the near future (10 years, 50 years, 100 years), the idea of creationalism will be dead and everyone will accept evolution, just like we now accept the heliocentric model of the solar system. and more things the church teaches will be proven wrong too, i bet.

[Eugeniu]

The bible was written by hundreds of scholars over a long time, they didn't have God proofreading over their shoulders. What, did you think that Jesus was some sort of journalist?

Another thing, being religious doesn't mean being ignorant to the things around you. I don't see Christians standing around howling that the Earth is flat, do you? Yeah, we were wrong, so were most astronomers and most everybody at the time. Christians neither claim to be perfect or right, we simply follow Christ.

True, and anyway, the idea of the earth being flat wasn't invented by Christians at all...


yep, and contains many errors in translation and other ways, some are said to be done on purpose, some not. for example, its said that jesus never claimed to be god's son, but the priests/scholars who wrote that part of the bible deliberately changed it. Instead of "we are all god's children" to "i am god's child" or something. i dunno if its true but thats just one of the things i read. it wouldnt suprise me though, it would suit the needs of the catholics/christian priests much better.

but i guess my point overall is this, if the church and religions were so wrong about so many things in the past, which were all integral to their teachings, how can you trust them to be right with anything? i predict that in the near future (10 years, 50 years, 100 years), the idea of creationalism will be dead and everyone will accept evolution, just like we now accept the heliocentric model of the solar system. and more things the church teaches will be proven wrong too, i bet.

Um...if Jesus was never the son of God but the rest of the bible is true, then what's that huge section about Mary finding out that she will become pregnant through a dream as well as Joseph finding out his to-be wife (or already wife, I don't remember) will bear the son of God? Oh, how about that one section where Jesus raises from the dead after being dead for 3 days and is lifted up from heaven. Do you think he'd let just anyone be able to do that?

[pwnaz0r]

No the claw, now you make an intellegent post. I suggest you read the rules of the thread and read the post exactly above yours before posting? I called you not an ignorant fool because of your views, but because you did not even care to read the main page, basically any other page of the arguement, the page you posted on, or the post above yours. You care nothing for the arguement, you only think that you must be right and I must be wrong. I spent hours of research as well as a few hours typing it, hours a day maintaining this thread and I would appreciate it if you would be mature and show me some respect. You do now sound a bit immature, putting that as nicely as I can, because you want to whine and complain about me, yet you are the one who came here, did not care what I had to say, had no respect for my arguement, did not care to read the posts, and you yourself do not think you can be wrong. That is not my fault and I am sorry that you feel that way. If you take a look, many have calmy posted their questions and I have adequately answered them both philosophically and scientifically, because my view does in fact make sense. You may not believe it, but you should at least see where I am coming from.

I must in fact hold my own in this prodominatly forum of athiests and/or people that do not really care, and I have to hold order in my own thread somehow.

You say I spout things that were planted in me, but again I started out an athiest, you would know that if you read the first page or anything on this thread.

I have repeadily said to keep a God out of this arguement on this thread, because it is not what we are argue-ing, it gets into pro-religion things, which you must first think there is something out there if you are to understand what it is, just like you must take Pre - algebra if you ever want to understand algebra or even calculus.

I am sorry if I insulted you, but almost everything you said two posts ago was wrong.

1. I never tried to insult you. I try to keep it rational and everyone needs to read the thread before replying. You also have brought up the same points on this thread that I have already answered at least 2ce, which makes me mad because you obviously didn't read, nor even cared to browse through.

2. You pre suppose there is no God and you think all religion is bad. If so why even step foot in this thread? There is no point? I never pre suppose that because I would have recognized it and I do not, so do not think for a second I do. If I did, I would argue God on this thread, but for now, I am argueing only that there was intellegent design. Remember that I was once athiest.

3. I hope you do not question my intellect, because right now you seem the only atheist bold enough to even try to defend your theory with scientific fact (or I have skimmed the last few pages, if anyone else wishes to defend with scientific fact please come forth). Please, I encourage it.

4. You assume that all religions are bad. That is a pre supposition and if you ever want to find the truth, whether you are right or wrong, you must stop thinking that. Forget the past Claw, I do not associate my self with the catholi church, therefore nothing it ever did applies to me. I actually believe the catholic church was very wrong in it's beliefs as well as most catholic's today think it was wrong, not just scientific, but religiously.

5. Never rule out the possibility of a designer, even if you cannot understand him completely because, one, you do not understand almost anything about evolution or the big bang correctly, how then can you say my theory is more incorrect than the yours? and two, everything can be explained by scientific fact by my theory.



As to r0b0t1, I will speak to ya on msn if you like and tell you personally, since no one else wants to do it, exactly why I gave it to you. It was taken away, so do not get all hyped up about it...


EDIT: By the way claw, read your post more and through all the insults I gathered that you think my theory has holes in it. It does not, if so name one? Remember not to bring the catholic church into it because you seem to think I am catholic which I am not. My religion has not changed its views, only it's views on science just as the whole world has, and it changed with the whole world (We do not pretend to replace science with religion, so do not credit it to us.). So because we change our story along with you, you say that it is wrong for us, yet we do not sit down with God and take science lessons, so that doesn't really make sense. You also say it is doctrine I was fed as a baby, which it wasn't, I was an atheist. You say science accounts for evolution, but I assure you it does not. If so, name one fact you can find about evolution that is true. And please do not respond with "well, you name one thing about God that is true", because I am not argueing God, I am argueing an intellegent designer. If you would like a list of things that show design, they are on the front page, they are well thought out theories that science has yet to answer.


EDIT EDIT: Welcome to the real world claw. A world were you get bashed for you beliefs, who would have thought huh? No one knows that better than me claw, I live it everyday.

[Method]

Honestly, I can't refute some of the points you've brought forth simply because I'm not well educated in those areas, but I will try to make an argument for some things I have researched a bit, including irreducible complexity.

This page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducable_complexity#Response_of_the_scientific_ community) (please excuse the Wikipedia link) largely explains how the scientific community has tried and succeeded in proving that most of Michael Behe's claims about irreducible complexity have turned out to be false. Check out the Dover trial to see some examples of how Behe's ideas have been proven incorrect. The Wikipedia page also provides quite a bit of insight on the subject also.

Also, you seem to think convincing an atheist who doesn't speak English well at all (you even mentioned that in your post) means that you seem to have won some sort of battle (that's my perception of the events listed). If I wanted to, I could get a kindergarten student to stop believing in Santa Claus because I could use big words and seem smarter on the topic than I really am (I realize you have done research, though). It's the same situation in your 'bout' with the foreign student at your school.

Hopefully I've presented some half-decent arguments (I have been reading this thread, but I may have mentioned some things that came up before. If that's the case, please forgive me.). I'm open to new ideas, but seeing as all you've done is give some examples to possibly allude to their being an intelligent designer, I'm going to stay on the fence (while leaning towards the evolution side) for the moment.

[The Claw]

Nah dw I read the first post. I admit I didnt read the whole topic, but I was still argueing agaisnt an intelligent designer. All the things I said tied in well with why I think there wasnt an intelligent designer, if you cant see that then I didnt express myself well enough.

Theres loads of scientific evidence, I won't post it here though. I'll just link you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution, read it if you want. This is an interesting read too: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/apes.html. Goes through how the DNA of humans and apes is 97-98% identical among other things. Good luck disproving the work of hundreds of scientists and archaeologists.

And I'm not ruling out the possibility of an intelligent designer but personally I strongly believe there isnt. And nah lol I know quite a bit about the current big bang theory, and the current evolution theory. Just cause I dont post every bit of knowledge I have doesn't mean I dont know it.


My religion has not changed its views, only it's views on science just as the whole world has, and it changed with the whole world (We do not pretend to replace science with religion, so do not credit it to us.).

What religion are you? I dont think all religions are bad or anything, I just think most are just fantasy cleverly wrapped around a small grain of truth.


Um...if Jesus was never the son of God but the rest of the bible is true, then what's that huge section about Mary finding out that she will become pregnant through a dream as well as Joseph finding out his to-be wife (or already wife, I don't remember) will bear the son of God? Oh, how about that one section where Jesus raises from the dead after being dead for 3 days and is lifted up from heaven. Do you think he'd let just anyone be able to do that?

Personally I think all that stuff is a load of rubbish but thats just me, lol.

EDIT - Wait, were you saying that I'm the one who cant speak english well? Or someone else? Sorry if my posts had bad grammar, I was in a hurry and didnt have time to go back over it.

[Eugeniu]

EDIT - Wait, were you saying that I'm the one who cant speak english well? Or someone else? Sorry if my posts had bad grammar, I was in a hurry and didnt have time to go back over it.

What? No, I'm just saying that if priests or w/e tried to change the bible when they were translating it, they would have to spend a ton of time on it because it isn't very easy.

[pwnaz0r]

Honestly, I can't refute some of the points you've brought forth simply because I'm not well educated in those areas, but I will try to make an argument for some things I have researched a bit, including irreducible complexity.

This page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducable_complexity#Response_of_the_scientific_ community) (please excuse the Wikipedia link) largely explains how the scientific community has tried and succeeded in proving that most of Michael Behe's claims about irreducible complexity have turned out to be false. Check out the Dover trial to see some examples of how Behe's ideas have been proven incorrect. The Wikipedia page also provides quite a bit of insight on the subject also.

Also, you seem to think convincing an atheist who doesn't speak English well at all (you even mentioned that in your post) means that you seem to have won some sort of battle (that's my perception of the events listed). If I wanted to, I could get a kindergarten student to stop believing in Santa Claus because I could use big words and seem smarter on the topic than I really am (I realize you have done research, though). It's the same situation in your 'bout' with the foreign student at your school.

Hopefully I've presented some half-decent arguments (I have been reading this thread, but I may have mentioned some things that came up before. If that's the case, please forgive me.). I'm open to new ideas, but seeing as all you've done is give some examples to possibly allude to their being an intelligent designer, I'm going to stay on the fence (while leaning towards the evolution side) for the moment.


Yes it is like a battle, and let me tell you why. People make such a big deal of it, including myself, but when I finally make someone believe it cannot be true, their response is usually "I don't care about it, it doesn't matter". I do admit I take it like a battle, but the atheists have the odds in people, they have the monopoly on scientific fact, and they come in with pre suppositions about my view that I do not hold to. I admit that I do get "fired up", but I do put many hours into this and I enjoy it.

Secondly about the not speaking english well, I don't think that is a great excuse. I use big words and I seem smarter on the topic because I have alot of expierence in argueing in general, as well as specifically intellegent design. I know what it takes to make someone think about it and not just rule it out from the top of their head. I may seem smarter because I have in fact done many many hours of research, read many books on both sides, and have carefully constructed the arguement.

About the irreducible complexity, I understand where you are coming from, but it is a technique called dillusion. They give an example that works, but it does not have the same situation truely.

In that arguement, you say

1. A part is created.
2. A use is found for it.

I can even find the quote for that. Now, the problem is, it should be switched around because things aren't just created and then not used, there is a need and then it is created. That is a big point on which that counter theory is based, and even if you do not understand it, I assure you it shakes its foundation.

I am GREATLY pleased to find that you are admiting there are some things you don't know, and that is the problem. It is taught in schools and is accepted as knowledge, but there is no solid foundation on which it is built (when I say that I mean a good solid theory) Of course, with this instance I would not say I "won the battle", because you are being rational and truely are open. Now if I constantly have to "fight" an atheist who is not open, then I would say that, as he would say if he convinced me.

[pwnaz0r]

(Different post for the claw.)


Nah dw I read the first post. I admit I didnt read the whole topic, but I was still argueing agaisnt an intelligent designer. All the things I said tied in well with why I think there wasnt an intelligent designer, if you cant see that then I didnt express myself well enough.

Theres loads of scientific evidence, I won't post it here though. I'll just link you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution, read it if you want. This is an interesting read too: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/apes.html. Goes through how the DNA of humans and apes is 97-98% identical among other things. Good luck disproving the work of hundreds of scientists and archaeologists.

And I'm not ruling out the possibility of an intelligent designer but personally I strongly believe there isnt. And nah lol I know quite a bit about the current big bang theory, and the current evolution theory. Just cause I dont post every bit of knowledge I have doesn't mean I dont know it.

What religion are you? I dont think all religions are bad or anything, I just think most are just fantasy cleverly wrapped around a small grain of truth.



Personally I think all that stuff is a load of rubbish but thats just me, lol.

EDIT - Wait, were you saying that I'm the one who cant speak english well? Or someone else? Sorry if my posts had bad grammar, I was in a hurry and didnt have time to go back over it.

But you see, all of those hundreds of scientists believe the same thing, so I must only disprove that point. Please leave the point that apes and humans DNA out of this, as creationalist scientists have confirmed, as well as evolutionist reluctantly agreed, that out of the 98%, 96% is the fact that it is DNA at all, and that we have legs and feet. DNA should not be a factor for your arguement, because if we want to look at it that way, I could say a bird's DNA is 93% the same as humans.


Also, I will go to those sites, but I have seen them before. I want you to personally research the arguements and give them to me, not some link. Because you see, scientists define fact as the thing most reasonable to be true, that there is no 100% absolute right in science. Therefore, you must look yourself.

1. There have been no fossils found, I can assure you that Claw. There was a book writen by the leader of a rather large group that believes in evolution, just not that we could come here by chance and that science is wrong about how we started, that even admitted this point (I forget the name, I heard of this yesterday though). If you own scientist admit it and so do mine, then that is around 40% of the scientists in the world. You should take a look for yourself. Today we actually had a slideshow in my class about the supposed fossil record. 90% of most of them were plastered or had clay to fill them in.

Also, as for fossils, it was proven in the mt. saint helens 2005 erruption that heating and cooling of magma can produce fossilized objects in a matter of hours.

Let me say one more thing. This article was written before december 1st, 1998. That was ten years ago, and many of the fossils have been proven fraud, a member of the ape species, or a member of the man species. Also, it seems to be disproving evolution, except for the one thing about the two flies DNA being 25% and the humans and apes being 97% or whatever. Well, again, they have disclosed the reason to why the DNA is so similar.

[Santa_Clause]

I'm pretty sure Pwnaz0r is Orthodox...like me?

[Bobarkinator]

Three monkeys sat in a coconut tree
Discussing things as they are said to be
Said one to the others, "Now listen, you two,
There’s a rumor around that can’t be true
That man descended from our noble race
The very idea is a great disgrace."

"No monkey has ever deserted his wife
Starved her babies and ruined her life
And you’ve never known a mother monk
To leave her babies with others to bunk
Or pass from one on to another
Till they scarcely knew who is their mother."

"Here’s another thing a monkey won’t do
Go out at night and get in a stew
Or use a gun or club or knife
To take some other monkey’s life
Yes, man descended, the ornery cuss
But, brother, he didn’t descend from us."


Author Unknown.

I like that poem.

[Jason2gs]

Three monkeys sat in a coconut tree
Discussing things as they are said to be
Said one to the others, "Now listen, you two,
There’s a rumor around that can’t be true
That man descended from our noble race
The very idea is a great disgrace."

"No monkey has ever deserted his wife
Starved her babies and ruined her life
And you’ve never known a mother monk
To leave her babies with others to bunk
Or pass from one on to another
Till they scarcely knew who is their mother."

"Here’s another thing a monkey won’t do
Go out at night and get in a stew
Or use a gun or club or knife
To take some other monkey’s life
Yes, man descended, the ornery cuss
But, brother, he didn’t descend from us."


Author Unknown.

I like that poem.

I like that :)

[Jackrawl]

Three monkeys sat in a coconut tree
Discussing things as they are said to be
Said one to the others, "Now listen, you two,
There’s a rumor around that can’t be true
That man descended from our noble race
The very idea is a great disgrace."

"No monkey has ever deserted his wife
Starved her babies and ruined her life
And you’ve never known a mother monk
To leave her babies with others to bunk
Or pass from one on to another
Till they scarcely knew who is their mother."

"Here’s another thing a monkey won’t do
Go out at night and get in a stew
Or use a gun or club or knife
To take some other monkey’s life
Yes, man descended, the ornery cuss
But, brother, he didn’t descend from us."


Author Unknown.

I like that poem.

I wish I knew who wrote that. That's amazing.

[pwnaz0r]

Alright, I guess that no one has any more comments to make :)? Well, I will keep this thread open and check it every few days.

[A G E N T]

Firstly, I'd like to say "wow". I read through your first post and I respect the effort and time researching you must have put into writing it.

If there's just one thing that I'd like to ask, or rather that I don't understand, is your argument about amoebae traveling through space. From what I gather, you're saying that in order for cells to reach Earth, they would have potentially had to cross billions upon billions of kilometres to reach here. If that is what you're saying, isn't also viable that they may have been transported somehow else; at the risk of being hopelessly cliche (science-fiction), on a comet, or asteroid?

At any rate. To some degree, I agree with your points but I'm not entirely convinced. I have a clear bias, because of my religion, to believe that there was intelligent design behind the creation of life, but I, nor anyone can prove or disprove that. If you've read Bill Bryson's (immensely interesting) A Short History of Nearly Everything, he presents a number of theories as to how life could have evolved from basic proteins and prokaryotes, which I won't get into now.

On a basic level, I feel that evolution could well have taken place. Your point, however, about the probability of such a perfectly improbable thing occurring is what leads me to believe that there must have been some sort of intelligent design at work. The confluence of perfectly timed events, but moreover the original creation of matter and the universe begs the question; where did it come from, or who made it?


------

It is taught in schools and is accepted as knowledge, but there is no solid foundation on which it is built (when I say that I mean a good solid theory)

Here's where I'm going to have to disagree with you. Granted, I go to a Catholic school, but as much as possible they try to steer clear of forcing any one theory upon students. It's left pretty open ended and I don't at all think it's widely accepted as fact.

[R0b0t1]

He is right: they do not force ideas upon you.


But since you didn't like the asteroid bringing life to the planet, how about a planet exploded and formed the asteroid, hmm?

[Wanted]

Forget creationism, forget evolutionists, all together.

We are all tiny insignificant humans, the most we will ever comprehend when it comes to the universe is our small understandings and guesses about understanding it (called science) and the most we will ever understand about god or anything like that (called religion) is our guesses. And the most important thing you will ever comprehend in your life time is your inability to actually comprehend anything.

To put this more simply, think about this deeply.

It's impossible to comprehend any truth, or is it?

It's simply put as we will never know anything, and I will admit it's probably stupid believe there is a truth such as we were created by evolution or that we were created by God, or is it?

We just simply, do not, can not, will not, know, ever. Or will we? Do you see where I'm going with this?

Personally I believe in some kind of God, maybe not exactly the one your minister preaches about. But I am not atheist, but I don't rule out scientific findings either, but I don't place them as the true foundations of the universe in my head.

If you really want to put your life into prospective more, take some real hard core philosophy stuff.

[Jackrawl]

Forget creationism, forget evolutionists, all together.

We are all tiny insignificant humans, the most we will ever comprehend when it comes to the universe is our small understandings and guesses about understanding it (called science) and the most we will ever understand about god or anything like that (called religion) is our guesses. And the most important thing you will ever comprehend in your life time is your inability to actually comprehend anything.

To put this more simply, think about this deeply.

It's impossible to comprehend any truth, or is it?

It's simply put as we will never know anything, and I will admit it's probably stupid believe there is a truth such as we were created by evolution or that we were created by God, or is it?

We just simply, do not, can not, will not, know, ever. Or will we? Do you see where I'm going with this?

Personally I believe in some kind of God, maybe not exactly the one your minister preaches about. But I am not atheist, but I don't rule out scientific findings either, but I don't place them as the true foundations of the universe in my head.

If you really want to put your life into prospective more, take some real hard core philosophy stuff.

Could you rewrite that in a more umm.......less 1970's fashion? I won't say you sounded like a stoner, but that was a weird way to word it. Everything you wrote was like 'Would you like pie or would you?'

[Wanted]

Could you rewrite that in a more umm.......less 1970's fashion? I won't say you sounded like a stoner, but that was a weird way to word it. Everything you wrote was like 'Would you like pie or would you?'

What I mean is there is no such thing as comprehending truth, including this statement.

When I said "or is there" that means there might be and there might not be we just simply won't ever know anything for sure (including this statement) or will we?

[Eugeniu]

Forget creationism, forget evolutionists, all together.

We are all tiny insignificant humans, the most we will ever comprehend when it comes to the universe is our small understandings and guesses about understanding it (called science) and the most we will ever understand about god or anything like that (called religion) is our guesses. And the most important thing you will ever comprehend in your life time is your inability to actually comprehend anything.

To put this more simply, think about this deeply.

It's impossible to comprehend any truth, or is it?

It's simply put as we will never know anything, and I will admit it's probably stupid believe there is a truth such as we were created by evolution or that we were created by God, or is it?

We just simply, do not, can not, will not, know, ever. Or will we? Do you see where I'm going with this?

Personally I believe in some kind of God, maybe not exactly the one your minister preaches about. But I am not atheist, but I don't rule out scientific findings either, but I don't place them as the true foundations of the universe in my head.

If you really want to put your life into prospective more, take some real hard core philosophy stuff.

If only hippie-speak could be an actual language so babelfish and worldlingo would make some sort of Hippie to English translation...

(no offence...)

[pwnaz0r]

In a way you are right Icefire. We cannot comprehend, but God did reach out to us. That's the main reason I think there is one. That is the difference in our arguements. You think we can't know ethier because we can't comprehend (or maybe we can as your analogy goes :)), but I recognized that God did reach out to us through Jesus Christ. He did perform miracles, and that is fact, now whether it was black magic or miracles from God, you choose. I think that when you read the Bible, that it is evident that he used miracles from God, since he only preached moral things and such, never did anything bad or worshipped the devil

Also, for those who say all religions are the same, that is where most religions split. Mine believes God reached out to us, which gives me at least some proof to stand on, not just complete faith.

[R0b0t1]

Give me one purely factual reason why God exists and one purely factual reason why evolution did not happen.

[mickaliscious]

Give me one purely factual reason why God exists and one purely factual reason why evolution did not happen.

Reverse that statement, then answer it yourself.

Just stopping by...
Would there be any way for you to link to your sources for this information? I like the points but some of it is hard to believe.

[R0b0t1]

No one answered my question, but fine, I'll tell you why I don't have an answer to yours.


I was not trying to argue for evolution, I was simply coming up with reasons why a god need not exist. Pwnaz0r, however, is trying to prove the existence of a god, which is a somewhat specific thing. I have come up with facts that may lead to the belief of the lack of a god, which are still theories, like Pwnaz0r's.


Thus, this is where all of these arguments end: Each side asking the other with proof that is not a theory. I can bet that for each 'fact' you come up with for the existence of a god, I could come up with one that helps evolution's side.

[Eugeniu]

No one answered my question, but fine, I'll tell you why I don't have an answer to yours.


I was not trying to argue for evolution, I was simply coming up with reasons why a god need not exist. Pwnaz0r, however, is trying to prove the existence of a god, which is a somewhat specific thing. I have come up with facts that may lead to the belief of the lack of a god, which are still theories, like Pwnaz0r's.


Thus, this is where all of these arguments end: Each side asking the other with proof that is not a theory. I can bet that for each 'fact' you come up with for the existence of a god, I could come up with one that helps evolution's side.

Talking about it is not the same as posting it. I could tell you I had a hundred complete facts on why a god exists but they'd be useless if I didn't post them.

We are humans (except you, I'm guessing you're a robot?), and humans can't even get off this tiny spec in this huge universe of ours by themselves thanks to gravity. I'm guessing we know around 0.00000000000000000000001% of all the information out there. We'd have to know a complete 100% to prove ANYTHING. So that is why we must follow the more convincing theory. But thanks to all the scientists out there that are pro-evolutionary (and thats most of them) that are making theory after theory with no beginning, and thanks to the primary thing that is taught in school, you kind of just feel like evolution is right.

[Wanted]

In a way you are right Icefire. We cannot comprehend, but God did reach out to us. That's the main reason I think there is one. That is the difference in our arguements. You think we can't know ethier because we can't comprehend (or maybe we can as your analogy goes :)), but I recognized that God did reach out to us through Jesus Christ. He did perform miracles, and that is fact, now whether it was black magic or miracles from God, you choose. I think that when you read the Bible, that it is evident that he used miracles from God, since he only preached moral things and such, never did anything bad or worshipped the devil

Also, for those who say all religions are the same, that is where most religions split. Mine believes God reached out to us, which gives me at least some proof to stand on, not just complete faith.

That's part of the reason why I believe in a God.

[Dan Cardin]

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind bogglingly useful(*note everything in this parenthesis isnt part of the quote*...the useful thing is the babel fish :)) could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as final and clinching proof of the nonexistance of God.

the argument goes something like this:

I refuse to prove that i exist for proof denies faith, and without faith i am nothing.

but the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguements, you dont exist. QED.

Oh dear, I hadnt thought of that.and God promptly vanishes in a puff of logic

Oh, that was easythen man goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing then u just replace the Babel fish with humans ;)


A hole had just appeared in the galaxy. It was exactly a nothingth of a second long, and a nothingth of an inch wide, and quite a lot of millions of light-years from end to end. The nothingth of a second for which the hole existed reverberated backward and forward in time ina most improbable fashion. Somewhere in the deeply remote past it seriously traumatized a small random group of atoms drifting through the empty sterility of space and made the cling together in the most extraordinarily unlikely patterns. These patterns learned to copy themselves and went on to cause massive trouble on every planet that they drifted on to. This was how life began in the Universe Not exactly relevant 100% but i thought it was an interesting way to think about it :)

[red eyes 20]

great argument, i would give you rep++ but it says i already have... lol.

[R0b0t1]

All of these 'facts' are not actually facts, they are just ratios that mean nothing.


Or something like that, it seems useless to argue against you people because you can't seem to read the big red "NOT PROVABLE" sticker slapped on the whole argument.

[PriSoner]

I don't know why i'm even bothering responding to this brainless bunkum.

It all sounds very good and very scientific but none of it is based on any science fact at all.. in fact it all appears to be just random figures pulled out of the air to try and sound like it's based on some kind of calculated data.

Lets start and finish by disecting this piece of text which you quote numerous times throughout this thread.

Again, you forget that the probability of even one single cell evolving in the primordial seas would take much more time than it takes a single ameba to transport ever single atom into our universe one universe over. It takes an ameba 15,000 years to move the width of a hydrogen atom.

Based on what maths? Amoeba move at 2 to 3 microns a second. The diameter of a hydrogen atom at room temperature averages 100 picometers which is 10'000th of a micron. So it would appear that an amoeba would actually be able to move the width of 10k hydrogen atoms in under a second? A far cry from your 15,000 years to move the width of just one!?


Our universe is 55 billion light years long.
Our Universe is at least 93 Billion Light Years Across..

There are 2.7 (trillion ? maybe billion :)) miles in a light year.
There are nearly 5.9 Trillion miles in a light year given that light travels at 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum that would be: 5,878,625,373,184 Light Years.
I mean where on earth did you get 2.7 trillion from? It's completely wrong by any standard. You even added a decimal point to make it sound like an realistic factual number based on an educated knowledge instead of one you just made up!

So do 55 billion * 2.7 trillion and thats how many miles that ameba must travel. So how many hydrogen atoms are in a mile?

Given that all the previous FACTS were in fact WRONG then these calculations are meaningless.. and of course wrong.


If you have even studied any sort of science that involves atoms, you know that the hydrogen atom is of course the smallest atom, and that number is too high for you are I to count. so lets see.
So lets see.. You try to belittle the educationally challenged by stating that they should of course know that the smallest atom is the hydrogen atom. Of course any fule with any knowledge of science would kno that the helium atom is the smallest atom and not hydrogen..


55 billion * 2.7 (trillion, again might be billion) * (the amount of hyrdrogen atoms in a mile, which is astronomical) * 15,000 years. Thats how long it would take to move one atom there. Don't forget it must go back also. Imagine it did this for all you family, friends, their cars, their houses, all the water on the earth, everything on the earth, the sun, everthing in space, everything in the universe. If you want the exact number, I believe it is 10 to the 161,091 power. Thats 161,091 zeroes after the 1. The chance is even slimmer than that.
Again the maths is completely wrong and therefore meaningless but also as many have pointed out before, in an infinite universe every possibility is probable no matter how improbable!


Don't believe me? This was an evolutionist mathematician (he had a major in math at the university of princeton) who believed this at first, who later became a creationalist.
Ahhh so you know where he got his qualifications and his somewhat shaky maths but you don't know his name? The fact that he had a major in maths from princeton is completely irrelavent. Numerous people obtain Majors in maths every year from princeton. I don't know, but from experience I would guess that the vast majority of them believe in evolution and not creationism. I also know I could quote many more much more qualified people than a lowly mathematician from princeton to back up the opposite theory.


Now, our extrememly advanced scientists today can't make a cell in a lab with much more resources, way more chemicals to choose from, and an actual plan to look at to make one. Heck, they can't even make a cell membrane, the easiest part of a cell. Anyways, by saying that this "cell" evolved in the primordial seas contridicts the who purpose because oxygen would rush so fast into the cell that it would explode. Now scientists are trying to find evidence that it could have evolved in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, which they have not found it can survive by the way.
Now our extremely advanced scientists are close to but have not yet created organic life in a lab. They of course do not have more chemicals than those that were available in the primordial soup and they do not have an infinite amout of resources and time either!


Keep in mind, that equation above is just for a cell, not for anything like amino acids, the "random" make-up of the 4 billion perfectly designed nitrogen bases in the double-helix shape of DNA, which by the way is the perfect design(go figure) for unzipping and zipping as well as packaging the DNA inside the nucleus.
Keep in mind that pwnaz0r's equations above are just a set of random numbers pulled out of the air to sound impressive and scientific.

Please Please Please people don't get sucked into the "I don't understand it, the numbers are too big so it can't be true" crap! It wasn't long ago that it would have been heresy to say that the earth moved around the sun or that the world was round etc etc....

Edt
Douglas Adams R.I.P. he had a brain the size of a planet!

[R0b0t1]

He's partly saying what I was saying; which is that there is no complete randomness and that the numbers would not in that case be that big.


If someone such as Pwnaz0r keeps talking about 'adapting' to a different view (forgot the word) of something, why can't he understand nothing can be proven?

[moosildinho]

You sure have done your homework! very nice points, have only breezed over it but i definately agree that there are major floors in the theory of evolution. And i am 100% a science-based person (in no way in favour of creationism). Take the 2nd rule of thermodynamics (first if u start with Zeroth): "In any process, the total energy of the universe remains at large." I.E. (and we've all heard it in science) Energy cannot be created or destroyed. If you hold this to be true, then Evolution is impossible because technically, all that exists must have always existed. Now i don't think there is any value in disproving Creationism, it is dead to me, but i guess it depends on the value that you place on science. It is going to be the sort of argument that will never be solved, and can never be solved. anyways nice thread i really enjoy reading the array of ideas people have about how they got here :)

[kryptonite]

very impressive pwnaz0r, I believe in creationism and also in God. You must have spent alot of time working on that. I also go to a private school, no one really understands private schoolers. Thanks for your work.

I can understand why it is so hard for people to believe that God created the universe, I find myself questioning it all the time. It just takes faith, ofcourse it is hard to believe in something you cant see

Billy Graham - "I can see the effects of the wind, doesnt mean i can see the wind"

I cant see God but everyday i can see the effects of him.

[Hurgymcgurgygurg]

Note* I am just answering the questions use raise, or answering why the questions you raised are insufficient, un-intellectual, or out right false.

Let me start out by saying a few things...

After reading this article in its entirety, I noticed a few things about its content.



First off, you clearly have either made yourself blind to science since you became a creationist, or you are poorly educated in many of these matters and have ironically done the very thing you warn your readers against. You have fallen into the trap of simply believing what others say with out investigating what they say. Your article contains many false facts, and is in many ways outdated with information that might have been true twenty years ago, but sadly for you is not the case anymore.

I would also like to say, I am not trying to flame you at all, I am merely trying to expose to you the false beliefs you hold within this document, if you do truly believe its entirety. Please be open minded. I was when I read your article, however the blatant lack of understanding may have prejudiced me against considering further knowledge.

Another thing I must say is, disproving evolution does not prove creationism, although as I am about to show you, this is far from disproving evolution. Let me give you and example right here and now. If I disprove that I broke someones window, does that mean Joe Bob in the far corner over there did it? Of course not! This is the central concept of why you can not do this. Even if you believe this disproves evolution, you are not doing a single thing to prove creationism. The next thing I must say is, to say something is unexplained is not to say it is unexplainable! You will see what I mean in the next few pages.

I will now examine your article against evolution from its beginning to its end, covering every point of misunderstanding contained within it. Again, I am trying to inform you, if anything is wrong with what I have said please feel free to respond.

I am sorry, but my knowledge of this website is limited, so I will have to type out quotations from you since I do not know how to embed only specific parts of a post.

You have said: “This is not a difficult idea. NO SCIENTIST OR MATHEMATICIAN WILL EVER ARGUE THE FACT THAT THE NUMBER LINE IS NOT INFINITE IN ALL OF THESE ASPECTS.
Some do however. My question is how is this different from our society and God .”

Well you ask a question, so why don't I answer it. Yes the number line is infinite... Now what is the number line? It is a non-existent tool used to detonate counting! We use numbers to define things in certain ways, they are not some solid entity existing forever. I really do not see how this compares to God, since numbers are a human creation at least the way we see them, and once again, to say one thing is such and such is not to say another is.

You have said: “things inn the universe do not happen without a cause, or it would be considered chaos. I could go through a whole list of examples of things that have causes and effects, but I will not to save time. If you can find one thing that can come without cause, please do tell. There is nothing, believe me I have searched. Everything in space has a cause.”

This I can not blame you for not knowing since it is quite advanced, and you will not receive this education unless you chose to pursue it at the university level. However, everything in space does NOT have a cause. On the scale of the very small, things begin acting very weird. This is called Quantum Mechanics, and guess what happens on this level of reality? Cause and effect break down. We have observed atoms popping in and out of existence by the result of no cause, and too no effect, they simply annihilate each other and disappearing, again to no cause, and to no effect (Except in one case involving black holes, but then again, it is way over your head likely)

Up to this point, I can say okay, you just have not received a proper education and that your ignorance has caused you to doubt scientific fact.

But this is where it starts to disgust me.

You have said: “Again, you forget that the probability of even one single cell evolving in the primordial seas would take much more time than it takes a single ameba to transport ever single atom into our universe one universe over. It takes an ameba 15,000 years to move the width of a hydrogen atom.”

I am sorry but this is about as false as saying chickens shoot lasers from there eyes. An amoeba is a single celled organism, that can move at a good speed of a few tens of micrometers a second, or about 10,000 hydrogen atoms. If things moved as slow as you say they do in this case, it would take billions of years for a single cell to divide, trillions of years for a baby to be born... Yep, thats how absurd this is.

That post you made is really just a string of unrelated numbers, meant to confuse and deceive. It is a poorly constructed example that is very much propagandistic in nature. Having no relevance to the subject at hand. Also, in order to start things going in the way towards life, you do not need a full cell. In fact, many models of early cellular origin just need a simple set of 5 or 6 enzymes to start the early stages of a metabolic cycle resembling life. We have observed events similar to this.

You have also said: “Now, our extrememly advanced scientists today can't make a cell in a lab with much more resources, way more chemicals to choose from, and an actual plan to look at to make one. Heck, they can't even make a cell membrane,”

This is where I say you have made yourself blind to science, in the last twenty years we have made great leaps and bounds. Just in the last few months, we successfully created the first cell by fully replacing the DNA in an old cell that was dead, with completely new DNA, creating a completely new and artificial cell how we wanted it to be. Now about the cell membrane? Guess what here, another thing you do not know about! If you stick a group of phospholipids (Which have been shown to be made by nature) in a water solution, they will form a sphere! Thats the skeleton of the cell membrane, and don't try the oxygen thing, early Earth had much less oxygen today, and water dose not allow for this.

Irreducible Complexity

Again this is a where have you been in the last twenty years question?

Just look at the web page method has posted, I am not going to sit here and explain this stuff to you. It has been proven to reasonable abilities through evolution that these structures can be formed...

I'm sorry I have to quote this entire two paragraphs: “Now, look at this DNA Model. Scientists cannot make one of these. They have no idea how it formed this way, such a complex shape, perfect for packaging in a cell. Perfect for unzipping and letting RNA come in and get the exact right information every time. By the way, how do these mindless, evolved enzymes find their way through 4 billion nitrogen bases and get the exact right information? Scientists do not know. Compare it to looking blindly through 10 million libraries and finding the exact 5 books you need to do your book report, there are no double copies in these libraries though. Also pretend you do not know how to read (because remember, the cell was evolved, so the RNA goes in as the enyzme unzips the DNA all at once, and just as the RNA assembles one RNA base, the DNA zips back up, so when this RNA exits the nucleus, the protein that folds it into its exact right shape everytime would not know what it was doing, remember, its random... the organizing of 400+ amino acids.), yet you still write the report and get a 100...

If you saw the picture above in New York city, imagine each nitrogen base is a level of floor (10 feet standard). This would be 40 billion ft tall, although I do not know meters, I believe it would be around 13 billion meters? Anyways, look at the design, you can see it. It's a double helix, for goodness sake. Even Watson and Crick, the two scientists who discovered the shape of DNA said that it was too complex not to be designed. I bet you hadn't heard that in science class right? Please remember not to forget that this random makeup of 4 billion nitrogen bases into the perfect shape, a double helix of all things, with always matching pairs out of the 4 bases used, which is smaller than even a cell's nucleus, yet it codes for you entire body, everything that makes you and if you have ever taken anatomy you know thats alot, is all random”

There is a lot to show you here.... Lets get started. I will go in chronological order of what you have to say.

Once again, where have you been in the last twenty years? We make molecules of DNA all the time! Ever heard of something called Gene Therapy, its in stage two clinical trials by the FDA, its basically modifying you genes to cure some diseases, and yes we can do that now. Next, DNA is not all that complicated, once again you being using scare tactics... We know how DNA forms, single strands of DNA are naturally attracted to each other by their hydrogen bonds, and in order to use the least amount of energy, form a helix. Then you ask about how it fits RNA, first off it gets the sequence right by a simple fact of chemistry, opposite charges repel, it can not form any other way, Adenine pairs with Thymine and Guanine pairs with Cytosine. DNA is actually simpler than our alphabet, which has 26 letters and not just 4! I must say right here an now, DO NOT SPEAK ABOUT WHAT YOU DO NOT KNOW! You are just exposing your ignorance! Now we continue, once again where have you been in the last twenty years? DNA has specific coding blocks, where these enzymes recognize it and begin replication, these enzymes are substrate specific, they only work where these codings are, so they only used when they are needed, which is determined by Histones, proteins which cover DNA that is not needed and stabilize it. Also DNA does not always have 4 billion base pairs! The entirety of all 26 chromosomes is barely 4 billion base pairs. Some bacteria have just a million base pairs. Now about the zipping and unzipping, DNA molecules are chemically attracted to each other, actually when DNA is read it is forced open and is only kept open by the copying mechanisms once they are done replicating, they leave and the DNA snaps shut. Also the Human body only uses 21 amino acids, of which only 4 are used in DNA. Now you go back to structure... DNA is chemically determined to be this shape the perfect shape is the only shape DNA can be! Its not engineered like that, it simply forms like that.

Well, thats it! I honestly believe you need to take Chemistry and Biology before talking about this as if it is your own words! You are blindly believing, you MUST educate yourself! I look forward to your response and continued debate, and please for the love of God, don't pick at one part, take this challenge head on, I took yours, and answer it to its entirety.

[Korbman]

Hurgymcgurgygurg, you do realize that a lot of the questions you have answered have already been answered in other posts, right? I see that you have gone more in depth with some of the questions, and I also agree with pretty much everything you have to say, but there is no need to repeat what has already been said. Oh, and on the bottom right hand side of every post is a button called 'quote'. You can use that to get the quotes you want from various posts.
You put up a very good Q&A session, Rep++ for you :)

[Yakman]

One theme I've found in this thread is that there arn't any fossils which show something halfway between a species.
there was even someone saying
"There is evolutions within species, but not between them"

apart from disagreeing with your book of Genesis, it is also wrong.
there are many fossils like this, one is of something which is half-bird, half-dinosaur, after some time googling, i found its name is Archaeopteryx (http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=archaeopteryx&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2)

it has feathers and wings, but also has teeth and a jaw.



You know what I've noticed about creationists, you only attack the parts which are poorly researched by scientists, if there is a gap in the fossil record.
You try to explain these gaps by saying god did it, and if a new fossil comes up that neatly bisects this gap, you claim there are twice as many gaps :p
You are worshipping a god of gaps, everything else is left to science.



I dont see how you can attack the Theory of Evolution, but accept other theories, like the Theory of Atoms.
We've never seen atoms, we can only deduce they exist.
We know they contain positive and negative charges, because when you ionise them, they can be influenced by magnets.
There was a guy called Rutherford, he fired positive alpha particles at gold foil, and noticed some of them bounced back, this implies it has most of its mass inside a small nucleus at the center.

these are only what we imply by experiments and evidence, you accept this but you dont accept evolution?



Another thing is, a lot of people are saying something along these lines, "you cannot prove god exists, but you cannot prove god does not exist".
What is being brought into the argument here is probability.
your statment is implying that the probability of god existing is 50%. This is simply not the case,

lets say you have a 6-sided die, and you can say this, "you cannot prove I will get a 6, but you cannot prove I will not get a 6"
The probability of throwing a 6 is not 50%, it is one sixth.
The probability of god existing is not 50%, but in light of the evidence, I'd say its something like 2% or 1%.
If all the evidence pointed towards creation, I'd be the first to say it, but it does not, the evidence points to evolution.




you know I was thinking about creationist motives, why you are so intent on attacking science.
I think you have some kind of identity crisis, your parents and their parents all thought their relegion was correct, but now science has come along, with its rational thinking, and you are left feeling very very insecure.
you have an identity crisis, you want to believe in relegion because you want to respect your elders, but science seems to make so much sence.
so you come up with all these hybrid, scientific explainations, god-of-gaps arguments.



some people are saying, "there's no point arguing on the internet because no-ones opinion will change".
I have to disagree with this, ok probabily no-one will read this and immediatly change his mind, but it does turn the pressure up.
the heat goes up on your thoughts, you feel like you're in a pressure cooker and the only way to drop the temprature is to rationlise your thoughts.
To all people who doubt their relegions, I say jump in, the water is cold but refreshing.

[Jacobdm0]

What is this world coming to?

[Wanted]

This entire topic is trivial, you could be doing something constructive right now instead.