Arguments for God's Existance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santa_Clause

However, scientists have tried to create living cells, but they can't. They tried to prove their theories by showing that it's possible to create life with a bunch of amino acids, but they failed.

---

Yep, unfortunatly the ability to witness this first hand is much more dificult. It is clear that it doesnt just fall together, like creating the amino acids.

I wouldn't say that it is imposible though, i think it highly probable, based on the results of the miller experiment, that with enough time and energy you would get some life.

But even acording to the scientist own little evolution timeline, it shows that the early life forms took the longest time to really.. well.. get going on into something better. So i don't think the scientist were surprised or disapointed their experiments didnt create more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiki

Sugars, lipids, and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids were also formed. Nucleic acids (DNA, RNA) themselves were not formed.

---

So yeah, i still find that absolutly facinating and amazing enough to really be taken back a little. Perhaps that is just me, but i find it amazing that out of nothing but basic material, the more complex building blocks just, naturaly start putting themselfs together.

Here is something I have noticed, that I think should be chaken up a little bit. Religion is not about , the bigining, at all really. In fact it has almost nothing to do with it. How the earth was created, when where and why, has absolutly nothing to do with our current lives (and or slavataion if you will). There is really no reason for it to be there, and no necisary requirement for it either. Honestly, with all the controversy it has caused, it may have been better to just leave any aludes to how it was created out of the bible (but hey, he is wizer then me, im just syaing that to make a point).

Look, i know humans have this big desiere to know what we all came from, and they feel like this is somehow very important, and i can understand that too. But it does not mean that suddnely relgion is really about that, just because it mentions it.

And what's even more noteworthy, is that discussing it really doesn't provide any proof for or against God.

Here, let me show you what I mean. For arguments purpose, assume that they let this miller sort of experiment go on, and eventually single celled life was created. Aplaud fame amazing woo hoo. But does this suddenly prove that man can make life, and that there is nothing special about god? Not at all. I wouldn't be surpised if an experiment eventualy does do this , and i would just be in the same scine of amazement at how god made the earth so perfectly just , work itself correctly like this.

It doesnt take god out of the picture at all. Scientist may claim that there is no need for religion, as they can explain the beggining much better now. But that's hardly the case. sure, in an athiest point of view, you can sleep a little better knowing that you know a little bit more about the begining, and put a little bit more of that desire to know about the begning away.( i would sleep better because of that too :) )

but in a religion perspective (or at least mine), this is not humans creating life at all. This is just them observising the natural way god set it up to work.

I hope i kinda got my point acros, i think i did a bad job at the end, let me know what i missed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackLKrawl

Another example would be the Holocaust. Did you know that they no longer teach it in England and parts of Europe because Muslims do not believe in it? Hundreds of thousands of people were murdered, and they just get waved goodbye in their history books because a dangerous population does not believe the Holocaust happened.

---

i should know, as i live in England,
you're overestimating how powerful the muslim lobby is here, its not as powerful as, say the jewish lobby in america,

we do learn about the holocaust, in fact a few months ago we had a holocaust survivor come to our school to tell us what it was like.

that seems exactly the sort of the you would be told in america, which was always very sympathetic to jewish people and israel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordGregGreg

I have yet to find one instance of it.

---

Evolution, There you go,

one of the chief ideas of Gods is that they/he created everything,
evolution says that didn't happen,

ok ok, look at it this way,
if evolution agreed with god so much, how come so many christians are so critical against it?
since the start, the christian religion had lots of beef against evolution,
its very difficult for you LordGregGreg, as a christian to convince us that evolution works for you, it does not, it works very much against you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordGregGreg

"lazy" is just a perspective. Think what you like, but all of these scientific laws, how everyhting works, that is his doing. It is not lazy in my eyes... perhaps setting something up that runs prety much on its own is lazy to you, who cares, trivial point.

---

sure, just shrug it off, saying its trivial :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordGregGreg

Some people do, yes. It makes some seince though, when new science comes out, it lets you get a little bit more insight to how god does his stuff. I have yet to see anything, other than human interpretations, be changed.

---

so why is it that the church harshly put down Copernicus and Galilei,
you only change your interpretations when you have no hope, all other times, you view the speaker as a threat and kill them,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordGregGreg

sure, that is obviously bull, complelty trying to cover up a mistake. But look, there is nothing in my religious texts that sais anything about the earth being in the center. In fact, this realm of though origonated back in greek times, aristotle and his crew thought it up, not the bible.

Sure, any religions where you belive in what someone else interprets is just asking for stupid mistakes based on ignorance. Anything based on a belief i god, is not .

---

again, if theres nothing in the religious texts about earth being the center of the universe, why was Copernicus treated so harshly for even suggesting it was the third rock from the sun?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordGregGreg

I happen to see these things in agreance. Or at least mostly. I don't see anything wrong with that either.

---

creation says that monkeys and humans do not come from a common ancestor,
evolution says they do
therefore, they contradict each other, and they cant both be true

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordGregGreg

but I can, and they are. It is not blantant at all, expect to the people who belivive that God phyisically and in real 7 days us time build up an earth, with distinkt stages of population.

---

what if find sooo funny is how you pick and choose which parts of the bible are figurative, and which are not,
theres absolutely no guide to what is symbolic and what is real,
you guys are just picking and choosing, and there is no guarantee that you haven't made a mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yakman

ok ok, look at it this way,
if evolution agreed with god so much, how come so many christians are so critical against it?

---

I am not really sure. It isn't exactly how these people were taught you know? and humans seem to take these "origonation" issues pretty seriously, and it was probably pretty important to them {philisophically) when they understood the answer that they had. Must be hard to let go of that. specaily when you dont have to.
I was talking with jack on pms, so lumping me in with most chritians probably is not acurate, as you have noticed. Unfortunatly I am not sure why they find evolution so .. against them. Honeslty, if you take the facts of evolution, leave out the drawn conclusions people made about natural selection being the only determinign factor of what lives on, there is really nothing against god there at all. I supose it is all just a perspechttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2120/2052732965_348f3629d0_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2120/...29d0_o.jpgtive. If my vision of god was him stricklty placing animals that he already had preconfigured out of his head, and populating the earth in a day, then yeah, evolution goes against that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yakman

since the start, the christian religion had lots of beef against evolution,
its very difficult for you LordGregGreg, as a christian to convince us that evolution works for you, it does not, it works very much against you.

---

Ok, well, then let me better define myself. I am a christian because I belive in god, jesus as a savior, and the bible. Shedding off any church stuff that is normally associated with chrisitans, i really do not see how it goes against me.

here, its pretty simple, almost everything about creation is in genesis, and its is pretty short. Given what I have already said.. and how I interpret it, do you see something working against me? I must have missed it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yakman

so why is it that the church harshly put down Copernicus and Galilei,
you only change your interpretations when you have no hope, all other times, you view the speaker as a threat and kill them,

---

Yes, i have noticed that. Prety sad and disgracefull if you ask me. Some people get so.. solid and stubornly brainwashed into their beliefs.. they fail to still see things. I have noticed that churches can have a very good foundation, with the bible, jesus, god, etc, but still, once a bunch of people get involved and start interpreting it, and then teaching their interpretation as true.. and then power and money gets involved, it become corupt very quickly.

Remeber, these times when galilei was in hot water, are around the same time when priest were accepting money to save people from hell, lol. I am going to go out on a limb here, and be a little judgmental, but that is rediculously corrupt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yakman

again, if theres nothing in the religious texts about earth being the center of the universe, why was Copernicus treated so harshly for even suggesting it was the third rock from the sun?

---

well, the church took upon the greek belifs and probably had some important people publish important stuff saying it was correct. something like "I , the pope under direct influceof god, know beyond dobt that the earth is the center of the entire universe!" and so therefore, although having nothing to do with christ or the bible, it sudenly become heracy to notice anything otherwize.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yakman

creation says that monkeys and humans do not come from a common ancestor,
evolution says they do
therefore, they contradict each other, and they cant both be true

---

Indeed. Which is why I do not really accept all of the corelations that evolution draws. To let you see what i mean... my point of view is this. Evolution, fossils, etc, show a patern of improivment. In modern day we do see that some of the simple forms of natural selection do work (bird beaks for instance). But that is what I consider adaptation, which works based on natural selection. With the creation, it happened around the same way, but there was much more divine interaction, many advancements were jumped to or forced by a divine guidance.
so no, i do not think that monkeys adapted into humans. They have prety remarkable similarities, but i think, in a whole new step (or day) god created humans in his own image.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yakman

what if find sooo funny is how you pick and choose which parts of the bible are figurative, and which are not,
theres absolutely no guide to what is symbolic and what is real,
you guys are just picking and choosing, and there is no guarantee that you haven't made a mistake.

---

Right. There is no garuntee that a mistake has not been made. That is critical to understand. Anything that I say is just mearly my human interpretation of moses' vision (genesis). Given me, with more or less knowledge and experiences, may say something diferent. It is crutial to note that a belif in god and the bible is not, and can not be tied to peoples interpretation of it.

as for picking and choosing, it really is not at random, although it may seem to. Visions have lots of simplifications, symbolism, and weird wacky stuff in them that is figurative (or maybe not, but that would just be crazy). Same with most profecies as well, just with a bit more acurate interpreation added in. (why? because a profecy comes from a vision ;) )
So that is pretty much the gist of it. Jesus also spoke in parabels allot, and used symbolism, so there is some figurative stuff in what he sais too.

For an absolute definative answer about something, im afraid that you wil just have to pray about it to know how to take it. My only point is, (in a religious perspective) that it is not at random.


Edit: So i dont double post. and on a completly diferent topic. This one being the whole, religoun people are sesitive stuff. Not saying that they are or are not, but get a load of this. Video game to kill religious leaders! Amazing, even athiesm you can take to a zealout point.
http://www.switched.com/2008/06/08/a...lical-figures/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R0b0t1

Yes, you are right. It takes plenty of time. Billions of years for the noise to make something useful.

---

You're forgetting the claim that life takes very specific circumstances. As I see it, life wouldn't form a cell over billions of years.

@Yak
Eww, bad source.
o_O

It would as long as the necessary chemicals were present.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordGregGreg

i do not think that monkeys adapted into humans. They have prety remarkable similarities, but i think, in a whole new step (or day) god created humans in his own image.

---

well they did,
and will all due respect, its not for you to decide who evolved into who,

also, modern day monkeys will never become humans, they are going on their own path,
there is a lot of this human-chauvinism these days, people think that all evolution is to get to the end result: humans, which is simply not the case.

monkeys and humans shared a common ancestor in the past, and one part of them eventually became humans, and another part eventually became monkeys.

Australopithecus was the species which was our common ancestor, there is a collection of fossils showing how they became humans, and another collection showing how they became monkeys,



also another thing, if God made humans in his own image, which humans did he make?
did he make black humans, white humans, asians, viking, mediterraneans, somalians, chinese, arabs, slavs, aryans,
I realise this puts you in a very difficult position, because whatever you answer, it will imply that all other races are lesser, and many people will cry racist over this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordGregGreg

Anything that I say is just mearly my human interpretation of moses' vision (genesis).

---

moses is never mentioned in Genesis,
he first appears in Exodus,
surely you've read your bible? (unless you were talking about another moses, in another book which just happens to be called genesis)


so LordGregGreg, respond, especially with the question about which race of humans God made.

i know i said i was out of this, but i was thinking: Why are there some atheists that hate Christians so much? Maybe this belongs on another topic... just wondering though.

No one has denied the existence of micro evolution, Yak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jackrawl

No one has denied the existence of micro evolution, Yak.

---

i never mentioned microevolution or macroevolution, they are exactly the same process, but it seems the seperating of those two is popular with creationists,
this is typical of creationists, any evolutionary change, even if its bacteria changing into snail, it described by them as "just microevolution"

if you really want to seperate them, i was talking about macroevolution, which was denied by LordGregGreg,
where Australopithecus becomes human, and Australopithecus becomes monkey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yakman

well they did,
and will all due respect, its not for you to decide who evolved into who,

---

Well, it is possible that they did, I am really just trying to make the best conclusion I can with what I know. But I also think i have a little bit of validity too, so long as I see the same evidence the scientest did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yakman

also, modern day monkeys will never become humans, they are going on their own path,
there is a lot of this human-chauvinism these days, people think that all evolution is to get to the end result: humans, which is simply not the case.

monkeys and humans shared a common ancestor in the past, and one part of them eventually became humans, and another part eventually became monkeys.

Australopithecus was the species which was our common ancestor, there is a collection of fossils showing how they became humans, and another collection showing how they became monkeys,

---

Yes, I am familiar with this. It may very well be true as well. Genesis says he made man out of dirt. And unfortuantly, that can be taken to mean quite allot. I looked at the evolution stuff, and it does seem to make logical seince. I still am quite convinced that because of the speed and luck involved, it was definatly god driven. Not to mention that with natural selection, it says that the monkey-monkeys were better surviving then the human-monkeys, because the human monkeys died off, leading to more human-humans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yakman

also another thing, if God made humans in his own image, which humans did he make?
did he make black humans, white humans, asians, viking, mediterraneans, somalians, chinese, arabs, slavs, aryans,
I realise this puts you in a very difficult position, because whatever you answer, it will imply that all other races are lesser, and many people will cry racist over this.

---

well, i really don't care what people cry. Anyhow, yes, in his image, and I always took that to mean, shape, size, two arms, two legs, etc. As far as color.. that gets harder to tell, expecialy trying to use the bible as a source. Anyone who claimed to have seen god either saw him, unhuman, or saw him super white, probably just from the mass amounts of light flooding him. so that realy doesnt say anything about color at all. Jesus, when he was on earth the first time, was the child of mary. So his skin color would have been the same as hers. Whats that make him.. hmhm, kinda brown-tanish? im not sure what color the jews in jerusalem were, but you can find it.
Now, as for adam and eve, your guess is as good as mine. I think you have noticed by now that the bible has very little information about the beggining,and i think that is on purpose, as it reallyis not meant to answer these "origion" questions, although people want answers for them so bad and take it as such.

so, because of a lack on info there, and really nothing insightful when i prayed about it. So, this then forces me to turn to science and check out the information and conclusions they have there. Most sources i found seem to point to africa as the origion.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ation_map4.png

which would make the first humans black. But you are welcome to look more into that yourself, there is a ton of information about it. I sujest you dig down to the facts and make your own idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yakman

moses is never mentioned in Genesis,
he first appears in Exodus,
surely you've read your bible?

---

Yeah, i know. He was the author of it, not, part of it. It may be more of mormon doctrine for the definative answer that he was the actual author, but I am pretty sure that most christians have relised this as well. And it is quite obvious that this was at least a vision of someone, and not written in real time watching it happen, lol.


as my last note, i think you pointed out something that I did not see earlier. A point where evolution seems to come in a more direct conflict with the bible. And that would be the fact that humans are in no way ultimate, and are really just part of a larger, infinately expanding chain of evolution. The bible seems prety hard against that, in the fact that humans are made in gods image, and therefore, are pretty ultimate. (note, that just because geneiss stops with mankind, doesnt mean creation is still occurring, and also note, that just because god gave man dominion over the earth, does not mean that they will not have it at some future time, these trains of logic are flawwed, the critical one is where he sais man was made in his image).

EDIT!!!! Thanks to dusk!
Before wiki mentioned how the farthest these experiments could go was to make amino acids. Well, this is not true. I have another experiment that can turn them into peptide chains if you add some copper.
http://www.tesisenxarxa.net/TESIS_UA...6//arg1de2.pdf
http://www.tesisenxarxa.net/TESIS_UA...6//arg2de2.pdf

The people of Africa are black supposedly because of the amount of sun there. As far as I know, we dont have the skin of the first humans, meaning they may not have been black, even though they werent white.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isjusme

The people of Africa are black supposedly because of the amount of sun there. As far as I know, we dont have the skin of the first humans, meaning they may not have been black, even though they werent white.

---

yes, thats very possible. what is the skin color of most monkeys?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordGregGreg

yes, thats very possible. what is the skin color of most monkeys?

---

i has no idea... i dont examine monkeys that often

Pink.

Ah. hence the name monkey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yakman

i never mentioned microevolution or macroevolution, they are exactly the same process, but it seems the seperating of those two is popular with creationists,
this is typical of creationists, any evolutionary change, even if its bacteria changing into snail, it described by them as "just microevolution"

if you really want to seperate them, i was talking about macroevolution, which was denied by LordGregGreg,
where Australopithecus becomes human, and Australopithecus becomes monkey

---

???
Typical of creationists? What you're saying is that if I went in and bred one horse, that I created a completely different species because it is, in some way, unique due to the collection of genes. Macroevolution is unproven and cannot be observed. Microevolution is proven and can be observed. Big difference. One isn't Science, which is, incidentally, Darwin's Evolution, which ultimately states that nonliving matter can turn matter, which disobeys Science as we know it.

Lets face it, you just tried to call Black to Chinese to White Evolution. It's not - politically, or scientifically.

Oh wait, I bet thats typical of creationists as well? Well, if it's so typical of creationists, I'm sure you'll have an answer that doesn't scream "We have no evidence" like "Typical of creationists" or "Crazy stuff happens over a long period of time." Give me proof, not words with no backing.

Okay, about the whole synthesis of life thing, creationist love saying, how did DNA and RNA form, and claim that there is no evidence for this being possible.

Well, this argument is starting to look shabby, since it has now been shown that DNA and RNA's pre-cursors, Uracil and Xanthine, can and have formed spontaneously outside Earth, and contamination was not possible.

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandev...9?newsid=38534

In this very thread I think it has been said multiple times that nucleic acids have never been formed before.

And to Yak's original proof of God's Existence, quantum gravity, specifically Casual Dynamical Triangulations Quantum Gravity, allows for a self-assembling and self-organizing universe. The random interaction of individual motes of space-time determined by proven properties of each mote, can result in the ordered and seemingly "Designed" universe of today, without any need for an "Author".

If I want to be more traditional, and directly respond to that argument, the simple matter of fact is that we can't start with observed experience, (Everything has a cause outside of itself) and apply that to the realm of quantum effects, classical logic, once thought to be universal and a "Proof" of God does not even work on this level either. On the level that the big bang occurred on cause and effect break down, particles can spin forwards and backwards at the same TIME. Also, quantum instabilities can result in the singularity forming that we call the big bang, and the formation of the vacuum of space-time is allowed for above.

There is no need for an "Author" or "Creator" or "Designer" anymore.

Also, macro-evolution, has been observed, arguably, in bacteria. This article has shown how micro-evolution, which no one tries to even deny any more, has been physically shown to result in the evolution of a macro trait, the ability of e-coli to metabolize citrate. Now don't even try to dismiss this as only micro-evolution, this is macro-evolution. Furthermore, if you read the article closely it explains how this can not possible be micro evolution.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...n-the-lab.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/channel/...n-the-lab.html

One final thing that creationist never seem to get. There are two flaws with their whole "Attack Science, Prove God" philosophy.

To say something is un-explained is not to say it is un-explainable.

To disprove science is never to prove God.

I look forward to your responses.

I would just like to interject with my view:

http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/3...7153264im7.png

And then we can reply:

Religion:

The blind belief with unfounded proof that there exists a magical "higher being" who looks over all 6 billion of us simultaneously because one book says so, and if that one book says so, then it must be true, even though there is no solid proof that this book is actually true, and there exists no other book to back it's "evidence" up. Us atheists are then supposed to believe that you are infact correct, and we are wrong because you all:

• Do not contradict each other when talking about religion, God, heaven etc etc.
• Can show us solid evidence that you are correct and we are wrong.
• Are not conducting your lives according to the contents of one book.

We are then supposed to believe that our "magical being friend" who loves us unconditionally (even if we decide to fuck him over by not believing in him) created the world in 7 days... and then the rest of the planets magically appeared after that. We are then also supposed to believe that Mary was infact impregnated by a spirit (with his spirit sperm), defying the laws of how "The magical being" created her in the first place, and that she did not instead have an affair with someone else who got her pregnant and dumped her on Joseph, where she was then forced to make up a magical story to tell the gullible guy, who believed her because he was whipped by a woman.

Don't take it personally.

I won't. I'm atheist, but I think I will take god's side in this argument.
And this argument goes around and around. "Show me proof god exists". "Show me proof he doesn't"

And who said God had to be Christian?

In my opinion, DNA, the Cambrian Explosion and the effortless beauty of life itself supports the belief in god. Maybe not someone who watches over us, and maybe not the one in the bible.
God does not have to "love you unconditionally". He did not have to have a son who died for our sins.

Its true, that even the most devout atheists cry out for god on their deathbeds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jackrawl

What you're saying is that if I went in and bred one horse, that I created a completely different species because it is, in some way, unique due to the collection of genes.

---

thats not what i said at all,

you clearly have very little understanding of how evolution works,
there will be a negligible change after just one breeding, evolution takes millions of years,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jackrawl

One isn't Science, which is, incidentally, Darwin's Evolution, which ultimately states that nonliving matter can turn matter, which disobeys Science as we know it.

---

this is some kind of weird misspelling, i think you're talking about the second law of thermodynamics,
but I'm not completely sure, due to the terrible quality of your english, so ill wait for you to correct yourself, and then debate further,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jackrawl

Lets face it, you just tried to call Black to Chinese to White Evolution. It's not - politically, or scientifically.

---

oh my god! oh my god! oh my god! oh my god!
this dude just said grandmother was black!, well obviously thats not true, I am white and i am much better then those dirty niggers,
i must protect my skin color by denying what this atheist says, it simply cannot be true because that would mean black people were better then me!!

[/SARCASM][/SARCASM][/SARCASM]

bloody american, you make me sick,

humanity started in Africa, the first humans were black, we are all descended from black people,

politics is not equal to science,
you might have your own tribalism and stereotypes, but it doesn't change the facts,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jackrawl

Macroevolution is unproven and cannot be observed. Microevolution is proven and can be observed. Big difference.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jackrawl

Give me proof, not words with no backing.

---

you appear to have not thread this entire thread,
which is alright i guess, it is a long thread,

we were discussing proof to evolution, and Jason2gs asked for proof, i gave him proof and he never mentioned evolution again, neither macro- nor micro-evolution

i have taken the liberty of copy/pasting that post for you here,

***** copy/pasting starts here *****

ok i will, lets start with that creature which has feathers, and also has teeth,
its a transitional species between dinosaurs and birds,
modern day birds dont have teeth, they have beaks.

it has the name Archaeopteryx
about 10 complete body fossils of it have been discovered, and large numbers of parts of its body,

(you might be wondering, "how do they know that this tooth belonged to that bird", well the answer is that the scientists that study this know to look very carefully at all the detail, more often then not, a biologists can tell the species just by looking at a tooth, other things are easier, like feathers are very likely to have a pattern in species)

a picture of one is here

note: although you cant see it in the picture, that bird defiantly has teeth.
paleontologists don't look at pictures like we just did, they look at fossils with magnifying glasses, and they defiantly saw teeth

you cant possibly say all 30 or so fossils found are fake, not when they were found by many different people in many different places.
these clearly show a transition between flying dinosaurs and birds.

an artists impression is here
thats only an artists impression, fossils have no way of telling us what colour its wings were or anything, but we can make educated guesses.






now fossils are rare things, less then 1% of dead animals are preserved like this, we are lucky to have as many fossils as we do,
we dont have many complete fossil records of one specie turning into another, like we have archaeopteryx, but we dont have a fossil of the stage after, as far as i know

one complete fossil record we have is the horse, which is my second piece of evidence for today,
we have a complete record showing how to horse went from a small dog-like creature with 5 toes in each leg, to the modern day horse we see today,

a graphical illustration of these finding is found here

if you want to check all this fossils individually, i can offer you their separate wikipedia pages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyracotherium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesohippus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parahippus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merychippus

sorry for the link spamming, i dont have much to say about these fossils except they are one of the complete fossil records we have,
if you're ever in London, you can have a look at them for yourself in London's Natural History Museum


and sorry to bring this argument away from God, but in my defense, it was Jason2gs who brought up evolution,

and to my atheist fellows, a good page to read up on transitional fossils is here

***** copy/pasting ends here *****

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobng

And this argument goes around and around. "Show me proof god exists". "Show me proof he doesn't"

---

let me show you this analogy,
I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, i wonderful god which created our world, he resembles spaghetti and meatballs, and touches us in our hearts with his noodly appendage,

show me proof the FSM doesnt exist!


obviously no-one believes this ridiculous religion,
but i fail to see any differences between this religion and the world's major religions, its only because there are massive amounts of people who believe in them, otherwise they would fail,

theres a saying iv heard which is quite good,
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity, when many people suffer from a delusion, its called a religion"

The statement still stands. Show me proof that god does not exist. Show me proof he does.
Referencing a giant flying pasta-based life-form does not defeat the impossible question.

A response to the question: Are intelligent people less likely to believe in God:

Quote:

---

The only people who believe in god are the ones who are afraid to grow up and realize for themselves that god and santa clause are the same guy. They are planted in the imagination to make children behave. The devil is the same as the boogie man in your closet. It's fear. Anyway, people who claim to believe in god, can't even agree on what god is. Each have their own pretend version of him. Everytime one refutes another claim about god, suddenly "god" means something else. God is merely a god of the gaps. The more truth that is revealed, the less room there is for god to play a role in reality. If you follow that trend further you notice that the truth is that there is no god. As The more scientifically educated people have had to reduce their god to fit in between their knowledge of their experience in the universe. Einstein didn't believe in a god, but he simply referred to the mysteries of nature as god. Some scientists say god and mean only the natural forces of nature. The less educated people don't have as many conflicts because they have much larger holes in their knowledge, like creationists. Some people have conversations with god inside their heads. People are crazy, even some of the smart ones.

---

^ Put very nicely.

Quote:

---

The thing is you die one day! Do you really want to take that chance?

---

^ Now that is someone who is scared.

To me, the main reason someone believes in God is fear / because they are alone / depression

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starblaster100

To me, the main reason someone believes in God is fear / because they are alone / depression

---

yes i agree,
in all these religions and pseudosciences, theres always some kind of hand to hold, a comforting hug or a safe house,

some people do not seem to realise that X is comforting does not imply X is true.


now for bobng,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobng

The statement still stands. Show me proof that god does not exist. Show me proof he does.
Referencing a giant flying pasta-based life-form does not defeat the impossible question.

---

that question is quite impossible, how can you prove something which has no effects on anything,
i admit the question is impossible,

the way am attacking your question is by saying it doesnt get an answer,
not all questions deserve answers,

"Why are unicorn horns hollow?"

^^ theres one,
just cause a question is well-formed in english, does make it need an answer,



I'm going to take my example of the justice system in most western countries,
"Innocent until proven guilty"

in this case, the crime is murder,

There was no proof against murder, he had no ably, he did not have an empty criminal record,

There is also no proof for murder, there was no motive, there was no murder weapon found,

most juries would hold the defendant innocent, for lack of evidence,
the mantra "Innocent until proven guilty" works here,



lets say the crime wasn't "Murder", but it was "Existence"

theres no proof for it, theres no proof against it,
the defendant is innocent of existing,


you could change some words to make the mantra
"Not-existing until proven to exist"

the FSM is "Not-existing until proven to exist"
the Invisible Pink Unicorn is "Not-existing until proven to exist"

and god is "Not-existing until proven to exist"

therefore your question, "Show me proof that god does not exist. Show me proof he does.", does not help your case at all,

Then if the question cannot be answered, how can you be so convinced that you are infact right?

Seems like a loose-loose situation to me. If he exists and you don't believe in him, and you squander your life on earth thinking heaven/hell does not exist, then you go to hell. If he does not exist, the only an eternity of nothingness awaits us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobng

Then if the question cannot be answered, how can you be so convinced that you are infact right?

---

because of what i just said,
not existing until proven to exist,

therefore at the moment, not existing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobng

If he exists and you don't believe in him, and you squander your life on earth thinking heaven/hell does not exist, then you go to hell. If he does not exist, the only an eternity of nothingness awaits us.

---

you make it sound like its a 50/50 chance of him existing or not,
if that were the case, your statement now would have some grounding,

but when talking about god, you can also talk about the probability of it existing,

with the amount of evidence available, i would say the probability of god existing is about 3% or so,

so that statement about a lose-lose situation has very little grounding,

No, with your one sided view the probability of god existing for you is about 3%. I doubt Mother Terrasia would say that.
Have you considered faith? Perhaps if there is a god, he would not want you ever to know that he existed, but to have faith in him. If he was proved to exist, then we would not believe in him, but know he is there, and those are two completely different ideas.

God didn't make us, we made him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobng

No, with your one sided view the probability of god existing for you is about 3%. I doubt Mother Terrasia would say that.
Have you considered faith? Perhaps if there is a god, he would not want you ever to know that he existed, but to have faith in him. If he was proved to exist, then we would not believe in him, but know he is there, and those are two completely different ideas.

---

perhaps i am God. I doubt you're going to start worshiping me. So why do you worship someone that you were told by someone that was someone that was told by someone that was told by someone.....that there was this guy that created us.

one thing ive been thinking. if someone today came out and started proclaiming that they were God's daughter. I seriously doubt that she would be taken seriously. If she went to the pope and started telling him that she was God's daughter, i doubt even he would believe her. Now that doesnt seem like the kind of thing God would want his "followers" to do, ignore his only daughter.

Many people may think that they are good people and are going to go to heaven, but if you really think about it, how good of a person are you, why should "God" allow you into heaven.

i know my little spiel here was all over the place and the little pieces were unrelated, but try to get past that and understand what im saying.

If he was gods daughter then she would prove it somehow. Just by saying it does not make it true.
By the same rule, you could argue that god does not exist. However, its about what YOU believe. Forcing your views onto someone else, and trying to 'convert' them is wrong. If they feel comforted by the idea of a god, then it would be an evil thing to do to tell them he does not exist.
But hey. If there is no heaven or hell, then why not, right?

Go kill someone. Right now. Go on, do it. Whats wrong with it? Your not going to heaven/hell? Whats stopping you? Society? Their principles are based upon the commandments of someone who does not exist, so have no meaning to you right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobng

Go kill someone. Right now. Go on, do it. Whats wrong with it? Your not going to heaven/hell? Whats stopping you? Society? Their principles are based upon the commandments of someone who does not exist, so have no meaning to you right?

---

so the only reason you dont kill people is because you're scared of death?
and not because you're a nice person...




religion does not give rise to morals and we should really get rid of that horrible misconception,
I've heard a lot of people saying that without religion, there would be no morals, they point to some holy books as examples, like the ten commandments
in holy books, there is both good and bad, if you want good, you can find it, if you want bad, you can find it.
today, no-one seriously takes the idea that you should stone a woman to death if she i not a virgin at marriage, or that you cannot work on the sabbath,

how lets say someone is reading the bible for the first time, and they come across a passage which tells them to do bad things, how do they know not to follow it?
the answer is that they already have morals which they use to separate the good from the bad in that book.

with the notable exception with the Afghan Taliban and the American Christan equivalent, we all follow a similar set of morals, regardless of religion, we dont cause needless suffering, we protect free speech even if we dont like what is being said, we pay taxes, we dont cheat, we dont kill, we dont commit incest, we dont do things to others that we wouldnt like done to ourselves,
some of these rules can be found in holy books, but alongside them are rules which certainly no decent person would follow, and these holy books do not supply any guidelines to tell between the good rules and the bad rules.

therefore, our morals do not come from holy books, them come from somewhere else,


*** end copy/pasting ***

since we dont all read the entire thread now do we :)

All our morals and fundamental laws come from the Christian teachings.

What i am saying is why not steal? Who says its wrong? You won't go to hell. The killing example was a bit extreme, i admit.

you dont steal because you'll break the law, and if you break the law you go to jail, and the law(at least USA's, afaik) was made by people who believed in God.thats pretty much it, going to jail would suck. None of my choices are made with "God" in mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobng

All our morals and fundamental laws come from the Christian teachings.

What i am saying is why not steal? Who says its wrong? You won't go to hell. The killing example was a bit extreme, i admit.

---

You really need hell for that? How about not getting that cookie. Going to the principals office. Going to jail. Or how about just the basic rationalization of 'how would you like it if someone did that to you?'? I've never been to church or read a bible (or other equivalents) but somehow I turned out alright.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurgymcgurgygurg

Okay, about the whole synthesis of life thing, creationist love saying, how did DNA and RNA form, and claim that there is no evidence for this being possible.

---

Not really... Like I have said, even if it can be found that this stuff aranges itself this way, all over the universe, it really doesn't mean anything disproving God. I do appreciate bringing this up though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurgymcgurgygurg

And to Yak's original proof of God's Existence, quantum gravity, specifically Casual Dynamical Triangulations Quantum Gravity, allows for a self-assembling and self-organizing universe. The random interaction of individual motes of space-time determined by proven properties of each mote, can result in the ordered and seemingly "Designed" universe of today, without any need for an "Author".

If I want to be more traditional, and directly respond to that argument, the simple matter of fact is that we can't start with observed experience, (Everything has a cause outside of itself) and apply that to the realm of quantum effects, classical logic, once thought to be universal and a "Proof" of God does not even work on this level either. On the level that the big bang occurred on cause and effect break down, particles can spin forwards and backwards at the same TIME. Also, quantum instabilities can result in the singularity forming that we call the big bang, and the formation of the vacuum of space-time is allowed for above.

---

Yes! Because it is quite obvious that this whole origon thinking does work for either the creationist or the athiest. I am not sure if quantumatics explains it either, but it's getting closer to the right type of thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurgymcgurgygurg

There is no need for an "Author" or "Creator" or "Designer" anymore.

---

Wo.. wait? When I read and learn more about how all of this works, I can not help to see how it REQUIRES a designer even more! lol. I supose it is a perspective thing. You see how things just. work, and say because they work by themselfs, then there is no need for a designer. I see how things just work, and can't see anyway possible that it all works so perfectly without a creator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurgymcgurgygurg

Furthermore, if you read the article closely it explains how this can not possible be micro evolution.

---

Great find! I have always hoped something like this would finaly be observable in a laboratory. As I have said before, I don't think this disproves god at all, I just find it awesome that a mutation can happen that would cause such a big improvement :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurgymcgurgygurg

One final thing that creationist never seem to get. There are two flaws with their whole "Attack Science, Prove God" philosophy.

To say something is un-explained is not to say it is un-explainable.

To disprove science is never to prove God.

I look forward to your responses.

---

Yep, exactly. Works both ways too. To prove science isn't to disprove God either. (well, i supose it might be to some close minded brainwashed individuals... >.> in which case I hope it does so they can get a better testimony for themselfs)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobng

Athiesm doesnt make sence

---

That was just stupid. Have you been reading this debate? It is very obvious that I makes plenty of sence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yakman

oh my god! oh my god! oh my god! oh my god!
this dude just said grandmother was black!, well obviously thats not true, I am white and i am much better then those dirty niggers,
i must protect my skin color by denying what this atheist says, it simply cannot be true because that would mean black people were better then me!!

---

Perfect! lol. I completely agree with the point you made here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobng

In my opinion, DNA, the Cambrian Explosion and the effortless beauty of life itself supports the belief in god.

---

:) mhmm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobng

Its true, that even the most devout atheists cry out for god on their deathbeds.

---

Yeah, but thats a crappy belief you have right there, come from the whole fear factor, which doesnt really mean anything. I won't be crying out for god on my death bed, ill be crying out for my wife.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starblaster&Yakman

To me, the main reason someone believes in God is fear / because they are alone / depression

---

Yes, and to some that is the reason. Just make sure you don't steriotype people like me into this group. Believing out of fear or depresion isnt beliving at all, thats just a self fufilling profecy, and has almost nothing to do with god.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yakman

religion does not give rise to morals

---

Right! Morals come from someplace else. I don't belive they come from society either. To me, they are something I have just had, and although mine are similar to the ones in my religion, I had them long before I read about them, and they are very diferent from societies. Sure, most religious books do give the low down on a simple utilitarian moral standpoint, but even then ten commandments, if you read, should not of needed to be written. It was just that moses' peoplewere acting like idiots, and some of them lost their moral standpoint so much that they needed a little reminder. (and a nice walk through the desert too, lol)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanCardin

None of my choices are made with "God" in mind.

---

I am glad the law picks up the slack then , lol. the reason I don't steal isnt because I fear punishment, its because I don't want people to steal from me, so i dont steal from them. It follows what I feel is just.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cerium

Regurgiated crap with no proof, no responce, and no reason

---

Way to not add to the conversation at all, or even read what is being said and discussed, you just blurt out a little sentance that honestly, doesnt mean anything if you read whats going on. Try to have some intelligence next time, and participate.

I think ill close with a more organised explanation of morals. It is true, you do NOT need religion to have morals. They are pretty much part of you seince birth. Granted, society can twist them a whole lot, but they all come from one common thing. Humans wan't to survive, creation wise, evolution wise, we are still meant to live and we have a drive to live. It is a simple logic that most people understand, "If I don't want people to hurt me, then I should not hurt other people, because they are like me". You can expand that into a non-religious based moral set , Utilitarianism. Religion only mentions morals because it has to, as a way to demonstrate wrong things, and make it simpler to understand why god is chastising selfish, or "bad" people. I think people get confused by where these morals origonate, because religion has become so popular, that it is being taught to kids in the wrong way. They are taught to not steal so they don't go to hell, or because God said not to. Bad idea if you ask me, but I will hold my judgement.

Almost all western religion is based on fear. I do not wish to believe something which forces me to do things because 'or else...'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R0b0t1

Almost all western religion is based on fear.

---

No, mine does not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R0b0t1

I do not wish to believe something which forces me to do things because 'or else...'.

---

ofcoourse not. But you must also realise the "or else" is enevitable. Their are consequences for everything you do. Religious or not, if you kill someone, your life is about to be forced under control.

Why do you supposedly do good things? To get that good feeling? Why do you like that good feeling? Because it means you're not going to hell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R0b0t1

Why do you supposedly do good things? To get that good feeling? Why do you like that good feeling? Because it means you're not going to hell.

---

Or because he enjoys the satisfaction of doing good things, like a doctor enjoys the satisfaction of saving lives. Religion only sets a moral base, and it's up to its followers to decide how they act.

I was born into a christian family, however I sure as hell don't believe in the church. I do beleive there is something more to life than what science says there is. Wether you wish to call it God or whatever. I do not fear death or what comes after, nor do I feel alone. But I believe this topic will never end in the world, and people are just gonna believe what they want to believe. :p