Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue poser
this is a strawman fallecy.
In fact, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution that as been peer-reviewed and found to be firm.
Evolution does not work by pure chance, natural selection is quintessentially non-random process.
you might as well say Adam Smith's invisible hand is a random process.
Evolution can explain the complexity and apparent design of all life, including that bacterial flagellum.
Im done arguing with you because you not only refuse to present any argument against anything i say, but in the interim somehow assume that telling me what i said is incorrect is some way to advance your position in the argument (that is based on the presupposition that your correct might i add)Quote:
Originally Posted by Yakman
Your self righteous attitude and empty words are no way to effectively enter into an argument and be the victor, you only force people away because of your repetitive, blatantly ignorant posts
if you're using a logical fallecy, it would be stupid of me to take the bait.
it seems to me you are running away as soon as someone comes along who doesnt get pulled in by the obvious strawman.
As for empty words, I can present evidence evidence for evolution, but i suspect you wont like that.
ask for evidence and you will get it.
you're the one making assertive statements without any evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue poser
Yakman. Please present evidence :D
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 to my atheist fellows, a good page to read up on transitional fossils is here
^^^
old copypastia is old
Ok first of all, im not against evolution lol, i do think in theory it is logicaly sound.. there are just parts of it that i think sound alittle strange. And since i wasnt around to observe either creation or evolution, i will not take a side unless there was absolute proof to conferm one side.
Ok so about the bird, i have heard of it before and sure it does look like the missing link between birds and lizards, but it could just as easily be a whole new species.
And well, just because there are mid species dosnt mean that God could not have created life, and then life evolved from there (as evolution dosnt actualy adress how life started but how life changed once it was started)
AND im almost 90% sure that the bible has room in it for evolution, ive looked and the only thing i can find is God "creating" things in 7 days. though some translations say nothing about creation and just God "speaking" or planning it.
you were not around to observe Napoleon were you? why do you accept his existance without absolute proof?Quote:
Originally Posted by lancerawks
And the fact that the earth is a sphere, you cant see that as you've never been to space.
Does this mean you wont take sides between us and the Flat Earth Society?
you cant deny that evolution by natural selection has massive amounts of evidence supporting it, while creationism has no evidence and does not even count as a science.
well i think this is slightly misleading.Quote:
Originally Posted by lancerawks
That bird-like creature is another species, its name is Archaeopteryx.
but the term "missing link" is a bit misleading, you could easily say all living things are missing links.
humans could be the missing link between ape-like creatures some creature which doesnt exist yet.
yes, there are actually many institutions which are both christian and accept evolution, including the church of england and the roman catholic church, because as you've said, evolution leaves enough space for God, albeit a much weakened God.Quote:
Originally Posted by lancerawks
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/2910447/Charles-Darwin-to-receive-apology-from-the-Church-of-England-for-rejecting-evolution.html
Humans were around during the time of Napolean, we have records or his existance. And as for space we can use teliscopes and satalites as extensions of our eyes and bodies so we can experiance the universe around us without going there. But there were no people to make records of what was happening 3 billion years ago, and unless if im mistaken, 3 billion years is much to long for any natural records to survive like fossles and such. And yes i know evolution by means of natural selection has alot of evidance, and creationism is just one way to read genisis.Quote:
you were not around to observe Napoleon were you? why do you accept his existance without absolute proof?
And the fact that the earth is a sphere, you cant see that as you've never been to space.
Does this mean you wont take sides between us and the Flat Earth Society?
you cant deny that evolution by natural selection has massive amounts of evidence supporting it, while creationism has no evidence and does not even count as a science.
yes your right, but i was just saying a creationist could argue that the Archaeopteryx was created by God and through history has followed a seperate blood line from birds. Im sorry but i dont realy know how scientists peice together the species lineage, other than compareing bone structure and habitats.Quote:
well i think this is slightly misleading.
That bird-like creature is another species, its name is Archaeopteryx.
but the term "missing link" is a bit misleading, you could easily say all living things are missing links.
humans could be the missing link between ape-like creatures some creature which doesnt exist yet.
and to keep discussion going, consider this example. I just tried to make it up on the spot so it might be alittle shakey but it kinda explains some things ive wondered about how scientists map out the history of speices.
Imagine future humans tried compare our modern day ape fossils to themselves, thinking that they evolved from apes because our bodies are very simular.. but they would be wrong. Apes and Humans are from two seperate blood lines (and i say blood lines cause i dont know the proper word for it) that shared a common ansestor in the distant past. But none of these apes ever would evolve into the futureistic humans.
In the same way couldnt we easily make mistakes when mapping out the current species's history? isnt 3 billion years of evolving much to muddled and complex and lost to time for us to dig up and explain?
so we are all entitled to out beliefs, i believe in an omnicient being it's possible, we have evidence of infinite existing, we don't have proof, and have never claimed to, and just as I've stated countless times in other threads there is know proof of anything to do with the forming of the world be it creation, or be it, um idk honestly what you think it could have been, big bang, sure thats an alright theory but im talking about what created the big bang? where did this lifeless matter come from and better yet how did it convert from lifeless matter to life, it's never been accomplished since in nature. ( in know there are other theories but im just addressing the most comonly known)
if god is infinite you can ask what created him, the answer is simple, god, since god is infinite now i know thats worded funny, but if you see space as ever expanding think of god as space, its there as it has always been, and always will be. now thats merely just an analogy i dont mean to say that space is god.
Im not sure what you are trying to prove here yakman:
1) atheism is not a requirement learning the sciences
2) it cannot be proven or disproven scientifically therefore this thread is merely to take a shot at people you feel are intellectualy inferior due to believing something without absolute proof
heres the direction I would take this argument:
me : I believe God exists
you: What evidense do you have of your claim
me:What evidense do you have of anything you think you know
you:I rely on scientific evidence
me: how many double-blind studies have you performed?
you: well none, but I read about them
me: so you rely on writers you don't know to describe research you don't fully understand, performed by people who often have financial incentives to mislead you?
you: you have exposed me for the hypocrite and fraud that I am, ill be on the lawn.
well obviously it might not go that way but you get my point we both listen to books we don't know the author of, even though science is peer reviewed some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy. The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theories. Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views, and lenient towards those that accord with them. At the same time, elite scientists are more likely than less established ones to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals or publishers. As a result, it has been argued, ideas that harmonize with the elite's are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones
now I am NOT saying science is garbage, and the only thing we should read is the book, on the contrary, Im vastly interested in chemistry and physics, i may not be well versed in it as my study of it is purely recreational, but my point is that unless we do the studies ourselves, we are going off of faith.
now that we have established in this argument there are no sure things and there are certainly no facts, I will go on to say my evidence of god is you Yakman, thankyou for being a sport and providing evidence of god ;p, i look at all life and see evidence of a creator be it some omnicient being, a superior intelligent life form, or the flying spaghetti monster, there was something that had a hand/tentacle/noodle in this, and now i ask what evidence is there that shows you it is a complete impossibility for there to be a creator?
you've changed your story now, first you needed "absolute proof", and now you only need the written word.Quote:
Originally Posted by lancerawks
It is possible, although very very unlikely, that everything we know about Napolean is wrong, that every historial source is a complete forgery, or that people were genuinely mistaken.
But in either case, you still dont have absolute proof that Napolean existed and did all those things he did.
In exactly the same way, it is possible, that everything we know about geology, fossils and rocks is wrong or mistaken in ways we havent discovered yet.
Also, you may be intrested in the oldest discovered fossils
sure, but you'd have to accept evolution first, and i understand believers of theistic evolution say something along those lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by lancerawks
I cant answer this because I dont know about this in detail.Quote:
Originally Posted by lancerawks
However, what I can say is that the burden of proof lies on you, you have to provide evidence that we've made mistakes and until then, we'll carry on using it as though the mistakes are neglidgable and correcting mistakes if we find them.
I dont know, but god is by no means the default solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by tazzin44
It seems to me you worship a God of gaps.
"Noone can explain X, therefore God did it!"
you worship a god who lives in the areas which humans do not yet understand. As human understanding grows, your god will become smaller and smaller.
Zeus, the ancient greek god of lightning was one example of a god of gaps, he explained that lightning was the anger of the gods.
This seems to me to be quite airy-fairy and doesnt really answer anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by tazzin44
What does it mean for something to be infinite?
obviously you could have an infinite number of elephants, but god is not a number or a quantity, but some kind of entity.
So is god infinitly small? infinitly large? infinitly dense like a black hole?
I suppose this contradicts itself, you could ask the following quesiton.
Can (infinite) god create something stronger/faster/bigger/smaller/greater/more then it?
I'm trying to have a philosophical discussion and I resent you continuously trying to second guess me.Quote:
Originally Posted by tazzin44
I assure you I've got no other agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tazzin44
I think I'm quite justified in not responding to any of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by tazzin44
Even if we do the studies ourselves, we still have to have faith in our measuring equipment, we still have to have faith in our eyeballs and our nerve cells and our brain to not hallucinate.Quote:
Originally Posted by tazzin44
But at we're getting somewhere.
Correct me if I'm incorrect but you're saying all faith is equal, and that your faith in god is the same as my faith in my measuring equipment, in my textbooks, in my lecturers and in the scientific method in general.
While you could say all faith is equal, some is more equal then others.
The scientific stuff deserves it faith because it simply works. The computer you're reading this from, the food that you eat and the clothes that you wear would be nulled without the scientific stuff.
Religious teachings do not deserve their faith because they dont work. (I'll go into more detail if you want, but it might just end up a copypastia from my old posts)
pityful strawman argument here.Quote:
Originally Posted by tazzin44
When have i ever said that god does not exist? I can say that it is impossible to prove something definatly does not exist.
All i have ever argued is that god is so unlikely, so almost certain to not exist that there is no point worshipping him, sacrificing for him or praying to him.
All i have ever argued is that with our current level of knowledge, we should live our life as though god does not exist.
I am actually quite pleased with this argument, I wont reply to the entirety of your post as time does not permit but I will continue to hang around.
I agree with this here, as I do not believe in using god as an excuse to not research something, I do not believe that just because we cannot explain something that it was god, as well on another note do not rule out the possibility, I believe him to be the catalyst in our existance but simply because it cannot be explained by science, but because to me the way the world works, the beuty of mathematics, chemistry, physics and biology all seem to point in the direction of intellegent design, Im not here to persuade you into christianity or any religeon for that matter, but it seems to me that it's far too soon to dismiss a creator.Quote:
I dont know, but god is by no means the default solution.
It seems to me you worship a God of gaps.
"Noone can explain X, therefore God did it!"
you worship a god who lives in the areas which humans do not yet understand. As human understanding grows, your god will become smaller and smaller.
that has been my argument all along, to see your stand on this the same way Im fairly certain to say we are thinking on the same page here, albeit from a diferent book (no pun intended) ideas so close and so far apart make for an interesting debate I must say.Quote:
When have i ever said that god does not exist? I can say that it is impossible to prove something definatly does not exist.
is not everything we have learned about the sciences seemingly just as unlikely? The way everything on this planet seems to work together to sustain life(apart from the way we are destroying the planet)? Now as for your last point I would disagree, should we live like saints or monks in a monestary? No seems a tad drastic, because being a christian is not about works, it' not about how you live your life it's about believing that the world around you isn't some freak accident, or that your existance on earth is meaningless, if we were not created does that not mean our entire existance is worthless?Quote:
All i have ever argued is that god is so unlikely, so almost certain to not exist that there is no point worshipping him, sacrificing for him or praying to him.
All i have ever argued is that with our current level of knowledge, we should live our life as though god does not exist.
The universe is infinite, so it is possible that we could have just infinitely got here.
Also, isn't the theory of creation saying that the Earth is 4,000 years old?
6000, actually... and in all honesty its quite possible, all of our dating techniques seem to work, but there is no way to test them farther back than an object we know the absolute date of, we know it isnt 100% accurate, so it could be off exponentially, Im not saying if it is or if it isnt, but it cannot be definitive until our tools are as close to perfection as humanly possibleQuote:
Originally Posted by udie2day
Even if everything in the universe was elegant and pleasing, that would not imply that God exists.Quote:
Originally Posted by tazzin44
I can admit that some things are very nice about the sciences and mathematics, but many things are not.
for instance, there exists a fundemental particle that has exactly the same attributes as the electron, except it has 100x (or something) more mass.
In fact, when it was discovered, a physicist said "Who ordered that?!"
Ok maybe thats a bad example but its the best i could come up with at the moment.
if its your argument all along, why didnt you take the rational route?Quote:
Originally Posted by tazzin44
well no, it works so well together to sustain life in this planet because it was built by natural selection. So things that didnt work very well would die out, leaving only things that worked well.Quote:
Originally Posted by tazzin44
For instance you could say that since the amount of oxygen in the athosphere is so high, that is evidence for intelligent design, but that would be wrong because that oxygen was put there by plants, then living things developed areobic respiration to use oxygen.
Oxygen came first, then areobic respiration.
I disagree that athiesm implies our lives are meaningless.
For instance you said you liked science and maths, now consider that god doesnt exist, does that make you enjoy learning about science and maths any less? It doesnt for me I can tell you that.
Being an athiest doesnt stop you enjoying poetry, enjoying music, getting a tingling feeling when you look up at the milky way or when you look down a microscope. What else is there... sunsets, walking through the countryside, laughing, love, all the usual human joys, friendship.
It doesnt stop you living life to the full, understanding life and being facinated in the world in which you're in, in the limited time you have.
C'mon what more meaning do you want to your life?
I could turn that around on you, since you believe that you'll go to heaven when you die, whats the point of doing anything at all in this life?
why dont you just kill yourself now to get the heaven quicker? Or if you've found out you've got cancer, why dont you jump for joy at the thought of seeing all your dead friends, why do you even bother going to the doctor?
Why dont your friends and relatives pat you on the back saying "Say hello to grandma for me"
A thiest might just say, "I wont bother doing anything with my life, since I'll get a second chance in the afterlife". No point getting a job or anything like that.
You could say a big difference between athiests and thiests is that athiests have a strong sense of living life to the full because its the only one we've got.
There is not necessarily a "God" per se, that is out there, but there is something that creates the fine trails of coincidence that we have no other name for.
why?
Just... things. I wouldn't say it's a single deity, but it is something in your head or some ability people have to save themselves or arrange events. It's fucking scary when you notice it.
I understand that you will see coincidences when you look for them... I'm not saying that those sort of things are arranged. I'm not talking about always seeing the good sides of events that come your way and you can make it out to be "bright" and "happy".
God is the little part inside of you that knows how to pull strings.
so god is inside of you? please elaborate on that.
it seems to me you're just redefining god into something that exists. eg.
1. God is nature
2. Nature exists
3. Therefore God exists.
easy peasy :P
Easy peasy pumpkin easy :norris:Quote:
Originally Posted by Yakman
It really doesn't take that much deep thinking to realize that at least something is out there.
Pretty much atheists believe it because they don't want to believe it, just because it's easy to believe that he isn't real even though evidence you think you have is easily proven wrong. I haven't yet read an argument that would even test my belief in god. I have seen and experienced some crazy shit when I feel god (Some of it has really freaked the fuck out of me o.o). All things that atheists will never experience...
We are pretty much being tested, and unfortunately, a lot of us are pretty much failing...
At least try it, give it your all, If your not satisfied with it yet, go ahead and stop (Don't go into Catholicism though, they do everything like it is required and a lot of them stop believing because they never get any REAL experience with god). I will be surprised if you legitimately go all out for it and come up empty handed.
I'm an agnostic, and my personal view on the Gods of established religions is that they are contradictory and fickle and confusing, so I dont believe they could possible exist. I guess there maybe could be SOMETHING out there, but it's beyond my comprehension
Someone gets it:oQuote:
Originally Posted by blulightning
Hmm... Personally, I am a catholic, but don't believe in EVERYTHING that is said in the bible, about god, among other scripts with religious value. Maybe you should read this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
I think this is a good representation of what i believe. There is a higher power, REASON leads me to believe this, not blind faith. I will never see a higher power explained in my lifetime with scientific "fact". It is totally beyond anyone's comprehension.
Cut em2 it
I would love to get into this debate with a bunch of kids but sadly the religion debate can be found on nearly every gaming forum with the vast majority of people against the idea of god and I simply don't have the time or the patience for this anymore.. But I will say I am a christian. I just don't see what's so unbelievable about religion. Meh just my point of view... So get high!
Why not? :google:Quote:
Originally Posted by Yakman
lol ahah funniest thing I've read all day.. thank you :D
I don't think Google is God...:(
You're welcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by backfire420
Why not? Did you see the proofs?Quote:
Originally Posted by IceFire908
you dont need proof to believe in something thats y its called faith
So why does it matter if other people think differently? >.>
+ 1Quote:
you dont need proof to believe in something thats y its called faith
Read my post >.>Quote:
Originally Posted by backfire420
Absolutely, 100%, correct. However. How do you decide what god to believe in? You may as well believe that a tin can in a rubbish bin is your god.Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Pizzle
I believe in God not www.google.com :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Pizzle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam
The truth is out there, go and find it.
Fun fact:
Did you know almost all beliefs and religions including science *cough*Yakman*cough* points towards creation and peace?
Fun Fact:Quote:
Originally Posted by IceFire908
Did you know you have a nice button below your post called "edit", so you won't have to double post :D.
Fun fact: I don't give a F*** :f:
Nah j/k sorry Lol