Home More advice Religion, Spirituality & Folklore
Is their a God?
"I have done a lot of back and forth in this site and I find that many are blindly trusting science just because it is science."
I would say it is you who are blindly condemning science because the implications of its findings threatens your preconcieved notion of the origins of our existence.
I have never blindly trusted science. Science does not have an agenda, other than the truth. It does not have any preconceived notions. It doesn't ask why, it only asks how. You seem to know so little about scientific method, but you still want to continue this excercise in futility by presenting evidence that is anything but.
"There has been continous non-logical debate going on here. When a person speaks of Intelligent design everyone jumps on him and asks him for evidences not considering, if they have any evidence for their position. If evidences are given that does not match popular beliefs that person is rediculed."
Wrong. It is ridiculed when that evidence doesn't fit the long established and accepted scientific method. Maybe something is unpopular because it is wrong.
"Looking at the complex desgn of the universe they cannot conclude that a designer exists. They look at what is not there rather than what is there. There was an argument about why there is no life in other planets if the universe was deigned? That's a sensless way of looking at things. Rather one must look at how the earth is designed for life. How Jupiter acts like a gaint vacumme cleaner and protects our planet. There are numerous such features that are precise that it is highly improbable that all these evolved."
Earth is not "designed" for life. The conditions developed that enabled life to develop. Where is there any evidence that this did not happen randomly? Again, exitence of complexity is not evidence of a designer. No matter how many times you keep saying it.
"Once I make a claim against a popular belief I am required to provide evidence. But you fail to notice, that when you support the popular belief the initial claim is already made by you. Therefore you are the one that needs to provide evidence first. But "no, since it comes form science that is by default true" seems to be the position you take. "
How silly is this. You make some outrageous claims that go against an overwhelming amout of evidence the evolution is occuring, and we are the ones who have to prove you are wrong. You make the claim, you have to show evidence. And that evidence has to pass a smell test, and so far your evidence stinks.
"Now when some aspects of evolution is still unknown it need not be thrown out, but the creation alternative is outright rejected."
What are talking about? Do we know everthing about the mechanism of evolution, absolutely not. But it is absolutely known that it does occurs. There is no doubt about that.
"There are many assumptions in evolution that are totally illogic and the theory is built on such assumptions. The theory of evolution needs billions of years because that is the nature of the theory. If the millions of years are not assumed then the theory does not work. How can you be sure that there were millions of years for evolution to happen? Have you questioned this or have you blindly accepted it. "
You really need to stop this, because your arguments are getting more and more incoherent. Evolution happens over millions of years, but the evidence of all that is here, right now, in fossil records. There is no assumption. We have the means to determine the age of the fossils. Are you now suggesting that the fossils that have been found are incorrectly dated? If so, you know what is coming... Wait for it... show me the evidence!
"Here are some things to ponder for those who are prepared to think unbiasdly. "
This coming from someone who has not even bothered to seriously investigate evolutionary science.
"Scientists all agree that Universe had a beginning."
Wrong. You should becareful when you use all ecompassing qualifiers like "all". I am sure some hypothosize it has, and some the don't. According to science, we don't know.
"They have a theory on how it began and that is the Big-Bang theory. This theory came about when Edword Hubble noticed that the universe is expanding. Reverse calculation showed that there had be a starting point, the size of a period. "
First the big bang is just one theory. And second, the fact that the uiniverse is expanding doesn't mean that prior to the bang, it hadn't gone through many cycles of contraction and expansion. We are expanding now, maybe in a trillion years we will start to contract again. We don't know for sure.
"Evolutions say that life began billions of years ago. Therefore the universe must have begun before that. Several evedences about the dicreasing speed of the earth, increasing distence of the moon, redusing size of the sun and the expanding universe have all been observed by scientists. This puts billions of years in serious problem. "
Why? Where is the correlation?
"The second law of thermodynamics says that eveything goes from state of order to disorder. But evolution seems to do the opposite. How is that possible?"
Because the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to evolution. Apples and oranges. And that is not exactly wht the law states. You are oversimplifying it.
"The first law of Thermodynamics says energy cannot be created or distroyed. This means energy did not have a biginning. We know that the universe had a beginning and we also know that huge amount of energy exist in the Universe in the billions of stars and galaxies. "
You say things that make no sense. We do not know if the universe had a beginning, so you whole point here is moot.
"This energy must have be transformed because energy cannot be created. We could say that an energy source created this universe and looking at the design we know that this energy is intelligent."
We KNOW nothing of the sort. Stop making these claims unless you have evidence they are true.
"Why could this theory not be true??"
It COULD be, but without evidence it is just wish full thinking. It could also just as likely that the universe naturally developed with no sentient being behind it all. We don't know, and no one in the scientific community is suggesting we do.
You are asking questions about things we are not sure. How the very first life started is not known for sure. But that doesn't change the fact that evolution HAS been proven to have occurred. There is no doubt (except from those who feel threatened by the findings). The overwhelming evidence in the fossil records is clear.
You are contradicting yourself. You say "we don't know how life began" and yet you say "evolution happened"!! Evolution assumes that life began from a soup as a single celled organism and then that evolved. If you say you don't know how that life started how are sure that life did start in that manner? What are your evidences that for that? Isn't the theory dangling in thin air?
What a completely ridiculous statement. Not all energy is harmful. We use radiation to shrink tumors. We use defibrilators to restart someones heart. Have the energies been used to aid life?
Why don't you read what I wrote more carefully before typing some unrelated stuff? I was talking about RAW ENERGY. This is definitely harmful. With raw harmfull energy all over the place life cannot originate by itself. As simple as that.
Of course there are. Otherwise changes would not happen. Are there mutations that are not beneficial? Of course, but obviously only the beneficial ones survive. Early giraffes had shorter necks. Genetic mutations enabled those with longer necks to reach the higher branches and thus got better food. Eventually those mutations became a characteristic of the species. It is really not that difficult to understand.
Again you are trumpeting ignorance. Mutations are accidents or harm that happens to the DNA coding in a cell due to some chemicals or radiation. Cells have an inbuilt code correcting mechanism so that the codes are corrected in case of minor mutations.
Secondly mutations are random. They are not affected by natural selection or any behavior of the organism.
“But mutations are found to be of a random nature, so far as their utility is concerned. Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences.”—*H.J. Muller, “Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material,” in American Scientist, p. 35.
Thirdly it is a very rare phinomina.
“It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations in higher organisms between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation.”—*F.J. Ayala, “Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology,” in Philosophy of Science, March 1970, p. 3
Mutations are always harmful and there are no beneficial mutations.
“One would expect that any interference with such a complicated piece of chemical machinery as the genetic constitution would result in damage. And, intact, this is so: the great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effects on the organism.”—*Julian Huxley, op. cit., p. 137.
“But mutations are found to be of a random nature, so far as their utility is concerned. Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences.”—*H.J. Muller, “Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material,” in American Scientist, January 1950, p. 35.
“Mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability [ability to keep living], and, to the best of our knowledge invariably affect it adversely [they tend to result in harm or death]. Does not this fact show that mutations are really assaults on the organism’s central being, its basic capacity to be a living thing?”—*C.P. Martin, “A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution,” in American Scientist, p. 102.
A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is certain to impair—just as a random interchange of connections [wires] in a television set is not likely to improve the picture.”—*J.F. Crow, “Genetic Effects of Radiation,” in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 14 (1958), pp. 19-20.
“A majority of mutations, both those arising in laboratories and those stored in natural populations produce deteriorations of the viability, hereditary disease and monstrosities. Such changes it would seem, can hardly serve as evolutionary building blocks.”—*T. Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species (1955), p. 73.
Mutation cannot bring about evolution.
You really need to read a real book on how this works, because it is obvious how misinfromed you are. It didn't happen by random chance. It happened over millions of years. They're coded in the correct sequence, because those that were not coded in the correct sequence did not survive.
You are joking. Every cell has DNA it. DNA contains information about the next generation that the organism would produce. It had to be coded in the correct sequence to work. If a single celled organism formed then that should have a correctly coded DNA to reproduce. Correct sequence did not come through evolution.
Again, you are trying to imply this happens over night. If a mutation of chromosone count is beneficial to the species, then over millions of years, those with similiar mutations will start a new species. That is how it works. Or at least it is theorized that it does. What is not a theory though is that EVOLUTION DOES OCCUR. Trying to say that evolution doesn't happen is like saying that gravity doesn't happen.
I already showed you that mutations cannot bring about evolution. Thus this point is invalid.
I am sure you have not once looked into the real science behind evolution. You have found enough crackpots who will feed you misinformation, and that is enough for you to dismiss it. And the sole reason for you WANTING to dismiss it, is because it threatens your beliefs. It has nothing to do with the evidence, because it is obvious you know nothing about it based on your lame counter arguments.
On the contrary you cannot let go of evolution however silly it may seem, because that is that would threaten your position.
"Now I know that you are more ignorant than I thought you were."
I got a good laugh out of this one. Thanks...
"Do you know about the cell or have you ever cosidered the eye? A jet plane is nothing compared to these."
Are you serious? You really think a jet plane is more complex than an eye or a single cell?
"Or you have not considered our solar system and the arrangement of the planets. All these are so irreducably complex that if it any less complex it would ceases to exit."
Yes, I am sure there are lots of things that could have caused us not to exist. And that is why there are trillions of planets out there that could not support life due to the lack of proper planetary alignment and a million other reasons too. But the odds are that a few would have planets that have the right conditions. Ours is one, or we wouldn't be here contemplating such things. If there was such order and design in the universe, then why are all planets suitable for life?
"They were complex and could not have evolved - indicating a maker. "
Please provide the proof that there is no other way they could have evolved except by a maker? You keep making this claim, but have yet to provide one shred of evidence.
"You can speak about yourself but how can you speak for me? How do you know that I have need any evidence? I do have evidences, but you would not accept them, because you do not want welcome the truth. You need to examine your choices about knowing the truth and only then can you see the evidences."
Evidence is something tangible. Something that leads one to a conclusion. You expect us to come to the conclusion without evidence, and then lo and behold, the evidence suddenly appears. If you can not show or demonstrate this evidence, it is not evidence. It is just something you feel.
"The fact that things are irreducably complex makes evolution non-probable and intelligent design the answer."
By keep saying this over and over will not make it anymore true. Again, where is the proof that this is the ONLY possible reason for the complexity.
"When you say that you are not sure that means there is some amount of assumption involved. This will imply that what you got is not 100% truth."
Never said anything was 100% sure. I am sure there are aspects of evolution that are still not understood. That doesn't mean the whole theory is thrown out the window. As in my example, it is possible that a rain cloud could have come by and just rained on him, or maybe someone through a bucket of water on him. But based on the evidence we have, the most probable explanation is he went into the water.
"Weather no other explanation is unclikly or not, depends on various attributes like your knowledge of things, your acceptence of the possiblility of some other explanaions, the other objects around the object in study (for example what if it had rained?). Look clearly at thngs."
Absolutely correct. Now lets apply that to ID and evolutionary theory.
Plants and animals on this planet came about as a result of billions of years of evolution that can clearly be seen through fossil records. The evidence is observable and testable.
Complexity in nature must mean there was a designer. The end. How do you prove this theory?
"They do, they just don't accept it. There are evidences like traces of water marks on the great pyramid, fossils of sea creatures on the himalayas etc. But the evolutionists would not accept those evidences for obvious reasons. "
And you are an expert in geology to verify these finding? Yes, we know land masses move. Mountains being pushed up by plate tectonics were once underwater. Never heard the one about water marks on pyramids. Care to show me your source for this little tidbit.
"What do you mean there are no transitional stage? Did one animal just turn into another one fine morning? As I mentioned before if an animals fins evolves into wings and the change is gradual then there should be a stage when what it had was neither a wing nor a fin. That is the middle stage. Any animal would not survive that stage for it to pass the geanatic information to the next generation."
Are you purposely being obtuse? Evolution is constantly happening. There are no "transitional stages". Nothing just pops up and in one day, or even over a few hundred years, a new species is all of the sudden created. Changes occur very slowly over many millenia, and there is no one point where it sudennly becomes a new species. It is a process. One that has been observed in fossil records.
Have you ever actually looked into what real scientists say about evolution. Or does your stubborn belief in you faith prevent you from expanding your knowledge?
***The fact that the universe is complex is not proof of a designer. It is supposition, and that is not how the scientific method works. You can hypothesize
all you want, but until you can show evidence supporting it, it is meaningless. And there is nothing in nature even remotely like a jet plane.***
Now I know that you are more ignorant than I thought you were. Do you know about the cell or have you ever cosidered the eye? A jet plane is nothing compared to these. Or you have not considered our solar system and the arrangement of the planets. All these are so irreducably complex that if it any less complex it would ceases to exit. They were complex and could not have evolved - indicating a maker.
You have made nothing clear. You are right I have not seen any evidence. But neither have you. Or if you have, you haven't presented any of it.
You can speak about yourself but how can you speak for me? How do you know that I have need any evidence? I do have evidences, but you would not accept them, because you do not want welcome the truth. You need to examine your choices about knowing the truth and only then can you see the evidences.
***You are making some wild claims here. You use words like "only", and think that is enough to support your argument. Please demonstrate how
complexity in nature can only have been the result of intelligent design. When you can do that, then you have evidence. JUST THE FACT THAT IT IS COMPLEX
IS NOT EVIDENCE!***
The fact that things are irreducably complex makes evolution non-probable and intelligent design the answer.
***In never siad they were dumb. But they were talking about things that they couldn't explain because they knew so little about the physical universe. We
know much more now, and it is obvious that the world was not created in 6 days, and that we evolved from simple life forms.***
I already told you they just wrote down what they were heard and saw. Also I never claimed that they were as informed as us. I only object to your reffering to them as uncivilised barbarians.
No, it is not obvious that we had evolved and I have already told you that the "simple organism" that you reffer to, is much more complex than you think.
Also scintific studies shows that life could not have formed from a simple organism in a primordial soup because it would need a complex system and the information necessary to handle the oxigen in the atmosphere. (If you would accept those as scientific studies..). Creatures ware created (designed) with that system in place.
***Yes I can, because there is evidence he went in the water. He was wet. Can I be 100% sure, no. But the evidence is there, and any other exlpanation is
highly unlikely.***
When you say that you are not sure that means there is some amount of assumption involved. This will imply that what you got is not 100% truth. Weather no other explanation is unclikly or not, depends on various attributes like your knowledge of things, your acceptence of the possiblility of some other explanaions, the other objects around the object in study (for example what if it had rained?). Look clearly at thngs.
***Have you reviewed the evidence to make such a fantastic claim. They would know if there was a world wide flood. There is no such evidence. Please tell
me you don't really believe the flood fairy tale. It would be impossible for the entire earth to have been covered with water."***
They do, they just don't accept it. There are evidences like traces of water marks on the great pyramid, fossils of sea creatures on the himalayas etc. But the evolutionists would not accept those evidences for obvious reasons.
***I understand exactly what it is. And it doesn't exist. Evolution is constantly occuring. There is no transition stage. It happens slowly, and evolutionary
process has been observed in fossil records.***
***Who said nothing in the middle was found? Define "the middle"? Starting with the deepest rock, simplest life forms were found, and as you move up
through the earth's crust, the life gets more complex. There is no transition. There is no point that all of the sudden a new species starts. There is nothing
sudden about it. It is a process that occurs over many millenia.***
What do you mean there are no transitional stage? Did one animal just turn into another one fine morning? As I mentioned before if an animals fins evolves into wings and the change is gradual then there should be a stage when what it had was neither a wing nor a fin. That is the middle stage. Any animal would not survive that stage for it to pass the geanatic information to the next generation.
"Can an average person today do a complex mathematical calculation without the help of a calculator?"
Yes they can. They can actually do much more complex math then the "average" person from biblical times. The "smartest" people today could also do much more complex math than then the scholars then. And we are not talking about intelligence here. We are talking about knowledge.
"Telling me to provide evidence and at the same time asking me not to give you intelligent design is like asking me for the answer for 2+2 and telling me not to give you 4 as the answer. So I will provide you that evidence. Can you see a design in the universe. Study at all the plants, animals, and other creatures. Do you see a design or a pattern? Is it real, is it observable? That shows that there is a designer. This is one evidence that is staring right at you but you don't want to see it. "
Intelligent design is not evidence. It is not even science. It is creationism dressed up in a lab coat. The existence of design or patterns in nature say nothing about the characteristics of that design, nor its origins. And to imply that is actual evidence of a sentient designer is upsurd. If an accorn falls in a pond and it makes ripple patterns, who created that? The tree?
"Here is an interesting study from your own mouth. You don't believe that aliens have visited us because you have not seen any evidence. You my believe so but does that mean that the aliens have not visited us? We have no evidence for alien life so far. So do we conclude that there are no aliens? No, we can only conclude that we do not know weather there are aliens or not. So, the (so called) lack of evidence can only mean "we don't know". "
I don't believe aliens have been here for many reasons. Absolutely, there is no evidence. But also, based on what we know about the physical universe, inter-stellar travel is impossible. And even if we discover a way to over come the vast distances, the sheer improbability of two planets with intelligent life actually making contact would be virtually impossible. I love science fiction, but it is just fiction. You see I base my views on real concrete physical evidence. Anything else is pure supposition. Could there be things that we don't know yet that could change that belief. Of course. But there is nothing we know about physics right now that would ever make insteller travel possible, and that is all we can go by. You need to look at things objectively. You have already made up your mind, and then go out and find evidence to support that belief, and deride anyone else with contra evidence (an overwhelming amout) as being in some kind conspiracy aimed at you belief system.
I have never claimed to know for sure there is no god. I also don't know for sure there is no Allah, Rama, Thor, or flying spaghetti monster. But I have never seen any evidence of anything supernatural. So why would I believe it? Just because many other people do? Just because it is written in an ancient text written by suspersticious men?
"Has the process of one kind of animal evolving to another been observed or verified?"
Absolutely they have! Through fossil records. There is no doubt. In the deepest rock layers, they found no signs of life, then as you move up the first life found are simple organisms and invertabrate, then as the get to more recent rock they find vertabrates, and they continue to get more complex as you get closer to the surface. Human fossils have only been found in the most superficial layers of the earth. Since the more complex animals didn't exist early on, they must have evolved from the simplier life forms. Otherwise we would find fossil remains of all animals at all levels of rock. This IS proof that evolution occurs.
You are being lied to, and you really should understand this. It isn't very hard to find the answers if you are willing to consider you might be wrong. Most christians do not deny evolutionary science, but they are still christians. Even the catholic church accepts evolution.
"A jet plane is designed for a specific purpose. Such type of specific design is found in the universe. And that obviously shows the existence of an intelligent mind behind it."
You use the word "obviously" a lot. There is nothing obvious about your supposition. The fact that the universe is complex is not proof of a designer. It is supposition, and that is not how the scientific method works. You can hypothesize all you want, but until you can show evidence supporting it, it is meaningless. And there is nothing in nature even remotely like a jet plane.
"I have already made it clear to you that it is you who have not seen the the evidence and hence you cannot say "there are no evidence"."
You have made nothing clear. You are right I have not seen any evidence. But neither have you. Or if you have, you haven't presented any of it.
"There are a lot of evidence that you are blind to, like the complexity of nature and design. For example the DNA has huge amount of information and we know that information can come only from an intelligent mind."
You are making some wild claims here. You use words like "only", and think that is enough to support your argument. Please demonstrate how complexity in nature can only have been the result of intelligent design. When you can do that, then you have evidence. JUST THE FACT THAT IT IS COMPLEX IS NOT EVIDENCE!
"I also showed you that the people who wrote the scriptures were not dumb as you think they were. How much knowledge is required anyway for just writing down what they saw? All you seem to like to do, is to keep on saying what you already said. "
In never siad they were dumb. But they were talking about things that they couldn't explain because they knew so little about the physical universe. We know much more now, and it is obvious that the world was not created in 6 days, and that we evolved from simple life forms.
"Yes it would be a supposition to say that he must have gone into the water. Just because there is water and a wet man, how can you connect the two? You can only say that he could have gone into the water. You cannot confidently say that he had gone into the water as you did not observe him going into the water."
Yes I can, because there is evidence he went in the water. He was wet. Can I be 100% sure, no. But the evidence is there, and any other exlpanation is highly unlikely.
"The fossil arrangement could also occur due to a catastrophe, like a world wide flood. The dating methods are also not without problems. "
Have you reviewed the evidence to make such a fantastic claim. They would know if there was a world wide flood. There is no such evidence. Please tell me you don't really believe the flood fairy tale. It would be impossible for the entire earth to have been covered with water."
"I think you don't understand what a missing link is. It is a fossil of any creature that is in the middle stage of its transition from one kind of animal to another. This type of fossils have not been found."
I understand exactly what it is. And it doesn't exist. Evolution is constantly occuring. There is no transition stage. It happens slowly, and evolutionary process has been observed in fossil records.
"Why is it that the fossils of simple organism is available and those of complex creatures are available when nothing in the middle is available? Because transition did not happen. "
Who said nothing in the middle was found? Define "the middle"? Starting with the deepest rock, simplest life forms were found, and as you move up through the earth's crust, the life gets more complex. There is no transition. There is no point that all of the sudden a new species starts. There is nothing sudden about it. It is a process that occurs over many millenia.
"That is a false belief."
Than show me some peer-reviewed evidence that disproves it.
"Well, if there is a design there must be a designer. That is plain to see."
Why must there be a designer? Patterns happen in nature all the time. I gave you an example of the acorn falling into water and causing a ripple pattern. No one created that pattern, it is just a chance event.
"Correct. There is nothing we know right now that could make interstellar travel possible. In future we could know something that could make interstellar travel possible. That means the fact that we don't know anything right now that could make interstellar travel possible, does not give us the license to conclude that interstellar travel is not possible at all. So is interstellar travel possible at all?"
We also don't know if one day we will be able to sprout wings and fly to? Based on our knowledge of biology it seems impossible now, but who knows? Right? So maybe we should all start preparing for the day when humans can fly. I mean, it COULD happen?
We can only make assumptions based on what we know today. Of course we still keeping looking for answers to the unknown, but to treat possible future breakthroughs as anything but wishfull thinking is useless.
"That means you are saying that there could be a God. That also means that you cannot make a claim that God does not exist because you are not sure of that. Well may be there is a God?"
And maybe there is a maybe a flying spaghetti monster too. There is just as much evidence that one exists as there is for a supernatural being that created the world and is overseeing the lives of everyone in it. Again, we can only make assumptions based on what we know today. We know nothing about the existence of god, except what it says in an ancient text written by men who knew far less about the physical universe than we do.
"I hope you understand that "they must have" is a supposition and not a positive statement. Though there are such fossils there are no missing links or transitional fossils that tells us that one kind of animal evolved from another. "
You are absolutely wrong. Say a guy is walking on the beach away from the water, and he is soaking wet. Would it be suppositional to say "he must have gone in the water"? No because the evidence is obvious. If older fossil records show much simplier life forms existing, and only newer fossils show complex life forms, it would not be suppositional to say the complex life forms evolved from the simplier ones. Otherwise where did the more complex ones come from?
Your lack of knowledge about evolutionary science is obvious. Your suggestion that there is no evidence of new species evolving from another is unfounded. Trying to find a link is not possible, because the changes happen so slowly they can not point to a specific time or fossil record to say that this is when this new species came to be. It doesn't work that way.
"Are you willing to consider that you might be wrong?"
If shown evidence that proves I am wrong, absolutely. But the evidence overwhelming supports evolution, and you have provided nothing to change that.
"I did not say "need to have". Atheists believe that there is no God, in the same way they believe that evolution happed and is responsible for the origin of life. "
Wrong again. Aithiests don't believe in god because there is absolutely no proof one exists. The belief in evolutionary science is supported by a mountain of evidence.
Why must there be a designer? Patterns happen in nature all the time. I gave you an example of the acorn falling into water and causing a ripple pattern. No one created that pattern, it is just a chance event.
That is not what we are talking about when we say design. Design is does not mean just some pattern. A jet plane is designed for a specific purpose. Such type of specific design is found in the universe. And that obviously shows the existence of an intelligent mind behind it.
And maybe there is a maybe a flying spaghetti monster too. There is just as much evidence that one exists as there is for a supernatural being that created the world and is overseeing the lives of everyone in it. Again, we can only make assumptions based on what we know today. We know nothing about the existence of god, except what it says in an ancient text written by men who knew far less about the physical universe than we do.
You are saying the same things again. I have already made it clear to you that it is you who have not seen the the evidence and hence you cannot say "there are no evidence". There are a lot of evidence that you are blind to, like the complexity of nature and design. For example the DNA has huge amount of information and we know that information can come only from an intelligent mind. I also showed you that the people who wrote the scriptures were not dumb as you think they were. How much knowledge is required anyway for just writing down what they saw? All you seem to like to do, is to keep on saying what you already said.
You are absolutely wrong. Say a guy is walking on the beach away from the water, and he is soaking wet. Would it be suppositional to say "he must have gone in the water"? No because the evidence is obvious. If older fossil records show much simplier life forms existing, and only newer fossils show complex life forms, it would not be suppositional to say the complex life forms evolved from the simplier ones. Otherwise where did the more complex ones come from?
Yes it would be a supposition to say that he must have gone into the water. Just because there is water and a wet man, how can you connect the two? You can only say that he could have gone into the water. You cannot confidently say that he had gone into the water as you did not observe him going into the water. The fossil arrangement could also occur due to a catastrophe, like a world wide flood. The dating methods are also not without problems.
Your lack of knowledge about evolutionary science is obvious. Your suggestion that there is no evidence of new species evolving from another is unfounded. Trying to find a link is not possible, because the changes happen so slowly they can not point to a specific time or fossil record to say that this is when this new species came to be. It doesn't work that way.
I think you don't understand what a missing link is. It is a fossil of any creature that is in the middle stage of its transition from one kind of animal to another. This type of fossils have not been found. Why is it that the fossils of simple organism is available and those of complex creatures are available when nothing in the middle is available? Because transition did not happen.
the belief in evolutionary science is supported by a mountain of evidence.
That is a false belief.
"You assuming too much. Look at this sentence you have typed. Have I ever in my answer mention a Christian God? We are right now talking about weather a God exists or not. As to who that God is, is the next step into which we have not entered yet."
Well, you are a christian, so I assume, you believe in the christian god and not allah. It is irrelevant what god you are talking about, or all gods. There is no evidence that ANY dieties exist. Just as there is no evidence faires and gnomes exist. The only difference is in the number of people who believe such things, and that says nothing about the probability of either being true.
"Some people claim that God does not exist and some people claim that God does not exist."
You should really proof read before you post.
"It is an incorrect statement when you say that there are no evidence. Many people very easily make this statement and don't even realize erroneous that statement is. You could only say rather that you have not seen any evidence."
Believe me, I have looked. I am not unfamiliar with christianity. Please show me what evidence you have of the existence of any god? Real observable, verifiable evidence. Don't give me some intelligent design crap like saying the fact that the universe is so complex proves it must have been designed that way. That is not evidence. That is supposition. The only thing it proves is the universe is complex, and offers no evidence as to how it came to be complex.
"Oh no! Please don't make such blind statements. Those people were capable of much more than we are. It is a wrong and arrogant statement that you made"
It is wrong and arrogant of you to dismiss centruries of scientific discovery simply because it interferes with your unsupported notion of our origins. Did the people who wrote the bible 1700 years ago understand the concept of genetics? Pretty much anyone who has goine thorough hugh school science has a rudimentary understanding. Did they understand the atom? Did they understand that stars were the same as our sun, just further away? Did they understand the earth was just sphere revolving around the sun? DId they know how to use a computer? Please... this statement is about the most absurd you have made, and that is saying a lot.
I am with annv, please tell us what these ancient people knew that we didn't?
"So the point I am making is that you don't believe in the existence of God because you have not seen any evidence. You are welcome to believe whatever you want about God but you cannot make a blind claim about His non-existence just because you have not seen the evidences."
I don't believe in anything if I have not seen evidence of it. I don't believe aliens have visited us, I don't believe in ghosts or spirits or anything supernatural, I don't believe in ESP, or mind reading. God is no different. My claim about his non-existence is far from blind. It's amazing how you spent three paragraghs basically telling me that I just haven't seen the evidence, but not once do you offer any of that evidence. Show me your evidence. Imperical, tangible evidence.
"It is when you make such claims you are required to provide evidence."
What evidence I am supposed to show? You are the one making the claim, not me. You claim god exists, I say, show me the evidence.
"1. Life is said to have started in the for of a single celled organism from the primordial soup. Was there oxygen in the atmosphere at that time? If there was then life could not have formed and if there was no oxygen still life could not have formed. Is it not wrong to assume that life formed as a single celled organism? Could evolution be possible?"
You are asking questions about things we are not sure. How the very first life started is not known for sure. But that doesn't change the fact that evolution HAS been proven to have occurred. There is no doubt (except from those who feel threatened by the findings). The overwhelming evidence in the fossil records is clear.
"2. Life is said to have been as a result of reaction of energy on matter that existed in the primordial soup. The energy that could be present are radiation from the sun, electrical discharge from lightning, energy from radioactive decay and heat. These are all harmful raw energy. How could they have aided life? "
What a completely ridiculous statement. Not all energy is harmful. We use radiation to shrink tumors. We use defibrilators to restart someones heart. Have the energies been used to aid life?
"3. According to evolution the creature evolves when there is a beneficial mutation in the genetic structure. Are there beneficial mutations?"
Of course there are. Otherwise changes would not happen. Are there mutations that are not beneficial? Of course, but obviously only the beneficial ones survive. Early giraffes had shorter necks. Genetic mutations enabled those with longer necks to reach the higher branches and thus got better food. Eventually those mutations became a characteristic of the species. It is really not that difficult to understand.
"4. It has been found that there is information in the DNA to fill 1 million encyclopedias and that these are coded in the correct sequence. How could this be by random chance? "
You really need to read a real book on how this works, because it is obvious how misinfromed you are. It didn't happen by random chance. It happened over millions of years. They're coded in the correct sequence, because those that were not coded in the correct sequence did not survive.
"5. The Chromosome count in a species does not allow itself to breed with other species. There is no evidence that a species can change the chromosome count which exists within the DNA. How the could different species have evolved from one organism? "
Again, you are trying to imply this happens over night. If a mutation of chromosone count is beneficial to the species, then over millions of years, those with similiar mutations will start a new species. That is how it works. Or at least it is theorized that it does. What is not a theory though is that EVOLUTION DOES OCCUR. Trying to say that evolution doesn't happen is like saying that gravity doesn't happen.
I am sure you have not once looked into the real science behind evolution. You have found enough crackpots who will feed you misinformation, and that is enough for you to dismiss it. And the sole reason for you WANTING to dismiss it, is because it threatens your beliefs. It has nothing to do with the evidence, because it is obvious you know nothing about it based on your lame counter arguments.
I have done a lot of back and forth in this site and I find that many are blindly trusting science just because it is science. Merely replying to points is getting us nowhere so I thought I would present it this way.
There has been continous non-logical debate going on here. When a person speaks of Intelligent design everyone jumps on him and asks him for evidences not considering, if they have any evidence for their position. If evidences are given that does not match popular beliefs that person is rediculed.
Looking at the complex desgn of the universe they cannot conclude that a designer exists. They look at what is not there rather than what is there. There
was an argument about why there is no life in other planets if the universe was deigned? That's a sensless way of looking at things. Rather one must look at how the earth is designed for life. How Jupiter acts like a gaint vacumme cleaner and protects our planet. There are numerous such features that are precise that it is highly improbable that all these evolved.
Once I make a claim against a popular belief I am required to provide evidence. But you fail to notice, that when you support the popular belief the initial claim is already made by you. Therefore you are the one that needs to provide evidence first. But "no, since it comes form science that is by default true" seems to be the position you take.
Now when some aspects of evolution is still unknown it need not be thrown out, but the creation alternative is outright rejected. There are many assumptions in evolution that are totally illogic and the theory is built on such assumptions. The theory of evolution needs billions of years because that is
the nature of the theory. If the millions of years are not assumed then the theory does not work. How can you be sure that there were millions of years for evolution to happen? Have you questioned this or have you blindly accepted it.
Here are some things to ponder for those who are prepared to think unbiasdly.
Scientists all agree that Universe had a beginning. They have a theory on how it began and that is the Big-Bang theory. This theory came about when
Edword Hubble noticed that the universe is expanding. Reverse calculation showed that there had be a starting point, the size of a period.
Evolutions say that life began billions of years ago. Therefore the universe must have begun before that. Several evedences about the dicreasing speed of the earth, increasing distence of the moon, redusing size of the sun and the expanding universe have all been observed by scientists. This puts billions of years in serious problem.
The second law of thermodynamics says that eveything goes from state of order to disorder. But evolution seems to do the opposite. How is that possible?
The first law of Thermodynamics says energy cannot be created or distroyed. This means energy did not have a biginning. We know that the universe had a beginning and we also know that huge amount of energy exist in the Universe in the billions of stars and galaxies. This energy must have be transformed because energy cannot be created. We could say that an energy source created this universe and looking at the design we know that this energy is intelligent. Why could this theory not be true?
**The existence of design or patterns in nature say nothing about the characteristics of that design, nor its origins. **
Well, if there is a design there must be a designer. That is plain to see.
**But there is nothing we know about physics right now that would ever make insteller travel possible, and that is all we can go by. **
Correct. There is nothing we know right now that could make interstellar travel possible. In future we could know something that could make interstellar travel possible. That means the fact that we don't know anything right now that could make interstellar travel possible, does not give us the license to conclude that interstellar travel is not possible at all. So is interstellar travel possible at all?
I have never claimed to know for sure there is no god.
That means you are saying that there could be a God. That also means that you cannot make a claim that God does not exist because you are not sure of that. Well may be there is a God?
Since the more complex animals didn't exist early on, they must have evolved from the simplier life forms.
I hope you understand that "they must have" is a supposition and not a positive statement. Though there are such fossils there are no missing links or transitional fossils that tells us that one kind of animal evolved from another.
It isn't very hard to find the answers if you are willing to consider you might be wrong.
Are you willing to consider that you might be wrong?
I never said micro-evolution is evidence of macro-evolution, I've said (numerous times) that there are aspects of evolution that have been PROVEN to occur. Micro-evolution is an aspect of evolution, so this statement is correct.
Ok So let us leave out Micro Evolution. What observable, verifiable evidence is there that a Macro evolution took place? Because when the origin of the life is questioned scientist point out to Macro evolution as the answer and show that God did not create life.
Which point are you trying to make? At first, you were trying to imply that atheists need to have faith in the NON-existence of God; now they need to have faith that evolution exists. Make up your mind. Either way, you've been toppled on both accounts. You also use the word 'faith' far too casually.
I did not say "need to have". Atheists believe that there is no God, in the same way they believe that evolution happed and is responsible for the origin of life.
**Believing in something, isn't necessarily DIS-beliving in something else. **
It is. Give me an example if it is not.
How can you exhibit disbelief, if you've never heard of it in the first place?
I don't understand this sentence. You have obviously heard of God haven't you?
how was their superiority evident?! What did they know that we did not?
Can an average person today do a complex mathematical calculation without the help of a calculator? People of those time could in fact calculate distance of moon, sun and other astronomical bodies without the help of any of the machines that we have today.
People could in those days memorize volumes of scriptures which an average man of today cannot do.
The Torah was written in Hebrew language. That language is far more complicated than any of the languages preset today. An average man of today can't even handle English which is a very simple. (I admit that includes me also). The New Testament was written in Greek again a very complex language. Both the languages had much more vocabulary and much more attributes that any language of today.
It is true that they did have the technology of today but they were not dumb uncivilized men as many people today think. They were not people who believed in anything and everything they saw. They also (like us) would endorse anything only if they knew for sure that it was the truth.
Believe me, I have looked. I am not unfamiliar with christianity. Please show me what evidence you have of the existence of any god? Real observable, verifiable evidence. Don't give me some intelligent design crap like saying the fact that the universe is so complex proves it must have been designed that way. That is not evidence. That is supposition. The only thing it proves is the universe is complex, and offers no evidence as to how it came to be complex.
Telling me to provide evidence and at the same time asking me not to give you intelligent design is like asking me for the answer for 2+2 and telling me not to give you 4 as the answer. So I will provide you that evidence. Can you see a design in the universe. Study at all the plants, animals, and other creatures. Do you see a design or a pattern? Is it real, is it observable? That shows that there is a designer. This is one evidence that is staring right at you but you don't want to see it.
Mat 13:14 ...and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive
I don't believe aliens have visited us,
Here is an interesting study from your own mouth. You don't believe that aliens have visited us because you have not seen any evidence. You my believe so but does that mean that the aliens have not visited us? We have no evidence for alien life so far. So do we conclude that there are no aliens? No, we can only conclude that we do not know weather there are aliens or not. So, the (so called) lack of evidence can only mean "we don't know".
"Looking at the complex desgn of the universe they cannot conclude that a designer exists. They look at what is not there rather than what is there."
If we "looked at what was there" that would also tell us that the moon makes it's own light.
"There was an argument about why there is no life in other planets if the universe was deigned? That's a sensless way of looking at things. Rather one must look at how the earth is designed for life."
The Earth is not "designed for life" life is EVOLVED to it.
"How Jupiter acts like a gaint vacumme cleaner and protects our planet. There are numerous such features that are precise that it is highly improbable that all these evolved."
What's Jupiters 63 moons for? Decoration?
"If the millions of years are not assumed then the theory does not work. How can you be sure that there were millions of years for evolution to happen? Have you questioned this or have you blindly accepted it."
It's not assumed, geology and radiometric dating tell us so
Now I do not blindly accept anything, I look at the facts and the evidence (for or against) for myself.
And I must say the evidence for evolution is quite incontrovertible I havn't seen a sufficient argument against it, and because it doesn't agree with bronze age myths isn't one.
The ancients used myth and superstition to explain their origins and things they didn't understand.
Take the rainbow for example, they didn't understand why rainbows appeared after storms so they came up with myth to explain them. But now we know that a rainbow is just the result of the refractive dispersion of sunlight, Creationists would say it was created that way, but why invoke god when the explanation DOESN'T require it.
"Oh and a fine, fine vacuum it is... evident by the complete lack of craters on the Earth's surface..."
...And atmospheres and such have nothing to do with it.
Speaking of which, our moon has no atmosphere, why? Because it's gravitational force isn't strong enough to hold one.
The other planets and moons have their own properties due to their composition, geology, size, distance from the sun etc. And adjust physically and chemically against their gravitational force that is keeping them together.
We live in a rational cause and effect universe, intelligent design is irrelevant and I don't see that it is required.
jimahl
You are just unable to understand what I am saying. So let me explain again. Santa and easter bunny does not exist and we all know that. Therefore it is meaningless to ask for evidence for their non-existence. BUT in the case of God, it is a group of people's claim that He does not exist.
In other words it is not a well known universally accepted fact that God does not exist. But it is a well know universally accepted fact that Santa does not exist. So this example is a wrong one.
So this is what it is. You are taking an object, that not universally accepted to be non-existent and claiming that, that object does not exist. Therefore you need to provide evidence for your claim.
**You seem to think that because there are a significant number of people who believe it, that somehow makes it more credible than say, a flying spagetti monster. **
Ok. Please correct this misunderstanding. I am do not think in this line at all.
According to your logic, Allah should also exist. As many sincere people claim so. And so does Brahma... and Zeus
You have not got it. I have never said that things are true because some people claim so. If that was my logic you would not find me asking for evidences. Please do not judge before understanding.
Theists' beliefs are based on faith, because there is no proof. Atheists don't have BELIEF... they have NON-BELIEF or DISBELIEF. Their non-beliefs are based on an ABSENSE of faith.
To say atheists do not have belief is completely illogical. Because anyone who claims to not believe in one set of beliefs will be a strong believer in another set of beliefs. If you an atheist "Does God exist?" he would answer "no". He says so because he believes that.
Let's see... at this point in your argument; you'd bring up evolution again, claiming that there's no proof of it, or that its been 'proven' to be wrong. Well, Stop regurgitating. Your argument is misinformed, circular, and pointless.
Well I would because you have not handled that yet.
" "You cannot prove that Santa does not exist, because he does not exist." True. "
" "You cannot prove that an easter bunny exists, because he does not exist." True"
" "You cannot prove that God does not exist, because He does not exist." No."
If you are going to change my example to make your point, at least do it right. You need to remove the "not" from the conclusion. Otherwise it makes no sense.
It should be either:
"You cannot prove that God does exist, because He does not exist."
or
"You cannot prove that God does not exist, because He does exist."
And you are right, the answer would be no to both.
eternallife, I make no claims to be able to prove god does not exist. And you can not prove it does. But I also see no evidence of its existence. Just as I see no evidence of Allah, santa or the easter bunny. I give the concept of god as much creedance as it deserves. A myth, fable, folk tale. Whatever you want to call it. You seem to think that because there are a significant number of people who believe it, that somehow makes it more credible than say, a flying spagetti monster. People use to beleive the earth was flat, or that the human race actually started from two people, and not through evolution. Oh.. wait.. there are still some ignoramous' who believe that.
"You just claim that God does not claim and you claim that, that is true because you say so. Then you say since he does not exist we need not prove the negative. I am asking you give the evidence that it is a negative in the first place."
Huh? I am not sure what you are asking here. If you ask someone to prove that something DOES NOT exist, that is asking to prove a negative. And it can't be done.
Science is about evidence. If you have no evidence of the existence of a diety, why would I believe it? Just because many other people do? Galileo thought differently, and they arrested him for it, and it turned out he was right. So forgive me for not having "faith" in religion's ability to see the truth.
"You are just unable to understand what I am saying. So let me explain again. Santa and easter bunny does not exist and we all know that. "
How about allah, or vishnu, or quetzalcoatl.
"BUT in the case of God, it is a group of people's claim that He does not exist. "
Wrong, it is a group of people's claim that he does exist, and another group of people who say to themselves that, since there is not one shred of evidence a god exists, why should I waste my time believing in one. Especially when that belief is based on an ancient text written by superstitious men who are far far less educated than the average person today.
"In other words it is not a well known universally accepted fact that God does not exist. But it is a well know universally accepted fact that Santa does not exist. So this example is a wrong one."
So for get about santa, how about allah? You keep trying to hang your hat on the power in numbers concept. The number of people who believe something is not proof of its existence. The majority of people in this world do not believe your god exists. Most believe in buddah, or allah, or hindu gods. Does that make their belief the right one because more people belive in them?
You are missing my point. I know you believe, but belief in a god to me is no different than believin in santa. There is no evidence of either. You are keep trying to make the point that the liklihood of god existing is higher simply because more people actually believe it. That is irrelevant to me. I am not going to believe something just because others do. I will believe something when I see evidence of it.
No it has not been handled. I have asked before and I will ask it again. Micro evolution is possible and has been tested in lab. But how can you use that as an evidence for Macro evolution? Has the process of one kind of animal evolving to another been observed or verified? If not then evolutionist are believers in that concept.
At first, you say there's no evidence of evolution, THEN you say 'micro evolution' exists, but there's no evidence 'macro evolution' ...just like before... learn to be consistent. I never said micro-evolution is evidence of macro-evolution, I've said (numerous times) that there are aspects of evolution that have been PROVEN to occur. Micro-evolution is an aspect of evolution, so this statement is correct.
So, to emphasize AGAIN... the process/existence of evolution has been proven in some aspect. What aspect of God has been proven? NONE.
Which point are you trying to make? At first, you were trying to imply that atheists need to have faith in the NON-existence of God; now they need to have faith that evolution exists. Make up your mind. Either way, you've been toppled on both accounts. You also use the word 'faith' far too casually.
If you don't believe in something that mean you are believing in something else. But of course you would not comment on that.
I did... you weren't listening... AS USUAL. Believing in something, isn't necessarily DIS-beliving in something else. How can you exhibit disbelief, if you've never heard of it in the first place?
How about allah, or vishnu, or quetzalcoatl.
You assuming too much. Look at this sentence you have typed. Have I ever in my answer mention a Christian God? We are right now talking about weather a God exists or not. As to who that God is, is the next step into which we have not entered yet.
Wrong, it is a group of people's claim that he does exist, and another group of people who say to themselves that, since there is not one shred of evidence a god exists, why should I waste my time believing in one.
Some people claim that God does not exist and some people claim that God does not exist. It is an incorrect statement when you say that there are no evidence. Many people very easily make this statement and don't even realize erroneous that statement is. You could only say rather that you have not seen any evidence.
Especially when that belief is based on an ancient text written by superstitious men who are far far less educated than the average person today.
Oh no! Please don't make such blind statements. Those people were capable of much more than we are. It is a wrong and arrogant statement that you made
So the point I am making is that you don't believe in the existence of God because you have not seen any evidence. You are welcome to believe whatever you want about God but you cannot make a blind claim about His non-existence just because you have not seen the evidences. It is when you make such claims you are required to provide evidence.
Eternallife, you are in way over your head. You don't even understand have the sources you quoted.
"You are contradicting yourself. You say "we don't know how life began" and yet you say "evolution happened"!! Evolution assumes that life began from a soup as a single celled organism and then that evolved. If you say you don't know how that life started how are sure that life did start in that manner? What are your evidences that for that? Isn't the theory dangling in thin air? "
No contridiction at all. Not knowing the exact mechanism of how life started does not change the fact that it did start. Not knowing the exact mechanism of how evolution works does not change the fact that it does occur. That is the difference between the THEORY of evolution and the FACTS of evolution. But the theory itself has been observed and tested and is universally accepted among the experts. Just as the theory of gravity has. The fact that evolution does happen is not disputed by anyone but those who can't accept it because of religious beliefs.
Your little dog and pony show here proves nothing, and your "conclusions" are poorly made assumptions based on selectiove incomplete evidence. I am through trying to educate someone who does not want to be educated. Go live in your fantasy world, and read you pseudo-science, and wait for judgement day.
Just keep you religious beliefs out of my kids science class.
Hi Silverwings,
I sincerely will not try to mock you or your religious believes. My pondering is a serious one. If it may sound a bit weird, it is not because I want it to sound weird. I just try to understand what it is that you mean:
You claim that a deity lives in your heart. That is a truly extraordinary claim. I have an average college understanding of anatomy and know that the human heart pumps blood around the body. This can be verified by scientific methods. But it is unlikely that the heart is occupied by a superhuman entity.
When you say these things, and you want (educated) people to believe you, you should provide some sort of verifiable evidence. It is the done thing. It is the method that allowed us to land on the Moon and to use modern medication. It gives us the opportunity to build buildings and computers. It makes planes fly in the right direction. It gives researchers an understanding of historical context. It reveals reality.
If you keep repeating a 'magic' formula that you quote from a collection of old texts without any rational reference, you will eventually not be believed anymore. Repeating extraordinary claims, does not make those claims less extraordinary.
On the basis of my education and rationality, I can not justify with any dignity to believe that you have a god living in your heart. You must be delusional. And I am sorry about that...
jimahl
There are many like who are so confident of evolution. Then mind answering some questions?
Life is said to have started in the for of a single celled organism from the primordial soup. Was there oxygen in the atmosphere at that time? If there was then life could not have formed and if there was no oxygen still life could not have formed. Is it not wrong to assume that life formed as a single celled organism? Could evolution be possible?
Life is said to have been as a result of reaction of energy on matter that existed in the primordial soup. The energy that could be present are radiation from the sun, electrical discharge from lightning, energy from radioactive decay and heat. These are all harmful raw energy. How could they have aided life?
According to evolution the creature evolves when there is a beneficial mutation in the genetic structure. Are there beneficial mutations?
It has been found that there is information in the DNA to fill 1 million encyclopedias and that these are coded in the correct sequence. How could this be by random chance?
The Chromosome count in a species does not allow itself to breed with other species. There is no evidence that a species can change the chromosome count which exists within the DNA. How the could different species have evolved from one organism?
I did not say "need to have".
I didn't say you did... I said it was implied. The ''need to have'' meaning faith is a prerequisite for Atheism. Read more carefully.
Ok So let us leave out Micro Evolution.
No... let's not. We're not going to just forget about valid information that works against YOU. What YOU need to do now, is provide an aspect of Creationism that has been PROVEN to occur. Which of course you cannot. As for macro-evolution, its a tad hard to witness a process that takes hundreds of thousands to millions of years. But there IS tangible evidence that supports it. Is there any tangible evidence of God creating the world in 7 days? No.
**Atheists believe that there is no God, in the same way they believe that evolution happed and is responsible for the origin of life. *It is. Give me an example if it is not.** I don't understand this sentence. You have obviously heard of God haven't you?
Yes I have... which it totally irrelevant because I'm not an Atheist. You've been told numerous times. Dare to retain data.
Not ALL people who are considered 'Atheists' have heard of God, nor have they heard of evolution. So how can a person exhibit belief or disbelief in something, when they've never heard of it in the first place?
They CAN'T... a LACK of belief isn't the same as DISbelief.
I think that what we know about the universe, scientific information and evidence, doesn't seem to fit logically or rationally with a creationist explanation but it does seem to fit neatly with an evolutionary one.
There are many examples of design occuring in nature, matter changing due to conditions, order coming from disorder, and many things that just make less sense from a creationist perspective but of course a creationists response to that is "god fixed it that way" The actions of an omnipotent god are outside the realm of logical questioning (I.e god knows everything and does what he wants)
Though it's no wonder that the idea of god doesn't seem to reconcile with the reality of things, on reason being, the world the ancients thought they were living in. They didn't have much scientific abilities, and lacked the knowledge that we have now.
Given our knowledge about the universe now it seems a bit silly to think that a god created it with one planet in mind for humans, it makes more sense that we're just a product of the universe. I don't see intelligent design in the universe, I see the design of natural processes. And there's confirming evidence for that, there is not much mystery. I see no place in the universe for a creator god.
One cannot prove a negative. Can you prove Santa doesn't exist. He must exist according to your logic. If you can't prove he doesn't exist, then he must exist. The same goes for the easter bunny, fairies, and leprechauns. They all must exist.
jimahl when will you see the falw in this. I agree that one can't prove the negative.
"You cannot prove that Santa does not exist, because he does not exist." True.
"You cannot prove that an easter bunny exists, because he does not exist." True
"You cannot prove that God does not exist, because He does not exist." No. In the above cases we all know that the bunny and Santa does not exist. But in the case of God you assume that he does not exist. That's he difference.
You just claim that God does not claim and you claim that, that is true because you say so. Then you say since he does not exist we need not prove the negative. I am asking you give the evidence that it is a negative in the first place.
Yes... it is.
No. It is not
Right... NEITHER of you can prove EITHER... ...LIKE I SAID BEFORE.
That's my point... We can't prove or disprove God.
Therefore you say that both atheists and theists work based on faith since neither has proofs.
No... let's not. We're not going to just forget about valid information that works against YOU. What YOU need to do now, is provide an aspect of Creationism that has been PROVEN to occur. Which of course you cannot. As for macro-evolution, its a tad hard to witness a process that takes hundreds of thousands to millions of years. But there IS tangible evidence that supports it. Is there any tangible evidence of God creating the world in 7 days? No.
Alright then. Creating the universe in 7 days is just one aspect of creation. Scientists have proven that universe had a beginning. That can be considered as one aspect of creation that is proved. Also there are no tangible evidence for Macro evolution as well.
Not ALL people who are considered 'Atheists' have heard of God, nor have they heard of evolution. So how can a person exhibit belief or disbelief in something, when they've never heard of it in the first place?
Its highly unlikely that any human being has not heard of God. Any savage from the deepest of Africa with no knowledge about the rest of the world would still consider something as God and will be worshiping it his own way. There is no position of "no belief". Man does believe in something or the other.
silverwings knows nothing of the real world. Hers is a fantasy world that requires her to constantly repeat the dogma to maintain it. Trying to use reason and logic against dogma is futile. She has such strong defense mechanisms erected around her life, that evidence is not important, or even required. She is so afraid she might be wrong, that anything that might question her fantasy is immediatley dismissed as the work of the devil.
You are making random statements about silverwings without knowing anything about her. Don't you understand the simple fact that you need to know someone reasonably well to make any judgment about her. People with such attitude are the ones that make the random judgment that God does not exist without knowing anything about Him.
The fact is that no matter how much we try or no matter how much we want it, we will never know of the existence of God or any other deity until death or until some sort of armageddon.
Not true. Its just your opinion.
...it doesn't MODERATELY prove it either... there's no proof PERIOD. The same goes for the NON-existence of God.
Again this is just your opinion. This is NOT the TRUTH.
Eternallife,
You wrote: '...an average man of today can't even handle English which is a very simple..'.
Well, I am not an average man, so, perhaps that disqualifies me as a subject for your 'observation', but I do know a number of people quite closely indeed, who master extensive Hebrew and Greek... and Latin and English and... well, you get the point.
A key consideration regarding your evidence-for-aliens point is the notion of probability (as Jimahl mentioned). Probability factors are often used in scientific methods. It is related to the idea of evidence; one could calculate on the basis of cosmological knowledge how probable it is for aliens to visit Earth (by the way, knowledge is gained by scientific method and not wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is practiced by fundamentalist faithful people).
Anyway, good luck with your desperate fight... if you go on in this rather undignified manner, you will eventually find ridicule on your path. Perhaps you deserve that...
For example the DNA has huge amount of information and we know that information can come only from an intelligent mind.
And... how do we KNOW that?
Scientists have proven that universe had a beginning.
No they haven't... The Big Bang is still a THEORY. Even if they did, that proves no aspect of creation. Try again. I'll ask you again (READ CAREFULLY) ...what aspect of Creationism has been PROVEN to occur?
Also there are no tangible evidence for Macro evolution as well.
Yes, there is... you just won't acknowledge it... as usual. You ignore the evidence and start over.
Its highly unlikely that any human being has not heard of God. There is no position of "no belief". Man does believe in something or the other.
That's your ignorance talking. The view of a narrow mind, with narrow vision. Not all spiritual beliefs revolve around a deity.
Hey Eternallife,
You say about the author's of the text that form the base of the modern Bible: '...Those people were capable of much more than we are...'.
Ooohhh, I beg you in all honesty... please, please tell us; how was their superiority evident?! What did they know that we did not?
Please... this is not a trick question. Educate us! (finally, your claim is not so extraordinary this time. Many people receive taxpayers money to unravel related issues. You see, the modern Bible is an 'incomplete' selection of ancient texts. Many of the 'missing' texts do not favour the modern generic christian doctrine and were unsuccessful for further publication when the first compound Bible was devised in about 350BC. Your claim could put emphasis on this religious divide. As dramatic as that might be, It could be an interesting development; you being an... enthusiastic christian and all...).
What is the alternative? Inforamation came from nowhere? That is what evolutionist ignore ( because they can't answer) when they say life began from primordial soup.
***No they haven't... The Big Bang is still a THEORY. Even if they did, that proves no aspect of creation. Try again. I'll ask you again (READ CAREFULLY) ...what
aspect of Creationism has been PROVEN to occur?***
Yes they have and that the universe had a beginning is an aspect of creationism that has been proved. Why would that not be aspect of creationism if Micro evolution can be an aspect of Macro?
Yes, there is... you just won't acknowledge it... as usual. You ignore the evidence and start over.
I could say the same thing. You would not acknowledge the evidence for intelligent design.
Scientists all agree that Universe had a beginning.
Just because they agree, doesn't mean they've proven it.
was an argument about why there is no life in other planets if the universe was deigned? That's a sensless way of looking at things.
...Is English your second language? Maybe that's why you sound so incompetent.
There are numerous such features that are precise that it is highly improbable that all these evolved.
Yet, you only list ONE... and a pisspoor example. Claiming that Jupiter is just God's Hoover... SERIOUSLY? Oh and a fine, fine vacuum it is... evident by the complete lack of craters on the Earth's surface...
Funny how you talk of the UNIVERSE being designed, and the only example you can provide involves a neighboring planet.
"Micro evolution is possible and has been tested in lab. But how can you use that as an evidence for Macro evolution?"
Macroevolution happens by the accumulative changes of microevolution
"Has the process of one kind of animal evolving to another been observed or verified? If not then evolutionist are believers in that concept."
We have a few examples of macroevolution occuring in recorded human history (e.g new sunflower species in the last few hundreds of years)
The road to new species has many intermediates, it may occur gradually or episodic. But generally speaking evolution happens over long periods of time, a single speciation event would happen over generations and wont get you from one of animal to another type.
I think the ancients who worshipped the sun and nature as gods had the right idea, minus the anthropomorphism and worshipping.
I think gods are believed in for quite a few reasons, but there isn't any reason to suspect they actually exist.
The view of god that most people have is the figment of primitive, superstitious men. When they many millennia ago may have questioned why they were here, what they came up with was god and that answered their questions.
Personally I do not believe in any deities or a creator god, because there isn't anything to me that suggests they exist and the evidence supports that.
Obviously the ancients knew less than we do today.
Therefore you say that both atheists and theists work based on faith since neither has proofs.
No... I don't...
Theists' beliefs are based on faith, because there is no proof. Atheists don't have BELIEF... they have NON-BELIEF or DISBELIEF. Their non-beliefs are based on an ABSENSE of faith.
Let's see... at this point in your argument; you'd bring up evolution again, claiming that there's no proof of it, or that its been 'proven' to be wrong. Well, Stop regurgitating. Your argument is misinformed, circular, and pointless. The existence or non-existence of God, has NO bearing on evolution; because atheists are NOT evolutionists by default.
Its been handled, numerous times, by myself and others on this site. You simply ignore it, and start over...
No it has not been handled. I have asked before and I will ask it again. Micro evolution is possible and has been tested in lab. But how can you use that as an evidence for Macro evolution? Has the process of one kind of animal evolving to another been observed or verified? If not then evolutionist are believers in that concept.
You seem to not accept some facts to hold on to your position. If you don't believe in something that mean you are believing in something else. But of course you would not comment on that.
jimahl for once you are in agreement with me. There is no point trying to show truth to someone who is stubborn and do not want to look at truths. But I am not as hard hearted as you. I will keep praying for you that the Lord one day opens your eyes and you see the truth. Kids need to know the truth and save themselves. I will continue to share Jesus with everyone I can.
So... I guess you've never heard of ''anaerobic organisms'' ...they DO exist, and they DON'T need oxygen to live.*
Thank you for supporting my point. These organisms do not need oxygen to exist. If the do come into the presence of oxygen they die.
Yes they have and that the universe had a beginning is an aspect of creationism that has been proved.
sigh ...then go ahead... provide the information that PROVES it...
Why would that not be aspect of creationism if Micro evolution can be an aspect of Macro?
(1) Because it would be simultaneously proving an aspect of 'The Big Bang' theory... which gets you nowhere. (2) If you want to consider the scientific 'evidence' of when the universe began, to be PROOF; then you also have to accept that the biblical time-table of God creating the 'heavens and the Earth' ...is off by several billion years.
That's why you cannot apply logic to the concept of God... because it defies logic. And claiming that God CAN be proven to exist, when he cannot, defies God. So why do so many 'believers' claim as such, when in the end it only shows their own weakness of faith?
No it is not.
Yes... it is.
Eetternallife, would you care to prove to me that God in fact does exist? I'll bet you that you can't.
piamonte_jr, could you prove to me that GOD doesn't exist. You can't either.
Right... NEITHER of you can prove EITHER... ...LIKE I SAID BEFORE.
To say atheists do not have belief is completely illogical.
You come to that conclusion because you're applying logic (subjectively) to a concept that DEFIES logic.
If you an atheist "Does God exist?" he would answer "no". He says so because he believes that.
That's a generalization... there are also atheists who would answer ''...who is God?''
Well I would because you have not handled that yet.
Its been handled, numerous times, by myself and others on this site. You simply ignore it, and start over...
Annv, silverwings knows nothing of the real world. Hers is a fantasy world that requires her to constantly repeat the dogma to maintain it. Trying to use reason and logic against dogma is futile. She has such strong defense mechanisms erected around her life, that evidence is not important, or even required. She is so afraid she might be wrong, that anything that might question her fantasy is immediatley dismissed as the work of the devil.
People like that have given up on reality long ago.
Thank you for supporting my point. These organisms do not need oxygen to exist. If the do come into the presence of oxygen they die.
WRONG AGAIN. Just because they don't NEED it, doesn't mean that it'll kill them:
Facultative anaerobes can use oxygen when it is present, and still survive in its absense. Aerotolerant organisms can survive in the presence of oxygen, and have no need for it at all.
You're point was ''oxygen is required for life'' ...your point was WRONG.
These questions are starting to get a little annoying. The fact is that no matter how much we try or no matter how much we want it, we will never know of the existence of God or any other deity until death or until some sort of armageddon.
Amblessed, by repeating the same things over and over again for every single question you are not helping anyone. The bible does not absolutely prove the existence of God. Telling people to read the bible will not help anyone.
im a proud athiest so I dont beleive in any god or religion is there a god? in my opinion no and in the opinion of science, no because they havent found any proof of one or that one ever existed and there are a range of religions that people beleive in all of which have a god so if you choose to beleive in a religion there is more than just one god to consider worshipping and christianity isnt the first religion either
"talking about the fossil record; this funny Utube satirist named Edward Current pointed out that God put the fossils in the ground in such way that it really only looks like as if it was the result of evolution and geological systems"
I would find this answer (as silly as it sounds) a more acceptable explanation from the creationists than the out and out denial of extensive science research proving evolution occurs.
Austinchild,
When you write '...to anyone with a legitimate anger or such against God, watch out...', are you thinking of retributions? It sounds rather unpleasant. Or do you have a surprising and fresh message for the people that you are addressing?
What if one does not believe in the existence of any god (including your JHWH)? Surely, that person can not be angry with any of those deities?
"jimahl for once you are in agreement with me. There is no point trying to show truth to someone who is stubborn and do not want to look at truths. But I am not as hard hearted as you. I will keep praying for you that the Lord one day opens your eyes and you see the truth. Kids need to know the truth and save themselves. I will continue to share Jesus with everyone I can. "
You are delusional...
I know that oxygen is required for life.
No... it isn't...
But the point is that if humans or any other creature did not have a sophisticated system to handle the oxygen they breath in from the atmosphere it would kill them.
So... I guess you've never heard of ''anaerobic organisms'' ...they DO exist, and they DON'T need oxygen to live.
... talking about the fossil record; this funny Utube satirist named Edward Current pointed out that God put the fossils in the ground in such way that it really only looks like as if it was the result of evolution and geological systems, just only to test our faith; the deeper you dig... the harder your believe in him is tested...
Check it out!
Eternallife,
You might not be surprised that I am on Jimahl's side when it comes to the 'Santa' issue. According to your logic, Allah should also exist. As many sincere people claim so. And so does Brahma... and Zeus. It is the consequence of consistency within your claim... You can't demand special pleading!
Eternallife... are you at it again?! Again you claim that you have evidence for God's existence?
No you do not! You do not tell the truth! You make this absurd claim but are not willing to follow it up. I am sorry, but your insistence has become ridiculous! You have lost your credibility. Have you no dignity?
I believe "God" is a universal energy. The native american indians did not have the bible. They had their own connection with god, but christians consider their practices as pagan. and so many christians say that they were mindless savages. If you ask me... yes there is a god but not necessarily a christian god.
eternallife, this has been discussed ad nausem. One cannot prove a negative. Can you prove Santa doesn't exist. He must exist according to your logic. If you can't prove he doesn't exist, then he must exist. The same goes for the easter bunny, fairies, and leprechauns. They all must exist.
Eternallife,
Some people have the opinion that the Earth is a square. Others have the opinion that it is a sphere.
Now what? To state that a certain notion is just an opinion, does not provide an argument in favor of reality. It only points out that something could be someone's opinion.
Why exactly do you think oxygen is required? Try to be specific.
I know that oxygen is required for life. But the point is that if humans or any other creature did not have a sophisticated system to handle the oxygen they breath in from the atmosphere it would kill them.
Im an athiest so if im honest then I would have to say no that I dont believe there is a god, there has been no proof of the excistance of heaven, hell and god etc ... but I have nothing against people that do believe in god, this is just my opinion :) x
...yes... it is...
No it is not.
Eetternallife, would you care to prove to me that God in fact does exist? I'll bet you that you can't.
piamonte_jr, could you prove to me that GOD doesn't exist. You can't either.
OF COURSE THERE IS!!! he created the universe after some heavy drinking, and when we pass on into the after life we can join him, with his beer volcano and many strippers, all praise the FSM!!! lol, are there any Pastafarian with me?
Eternallife"Well, if there is a design there must be a designer. That is plain to see."***
Eternallife, just for interest sake: If Alliens pitch up one day, some way or another, would god also have created them???
Yes Definitely. God is the creator of this Universe
Well I guess I can't wait for them to pitch up and ask them if they know god or passed him on their way here lol, think you know the answer to that one!!!
There are several thousands of gods that were or are worshipped by sincere people. Not one of them has left a fraction of empirical evidence for its existence.
So..., No! Very, very unlikely...
yes God IS real read the Bible and youll see he loves you and wants to help you if you pray and ask him to come in your heart he will love you and you will go to heaven if you dont youll go to hell
***"Oh and a fine, fine vacuum it is... evident by the complete lack of craters on the Earth's surface..."
...And atmospheres and such have nothing to do with it.***
I hope you're joking...
Eternallife, just for interest sake: If Alliens pitch up one day, some way or another, would god also have created them???
Yes Definitely. God is the creator of this Universe.
If there was then life could not have formed and if there was no oxygen still life could not have formed.
Why exactly do you think oxygen is required? Try to be specific.
The bible does not absolutely prove the existence of God.
...it doesn't MODERATELY prove it either... there's no proof PERIOD. The same goes for the NON-existence of God.
Right Satanmymaster666,
Every man is Napoleon if he chooses to see himself as Napoleon...
You have an interesting grip on reality...!
well you have to have faith...no one knows for sure...afterall the bible was written A.D. ...Have faith, good things will come your way!
'piamonte_jr, could you prove to me that GOD doesn't exist. You can't either.'
That's my point... We can't prove or disprove God.
Eetternallife, would you care to prove to me that God in fact does exist? I'll bet you that you can't.
Seems unlikely to me.
To me religion is a combination of hope, fear, and wishful thinking.
Absolutely...
and how do I know???
I know, because he lives within my heart!!!
Well, if you are referring to the popular gods of this planet, no, they're not real.
Again this is just your opinion. This is NOT the TRUTH.
...yes... it is...
Hey... I mentioned in my previous entry '350BC'. That should be 350AD... sorry...!
Definitely !! - see John 3 : 16 for free gift He offers you...Take care !!
YES
God is the 3 Trinity -- The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit.
YES
God is the 3 Trinity -- The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit
...nobody knows... they can only believe...
of course there is.
define god...
yyyeeesss
