NationStates Jolt Archive

Yeah...thought them up. Yeah.

I have some choicer words for you, but I'll restrain myself. Just do yourself a favor and learn what a fact is.
Oh do tell us: what is a fact?

Hostile Spaces was refering to Newton's Laws of Physics, which have been proven, although sufficient for terrestrial situations, to be totally wrong. So were they "facts" before Einstein replaced them with "better facts"? No, they were theories, replaced by better theories. Those might even be the truth, but that is not what science is about.

So go back and reread (assuming you ever read it) my first post in this thread. How many of "the" christians have to say that either side is unprovable before YOU stfu?
i thoguht you read my post you half wit, if they say prove god doesnt exist i will start the argument where they msut prove he does, did you understand that? now stfu

Oh here's a novel idea: why don't you stop waiting for others to stop acting like asses before you stop doing it yourself? Hey, I'll even throw you this: if you wanna say that you'll stop waiting for me to stop being an ass, and if you manage to actually quit being one yourself, I will leave you alone :)
ignorant hypocrisy again


BTW light bending is the observable phenomenon, while black holes are the theoretical cause. Go read Hawking and Chandresakar... it IS mathematics that leads to the conclusion that black holes exist.
yes yes but we dont magic this stuff up and have no proof other than mathematical formula




Oh, so the reason that there has never EVER been found even a part of a fossil of any transitional species, EVER, is... WW2? Do I even have to mention how incredibly thin that argument is?
and the fossil races, THOUSANDS of unknown fossils were destroyed, and that doesnt include stuff taken by the nazis. and you are ignoring the fact it takes very specific conditions and hgih chance for a fossil to be formed. maybe if you wernt such an ignorant git you woudlve read my whole post isntead of only going to the ww2 thing like that was the only thing i mentioned, matter of fatc that was the LAST example i added

Evolution is a "fact"? Do you even know what scientific theory is? Or Ozcam's razor? And I'm sorry, but I must have missed the news bulletins... evolution has been proven? Was this announced last night while I was at work?
did you read what i wrote? i assert you didnt. lets try this, but i assume your too stupid too understand but i will do it anyway

evolution, as according to websters dictionary:
1 : a process of change in a certain direction <there has been much discussion as to … the possible evolution of benign adenomas into invasive carcinoma —Journal of the American Medical Association>
2 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations

the FACT that evolution DOES HAPPEN is different from the THEORY as to HOW it happens and to the EXTENT that it happens

I said that atheists are stupid instead of calling both them and Christians stupid because Christians are always being called dumb. Atheists beliefs are hardly ever attacked. Eridanus I sure must be a Christian if i said you can't prove that God exists. Vagari when you believe that something does not exist with no proof your putting faith into that belief. New Foxxinnia nice sentence fragments you sure sounded intelligent there. Atheists are supposed to prove that God doesn't exist because if they cannot they are putting blind faith into a belief that has no grounds. Quox nice use of profanity that made you sound intelligent. How am I calling myself a dumbass?
I entirely resent your statements! Especially since chances are I can dance rings around you when it comes to computers. I AM AN ATHIEST AND PROUD OF IT!!

Yes, how do you like that? You don't like that much do you? Well, tough bloody shit because this is what I believe and I do not have to justify my beliefs to such a feeble-minded person such as yourself who can't embrace ecumenicism and accept that not all people believe in "God".

Yes, it's quaint that you believe in "God", really, it is, but you don't have to go insulting those of us who don't! We are just as smart if not smarter than you. Do not make over-generalised falsely founded claims about athiests being stupid because you know, the next time you need your computer fixed, it might be fixed by athiest.

I do not have to prove that "God" doesn't exist because I believe this and I know that my opinion won't change and that it proves to be pointless time and again to argue with religious individuals since their narrow-mindedness is absolutely mind-boggling at times.

i thoguht you read my post you half wit, if they say prove god doesnt exist i will start the argument where they msut prove he does, did you understand that? now stfu

I've been reading your posts, ass hole. You started by telling ALL who believe in God to prove it or STFU.

ignorant hypocrisy again

Now why did I know you wouldn't be able to do it?

yes yes but we dont magic this stuff up and have no proof other than mathematical formula

Way to evade my point, ass hole. Have you seen the telescopy? Have you done the math? Or do you just believe others who say they have? And how would that make you any different than people who believe somebody else has had a vision of angels?

and the fossil races, THOUSANDS of unknown fossils were destroyed, and that doesnt include stuff taken by the nazis. and you are ignoring the fact it takes very specific conditions and hgih chance for a fossil to be formed. maybe if you wernt such an ignorant git you woudlve read my whole post isntead of only going to the ww2 thing like that was the only thing i mentioned, matter of fatc that was the LAST example i added

So you're saying that prior to these events there were fossils of transitional species, and that every one of those was among those destroyed? Or are you saying that the conditions that are required for fossilization somehow never occured around transitional species remains? Or are you just positing some mix of the two to try to evade the fact that there is no proof of evolution?

According to you, the burden is on the person that says something exists, so since there is no proof, evolution is false, right? Not that I believe it is at all, just that I am capable of realizing that your premise, that the burden to prove something exists is greater than that to prove it doesn't, is horse shit.

Yeah I read your whole post. I even thought about it. That's how I am able to actually respond to your "points", rather than just spout diversions and derision. Ass hole.

did you read what i wrote? i assert you didnt. lets try this, but i assume your too stupid too understand but i will do it anyway

You're assertion is wrong, but what was I to expect?

evolution, as according to websters dictionary:
1 : a process of change in a certain direction <there has been much discussion as to … the possible evolution of benign adenomas into invasive carcinoma —Journal of the American Medical Association>
2 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations

the FACT that evolution DOES HAPPEN is different from the THEORY as to HOW it happens and to the EXTENT that it happens

Way to cut and paste somebody else's definition of a theory, along with a professionally debated example of a possible observation of intraspecies evolution, and present it as proof that species-to-species evolution is a "fact".

Prove to me one example of one species having been proven to have evolved from another. THAT will be proof. Until then you are just spouting dogma, just like any other faith-filled believer.

BTW I do believe in evolution. But there is no such thing as scientific facts, only the best current theories. Evolution has not been proven at all.



Anyway I'm gonna pretend to be a better man and let you post whatever drivel you wish to and although I will read it, I will not respond, since I am sure it will be nothing but insults and dogmatic faith disguised as reason and science.

Ass hole.

well first off..

Christians believe god made all and everything right... and after that he then more or less decided what was good or what was bad... and if you dont do what he says you get to go to hell and be tortured for an eternity...

ofc. Sadam hussein... he made laws about what to do and not to do.. and if u didnt do it you were tortured...

but its not like we can prove god... or prove he doesnt to some one who is convinced...

imo people have to believe in something.. 500 years ago it was gnomes and witches.. today its UFO´s and litlle green aliens and government men in black...

on a litlle island in the pacific they worship an old english prince..(they have his picture) they think he is a god..

the indiands thaught there was a big spirit..

and the vikings believed in valhal..

doesnt it seem a bit odd that almost all people have wanted to believe in something?... i mean some places they just made it upp..

just look at some of the inkas.. they decided they could save the universe bye making a copy of the sky on the ground(they made statues and pyramids hidden in view points)... and after they were convinced the universe wouldnt end... that tribe pretty mouch died..

its human to believe.. like it is to want friends and family..

what do u mean ?...

a species from another..

tough one..

remember when you were inside youre mother ?... you had a freakin tail!
.. some people are still born with them actuelly.. rarely though..

also lets not forget some dinosaurs have traces of feathers...

and what about elephants ?.. have you tryed tracing their history :D ? ull get souch a kick when you see nr 3^^

also you could say that the apes with like 98.5% of the same DNA as us might be close family.. some just decided to stay in the trees a couple of thousand years ago...

I've been reading your posts, ass hole. You started by telling ALL who believe in God to prove it or STFU.

i meant stfu about the proof stuff



Way to evade my point, ass hole. Have you seen the telescopy? Have you done the math? Or do you just believe others who say they have? And how would that make you any different than people who believe somebody else has had a vision of angels?
math equations are reproducable, so are telescope images. i can go up to some one be like whats the equation to prove the existance of a black hole and they can bust it out. it is a TANGIBLE thing, i can see it on an ad hoc basis. what about angels? if some oe esees them can they just clal them back to provce they exist?



So you're saying that prior to these events there were fossils of transitional species, and that every one of those was among those destroyed? Or are you saying that the conditions that are required for fossilization somehow never occured around transitional species remains? Or are you just positing some mix of the two to try to evade the fact that there is no proof of evolution?
im saying i dont know there was and you dont know there wernt, there is jsut as good a chance there was as wasnt sicne THOUSANDS of unknown species fossils were DESTROYED or otherwise lost in the sands of time. are you telling me that there is a fossil of every creature that ever walked this earth, man i better go dig up my yard, im sure to find a dinosaur fossil sicne they fossilized so EASILY.

According to you, the burden is on the person that says something exists, so since there is no proof, evolution is false, right? Not that I believe it is at all, just that I am capable of realizing that your premise, that the burden to prove something exists is greater than that to prove it doesn't, is horse shit.
the fact is evoultion happens. do you believe natural selection occurs? thats evolution. do you beleive viruses and bugs and vermin mutate to become poison resistant? thats evolution

Yeah I read your whole post. I even thought about it. That's how I am able to actually respond to your "points", rather than just spout diversions and derision. Ass hole.
oh please your whole psots are diversiosn from what i say, you NEVER focus on my whole point you focus on parts you think you can take apart, but im not so stupid as to let you try that so i bring it back to you and you got to start over or look like a dumbass





Way to cut and paste somebody else's definition of a theory, along with a professionally debated example of a possible observation of intraspecies evolution, and present it as proof that species-to-species evolution is a "fact".
see above about evolution/ and there is 2 definitions of evoultion. there is the FACT that things DO evolve, and the THEORY about the extent of it and how it happens. maybe if you wernt such a complete and utter dumbass you could understand that

Prove to me one example of one species having been proven to have evolved from another. THAT will be proof. Until then you are just spouting dogma, just like any other faith-filled believer.
not once in ANY post i made did i assert macroevolution, all i have stated is THINGS evolve. this is not pokemon, i never said it was or pretended it was, this the first time i have even alluded to macroevolution, you are the one so ignorant as to believe thats the only evolution that there is. maybe you should read thsoe definitions and examples. we KNOW microevolution happens, changes WITHIN a species. and you are the one spouting things, those things being ignorance beyond reason and utter stupidity

BTW I do believe in evolution. But there is no such thing as scientific facts, only the best current theories. Evolution has not been proven at all.
read

Just as one is self-contradictory and logically impossible, so is the other, as well as being cognitively bereft. "God" has no logical extension in reality. It's just a 3-character string. It denotes nothing real. It has many connotations, but no denotations. It's am empty set. A meaningless utterance. An emotive ejaculation.

It is the same as dskjgeaksdjksjdkg--just letters with nothing to back them up.
Yes we know your conclusion... again: you said you could prove it?
I just did.

Care to show me a definition of god that is not logically impossible or directs to something natural (i.e. animism, in which case why call those things god when there's a perfectly good name for them already)?

Didn't think you could.

QED

OK forget the Earth's alleged core. Do you believe in black holes? You do? Have you (or anyone) ever seen one? Oh but the mathematics seems to prove that they, or something, is there, right? Have you done the math? Or do you just put faith in the reasoning of others?

You are comparing apples and orangutans. Science is based on the world around us. Science is what we can see, touch, smell, hear and feel. Blackholes exist. Science is not something you can switch on and off. It is always there.

Oh here's an even better one: have you ever seen or seen fossils of any transitional species? There is absolutely no proof that such things have ever existed. Do you believe that apes evolved from lower primates? Then where are the fossils? Nobody's ever found anything but big gaps. So since the burden is on those who believe in evolution, according to you, to prove their existance, since when there is no proof at all either way the burden is on those who say that a thing exists, over those who say it does not.This is a big planet. We haven't found the bones yet.

If you would like to see an existing example, I recommend going to the Galapagos! The finches there change with every year. Their beak size changes based on sizes of seeds from generation to generation. Seed size is based on how much water there is. That is evolution. Changing to their sorrounding. Evolution is happening right now. Every generation is different.

Also, nobody answered my question on the last page.

Just as one is self-contradictory and logically impossible, so is the other, as well as being cognitively bereft. "God" has no logical extension in reality. It's just a 3-character string. It denotes nothing real. It has many connotations, but no denotations. It's am empty set. A meaningless utterance. An emotive ejaculation.

It is the same as dskjgeaksdjksjdkg--just letters with nothing to back them up.
It's empty to you, but not to others. For example, I've never been to China.
The political entity known as China can be OBJECTIVELY shown. Try again.

So too God, or at least the concept of divinity.
Wrong. That cannot be objectively shown. There is *0* evidence for it.


You've found an answer, but just as my God is my only answer, so too is your lack of one only yours. Why is it so important to you that it not exist?
Why is it so important to you that it exists?

Why does it frighten you that there are people who there who don't believe that there is a god?

This thread is pure flame-bait. Disconnect from the discussion now.

All bow to the true God, the big hary blue tomato in the centre of the universe. He has created all tomatoes in his image (except for the blue and hary stuff).
I challenge everyone to bring proof that my God does not exist. If they fail to bring such proof, this faith will once again proof that it is the true faith.

By the way, the tomato has said to me in prayer that we shall eat tomatoes no more! If you do this, God's wraith shall strike you (in the afterlive ofcourse or as some random accident, depends on what is more convenient)

Now all bow!!!

This thread is pure flame-bait. Disconnect from the discussion now.
Point taken.

What kind of a God would act on your command?
That would make YOU God!

Except that there is proof that I exist.

Atheists aren't suppose to prove if God doesn't exist. Christians are suppose to prove his does exist. You made him up. You prove it.

Christians are not supposed to prove God exsits. On the contrary, Christians do not try to prove God exsists because no proof is needed to believe. (Besides that it is entirely impossible to prove God's exsistance, so why waste time and energy?) Christianity IS based very very much on faith, which some people consider blind...even though it really isn't. Christians did not make up God. The idea of a god or gods was evident even in Ancient Egyptian or Aztec or Chinese cultures.

Christians are not supposed to prove God exsits. On the contrary, Christians do not try to prove God exsists because no proof is needed to believe. (Besides that it is entirely impossible to prove God's exsistance, so why waste time and energy?) Christianity IS based very very much on faith, which some people consider blind...even though it really isn't. Christians did not make up God. The idea of a god or gods was evident even in Ancient Egyptian or Aztec or Chinese cultures.
except christians made up their own god and took religiosu beliefs from other religions and decried those religions as evil, after taking what they wanted

Did Adam and Eve exist? Were they the father and mother of humanity?

Well, the Jews (who wrote the old testament, remember) had differing opinions on just how many brides Adam had before Eve. Those who accept Midrash evidence believe there were two brides before Eve, and those that don't accept the Midrash evidence believe there was only one pre-Eve bride.

And let's not even get started on the fact that Cain goes and gets himself a wife when there are theoretically only him, his parents and little baby Seth alive in the world at that point...

Now you probably think I'm a crazy Christian that will talk of how you will burn in hell but thats not what I'm going to do. You cannot no matter how hard you try prove that God does not exist. You can also not prove that he does exist. You have a belief based on a hypothesis. It might no be true. Which is the same to say for all religions. So atheists are just as stupid if not dumber than those who follow a specific religion. So now it is your turn to try and prove me wrong.

Calling anyone stupid for what they believe is just jumping to conclusions. Being an atheist or a theist does not make ANYONE autmatically stupid. It may mean they are closed minded, but that's a completely different thing. I'm also sure that with actual unarguable PROOF of God's existance or unexistance, they would change their mind. I don't think anyone is quite THAT stubborn.

Christians are not supposed to prove God exsits. On the contrary, Christians do not try to prove God exsists because no proof is needed to believe. (Besides that it is entirely impossible to prove God's exsistance, so why waste time and energy?) Christianity IS based very very much on faith, which some people consider blind...even though it really isn't. Christians did not make up God. The idea of a god or gods was evident even in Ancient Egyptian or Aztec or Chinese cultures.

Yea and Egyptians even let their leader be chosen from it. Some guy just said "hey I'm so the son of a god, I'm your new king" and they let him do so. They let their religion run their ENTIRE LIVES and if the Christian religion is the "true" religion, then they did it all for no reason.

I'm not calling ANY Christians stupid for what they believe, but I am just stating why so many people have trouble believing something so easily.

Sure, there is no way to prove the existence of God, nor a way to prove it's non-existance...but there is still a heftier load of evidence against it's existence. Like the fact that there are other planets besides the ones in our solar system, or the fact that in the past, the church has had to KILL people to keep it's ways preserved. :sniper:

Sure, there is no way to prove the existence of God, nor a way to prove it's non-existance...but there is still a heftier load of evidence against it's existence. Like the fact that there are other planets besides the ones in our solar system, or the fact that in the past, the church has had to KILL people to keep it's ways preserved. :sniper:

That and the evidence that evolution exists, and that the world was created long, long before the bible says it was. That and the dinosaur bones, etc.

Kryozerkia I highly doubt that you have better skills at computers than me. I can accept that most people do not believe in God. I was an atheist for four years of my life and have definately read and understood much more than you. When did I say that I believe in God was it when I said you can't prove (logically) he exists? </sarcasm> It does not anger me when Christians are made fun of. This thread is labelled Atheists are stupid because most anger filled religious discussions are labelled Christians are stupid or God is bullshit. How can someone kill in the name of God? The Crusades whent against the very base of Christianity. Thou shalt not kill. The Crusades were done in the name of greedy stupid humans who were horribly mislead by the idiocy of the time. If God did exist there would only be the possibility of one God. My example God is infinite that makes him everything. More than one God existing is impossible because then both of those Gods would not be infinite.

The political entity known as China can be OBJECTIVELY shown. Try again.

That wasn't my point. It can not be personally proven to me that China exists to a way that is relevant to my life without first hand experience. Until I see it with my own eyes, it's still just a theory. A very good theory and one I might as well believe in because there's a lot of circumstancial evidence for it.


Wrong. That cannot be objectively shown. There is *0* evidence for it.


I never said it could. My point was, in fact, that "objective" proof of God is impossible and, frankly, unessessary. There is no need for me to prove to all and sundry that, no matter what the case, God exists. I've proved it for myself and that is the nature of faith and God. Indeed, until you prove it for yourself, then no amount of objective proof one way or the other will make the slightest difference to you.


Why is it so important to you that it exists?

Why does it frighten you that there are people who there who don't believe that there is a god?

It doesn't. I'm not the one telling people who believe differently than me are wrong. Look at my posts. I'm more than willing to admit the possibility that I don't know the whole story or that I'm wrong, even. I celebrate and enjoy athiests, not in a dismissive way (unless that's the way they approach others), but in yet another aspect of the marvelous creation that is human belief and because, when their views are honestly held, it gives me reason to question my own and, thus, expand my understanding of myself and my faith. So far, you're the one who needs for your opinion to be true and have closed yourself off to what anyone else might say.

JUDGEMENT:

Christianity and Atheism will stay at least 500 feet from each other at all times. That is all...

That's a terrible judgement and assumes the worst of both camps.

The political entity known as China can be OBJECTIVELY shown. Try again.
That wasn't my point. It can not be personally proven to me that China exists to a way that is relevant to my life without first hand experience.
Sure it can.


Wrong. That cannot be objectively shown. There is *0* evidence for it.
I never said it could. My point was, in fact, that "objective" proof of God is impossible and, frankly, unessessary.
It's precisely necessary, since "god" is claimed to be an objective existant.


Why is it so important to you that it exists?

Why does it frighten you that there are people who there who don't believe that there is a god?
It doesn't.
Sure it does, or else you wouldn't have asked me why it frightens me that there are people who believe.

Get it?

I'm not the one telling people who believe differently than me are wrong.
So telling a flat-earther that they are wrong is saying that you are scared of their beliefs?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Look at my posts. I'm more than willing to admit the possibility that I don't know the whole story or that I'm wrong, even. I celebrate and enjoy athiests, not in a dismissive way (unless that's the way they approach others), but in yet another aspect of the marvelous creation that is human belief and because, when their views are honestly held, it gives me reason to question my own and, thus, expand my understanding of myself and my faith. So far, you're the one who needs for your opinion to be true and have closed yourself off to what anyone else might say
So what?

I just did.

Care to show me a definition of god that is not logically impossible or directs to something natural (i.e. animism, in which case why call those things god when there's a perfectly good name for them already)?

Didn't think you could.

QED
Show me how God's existence is a logical impossibility already?

Didn't think you could.

Your initial post proves nothing... all you do is SAY that God is impossible, and just a meaningless word. Where is the proof? Apperently I am a moron so please, spell it out for me. Already.

And yes, there may be natural alternatives for every reason to believe in God, and I have never said there are not. But it remains a Fact that absence of proof is not proof of absence. As I have been saying all along, there is no proof either way. You have said there is, so will you please provide it now?

Hint: repeatedly saying it defies logic and is is a contradiction in terms is not providing proof, only making baseless assertions.

Okay... let's prove it once and for all...

Okay 'God', your turn to post.... this is your chance, prove you exist....

come on, i dare you...

no reply?
He's on vacation. Poor guy needs a day off now and then. As the Bible says "A day of the Lord is as a thousand years". Unfortunately, Junior's running the show right now, and aside from doing the Messiah shtick, he's hopeless. Satan sends his regards.

You are comparing apples and orangutans. Science is based on the world around us. Science is what we can see, touch, smell, hear and feel. Blackholes exist. Science is not something you can switch on and off. It is always there.

This is a big planet. We haven't found the bones yet.

If you would like to see an existing example, I recommend going to the Galapagos! The finches there change with every year. Their beak size changes based on sizes of seeds from generation to generation. Seed size is based on how much water there is. That is evolution. Changing to their sorrounding. Evolution is happening right now. Every generation is different.

If you'll read the series of posts before that, you'll realize that it was never my point to debunk evolution, or black holes. Even though macroevolution has no proof, I do believe it happens.

My point was to point out to Chess Squares that, if as he says there is a greater burden of proof on the part of those who say that a phenomenon, like God or macroevolution, does exist, when there is no real proof either way... if that is the case, then we must assume that there is no such thing as macroevolution, since there is no proof:

1) no one has ever found fossil evidence of any transitional species;

2) no one has ever documented one species being born from another.

Chess Squares insists that there must have been fossils that were lost. I would point out if I were not so sick of his verbal abuse that proof of the possibility of lost evidence is not evidence. So by his standard, macroevolution is as much a fantasy as is God.

As to the matter of black holes, which I also believe in, I asked him if he had ever seen one (or the bent light around one) through a telescope, and if he had ever done the math. Since he hasn't said he has, I will take it as read that he hasn't. (It's easier to "prove" a negative, according to him.) So this means that his belief in black holes is belief in a dogma founded on the experience of others who have gone before him. Just like any religion.

I believe in black holes and in macroevolution, and it was never my point to dispute them, only to show the weakness of his argument that, aparently, absence of proof is proof of absence.

It simply isn't.

Also the troll in question says that evolution is proven fact. Microevolution... maybe (see below). Macroevolution... until I see a transitional fossil or an animal that can be proven to have been born from a mother of another species, it is not even a well supported scientific theory ... although I believe in it.

The FACT is that "scientific fact" IS a contradiction in terms. That simply is not how science works. Science catagorizes the best known theory to explain phenomena and that is ALL it does. Those who embrace its theories as facts do so out of a faith in the reasoning of others, just as religious people put faith in the gnosis of others.

Man, macroevolution is lots of microevolution put together... Mutations after mutations and selection after selection

Sure, there is no way to prove the existence of God, nor a way to prove it's non-existance...but there is still a heftier load of evidence against it's existence. Like the fact that there are other planets besides the ones in our solar system, or the fact that in the past, the church has had to KILL people to keep it's ways preserved. :sniper:

I think it would be short sighted to say that other planets disprove a Diety. If God created the universe, why not create life on those other worlds??

I have noticed one very significant difference between atheists and theists. Atheists rarely care about proving to theists the non-existence of magical invisible beings....while theists seem to spend a great deal of time trying to convince others of whatever belief they may hold dear.

I think that it is mostly an attempt to convince themselves.

Man, macroevolution is lots of microevolution put together... Mutations after mutations and selection after selection

Really? So if enough generations are born with different coloured feathers or larger talons or stronger kidneys, it causes changes in the lengths and numbers of their DNA strands? Are you getting this from a text you would care to quote... even something not OL would be fine... or is this just your lay understanding of the theory?

Care to show me a definition of god that is not logically impossible or directs to something natural (i.e. animism, in which case why call those things god when there's a perfectly good name for them already)?

Didn't think you could.

QED
Show me how God's existence is a logical impossibility already?
Already did.

Your initial post proves nothing... all you do is SAY that God is impossible, and just a meaningless word. Where is the proof?
Show me the definition of god that is a logical possibility.

That's the only way I will be wrong.

And yes, there may be natural alternatives for every reason to believe in God, and I have never said there are not. But it remains a Fact that absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Absence of evidence where evidence is to be expected is evidence of absence.

Hint: unless and until a non self-contradictory/logically impossible/"naturalistic" definition of god is posited, I am correct.

That's how it works.

Honestly, it's a simple tenet of logic that whichever side the burden of proof has the tougher job. Is the primary point of this thread that we should all be agnostic?
Anyway, trying to prove God's existence or lack thereof is pointless. Especially in the case of mainstream Christianity, where the entire belief system centers on faith. If God's existence is provable, then there would be no point to faith.

I have noticed one very significant difference between atheists and theists. Atheists rarely care about proving to theists the non-existence of magical invisible beings....while theists seem to spend a great deal of time trying to convince others of whatever belief they may hold dear.

I think that it is mostly an attempt to convince themselves.

Welcome to the NS forums :)

A broad sweeping generalization. If atheists did not wish to prove their position then they would ignore theists. And if you will read back through this thread you will see posts from several theists, including myself, who are not trying to convince anyone of anything other than that there is no proof either way. As well as plenty of atheists who are quite eager to push their views.

Try this: remove evangelicals from you equation, and then tell me if the theists that you know try to push their beliefs more than the atheists do.

If all thesists stopped believing atheists existed they would all go away.

Now you probably think I'm a crazy Christian that will talk of how you will burn in hell but thats not what I'm going to do. You cannot no matter how hard you try prove that God does not exist. You can also not prove that he does exist. You have a belief based on a hypothesis. It might no be true. Which is the same to say for all religions. So atheists are just as stupid if not dumber than those who follow a specific religion. So now it is your turn to try and prove me wrong.

Nah, bro, people who don't like George W. Bush are STUPID. :rolleyes:

"Broad sweeping generalization"? Isn't that basically what religion is all about? As for atheists wanting to prove their postion...if you will read back, you'll notice that there is really nothing to prove, being a negative and all. What is commonly asked is for theists to prove the positive assertion, which usually gets met with responses like "faith", "belief", and "er...how 'bout this weather".

But perhaps I push my views. ;)

Thanks for the welcome, Druthulhu.

If you'll read the series of posts before that, you'll realize that it was never my point to debunk evolution, or black holes. Even though macroevolution has no proof, I do believe it happens.

My point was to point out to Chess Squares that, if as he says there is a greater burden of proof on the part of those who say that a phenomenon, like God or macroevolution, does exist, when there is no real proof either way... if that is the case, then we must assume that there is no such thing as macroevolution, since there is no proof:

1) no one has ever found fossil evidence of any transitional species;


Of course they have. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

There's tons of them, even detailed speciation occuring in local areas, just as evolution theory predicts.


2) no one has ever documented one species being born from another.


That's becasue no one says that what's going to happen. Each generation is slightly different than it's predessor. Acuumulated over thousands or millions of years those differences change a lot.


Chess Squares insists that there must have been fossils that were lost. I would point out if I were not so sick of his verbal abuse that proof of the possibility of lost evidence is not evidence. So by his standard, macroevolution is as much a fantasy as is God.


There are plenty of animinals that have died that never left a fossil. Fossilization is an extremely rare event, only under very strict conditions do bones fossilize. Think of all the road-kill in your area. After a day of two, the poor squirrel disappears, bones and all, no chance for fossilization. That's the normal thing to happen. The evidence is that fossilization is rare, but we're still finding new sites all over the world, as the link above explains.


Also the troll in question says that evolution is proven fact. Microevolution... maybe (see below). Macroevolution... until I see a transitional fossil or an animal that can be proven to have been born from a mother of another species, it is not even a well supported scientific theory ... although I believe in it.

How wrong you are. I'll be interested to see your reaction to the link above about transitionals in the fossil record.


The FACT is that "scientific fact" IS a contradiction in terms. That simply is not how science works. Science catagorizes the best known theory to explain phenomena and that is ALL it does. Those who embrace its theories as facts do so out of a faith in the reasoning of others, just as religious people put faith in the gnosis of others.

While you're right that everything is science is 'only a theory', some theories have so much evidence to support them that 'not believing' them would be quite 'perverse'.

Anyway, evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is only a means to explain the mechanics of evolution, just as gravity is a fact, and the theory of gravity is only an attempt to explian its workings.

Joe P.

BAAWA -

The world we observe is comprised of two or three seperate phenomenon: mass/spacial interactions, sentient awareness, and sentient will (the latter two, I believe, are two sides of one coin).

Science can explain to us, albeit not yet perfectly, how mass and space interact. It can explain how the brain's neurons fire but it cannot explain how will and awareness work.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make a sound? If there is no sentient awareness in the universe, is there a universe? Probably, but its existance is moot, and in fact, cannot be proven. Consider Hawking's explaination of the Weak and the Strong Anthropomorphic Theories (A Brief History of Time): it is not remarkable that a world in which we can exist has come to be, but rather it would be totally remarkable if we were here to observe the existance of a world in which we couldn't exist. In other words, the universe as we know it exists as we know it because it is the only part of the universe in which we can exist to observe it. Now yes I'll admit that is a little circular, since this part of the universe was no doubt (and with no proof against doubt, btw) caused to exist by forces that predate us. However, you should be able to follow it, and perhaps agree that what we know of the universe will always be limited to what is knowable by us.

In the Strong version, areas of "space", if it could be called that, in which the rules of spacetime that apply here are totally unknown. Taking into account our own region's apparently linear progression along the time dimension, and that it too might not exist as we know it in other regions of the universe, space and time as we know it are only relevent here, where they can be observed by sentient observers.

Many prominent physicists, such as Einstein and Hawking, accept as a valid theory, supported by observations and calculations, that there could exist an infinite number of universes side by side outside of the dimensions we know. In short, if this is true it means that everything that is possible has already occured somewhere in an infinite universe that exists beyond the space and time of our own region.

So if indeed everything exists all at once, that sounds to me like one definition of chaos. Which means that chaos is the origin of the universe as we know it. Another way of looking at it is that the existance of sentient awareness in this region of the universe gives its form, from all of the infinite forms it could have had, meaning. It exists as a destinct region of an infinite formless chaos because Mind exists to define it as finite.

Now it is widely held by scientists that the universe as we know it came to exist a few billion years ago when all of its mass sprang forth extremely quickly from a near-singularity of mass one plankt width wide, which had existed for one plankt second prior to that event. And that this mass came from the infinite potential of chaos is my assertion.

Now, it is generally asserted by science that Mind, i.e. will and awareness, is a phenomenon created by the biophysical processes of living brians. If they've found proof of this, if they can explain HOW it happens, I would like to see it.

Another possibility is that Mind existed before mass, and as I have put forth above the physical universe as we know it has form and meaning through Mind. Just as there was one point from which all mass sprang forth from infinite chaos, and one central point from which it happened, so their is an origin of will and awareness from infinite Mind, which like infinite chaos exists infinitely. And as the source of all order and will and awareness, it encompasses and transcends all sentience.

Such a thing, such a BEING, an infinite source of all will and awareness, is or at least has always been beyond the ability of the rational mind to encompass. This is why humans have always tried to define It in human terms, usually in a plurality of forms. Judaism, and through it Islam, have started to go beyond that, in that although they ascribe human sentiments to the Source, the forbid depicting it in human or any other terms, and assert its unity. Buddhism goes a little further in this respect, acknowledging the Source as a universal consciousness attainable through enlightenment (what I have called gnosis) but not ascribing to it any human characteristics. But what theists call "God" is in fact this Being, this Source, this universal and transcendent Mind.

Can I prove this? No. But if there are any logical impossibilities, please point them out.

"Broad sweeping generalization"? Isn't that basically what religion is all about? As for atheists wanting to prove their postion...if you will read back, you'll notice that there is really nothing to prove, being a negative and all. What is commonly asked is for theists to prove the positive assertion, which usually gets met with responses like "faith", "belief", and "er...how 'bout this weather".

But perhaps I push my views. ;)

Thanks for the welcome, Druthulhu.

Atheists: prove there's a God.

Theists: we can't because assuming a God exists He has the power to hide forever if He wants to. Prove there isn't a God.

Atheists: We can't prove a negative. Therefor we win.

Theists: Huh? No you don't.

Atheists: yes we do, we just can't prove we've won.



Closed-minded dogmaticists are idiots whether they're atheists or theists. Present company (i.e.: me, if you think that's what I am) not being excepted.

I suggest people take an intro to philosophy class in their respective centres of higher educations. It may be enlightening.

BAAWA -

The world we observe is comprised of two or three seperate phenomenon: mass/spacial interactions, sentient awareness, and sentient will (the latter two, I believe, are two sides of one coin).

Science can explain to us, albeit not yet perfectly, how mass and space interact. It can explain how the brain's neurons fire but it cannot explain how will and awareness work.
So what?

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make a sound? If there is no sentient awareness in the universe, is there a universe? Probably, but its existance is moot, and in fact, cannot be proven. Consider Hawking's explaination of the Weak and the Strong Anthropomorphic Theories (A Brief History of Time): it is not remarkable that a world in which we can exist has come to be, but rather it would be totally remarkable if we were here to observe the existance of a world in which we couldn't exist. In other words, the universe as we know it exists as we know it because it is the only part of the universe in which we can exist to observe it. Now yes I'll admit that is a little circular, since this part of the universe was no doubt (and with no proof against doubt, btw) caused to exist by forces that predate us. However, you should be able to follow it, and perhaps agree that what we know of the universe will always be limited to what is knowable by us.
Again, so what.

In the Strong version, areas of "space", if it could be called that, in which the rules of spacetime that apply here are totally unknown. Taking into account our own region's apparently linear progression along the time dimension, and that it too might not exist as we know it in other regions of the universe, space and time as we know it are only relevent here, where they can be observed by sentient observers.
And again...

Many prominent physicists, such as Einstein and Hawking, accept as a valid theory, supported by observations and calculations, that there could exist an infinite number of universes side by side outside of the dimensions we know. In short, if this is true it means that everything that is possible has already occured somewhere in an infinite universe that exists beyond the space and time of our own region.
Yes, the Many Worlds postulate. SO WHAT?

So if indeed everything exists all at once, that sounds to me like one definition of chaos. Which means that chaos is the origin of the universe as we know it. Another way of looking at it is that the existance of sentient awareness in this region of the universe gives its form, from all of the infinite forms it could have had, meaning. It exists as a destinct region of an infinite formless chaos because Mind exists to define it as finite.
No, it would be finite and have form regardless; there just wouldn't be people to call it such.

Now it is widely held by scientists that the universe as we know it came to exist a few billion years ago when all of its mass sprang forth extremely quickly from a near-singularity of mass one plankt width wide, which had existed for one plankt second prior to that event. And that this mass came from the infinite potential of chaos is my assertion.

Now, it is generally asserted by science that Mind, i.e. will and awareness, is a phenomenon created by the biophysical processes of living brians. If they've found proof of this, if they can explain HOW it happens, I would like to see it.
The mere fact that there is no awareness in dead people proves it quite nicely. Awareness is a function that only the living can have, since it is a property and process. Once the life-process stops, so too must awareness.

Another possibility is that Mind existed before mass,
Which is specious and has no basis. A mind without some mass (matter) to have it is self-contradictory.

and as I have put forth above the physical universe as we know it has form and meaning through Mind. Just as there was one point from which all mass sprang forth from infinite chaos, and one central point from which it happened, so their is an origin of will and awareness from infinite Mind, which like infinite chaos exists infinitely. And as the source of all order and will and awareness, it encompasses and transcends all sentience.
Meaningless new-age crap.

Such a thing, such a BEING, an infinite source of all will and awareness, is or at least has always been beyond the ability of the
rational mind to encompass.
Very Hegelian.

This is why humans have always tried to define It in human terms, usually in a plurality of forms. Judaism, and through it Islam, have started to go beyond that, in that although they ascribe human sentiments to the Source, the forbid depicting it in human or any other terms, and assert its unity. Buddhism goes a little further in this respect, acknowledging the Source as a universal consciousness attainable through enlightenment (what I have called gnosis) but not ascribing to it any human characteristics. But what theists call "God" is in fact this Being, this Source, this universal and transcendent Mind.
Still self-contradictory. An awareness/consciousness with nothing to be conscious of---a free floating awareness is meaningless. It can't exist.

I am off to work now so I will deal with the second half of your post tomorrow. As for the first half, it can be summed up as "so what?" You asked for a definition of God that was not self-contradictory (I will get to the second half tomorrow so hold your horses), but the first part was what is called "groundwork". So your "so what?"s are pretty damned wasted, aren't they? I was setting up the definition you requested. So THAT.

Really? So if enough generations are born with different coloured feathers or larger talons or stronger kidneys, it causes changes in the lengths and numbers of their DNA strands? Are you getting this from a text you would care to quote... even something not OL would be fine... or is this just your lay understanding of the theory?

I'm saying this from my own knowledge. I am a biology student.
Anyway, that's not exactly what I meant.

During meiosis (won't explain that), mutations can occur. Gene duplications (or triplications), translocations, deletions, etc. These genetic alterations might express themselves in a characteristic that is an advantage (but besides mutations being rare, most of the time they bring no advantage or simply aren't visible).

Let's look at, for example, a cheetah. A cheetah is born with a genetic alteration that allows her to run faster. So this cheetah gets more meals and is able to reproduce. The cubs of this cheetah might carry the genetic alteration that makes them run faster. If they do, and are also better at running than other cheetas you can say that they evolved (microevolution).

With a lot of these small evolutionary steps, achieved by chance, the species will evolve, since only the fittest survive (the gazelles probably also get faster and more agile with generations, in order to survive, so one forces the other to evolve).

So it's genetic alterations that cause changes in the phisiology of living things, and not changes in the form of things that cause genetic alterations (that's related to Lamarckism).

i NEVER said fossils lost is evidnnce,matter of fact i pointed out that they may or may NOT have proven anything. i said there may have been fossils lost that were what you were seeking, i was pointing out you must take reality into account when pretending the fossils never existed

I am off to work now so I will deal with the second half of your post tomorrow. As for the first half, it can be summed up as "so what?" You asked for a definition of God that was not self-contradictory (I will get to the second half tomorrow so hold your horses), but the first part was what is called "groundwork". So your "so what?"s are pretty damned wasted, aren't they? I was setting up the definition you requested. So THAT.
Spare yourself. You're going from QM to some idiotic new-age crap and you've no link. It's not gong to work.

I'm saying this from my own knowledge. I am a biology student.
Anyway, that's not exactly what I meant.

During meiosis (won't explain that), mutations can occur. Gene duplications (or triplications), translocations, deletions, etc. These genetic alterations might express themselves in a characteristic that is an advantage (but besides mutations being rare, most of the time they bring no advantage or simply aren't visible).

Let's look at, for example, a cheetah. A cheetah is born with a genetic alteration that allows her to run faster. So this cheetah gets more meals and is able to reproduce. The cubs of this cheetah might carry the genetic alteration that makes them run faster. If they do, and are also better at running than other cheetas you can say that they evolved (microevolution).

With a lot of these small evolutionary steps, achieved by chance, the species will evolve, since only the fittest survive (the gazelles probably also get faster and more agile with generations, in order to survive, so one forces the other to evolve).

So it's genetic alterations that cause changes in the phisiology of living things, and not changes in the form of things that cause genetic alterations (that's related to Lamarckism).

Fair enough... but what is the cause of macroevolution?

I agree, atheists are really stupid.

Fair enough... but what is the cause of macroevolution?
well lets see.. hmm could it be mutations

I agree, atheists are really stupid.
you missed the flight to logic, next one leaves in an hour

Ahh, noone dares to disprove the existence of the hary blue tomato. There is howerever proof that it exists. It is at the same location where the proof is that god exists. Actually, god is a hary blue tomato. There is absolutely no proof he isn't so it must be so.

If you disagree proof to me he isn't a hary blue tomato. My faith in the hary blue tomato is strong!

well lets see.. hmm could it be mutations

Was I talking to you?

Ahh, noone dares to disprove the existence of the hary blue tomato. There is howerever proof that it exists. It is at the same location where the proof is that god exists. Actually, god is a hary blue tomato. There is absolutely no proof he isn't so it must be so.

If you disagree proof to me he isn't a hary blue tomato. My faith in the hary blue tomato is strong!

Your faith in the Hary Blue Tomato is yours and is your right, and no one has the authority to require you to prove its existence, nor sufficient knowledge to accurately assert as truth that it does not. What is more Anyone who asserts as proven fact that it does not exist has a weak grasp on true reason.

For those who watch The Simpsons:
"This rock keeps tigers away..."

I'd have thought that according to the rules of logical proof, something cannot be reasoned to exist until proven to exist. Common sense says you need some kind of evidence, not necessarily proof: proof and evidence are lacking. Plus, many of the characteristics of God are paradoxical.

Was I talking to you?
tell me if it matters and i might pretend it does

Does it really matter if god exists? Personally, I'm atheist on the subject, but it's when people say things like "Atheists are stupid" and then go to church and tell their youth group that a bunch of atheists attacked their beliefs that shit starts to get out of control. Let it the fuck go. If you believe in god, then happy fucking birthday. Jesus your savior? Wow! Fuck me, I'm jealous beyond words. You can't make a topic like this and expect to just see 400 people come in and agree with you; the larger majority is just coming in to argue for shits and giggles.

tell me if it matters and i might pretend it does

It matters.

It matters.
really im so sorry, how does it matter if i answered you with the obvious answer?

Atheist could be used to mean:
1. Believing in the non-existence of God
2. Lacking belief in the existence of God

1. is only as stupid as any other belief.
2. is rather logical given the evidence (or rather lack of) we have.

Fair enough... but what is the cause of macroevolution?

Are you slow?

Macroevolution is a lot of microevolutionary steps put together.

As the cheetah species gets faster and more agile, little by little (microevolution due to those rare mutations that are benefitial) it will evolve.

Evolution is just evolution. There isn't "macroevolution" just like that. It's small steps.

And sometimes, these evolutions are only noticed when something takes away the whole species except for a few, like a deadly disease that only a few are resistant too, or those few bacterias that resist the antibiotics.

Listen, get a biology book and you'll learn something. Unless books here in Portugal aren't censored or something.

Are you slow?

Macroevolution is a lot of microevolutionary steps put together.

As the cheetah species gets faster and more agile, little by little (microevolution due to those rare mutations that are benefitial) it will evolve.

Evolution is just evolution. There isn't "macroevolution" just like that. It's small steps.

And sometimes, these evolutions are only noticed when something takes away the whole species except for a few, like a deadly disease that only a few are resistant too, or those few bacterias that resist the antibiotics.

Listen, get a biology book and you'll learn something. Unless books here in Portugal aren't censored or something.

Yeah, I must be slow. Are you saying that a gradual acretion of new variations eventually transforms one generation into a different species? If your cheetas get faster and stronger and bigger enough times, they'll not only no longer be cheetas, they won't even be able to breed with cheetas?

No need to be a douche bag like certain other people, because this is a genuine question.

Atheist could be used to mean:
1. Believing in the non-existence of God
2. Lacking belief in the existence of God

1. is only as stupid as any other belief.
2. is rather logical given the evidence (or rather lack of) we have. :)

Yeah, I must be slow. Are you saying that a gradual acretion of new variations eventually transforms one generation into a different species? If your cheetas get faster and stronger and bigger enough times, they'll not only no longer be cheetas, they won't even be able to breed with cheetas?

No need to be a douche bag like certain other people, because this is a genuine question.

The process of evolution doesn't involve creatures becoming "better" at what they already do. It is about being more fit to survive in the environment in which it exists - being bigger and faster than your ancestors would mean needing more food, so it might be a disadvantagous mutation, and would not have a significant impact on evolution. Mutations allow a species to branch. When the new branch is more fit for survival it becomes dominant.

The process of evolution doesn't involve creatures becoming "better" at what they already do. It is about being more fit to survive in the environment in which it exists - being bigger and faster than your ancestors would mean needing more food, so it might be a disadvantagous mutation, and would not have a significant impact on evolution. Mutations allow a species to branch. When the new branch is more fit for survival it becomes dominant.

All true :) that's just natural selection. It doesn't however explain the development of entirely new species. BTW I do believe in cataclysmic evolution as the source of species change... massive genetic alteration caused by a new and specific environmental factor on a population-wide scale. HOWEVER I believe this on faith, in this case a faith in my own reason and in that of scientists, because (unless TE can point me to a documented example) there is no proof of it. It's only, to me, the most reasonable theory.

Now you probably think I'm a crazy Christian that will talk of how you will burn in hell but thats not what I'm going to do. You cannot no matter how hard you try prove that God does not exist. You can also not prove that he does exist. You have a belief based on a hypothesis. It might no be true. Which is the same to say for all religions. So atheists are just as stupid if not dumber than those who follow a specific religion. So now it is your turn to try and prove me wrong.
We already had this one before the jolt-kidnap.

All true :) that's just natural selection. It doesn't however explain the development of entirely new species. BTW I do believe in cataclysmic evolution as the source of species change... massive genetic alteration caused by a new and specific environmental factor on a population-wide scale. HOWEVER I believe this on faith, in this case a faith in my own reason and in that of scientists, because (unless TE can point me to a documented example) there is no proof of it. It's only, to me, the most reasonable theory.

I wouldn't really say that "species change" exists. This illusion comes because if you compare the animals living in one era with those from another (millions of years apart), the differences are great. The species hasn't changed as such, certain traits have prevaled. In the past, for example, homo sapiens existed at the same time as neaderthals - both branches from the same source, but we were more fit to survive, whereas the nearderthals couldn't cope (or compete). So, we became dominant and they eventually died out. If you trace this back far enough, the range of possible life-forms becomes less and less, mammals and reptiles coming from a common source for example.

In my opinion, the separation of life into species isn't a precise thing, just something that happens when changes become great enough.

I definately believe in god, that being said I am also not baptised in any religion. But If I were I'd probably be an Anglican. Anyways if they don't believe thats there choice. But I find it impossible for anything to exist without god, how did the universe get here, how did anything get here?

All true :) that's just natural selection. It doesn't however explain the development of entirely new species. BTW I do believe in cataclysmic evolution as the source of species change... massive genetic alteration caused by a new and specific environmental factor on a population-wide scale. HOWEVER I believe this on faith, in this case a faith in my own reason and in that of scientists, because (unless TE can point me to a documented example) there is no proof of it. It's only, to me, the most reasonable theory.

What is your concept of macroevolution?
I'm sorry about the slowness remark, I thought you were just being skeptic (not in the good, healthy way, but the stubborn way)

Species don't have to become NEW species to evolve. They just evolve: only the fittest of the group, those that get "laid" and that provide food for themselves and for their offspring.
Sometimes, due to many factors, like geographical or reproductional isolation, two populations of the same species might not be able to reproduce, and if the selective pressures (amount and type of prey, diseases, climate differences) are different between the two populations, they will evolve independently (but notice that even the no selective pressures are equal, the isolation will end up in different kinds of mutations for the population).
This is called adaptative radiation.
With enough time the two populations will not be able to breed and generate viable or fertile offspring, being then denominated different species. It takes a lot more time when there is no different between the selective pressures but it still happens, like that thing with the basques.


Sometimes, even when pressures are different, and the difference between one kind of animal and the other one is very clear, they are still considered the same species, but can be considered as two different subspecies.

It's like the dog and the wolf. The theory is that thousands of years ago, man started throwing pieces of meat at the less aggressive wolves, and these wolves that were less aggressive were able to survive, along with more aggressive wolves. As some wolves got closer to humans and less aggressive, they started to leave the packs. After a few generations, these wolves lived with man, and did not breed with the wild wolves. Then these wolves evolved their own way and became what we now know as dogs.

But notice that wolves and dogs create fertile offspring, so they are not considered a different species but subspecies.

Evolution is the most natural thing in the world. That is why I believe that genetic engineering, cloning, etc is just unnatural. Especially when these are just used to make money, not to serve humanity.


Making two possibilities a reality,
Predicting the future of things we all know,
Fighting off the diseased programming
Of centuries, centuries, centuries, centuries.

Science fails to recognize the single most
Potent element of human existence
letting the reigns go to the unfolding
Is faith, faith, faith, faith.

Science has failed our world
Science has failed our Mother Earth.


Most of the scientists have failed humanity. Most of the technological and scientifical progresses that arose were not made to serve people, they were made to serve the pockets of the rich.

Shame on genetic engineering.

I definately believe in god, that being said I am also not baptised in any religion. But If I were I'd probably be an Anglican. Anyways if they don't believe thats there choice. But I find it impossible for anything to exist without god, how did the universe get here, how did anything get here?

How did God get here?

Besides, since "here" means in the universe, the universe doesn't have to do anything to be here, since by definition it can't be anywhere else.

Evolution is the most natural thing in the world. That is why I believe that genetic engineering, cloning, etc is just unnatural. Especially when these are just used to make money, not to serve humanity.


Making two possibilities a reality,
Predicting the future of things we all know,
Fighting off the diseased programming
Of centuries, centuries, centuries, centuries.

Science fails to recognize the single most
Potent element of human existence
letting the reigns go to the unfolding
Is faith, faith, faith, faith.

Science has failed our world
Science has failed our Mother Earth.


Most of the scientists have failed humanity. Most of the technological and scientifical progresses that arose were not made to serve people, they were made to serve the pockets of the rich.

Shame on genetic engineering.

A dislike of genetic engineering is hardly cause to diss all scientists. Without science there'd be no computer for you to use, no nice house for you to live in with its secure walls, sheltering roof and heat insulation, no vehicles to transport you around, no heat to cook your food.

Yeah, scientists have failed humanity. Lets all live in caves and try to survive by guesswork.

God is based on blind faith. You don't need, or shouldn't need, any proof whatsoever to convince you He exists. You are simply meant to believe in Him.

*Applause*

What is your concept of macroevolution?
I'm sorry about the slowness remark, I thought you were just being skeptic (not in the good, healthy way, but the stubborn way)

Species don't have to become NEW species to evolve. They just evolve: only the fittest of the group, those that get "laid" and that provide food for themselves and for their offspring.
Sometimes, due to many factors, like geographical or reproductional isolation, two populations of the same species might not be able to reproduce, and if the selective pressures (amount and type of prey, diseases, climate differences) are different between the two populations, they will evolve independently (but notice that even the no selective pressures are equal, the isolation will end up in different kinds of mutations for the population).
This is called adaptative radiation.
With enough time the two populations will not be able to breed and generate viable or fertile offspring, being then denominated different species. It takes a lot more time when there is no different between the selective pressures but it still happens, like that thing with the basques.


Sometimes, even when pressures are different, and the difference between one kind of animal and the other one is very clear, they are still considered the same species, but can be considered as two different subspecies.

It's like the dog and the wolf. The theory is that thousands of years ago, man started throwing pieces of meat at the less aggressive wolves, and these wolves that were less aggressive were able to survive, along with more aggressive wolves. As some wolves got closer to humans and less aggressive, they started to leave the packs. After a few generations, these wolves lived with man, and did not breed with the wild wolves. Then these wolves evolved their own way and became what we now know as dogs.

But notice that wolves and dogs create fertile offspring, so they are not considered a different species but subspecies.


Well you've mentioned that mutations can cause duplication of genes. Can it cause duplication of DNA strands? I presume it can cause a lengthening or shortening of strands, and that a sufficiency of such changes between two lines of the same species can lead to inability to cross breed, at which point the two lines can be regarded as two destinct species.

But what causes the addition of entirely new pairs of DNA strands? What caused an icthian to become an amphibian, or for that matter a monkey to become a chimpanzee?

Can two Downs sufferers produce offspring? If they do, will it have 24 complete chromosome pairs? And if so, and if it can survive, will it be a new species? That could in fact be the answer. We could end the whole pro-anti evolution debate if we would just let them ;) But I am sure that someone knows the answers to those questions already.

If this is the way it happens... even if the child of two Downs sufferers would not be viable, in the whole of the living world there would have to be some occurences where such an offspring could be viable, and would result in an enitirely new species with an entirely new chromosome number. And Downs as we know has environmental factors. Imagine such factors on a wide scale, causing chromosome duplication and, after a generation, the appearence of a new species with radically different characteristics and a complete extra chromosome pair.

That could be how a fish became a newt... ;)

Yeah, scientists have failed humanity. Lets all live in caves and try to survive by guesswork.

Thats not a bad idea. I'm tired of this overcrowded, polluted metropolitan I live in.

Questioning someones faith or lack of faith and telling people that they are stupid isn't even mature. I for example cannot believe in something that has destroyed so much beautiful and always glanced with it's ignorance.
Yes, atheist may be ignorant too, but we are not even close to the christian society in that area. If God do exist, he is no better than a damn human, for just look what "He" has caused troughout the years...
The inquisitors roaming Europe killing people as they feel this or that, torturing for false answers... The crusades, the death of thousands of people. And for what good? Nothing I tell you.
The Church has been against scientific research that could dissapprove their perfect manipulation of the people.
Go mock someone else you don't like.

I agree with Zeronial but also think that Tribal Ecology should listen to Chop Suey before he quotes System of A Down in defense of god.

Myself I am against finding cures for diseases. If I get something and a cure already exists, I will take it if I can... probably. But I do not support research. Disease is our only other natural predator, other than ourselves.

Equality I'm not defending God. I'm agnostic/atheist I just don't know and don't really care. I care about my world though.

As for science, I didn't say that it was all science that failed the world, I said that what fails the world are those scientists that serve corporations, "inventing" in the name of money.
Those scientists that do genetic alterations to food or animals just in order to produce more, for example (There are many other things but I'm not remembering them right now).
When science started to be based on money-making it stopped serving humanity, the world.

So, science has failed the world.

I'm not saying that science is a bad thing, heck, I'm a biology student. But those researchers that work for capitalists, most of the times only research things that allow money-making.

Did your quality of life improve with ge-food? I guess not. Let's just hope that nothing bad happens from these "experiments".

Myself I am against finding cures for diseases. If I get something and a cure already exists, I will take it if I can... probably. But I do not support research. Disease is our only other natural predator, other than ourselves.
and the proof that you are a radical fool presents itself

Science doubled the average life span during the last century. That a good enough improvement in your "quality of life"?

Give me science over ignorant superstition pleading for favors from an invisible man in the sky any day of the week.

"Well you've mentioned that mutations can cause duplication of genes. Can it cause duplication of DNA strands? I presume it can cause a lengthening or shortening of strands, and that a sufficiency of such changes between two lines of the same species can lead to inability to cross breed, at which point the two lines can be regarded as two destinct species."

Er... what do you consider strands? You mean a strand that will make a new protein?


"But what causes the addition of entirely new pairs of DNA strands? What caused an icthian to become an amphibian, or for that matter a monkey to become a chimpanzee?"

Didn't you read my explanation of how squirrels gained wings and how they might even be able to fly in the future, if selection pushes evolution that way? And the one of how fishes in the sea became flying dinosaurs?
Maybe it's on the other thread (evolution vs creationism).

Anyway, it's always small steps.

The "fish to newt" thing can be seen in nature. Do you know what an electric eel is? Well there is a freshwater species that doesn't use it's gills anymore and they are atrophiated. They now have this tissue with outgrowing things in their mouth's that allows them to get oxygen out of water, although they live underwater. It was on discovery yesterday. This could be the first step to coming out of water.

It could have happened like this in the past:
Natural selection chose those individuals that had certain characteristics, like those fish that could breathe oxygen directly out of the air (due to mutations), because of long periods of low oxygenated water (You can see that most fish, when in murky waters or with low oxygen, bring their mouths to the surface). These long periods of water without enough oxygen (in certain lakes or something) would act as a selective pressure that made only the fish belonging to populations of a species that could breathe high concentrations of oxygen from the surface or those that resisted low oxygen concentrations to survive. Then these two lineages were the only ones that reproduced.

Then amongst the fish that could almost breathe out of water, there were those that could breathe better, due to mutations that caused differences in gills, or areas in the esophagus with villosity covered walls, that could absorb oxygen better had much better survival chances than those that could only breathe a little.
Then other selective pressures acted, like the one that made them have hardened ventral and side fins, making them able to walk near the shores, etc...

Of course this is just my hypothesis of the way things happened, it might have happened in a different way. It depends on the kind of evolutionary pressures.


"Can two Downs sufferers produce offspring? If they do, will it have 24 complete chromosome pairs? And if so, and if it can survive, will it be a new species? That could in fact be the answer. We could end the whole pro-anti evolution debate if we would just let them ;) But I am sure that someone knows the answers to those questions already.

If this is the way it happens... even if the child of two Downs sufferers would not be viable, in the whole of the living world there would have to be some occurences where such an offspring could be viable, and would result in an enitirely new species with an entirely new chromosome number. And Downs as we know has environmental factors. Imagine such factors on a wide scale, causing chromosome duplication and, after a generation, the appearence of a new species with radically different characteristics and a complete extra chromosome pair."

People with ploidies (alteration of numbers of chromossomes) that aren't fatal, like Trisomy 21 (Chromossome 21 appears 3 times), are able to reproduce, but the difference in chromossome number normally reduces fertility, due to mismatches during the meiosis of their sexual cells.
But sometimes these mutations aren't very visible, and maybe I or you have them. One of us could have XYY syndrome. It happens in 1 out of 1000 human males. This particular case doesn't affect people's physical or mental health, normally, but It might reduce fertility a bit.

Check out this link that refers to Klinefelter's syndrome (XXY) http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Klinefelter%27s%20syndrome

Other times these mutations make it's bearers completely sterile and "mentally challenged", like the XXX or XXXX condition. And sometimes ploidies are fatal, resulting in abortions, like trisomy 1, 2 ,3 and so on...


"That could be how a fish became a newt... ;)"

Normally in animals, ploidies bring no advantage.

But for some species of plants, poliploidy (different from the normal quantity of genetic material, 2n, like 3n, 4n, etc) was very important. Many of the vegetable species we consume are poliploid.
For example wheat. The common wheat that we use (Triticum aestivum) is a hexaploid (6n) of a primitive species of wheat.


Evolution is very complex. You should research by yourself, there is much more to know.

It HAS been proven.

Try that in prayer, with a mind and heart that could actually be defined as open. You might be surprised.

Ok, so you pray to God... and probably 99% of the time nothing happens. One day something does... THIS IS CALLED COINCIDENCE!

atheists are stupid

Wow, way to insult a large number of people in the most utterly biased, pre-judgemental way possible.

God answers all prayers, it's just sometimes the answer is No.
--Sister Mary Ignatius.

What about Buddists?
They have an ideal rather than a dogma.

And Athiests belive in nothing because very little comes of beliving.

Woman in ethiopia:
"I pray to you God, please don't let my child starve to death. Save him."

"NO!"

Then the next day the kid is dead.

Yes, science is a way to destruction, but I cannot see that faith in God is doing any better.
I wish to believe in us, the humans, that we can do something good. The key is our minds, and it cannot be free if we believe in science or god. They are both supporting too many restrictions.

This is a bit of a whacked philosopy, but this is what I think.
To be totally free, you have to be just between insane and genialic.

Religion is just there for people who feel they need some... meaning to their lives or who feel they need guidance by some infallible being who will steer them in the right direction. Then people used it to control others. So if you all really don't want to make decisions and not live life go ahead. But stop fucking complaining to people who know better.

Organized religion is stupid, because why do we need some money grubbing man in a robe to tell us God exists and loves us? I certianly don't see the need.

I believe in God through and through, but I worship him on my own terms, not some church's.

Was that a blow to the Catholic Church?




I hope so. Because it was a good one. It seems to me like the Catholic doctrine has become so entrenched in rites that nobody cares about God anymore. They just go and do whatever they like, because all they have to do is tell the priest and they're "forgiven." No God in it at all. It makes me sad at times and I dont' like to be sad. I mean, how crooked can the people be if they don't mind being obviously quite sinful?

Though, that's the way it is with all religion. True Christianity is based on a relationship, not a religion. Other than that, it's all rules and books.

But my view is, neither athiests or theists are stupid. It's just that, one group is blind and the other isn't. Each one of you that reads this will have to decide which is which.

And now, a mini-joke: :eek: :mp5: :rolleyes:

Now you probably think I'm a crazy Christian that will talk of how you will burn in hell but thats not what I'm going to do. You cannot no matter how hard you try prove that God does not exist. You can also not prove that he does exist. You have a belief based on a hypothesis. It might no be true. Which is the same to say for all religions. So atheists are just as stupid if not dumber than those who follow a specific religion. So now it is your turn to try and prove me wrong.

Well... lets at least get this right - the difference between agnostics vs. the other two sides is that they right off the bat say that we can't prove a negative, and haven't proven existence. As such, we are just going to avoid exporing alternatives altogether... unless by chance god comes down and smacks me on the head... then I might change too ;) ) I can't prove that an omniscient, omnipotent left handed monkey requiring no first mover, first designer didn't create everything either ... but I am gonna assume it didn't, even though I can't prove it... hope THAT doesn't make me stupid too LMAO!!! That is a leap of faith on my atheistic part!

Theists and atheists merely argue over which paradigm of existence better explain how the universe works... science or god? It seems to me that many (NOT all, but many) agnostics merely try and avoid the argument and sound superior in doing so.

Atheists don't necessarilly claim that we WILL prove that god doesn't exist, but rather that we will try and find an alternate explanation that makes more sense to us. This exploration requires a point of inquiry discarding the concept of god in the first place.

God is merely an explanation for how the world is, and how it works. As an atheist, I merely believe that there is likely a better explanation than the one posed. I don't claim that I can PROVE he doesn't exist, but I can point to the LACK of evidence that he does, and try and find a better explanation. THAT is what atheism is to many of us, and is something agnostics merely try to sidestep.

The concept of Caloric was given up when a better explanation of energy came about. We still refer to the unit of measurement "Calories", but the belief in Caloric itself now seems silly, even though it's existence has never been proven, and they even supposedly measured it's mass. (Since explained by more convincing means.)

Instead of DISPROVING it's existence, we found a more satisfying explanation - one that more fully explains the world.

Many still believe in god, and feel they have good reasons to do so. Until a better explanation is fully worked out, which paradigm rules the day will be debated - as it SHOULD be debated... not the provability, necessarilly, but the impact each paradigm has, and which has the most utility. The one that best explains, most simply explains, and most coherently explains, is the concept that should overall be accepted. (See also, Occum's Razer.)

This being said... if we had said, 'Well, we can't prove that caloric doesn't exist, so anyone who BELIEVES that it doesn't is STUPID," we wouldn't have ANY of our modern concepts of energy, and the world would be a REMARKABLY different, and less technologically advanced place that it is. (And our abilities to explain things would have been SEVERELY hampered.)

Instead, some said, we are going to look for a more successful and all encompassing explanation for how things work than they are... and as such will dismiss the concept of caloric to look for alternatives.

That is what I as an atheist am trying to do. I started as a priest, and believed for a long time... but eventually found the explanations to be less than satisfying.

I seek more satisfactory explanations... my hypothesis may, in the end, be proven incorrect... but if so, any rational god will pat me on the back for using my god given intelligence to explore the god made universe to its fullest.

What I mean by "strands" is entire chromosomes. But when you say that (macro)evolution has been "shown" and "proven" you are still just talking about lining up fossils and living animals to demonstrate an order of development.

I'm not trying to be an ass here, but you can do the same with models and years of cars. That does not show that they are naturally occuring.

Two strains of a species could mutate away from their common root far enough that, although they retain the same chromosome pairs, they cannot viably mate with eachother. Although they may then be called seperate species I do not consider this macroevolution. Perhaps in the properly used sense of the word it is, but it's not what I'm talking about.

How did a fish evolve into a newt, which have I presume entirely different sets of chromosome pairs? You say it can be shown that it happened, by which, unless you tell me otherwise, I assume by placing them on a family tree. But HOW did it happen?

In terms of Downs sufferers I am actually asking about whether or not two of them can produce a viable offspring, and if it is thus possible for a "post-hominid" with 24 complete chromosome pairs to be born.

What I am proposing in that in the exteremly rare instances when ploidies in the animal kingdom result in advantagous changes, macroevolution, in the sense of entirely new chromosome sets, could be the result. And thus that ploidies may be the cause of macroevolution.

Do you have any idea at all how long time mutations evolve through? As I see it, you're telling me that a fish evolved directly into a lizard with legs, which is incorrect. These so-called mutations is what we call evolution when we use the term in history. For an example, if us humans were less intelligent, we would have evolved in the same way. You see, there are several cases where humans have been borned with a small tail. Of course they are operated away by skilled surgeons. But humans were less intelligent, the tail would remain, as we would see no reason in operating it away, nor would we see anything unusual about it. Therefor the familyline of that person would obtain the tail, which could be the start of a whole new race of humans, with tails.
We have stopped the human evolution, cause we're trying to evolve ourselves with things like science, like all those experiments with regeneration and stuff.
These kind of mutations takes a lot of time, and long family-lines. The first thing that walked on land was a mutant, not something created by the huge bearded man in the sky.
I must say, people that still believe in the christian theory of evolution are stupid, or insane perhaps.

And if I missunderstood former posts, I'm sorry. Hope you understand my.

P.S My turn to attack, your turn to defend.

What I mean by "strands" is entire chromosomes. But when you say that (macro)evolution has been "shown" and "proven" you are still just talking about lining up fossils and living animals to demonstrate an order of development.

I'm not trying to be an ass here, but you can do the same with models and years of cars. That does not show that they are naturally occuring.

Two strains of a species could mutate away from their common root far enough that, although they retain the same chromosome pairs, they cannot viably mate with eachother. Although they may then be called seperate species I do not consider this macroevolution. Perhaps in the properly used sense of the word it is, but it's not what I'm talking about.

How did a fish evolve into a newt, which have I presume entirely different sets of chromosome pairs? You say it can be shown that it happened, by which, unless you tell me otherwise, I assume by placing them on a family tree. But HOW did it happen?


How many times do I have to explain this?

IMAGINE THERE IS A FOKIN SHARK THAT WAS BORN WITH A GENETIC ALTERATION, CAUSED DURING THE CREATION OF THE PARENTS GAMETES. IMAGINE THAT THIS MUTATION MAKES HIS SKIN OFFER LESS RESISTANCE TO THE PASSING OF WATER. THIS RESISTANCE MAKES HIM FASTER. BEING FASTER ALLOWS HIM TO EAT MORE AND TO REPRODUCE EASILY. HIS KIDS ARE BORN WITH THE FEKIN GENETIC ALTERATION AND PASS IT ON TO THEIR KIDS AND SO ON.
THIS IS EVOLUTION. AND A LOT OF GENETIC ALTERATIONS AND THE RESULTING MUTATIONS, IF BENEFIC, CAUSE WHAT YOU CALL MACRO-FAKIN-EVOLUTION.


I'll try to make it easier:

Mutations are somewhat rare.

Mutations can be good, indifferent or bad.

Indifferent you don't notice, unless there is environmetal alteration, like a disease that kills everyone except the mutated being.
Then mutation good.

Good mutations are rare.

Calling mutation good happens when the mutation brings an advantage to the environment that the animal lives in.

If mutation good, then it can make you stronger, faster, smarter, wiser, darker, whiter, etc, depending on the environment.
Example: A genetic alteration makes your skin produce more melanin, the dark pigment that makes you tan.
If you live under the sun a lot, then having more melanin and being darker is an advantage, because it protects you from UV rays. If you live in kamchatka it is probably indifferent.

That is why being racist is stupid, by the way, judging a man because his skin produces more pigment than your skin is being a fakin moron.

So if there is good mutation, it makes person good.

Good person makes good babies.

Good babies carry mommy's or daddy's mutation

Passing good mutation to population is evolution.

In terms of Downs sufferers I am actually asking about whether or not two of them can produce a viable offspring, and if it is thus possible for a "post-hominid" with 24 complete chromosome pairs to be born.

What I am proposing in that in the exteremly rare instances when ploidies in the animal kingdom result in advantagous changes, macroevolution, in the sense of entirely new chromosome sets, could be the result. And thus that ploidies may be the cause of macroevolution.

The Down sindrome does not add new genetic information. It repeats genetic information. In an uneven way. (one of the gametes has one 21 chromossome and the other has 2)

If by chance two sufferers managed to make a quadrossomy 21 embryo (what you are implying) it would probably not be viable.

Anyway, the Down syndrome isn't a benefitial mutation, so it brings no evolutionary advantages. In nature these people wouldn't survive alone, let alone reproduce.

As I said, ploidies were important in plant evolution, but that's because sometimes in plants, multiplied genetic information causes the plants to be bigger (amongst other effects). In animals, multiplied information, extra chromossomes is most of the times detrimental. And it reduces fertility (in plants too).



Do you understand now?

Why would I want to prove you wrong? It's a common misconception that only "certain" groups of people are stupid. In fact, stupidity traverses barriers of gender, race, religion, and occupation. To put it simply: All people are stupid. Maybe not all of the time, but everyone knows that everybody is stupid at least some of the time, and some people are even stupid all of the time. It's easy to prove that all of the people are stupid some of the time - after all we've all posted replies to this thread, and you idiots can't ALL be athiests.

-I'm with stoopid