NationStates Jolt Archive

what do you mean conditional support in light of current knowledge?
That our current investigation has lead to this knowledge which is thus supported until something comes along to supplant it or alter it, such as the Einsteinian "revolution" vis-a-vis Newtonian mechanistic ideas wrt absolute time and space.

There are plenty of theories out there about the beginning and the state of the universe that do not require the existence of any god, creator, or intelligent designer.

Indeed, if you investigate theories that are variants of the Big Bang, such as the possibility that this is a No-Boundary Universe then you encounter the possibility that the universe did not have a real beginning in space-time at all.

Equally fascinating is the premise suggested by Descriptor Theory that the universe acts as a sort of computational matrix. In that case the rules of the early universe may have been in a state of flux until they fell into a stable configuration.

You are asking for evidence as to why atheists do not believe in god. To which I respond -- Nothing can be proven.

The only two things that I can be sure of is that I exist, and I exist within some kind of framework that allows me to exist (i.e. the universe.)

Nothing beyond that is provable, so why would I waste my time with something as infinitely unprovable as an (external) god? Thus, if I were religious, the only logical course would be to believe that I am god.
:)


So there you have it, if you really need something to worship... worship yourself. (That is, if you really exist.)



Without using any religious Crutch (ie, you cannot say I am an atheist because the concept of God is stupid..) explain using your ever present logic and scientific fact why there is no creator. This means: No questions of morality, or the nature of God himself. You should only use “secular” reasoning. If atheism is indeed correct, you should not need to rely on the beliefs of others to back up your claims. Can you do it? Can you explain to us why you are an atheist without referring to God specifically?

Some of you claim that God can be neither proven nor disproven. Now, I am inclined to agree with you. However, I CAN prove to you that none of the "scientific alternatives" to the idea of a supreme being work. The only alternative I know of being evolution. However, I have already posted on this subject many times, and would prefer not to have to do all that typing. Therefore, if I could prove to you that evolution does not work, nor the Big Bang theory, would that prove to you that a superior being must, in fact, exist? If you wish I will type out this info right now.

How would disproving those two schools of thought prove a third supposition?

Not quite. Let's look at why...


Ah, but with Heisenberg, we know that we influence what the photon does by our attempt to observe it due to our methods to attempt to observe it. No such thing happens with the cat when we go to observe it in the box, because the cat in the box in the first place is 1)living 2)conscious 3)has some sort of volition and 4)is a cat and will do what it damn well pleases in the first place.

So it's apples-oranges.

Well not quite, cause Uncertianty also effects our observation of the cat. Uncertianty doesn't just apply to the microscopic, it applies universally. We influence what happens to the cat when we attempt to observe it. Yes the cat is living, conscious, has a will and will do what it wants BUT the information of that happens to the cat is isolated from the rest of the universe.

But whatever, this is getting nowhere. I don't see why you can't see things my way, and I'm sure you feel the exact same way. I feel that your physics is a bit off. I'm utterly sure the feeling in mutual. But in the end the arugments are running to the point where we're going around in circles. And in the end we both seem to whole heartedly support the theories that we're talking about. My only point was that Theory and Fact are different, and that theory doesn't necessarily reflect what's really at work. The only last argument we haven't touched on that I could bring is the duality of light. Is it a wave? is it a particle? does it matter what it is if we can explain what is does? The Schroddinger's cat stuff: Maybe your right, maybe the cat and the photons are different experiments. They seem to me to be affected by the same prinicples. I don't feel that it's an apples to oranges arugment, but maybe it's a florida oranges to mandarin oranges. So in short I don't see the point of continuing these arguments, we're both dead set that our understanding is correct that we'll probably never be able to prove to the other that one of us is right. Which really was the whole point of this thread.

So in any event, Good Show BAAWA. After a summer of little discourse on physics, you've jammed a ton's worth into one day for me. In any event, I'm sure it'll just drive me back to my books to further my understanding.

How would disproving those two schools of thought prove a third supposition?

Simple.

Through...

MAGIC

http://www.doughenning.com/newimages/dougfire.jpg

I would say it's because faith is a suspension of logic. When people refuse to 'take the leap', refuse to accept that it's necessary to 'take it on faith.' Their decision is undermined. They feel threatened.

Atheists are different from those other theists (and we know they have problems living with them), even perhaps alien to them.

Is it pure logic to state that a lack of hard evidence irrefutably affirms the non existence of a thing? The position that no god exists is a statement based on a belief formed in the absence of unassailable facts. It is as much a statement of faith (or "a leap") as the affirming the existence of a god.

I believe in God for a reason Anthiests think can help prove their theory. Why did the universe come to be? Who started it? When you think about it to say the universe was "always" here. Admites to eternity thus God could "always" be here.

Prove God doesn't exist? Universal Negative, my friend. The onus is on the person who proposes a theory (i.e you) to prove your theory. Once you offer your evidence, a group of your peers will examine and evaluate you it. If they offer more evidence that proves you wrong, then your theory is proved wrong. If they can find no evidence that you are wrong, then your theory is taken as the current scientific truth. Of course, it's not about science, it's about personal conscience. Therefore leave off athiests, and the likelihood is atheists will leave off you.

I believe in God for a reason Anthiests think can help prove their theory. Why did the universe come to be?
There is no why.

Who started it?
No one.

When you think about it to say the universe was "always" here. Admites to eternity thus God could "always" be here.
Nope. Beings cannot be eternal.

Is English your second language?

Is it pure logic to state that a lack of hard evidence irrefutably affirms the non existence of a thing?
It is where evidence is to be expected.

The position that no god exists is a statement based on a belief formed in the absence of unassailable facts. It is as much a statement of faith (or "a leap") as the affirming the existence of a god.
Nope. It's a statement that since the theist has had thousands of years to show that there is a god, and no evidence is forthcoming, judgement is rendered.

I sincerely do not care if there is a god, God or Gods. I do not care what you believe as long as you don't bother me or anyone else with your theology or let it taint your relationships with others. I do strongly believe that organized religions and the self assurance of their adherents cause the vast majority of the world's problems.

Therefore the terms agnostic or atheist may not best describe my "beliefs". Possibly I should be considered an anti-theist.Well actually your lack of care would better be described as agnostic while your view regarding the more corporeal aspect, religions, might be best described as anti-religious.

By the way, two views I share.

Not quite. Let's look at why...


Ah, but with Heisenberg, we know that we influence what the photon does by our attempt to observe it due to our methods to attempt to observe it. No such thing happens with the cat when we go to observe it in the box, because the cat in the box in the first place is 1)living 2)conscious 3)has some sort of volition and 4)is a cat and will do what it damn well pleases in the first place.

So it's apples-oranges.
Well not quite, cause Uncertianty also effects our observation of the cat. Uncertianty doesn't just apply to the microscopic, it applies universally. We influence what happens to the cat when we attempt to observe it.
Not in this case. What happens to the cat has already happened. We're just looking at the effect of what happened when we open the box. With the particles, we're influencing them because the photons that we use to look at them influence their position. Do you see the difference? Heisenberg is quite clear as to where it applies: subatomic particles.

Yes the cat is living, conscious, has a will and will do what it wants BUT the information of that happens to the cat is isolated from the rest of the universe.
Yes, but that's not what the Uncertainty Principle is all about.

But whatever, this is getting nowhere. I don't see why you can't see things my way, and I'm sure you feel the exact same way. I feel that your physics is a bit off. I'm utterly sure the feeling in mutual. But in the end the arugments are running to the point where we're going around in circles. And in the end we both seem to whole heartedly support the theories that we're talking about. My only point was that Theory and Fact are different, and that theory doesn't necessarily reflect what's really at work. The only last argument we haven't touched on that I could bring is the duality of light. Is it a wave? is it a particle?
S'both, obviously.

That person is an atheist.

There are 2 options. That's it. Atheist. Theist. No more. No less. Having belief or lacking belief. There is no middle ground.

Actually you are wrong. There are two extremes with plenty of room inbetween. Thesits believe there is a God. Atheists believe there is no god. Agnostics hold the middle saying it is impossible to prove either point.

Imagine one of those ancient LP's on the record player, you place the needle at the center and run the record player backwards. The needle would move away from the center. In the same way God created us in his own image and very close to Him. Sin entered into the world and we, like the needle on the record player, move farther and farther from the center, farther and farther from His original plan for us. God allowed sin to enter into the world because he wants people who WILLINGLY serve Him, not robots. As we get farther from the center more and more things go wrong death, disease, war, famine, pick one. We are condemned by our own sins and worthy of God's wrath. However, God sent his Son as a sacrifice for our sins. Jesus died as a substitue for our sins. And He rose again and will one day return to judge ALL of us, saved and unsaved. All will be found guilty before Him. Those who, in this life, asked for forgiveness and recognized that Christ died as an atonement for their sin , will be spared the proper judgement for their sin. Those who did not, will be sent to Hell. Is that altogher fair ? Not really, but just like your boss at work gets to set the rules, those are the rules God set for us.

Does God exist ? It is logically impossible to prove a negative statement.
(i.e. prove God does not exist) Can you put the pieces of a watch into a coffee can, shake it for 10.000 years and open it up to find a working Rolex?!? A watch needs a designer and over time the watch breaks and gets farther away from the ideal it was when you took it out of the box. To believe that there is no god or designer take almost as much faith to believe there isn't one. To believe there is no God or to believe that God does not care about us is as much a statement of faith as to say that God exists.
None can be proven through any empircal, scientific test.

I do know this, if you were to read the Gospel of John and honestly ask God that if He exist to reveal Himself to you in a way that you can understand that He will do it and your life will begin to change.

That person is an atheist.

There are 2 options. That's it. Atheist. Theist. No more. No less. Having belief or lacking belief. There is no middle ground.
Actually you are wrong.
No, I'm quite correct. Let's see why...

There are two extremes with plenty of room inbetween. Thesits believe there is a God. Atheists believe there is no god.
No. Atheists lack the belief in the existence of a god.

Thus, there are 2 and only 2 options: Have the belief and do not have/lack/be without the belief.

Agnosticism is orthogonal to atheism and theism.

Imagine one of those ancient LP's on the record player, you place the needle at the center and run the record player backwards. The needle would move away from the center. In the same way God created us in his own image and very close to Him. Sin entered into the world and we, like the needle on the record player, move farther and farther from the center, farther and farther from His original plan for us. God allowed sin to enter into the world because he wants people who WILLINGLY serve Him, not robots.
Then why did he forbid adam & eve from knowing about morality?

I'm not even going to delve into your presupposition-laden false analogy.

As we get farther from the center more and more things go wrong death, disease, war, famine, pick one. We are condemned by our own sins and worthy of God's wrath. However, God sent his Son as a sacrifice for our sins.
Completely counter to all Judaic teachings.

Jesus died as a substitue for our sins. And He rose again and will one day return to judge ALL of us, saved and unsaved. All will be found guilty before Him. Those who, in this life, asked for forgiveness and recognized that Christ died as an atonement for their sin , will be spared the proper judgement for their sin. Those who did not, will be sent to Hell. Is that altogher fair ? Not really, but just like your boss at work gets to set the rules, those are the rules God set for us.
So it's "believe or burn", eh? How childish.

Does God exist ? It is logically impossible to prove a negative statement.
(i.e. prove God does not exist) Can you put the pieces of a watch
What designed god?

And please...no preaching. It's rude.

Not really, but just like your boss at work gets to set the rules, those are the rules God set for us.

Just a minor difference, ofcourse. If I don't like the rules my boss set for me, and decide to 'quit' my job, by boss won't send me to a place where I am tortured for eternity, just because I didn't worship him. Nothing big, just a minor detail.


I do know this, if you were to read the Gospel of John and honestly ask God that if He exist to reveal Himself to you in a way that you can understand that He will do it and your life will begin to change.
I've heard that BS so many times now it's starting to become a real christian Clichê

And please...no preaching. It's rude.

Wow, and you made that statement with a straight face, I bet. Impressive.

A polytheist is someone who firmly believes that multiple deities exist.
A monotheist is someone who firmly believes that a single deity exists.
An atheist is someone who firmly believes that zero deities exist.

End of discussion. Anyone who disagrees will be repeatedly beaten with a hammer until he agrees.

Just a minor difference, ofcourse. If I don't like the rules my boss set for me, and decide to 'quit' my job, by boss won't send me to a place where I am tortured for eternity, just because I didn't worship him. Nothing big, just a minor detail.
No. However, unless you find a different boss to replace him (which is not possible under monotheistic theology), you WILL lose your home and starve to death.

I believe in God for a reason Anthiests think can help prove their theory. Why did the universe come to be? Who started it? When you think about it to say the universe was "always" here. Admites to eternity thus God could "always" be here.
ya know, i always find this the least compelling reason to believe in god.
"the universe had to come from somewhere so i believe in god"

it has so many problems

if you cant accept a creatorless universe, why is it so easy to accept a creatorless creator? that is, WHO MADE GOD? religiously speaking, i dont care. but if prime movers are important to YOU, shouldnt the uncreated existence of god bother you?

if, as you suggest, some being created the universe, well then "just who is this god guy anyway?" (HGTTG) what makes you think he is all powerful, all knowing, all loving, all whatever-other-things-you-attribute-to-him? what makes you think he DESERVES worship? what makes you think he WANTS worship? and most importantly WHAT MAKES YOU THINK HE STILL EXISTS AFTER SO MANY BILLIONS OF YEARS? these things do NOT follow from the need to have someone to get the universe started, now do they?

ok so that doesnt bother you a bit. next question

how in the world do you get from "someone had to start the universe" to "jesus christ died on the cross for my sins"

meaning...

ok fine the universe was started by "god", what basis do you now have for deciding that this god is the judeo-christian god? or whatever god it is that you have decided made the universe? are you sure it wasnt vishnu? (like id know if that is the hindu god that created the universe) are you SURE it wasnt chronos?

seems to ME that, at best, if you really need someone to have started the universe, it leads to being agnostic

ummm An Atheist is not the one who needs the "proof".... (if something does not exist THERE IS NO PROOF!!!!) *because there is NOTHING TO prove*

Twenty years ago life forms which do not participate in the O2/CO2 cycle were unprovable but they existed at the mouths of undersea volcanos even before we discovered them.

No. However, unless you find a different boss to replace him (which is not possible under monotheistic theology), you WILL lose your home and starve to death.

Ok, then tell me one thing. If everyone needs a boss to not lose their homes and starve to death, how do the bosses survive? You could just start your own business. Just look at Lucifer, that's what he did :P

seems to ME that, at best, if you really need someone to have started the universe, it leads to being agnostic
I've heard of a religion called Deism which holds the belief that the world was created by a supreme being, but that this supreme being has no influence on how the world is run day-to-day.

Twenty years ago life forms which do not participate in the O2/CO2 cycle were unprovable but they existed at the mouths of undersea volcanos even before we discovered them.
Yes, but it wasn't up to people to 'prove' that these didn't exist, it was up to the other people to prove they did, no? ;)

Based on pure scientific reason and conservation of matter, nothing created the universe. Or 1 + 1 = 0. No religion has solid evidence and science is hardly an acurate enough measure. Believe whatever you choose to. I vote that we write down in textbooks that a potato with feathers created the universe. Now go find an arguement with a purpose.

Twenty years ago life forms which do not participate in the O2/CO2 cycle were unprovable but they existed at the mouths of undersea volcanos even before we discovered them.

and you just re itereate what I said, the BURDEN of PROOF rests on those tha claim it to be REAL.

Yes, but it wasn't up to people to 'prove' that these didn't exist, it was up to the other people to prove they did, no? ;)

Unless of course, someone claimed that these organisms existed, then they would be asked for proof. If someone 1000 years ago said that atoms existed, how do you think the world would respond? They would not believe it. However, does that mean that atoms did not exist just because that person could not prove their existance 1000 years ago? there would be many people who would "prove" that atoms did not esist, but their evidence would be looked on as ignorance and lunacy by thier modern day counterparts.

Unless of course, someone claimed that these organisms existed, then they would be asked for proof. If someone 1000 years ago said that atoms existed, how do you think the world would respond? They would not believe it. However, does that mean that atoms did not exist just because that person could not prove their existance 1000 years ago? there would be many people who would "prove" that atoms did not esist, but their evidence would be looked on as ignorance and lunacy by thier modern day counterparts.
Perhaps. But you would think that in over 3,000 years, theists would have been able to come up with some evidence.

ya know, i always find this the least compelling reason to believe in god.
"the universe had to come from somewhere so i believe in god"

it has so many problems

if you cant accept a creatorless universe, why is it so easy to accept a creatorless creator? that is, WHO MADE GOD? religiously speaking, i dont care. but if prime movers are important to YOU, shouldnt the uncreated existence of god bother you?

if, as you suggest, some being created the universe, well then "just who is this god guy anyway?" (HGTTG) what makes you think he is all powerful, all knowing, all loving, all whatever-other-things-you-attribute-to-him? what makes you think he DESERVES worship? what makes you think he WANTS worship? and most importantly WHAT MAKES YOU THINK HE STILL EXISTS AFTER SO MANY BILLIONS OF YEARS? these things do NOT follow from the need to have someone to get the universe started, now do they?

ok so that doesnt bother you a bit. next question

how in the world do you get from "someone had to start the universe" to "jesus christ died on the cross for my sins"

meaning...

ok fine the universe was started by "god", what basis do you now have for deciding that this god is the judeo-christian god? or whatever god it is that you have decided made the universe? are you sure it wasnt vishnu? (like id know if that is the hindu god that created the universe) are you SURE it wasnt chronos?

seems to ME that, at best, if you really need someone to have started the universe, it leads to being agnostic



Have you even read the first post? You haven't proved anything. Now when did I insult Anthietes hm? So why do you come on and flame? What are ya'll so strong in your belief you have to insult someone elses :confused: ? Thats arrogance. So theres no scientific proof of God, but there is none disproving. On a side note it was Shiva in Hinduism that created the universe and Shiva that destroyed it. You shouldn't make assumptions on religion when you as I guess don't know about it.

Is it pure logic to state that a lack of hard evidence irrefutably affirms the non existence of a thing? The position that no god exists is a statement based on a belief formed in the absence of unassailable facts. It is as much a statement of faith (or "a leap") as the affirming the existence of a god.

It is a statement of knowledge, not of certainity. It's called Inductive Logic. It worked for Sherlock Homes.

About Agnosticism: it is a statement about knowledge, not belief (or lack thereof.) Thomas Huxely, who coined the term noted that there are two types of agnostic: the agnostic theist, who believes a god exists but does not believe it can be understood and the agnostic atheist, who does not believe in a god because we cannot have the knowledge.

You can't prove a negative. Meaning it's not my job to disprove god, it's your job to prove god.

There is no reason for me to believe in a god, so i don't.

You can't prove a negative.

Well, you actually can. If you are holding a box and you say there are are documents proving Tenete Traditiones' Evil Zionist Conspiracy(tm) in the box, I can prove the negative by checking the inside of the box.

The problem comes with an undefined or unlimited negative. This relates back to the God concept, with is undefined, only stated by negation and secondary characteristics. You could say that the papers are invisible and noncorpreal. Then we run into problems. This statement is not falsifiable as it stands. However, I can ask you why I should accept the premise that that the papers are invisible and noncorpreal, and lacking evidence, there is no reason why I should accept the premise as credible or true.

You can't prove a negative.
Yeah, you can. It's how we prove all sorts of things in math, like the set of primes is infinite, which can be re-written as "there is no largest prime number".

Maybe it was, you can't disprove a negative. I don't know I heard that saying somewhere.

You're an atheist because 'the duck billed platypus?'

It's a hard one to argue against, certainly... it would be even harder with a sentence around it, I guess...

well, let's say in a murder trail, someone accuses someone else of murder, the defendant denies this. It's now the responsibility of the accusor to supply sufficient evidence that this guy actually did kill someone. the plaintiff tells the judge that it was written in some book years and years ago, let's say. would that be sufficient evidence? no. it's the same situation. athiests have no reason to believe anything because there's not sufficient evidence. there's really no reason to.

Just a minor difference, ofcourse. If I don't like the rules my boss set for me, and decide to 'quit' my job, by boss won't send me to a place where I am tortured for eternity, just because I didn't worship him.


See, now I know you didn't work at some of the places I've worked...

Perhaps. But you would think that in over 3,000 years, theists would have been able to come up with some evidence.


are you referring to just plain evidence, or are you referring to evidence that you would believe? You are, by far the most self righteous person I have met on the various forums. I would even go so far as to say that you have a "holier than thou" attitude because you are convinced that everything you say is correct (even your version of atheism/agnostics) is correct and you have the attitude that the rest of us are morons for not believing what you say. a while back you called someone childish, but I think that you are the one who is being petty here. you ask for evidence, but you know full well that whatever evidence is provided you will not believe. You ask for scientific evidence from a belief system that has ALWAYS stated that you need faith of some sort (aka belief in something that is not there). Even the arguments that we have provided, you pass off as a convenient rationalization, no matter what that argument is. Men have been searching for aliens for quite a while as well, and what do they have to show for it? does their lack of evidence disprove the existence of an "ET?"

You ask for evidence, but evidence is only worth telling to someone who actually is willing to listen, and not dismiss it as false right away. I have said this many time in my previous posts. maybe you should try listening instead of bestowing your "infallible" wisdom upon us.

If you had evidence, you wouldn't need faith.

As it stands, your religion is no more valid than the hundreds or thousands of others that have existed in the world. Has anyone "disproven" Thor or Zeus? Funny how few people worship them now.

If you had evidence, you wouldn't need faith.

As it stands, your religion is no more valid than the hundreds or thousands of others that have existed in the world. Has anyone "disproven" Thor or Zeus? Funny how few people worship them now.

That was my point. Faith is the Key to many religions. without faith, many of the things that that religion believes will be utterly confusing and/or false to the skeptic. You cannot provide evidence for something like God, or gods for that matter, unless the person you are talking to is willing to listen. also, being that religion is based on faith, there will not be overwhelming undeniable scientific evidence because that would negate the need for faith (see babble fish example in Hitchhikers guide to teh galaxy for a humerous take on this)
As for the greek and Nordic gods, I think that people no longer worship them because
1) Zeus: They were said to reside on Olympus, am I right? as someone mentioned earlier, once they saw that there was no city of the God's on the top of the mountain, the faith kind of dwindled. also, Greek gods did not seem to be taken seriously (as shown in numerous plays that insulted, or poked fun at them) so this could mean that the gods were not really seen as all powerful, or something like that. My knowledge of greek and Norse mythology is rather limited, and I know almost nothing of how the beliefs were carried out in either of them.

But the currently popular God just so happens to be invisible and intangible, meaning you'll never be able to just check and see he's not there. How convenient.

However, there are many things that this God is described as having done, in the bible. Many of these have been proven nonsense. I would say that counts just as much as counter-evidence as climbing the Olympus.

Perhaps. But you would think that in over 3,000 years, theists would have been able to come up with some evidence.[/b]
are you referring to just plain evidence, or are you referring to evidence that you would believe?
False dichotomy. Here's why:

I claim there is an invisible magic pixie on my shoulder. I claim that it causes rain, and every time it rains, that is evidence of the magic pixie on my shoulder. Now then, is rain evidence of the magic pixie on my shoulder?

Once you realize why it's not, then you'll understand that not every claim of "this is evidence" is actually showing that something is evidence. IOW: claiming something is evidence doesn't make it so. Capice?

whine whine whine whine whine
That's so unbecoming.

You ask for scientific evidence from a belief system that has ALWAYS stated that you need faith of some sort (aka belief in something that is not there).
NMFP: not my fucking problem.

Even the arguments that we have provided, you pass off as a convenient rationalization, no matter what that argument is.
Mainly because they are rationalizations. You've never provided any evidence for your claims.

Men have been searching for aliens for quite a while as well,
Actually, less than 100 years. And given the physics involved, it will take a while. But we (and by we I mean people who actually know about how long it takes to receive signals and such) understand this.

You ask for evidence, but evidence is only worth telling to someone who actually is willing to listen,
Ad hominem fallacy.

Bub, let me set you fucking straight: "Believe and then you will see/understand" is ass backwards.

Maybe you ought to start thinking and do less whining. It will help you.

The problem is faith in not a reliable means of discerning the truth. You can believe as hard and ferverently as you want, but that doesn't mean you belief is true.

Saying I need to accept the religion first to see the evidence or understand it is Begging the Question (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html).

Why not Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Shikhism, Shinto, Jainism, Neo-pagansim, Baha'i, Unitarian-Universalism, Rastafarianism, Scientology (*gag*), Zoroastrianism or even Raelianism?

But the currently popular God just so happens to be invisible and intangible, meaning you'll never be able to just check and see he's not there. How convenient.

However, there are many things that this God is described as having done, in the bible. Many of these have been proven nonsense. I would say that counts just as much as counter-evidence as climbing the Olympus.

Many gods have been seen as invisable and intangable

God
Allah (some may argue that these two are one and the same, but as most Christians do not believe this, I will list them as seperate entities)
some sects of the The Druids had an unnamed God, one who the others seemed to follow.
The Gnostics believed in a God totally removed from humanity, and that who we know as God was jsut one of his children
Many cultures have been found that worship unknown or unknowable gods.
Rosecrucions beleieve in Seven Spirits that are know collectivally as God
those are all that I can think of off the top of my head, but having an invisible god is not a new thing. and how is it convienent? one would think that it would be easier to get people to believe in him if there was evidence. also, He has always been known as invisable, so this is not a new thing created in an attempt to help "protect" the faith.

some links you might want to look at:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/forecasts.shtml?main
<-- Biblical statement that have been verified by science
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/christianscience.shtml?main
<--Historical figures in the scientific community that were also believers
www.icr.org
<--A much better source than the watchtower tracts for ideas of Christians regarding evolution

False dichotomy. Here's why:

I claim there is an invisible magic pixie on my shoulder. I claim that it causes rain, and every time it rains, that is evidence of the magic pixie on my shoulder. Now then, is rain evidence of the magic pixie on my shoulder?

Once you realize why it's not, then you'll understand that not every claim of "this is evidence" is actually showing that something is evidence. IOW: claiming something is evidence doesn't make it so. Capice?


That's so unbecoming.


NMFP: not my fucking problem.


Mainly because they are rationalizations. You've never provided any evidence for your claims.


Actually, less than 100 years. And given the physics involved, it will take a while. But we (and by we I mean people who actually know about how long it takes to receive signals and such) understand this.


Ad hominem fallacy.

Bub, let me set you fucking straight: "Believe and then you will see/understand" is ass backwards.

Maybe you ought to start thinking and do less whining. It will help you.

Maybe you should stop sounding like a self rightous moron and then maybe I would see some reason in agreeing with you. If you were the only contact I had ever had with atheist, you would have convinced me that they are worse than Christian Fundies when it comes to plugging their ears when others speak. your right, its not your problem that belief in something takes faith. But you should understand that a believer will never be able to provide you with the evidence you are looking for because that form of evidence will never exist. you want to remain an atheist, that is fine, it is your choice. But do not assume that just because someone believes in something that you do not, that it makes them stupid. Get your own head out of your pompus ass before you talk about other people being "ass backwards"

I know plenty of atheists, the difference between you and them: they can discuss something without insulting or putting down the other side (regardless of what the debate may be). it is a useful skill that I suggest you try every once and a while.

ICR is known for being intellectually dishonest, note Duane Gish as well as their "museum."

ICR is known being intellectually dishonest, note Duane Gish as well as their "museum."

It might not be the best, but then again, it is better than some of the "sources" talk origins" was using to find questions. Bible Tracts are hardly scientific material. I agree that it is not the most honest of sites, but anything is better than using a salvation pamphlet to use as a source.

www.reasons.org is better, how much I shall leave up to others to decide.

www.wasdarwinright.com is even better than icr, imo because it tries to appeal more to someone who does not want to read latin terms. I am not positive as to how accurate it is (It mainly posts others articles, and comments on them) but they have some interesting links.

Darwins Black box would also be an interesting read. here is the book description:
Book Description

Virtually all serious scientists accept the truth of Darwin's theory of evolution. While the fight for its acceptance has been a long and difficult one, after a century of struggle among the cognoscenti the battle is over. Biologists are now confident that their remaining questions, such as how life on Earth began, or how the Cambrian explosion could have produced so many new species in such a short time, will be found to have Darwinian answers. They, like most of the rest of us, accept Darwin's theory to be true.

But should we? What would happen if we found something that radically challenged the now-accepted wisdom? In Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe argues that evidence of evolution's limits has been right under our noses -- but it is so small that we have only recently been able to see it. The field of biochemistry, begun when Watson and Crick discovered the double-helical shape of DNA, has unlocked the secrets of the cell. There, biochemists have unexpectedly discovered a world of Lilliputian complexity. As Belie engagingly demonstrates, using the examples of vision, bloodclotting, cellular transport, and more, the biochemical world comprises an arsenal of chemical machines, made up of finely calibrated, interdependent parts. For Darwinian evolution to be true, there must have been a series of mutations, each of which produced its own working machine, that led to the complexity we can now see. The more complex and interdependent each machine's parts are shown to be, the harder it is to envision Darwin's gradualistic paths, Behe surveys the professional science literature and shows that it is completely silent on the subject, stymied by the elegance of the foundation of life. Could it be that there is some greater force at work?

Michael Behe is not a creationist. He believes in the scientific method, and he does not look to religious dogma for answers to these questions. But he argues persuasively that biochemical machines must have been designed -- either by God, or by some other higher intelligence. For decades science has been frustrated, trying to reconcile the astonishing discoveries of modern biochemistry to a nineteenth-century theory that cannot accommodate them. With the publication of Darwin's Black Box, it is time for scientists to allow themselves to consider exciting new possibilities, and for the rest of us to watch closely.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684834936/qid=1092918138/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-5196901-0549526?v=glance&s=books

one would think that it would be easier to get people to believe in him if there was evidence.
Yes. Unfortunately, there isn't any evidence and probably never will be. Therefore, religions have to resort to the second best thing, which is to also make it impossible to ever find evidence to the contrary.

He has always been known as invisable, so this is not a new thing created in an attempt to help "protect" the faith.
No. However, it is the reason why Christianity survived while Zeus didn't. If you believe your bible as an accurate source of historical facts, you'll find that in ancient times Jews constantly kept defecting to other, more intuitive religions - for them, a tangible statue was easier to believe in than an invisible spirit. The reason that Judaism and its decendants have such devoted followers nowadays is that the formerly "intuitive" religions have been (nearly) indisputably proven as bunk. (Hmmm, using survival of the fittest to describe religion... How ironic.)

Yes. Unfortunately, there isn't any evidence and probably never will be. Therefore, religions have to resort to the second best thing, which is to also make it impossible to ever find evidence to the contrary.
true. plus, even if God were "proven" to be false, that does not mean that everyone will instantly stop believing in him. If a human mind wants to think something, they will do so, no matter what the facts are. (people trying to fly, etc). One could argue that someones beliefs are beyond fact and fiction, because both are interpreted by the person in the way that they wish to interpret them.


No. However, it is the reason why Christianity survived while Zeus didn't. If you believe your bible as an accurate source of historical facts, you'll find that in ancient times Jews constantly kept defecting to other, more intuitive religions - for them, a tangible statue was easier to believe in than an invisible spirit. The reason that Judaism and its decendants have such devoted followers nowadays is that the formerly "intuitive" religions have been (nearly) indisputably proven as bunk. (Hmmm, using survival of the fittest to describe religion... How ironic.)
Actually, using that idea is pretty fitting. Survival of the fittest is generally accepted by people of faith because it is easy to observe. You can see that certain traits increase the desirability of someone for mating (in our case, good looks, facial features, five fingers instead of six. an interesting side note, six fingers is actually the dominant trait for humans, but since it was considered undesirable it is all but unknown to most people.)

Take care to note that Behe's objectionsare not of evolution as a whole, but the mechanism of it.That said, the irreducible complexity argument fails to hold up to scruinty. Despite his claims, explanations for biological systems which seem "irreducibly complex" have been posited. For example, the Krebs cycle. The alternate proposal of Intelligent Design fails to explain things we observe in the natural world, which evolution explains.


true. plus, even if God were "proven" to be false, that does not mean that everyone will instantly stop believing in him. If a human mind wants to think something, they will do so, no matter what the facts are. (people trying to fly, etc). One could argue that someones beliefs are beyond fact and fiction, because both are interpreted by the person in the way that they wish to interpret them.

And that is the problem of faith.

whine whine whine whine whine
That's nice. Now try addressing what I wrote. Go back to it and re-do your post.

It might not be the best, but then again, it is better than some of the "sources" talk origins" was using to find questions. Bible Tracts are hardly scientific material. I agree that it is not the most honest of sites, but anything is better than using a salvation pamphlet to use as a source.

www.reasons.org is better, how much I shall leave up to others to decide.
Apologetics site. Load of shit.

www.wasdarwinright.com is even better than icr, imo because it tries to appeal more to someone who does not want to read latin terms. I am not positive as to how accurate it is (It mainly posts others articles, and comments on them) but they have some interesting links.
Why do they attack Darwin, when we've learned a lot in the 140+ years since his Origin of Species was published?

Darwins Black box would also be an interesting read.
Except that "irreducible complexity" has been shot down, and "intelligent design" is just code for "literal biblical creation.

Take care to note that Behe's objectionsare not of evolution as a whole, but the mechanism of it.That said, the irreducible complexity argument fails to hold up to scruinty. Despite his claims, explanations for biological systems which seem "irreducibly complex" have been posited. For example, the Krebs cycle. The alternate proposal of Intelligent Design fails to explain things we observe in the natural world, which evolution explains.
I understand that point. Darwin's black box was not meant to promote creationism, but it was written to point out several issues that the author had with evolution. I think that it is an interesting read regardless of if it is true or not. I think that you should look at different theories and ideas other than your own, if for no other reason than to just make your opinion better rounded. I am a christian, and yet I enjoy reading things on Islam, Judism, Wiccan, and other religions, as well as atheism and evolution. Just because I believe in a certain faith, it does not mean that I should remain ignorant of others, or that the others are totally wrong. all viewpoints raise questions woth discussing, even if the viewpoint itself is not correct, or has been proven false.


And that is the problem of faith. But it is also a positive because it means that faith can withstand popular opinion. THough if religion were proven undeniably false, then I could see that this continued is negative. however, throughout history, certain beliefs have been heavily ridiculed by the scientific community, even "proven" to by wrong by the powers that be at the time, yet were ultimatly proven to be true at a later date. Having belief in something that is currently thought not to exist is not necessarily a thing, but I agree that if there is absolutly no way that your viewpoint can stand, you should test it yourself, and see if it holds up to your own scrutiny. ignorance is inexcusable no matter what you believe (or do not believe)

That's nice. Now try addressing what I wrote. Go back to it and re-do your post.

you wrote nothing to address. your arguments are always the same, and no matter what is raised about them, your answer remains the same. there is no point in responding to your logical fragments if you do not respond to anyone else in more than quick, clipped absolutes. Your right, it is an apologetics site, but how is that worse than talkorigins, which is an evolution apologetics site?

whine whine whine whine
Address the post.

Your right, it is an apologetics site, but how is that worse than talkorigins, which is an evolution apologetics site?
Because talkorigins.org presents facts. Facts have no place in an apologetics site. That's one of the reasons why to.org isn't apologetics.

Try again. This time, see if you can distinguish between apologetics and science.

think that you should look at different theories and ideas other than your own, if for no other reason than to just make your opinion better rounded.

I agree. The problem is Creationists are too often not concerned with promoting intelligent thought and discussion but spreading disinformation as well as rolling in the cash, just like faith healers.

however, throughout history, certain beliefs have been heavily ridiculed by the scientific community, even "proven" to by wrong by the powers that be at the time, yet were ultimatly proven to be true at a later date

... and I attribute a great amount of fault to the Roman Catholics for this. Without interference form the outside, the scientific method works well. You see that even with suppression of certain ideas in the past, its corrected itself.

Faith's persistence is more like stubborness than anything else.

Intelligent Design has nothing to do with Biblical Creation. Does a belief in science or an understanding of math invalidate the possibility of intelligent design? How does scientific theory or mathematical explanation negate a higher intelligence? Why would these things be mutually exclusive?

The ultimate question: What about the designer?

Intelligent Design has nothing to do with Biblical Creation. Does a belief in science or an understanding of math invalidate the possibility of intelligent design?

pretty much, yes.

... and in case you missed it, Some more of God's greatest mistakes (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm). I'm not seeing the Intelligent Design.

Who said they were mistakes? And...So what if there were mistakes? Religion says that God is omnipitant (sp?) not I. You're talking religion and religion was ruled out of this discussion in the first post.

Intelligent Design has nothing to do with Biblical Creation.
Bullshit. ID is the new buzzword in literalist biblical creation circles. It's their attempt to hijack biology and the rest of the scientific disciplines into their silly myth.

Does a belief in science or an understanding of math invalidate the possibility of intelligent design?
It's nonsense vis-a-vis the concept of design itself. If everything is the product of an intelligent designer (why wouldn't it be), then what separates the natural from the designed?

Even if God can make mistakes - would you create something with a flawed design AFTER you already managed to do it right once? And then obliviously repeat the mistake many times, even though you already know how to avoid it?

Who said they were mistakes?

They are all suboptimal and many of them happened to be the right way in other animals, like the gene for sythesizing vitamin C.

And...So what if there were mistakes? Religion says that God is omnipitant (sp?) not I.

So then it's aliens. No matter. Present your case then.

pretty much, yes.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -Albert Einstein

Having faith in something does not negate science, nor does science negate faith. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive. Many great scientists claimed to hold a belief of some kind in a higher power, and yet they also forged ahead in the realm of science. If science negated religion, this would not occur. Ignorance invalidates both science and religion.

You are right, many creationists are unwilling to see the other side of the argument, but many atheists are also very set in their ways. If you want one side to be willing to give, you must expect the same from the other side. Otherwise discussion can never take place. Instead, you have a bunch of pompous, self-righteous people from both sides hiding behind singular logic.

Origins may have “facts” but it is also bias. From the main page:

The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences.


This site was created to answer frequently asked questions about the theory of evolution. Thus, it is “defending” the theory by proving responses to those “advocating intelligent design” meaning all of the information you will find on this site is one sided, with a specific purpose in mind… to give weight to the theory of evolution. Yes, it uses true “evidences” though I am sure that with research, I could find a “creationist” explanation to these evidences, or at least another viewpoint. This site is explicitly biased towards one viewpoint, thus it is not a totally scientific resource.

Reasons.org is also biased in one direction, as it is plainly made known in their about us section:


Many in the secular society and the Christian community have operated under the untruth that science and faith are at odds with one another. The common response - we must either choose between them or keep them apart.
The mission of Reasons To Believe is to show that science and faith are, and always will be, allies, not enemies. Our mission is to bring that life-changing truth to as many people as possible, both believers and unbelievers.
Our message challenges atheists and agnostics to reconsider their worldview. We want to help skeptics find answers to those questions that bar them from entrusting their lives to Christ. And we want to help Christians find new joy and confidence in worshiping God as they shed their fear of science.


Here is some of the evidence, or problems with evolution that they provide:

Virus Argument No Longer Immune to Challenge
http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2001issue05/index.shtml?main#virus_argument

Facing Up to Big Bang Challenges
http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2001issue05/index.shtml?main#big_bang_challenges
(this is directed more at Christians I think, but it raises some issues)

Mars Life: A Second Opinion
http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2001issue05/index.shtml?main#mars_life

Early Life Remains Complex
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/early_life_remains_complex.shtml?main

CHROMOSOME STUDY STUNS EVOLUTIONISTS
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/chromosome.shtml?main

there are several others on there, complete with footnotes from where they originally got their information. Respond to them if you wish, though a one line sentence fragment does not a response make. If anything, I would prefer evolutionist websites that discuss the same things but put them in a different light. Since I know this requires time, I do not expect it, but it would be nice. Also, just because you personally disagree with something does not mean that it is false. Last I checked, it was impossible for a man to know everything.

Intelligent Design has nothing to do with Biblical Creation. Does a belief in science or an understanding of math invalidate the possibility of intelligent design? How does scientific theory or mathematical explanation negate a higher intelligence? Why would these things be mutually exclusive?


A belief in science, and an understanding of math 'remove the need' for intelligent design.

If you can see how the world could be shaped by natural forces, due to your scientific aptitude, you are less likely to have to explain phenomena away by supernatural means - including 'intelligent design'.

I personally love the concept of intelligent design... it means god 'designed' homosexuals that way. Which means all of those homophobic christians are directly opposing god's great plan...

how deliciously ironic.

A belief in science, and an understanding of math 'remove the need' for intelligent design.

If you can see how the world could be shaped by natural forces, due to your scientific aptitude, you are less likely to have to explain phenomena away by supernatural means - including 'intelligent design'.

I personally love the concept of intelligent design... it means god 'designed' homosexuals that way. Which means all of those homophobic christians are directly opposing god's great plan...

how deliciously ironic.
Ironic indeed. I hadn't thought of that. Science can adequately explain the world, there is no need for the supernatural.

Virus Argument No Longer Immune to Challenge
http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2001issue05/index.shtml?main#virus_argument


Well, I figured I'd give it a look... and I'm not disappointed... honestly, the only thing worse than using NO science is using BAD science...

"In the lingo of evolution, a mutation that benefits the virus (in this case, one that enables it to avoid the drug’s impact) has become fixed in the virus’s genetic material, and it will remain as long as the virus is exposed to the antiviral therapy".

That isn't how evolution is argued to work... evolution argues that a mutation may occur, and, if stimuli favour THAT mutation over other non-mutated or differently-mutated organisms, the mutation will propogate MORE than the others, so 'evolving' the genetic pool.

It doesn't say that "it will remain as long as the virus is exposed to the antiviral therapy"... some organisms may effectively mutate BACK (which would be a 'bad' evolutionary step - because they would once again be susceptible, and would die out... so their 'mutation' does not further the evolution of the organism) or may experience other mutations - which may or may not affect their ability to resist the initial stimulus.

"Genetic drift proceeds at a clock-like, roughly consistent rate, regardless of exposure to drug treatment. In other words, the rate and type of protein change caused by RNA viruses remained the same whether or not the viruses encountered antiviral drugs. "

Exactly. The mutation continues regardless, at what amount to an average pace and profile. This IS consonant with evolution... only the flawed Creationist interpretation REQUIRES that an evolutionary mutation be 'designed' to respond to environment. Scientific use of the evolutionary principle would always indicate that: an organism has a varied array of possibilities, some of which will survive, in some environments, better than others. This continued progression of variety and survivability (along with transmission of those factors) is the basis of evolution.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -Albert Einstein

Having faith in something does not negate science, nor does science negate faith. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive. Many great scientists claimed to hold a belief of some kind in a higher power, and yet they also forged ahead in the realm of science. If science negated religion, this would not occur. Ignorance invalidates both science and religion.


I made no comments about faith at all. In my opinion all creationsm/itelligent design arguments are rubbish but I dont have anything against you having faith in any king of god you want to. I myself am an athiest but that doesnt have anything to do with science.

And i dont really get that quote, quite a lot of scientists are athiests/agnostics but i dont see how that affects their ability.

Re:CHROMOSOME STUDY STUNS EVOLUTIONISTS

> found no nucleotide differences at all in the non-recombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men.

non-recombinant: In mapping studies the offspring that have alleles arranged as in the original parents are non-recombinants. [www.biochem.northwestern.edu (http://www.biochem.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/Def-N/non-recombinant.html)]

I'm not being stunned yet. More later.

Supplement: About the Y chromosome. (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/ScienceSpectra-pages/SciSpect-14-98.html)

Note: "The study of Y chromosome differences is still in its infancy: until a few years ago, no polymorphisms had been discovered, and even today relatively few have been described. Studies recording the frequency of different combinations of polymorphisms (haplotypes) are even rarer."

Seems like this problem of evolution has already been solved. The tone of the report seemed dishonest as well.

... and in case you missed it, Some more of God's greatest mistakes (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm). I'm not seeing the Intelligent Design.


hmmm... lets see, a gathering of how various animals could become closer to perfection. how interesting. Lets see, according to christian and jewish belief (which this site seems to be directed at) God created everything as perfect. However, when adam sinned, the couple was also cast out of the garden, and several things changed. one was that the snake no longer had legs:
Genesis 3:14
which is one of the imperfections your site raises
Many species of more 'primitive' snakes (that is, creatues without legs, yeah?), such as pythons, have bits of pelvis, hindlimbs and hindlimb claws buried inside their bodies. These are, of course, of immense use to legless creatures.

Also after this time, the world failed to remain perfect
Genesis 3:17

from this time on things began to become worse. Evidence of genetic atrophy are noted when God commanded the Jews to abstain from incest. at that time, it was a cultural practice and perfectly acceptable to many other societies at the time (egypt being the prime example). Creationists take this to mean that after the fall, things began to gradually drift further from how they were originally created. this was the true "fall of man" to them. also, nearly every creationist supports the idea of adaptaion and creation of sub-species through micro-evolution. as evolutionists will quickly admit, there are many fatal or undesirable mutations for every positive one.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -Albert Einstein
Argument from authority fallacy.

Having faith in something does not negate science,
nor does science negate faith.
Yes, it does. The scientific method relies on evidence, something which faith denies and decries.

Origins may have “facts” but it is also bias. From the main page:

This site was created to answer frequently asked questions about the theory of evolution. Thus, it is “defending” the theory by proving responses to those “advocating intelligent design” meaning all of the information you will find on this site is one sided, with a specific purpose in mind… to give weight to the theory of evolution. Yes, it uses true “evidences” though I am sure that with research, I could find a “creationist” explanation to these evidences, or at least another viewpoint. This site is explicitly biased towards one viewpoint, thus it is not a totally scientific resource.
WRONG!

Creationism isn't science! Never was. Never will be. Thus, there IS only one viewpoint as qua evolution being 1)science and 2)correct.

And while you could find "creationist explanations", they aren't explanations. They are rationalizations.

Reasons.org is also biased in one direction, as it is plainly made known in their about us section:



Here is some of the evidence, or problems with evolution that they provide:

Virus Argument No Longer Immune to Challenge
http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2001issue05/index.shtml?main#virus_argument
Which just shows that evolution is valid, since reasons.org believes that mutation MUST be the cause, when it doesn't have to be.

Facing Up to Big Bang Challenges
...has nothing to do with evolution at all.

Mars Life: A Second Opinion
Ditto.

Early Life Remains Complex
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/early_life_remains_complex.shtml?main

"Remarkably, the biosynthetic routes needed to make the key molecular component of anoxygenic photosynthesis are more complex than the pathways that produce the corresponding component required for the oxygenic form."

And their evidence for that is.....

Nothing. It's put out there without any backing whatsoever.

IOW: junk.

CHROMOSOME STUDY STUNS EVOLUTIONISTS
Ross got the story flat-wrong. But then, what does one expect from him?

"A recent common ancestry for human Y chromosomes.

Hammer MF.

Laboratory of Molecular Systematics and Evolution, Biosciences West, University of Arizona, Tucson 85721, USA.

The male-specific portion of the Y chromosome is especially useful for studies of human origins. Patterns of nucleotide variation that are neutral with respect to fitness should permit estimates of when and where ancestral Y chromosomes existed. However, variation on the human Y chromosome has been observed to be greatly reduced relative to the autosomes and the X chromosome. One explanation is that selection for a favourable mutation on the non-recombining portion of the Y chromosome has resulted in the recent fixation of a single Y haplotype. A 2.6-kilobase fragment encompassing a polymorphic Alu insertion was sequenced from 16 human and four chimpanzee Y chromosomes. Patterns of nucleotide sequence diversity and divergence provide no evidence for a recent, strong selective sweep on the human Y chromosome. The time back to a common ancestral human Y chromosome is estimated to be 188,000 years, with a 95% confidence interval from 51,000 to 411,000 years. These results are consistent with autosomal and mitochondrial DNA studies that suggest a long-term human effective population size of 10,000 and a sex ratio of 1 (ref. 7). These inferences contradict predictions of the multiregional hypothesis positing a widespread transformation of Homo erectus populations into Homo sapiens."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=7477371&dopt=Abstract

IOW: all it shows that the Homo Erectus didn't "evolve into" humans wherever they were.

Man once thought the earth was flat. Then decided that the sun orbits the earth. Science progresses, some things cant be explained now, but one day they will.

Said nothing about aliens. Your belief that something is a mistake is your belief. Doesn't make it a fact or proof of anything. Intelligent Design may be someone's buz word, it's not mine. Understanding math and science has nothing to do with need or lack thereof. Maybe you don't need to believe, that's fine. I don't need to believe in a higher intelligence. I choose to. Just as you choose not to. I can't prove anything and neither can anyone else. All we can do is discuss the possibilities.

-If God is all knowing and all powerful, how can he allow pain and suffering in the world?
God allows free choice. Man is sinful. Therefore there is murder, rape, robbery, etc. God won't grab someone by the neck and force them to obey him. Every single person on this earth must someday decide whether they are for Him or against him.

-If God Created the universe, who created God?
He wasn't created. He has always been. I know it's not understandable because we always try to put physical boundaries on the supernatural. God can't be contained inside a box. He's not small enough to fit inside our minds. He is... God.

-If God created everything, why did he create organs that have no purpose to modern man?
Has everything there is to know been discovered yet?

hmmm... lets see, a gathering of how various animals could become closer to perfection. how interesting. Lets see, according to christian and jewish belief (which this site seems to be directed at) God created everything as perfect.
If everything was created perfect, then Adam and Eve would have been created with a moral code.
Gen 3:22 shows that they were not.
Ergo, not everything was created perfect.

However, when adam sinned, the couple was also cast out of the garden, and several things changed. one was that the snake no longer had legs:
Genesis 3:14
which is one of the imperfections your site raises
And I suppose that snakes eat dirt, too?

-If God is all knowing and all powerful, how can he allow pain and suffering in the world?
God allows free choice.
Not when god is omniscient and created everything.

-If God Created the universe, who created God?
He wasn't created.
Impossible. And ad homing humans saying "well, god is just so much more than us" is rejected.

-If God created everything, why did he create organs that have no purpose to modern man?
Has everything there is to know been discovered yet?
Non sequitur

Said nothing about aliens. Your belief that something is a mistake is your belief. Doesn't make it a fact or proof of anything. Intelligent Design may be someone's buz word, it's not mine. Understanding math and science has nothing to do with need or lack thereof. Maybe you don't need to believe, that's fine. I don't need to believe in a higher intelligence. I choose to. Just as you choose not to. I can't prove anything and neither can anyone else. All we can do is discuss the possibilities.

If your God isn't omnipotent, he's moving down from godly to a high advanced alien being.

Why is the Vitamin C synthesizing gene broken in humans and other apes when it functions normally in most all other mammals? Did your intelligent designer deliberately want to give us scurvy?

It is a given that we cannot know anything with absolute "yahweh"-brand certianity. Probability on the other hand ...

-If God Created the universe, who created God?
He wasn't created. He has always been. I know it's not understandable because we always try to put physical boundaries on the supernatural. God can't be contained inside a box. He's not small enough to fit inside our minds. He is... God.
If it is possible for God to have always existed, then why is it not possible for the universe to have always existed?

Why is the Vitamin C synthesizing gene broken in humans and other apes when it functions normally in most all other mammals? Did your intelligent designer deliberately want to give us scurvy?
For that matter, why are apes and humans similar to each in this respect yet different from most other mammals, if they do not have a common ancestor?

God allows free choice. Man is sinful. Therefore there is murder, rape, robbery, etc. God won't grab someone by the neck and force them to obey him. Every single person on this earth must someday decide whether they are for Him or against him.


-Why does free will entail evil? Consider I choose between a vanilla and a chocolate ice cream cone. There is no evil choice. Why couldn't your God make a "perfectly good" free will?

Moreover, if free will entails evil, does this mean we have no free will in heaven?


-He wasn't created. He has always been. I know it's not understandable because we always try to put physical boundaries on the supernatural. God can't be contained inside a box. He's not small enough to fit inside our minds. He is... God.


Special Pleading (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html). How do you know these characteristics if by your admission God cannot be understood? What is God, not defined by negation (not limited, not material) which does not really tell anything about his acutal substance or by secondary characteristics (what he does, i.e. creates the universe, loves)? How does an all-knowing being have emotions?

Tell me - what, really, constitutes free will?

Argument from authority fallacy.
It was not an appeal to authority. I was stating his quote because he is a respected scientist who made a statement regarding faith. I did not say that he was an authority on a subject and thus his word is irrefutable. I was merely showing that at least one modern and highly intelligent scientist did not see an automatice conflict between science and faith. I am not saying that the statement is true, rather just that it was made.


Yes, it does. The scientific method relies on evidence, something which faith denies and decries.

Faith does not deny evidence. The Bible has been used to make both scientific (ocean currents) and cultural (various ancient city sites) discoveries. if it was merely based on faith and not on verifiable evidence, why is it that these things were verified as fact?

WRONG!

Creationism isn't science! Never was. Never will be. Thus, there IS only one viewpoint as qua evolution being 1)science and 2)correct.

And while you could find "creationist explanations", they aren't explanations. They are rationalizations.

Why is it not a science? simply stating an opinion on something does not make it true. So are you saying that Evolution has to be correct because you dismiss every other viewpoint as not science or as a rationalization? you last statement there is why you will never see anything but evolution as being true, not that there happen to be facts supporting it. your base assumption on creationism and theism is that they are incapable of providing an opposing viewpoint, thus making your viewpoint the only choice.



Which just shows that evolution is valid, since reasons.org believes that mutation MUST be the cause, when it doesn't have to be.

you do know that Reasons does believe in evolution dont you? it just believes that God guided it, and that we ourselves did not evolve, but were created. they do not deny the evolution of animals and plants.



Ross got the story flat-wrong. But then, what does one expect from him?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Why is it not a science? simply stating an opinion on something does not make it true. So are you saying that Evolution has to be correct because you dismiss every other viewpoint as not science or as a rationalization? you last statement there is why you will never see anything but evolution as being true, not that there happen to be facts supporting it. your base assumption on creationism and theism is that they are incapable of providing an opposing viewpoint, thus making your viewpoint the only choice.

The answer to that one is simple. Science is an attempt to model reality to a degree that allows for predictability. To test these models, experiments must be designed. Repeatable, independently verifiable experiments.

There is no way to test creationism. You can't put together an experiment to test any hypothesis about the mechanism of creation. Without that test and those experiments, creationism may be a lot of things, but it's not science.

It's not about dimissing anything, necessarily. It's about not meeting the basic criteria of scientific inquiry.

Argument from authority fallacy.
It was not an appeal to authority.
Certainly was.

I was stating his quote because he is a respected scientist who made a statement regarding faith.
...and you wanted to say that as a result, science and religion are compatible.

Don't even try to deny it.


Yes, it does. The scientific method relies on evidence, something which faith denies and decries.
Faith does not deny evidence.
Faith: belief without evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary.

The Bible has been used to make both scientific (ocean currents)
Wrong. Currents were discovered without the bible.

and cultural (various ancient city sites) discoveries.
And The Illiad was used to find Troy. What's your point?

if it was merely based on faith
Strawman. No one's claiming that the entirety of the book is fiction.


WRONG!

Creationism isn't science! Never was. Never will be. Thus, there IS only one viewpoint as qua evolution being 1)science and 2)correct.

And while you could find "creationist explanations", they aren't explanations. They are rationalizations.
Why is it not a science?
Please state the theory of creation.

That's why.


Which just shows that evolution is valid, since reasons.org believes that mutation MUST be the cause, when it doesn't have to be.
you do know that Reasons does believe in evolution dont you? it just believes that God guided it, and that we ourselves did not evolve, but were created. they do not deny the evolution of animals and plants.
Special creation. An even more stupid concept. And didn't even address what I stated.


Ross got the story flat-wrong. But then, what does one expect from him
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Not in the least. Ross has been shown to be wrong so many times about so many basic scientific ideas that it's not even funny.

www.icr.org
<--A much better source than the watchtower tracts for ideas of Christians regarding evolution

ICR.org is legendary for a contradiction so incredibly silly it pretty much destroys it's credibility entirely. Read the section on the ark. Now, let's just note, ICR claims that there were only 25,000 animals on the ark, and these speciated after leaving it. See the problem? Not only does ICR admit that both micro AND macroevolution [speciation] exist, it states that distinct species have emerged at a rate vastly higher than any 'evolutionist' would ever claim possible!

The whole issue comes down to a matter of faith.

As an athiest, I have a faith that god does not exist.
Thats all there is to it really.

To my mind, and my line of reasoning the idea of a benevolent god that created everything is insanity.
I have no need to justify that believe to anyone.
Just as someone who does indeed have a belief in god, has no need to justify or prove that he does exist.

The whole issue comes down to a matter of faith.

As an athiest, I have a faith that god does not exist.
Thats all there is to it really.

To my mind, and my line of reasoning the idea of a benevolent god that created everything is insanity.
I have no need to justify that believe to anyone.
Just as someone who does indeed have a belief in god, has no need to justify or prove that he does exist.

Well said. It's all the "proofs" that generate all this hatred and hurtfulness. As much as I try, even I fall into this trap. Having your own set of (non)beliefs is just fine by me and most other Christians. Well, some other Christians... But people tend to get very defensive when their belief system is said to be false. Athiests often say that religion makes no sense historically and locially, and the religious groups just say the opposite thing right back. It's hurtful to have people attempt to disprove your beliefs. A little bit of balance and understanding would go a long way, I think.

Well said. It's all the "proofs" that generate all this hatred and hurtfulness. As much as I try, even I fall into this trap. Having your own set of (non)beliefs is just fine by me and most other Christians. Well, some other Christians... But people tend to get very defensive when their belief system is said to be false. Athiests often say that religion makes no sense historically and locially, and the religious groups just say the opposite thing right back. It's hurtful to have people attempt to disprove your beliefs. A little bit of balance and understanding would go a long way, I think.


Well, sometimes it can be a good thing, to an extent.

Its good to question your faith, sometimes it can be made stronger, or you may find that your heart says other things.

As an athiest, its good for me to occasionally wonder, "Am I SURE that God doesnt exist?", the answer thus far, has been a resounding "yes".

Just as you, as a Christian might do well to examine your version of faith, it can often be reassuring to you.

Well, sometimes it can be a good thing, to an extent.

Its good to question your faith, sometimes it can be made stronger, or you may find that your heart says other things.

As an athiest, its good for me to occasionally wonder, "Am I SURE that God doesnt exist?", the answer thus far, has been a resounding "yes".

Just as you, as a Christian might do well to examine your version of faith, it can often be reassuring to you.

Right right. To me, what you just described is a form of balance, because questioning keeps you from becoming narrow-minded and petty. As far as examining faith goes, though, I did come quite close to becoming Buddist. I was really having a problem with the appartent selfishness inherent in Christianity and Catholicism. Another tale for another forum thread, though.

[quote]
Faith: belief without evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary.

I should restate this. Faith does not have to run contrary to science. Through furher reading, I came upon the reason why you posted this:

Wrong. Currents were discovered without the bible.

And according to my further reading, they list two other people who maped part of the oceans currents. so I guess I should restate that matthew maury was motivated to plot and publish the first classic work of modern oceanography in 1855.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=30628

(and FYI, Yahoo is not an "apologetics bullshit" site)



Please state the theory of creation.

That's why.

Please state the theory of Evolution:
-a long time ago, in a place that did not exist (no universe, much less galaxies yet remember?) there was a ball of energy that sat in non-space. no one knows where this ball came from, or why it was there, but for some other unknown reason, it exploded. through this violent action, the ordered formation of galaxies and star systems commenced. around these stars formed giant boulders of seething rock and gas, which when solidified, became the basis of what we call planets. One of these planets was far enough away from the sun for liquid water to form above the surface. in this water, a primordial soup if you will, amino acids were formed and coeleced into simple single celled organisms. over the span of billions of years, this single cell mutated, and some of these mutations created beneficial changes that eventually become species totally unlike the cell that had spawned it. Theses new species continued to mutate, and created millions of totally unique and complex organisms. Somehow, one of these creatures formed an intellect very differnent from its peers. this animal, though physically weak, and not well adapted for many climates seemed to thrive in a society of creatures that promoted survival of the fittest. This creature quickly became the dominante beast and formed a society that is very different than anything before it, for it kept written records, and seemed to have an intrinsic ideal of morals, one where the weak and abused were not lunch, but something meant to be protected..... :confused:

and you asked for the theory of creation? I know that the theory is different than that, but think about it. you start with something that just exists, with nothing before it, and it explodes violently (2nd rule of thermodynamics) and this forms what we know of as life.

that being said, let me rewrite something that was posted earlier:

The answer to that one is simple. Creation is an attempt to model reality to a
degree that allows for predictability. To test these models, experiements must
be designed. Repeatable, independently verifiable experiements.

There is no way to test evolution . You can't put together an experiement to
test any hypothesis about the mechanism of creation (or how the world began. Without that test and
those experiements...

bold mine
Have humans created life in their expiriments? have they seen trans-genus species? no? then how can evolution be verified? it cannot, at least as of now.

I will not even go so far and say that evolution is not a scientific theory, because it is. but in accepting that its reasoning for why the worl is the way it is as fact, all information you find will be colored by that basic assumption. no one is without bias, and to say that one theory is absolutly correct just because you refuse to even entertain the idea that there may be another answer is called being close-minded. By which I mean this:

student A believes that D is True. Since D is true, that means that all other possible answers are wrong. Student B tells Student A that he thinks that C is True. Since Student A believes that no other answer but D can be correct, Student B is obviously wrong for believing C is the correct answer. Regardless of what B says, A knows that it is just "a convienent rationalization" because there is no possible way that C can be true because A believes that D is correct.

that is why it is logically impossible to provide you with any "proof" about creation or anything that you do not believe in. since you have a different POV, my conclusions when looking at something will be very differnet than yours. For example:

For example, I think that Evolution could be looked on as a convienent rationalization by my POV because it is a very neat and tidy way to remove the idea of a creator from the equation. there is evidence to show that adaptation occurs, so it just takes a little rationalization to show how this could be how essentially bacteria or alge (as my biologist called the first living matter. she was a firm evolutionist BTW) became something like a man. Since they believe this fundemental idealology, everything they discovered will be evaluated with this question "how does this validate my theory," not "what does this show me about life." it is a self feeding bias, and a ligic loop that is usually only used to describe backwoods fundementalists.


But you asked for the theory of creation. what creation may I ask? the Egyptian one where the first God essentially masterbated to spawn other gods, and spit to create man? possibly an indian legend where the first people dug themselves out of the ground? creation defines more than just a judeo-christian viewpoint, but I will assume that that is what you are asking for.

Simply put, the most basic tenet of the idea of creation is this: you remember when I wrote about the little ball of matter in unspace that just somehow exploded? well instead of the reason being unknown, it was god(gods) who blew it up. Beyond that there are many different ideas of how much God interacted with his "creation," from people saying that he took an active role (aka young earth creationists) to those who say that he let evolution run its course, and everything in between.

having knowledge of other viewpoints, and questioning your beliefs is a very positive thing. Simply dismissing all other ideas because they do not line up with yours is also bigotry and it promotes a self induced ignorence.

Without using any religious Crutch (ie, you cannot say I am an atheist because the concept of God is stupid..) explain using your ever present logic and scientific fact why there is no creator.

1. It is impossible to prove a negative statement, as this would require omnipotence. Nobody can prove purple swans do not exist either.
2. The term 'creator' is ill-defined in your request.

The way it's supposed to work:
1. Those who believe in the existence of something (doesn't matter what it is) and wish to convince others, carry the burden of:
a. declaring their hypothesis: properly defining what it is they believe in. If any non-measurable items are used (a soul, spirits, the afterlife, whatever) they will have to be properly defined as well. Scientifically.
b. providing evidence to support their hypothesis through at least one verifyable and repeatable experiment, which indicates that the item/entity they claim to exist in fact does exist.
2. If the experiment in question provides a result not explainable through existing theories, it might be time for a new theory which does provide the proper explanation. (depending on possible other interpretations of the experiment in question, certainty of the proof, actual verifications being done, perhaps other experiments to verify conclusions in a different way, etc...)

Right now the religious folks are still stuck at step 1, declaring their hypothesis, and failing miserably so far.

My personal attitude is simple: while there may or may not be an entity out there, I will disregard its existence for as long as there's not at least a reasonable indication of it actually existing. If there is no measurable difference between an entity existing or not, I'll use Ockham's razor and remove said entity from the equation.

I do not have to see something beyond the horizon to believe it is there, but please do understand that footage on TV of what is beyond that horizon is much more convincing to me than some person insisting that a deity exists because they 'felt' it. Whatever it is you (think you) are feeling, measure it in laboratory conditions and when the needle jumps up and down we've got something to talk about ;)

Ballotonia

1. It is impossible to prove a negative statement, as this would require omnipotence. Nobody can prove purple swans do not exist either.
2. The term 'creator' is ill-defined in your request.

The way it's supposed to work:
1. Those who believe in the existence of something (doesn't matter what it is) and wish to convince others, carry the burden of:
a. declaring their hypothesis: properly defining what it is they believe in. If any non-measurable items are used (a soul, spirits, the afterlife, whatever) they will have to be properly defined as well. Scientifically.
b. providing evidence to support their hypothesis through at least one verifyable and repeatable experiment, which indicates that the item/entity they claim to exist in fact does exist.
2. If the experiment in question provides a result not explainable through existing theories, it might be time for a new theory which does provide the proper explanation. (depending on possible other interpretations of the experiment in question, certainty of the proof, actual verifications being done, perhaps other experiments to verify conclusions in a different way, etc...)

Right now the religious folks are still stuck at step 1, declaring their hypothesis, and failing miserably so far.

My personal attitude is simple: while there may or may not be an entity out there, I will disregard its existence for as long as there's not at least a reasonable indication of it actually existing. If there is no measurable difference between an entity existing or not, I'll use Ockham's razor and remove said entity from the equation.

I do not have to see something beyond the horizon to believe it is there, but please do understand that footage on TV of what is beyond that horizon is much more convincing to me than some person insisting that a deity exists because they 'felt' it. Whatever it is you (think you) are feeling, measure it in laboratory conditions and when the needle jumps up and down we've got something to talk about ;)

Ballotonia

actually, as I stated later on, this post was not created to "convert" anyone, one way or the other. my take on belief (or unbelief) in a diety is this. it is up to you what you decide, however do not assume that just because someoen thinks differently than you that they are stupid and ignorant. As most people who believe in a diety will readily admit, most of their belief is based on faith so there is little if any irrefutable proof that God exists. any evidence that we present to the contrary will have been interpreted through someone who believes that God exists (refer to last post the a, b,c,d example) just as evidence you present will be interpreted through that same presupposition. Likewise, if someone reads something about science and life, and they are an atheist, they will see the evidence through that lens. seeing data without a presupposition is nearly impossible, and it is completly so unless you are willing to believe that your presupposition could in fact be wrong, and the other right. if you deny that the other is wrong from the start, no evidence will convince you. if I totally believed that the world was suspended on a cosmic yo yo, held by the sun, no amount of data against this idea would convince me otherwise, because I would read that data, assuming that it is wrong and I am right.

I fail to see the point in the debate. As all people should be free to choose their own beliefs and values why is there a need to prove or disprove other peoples. Although theologically it has value there is no possible way to prove the case for or against the existance of god. that is the point of faith and belief. if a believer manages to prove the existance of god there is no need for faith as we will know and have proof that it exists. Most systems of belief are made up of varying aspects of other systems and cultures. The problem is not that of belief but intolerance to others.( i deliberately keep away from the recent problems in the gulf). if an atheist manages to prove that god does not exist what do they gain apart from the ability to sit there with a smug grin. i do appologise to the person above who seems to argue a simalar point. i have just read it properly now.

The whole issue comes down to a matter of faith.

As an athiest, I have a faith that god does not exist.
Thats all there is to it really.

To my mind, and my line of reasoning the idea of a benevolent god that created everything is insanity.
I have no need to justify that believe to anyone.
Just as someone who does indeed have a belief in god, has no need to justify or prove that he does exist.

So, not confrontational here (or at least trying not to be), do you just have problems with the conceptualization of a benevolent, personalized diety or with divinity in general?

For example, I think that Evolution could be looked on as a convienent rationalization by my POV because it is a very neat and tidy way to remove the idea of a creator from the equation. there is evidence to show that adaptation occurs, so it just takes a little rationalization to show how this could be how essentially bacteria or alge (as my biologist called the first living matter. she was a firm evolutionist BTW) became something like a man. Since they believe this fundemental idealology, everything they discovered will be evaluated with this question "how does this validate my theory," not "what does this show me about life." it is a self feeding bias, and a ligic loop that is usually only used to describe backwoods fundementalists.

You really do not have any idea of how the scientific process works do you? Scientists specifically go after eveidence that contradicts their theories, if none can be found then it is reasonable to assume for the moment that the theory is correct. Then the theory is put up for peer review, if no-one finds anything wrong with it then, then maybe it will be accepted into the general framework of the subject it deals with.

Scientists LOVE to disprove long accepted theories, it can make their name in a world hard to get noticed in.

quote]lease state the theory of Evolution:
-a long time ago, in a place that did not exist (no universe, much less galazies yet remember?) [/quote]

This is Cosmology. Not Biology! Nonetheless, the universe existed in a singularity. Space and Time began at the Big Bang.


there was a ball of energy that sat in non-space.


All the energy in the universe in the universal was condensed in a infinitely dense point. If you can describe to us the state of the "universe" before the Big Bang, please promise to share the Nobel prize with me.


no one knows where this ball came from, or why it was there,


Casuality implies time.


but for some other unknown reason, it exploded.


Expanded, rapidly expanded.


through this violent action, the ordered formation of galaxies and star systems commenced.


No.

How galaxies formed after the Big Bang is a question still being studied by astronomers. Astronomers hypothesize that approximately a billion years after the Big Bang, there were clumps of matter scattered throughout the universe. Some of these clumps were dispersed by their internal motions, while others grew by attracting other nearby matter. These surviving clumps became the beginnings of the galaxies we see today. They first appeared about 14 billion years ago.

When a clump becomes massive enough, it starts to collapse under its own gravity. At this point, the clump becomes a protogalaxy. Astronomers hypothesize that protogalaxies consist of both dark matter and normal hydrogen gas. Due to collisions within the gas, the hydrogen loses energy and falls to the central region of the protogalaxy. Because of the collisions of the gas, protogalaxies should emit infrared light. The dark matter remains as a halo surrounding the protogalaxy.

Astronomers think that the difference in appearance between elliptical and spiral galaxies is related to how quickly stars were made. Stars form when gas clouds in the protogalaxy collide. If the stars are formed over a long period of time, while some stars are forming, the remaining gas between the stars continues to collapse. Due to the overall motion of matter in the protogalaxy, this gas settles into a disk. Further variations in the density of the gas result in the establishment of "arms" in the disk. The result is a spiral galaxy. If, on the other hand, stars are made all at once, then the stars remain in the initial spherical distribution that the gas had in the protogalaxy. These form an elliptical galaxy.

Astronomers also think that collisions between galaxies play a role in establishing the different types of galaxies. When two galaxies come close to each other, they may merge, throw out matter and stars from one galaxy, and/or induce new star formation. Astronomers now think that many ellipticals result from the collision of galaxies. We now know that giant ellipticals found in the center of galaxy clusters are due to multiple galaxy collisions. [/code]
around these stars formed giant boulders of seething rock and gas, which when solidified, became the basis of what we call planets. nasa.gov (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/teachers/galaxies/imagine/page22.html)

One of these planets was far enough away from the sun for liquid water to form above the surface. in this water, a primordial soup if you will, amino acids were formed and coeleced into simple single celled organisms.


Origin of life != Evolution


over the span of billions of years, this single cell mutated, and some of these mutations created beneficial changes that eventually become species totally unlike the cell that had spawned it. Theses new species continued to mutate, and created millions of totally unique and complex organisms.


Finally, we get to evolution. That's the general idea, I'd think.


Somehow, one of these creatures formed an intellect very differnent from its peers. this animal, though physically weak, and not well adapted for many climates


Ours is a unique evolutionary turn indeed, but not too far off. See Koko (http://www.koko.org/).

Weak? Relative to what? Irrevelant in any case, because we had other mechanisms of survival rather than brute force.

Again, intellect and technology > purely biological factors.


seemed to thrive in a society of creatures that promoted survival of the fittest.


We are the fittest.


This creature quickly became the dominante beast


A winner is us.


and formed a society that is very different than anything before it


Not too many other sentient species around ....


, for it kept written records,


Natural consequence of language.


and seemed to have an intrinsic ideal of morals,


Intrinsic? Hardly. They are necessary to coexist in a civilization. It's thought that our own selfish need to survive is the basis for morality.


one where the weak and abused were not lunch, but something meant to be protected.....


We have, to a high degree, removed ourselves from the natural process of evolution.


and you asked for the theory of creation? I know that the theory is different than that, but think about it. you start with something that just exists, with nothing before it, and it explodes violently (2nd rule of thermodynamics) and this forms what we know of as life.


Net energy of the universe by all accounts = Zero. Other oversimplifications noted.


that being said, let me rewrite something that was posted earlier:

The answer to that one is simple. Creation is an attempt to model reality to a
degree that allows for predictability.


Creationism accomodates things, but it does not explain them.


To test these models, experiements must
be designed. Repeatable, independently verifiabe experiements.
There is no way to test evolution .


Sure there is ... then creationists start making up distinctions like "micro" and "macro" to cover their tracks.


You can't put together an experiement to
test any hypothesis about the mechanism of creation (or how the world began. Without that test and
those experiements...

bold mine
Have humans created life in their expiriments?


Getting there (http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm).


have they seen trans-genus species? no?


That's a tall order. What, normal speciation not good enough anymore? Still, this is for you (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/).


then how can evolution be verified? it cannot, at least as of now. I will not even go so far and say that evolution is not a scientific theory, because it is.


Sorry, we're growing entire ecosystems from scratch yet.


but in accepting that its reasoning for why the worl is the way it is as fact, all information you find will be colored by that basic assumption. no one is without bias, and to say that one theory is absolutly correct just because you refuse to even entertain the idea that there may be another answer is called being close-minded.


Feel free to posit another scientific theory that explains what we observe and makes better predictions that evolution does. Please share the nobel prize with me for your great discovery.


By which I mean this:

[quote]
student A believes that D is True. Since D is true, that means that all other possible answers are wrong. Student B tells Student A that he thinks that C
is True. Since Student A believes that no other answer but D can be correct, Student B is obviously wrong for believing C is the correct answer.
Regardless of what B says, A knows that it is just "a convienent rationalization" because there is no possible way that C can be true because A believes that D is correct.


What is C? What is D? Does one have more merit than the other? Can Student A demonstrate D while Student B cannot demonstrate C?
Consider:
C = Earth is flat.
D = Earth is a sphere.


that is why it is logically impossible to provide you with any "proof" about creation or anything that you do not believe in. since you have a different POV, my conclusions when looking at something will be very differnet than yours. For example:


Which is why science is intersubjective and peer-reviewed. Before we go on, let's see how science works vs creationsim:

Science: Using observed data, develop a theory, then use experiments to try to falsify that theory. (Including to see whether predictions made by that theory are true)
Premises -> Conclusion. Investigate premises (because inductive logic is suspect to error).
Creationism: Bible says God did it, that must be the way it is. Try to find facts that support the bible.
Conclusion -> Premises.


For example, I think that Evolution could be looked on as a convienent rationalization by my POV because it is a very neat and tidy way to remove the idea of a creator from the equation.


Oh no, you've discovered our Evil Athiest Conspiracy. Scientists don't think like Creationists. See last comment.


there is evidence to show that adaptation occurs, so it just takes a little rationalization to show how this could be how essentially bacteria or alge (as my biologist called the first living matter. she was a firm evolutionist BTW) became something like a man.


When your rationalization is a scientific theory backed by evidence, you can get some degree of confidence.


Since they believe this fundemental idealology, everything they discovered will be evaluated with this question "how does this validate my theory," not "what does this show me about life."


Not how science works. Baseless accusation.


it is a self feeding bias, and a ligic loop that is usually only used to describe backwoods fundementalists.


... and it only should be used so.


But you asked for the theory of creation. what creation may I ask? the Egyptian one where the first God essentially masterbated to spawn other gods, and spit to create man? possibly an indian legend where the first people dug themselves out of the ground? creation defines more than just a judeo-christian viewpoint, but I will assume that that is what you are asking for.

Simply put, the most basic tenet of the idea of creation is this: you remember when I wrote about the little ball of matter in unspace that just somehow exploded? well instead of the reason being unknown, it was god(gods) who blew it up.


What is God? Where did this come from? Can you vertify the existance of this being? Is it conscious? Intelligent?


Beyond that there are many different ideas of how much God interacted with his "creation," from people saying that he took an active role (aka young earth creationists)


Let's all point and laugh.


to those who say that he let evolution run its course, and everything in between.


Problem is: what's scientific and what's just an idea?


having knowledge of other viewpoints, and questioning your beliefs is a very positive thing. Simply dismissing all other ideas because they do not line up with yours is also bigotry and it promotes a self induced ignorence.


Ideas are fine, but do they hold weight in the real world? Creationism accomdates what we observe, but does not explain it. Science adopts a methodological naturalism for a reason: saying "goddidit" explains nothing.

Somehow, one of these creatures formed an intellect very differnent from its peers.
Better, not conceptually different. (Take a propellor plane. Another propellor plane with a stronger motor and larger propellor is better. A jet plane is conceptually different.)

this animal, though physically weak, and not well adapted for many climates seemed to thrive in a society of creatures that promoted survival of the fittest.
Yes, because we used our intelligence to create tools that compensated for our lack of physical ability (and still do). It is likely that our physical ability disappeared gradually as we invented new tools.

This creature quickly became the dominante beast and formed a society that is very different than anything before it,
We did?

for it kept written records
We know how to do so know. What about cavemen? Some tribes of Native Americans? There were definitely humans before there was writing, which in other ways already had social structures fairly similar to ours.

and seemed to have an intrinsic ideal of morals, one where the weak and abused were not lunch, but something meant to be protected..... :confused:
Nothing new about that. There are many pack animals in the wild, and many of them do indeed take care of the sick and help them back to health. Sure, there are also solitary animals where the weak have no chance of surviving, and probably some pack animals where the weak are left behind, but humans still aren't unique.

Furthermore, human morals are not intrinsic. What about cannibals? Even just the morals of your own ancestors several centuries ago would probably disgust you.

Have humans created life in their expiriments? have they seen trans-genus species? no?
How about the Archaeopteryx (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html)?

then how can evolution be verified? it cannot, at least as of now.
Nothing in science can ever be verified 100%. However, evolution isn't far behind.

that is why it is logically impossible to provide you with any "proof" about creation or anything that you do not believe in. since you have a different POV, my conclusions when looking at something will be very differnet than yours.
If that was the case, people would still believe the Earth is flat. Scientists do relatively often admit mistakes and change their theories. In fact, an important part of a scientists's work is trying to find flaw in his colleagues' work.

bacteria or alge (as my biologist called the first living matter. she was a firm evolutionist BTW)
May I derive from the text between your parentheses that you do not know what bacteria are?

Faith: belief without evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary.
I should restate this. Faith does not have to run contrary to science.
Faith denies and decries evidence, whereas science utilizes evidence.

Through furher reading, I came upon the reason why you posted this:

Wrong. Currents were discovered without the bible.
And according to my further reading, they list two other people who maped part of the oceans currents. so I guess I should restate that matthew maury was motivated to plot and publish the first classic work of modern oceanography in 1855.
http://education.yahoo.com/referenc.../entry?id=30628

(and FYI, Yahoo is not an "apologetics bullshit" site)
I saw nowhere in there the word "bible" or "christian" or anything like that. He was in the military and wanted to map the best routes for ships! That's the motivation, moron.


Please state the theory of creation.

That's why.
Please state the theory of Evolution:
Which you proceed to strawman and pepper with cosmology and abiogenesis, which proves that you know NOTHING about evolution.

Now state the theory of creation.

that being said, let me rewrite something that was posted earlier:

The answer to that one is simple. Creation is an attempt to model reality to a
degree that allows for predictability.
Except that it doesn't. Now state the theory of creation.

To test these models, experiements must
be designed. Repeatable, independently verifiable experiements.
Of course, there are no such experiments for creation, but there are for evolution.
That's why creation isn't a science.

bold mine
Have humans created life in their expiriments?
Abiogenesis. Not evolution. Try again.

have they seen trans-genus species?
Yes. Every species is.

Now state the theory of creation, coward. No more weaseling and whining about how "I won't accept your proof or evidence". You have provided NONE. Your story IS NOT FUCKING EVIDENCE. IT IS A FUCKING STORY, THAT'S IT. IT IS A MYTH. A LEGEND. NOT FUCKING EVIDENCE.

Simply put, the most basic tenet of the idea of creation is this: you remember when I wrote about the little ball of matter in unspace that just somehow exploded? well instead of the reason being unknown, it was god(gods) who blew it up.
And how did god do it? You can't just move the mystery back a step and think you've solved the problem!

Now state the theory of creation.

Athiests often say that religion makes no sense historically
I (an atheist) disagree. Religion had many excellent uses historically. However, everything it gave to us, we have a better version now. Let's look at what religion gave us:

1. An explanation about the origin and nature of the world. People are naturally curious to know why things happen, and when they can't figure it out, someone makes something up, and everybody is happy again. It happened many times, and the creation of God is just one of them. Nowadays, science can give us real explanations, so who needs superstition anymore?
2. Personal security. Many problems plague us, that we humans simply cannot solve, or anyway not completely. People do not like feeling helpless, so they feel better about such problems if they think that a benevolent God is watching and guiding them and that all their problems can be cured if they simply pray enough. However, even if I have a disease that is uncurable by modern medicine, I personally would far rather you spend your time researching a new cure than praying for me. Nonetheless, we cannot yet solve everything and probably never will, and even when scientists are researching a cure, there's probably not much that you personally can do about it - I think that this is one of the most important reasons why religion still exists.
3. Moral guidelines. Almost all religions have some laws about what its followers may or may not do. Nowadays, isn't that what governments are supposed to be for? Besides, religious morals simply do not correspond to those of modern society. May I remind you that the bible supports slavery, female oppression, and killing people for working on the wrong day?
4. Stories. I know, the story of how Lot's daughters got him drunk in order to commit incest with him probably isn't considered top-grade literature nowadays. But in its time, it was probably a fairly normal "fairy tale", whether it really happened or not. Nonetheless, I wouldn't read it to MY children, if I had any.

Conclusion: Religion had its time, and that time is now past.

Believing in god is just like believing in any other intangible concept. If in your mind god=love, then when what you experience what you think is love, you then feel as if you've discovered god. Therefore, if everyone had a preconceived idea of god, then when they saw that idea come to life they would equate it with god. As an atheist, I perhaps am just not in the know of what god is and thus cannot believe in his existence. I belive deeply in many intangible things, however I view them as aspects of human nature rather than blessings of a supreme being. god is whatever you want god to be and by believing in god you make god exist in yourself.
Hop that made some sense.

Believing in god is just like believing in any other intangible concept. If in your mind god=love, then when you experience what you think is love, you then feel as if you've discovered god. Therefore, if everyone had a preconceived idea of god, then when they saw that idea come to life they would equate it with god. As an atheist, I perhaps am just not in the know of what god is and thus cannot believe in his existence. I belive deeply in many intangible things, however I view them as aspects of human nature rather than blessings of a supreme being. god is whatever you want god to be and by believing in god you make god exist in yourself.
Hope that made some sense.