Evolution is true? (macro evolution)

[SwastikaPyle]

you got it all wrong. our purpose in life is i believe 2 things. one is to praise God, then second one is to win peoples hearts for God, like what we are trying to do now. we want you to see the light and understand that we are not just in this world to live and die, but we are here to live and die for christ. and God created hell for the Devil and his followers. the devil came before we did. he was the most beautiful or handsome angel. but he tried to compare himself to God. and he was cast into hell. like us he created the angels with free will. hell wasnt meant to be for us. but when eve fell in temptation we all became sinners and now we have a choice to make, follow God or the devil. if you arent with God you are against him.

I can't wait until you grow up and read some books and start realizing the world isn't a black and white cake.

 

[Overswarm]

But as an omniscient being he already would know how it turns out, an omniscient being cannot be curious because an omniscient being knows everything.

I don't pretend to understand omniscience, but I do know that our concept of time itself is skewed. God exists outside of time, so wouldn't it all be happening at the same time anyway?

 

[manhunter098]

I don't pretend to understand omniscience, but I do know that our concept of time itself is skewed. God exists outside of time, so wouldn't it all be happening at the same time anyway?

Either way he wouldnt be doing something to see what happens.

 

[Zero Beat]

Wow, the first page of this thread was doing so great. Look at what it's turned into..

People with bad grammar claiming to know what "hell" is.

We had so many intelligent priests during Einstein's time, what the HELL happened?

God exists outside of time, so wouldn't it all be happening at the same time anyway?

God is a man made idea. Therefore it is impossible for that idea to be outside of time, seeing as man=matter, which is a continuous/dynamic/evolutionary process through time.

Man includes females..Just making sure I don't get attacked by a wild femenist around the boards

 

[RDK]

I don't pretend to understand omniscience, but I do know that our concept of time itself is skewed. God exists outside of time, so wouldn't it all be happening at the same time anyway?

How is our concept of time skewed? Time is a very real thing; it can be bent and ripped. Read up on physics some time.

 

[Tactical]

If you see an analogy about how you choosing a diety before knowing everything about it is comparable to using something like a toaster before knowing how it works.... and then you ignore the point of the analogy completely and say "But I can figure out how the toaster works!", we have larger problems. You basically took the analogy as "God is comparable to a toaster".

No, you wrote how God is comparable to a toaster. That is the point of an analogy, to compare two things and how they are alike and drawing observations from the connections. If one of the objects in your analogy is drastically different from your subject in a fundamental way (see being able to deduce how to work a toaster) then your analogy is broken. Fix it or toss it.

This is an argument between pre-destination, fatalism, free will, etc., etc., and is a much larger argument. I don't think you can use this assumption as an argument until you've proven it, seeing as how it has been debated for quite some time.

It's a logical conclusion from applying the concept of a being that made everything and can screw with the rules at will. Basic mathmatics (among other things) would cease to function because its all based on God's whims. "2 + 2 = 4 because God wants it to."

Stop reading things literally and out of context.

Logic is the bane of humanity, and of progress.

You wrote the statement as a stand alone, disconnected from any of your other paragraphs. In addition there is no indication it is *not* ment to be taken literally. Why shouldn't I have taken it literally, and how did I take it out of context?

When I debate I generally don't feel I have to say "Wow, that's silly becase reason A, B, C, D, E, F, G...." after someone says "I think everyone should commit suicide after taking a bath in warm jello". If I do, it isn't worth debating. Stop reading things literally and out of context.

If you post an argument in a debate don't be surprised if someone responds to it in a thought out manner. Also keep in mind that this is the internet, so you can not rely on things such as body language and emphasis (outside of and ) to better get your point across if it was *not* written literally. For the intrests of both parties here I would suggest you write things more literally so we don't have to waste time with the back and forth of:
"Analogy."
"Response to analogy."
"That wasn't the intent of my analogy at all, you're just trying to warp what I say, don't take what I say literally!"
"Then say what you actually mean."

This isn't true.

Really? And how is it not?

Why can God be judged in a similar way Humans can be judged? That's a little asinine, I think.

Because he doesn't get a "get out of jail free" card when it comes to judging him comparable to a human. He has, written, atleast one human equivilent trait, jealousy. If he is known to have a human emotion he is not beyond being judged by other beings with human emotions.

Or more meaningful, depending on your stance.

I wonder, could you give me an example of this increased sense of meaning? I'm quite curious to see what you qualify as more meaningful.

 

[otg]

Why are dinosaurs important? Most creationists believe the planet is only 4-6k years old. Dinosaur fossils are over 65m years old. Discuss.

Also, tell me, if evolution isn't real, how do you explain all the different species of plants and animals in the world today? Did god just decide "ok sharks, GO! ok... american bald eagles... go!" Where do these things come from?

 

[curiousthoughtsbear]

yes max there were dinosaurs, you are correct. whats the point of saying dinosaurs?



lets put it this way, God does whatever he wants cuz hes God.



are you serious? he asked why did he create us and why would he make hell, its right there.



what does it matter if hes omnipotent? or omniscient? or anything?

try to look at it like this, we dont know Gods point of view, so why should we try and picture it? none of us know what God is thinking so it doesnt matter.

you are arguing on retatrded things. the point is what we do with our lives. and the consequences or rewards of what we do in it.

all youve been saying is that "if" and "but"

but you dont really get it do you?

like mark cahill said, there is always a possibility that we are wrong about our eternity.

there IS eternal truth. the question is in finding. since you "think" there is no God, you obviously think there is nothing after death. you could be wrong.

since i believe in my God, i believe i will be going to heaven or hell. i could be wrong.

you can believe in reincarnation. and you could be wrong. but there is eternal truth, and im just trying to help you understand that. do you want to die and be wrong about it and spend your eternity in hell? are you sure about your answer?

dont say "i dont care, if God made hell he doesnt love me so i would rather spend it there" blah blah blah. thats all talk, if you were there you would care. anyone would. stop trying to make it seem as if going to hell would be an easy stay. i dont want anyone to go to hell, its a terrible place, if you only understood what you would be avoiding you would be just like me.

EHHHHH....when did I ever say I believe/think there is no "God." All the ifs and buts were for your sake, assumptions on your beliefs, not to confuse my stand on all this.

What I do believe is that there is no absolute wrong or absolute right and in saying that.......your "God", my "God," and anything else's God can coexist. The concept of mutual exclusivity may not even apply. What I'm saying is that a statement such as, "well my 'God' is the only 'God' and therefore your 'God' cannot," may be true and false. How that is possible, I'm not sure.....but at the same time I try not to suppose anything without due basis, or prior notice.

Oh yah....and when you speak about "Hell" you should consider this maxim -->

"one man's trash is another man's treasure"


The following comes off a bit harsh.....but don't consider yourself in this context
Anyway, to think in absolutes, I believe is childish. It's the stuff of petty conflicts to full-scale wars. Seldom is there any resolution that does not involve some sort of compromise or a lasting peace without concessions. Why do you think so many people die and kill in the name of religion ?

I personally think it's fear. Fear of insignificance, fear of an utterly purposeless life, fear that one has become obsolete. Perhaps most of all, fear of an abyss... devoid of anything even imaginably related to the lives we live and the senses we take for granted.

 

[JonaDiaper]

I can't wait until you grow up and read some books and start realizing the world isn't a black and white cake.

i m actually pretty sure i knew that before you did. unless your like in your 30's which would be weird. my dad cheated on my mom when i was around 6, my uncle was in jail when i was 7, my parents almost got divorced a bunch of times, one of my uncles got MS and he almost died, my grandpa has been hospitalized about 8 times in 2 years, he has a pace maker in his heart if that was its called. or pace keeper. um my girlfriends dad had cancer and was in and out of the hospital for about a year. i almost lost my girlfriend out of pure stupidity on my part. and i almost died yesterday in a car accident. i could think of more things but i dont wanna, those are the more important things. anyways, throught out all that i havent blamed God for a thing, and i havent questioned him, i just know hes in control. hes given me way to much for me to be un grateful. just because im christian doesnt mean my life is perfect. to the contrary, many people find that when they become christian, their life gets harder. it may look like an easy path, but it really isnt.

Why are dinosaurs important? Most creationists believe the planet is only 4-6k years old. Dinosaur fossils are over 65m years old. Discuss.

Also, tell me, if evolution isn't real, how do you explain all the different species of plants and animals in the world today? Did god just decide "ok sharks, GO! ok... american bald eagles... go!" Where do these things come from?

well maybe the scientist are wrong? idk if theyre wrong about evolution cant the be wrong on their cabon dating to?

um about the species, i think God made every animal, but not every species, adapting and selective breeding and all that is true. but species to species isnt true at all.

oh and i read somewhere that Stephen Hawkings died a christian and that he said all his theories were wrong. that made me laugh becuase if the father of the idea of evolution said it was wrong, why would people continue it? makes no sence.

heres a quoe from someone

""Punctuated evolution" is simply a method that Hawking uses to try to keep the theory of evolution alive. The sciences and natural laws as a whole have virtually proven that evolution is impossible in any form that we have been able to conjure up. What "Punctuated evolution" really is, is a method of saying the ludicrous, namely, that evolution is real, and therefore, that it must have come about by some method that is not readily observable. "Punctuated evolution" is a good method that meets the criteria.

A more common term for "punctuated evolution" is... science fiction."

 

[RDK]

well maybe the scientist are wrong? idk if theyre wrong about evolution cant the be wrong on their cabon dating to?

um about the species, i think God made every animal, but not every species, adapting and selective breeding and all that is true. but species to species isnt true at all.

oh and i read somewhere that Stephen Hawkings died a christian and that he said all his theories were wrong. that made me laugh becuase if the father of the idea of evolution said it was wrong, why would people continue it? makes no sence.

The ****? They're not wrong about evolution, and they're not wrong about radiometric dating.

All creationist arguments bascially stem from a fundamental misunderstanding about how radiometric dating works. The rate of decay isn't variable. Please do some research before spewing this junk.

And LMFAO at you thinking Stephen Hawking was the father of evolution, and that he died a Christian. You sad little man.

 

[JonaDiaper]

The ****? They're not wrong about evolution, and they're not wrong about radiometric dating.

All creationist arguments bascially stem from a fundamental misunderstanding about how radiometric dating works. The rate of decay isn't variable. Please do some research before spewing this junk.

And LMFAO at you thinking Stephen Hawking was the father of evolution, and that he died a Christian. You sad little man.

lol sorry i meant darwin =] my bad lol, i dont know where the hawkings came from lol


they arent wrong about micro evolution, but macro evolution, they defintely are wrong about.

i dont understand how you can believe whatever scientists say. they make up a bunch of stuff in the labs and make it seem believable and everyone is like yup they are so right. scientists arent God, your making their words law, just lik you should do to what God says.

 

[Cinder]

they arent wrong about micro evolution, but macro evolution, they defintely are wrong about.

And yet you have no proof that they're wrong...

i dont understand how you can believe whatever scientists say. they make up a bunch of stuff in the labs and make it seem believable and everyone is like yup they are so right. scientists arent God, your making their words law, just lik you should do to what God says.

I don't understand how you could believe every word an ancient text that has been edited, translated, and rewritten countless times says...your point?

 

[AltF4]

I can only guess as to why. It states a few times in the Bible reasons why we're here, and they all point to us being here "for God". Why God wants us here is not stated explicitly, though there are some hints.

In all reality, we could very much be a game to him. Maybe, since he is omnipotent, he wants to create something that isn't and promise himself he will let it grow just to see how it turns out. Who knows?

Very well, so you resign the argument of knowing our purpose in life then? When you say you can "only guess", you are saying you have no clue. Which is fine. It is not necessarily a weakness to not know the meaning of life. But do not then later talk to myself or others as if you do.


Judging by your response, you seem to believe in the typical version of the christian god: Omnipotent, omniscient (which is implied from omnipotence, actually), and omnibenevolent. Is this correct?

Let's dissect these attributes one-by-one, shall we?

1) Omnipotence. Aka: being "All powerful". This is about as strong of a statement as can be. It is equivalent to saying: the "omnipotent being is incapable of nothing", or "every action is able to be done by this being."

Here are some direct and indirect contradictions created by an omniscient being:

a) The "Can god create a rock so heavy than not even he can lift"? This really does hold more weight than you may give it. An action is presented, is god capable of doing it?

b) A being outside our physical world (as is typically stated of the christian god) cannot interact with our universe. Doing so violates the principle of locality and thus causality. And I hope you understand the significance of something violating causality. It is functionally equivalent to being contradictory.

As said by Stephen Hawking: (not a direct quote, I'm having difficulty in finding it again) "If there is a god, he created the universe in such a way that not even he can interfere with it."

2) Omniscience Aka: "All knowing". This is actually implied from being omnipotent, but it is typically talked about separately. Again, here's some contradictions that arise from the existence of an omniscient being:

a) This being then must know the future exactly and precisely. Right off the bat this violates the Heisenberg Principle of Uncertainty.

b) Omniscience directly contradicts Free Will. Free Will is something that is also typical in christian dogma. Yet you cannot have both. I believe RDK previously in this thread posted a quote from me addressing just this issue.

Essentially, the problem is with choice. In order to have Free Will, one must have options. A die with all 3's on it hasn't much choice about how to land, does it? Well, if god knows what you are going to eat tomorrow, that means you are not really making that choice. The feeling of choice is an illusion, because someone already knows what you will "decide" before you decide it.

c) God must also then know all future actions of himself. But if he already knows what he is going to do, which means that he himself does not have Free Will! This is a clear contradiction of Omnipotence.

3) Omnibenevolence. Aka: "All loving" or "Perfectly good". I'll get right down to it:

a) The notion of omnibenevolence presupposes that there is an objective moral standard. Of course this is absurd, however. Certain actions to one person are very favorable, yet to others are a grave offense. Morality itself is subjective, and as such, there is no sliding scale upon which to be "ultimate" of anything.

b) But let's suppose that there IS an objective moral code. You are left with Euthyphro's Dilemma, as I posed earlier. Is god subject to this moral code? Or was the moral code created by god?

You'll find that either way, your god is in trouble.

 

[RDK]

lol sorry i meant darwin =] my bad lol, i dont know where the hawkings came from lol


they arent wrong about micro evolution, but macro evolution, they defintely are wrong about.

i dont understand how you can believe whatever scientists say. they make up a bunch of stuff in the labs and make it seem believable and everyone is like yup they are so right. scientists arent God, your making their words law, just lik you should do to what God says.

Oh yeah, because the modern science establishment is one big conspiracy that is out to fool you about where we came from, and you obviously know better than the entire collective of scientists in every branch that has ever contributed to the theory of evolution.

Honestly, I wish I could show you how stupid you sound, but there's really no helping you.

 

[cman]

They arent wrong about micro evolution, but they defintely are wrong about macro evolution.

i dont understand how you can believe whatever scientists say. they make up a bunch of stuff in the labs and make it seem believable and everyone is like yup they are so right. scientists arent God, your making their words law, just lik you should do to what God says.

For the first paragraph, you have no knowledge about the process of evolution, so stop making claims. Second, they certainly have observed MACRO evolution in an experiment involving E coli which developed the ability to metabolise citrate. The experiment simutaneously disproved the creationist claims about irreducible complexity and macro evolution. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

As for the second paragraph, WE are the ones that believe with no proof? Aren't you just automatically listening to a book and some uninformed guys who get paid to talk? Also, work done by scientists is designed to be possible to repeat.

 

[AltF4]

oh and i read somewhere that Stephen Hawkings died a christian and that he said all his theories were wrong. that made me laugh becuase if the father of the idea of evolution said it was wrong, why would people continue it? makes no sence.

This would be especially alarming. Seeing as how Stephen Hawking is still alive, and all. Your attempts at bringing brilliant men and women down to your level only demonstrate your incoherence.



The rest of your nonsense hardly deserves a response. Except for this:

Debates on forums only rarely in one side converting to the other. Typically both sides are well grounded in their ideas, and are unlikely to change so easily.

But this is not true of the onlookers, the readers of the debate, the lurkers. I am always surprised to see just how many people read the Debate Hall topics, and topics like these. I even get PM's from time to time telling me that I've changed how they think, or that I'd dead wrong and am going to hell.

Either way, internet debates really are for the benefit of the 3rd party reader. And in your case, you make my job that much easier. I needn't set out to change your mind. Indeed I don't intend to. My purpose is to sufficiently demonstrate to everyone else reading this why your ideas are absurd.

I believe I have accomplished that long before I even posted here.

 

[Overswarm]

Ignoring Tactical. No new information.

Very well, so you resign the argument of knowing our purpose in life then? When you say you can "only guess", you are saying you have no clue. Which is fine. It is not necessarily a weakness to not know the meaning of life. But do not then later talk to myself or others as if you do.

I do not pretend to know the meaning, but I do know the direction, if there is one.

Judging by your response, you seem to believe in the typical version of the christian god: Omnipotent, omniscient (which is implied from omnipotence, actually), and omnibenevolent. Is this correct?

As far as we are concerned, yes. It is possible that God may have limitations, but by any stretch of our imagination that is impossible. It is unthinkable to attempt to understand that exists outside of all five dimensions we know of.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume that God has those three qualities with the definitions you have given; this will allow to, at the very least, determine if those are possible given our limitations.

1) Omnipotence. Aka: being "All powerful". This is about as strong of a statement as can be. It is equivalent to saying: the "omnipotent being is incapable of nothing", or "every action is able to be done by this being."

Here are some direct and indirect contradictions created by an omniscient being:

a) The "Can god create a rock so heavy than not even he can lift"? This really does hold more weight than you may give it. An action is presented, is god capable of doing it?

b) A being outside our physical world (as is typically stated of the christian god) cannot interact with our universe. Doing so violates the principle of locality and thus causality. And I hope you understand the significance of something violating causality. It is functionally equivalent to being contradictory.

As said by Stephen Hawking: (not a direct quote, I'm having difficulty in finding it again) "If there is a god, he created the universe in such a way that not even he can interfere with it."

This is only from a human perspective. The answer is yes, God can create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it, but if he wanted to lift it he would. Both solutions are synonymous. In God's case, they are not contradictory.

Stephen Hawking, while intelligent, is not a source of undeniable truth. Should God want to interfere with the planet (or more), he could and would. According to scripture he has done so, so we know this is possible if God exists. Should God exist and we believe this is wrong, it is infinitely more likely that we have followed a flase path or, less likely, there are mistakes in interpreting scripture. It is pretty straight forward and commonplace in early scripture for God to interfere directly on the planet, Jesus being the most recent and the rapture being the last.

Since we know that this has to have happened if God exists, the only solution is that you are wrong in that God cannot interfere with the universe or that God doesn't exist. We have no evidence for either at this time, especially since you are attributing physical laws to a being that exists outside of them. This basically is answered at the end of the puzzle; it is a dead end at this point.

2) Omniscience Aka: "All knowing". This is actually implied from being omnipotent, but it is typically talked about separately. Again, here's some contradictions that arise from the existence of an omniscient being:

a) This being then must know the future exactly and precisely. Right off the bat this violates the Heisenberg Principle of Uncertainty.

b) Omniscience directly contradicts Free Will. Free Will is something that is also typical in christian dogma. Yet you cannot have both. I believe RDK previously in this thread posted a quote from me addressing just this issue.

Essentially, the problem is with choice. In order to have Free Will, one must have options. A die with all 3's on it hasn't much choice about how to land, does it? Well, if god knows what you are going to eat tomorrow, that means you are not really making that choice. The feeling of choice is an illusion, because someone already knows what you will "decide" before you decide it.

c) God must also then know all future actions of himself. But if he already knows what he is going to do, which means that he himself does not have Free Will! This is a clear contradiction of Omnipotence.

Knowledge of what will happen does not change the fact that it was a choice. I play smash competitively, and I routinely call my opponent on a move and punish them perfectly out of a roll. Did I cause them to do this because I foresaw it?

God's omnipotence is the same thing on a grander scale. Knowing the future is not creating it.

3) Omnibenevolence. Aka: "All loving" or "Perfectly good". I'll get right down to it:

a) The notion of omnibenevolence presupposes that there is an objective moral standard. Of course this is absurd, however. Certain actions to one person are very favorable, yet to others are a grave offense. Morality itself is subjective, and as such, there is no sliding scale upon which to be "ultimate" of anything.

Morality is not subjective. Morality is subjective only from a human perspective. If God makes the rules, morality is an absolute and it is exactly what God deems "right". It doesn't even need to be consistent.

b) But let's suppose that there IS an objective moral code. You are left with Euthyphro's Dilemma, as I posed earlier. Is god subject to this moral code? Or was the moral code created by god?

You'll find that either way, your god is in trouble.

The moral code is a result of God's desires, so you can consider it to be created by God. This is solidified by the direct contact with humanity through the giving of the ten commandments.

If God is real, God makes the rules. There's no arguing around that; you can say "but this is what I think", but it doesn't matter. God still calls the shots. Dissent from you towards God matters as little as someone saying "you can't execute me, it's wrong!" to a firing squad.

You, and I, are specks.


-------

Either way, internet debates really are for the benefit of the 3rd party reader. And in your case, you make my job that much easier. I needn't set out to change your mind. Indeed I don't intend to. My purpose is to sufficiently demonstrate to everyone else reading this why your ideas are absurd.

It amazes me how often people think that debate is an attempt to change another person's mind. It's simply an effort to coax more information out and to fully flesh out their ideas, to be challenged on your own and to continue to flesh them out. It rarely happens that something blindsides you, but when it does... very rarely does someone say "I'm wrong, I should change my ways". It is more likely that they say "how can I fit this in" and keep going forward.

Change is something that happens on a personal level. Debates are meant only to bring about information for those not involved.

 

[otg]

Oh yeah, because the modern science establishment is one big conspiracy that is out to fool you about where we came from, and you obviously know better than the entire collective of scientists in every branch that has ever contributed to the theory of evolution.

Honestly, I wish I could show you how stupid you sound, but there's really no helping you.

Thank you sir, I'm glad someone said it.

 

[Overswarm]

Oh yeah, because the modern science establishment is one big conspiracy that is out to fool you about where we came from, and you obviously know better than the entire collective of scientists in every branch that has ever contributed to the theory of evolution.

Honestly, I wish I could show you how stupid you sound, but there's really no helping you.

In his defense, the majority of the planet believed the earth was flat at one point. Scientists even had "evidence" for it. I still wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt, but it is possible that people just don't know they're wrong and are attempting to cram jigsaw pieces together.

 

[RDK]

In his defense, the majority of the planet believed the earth was flat at one point. Scientists even had "evidence" for it. I still wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt, but it is possible that people just don't know they're wrong and are attempting to cram jigsaw pieces together.

Which is perfectly acceptable if he is truly just misinformed on the subject, but 20-some-odd pages of the same garbage? Not to mention he got kicked out of the DH for similar nonsense.

 

[Overswarm]

Which is perfectly acceptable if he is truly just misinformed on the subject, but 20-some-odd pages of the same garbage? Not to mention he got kicked out of the DH for similar nonsense.

How does one even get in there, anyway? It'd be fun to pop in there once in a while.


And yes, I agree with you. I just thought I'd add a bit to the other side.

 

[RDK]

How does one even get in there, anyway? It'd be fun to pop in there once in a while.


And yes, I agree with you. I just thought I'd add a bit to the other side.

Just got to Group Memberships in the left menu of the CP and send an application. I'm sure you'll be accepted; CK just let a bunch of people in, and most of them are random boobs. Apparently he's trying to raise activity.

Although you're a mod now, aren't you? Shouldn't you be able to post wherever you want?

 

[AltF4]

Overswarm:

I dislike the "quote-response" format. You'll find I rarely use it. No big deal there, though.

The necessary follow-up questions to the answers you have provided are:

1) Is god capable of contradiction? IE: Is god above the laws of logic?

Think about this one carefully before you answer. The laws of logic are not to be discarded lightly. Without them, nothing happens for any reason. Up is down, black is white. This entire debate is pointless without logic. Debate itself is the act of determining truth through logic. Always assumed is that logic is universal.

a) If no, then your god is not omnipotent. There is a class of actions which this god is incapable of doing.

b) If yes, then to what extent is god capable of contradictions?

i) Physical contradictions only. IE: Making stuff disappear and reappear, and violate the laws of nature. This, unfortunately, also makes your god not omnipotent. Since there is STILL a class of actions which he is incapable of.

ii) All contradictions. A standard example of something that is inherently contradictory is a "round square". A square is by definition "not round". Thus a "round square" is contradictory. But not just any kind of contradictory. It's REALLY contradictory. So much so that it is impossible to even conceive of a round square.

I would much like to hear you answer the question: Is god able to create a round square?

I think I have demonstrated sufficiently why Omnipotence as a concept is nonsense.



2) You speak repeatedly of "god's perspective". What exactly is that? And how does that differ in a relevant way to a human perspective?




3) You appear to have to have taken the road of saying that god is the source of morality. (For the record, this is also part of standard christian dogma)

The problem with this option is that god is only vacuously benevolent! If god created the world and said that ****, murder, and torture were good actions and we should do them, then that would be so.

What you are saying is that "anything god does is good". You are saying that the definition of "good actions" is "things which god does/likes".

Also, this contradicts the concept of objective morality. "Good actions" indeed may sway wildly and are highly subjective to god's whim.

It in essence removes any meaning from the word "good", by making this definition.

 

[Tactical]

Ignoring Tactical. No new information.

My stance is defensive. I can not apply more information then you give me to refute. Makes for an interesting case of pot calling the kettle black. Regardless, you have not replied to how it it possible for God to be so beyond everything we can comprehend, but be self-described as jelous. You also did not reply to God being the answer being more meaningful than not, I am still interested to hear your response.

This is only from a human perspective. The answer is yes, God can create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it, but if he wanted to lift it he would. Both solutions are synonymous. In God's case, they are not contradictory.

That is retarted on its face. I would have assumed you could tell the differenc between "can not" and "does not want to."

Since we know that this has to have happened if God exists, the only solution is that you are wrong in that God cannot interfere with the universe or that God doesn't exist. We have no evidence for either at this time, especially since you are attributing physical laws to a being that exists outside of them. This basically is answered at the end of the puzzle; it is a dead end at this point.

Why, exactly, do we have to disprove something that has not been proven? Do you want me to disprove your imaginary friends as well?

Knowledge of what will happen does not change the fact that it was a choice. I play smash competitively, and I routinely call my opponent on a move and punish them perfectly out of a roll. Did I cause them to do this because I foresaw it?

You foresaw nothing. You made educated guesses by going through their list of options and choosing the one they would most likely reply with. God, on the other hand, knows exactly what is going to happen. And, holding with him creating everything, has complete control over everything that will happen.

God's omnipotence is the same thing on a grander scale. Knowing the future is not creating it.

Except He did create the future, because he created everything.

Morality is not subjective. Morality is subjective only from a human perspective. If God makes the rules, morality is an absolute and it is exactly what God deems "right". It doesn't even need to be consistent.

Atleast you yourself gave an example of how God explains nothing. "God is loving because He says He's loving."

You, and I, are specks.

I think you're overestimating our importance. To be a spec is to assume you matter on the most basic level.

 

[Binx]

If you ask me the millions of years excuse scientists use to explain evolution is almost just as ridiculous as the bible itself. I don't necessarily have proof but I have to believe that evolution takes place more rapidly than humans assume or we wouldn't have the variety of life in the short relatively short amount of time the earth has been here. The reason I don't think we observe this evolution is because we create situations where evolution can't thrive, we either provide for creatures and so they have no reason to change, or we preserve habitat once again giving them no reason to change. But you can easily see human evolution, we all went from being black to being black, white, yellow, orange, brown, shorter, taller, wider. I personally see the human brain as constantly evolving, I think human evolution is in the form of technology.

 

[Dolente]

Wow... I'm very sorry that I took the weekend off.

Let's start here:

If you ask me the millions of years excuse scientists use to explain evolution is almost just as ridiculous as the bible itself. I don't necessarily have proof but I have to believe that evolution takes place more rapidly than humans assume or we wouldn't have the variety of life in the short relatively short amount of time the earth has been here. The reason I don't think we observe this evolution is because we create situations where evolution can't thrive, we either provide for creatures and so they have no reason to change, or we preserve habitat once again giving them no reason to change. But you can easily see human evolution, we all went from being black to being black, white, yellow, orange, brown, shorter, taller, wider. I personally see the human brain as constantly evolving, I think human evolution is in the form of technology.

I think you are another example of someone who does not understand evolution. "Relatively short amount of time," are you serious? The earth is 5.4 BILLION years old!! Carbon dating is fairly conclusive in this regard. I'm not sure if you know how large a billion is, but trust me, that is a long, long, long time. Your statement is comical on its face and frightening if you actually believe it.

As far as we are concerned, yes. It is possible that God may have limitations,

No it is not! Read: Omnipotent. If you have limitations, you are not omnipotent. Example, at my company, I am the DBA, so I am omnipotent over Oracle. If I could do anything with all of the databases except the security permissions database, I would NOT be omnipotent.

but by any stretch of our imagination that is impossible. It is unthinkable to attempt to understand that exists outside of all five dimensions we know of.

It is impossible by the nature of the word. If he is not omnipotent, call it something else. But if he has limitations, then he can be subverted.

This is only from a human perspective. The answer is yes, God can create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it, but if he wanted to lift it he would. Both solutions are synonymous. In God's case, they are not contradictory.

This is a standard pro-deity argument that is used far too often. Basically you're saying, "Its impossible to understand God so you just have to take the Bible's word that He's there."

Stephen Hawking, while intelligent, is not a source of undeniable truth. Should God want to interfere with the planet (or more), he could and would. According to scripture he has done so, so we know this is possible if God exists. Should God exist and we believe this is wrong, it is infinitely more likely that we have followed a flase path or, less likely, there are mistakes in interpreting scripture. It is pretty straight forward and commonplace in early scripture for God to interfere directly on the planet, Jesus being the most recent and the rapture being the last.

Early scripture also contradicts itself a great deal. I.E. - Re-read the first 3 books of Genesis. There are two separate creation stories. If God can interfere with the planet, and he is omniscient, he plainly saw the world as it would be now, which is clearly far from ideal. Why did He want all of this to happen?

Since we know that this has to have happened if God exists, the only solution is that you are wrong in that God cannot interfere with the universe or that God doesn't exist. We have no evidence for either at this time, especially since you are attributing physical laws to a being that exists outside of them. This basically is answered at the end of the puzzle; it is a dead end at this point.

Actually, I think that we have three choices at this point:
1) God does not exist and the universe is governed by physical laws, many of which are complex beyond imagining and not yet understood, but nevertheless exist.

2) God exists, and he created the universe to be exactly as it is now according to His design: He had decided not to make any direct impact upon the universe in recorded history, and was totally okay with everything from Nazism to the Patriot Act.

3) God exists, but he created the universe with the laws of physics in place and thereafter took a back seat.

Knowledge of what will happen does not change the fact that it was a choice. I play smash competitively, and I routinely call my opponent on a move and punish them perfectly out of a roll. Did I cause them to do this because I foresaw it?

If it is known beforehand, it was predestined. If it is predestined, then you had no choice. Read: Predestination.

God's omnipotence is the same thing on a grander scale. Knowing the future is not creating it.

But he did create it.

Morality is not subjective. Morality is subjective only from a human perspective. If God makes the rules, morality is an absolute and it is exactly what God deems "right". It doesn't even need to be consistent.

If it doesn't need to be consistent, then I want no part of it. That is called arbitration, and I don't want an arbitrator who kills massive amounts of people at whim for no real reason.

The moral code is a result of God's desires, so you can consider it to be created by God. This is solidified by the direct contact with humanity through the giving of the ten commandments.

He doesn't follow them very well...

If God is real, God makes the rules. There's no arguing around that; you can say "but this is what I think", but it doesn't matter. God still calls the shots. Dissent from you towards God matters as little as someone saying "you can't execute me, it's wrong!" to a firing squad.

Well, then none of what we do matters at all. Seriously, might as well just give up. If you die from starvation while supplicating at the altar, maybe He will let you hang out with Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, and Uriel for eternity. Not for me, thanks.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

oh and i read somewhere that Stephen Hawkings died a christian and that he said all his theories were wrong. that made me laugh becuase if the father of the idea of evolution said it was wrong, why would people continue it? makes no sence.

heres a quoe from someone

""Punctuated evolution" is simply a method that Hawking uses to try to keep the theory of evolution alive. The sciences and natural laws as a whole have virtually proven that evolution is impossible in any form that we have been able to conjure up. What "Punctuated evolution" really is, is a method of saying the ludicrous, namely, that evolution is real, and therefore, that it must have come about by some method that is not readily observable. "Punctuated evolution" is a good method that meets the criteria.

A more common term for "punctuated evolution" is... science fiction."

My god, dude.

This post is so comical I'm almost convinced you're a troll.

First off, you didn't post any sources of ANYTHING, ANYWHERE. You wrote 'here's a quote from someone.' You wrote 'I heard this somewhere.'

That is nothing. You cannot say, "I just heard that somewhere" and expect to be taken seriously. You either provide links to back something up, or you don't say it at all. Just, please.

Second of all, Stephan Hawking is alive today and he is not regarded as the father of evolution, that would be Charles Darwin. Also, he was a minister, and was certain that his theories would not create any sort of problem or clash with religion. He died a Christian because he was one in the first place.

Everyone has said it over and over again, but I'll add to it anyways.

You have not studied the theory. You do not know what you are talking about. You are just repeating talking points and trying to find holes in something you're completely ignorant of.

What you should really do is have a look at yourself, and examine your own beliefs and why you believe in them. If you would ever scrutinize the Bible as hard as you do Evolution, you'd likely be an atheist from day one.

I'll even post some links for you to check out. Sadly though, you'll ignore them, you don't ever LISTEN to the people who argue against you. It's obvious from reading this topic.

Absurdities of the Bible
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm

Contradictions
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

 

[SwastikaPyle]

If you ask me the millions of years excuse scientists use to explain evolution is almost just as ridiculous as the bible itself. I don't necessarily have proof but I have to believe that evolution takes place more rapidly than humans assume or we wouldn't have the variety of life in the short relatively short amount of time the earth has been here.

This variety of life didn't spring up overnight.

4.6 billion years is...a LOT of time.

It took a few hundred million years just to create the first multicellular organism, dude.

 

[Zero Beat]

If you ask me the millions of years excuse scientists use to explain evolution is almost just as ridiculous as the bible itself. I don't necessarily have proof but I have to believe that evolution takes place more rapidly than humans assume or we wouldn't have the variety of life in the short relatively short amount of time the earth has been here.

Dear goodness, perfect example of missinformed.

The reason as to why main sequence stars(Like our sun) are good candidates for life outside our system is because they have the longest periods of life at 10.something billion years(or so). How do we know this? Because every moment in time, stars are being born(In star nurseries) and dying(supernovae). We are actually ABLE to observe this.

Life takes millions of years to go from a certain stage in matter(not state as in liquid, gas, plasma, ect) to where we are at this point. It is not an excuse, it is OBSERVEABLE. People like you are the reason religious followers carry such a bad image in topics like these. Ignorance.

Oh and Dolente, the planet Earth is not 5.4 billion years old, because our sun is at around 4.5 and it is mathematically and physically impossible to be older than where you came from.

 

[GoldShadow]

i dont understand how you can believe whatever scientists say. they make up a bunch of stuff in the labs and make it seem believable and everyone is like yup they are so right. scientists arent God, your making their words law, just lik you should do to what God says.

Guys, Jona's right here. I can vouch for it. I work in a biochemistry lab, and it's true. We just throw a bunch of things into a pot and then make up our results. Here's the procedure I wrote out for the last experiment I did:

1) Gather rabbit's tail, 95% ethanol, witch's fingernails, lock of hair from a virgin, three blades of grass, 4 leaf clover, Nintendo Wii and a Blu-Ray copy of The Dark Knight. Throw in cauldron of boiling water.
2) Boil mixture for 4 hours.
3) Wave magic wand (containing polar bear extract) in front of cauldron.
4) Analyze resulting mixture.
5) Fudge data about MUR-3 gene homologies and glycosyltransferase enzyme functions.
6) Publish data in scientific journal.
7) ???
8) Profit!

I want to apologize to the scientific community for letting the secret out. I just couldn't stand it any longer. No more will scientists fool the people of earth!

If you ask me the millions of years excuse scientists use to explain evolution is almost just as ridiculous as the bible itself. I don't necessarily have proof but I have to believe that evolution takes place more rapidly than humans assume or we wouldn't have the variety of life in the short relatively short amount of time the earth has been here.

What are you talking about? You "believe" it takes place rapidly? What are you, an evolutionary biologist? You're wrong here.

edit: Also what Zero Beat said. The man is correct!

The reason I don't think we observe this evolution is because we create situations where evolution can't thrive, we either provide for creatures and so they have no reason to change, or we preserve habitat once again giving them no reason to change. But you can easily see human evolution, we all went from being black to being black, white, yellow, orange, brown, shorter, taller, wider. I personally see the human brain as constantly evolving, I think human evolution is in the form of technology.

This, on the other hand, is true of modern day human society. What with all of our modern infrastructure and medication and prolonging of life, we have, for all intents and purposes, halted our own evolution. But that has nothing to do with the idea of evolution in general (which is correct) or the timeframe in which it happens (which is also correct).

 

[RDK]

Guys, Jona's right here. I can vouch for it. I work in a biochemistry lab, and it's true. We just throw a bunch of things into a pot and then make up our results. Here's the procedure I wrote out for the last experiment I did:

1) Gather rabbit's tail, 95% ethanol, witch's fingernails, lock of hair from a virgin, three blades of grass, 4 leaf clover, Nintendo Wii and a Blu-Ray copy of The Dark Knight. Throw in cauldron of boiling water.
2) Boil mixture for 4 hours.
3) Wave magic wand (containing polar bear extract) in front of cauldron.
4) Analyze resulting mixture.
5) Fudge data about MUR-3 gene homologies and glycosyltransferase enzyme functions.
6) Publish data in scientific journal.
7) ???
8) Profit!

Emphasis on the profit. Tricking those silly creationists is quite a lucrative business.

 

[AltF4]

GoldShadow wins the thread.

 

[Zero Beat]

I'll be passing my Astronomy torch on to him. Golshadow for Admin.

 

[otg]

i dont understand how you can believe whatever scientists say. they make up a bunch of stuff in the labs and make it seem believable and everyone is like yup they are so right. scientists arent God, your making their words law, just lik you should do to what God says.

I don't understand how you can believe whatever the bible says. It's made up of a bunch of stuff from stories changed and doctored over thousands of years by random people with biases and agendas, and make it seem believable and 99.7% of the entire population of the planet Earth is like "yup they are so right". The people who wrote the bible aren't god, yet we treat their words as law, because in the end you should join the group mentality because it's safer to believe than to question one's existence.

 

[JonaDiaper]

man i seriously cant hang with all the smart people. how come christian scientists think evolution is bs? why do only atheist or agnostic people believe in evolution? i honestly think science is just something man created to try and answer things that they couldnt believe God did, or made. i didnt hear of scientists back in Jesus' day try to explain all the miracles he did. oh also someone asked why i believed the Bible if it was just an ancient text, well the new testament has around 2000+ original copies i think and the closest is homers illiad and oddessy with like 600. dont you think it would be pretty accurate?

 

[kr3wman]

No, not at all.

 

[JonaDiaper]

hm its says more then 3000 times in the Bible,"thus sayith the Lord"
man does not take ownership in anyway of the Bible, only the Bible claims to be written by men who God spoke to.

oh i messed up on the other post, its 24,000 portions of the new testament

and i strongly urge anyone who doubts the Bibles accuracy to listen to chapter 3 of the link i put up a few pages back. go into it about 8 and a half minutes and just listen for a few minutes

 

[Crimson King]

So, wait, you said Darwin definitely died a Christian? Really? That one I did not know.

 

[JonaDiaper]

oh no i dont think he did, i thought i posted that i read a false article, something about some called Lady Hope who made up a bunch of stuff. i read that and read darwins family quotes and stuff. i thought i posted that, my bad

and CK have you gotten far in the audio boo?
what do you think of it so far?

 

[Binx]

LOL, sorry guys, I didn't mean rapidly rapidly, I just meant like 1 or 2 million years rather than half a dozen or more million years, after re-reading my post its a little ******** sounding, but its not exactly what I meant. Anything I think has been said here better anyways, that was the only point I was trying to add, yeah 6 billion years is a LONG time, I'm just saying that with the variety of plant and animal life on this planet I think there are times when evolution jumps instead of crawling (which is still slow compared to human life but fast compared to half a dozen million years).

As far as carbon dating, I'm not too knowledgeable on where scientists got the numbers, how did they determine how many years were between each layer of earth? anyone have any input?

EDIT: Wow Goldshadow for prez