God or Big Bang/Evolution: Where do we Come From?

[xianfeng]

We don't need proof. We need overwhelming evidence. We've got it.

1) you have the burden to prove your theology right
2) the energy thing assumes a closed system
3) natural selection is logical and proven
4) artificial selection is proven
5) genetic mutations are proven

proving either side is not possible. the side with greatest proof is the side that should be viewed as correct. That is evolution by a long shot.

so what your saying is that everyone should give up their religion just because you say that you have evidence God doesn't exsist well I believe in God and you can't convince me that evoloution is where we came from because I know God made us.

 

[snex]

so what your saying is that everyone should give up their religion just because you say that you have evidence God doesn't exsist well I believe in God and you can't convince me that evoloution is where we came from because I know God made us.

false dichotomy fallacy.

 

[xianfeng]

false dichotomy fallacy.

I'm 13 so I don't understand some of that but it sounds like false evidence that God doesn't exist trying to make people who are religious sound crazy

 

[snex]

I'm 13 so I don't understand some of that but it sounds like false evidence that God doesn't exist trying to make people who are religious sound crazy

the only person here making religious people sound crazy is you. maybe youll understand it in simpler terms.

evolution has N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with the existence of god.

 

[3.14159]

so what your saying is that everyone should give up their religion just because you say that you have evidence God doesn't exsist well I believe in God and you can't convince me that evoloution is where we came from because I know God made us.

No, I'm stating that in order to use religion as a disproof of evolution or to say that your religious theology is true, you would have to prove it or at least provide solid evidence.

"knowing" something without evidence plays out something like this:

Me: Mankind was created when aliens came to earth and genetically encgineered us from cows.
xianfeng: yeah, well you have no proof of that. Give me proof.
Me: WTF? It's true because I know it is! You lying Atheist Sonofa*****!

And just for the record, you can believe in God while still giving room for evolution.

 

[Duke]

Xianfeng I would give up. Your obviously don't understand enough to debate this, I assume atleast. A proper way to counter-argue this post is as follows:

We don't need proof. We need overwhelming evidence. We've got it.

OK! I am reeeeeeeeeeady for some OVERWHELMING evidence. Man I can't wait I bet I will be 100% persuaded that evolution is a correct THEORY.

1) you have the burden to prove your theology right

....ok not exactly overwhelming evidence, let alone being any kind of evidence at all. No one says that the religous are the only one with the burden of proof. In all actuality since evolution is the logical way then you can obviously provide some evidence. The burden of proof is on both sides if they want to prove their point.

2) the energy thing assumes a closed system

Yeah, ok. The 'energy thing' I see what you mean. Ok, now I see this is really turning out to be some overwhelming evidence. This does not provide evidence for evolution; I'm just goin to come out and say it. That statement does absolutely nothing for your arguement. However, you are atleast trying so I'll give you some credit on that one.

3) natural selection is logical and proven

Ok, so this statement in a literary sense is logical. But byy saying this it doesn't make natural selection true. Please show me evidence that it is logical and proven. Then show me how it proves evolution true. Because, honestly, I think you have something here. Something that no scientist has found because if this was found earlier there wouldn't be any debates about the creation of man. </sarcasm>

4) artificial selection is proven

Again, provide evidence of artificial selection being proven. Then, once we have established that then we can talk about how this along with your other ingenius evidence are evidence for evolution.

5) genetic mutations are proven

You best one BY FAR. This one has done it; I have been so overwhelmed that just by saying this I have suddenly recieved an apephany that evolution is true. I never even thought of this. Oh, wait how does this prove evolution true again? I didn't catch that; thats because this isn't evidence for evolution true.

proving either side is not possible. the side with greatest proof is the side that should be viewed as correct. That is evolution by a long shot.

Wait, what about your compendium evidence just above. You just gave FIVE AMAZINGLY overwhelming evidence for evolution and now your saying that is doesn't really prove it possible. Let me just think this through "proving either side is not possible.........the side with greatest proof...should be viewed as correct" Oh and " That is evolution by a long shot" Nope, I got nothing please explain what you mean. Because either you just condradicted your whole posted putting evolution at zero evidence or that was just a minor typo. Anyways, In conclusion you knocked my socks off with your rediculously concussion causing evidence. I finally understand now that evolution is just a THEORY and it can't be PROVEN or else it would be a LAW which it ISN'T. <-----I like to enhance my post with capitals it makes it lively.

"knowing" something without evidence plays out something like this:

Me:Hey look at the Empire State Building it was made from falling comets stacking on top of one another in a random yet organized fassion.
3.14159: WTF? You can't prove that, there was obviously an outside knowledge or force affecting it.
Me: *HUFF!* Well, psh I have overwhelming evidence to prove it because that energy thing doesn't affect it...

Yeah, good one.

 

[snex]

your definitions of "theory" and "law" are incorrect.

a theory is a well-supported explanation for a large body of evidence. ie, germ theory, quantum theory, evolutionary theory.

a law is a simple observed regularity expressible in mathematical terms. ie, the laws of gravitational attraction, the laws of thermodynamics, the laws of conservation.

about to leave work, ill make a big post later with the evidence for evolution, since you admitted you could not support your claims about thermodynamics in a PM.

 

[Duke]

Why, thanks snex I would greatly appreciate that!

Teehee, I really like when snex and PI feel the need to lower my rep because I'm debating them in the debate hall. And I got a lower rep from PI because I totally destroyed his post and "I add to the debate" soooo I should get -1 rep. THAT makes a lot of sense almost as much as the overwhelming evidence that you gave. In, conclusion the only reason why I even look at reps is to make fun of the idiot comments left. Ya know what I've had it. You've taken it too far with your STUPID REP LOWERING WAYS OF LIFE!!!! FINE! Evolution is right and everything wrong...man you guys got me. You guys really put me under some huge pressure. phew

 

[snex]

the main body of evidence for evolution comes from the following areas of science:

• nested hierarchy of life
• vestigial characters
• embryology
• homology
• fossil evidence

twin nested hierarchy

a nested hierarchy is a system of classification. it takes the structure of a tree with higher levels of generality near the root node and higher levels of specificity at the leaf nodes. for example, when you go to a library, to find a book you want, you have to search through several layers of classification. say we were trying to find the book "the blind watchmaker" by richard dawkins. the first thing we would do is choose between the three major sections of the library, fiction, non-fiction, and reference. the book we are looking for is non-fiction, so we choose the non-fiction section and descend one level of the tree. once we are in non-fiction, we must determine what bookshelf our book is in. to do this, we use the dewey decimal system. 500 is the classification for the natural sciences and mathematics, so we again descend one level. the next step is 575, for evolution and genetics. and the next step is 'D' for dawkins, and finally 'B' for "the blind watchmaker." the classification tree for finding a library book is a type of nested hierarchy.

however, it is not what is known as a "true" hierarchy. that is, books do not fall into this classification scheme on their own accord. humans must assign weights to particular classification levels. for example, we could have chosen to start with 'D' for dawkins, and then go to non-fiction, followed by 'B', followed by 575. sounds strange, but the fact is that you would find books just as easily either way.

an example of a true nested hierarchy would be languages. languages can be grouped into hierarchies without placing arbitrary uneven weights on certain characteristics. we can classify languages like french, italian, spanish, and latin together, and likewise we can put english, german and dutch together. with those 2 groups, we can then link them to other languages like polish, slavic, hindi, etc. what makes this a true nested hierarchy is that no matter what order you choose for your grouping, you get the same (or at least extremely an similar) tree.

one of the founders of modern biology, linnaeus, was the first person to comprehensively apply a nested hierarchy classification system to living organisms. what he discovered was that living forms make a true nested hierarchy. all organisms that have milk glands also have four limbs. all organisms with four limbs also have a backbone. all organisms with a backbone also have a jaw, and, unbeknownst to linnaeus, all organisms with a jaw also have mitochondria. groups always completely contain their subgroups.

the reason that this provides astounding evidence for evolution is that true nested hierarchies are always produced by processes of inherited descent. a designer could have chosen any pattern at all for the forms of life - including no pattern whatsoever. but the one pattern we do see is exactly the one we would expect for evolution.

vestigial characters

a vestigial character is one which is diminished in function or form. vestigial characters can either be completely useless, or have some secondary use that is unrelated to or less than the functional abilities of the character. vestigial characters include the eyes of blind cave fish, the wings of an ostrich, and the plantaris tendon in human feet. vestigial characters defy explanations of design, but fit perfectly within evolutionary theory. a designer has no reason to design useless eyes on a cave-dwelling fish that cannot use them. a designer could easily have given the ostrich a true sail, instead of giving it wings that are clearly meant for flight. plantaris tendons serve no purpose whatsoever in humans, and in fact many people are born without them and never know it.

vestigial characters show that organisms include traces of their past histories in which these characters were once used for their functional purposes. ostriches have wings because they descended from flying birds. blind cave fish have eyes because they descended from normal fish with working eyes. humans have plantaris tendons because we evolved from tree-swinging apes that needed to grasp branches with their feet.

embryology

embryology is the study of how new organisms form from the sex cells of their parents. since it has been determined that the genetic code for building us is encased in our DNA, and evolution proposes that modifications of DNA has led to the diversification of all life, embryology is an excellent test for the validity of evolution.

our DNA codes for the synthesis of proteins, the building blocks of life. during embryonic growth, we can correlate how portions of DNA will affect the adult organism, and we can measure the effects of changing that DNA through genetic engineering. some modifications induce slight changes, such as eye or hair color, but other changes induce more drastic and cascading effects that can render an organism almost unintelligible as members of their species. as evolution proposes that mutations of DNA are the underlying source of evolution's variation, we should be able to see evidence of this by studying the embryology of various organisms and seeing if they conform to the nested hierarchy.

and in fact, this is exactly the case. for example, fish embryos and mammal (and everything in between) embryos display features in early development that are indistinguishable from each other. it is only later in development that the pharyngeal pouches in fish become gills, while in land-dwelling animals they go on to form structures such as the eustachian tube, the middle ear, the tonsils, the parathyroid, and the thymus.

there is absolutely no reason from a design standpoint to build these structures from the same embryonic beginnings, especially since they serve immensly different functions. these quirks of embryonic development only make sense if we infer that the history of an organism's ancestry is represented by them.

homology

homology is the recognition that structures with different functions nonetheless have similar structures. for example, all four-limbed organisms share the same limb structure. they all have a single main limb bone, which radiates at a joint into two supporting bones, which again radiate at a joint into further bones. whether these bones become legs, arms, claws, wings, or flippers, they all have this same structure.

again, these structures do not make sense in terms of design. a designer would apply designs based on how well suited they were for their functions. the homology of characters only makes sense if it represents patterns of common ancestry.

fossil evidence

ever since fossils were discovered, men have been fascinated by the many forms that are extremely different from today's life. dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and trilobytes demonstrate that life long ago was not the same as current life. since evolution proposes that these life forms are related through genealogy, at least some of these extinct fossil forms should show these transitions in progress. we should expect to see transitions that reflect our nested hierarchy tree, and never find fossil forms that show transitions that contradict the tree.

again, this is exactly what we find. we have fish-amphibian transitions like icthyostega and acanthostega, amphibian-reptile transitions like hylonomus and paleothyris, reptile-bird transitions like dromeosaur, caudipteryx, and archaeopteryx, and reptile-mammal transitions like dimetrodon, procynosuchus, and thrinaxodon. we also have an extremely rich set of fossils demonstrating the ape-human transition, like australopithecus afarensis, australopithecus africanus, homo habilis, homo erectus, and cro-magnon man.

if these creatures were all unique designs, it is an extremely odd coincidence that they fit within our already specified nested hierarchy. a designer could have made a fish-bird transitional, for example. but we only have transitionals that fit within the nested hierarchy.

these are only very basic introductions to only five out of many mountains of evidence for evolution. no scientific explanation has ever come close to explaining these features of the world like evolution has. when we take into account the millions of other facts of biology, evolution still remains standing.

 

[3.14159]

And I got a lower rep from PI because I totally destroyed his post

No, you didn't. But you will if you keep acting like a ****.

I attempted to make a far longer and detailed post twice, but my computer likes to freeze on me, so I decided to make a brief post and deal with the issues as they arose.

Yes, 1 and 2 aren't evidence. I'm just trying to make you shut up before you start spouting crap at me.

As to natural selection: Firstly, more individuals are born than are able to survive. Logical, yes? Looking to nature, it is abundantly clear that not every individual survives to adulthood. Secondly, there is variation within populatins. There are black people, white people, tall people, short people, people born with missing limbs, etc. Not every individual is alike. Thirdly, as a rule, the 'better' (those more able to get food or other essentials, or hide from predators, or some other benefit) individuals are more likely to survive to adulthood. A tiger born with three legs can't run fast enough to hunt. It probably won't live very long. See: peppered moths etc. Now that natural selection's premise is logically laid out, let's see where it takes us. Firstly, the alleles for traits possessed by 'better' individuals will be passed down more often. Secondly, over time these traits will become dominant throughout the population at large. Why? Since the 'better' individuals are more likely to have offspring, the effect complies with every subsequent generation. Over time, the population's allele frequency shifts, as does its phenotype. Thus, evolution (see: Darwin's finches) If you disagree with any of that, feel free to say so.
Artificial selection is admittedly more proof of natural selection than anything. Looking at dogs, humans have caused several different breeds to arise in a few thousand years. Nature does the same thing in longer periods through natural selection.
Genetic mutations are one cause of genetic differences, thus different alleles, thus different phenotypes. Evidence for natural selection by causing variations within population.

Admittedly, my earlier post sucked. Please dont be an *** about it next time.

 

[Duke]

Ok Pi sorry to have offended you...

Ok I already believed that bird can change beak size with offspring and that we can make new breeds. I don't see any dogs becoming a different species. That's what evolution is all about. You have no proof that animals have changed species.

EDIT: A LOT of respect for PI for the comment. Sorry, I thought it was you, I was the one being immature. I wonder who it really was...

 

[snex]

that is false. see here and here.

furthermore, one could make the argument that dogs have speciated, since chihuauas and great danes cannot mate with each other naturally.

on top of that, there are ring species, which very clearly demonstrate speciation. for example, there are several populations of Ensatina salamanders in california where each population can mate with its adjacent populations, but the 2 populations at the ends of the ring cannot mate with each other.

 

[blazedaces]

Ok Pi sorry to have offended you...

Ok I already believed that bird can change beak size with offspring and that we can make new breeds. I don't see any dogs becoming a different species. That's what evolution is all about. You have no proof that animals have changed species.

EDIT: A LOT of respect for PI for the comment. Sorry, I thought it was you, I was the one being immature. I wonder who it really was...

Here's an article showing speciation happening right in front of our eyes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm

Also, great job replying to my posts, you're mature enough to use sarcastic comments in your "debate" and I use that word lightly, but I haven't seen you actually admit you're wrong about any of these topics once, not even when proof is shoved in your face.

 

[Deleted member]

I didn't bother reading the last 25 pages or so.. but I'll share my opinion anyways.

I am a creationist. I believe that a God designed the universe, and to create a balanced order of all things, He created science. Now, to clarify.. I am a Roman Catholic, but I used to not believe in God. (I'm 16) until thinking about it for a while. I thought to myself, "Wow, look at the world around me." To evolutionists, take a look around you. Look how **** complex the world is. The perfection of a rose, the fact that we can create another human being just by combining a sperm and an egg together, etc etc...and you guys are trying to tell me this is all just dumb luck and a mathematical improbability? Don't get me wrong, I believe in evolution, it's just I believe God intended for evolution to happen.
Just to note, for those of you who were thinking, "how could this guy believe in Adam and Eve and evolution at the same time? Don't they contradict themselves?"
Well, who knows. Adam and Eve could have been monkeys for all I know. I think the Bible is taken too literally, and most of it is just a metaphor involving humans to be easily understood and easier to relate.
To sum it all up, science proves there was / is / always will be / always has been a God, IMO anyway.

 

[Duke]

I didn't bother reading the last 25 pages or so.. but I'll share my opinion anyways.

I am a creationist. I believe that a God designed the universe, and to create a balanced order of all things, He created science. Now, to clarify.. I am a Roman Catholic, but I used to not believe in God. (I'm 16) until thinking about it for a while. I thought to myself, "Wow, look at the world around me." To evolutionists, take a look around you. Look how **** complex the world is. The perfection of a rose, the fact that we can create another human being just by combining a sperm and an egg together, etc etc...and you guys are trying to tell me this is all just dumb luck and a mathematical improbability? Don't get me wrong, I believe in evolution, it's just I believe God intended for evolution to happen.
Just to note, for those of you who were thinking, "how could this guy believe in Adam and Eve and evolution at the same time? Don't they contradict themselves?"
Well, who knows. Adam and Eve could have been monkeys for all I know. I think the Bible is taken too literally, and most of it is just a metaphor involving humans to be easily understood and easier to relate.
To sum it all up, science proves there was / is / always will be / always has been a God, IMO anyway.

I completely agree that evolution has been implimented in the creation of humans. It has been said that God lived one day to earth's 10000 years. So evolution could have taken place in the time it took to create the earth.

 

[snex]

just because you dont understand things does not mean they are evidence for a god. if you had any real evidence for a god, youd be offering it, not making pathetic appeals to emotion.

 

[Deleted member]

Snex, who are you responding to?

 

[snex]

you. your post is nothing more than an argument from emotion. it is devoid of any real evidence for god.

evidence for god would defy natural laws. for example, i am thinking of a number. by all known natural laws, you could not possibly know that number. if god exists, he can know the number because he can violate natural laws and he can tell you the number. so if you tell me the number, that would be evidence for god.

by the way, if you attribute roses, human sex, etc to god, then to whom do you attribute the HIV virus, the sphex wasp, the candiru fish, and the cuckoo bird? what kind of god would create these creatures?

 

[Deleted member]

Everything here is devoid of evidence for everything. You cannot prove there is a God, and on the same hand you cannot prove that God created science, and you cannot prove science is the creator. So we have to post on our emotions / faith. I would attribute the HIV virus to God, only to help keep a natural balance to the world. Or who knows, maybe He created it to punish those who took part in homosexual sex. (I do not believe this) I do not have any reason why God would create those creatures. And your number analogy, I don't get. Could you explain that? How can God defy a natural law? What natural law says that I can't guess your number? The law of improbability?


Edit: I just don't get sometimes why people refuse to believe there is no God. It is a win/win situation. I mean, seriously, do you really have anything to lose by believing in God? No! But you have everything to gain. If / when you die, and you didn't believe in God and saw fellow spirits ascending to heaven, I'm pretty sure you'd be kicking yourself in the nuts right about then. I am not a devout Christian, so I do not go to church, nor do I pray, but I acknowledge God is our creator, and respect him, and I will go to heaven if it exists. Is that really so hard to do? :S BTW, this is not just for the Christian god.

 

[snex]

you admitted that you did not even read the thread, and then you have the arrogance to declare that nothing in it is evidence for anything? psh. you arent even worth replying to anymore. read the whole thread and then come back.

 

[Deleted member]

You're giving up, why? Respond to my questions, because I'm not the one being arrogant here. You basically just said, "Scum, I'm better than you." There is absolutely no evidence for the arguements I stated. Maybe you're thinking of something else. Let me rephrase this: There is no absolute evidence that will out and out end the discussions because everyone realizes that the evidence is true and therefore 100% proves the subject. Of course there is some evidence, but I can interpret it a different way. Some evolutionists see the human body as years of evolution, and the perfection of it as evolution, while I can see that the intricacy of it proves there was an intelligent design behind it. Your move.

 

[snex]

i didnt give up. i just refuse to repeat myself over and over again because people like you are too lazy to read the whole thread before shooting their mouths off. either read the whole thread or go away.

 

[Deleted member]

I shouldn't have to read the entire thread to know what is going on / share my opinion.
And you aren't repeating yourself, because I asked you questions that I doubt others asked which were relevant to your number analogy.

 

[snex]

there are infinitely many numbers. therefore, the probability of you guessing my number by chance is 0. therefore, if you do get my number, only god could have told it to you.

I just don't get sometimes why people refuse to believe there is no God. It is a win/win situation. I mean, seriously, do you really have anything to lose by believing in God? No! But you have everything to gain. If / when you die, and you didn't believe in God and saw fellow spirits ascending to heaven, I'm pretty sure you'd be kicking yourself in the nuts right about then. I am not a devout Christian, so I do not go to church, nor do I pray, but I acknowledge God is our creator, and respect him, and I will go to heaven if it exists. Is that really so hard to do? :S BTW, this is not just for the Christian god.

pascals wager is fatally flawed on multiple levels.

first of all, it assumes that belief is a conscious choice. it is not. belief is based on evidence. if the evidence is just not there, one cannot force oneself to believe.

secondly, it makes assumptions about god that are unwarranted. what if you pick the wrong god? you still go to hell. what if god punishes believers and rewards atheists? then it pays you to NOT believe. what if god doesnt care, and there is no afterlife?

there are millions of situations you are ignoring because you have a particular idea of what you want god to be, but you have no justification for your assumptions.

 

[Deleted member]

Belief is a conscious choice, because of this debate right here. I cannot prove God exists, but I have evidence that might suggest He does. That's where faith comes in. Now, I have not picked the "wrong God" because in my religion it states that you will have a peaceful afterlife (if that exists) by believing God and believing that Jesus is the saviour. (Clearly stated in the Bible) That is my particular religion, so I've made my conscious choice. Again, I can interpret what you see as evolution evidence as evidence that God exists. So I do have justification.

 

[snex]

uh no. your bible is nothing more than an ancient book of fairy tales. it has no more legitimacy than any other "holy" book. to declare that you have picked the right god because the bible says so, and you believe the bible does not mean anything. once again, you are neglecting evidence in favor of your own personal opinion.

your opinion does not make truth. just because you believe in the bible does not mean it is correct. even professional apologists know that pascal's wager is an invalid argument, so why do you insist on using it even after ive demonstrated to you why it is wrong?

 

[Eor]

Belief is a conscious choice,

Bullshit. I want to believe in God, or hell ANY god, but I can't. Why? Becuase I am not able to shut my eyes and scream, "its not true, its not true!". I want there to be a god, but I can't believe in it. If you dont believe me, look back in this thread that you didn't read. I posted in here trying to argue for god, but I failed, like most people.

 

[blazedaces]

I will not repeat previously brought up evidence, but I will answer your question a little bit.

Recently in class we had an online assignment to speak about ID (intelligent design) and a lot of presentations were shown. The unrequired reading just happened to be evidence against intelligent design. I will post my response to its exactness not including the part that had to deal with the book requiring reading during the past 2 weeks (The Botany of Desire). Just so everyone knows, not a single post besides my own quoted another person, nor contributed actual evidence, but basically said the exact same thing that you did Delorted, made a vague speculation not trying to look at the whole picture (all were for ID). Fortunetly I go to a college where people actually are a bit more self-educating and nobody tried to disprove evolution (yet) or so that I've heard.

I most agree with Hume’s response to the design argument, that “the cosmos much more closely resembled a living organism than a machine.” Just as living organisms such as ourselves have useless parts like the appendix and tonsils the cosmos has many useless parts like a whole lot of empty space, lots of rocks floating around, planets that can not sustain life, etc. An engine or a watch does not contain superfluous, useless parts, so the comparison to a machine is very vague if even there to begin with.

Why would our designer (God) create a cosmos of such randomness as if to impart upon the universe the image that there would not be a creator or that the creator is inefficient in his design? Again, this is somewhat like Hume’s argument that “natural evils or apparently suboptimal designs might suggest e.g., an amateur designer or a committee of designers.”

As a response to the first discussion we had to view with Daniel Dennett he brings up a common misconception in the ideal core of the theory of Intelligent Design. He explains that if one is to find a watch on the floor one would assume someone put it together, not that it came about by chance. Unfortunately, watch pieces coming together don’t at all compare to the process of natural selection or in general, evolution. Through the process of natural selection the copying and altering of DNA happens all the time all over the place, so first of all you would need to have a bag of watch pieces shaking at all times. On top of this, through natural selection, those more fit for survival will continue to survive, so if ever pieces come together correctly in a watch, they would tend to stay that way. Keeping this in mind, after a few millennia alone it would not be farfetched to imagine the watch be put together by the time you check the bag.

Like explained, a lot more then 99% of mutations are more harmful then they are helpful, and usually those species just die out immediately. Why would God, being infallible, have a design that needed to weed out fallacies by probability? Why would God shroud evolution with the image of being random if he were designing the process?

 

[McFox]

I shouldn't have to read the entire thread to know what is going on / share my opinion.
And you aren't repeating yourself, because I asked you questions that I doubt others asked which were relevant to your number analogy.

Besides the numbers analogy, everything that you're talking about has been posted in this thread before. Therefor, you can simply read the thread and find out everything snex would have to say with you, without snex having to repeat everything he's said.

 

[Deleted member]

I'll try to keep this as short as possible (as difficult that may be)
Snex: I do not closely follow the Bible at all (in the sense that you should believe everything it says). I believe that you shouldn't take it literally and most of it is a vague guideline on how to be a good person and a metaphor. I'm not saying I chose the right religion, I was born into Christianity, so I was forced to go to Sunday School and church and communion and what not. Very early in life I learned that if you are a good person and follow Christian ideals that you would go to heaven. I have not picked a "right God", but my religion says that I will go to heaven, so I might as well believe it. (I mean, again, what do I have to lose? This is no "wager", as I am not betting anything) I have read your arguement on how Pascal's wager is wrong, and I still don't see how it is.

Eorlingas, I'm sorry, but I don't understand that post at ALL. Please elaborate.

And Blazing, I found a lot of your post interesting.

It disheartens me greatly to see many people who can not possibly accept that there might be a Creator. Again, I do not practice many things religious - but don't you guys think you're being a bit to cynical / skeptical?

 

[Lanowen]

I'll try to keep this as short as possible (as difficult that may be)
Snex: I do not closely follow the Bible at all (in the sense that you should believe everything it says). I believe that you shouldn't take it literally and most of it is a vague guideline on how to be a good person and a metaphor. I'm not saying I chose the right religion, I was born into Christianity, so I was forced to go to Sunday School and church and communion and what not. Very early in life I learned that if you are a good person and follow Christian ideals that you would go to heaven. I have not picked a "right God", but my religion says that I will go to heaven, so I might as well believe it. (I mean, again, what do I have to lose? This is no "wager", as I am not betting anything) I have read your arguement on how Pascal's wager is wrong, and I still don't see how it is.

Eorlingas, I'm sorry, but I don't understand that post at ALL. Please elaborate.

And Blazing, I found a lot of your post interesting.

It disheartens me greatly to see many people who can not possibly accept that there might be a Creator. Again, I do not practice many things religious - but don't you guys think you're being a bit to cynical / skeptical?

May I in the kindest way possible remind you that this is a debate on the creation of the universe and it's beings, and not what it is better to believe in or about being a good person.

Pascal's wager is not a valid argument in the existance of "God", but rather for the belief of "God".

'He' is also not a proper noun in present day English. [previous post(s)]

 

[snex]

there are other religions out there that say you can only get into heaven by following their rules, and if you dont, you go to hell. therefore, if you picked the wrong religion, you go to hell. it does not matter what you believe. when you stand before allah, he will not accept "well i was born into christianity" as an excuse.

 

[Duke]

Can someone please explain this about evolution. If something evolves through natural selection and such to become better then what is better. How can we be sure the us humans are the final stage of evolution and we are the perfections of evolutions. What I am trying to say; why would a single celled organism have any reason to evolve into something 'better'. Better is a matter of opinion and I am pretty sure nature doesn't have an opinion.

 

[McFox]

You're misunderstanding. It has nothing to do with what is "better," it has to do with survivability. Organisms retain the traits that allow them to survive the best. Cheetahs evolved to be really fast because their prey evolved to be fast. Lions don't have to be as fast as cheetahs because they hunt in groups.

Likewise, because humans lack any true natural weapons, our brains grew and we were able to make our own weapons. The smarter humans survived the longest, and as such, had kids with big brains, etc.

snex can explain it better than I can, but that's the jist of it.

Also, no one has ever said that humans are the "final stage in evolution." That's completely opposite of what evolution really is. Our bodies will continue to evolve until we become extinct.

 

[Duke]

You're misunderstanding. It has nothing to do with what is "better," it has to do with survivability. Organisms retain the traits that allow them to survive the best. Cheetahs evolved to be really fast because their prey evolved to be fast. Lions don't have to be as fast as cheetahs because they hunt in groups.

Likewise, because humans lack any true natural weapons, our brains grew and we were able to make our own weapons. The smarter humans survived the longest, and as such, had kids with big brains, etc.

snex can explain it better than I can, but that's the jist of it.

Also, no one has ever said that humans are the "final stage in evolution." That's completely opposite of what evolution really is. Our bodies will continue to evolve until we become extinct.

Ok. When did nucleuses become living organisms?

 

[JFox]

You have to think of it more like this. Evolution is totally random, evolution does not make anything "better". Evolution just basically diversifies the species, and if by random chance a species is born with a trait that is helpful to their survival/reproduction, than it is more likely that this evolved specie will outlive/out reproduce the un-evolved specie who does not have the beneficial trait.

So natural selection does not mean that evolution selects anything. If anything, I guess death is the one doing the selecting.

Edit: where did the nucleus being a living organism come from? Nothing in that post mentioned nuclei...

 

[Eor]

Eorlingas, I'm sorry, but I don't understand that post at ALL. Please elaborate.

Basically, it said this:

I am an Atheist that wants to believe in God. I was born a Christian, and began to doubt around three years ago. Recently, I just lost all faith. I want to believe in God (or any religion at all), but I just truly can’t. I still go to Church occasionally, pray occasionally, and celebrate Christian Holidays, but do not believe in God. I want to, but cant. That basically summed it up better then what I originally posted. It dealt with you saying Faith was a conscious choice.

 

[HMWii22]

...my religion says that I will go to heaven, so I might as well believe it. (I mean, again, what do I have to lose?...)

This arguement always strikes me as being a little bit bizarre. I've heard it from many other Christians before. It sounds to me like you are thinking of your religion in the same way one would think of insurance - sure, you probably won't have an accident, but just in case, you better cover all your bases! To me that sounds like a precaution being taken, not a heartfelt faith or belief. I don't agree with basing my perspective on such a vast, important concept on a rationale like this. But that's just how I feel, I guess.

More pertinent to the debate about whether or not there is a "Creator", I simply find it difficult to believe that there is some kind of omnipotent force or entity which is responsible for the fabrication and control of our world. I have never witnessed anything that I would consider "supernatural", in the sense that it cannot be explained through logical, scientific thinking. I'll admit that I am not even scientific enough to know what kind of scientist I would have to be before I would understand the concept of the big bang theory, but I do know that it involves some kind of explosion. Now, an explosion... that's something I've seen before. I've seen explosions happen. I have never seen a magical man who lives in the sky (forgive my crude description), or any evidence thereof.

I also would like to think that if there is some kind of creator,"it" obviously does not want us to understand anything about "it", or else "it" would have told us "it"self. The only evidence of "it" having done so is anecdotal evidence, which is worth less to me than Bowser's down-throw on Game and Watch. So, it is my belief that we, as humans, know absolutely nothing about this "creator", assuming it exists (which, I will make clear, I do not think it does). The fact that we know so little indicates to me that the odds of the creator being identical to the one described in the Bible, or any other religious scripture, next to zero. It is therefore illogical and fruitless to attempt to live my life based on what a certain book tells me to do.

I hope that wasn't too confusing.

 

[Deleted member]

HMP22, don't see religion / going to heaven as a preemptive insurance plan for death, but rather, a perk

 

[HMWii22]

HMP22, don't see religion / going to heaven as a preemptive insurance plan for death, but rather, a perk

Once again, I don't see the humour. I find that something which affects people's lives as significantly as religion should be truely felt in the heart and believed in. You simply seem to be afraid to die.