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

[snex]

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

when you use it as an argument to convert to your brand of belief, then thats exactly what it is, an insurance plan.

the problem, of course, is that there are thousands of other religions out there trying to sell their own insurance plans that are incompatible with your own.

and not a single one of them can prove that it will pay out.

 

[Duke]

when you use it as an argument to convert to your brand of belief, then thats exactly what it is, an insurance plan.

the problem, of course, is that there are thousands of other religions out there trying to sell their own insurance plans that are incompatible with your own.

and not a single one of them can prove that it will pay out.

Yeah you can prove if a church's 'insurance', I guess we are calling it, will work. Just have somone kill you. Just like in science you have to peform experiments to prove something wrong or right. So if you really want to find out if there is a life after death just die.

 

[Lanowen]

Yeah you can prove if a church's 'insurance', I guess we are calling it, will work. Just have somone kill you. Just like in science you have to peform experiments to prove something wrong or right. So if you really want to find out if there is a life after death just die.

Go for it then.

Anyway, not just directed at Duke, but this is getting off topic. I don't really want to come here to read this. This is about the existance or inexistance of "God", not the belief of "God".

 

[snex]

Yeah you can prove if a church's 'insurance', I guess we are calling it, will work. Just have somone kill you. Just like in science you have to peform experiments to prove something wrong or right. So if you really want to find out if there is a life after death just die.

well, since you are the one making the claim that the afterlife exists, it is your burden to die and somehow convey that information to me after you are dead.

i wish you luck in your scientific endeavor to prove the afterlife.

 

[Duke]

well, since you are the one making the claim that the afterlife exists, it is your burden to die and somehow convey that information to me after you are dead.

i wish you luck in your scientific endeavor to prove the afterlife.

I already know that God exist. If you want to know if he does you can die. But I don't want this to turn into a discussion on who is the one that is going to die. But do you agree that if you died that it would asnwer the question to you weather God exist or not. You are obviously just debating this to debate this topic and you have no real feelings involved in this. It is a matter of personally knowing that God exist. Why would I feel any obigation or burden to 'convey' the info to you when I die.

 

[snex]

I already know that God exist. If you want to know if he does you can die.

no, you do not know. you have not performed the experiment. you only believe that he exists, but if you want anybody else to believe you, you need to successfully die and continue to exist, and demonstrate to others.

 

[Deleted member]

Liam, (HMP22), I'm not afraid to die, I actually do truely believe there is a creator (God) and I believe in the Christian ideals.

 

[Duke]

no, you do not know. you have not performed the experiment. you only believe that he exists, but if you want anybody else to believe you, you need to successfully die and continue to exist, and demonstrate to others.

No there you are wrong. I KNOW that God exist. And if I want someone else to believe me I will not do it by using scientific proof or by having them or me die. That is only one way to find out if God exist. Haha, how are you so ignorant to not see that if you die that you WILL find out if God exist or not. It doesn't matter if I have done this experiment or not; I can still conclude that it will tell any if God exist or not. If you see an after life and such then God exist if you see nothing then I guess he doesn't. That is like saying:
you: if you lower the temperature of something to absolute zero then all movement will stop.
me: pfft you haven't done this experiment so you cannot say this is true
you: well why don't you just lower your body temp to below zero and then tell me afterwards if it works...

yeah ok snex good job.

 

[McFox]

Actually, it's completely different, because a temperature approaching absolute zero has been scientifically recorded and tests have been done with extremely low temperatures. On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence of God. It is your BELIEF, not your KNOWLEDGE, those being the key words.

In any case, this is getting way off point. How about trying to get this thread back on-topic please?

 

[Duke]

That's not what dictionary.com says 'know' is

know Audio pronunciation of "know" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n)
v. knew, (n, ny) known, (nn) know·ing, knows
v. tr.

1. To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.
2. To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won't fail.
3. To have a practical understanding of, as through experience; be skilled in: knows how to cook.
4. To have fixed in the mind: knows her Latin verbs.
5. To have experience of: “a black stubble that had known no razor” (William Faulkner).
6.
1. To perceive as familiar; recognize: I know that face.
2. To be acquainted with: He doesn't know his neighbors.
7. To be able to distinguish; recognize as distinct: knows right from wrong.
8. To discern the character or nature of: knew him for a liar.

By all means of the definition, I know that God exist. By the way all that evidence you posted snex does not prove evolution to be true.

 

[McFox]

By the way all that evidence you posted snex does not prove evolution to be true.

You've read this entire topic?

Care to come up with anything that supports anything besides evolution? I'd love to hear it.

 

[Duke]

You've read this entire topic?

Care to come up with anything that supports anything besides evolution? I'd love to hear it.

I am sure you would but, nope, I am merely disproving evolution.

 

[Eor]

I am sure you would but, nope, I am merely disproving evolution.

Facts generally help with that.

 

[McFox]

Well, I mean, I could say I'm disproving gravity...

But if I don't mention how, it's kind of a lie.

 

[Duke]

I wasn't trying to disprove it with that post.

 

[Lanowen]

I wasn't trying to disprove it with that post.

Trying and doing are two different words.

One may try a lot, but not actually get anywhere. >_>

 

[McFox]

Duke, instead of spamming the topic with "I am disproving evolution," why don't you actually post something worth reading? It won't be anything disproving evolution, but at least it would be on topic.

 

[Deleted member]

Duke, I thought you agreed with me. God intended for evolution to happen, and I believe that. Don't you?

 

[Duke]

Duke, I thought you agreed with me. God intended for evolution to happen, and I believe that. Don't you?

Well of course, just look how we have vacines for viruses from a decade ago. And they don't work now that is because the virus has evolved and mutated. I however do not believe, as stated by Darwin, that we can from monkeys or if you go back far enough nucleus.

 

[snex]

I however do not believe, as stated by Darwin, that we can from monkeys or if you go back far enough nucleus.

your beliefs are irrelevant. only evidence matters. i gave you plenty of evidence which you have not addressed.

 

[Lanowen]

Duke, I thought you agreed with me. God intended for evolution to happen, and I believe that. Don't you?

Umm...you can't belive in both. The bible says, "God" created the Earth, the Heavens, and Man. Nothing about evolution.

This is either "God", or evolution, not both.

This would be kinda pointless saying, 'Yeah, "God" and evolution are right', so then you should agree with everything.

1 = 1, not 2, nor both. I am saying this, because I am sure you all heard of that nifty process that can make 1 seem like 1 actually = 2, when you cannot acutally divide by 0, so therefore make the process invalid. This topic applies somewhat to this process, because if there is someone who doesn't know of the trick, will obviously say that 1 = 1 through logic, then say that 1 also equals 2 becaue of the process showed to them. Just because you don't understand how the Bible or evolution works, it doesn't justify the means to say that "God" intended for evolution to happen.

If he did, there would be many more flaws in your religion and bible than now. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the Earth according to your religion approxamately 6,000 years old? That is not enough time for evolution to take place to create humans, hence in your religion "God" was said to have created man.

What I wonder is, why does carbon dating and other methods put artifacts and other objects to be considerably older than the Earth and Universe assuming that "God" created them both about 6,000 years ago.

It is all interesting to me...

 

[Eor]

Umm...you can't belive in both. The bible says, "God" created the Earth, the Heavens, and Man. Nothing about evolution.

This is either "God", or evolution, not both.

This would be kinda pointless saying, 'Yeah, "God" and evolution are right', so then you should agree with everything.

1 = 1, not 2, nor both. I am saying this, because I am sure you all heard of that nifty process that can make 1 seem like 1 actually = 2, when you cannot acutally divide by 0, so therefore make the process invalid. This topic applies somewhat to this process, because if there is someone who doesn't know of the trick, will obviously say that 1 = 1 through logic, then say that 1 also equals 2 becaue of the process showed to them. Just because you don't understand how the Bible or evolution works, it doesn't justify the means to say that "God" intended for evolution to happen.

If he did, there would be many more flaws in your religion and bible than now. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the Earth according to your religion approxamately 6,000 years old? That is not enough time for evolution to take place to create humans, hence in your religion "God" was said to have created man.

What I wonder is, why does carbon dating and other methods put artifacts and other objects to be considerably older than the Earth and Universe assuming that "God" created them both about 6,000 years ago.

It is all interesting to me...

Actually, they could just claim that since the Bible is nothing but what Church leaders picked and choose for political reasons, plus the many edits, that the bible is irrelevant in belief in God.

At least, that was what I told myself before I became Atheist.

 

[pokemonmaster01]

I however do not believe, as stated by Darwin, that we can from monkeys or if you go back far enough nucleus.

Firstly, Darwin never said we "came from monkeys." As for the nucleus, do you know anything about Biology? YOU were a single cell at one point in your development.

 

[blazedaces]

Well of course, just look how we have vacines for viruses from a decade ago. And they don't work now that is because the virus has evolved and mutated. I however do not believe, as stated by Darwin, that we can from monkeys or if you go back far enough nucleus.

It's apes duke, and the plural of nucleus is nuclei or perhaps you meant to write it grammatically correct by saying "a" nucleus, even so you already said monkeys so it would be have to be grammatically consistent and be either both plural or both singular. If you're going to insult something try not to look like an idiot doing so.

 

[snex]

there is no reason that a god couldnt have created the universe in such a way that life would form naturally and then evolve. people that claim otherwise (no matter what side of the debate they are on) are setting up a false dichotomy.

 

[Deleted member]

I tend to not take the Bible literally.

 

[typh]

I don't see how anyone with an ounce of sense could disagree with natural selection, which IS evolution. If anyone can prove that natural selection is flawed, I might change my views.

Here's just a funny little thing I've been looking at:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

#14, 16, 32, 53, 58, and 105 jump out at me right now.

 

[TheCatPhysician]

You have to keep in mind that there are two types of evolution: Micro, and macro. I agree with you that not many would would believe natural selection doesn't exist. But only micro evolution has been proven. Micro evolution is evolving within a species, and macro evolution is evolving from one species to another. Macro evolution has not been proven yet.

So natural selection explains how micro evolution works, which has been proven, but that doesn't mean macro evolution is possible.

 

[snex]

You have to keep in mind that there are two types of evolution: Micro, and macro. I agree with you that not many would would believe natural selection doesn't exist. But only micro evolution has been proven. Micro evolution is evolving within a species, and macro evolution is evolving from one species to another. Macro evolution has not been proven yet.

So natural selection explains how micro evolution works, which has been proven, but that doesn't mean macro evolution is possible.

stop repeating falsehoods. your incorrect assertions have already been dealt with in this very thread.

sheesh, do you people even bother to read before posting?

 

[TheCatPhysician]

If I am making incorrect assertions, does that mean marco-evolution has been proven? Please show me a source, as this is news to me.

I did read a bit about micro vs. macro evolution in this thread somewhere around 9 or 10 pages, but macro evolution was not proven there.

I will admit that I haven't read the entire thread yet, but please take a closer look at the post I was replying to:

I don't see how anyone with an ounce of sense could disagree with natural selection, which IS evolution.

Another way of stating this is: If you don't believe in evolution, you don't believe in natural selection because they are the same thing.

I wanted to reply to this to show this guy that you do not need to fully agree with the theory of evolution if you believe in natural selection.

 

[snex]

http://smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=1243479&postcount=452

and there is no quantifiable difference between "micro" and "macro." they only refer to the ability to interbreed.

by the way, nobody has ever seen pluto orbit the sun, and nobody ever will. so why do you believe it?

 

[McFox]

I couldn't find a site with reliable references, but isn't it true that bears, cats, and dogs all stemmed from a common ancestor?

 

[snex]

www.tolweb.org has the current phylogentic tree as far as we know it.

 

[HMWii22]

This arguement always goes on for ages and never leads anywhere, because Christians can argue with very little that isn't simply circular reasoning, i.e. "Of course the Bible is true, the Bible says it is!" The best arguement I've heard, though I still don't think it's very good, is that "if you just threw all the parts of a wristwatch randomly into a box and shook the box for millions of years, would you eventually make a wristwatch?"

No, probably not, but I really don't think this is a fair analogy. A wristwatch is not a living creature. It's the actions of living creatures, changing their lifestyles and habitats, which lead to their evolution. Evolution is not caused by being shaken in a box.

 

[rounder_nk]

The underlying theme here is that everyone should have empathy for their enemy and also that there are as many truths as there are people in the world.... personally i'm atheistic and scientific in my reasoning behind this idea.... creationism which cloaks itself as "intelligent design" now adays really just attempts to poke holes in the idea of Evolution and yet over the years.... the only people that backed up creationism scientifically (ID) have now compromised their ideas from "evolution didn't happen" to minor details like "macro vs micro evolution" and how they believe evolution can only be a slow process rather than a spontaneous scattered one at times.... all creationism does is knock back the scientific community to maintain faith in a religion.... which in itself shouldn't be coinciding with the scientific community due to lack of evidence and in some cases (school and religion) separation of church and state.... but going back to my first statement about there are as many truths as there are people in the world.... ideas held by individuals should be taken no further than discussed in a debate.... when one idea goes to far as to try and implement itself through force then it becomes a problem....

also as HMP said.... using god in an argument causes very circular reasoning.... with the "because god made it that way" stock answer.... recent cases such as the dover trial and kansas school board have caused uproar and eventually settled in reverting back to evolution.... some organizations such as the FSM (flying spaghetti monster) have been made for satire of creationism.... things like pulling two and two unrelated topics together in a graph to prove something happened and such.... this debate was epitomized in the Dayton Scopes trial where John scopes was wrongly convicted of teaching evolution in order to raise income in this small tenesee town.... (it was the first trial covered by the media for a fun fact) and in this trial.... Clarence Darrow put William Jennings Bryan on the stand and made this 3 time president nominee look like a fool by asking him simple questions such as "do you believe the earth was created in six days?" and so on....
i would like to meet the other side in the middle and make my point more objective but scientific evidence is as objective as it can get....

 

[TheCatPhysician]

This arguement always goes on for ages and never leads anywhere, because Christians can argue with very little that isn't simply circular reasoning, i.e. "Of course the Bible is true, the Bible says it is!" The best arguement I've heard, though I still don't think it's very good, is that "if you just threw all the parts of a wristwatch randomly into a box and shook the box for millions of years, would you eventually make a wristwatch?"

No, probably not, but I really don't think this is a fair analogy. A wristwatch is not a living creature. It's the actions of living creatures, changing their lifestyles and habitats, which lead to their evolution. Evolution is not caused by being shaken in a box.

Uhh, in this analogy I think they are referring to abiogenesis as the explanation for the origin of life. Taken from Flukism.org:

Life owes its existence to a cosmic-chemical mess which organised itself unintelligently, and randomly, to transform inanimate lifeless matter into intelligent life. Intelligent life arose from unintelligent causation and through years of stochastic conditioning life developed into jaw dropping beauty, complexity, and diversity, by means of natural selection and random mutation - unintelligent, goalless, and purposeless - Darwinism. I refer to this notion as Flukism; the belief in unintelligent and arbitrary causation.

This arguement always goes on for ages and never leads anywhere, because Christians can argue with very little that isn't simply circular reasoning, i.e. "Of course the Bible is true, the Bible says it is!"

Okay, wow. That's the best argument you've ever heard? That's ridiculous, I've never heard anyone argue that. You should check some of these out:

"Thermodynamics vs. Evolution"

Downloadable lectures from Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith

"How the Laws of Chemistry Disprove Evolution"

"Why Abiogenesis is Impossible"

http://smashboards.com/showpost.php...9&postcount=452

and there is no quantifiable difference between "micro" and "macro." they only refer to the ability to interbreed.

by the way, nobody has ever seen pluto orbit the sun, and nobody ever will. so why do you believe it?

So you're basically saying that I'm not allowed to even consider that macroevolution isn't possible. There is a difference between micro/macro evolution (whether it is quantifiable or not does not matter), and in case you didn't know, there is a big debate going on. See here and here.

I guess what I was arguing here in the first place was kind of different than what I said. The original person I was arguing with said that natural selection is proven, and natural selection is basically evolution. But that doesn't mean you have to believe that all life originated from one species, or that one species can evolve into another, just because you believe in natural selection. It was kind of a mistake to bring macro-evolution into this because what I am really getting at is you don't have to believe in abiogenesis as the explanation for the origin of life if you believe in natural selection.

by the way, nobody has ever seen pluto orbit the sun, and nobody ever will. so why do you believe it?

Because it would be physically impossible for it not to. According to how gravity works, it HAS to orbit, and if it didn't it would throw our whole solar system off. I see what you're getting at here, but this is different from the theory of Evolution because Evolution isn't the ONLY explanation for us being here. It is physically possible that we did not all originate from one species.

Now you see here, HMP22, this would be an example of an unfair analogy.

 

[snex]

"Thermodynamics vs. Evolution"

Downloadable lectures from Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith

"How the Laws of Chemistry Disprove Evolution"

"Why Abiogenesis is Impossible"

your websites are not backed by scientific data, despite the fact that they lie and say they are. i challenge you to read every single paper they reference in their articles and still maintain that those papers support those creationist articles.

creationists are notorious for distorting papers to make people think the data says something that it does not.

for example, http://evolutionisimpossible.com/chemistry.html tells us: "The absence, addition, or replacement of a single amino acid in the structure of a protein causes the protein to become a useless molecular heap. Every amino acid has to be in the right place and in the right order."

not only is this false, but you have to DELIBERATELY avoid correct information to make this claim. it is clearly a LIE.

So you're basically saying that I'm not allowed to even consider that macroevolution isn't possible. There is a difference between micro/macro evolution (whether it is quantifiable or not does not matter), and in case you didn't know, there is a big debate going on. See here and here.

no, there isnt a "big debate" going on. talkorigins is a FAQ for laypeople. it is not a scientific journal for peer reviewed articles. trueorigin is a pseudoscience website that uses dishonesty to argue its points.

there are ZERO creationist articles being published in scientific journals because creationists have no science to back them up.

I guess what I was arguing here in the first place was kind of different than what I said. The original person I was arguing with said that natural selection is proven, and natural selection is basically evolution. But that doesn't mean you have to believe that all life originated from one species, or that one species can evolve into another, just because you believe in natural selection. It was kind of a mistake to bring macro-evolution into this because what I am really getting at is you don't have to believe in abiogenesis as the explanation for the origin of life if you believe in natural selection.

abiogenesis is irrelevant to evolution. evolution exists no matter how the first replicator formed.

Because it would be physically impossible for it not to. According to how gravity works, it HAS to orbit, and if it didn't it would throw our whole solar system off. I see what you're getting at here, but this is different from the theory of Evolution because Evolution isn't the ONLY explanation for us being here. It is physically possible that we did not all originate from one species.

likewise, it is physically impossible for life not to have evolved. evolution IS the only explanation for us being here. nobody has ever proposed any other, and there is no scientific controversy over it. the only controversy is political.

the analogy fits, because you are arguing that a lack of direct observation means we cant be sure that it happened. but if you are sure that pluto orbits the sun, then you can be equally sure that life evolved.

by the way, you have not addressed my post about OBSERVED speciation and the evidence for common descent.

 

[Crimson King]

One thing we must keep in mind is that the Earth is older than the bible would claim. The Sumarians are proof of this as they began Civilization and recording dates as early as 8,000 BCE and began writing around 2,000. Abram, the father of Monotheism, WAS born around this area. (It was the cradle of civilization) In the land of Ur, several stories were relevent to the people, most popularly the Epic of Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh, written WELL before the bible paralleled nearly all the old testament stories. Coincidental, I guess.

 

[Eor]

I've heard several times that the Epic of Gilgamesh is the basis for most of the old testament writting, but can someone point out specific examples? I have only read a general outline of it, and didn't notice anything. Then again, I never read the old testament, and only heard about it from other people.

 

[Crimson King]

Basically, the Epic of Gilgamesh follows Gilgamesh who is looking for the secret to eternal life. He talks to two people who know the secret of life (Adam and Eve) and they tell him of a golden fruit (apple) but a sea serpent eats that. (Destroying eternal life)

They also have an exact flood story like Noah. Some others I can't remember off the top of my head.