Christians

[Wedesdo]

[short rant]

ATHEISM ALL THE WAY!!!!!

[/short rant]

ahem...

I don't believe in god because there is almost no evidence supporting the miracles and other divine events described in the bible, that the Roman Catholic Church impeded scientific knowledge for over 1000 years until the Renaissance, and that more and more evidence supporting evolution has been uncovered.

Thank you

 

[Semper Fi]

Yes UG, I fail to understand how people can suspend logic and reason to support their arguments.
Apparently you have nothing of substance to add to the discussion.

What was that comment Napalm?

<< There are no laws that I know of that are associated with the theory of evolution. >>
Just because you are unaware of them does not mean that they do not exist.

Do you know of any? This type of argument proves my point. The theory of evolution is as much of a religion as buddhism. And one that requires you to accept it on &quot;blind faith&quot; for there is no scientific evidence to support it. You are also repeating yourself.

<<<Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. >>>---Napalm381

Any fool can quote garbage. Show me the evidence.(Exact evidence)

<<<What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence. >>>

Napalm381, you have offered nothing but cut and pastes from a website that supports your religion, or is that your only source of information. A good scientist has more than one source.
Evolution does occur, but not the type of which darwinist believe.

<<<Examples? I am curious to know what sort of documented events you can show me for which some sort of divine intervention is the only explanation.>>>----Napalm381

I would like to change that somewhat. Examples? I am curious to know what sort of documented events you can show me for which some the theory of evolution is the only explanation.--ME
That ones for you to UG, enlighten us with your firm grasp of the biological sciences.

I chose not to believe in the theory of evolution(the one in your biology book Napalm381) because there is not enough proof to support it. The main driving force to your theory of evolution is chance and mutation. Chance has no power inherent to it and all mutations, well give me some positive ones that are documented.
|
|
|
\/

 

[UG]

On the issue of god being like the wind:

Yes, god is like the wind: it blows.



The wind is not an idea looking for popular consensus as proof it exists. If you are exposed to the wind you have no doubt it exists. That's not true of the idea of the existence of god(s).

 

[Semper Fi]

Wedesdo, question. Has the universe always been, self-created or created? Since you don't believe in God the it has to be either infinite or self-created. There is such a thing as entropy and the laws of thermodynamics, so science itself rules out always been. Self-created?
Logic would seem to rule that one out, but we can see by this thread that logic is a stranger here. Or is it all an illusion? And if it is then you cannot prove me wrong!

 

[UG]

Semper_Fi;

<...Apparently you have nothing of substance to add to the discussion...>

It obvious you're no judge of substance. It's either genetic and you have no choice, or it's voluntary and you made a conscious decision to accept early brain death in preference to an education.

 

[Napalm381]

A few quick replies while I do more important things...


<< Napalm381, you have offered nothing but cut and pastes from a website that supports your religion, >>

They have already taken the time to put together a lengthy, thorougly documented paper, which uses references that I most likely would not have been able to find. Why not take advantage of well written documents that support my argument?



<< . A good scientist has more than one source. >>

There are many, many references from numerous journals and the like cited in the documents I have offered.



<< If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. >>

The creationists here have offered no such statements.



<< Show me the evidence.(Exact evidence) >>

Please clarify what you wish to have evidence for. Microevolution? Macroevolution? Something else?



<< because there is not enough proof to support it. >>

I will ask: did you carefully read the documents I offered? They point to numerous documented examples of speciation. Those are not proof?

How do you explain the fact that genetic coding for codons is the same in virtually ever life-form examined? The coding is shared by everything from bacteria to humans. The exceptions to the near universality of the coding is in certain single-celled organisms and organelles in cells. This points to a divergence very early in the history of life. Please explain how the FACT that everything from bacteria to mammals shares the EXACT same genetic coding for mRNA codons.

I again quote talkorigins:
Q: &quot;The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.&quot;

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

You constantly insult my use of a biology textbook and other scientific references. Why do you object to using scientific sources to discuss a scientific subject? Is a biology textbook not a wise reference for biological concept? Furthermore, you have not offered one reference apart from a dictionary definition.

 

[~zonker~]

UG

If you are exposed to the wind you have no doubt it exists. That's not true of the idea of the existence of god(s).

I would hazard a guess that if God exposed Himself to you in a manner similar to Moses and the burning bush, you might be inclined to believe that there was a God, I may be wrong, however....

 

[LadyJessica]

Semper_Fi,

If there's not enough proof for evolution, there's even less proof for creationism.

 

[UG]

~zonker~;

If god exposed himself to me I'd feel compelled to have him arrested.

Being an Empiricist, a burning bush would not be proof enough as I can hypothesize many a possible means of accomplishing the event; now, a fireside chat in his company would go a long way.

 

[Wedesdo]

<< Wedesdo, question. Has the universe always been, self-created or created? Since you don't believe in God the it has to be either infinite or self-created. There is such a thing as entropy and the laws of thermodynamics, so science itself rules out always been. Self-created?
Logic would seem to rule that one out, but we can see by this thread that logic is a stranger here. Or is it all an illusion? And if it is then you cannot prove me wrong! >>



As taught in first year physics, the universe began with the big bang. The laws of physics (including thermodynamics) did not exist then.

 

[Napalm381]

A bit of clarification on Wedesdo's comment on the laws of physics:
For an extremely short time (the first 10^-43 of a second), the concepts of space and time and the laws of physics were not applicable. The entire mass of the universe was packed into a space roughly the size of a proton, and the temperature was ~10^32 kelvins. These extreme conditions were so different from what we consider &quot;reasonable&quot; conditions that normal laws of physics are broken.

Some more support for the big bang: Background cosmic radiation is not evenly distributed, which supports the fact that matter in the universe is not evenly distributed. Morover, the average level of this radiation , when it was measured in 1992, agreed with estimates based on theoretical models of the universe (Source: Fundamentals of Physics, Halliday, Resnick, and Walker).

 

[VisionsUCI]

Wow... I've missed a lot, and its only been half a day.

Well, regarding the comment about the earth being another 6 inches closer to the sun, I believe the argument was regarding its ORBIT. If the orbit was thrown off, then yah, the earth would burn up or freeze, one or the other depending on if the earth was nearer or further.

As for the wind analogy, I didn't mean for it to be such a big discussion. Like any analogy, it serves its purpose, but isn't completely identical to the thing in question, or else it wouldn't be an analogy, but a replica. God isn't like the wind in many, many ways. I just used it to show that people don't need to see everything to believe.

I just thought I would clarify a couple things. Good discussion!

 

[qacwac]

to Semper Fi: I know that God has to exist because of the contrary of the otherwise. (this is what I beleive you are saying) Could you explain entropy and the laws of thermodynamics. I have always thought it impossible that the universe has always existed (plus the Bible says so) but I do not have scientific evidence, just common sense.

Thanks

 

[Napalm381]

<< Could you explain entropy and the laws of thermodynamics >>


Head on down to the nearest college bookstore and pick up a physical chemistry or thermodynamics textbook.

 

[DRGrim]

Woohoo! Go Napalm381! Teach em what really happened! You are now my official idol

 

[Napalm381]

Heh, er, uh, I wouldn't go so far as to call myself an idol. Merely an individual who is fairly well informed on evolution and the common creationist claims against it.

 

[LadyJessica]

In that case, you're nothing more than an iconoclast.

 

[Napalm381]

<< you're nothing more than an iconoclast. >>

I think I like being an iconoclast better.

 

What were things like before that first 10^-43 second? I guess I'll learn that in the next few months with Halliday, Resnick, and Walker, but I'm just curious.

 

[rahvin]

<<We need documentation, and you don't. Hmmmm. Not that I'm saying he's right, but what supports your experiment? And, if it true, what does it prove?>>

Nothing, it's an example of how bringing meaningless factiods with no basis into an arguement serves no purpose. BTW, I could probably find that study, it was a PBS special on psycology, it's an interesting little tidbit nevertheless.

<<I see many people discount my paste, but no one has disproven any of it.>>

What's to disprove? The whole lot is a complete load of rubbish. Any rudementary studing of reliable source material would discount it completely, I see little need for me to waste my time.

<<Do you know of any? This type of argument proves my point. The theory of evolution is as much of a religion as buddhism. And one that requires you to accept it on &quot;blind faith&quot; for there is no scientific evidence to support it. You are also repeating yourself.>>

Not only are you ignorant of science and evolution you are ignorant of Buddhism. Buddhism isn't a relgion, some people refer to it as a religion but it has no gods and in fact allows other religious beliefs. Read up on Budda, you might realize that he was a pretty smart dude.

<<Napalm381, you have offered nothing but cut and pastes from a website that supports your religion, or is that your only source of information. A good scientist has more than one source.
Evolution does occur, but not the type of which darwinist believe.>>

Define evolution. Define science. Define theory. Define Darwinist.

<<Since you don't believe in God the it has to be either infinite or self-created. There is such a thing as entropy and the laws of thermodynamics, so science itself rules out always been.>>

Modern physics relates that matter can spontaneously exist. In fact at the sub-atomic level of particals muons and other particals routinely appear (along with an anti-muon) and spontaneously cease to exist moments later. Based on this it is possible that an entire universe can spring into existence (with a corresponding anti-universe) and exist till it decides to no longer exist.

Stephen Hawking has theorized that blackholes because of their structure will result in a baby universe existing within them. In fact, our universe could be inside the blackhole of another universe.

Lots of theories, science excludes nothing as you purport.

 

[NOendINsight]

who created god?

 

[Napalm381]

<< What were things like before that first 10^-43 second? >>

It was a singularity, in which space and time did not exist.

Since I assume some will question the validity of the big bang theory, I point to a web site fromCambridge (if you don't think Cambridge is a credible source for information, I would like to know what is )

The standard cosmology is the most reliably elucidated epoch spanning the epoch from about one hundredth of a second after the Big Bang through to the present day. The standard model for the evolution of the Universe in this epoch have faced many stringent observational tests.

Particle cosmology builds a picture of the universe prior to this at temperature regimes which still lie within known physics. For example, high energy particle acclerators at CERN and Fermilab allow us to test physical models for processes which would occur only 0.00000000001 seconds after the Big Bang. This area of cosmology is more speculative, as it involves at least some extrapolation, and often faces intractable calculational difficulties. Many cosmologists argue that reasonable extrapolations can be made to times as early as a grand unification phase transition.

Quantum cosmology considers questions about the origin of the Universe itself. This endeavours to describe quantum processes at the earliest times that we can conceive of a classical space-time, that is, the Planck epoch at 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds. Given that we as yet do not have a fully self-consistent theory of quantum gravity, this area of cosmology is more speculative.

 

[~zonker~]

This whle creation vs. evolution debate is just a waste of typing IMO...

I did just read of possible evidence of Noah's flood however, which kind of surprosed me. This story is on CNN and . &quot;the expedition was supported by the National Geographic Society, the U.S. Navy's Office of Naval Research, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the J.M. Kaplan Fund.&quot; Story here.....

Earlier, the same team of scientists found what they said appear
to be remnants of an ancient site where humans might have lived,
along the submerged coastline west of Sinop, Turkey. The find
included an apparent man-made building foundation built when
the area was dry land, nearly 8,000 years ago, before a
cataclysmic flood.

National Geographic Article

Off the coast of northern Turkey, 311 feet (95 meters)
below the Black Sea, explorer Robert Ballard has
discovered remains of an ancient structure that was
apparently flooded in a deluge of biblical proportions.
The find may lend credence to a theory that a Black
Sea flood gave rise to the Noah story and other flood
legends.

 

[dmbsuperfan]

I have a question for all the atheists, agnostics, etc:

Do all of you completely disregard Jesus' existence as a human-being? Or do you all think he was lying and not really the the son of some god? Thanks

 

[Napalm381]

I do not disagree with the claim that Jesus actually lived. I do disagre with th claim that he was the &quot;son of god&quot; or whatever you wish to call it.