God.

[Grulps]

Re: God.

Evolution is just a theory, IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN.

Evolution is a simple conclusion based on simple facts. If you deny evolution, you deny one or more of these facts.

And by the way, your posts are too long for me to see what you are really getting at. The length makes it look more like extreme bull**** instead of critical thinking.

[kommisar[os]]

Re: God.

many questions to be asked about god. If he created man to his image, that would mean he'd have a belly button. That means he came from somewhere =o

[MixMasterLar]

Re: God.

Evolution is a simple conclusion based on simple facts. If you deny evolution, you deny one or more of these facts.

One can argue how "simple" Evolution is.

However, it's not all based on facts that have been proven, as both Guido and I pointed out. I havent denied any facts believing in a God.

many questions to be asked about god. If he created man to his image, that would mean he'd have a belly button. That means he came from somewhere =o

Ah, the post that made me post

I could go on and on about little things like this, but to put it short: Adam and Eve probably didnt even have "belly buttons". That feature of humans is there just to help out with reproduction.

Oh and that post really makes no sense.

[Dragula219]

Re: God.

This thread is most amusing. I personally believe there is a God, do not believe in evolution, but in creation. What amuses me is that while we can't positively prove their is a God, "science" can't prove their isn't. One thing science can't and won't explain is the supernatural. Science has always been to observe, test , theorize, and then hopefully prove. I say hopefully because in the end a theory is just an educated guess based on what we believe will happen. Yes, their are proved laws of nature that science has found, but their are also many unexplainable things which science is still guessing. Now for those who say their isn't any such thing as a God i would have to say prove it and good luck cause you will need it. But to those who believe there is a God it is not up to you to prove there is or really its not necessary for you to prove it that s the freedom of faith.

Hey, what if I said I believe in a invisible flying spaghetti monster and it is my god. Sure you can't prove it wrong, but that in no way means it exists. The problem with your argument is that science follows logic, and if there is no evidence that something exists the most logical explanation is that it doesn't exist. Of course the method doesn't say not being able to prove something is infallible proof that it doesn't exist, but that it is it is much more logical until some form of proof is found that it does.

Now before I go I will say that, while not necessarily having a place in this thread, evolution is as much a system of faith as any religion. Evolution is just a theory, IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. Yet because scientist refuse to except a God, they have to constantly change their hypothesis to fit new evidence. Most amazingly the same evidence most scientist use to further their theory's of evolution, even scientist can't agree with each other on how it was accomplished, is used by those who believe in a creation existence. I use the word scientist loosely because it is misleading anyone who uses science is a scientist and both sides use science but everyone will get the picture. If someone would like to really discuss this issue I think a new thread should be opened an if so i would be pleased to respond.

NOTHING is infallibly proven! The point is there is MUCH more evidence saying that evolution happened than creationism. (Carbon dating, Obvious similarities is bone structure, ect.) Evlutionism isn't a system of faith at all, it follows logic. And the argument about scientists changing hypothesis is utterly ridiculous. We obviously do not know everything about the universe and new things are discovered, of course new information could change hypothesis. That is the way science works.

[Reach]

Re: God.

I am well aware of the scientific method

Apparently not, since;

The best part of this is that science is as much to do with beliefs as anything else

Belief and science (in practice) are seperate. You must leave your beliefs at the door when participating in scientific method or you will practice bad science.

If I believe there is no God and I see some evidence I will make the assumption that God had nothing to do with it, however the inverse is true as well

The problem here is there cannot be any evidence to support or not a supernatural God. Guido already mentioned this. Quite frankly any scientist that thinks they've found physical 'evidence' against or for a God is a bad scientist and is making biased assumptions.

Take carbon-14 dating, I know its been proven unreliable

I'd like to see some of this 'proof', since this isn't true.

we take a rock see how much carbon-14 it has then use the half life of the element to determine age. But what if a piece broke off sometime in its history using this method we would say its younger than it is, or what if for some reason it was move into an area with more carbon-14 we would age it greater. Without being able to observe from start to finish we are bound to make mistakes.

No offense to you personally, but I find it interesting that creationists *always* fail to understand the very things they're arguing against. -.-

1. Carbon 14 isn't used to date rocks. It is used to date things like bones, cloth, planets, and things that are not very old.
2. When an organism dies it stops intaking carbon. The carbon 12 in an organism does not decay and carbon 14 does. Carbon 12 and 14 are always present in the same amount in an organism at the time of death. Therefore...
3. It does not matter if the organism loses a piece of itself. We look at the ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 14.
4. Carbon 14 has a decay constant...meaning it does not change. There is no inherent error in this whatsoever. The only possible error is human error, and we have methods in place for avoiding these (there are a few other types of errors but we know about them and can then check and correct for them).

Now heres my real pet peeve. I don't have a problem with saying that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, but stating it as fact with no supporting evidence is not very scientific

Uh...the age of the earth is rounded because it's an approximate calculation...but:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

I'll edit this with more later XD

Instead we teach the theory of Evolution as fact from primary to high school with the use of wording whether deliberate or accidental. Now when you ask a child how old is the earth they will say 4.6 billion years old and they believe it is fact because they have been told it over and over and over without out refute. Whats the phrase " if you say a lie long enough you'll begin to believe it."

A theory is a scientific model filled with facts. We use the facts to construct a model that describes everything, and therefore a theory is the pinnacle of scientific achievement. Evolution only changes in the way it describes things. The very foundations of evolution are written in stone as pure facts. Suggesting to children that the age of the earth *might not* be 4.5 billion years old, or that organisms *might not* evolve is more of a lie than telling them these things are facts.

The other example I like has to do with how DNA works. DNA is the building blocks for all cell of living creatures. Thats the possibility of millions of combinations to achieve say a human instead of a bee. Lets say we dismantle a 747 we take it apart, everything down to the insulation on the wires. We take all those pieces stuff them into a bag and give it a good shake. Just how long and how many shakes would it take to get a flight ready 747 out of that bag. It won't happen, the fact is it takes a being separate from the plane to make it work.

A classic (and very ignorant) creationist argument.

A 747 jet is built, and observed as being built by human beings. It is made of out man made compounds that are nonliving, and then pieced together by humans.

DNA is a nucleic acid...a living, organic substance that mutates and changes without any divine intervention. For example, when you reproduce and have a child, the DNA is copied but DNA is not a perfect copier...and therefore there are changes and mutations in the DNA with only natural interactions between organic molecules.

And what on earth does SHAKING A BAG have to do with evolution? Good lord that made me laugh out loud. If you have any similar, amazingly asinine and erroneous analogies to make, PM them to me (though don't post them, please).


oh, and back to kilga

Except the religious don't inherently denounce evolution.

If you're going to try to counter his statement, you should pick something the religious don't agree with.

I was specifically talking about creationists. 'religious people' don't inherently fit what devonian was talking about, but to classify as a creationist you have to not believe in evolution. The whole intelligent design movement was religion in disguise. It was created by creationists to try and get creation into the school system by making it sound like science. It has nothing to do with moderately religious individuals such as yourself.

[devonin]

Re: God.

]I was specifically talking about creationists. 'religious people' don't inherently fit what devonin was talking about, but to classify as a creationist you have to not believe in evolution. The whole intelligent design movement was religion in disguise. It was created by creationists to try and get creation into the school system by making it sound like science. It has nothing to do with moderately religious individuals such as yourself.

Intelligent Design != Religion in disguise
Intelligent Design != Disbelief in Evolution
Intelligent Design != Universally Religious

I'm not religious, I do believe in the theory of evolution, and I am a deist, which is a system that supports the concept of intelligent design. Deism is not an especially theistic system, and comes nowhere -near- to being a religion.

Not all religious people denounce evolution. Evolution is perfectly able to coexist with creationism, provided your creationism is rational, scientific and not based solely around teachings of a religion.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: God.

At that point though your creationism is a redundant and unnecessary component. Occam's Razor to the rescue!

[Tails99]

Re: God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI

Here you go.

[Coda375]

Re: God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI

Here you go.

And the site that comes from.

http://www.godisimaginary.com/

Their videos use such basic logic to disprove the existence of god, that sometimes it seems a little silly. The proofs are also basic.

[devonin]

Re: God.

At that point though your creationism is a redundant and unnecessary component. Occam's Razor to the rescue!

You can believe that some outside force was required to start the system in motion, and I don't feel that to be redundant and unnecessary, because to me it is far simpler that such constants as needed to be exactly what they were in order for anything we know to exist were made that way, rather than were random out of the nigh infinite number of possible combinations.

Edit: its funny how people will look at the "747 in a bag" argument and say "No way it could happen randomly, the only reasonable explanation is that an outside force acted on the parts and built it" but when you extend the analogy to the entire universe, the same people say "No way, it was totally a bag that got shaken" and nobody seems keen to carry on the conclusion they once said was logical, that an outside force acted on the parts and built it.

[hayatewillown]

Re: God.

Who knows, maybe we are all just people inside of an atom sized universe created by some mad scientist to test our intelligence, now I like that theory.

Whether or not he does exist or not, I believe some outer force influenced the big bang thus creating life.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: God.

You can believe that some outside force was required to start the system in motion, and I don't feel that to be redundant and unnecessary, because to me it is far simpler that such constants as needed to be exactly what they were in order for anything we know to exist were made that way, rather than were random out of the nigh infinite number of possible combinations.

Is causality really random? I don't think it is. I also think anyone who would choose a convenient, unfalsifiable explanation over even the most indirect instrumentalists attitude has little position to claim science as a fundamental aspect of their world view.

Edit: its funny how people will look at the "747 in a bag" argument and say "No way it could happen randomly, the only reasonable explanation is that an outside force acted on the parts and built it" but when you extend the analogy to the entire universe, the same people say "No way, it was totally a bag that got shaken" and nobody seems keen to carry on the conclusion they once said was logical, that an outside force acted on the parts and built it.

If anyone does that it's a shame; the analogy doesn't work on either side. A scientist and professor gave a lecture on public access the other day, where she pointed out quite succinctly the problem with any inference of design. Basically, someone had constructed a flow chart which stated:

1. Observe unexplained pattern
2. Is it complex? What order of complexity is it? Low, medium, or high?

If high, does it show signs of order? If yes, it was designed.

The problem is that the flow chart can't be made functional without another option. To demonstrate, think about the a pair of individuals who come across fairy rings in the 14th century. Are the rings unexplained and complex? Of course, they showed up overnight! Are they ordered? Yes, they are in a circle. And as 14th century people we know quite clearly what causes fairy rings and why they exist.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: God.

Everyone interested in this topic should read: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

It discusses clearly how both the thoughts of God and Science are flawed, so inevitably, no one is right. Science is thought, just as much as God is. We cannot see the laws of Science, we cannot see the law of gravity. That is the same as not being able to see a divine being, but who is to say it does not exist? Gravity will be there whether we believe it is or not. As God may be too.

This is a short response. Sorry for any errors.

There's a big difference between the force of gravity (something that never fails to work) and God (some invisible thing floating out in space with with the power to do EVERYTHING and ANYTHING possible, but chooses to spend its time watching people masturbate and sending homosexuals to hell).

[ShadowBlink]

Re: God.

Those are all wise words, everyone, but what if.. You're your own God. You yourself makes your own life, and your actions decide your future. Not some outerworldly force.
Think about that.

[windsurfer-sp]

Re: God.

God wont exist until you step towards him in faith. Faith is not something that can be truely understood through purely logical thought.

In my opinon this thread is just a load of Religion vs Science and God cant be truely found in eithier.