Atheism!

[BigBen]

Speciation=Adaption=Evolution.

So you've just agreed with me there. Why were you arguing against evolution in the first place?

I was only arguing that one thing can not completely change into another thing. If it did we would not have a link between the two and their fore no proof.

Is your core problem with this argument the origins of man? Because what you just said can also be used to relate humans to primates and back through the eons to fish. A fish never instantly evolved into a rat or a man but through many billions of years of adaption, speciation and evolution they are related.

So what were the first species on earth that things began to evolve from, and where did these things come from? I say intelligent design and a creator, all of which adaption is a part of a plan that is being constantly carried out, and laws of nature and how things act react are all part of.

I have to go to the gym and then to work so I won't be able to reply to this thread for a long while. I eagerly await your reply and would really appreciate it if you could link me to something on the concept of proving Jesus was who he was through maths.

I have been looking for that since your first post asking about it, i wasn't ignoring you sorry if you thought so, and i cant find the web page i was reading off of. I think serb posted the link, but it showed the entire logical thought process that was used to come to the conclusion.

 

[El Freako]

*Just about to walk out the door*

Cheers mate! You're not too bad...

...for a christian .

 

[Ironslave]

The thing I hate about these threads is it always goes off on shit like "but we must have come from something! There's no way we all came from monkeys! Therefore, it was god who did it, because the bible says so."

Stick to the issues at hand. There are infinite things which we do not know, and we will NEVER get to the point where science is able to explain everything.

Ben, why do you keep refering to physics on the moon? That's just nonsense, of course the laws of physics apply on the moon, it's just that the force of gravity is different (which, again, according to a law of physics, is equal to GMm/r^2. Therefore, further we are from the center of the earth, the larger r^2 is, and the less gravity there is.

There may be zero proof (or very little, who knows), that a fish turned into a crab. But there's even less proof that an old white guy in the sky created everything.

Although I just scrolled up and noticed the DNA posts.... did you know that the differences in DNA between us and monkeys is like 5%! (you didn't, im just pointing that out). Even the most tiny, minuscule change in DNA makes a HUGE difference.

Regardless, here's one to put in your your "no proof of a common ancestor between different species" and smoke it.

 

[BigBen]

The thing I hate about these threads is it always goes off on shit like "but we must have come from something! There's no way we all came from monkeys! Therefore, it was god who did it, because the bible says so."

All assumptions about what i think on your part and all are wrong. I believe in an intelligent design, i also believe that Gods nature is the only logical answer anyone has came up with as to where we came from that makes any kind of sense, from a philosophical point of view, that is backed by literature, that is dated and tested for authenticity of documentation.

Stick to the issues at hand. There are infinite things which we do not know, and we will NEVER get to the point where science is able to explain everything.

Yes i agree.

Ben, why do you keep refering to physics on the moon? That's just nonsense, of course the laws of physics apply on the moon, it's just that the force of gravity is different (which, again, according to a law of physics, is equal to GMm/r^2. Therefore, further we are from the center of the earth, the larger r^2 is, and the less gravity there is.

i was not referring to the moon. Physics can be taken to places where they do not work as they should. A nasa scientist was the one who discovered the finding i watched an entire documentary on it. This gentleman's religion came into point bc they asked him why was he searching for something like that and he said he was challenging the laws of physics bc he wanted to see if for his own peace of mind they were universally true. The man did not believe in God, but he did find that physics were flawed and the laws were not universal. Something is left unknown that is effecting the laws so they do not apply, he does not know what it is and neither does anyone else.

There may be zero proof (or very little, who knows), that a fish turned into a crab. But there's even less proof that an old white guy in the sky created everything.

You can logically come to the conclusion that God must exist if you understand thought and apply theology to it.

Although I just scrolled up and noticed the DNA posts.... did you know that the differences in DNA between us and monkeys is like 5%! (you didn't, im just pointing that out). Even the most tiny, minuscule change in DNA makes a HUGE difference.

I did actually know that IS.

Regardless, here's one to put in your your "no proof of a common ancestor between different species" and smoke it.

http://www.livescience.com/health/070412_rhesus_monkeys.html

I am going to stop replying if your going to let our emotion go uncontrolled. Back on topic what is your point of posting the link, i dont think you have slapped me in the face with any information i find shocking or revealing at all. What if people did come from apes what did apes come from? What originated the entire line of adaption. What caused the human brain to adapt the way it did? How come every single monkey on earth didnt adpat the way this one monkey did? Their are hundreds of questions left unanswered. When they do come up with answers it will only glorify the entire plan of creation, and how amazing God my creator truley is, bc you can not disprove him and i can use thought and theology to prove him i still have not been presented with enough material to disbelieve in God.

 

[Ironslave]

What if people did come from apes what did apes come from? What originated the entire line of adaption. What caused the human brain to adapt the way it did? How come every single monkey on earth didnt adpat the way this one monkey did? Their are hundreds of questions left unanswered. When they do come up with answers it will only glorify the entire plan of creation, and how amazing God my creator truley is, bc you can not disprove him and i can use thought and theology to prove him i still have not been presented with enough material to disbelieve in God.[/COLOR]

You are absolutely right, there are hundreds of questions left unanswered....

However, once many of them are answered, I assure you the answer will not be "a magical old man in the sky who controls everything did it!! "

You cannot prove god exists, it's utterly 100% impossible. Show me a picture of him, get an interview, have him start posting on Mecca, anything.

This is getting just absurd. How do you know if there is a creator, that it isn't the flying spaghetti monster?

 

[BigBen]

You are absolutely right, there are hundreds of questions left unanswered....

However, once many of them are answered, I assure you the answer will not be "a magical old man in the sky who controls everything did it!! "

You cannot prove god exists, it's utterly 100% impossible. Show me a picture of him, get an interview, have him start posting on Mecca, anything.

This is getting just absurd. How do you know if there is a creator, that it isn't the flying spaghetti monster?

I can prove God exists in theory just as science uses theory to observe and gather knowledge. I can come to a conclusion that their must be a creator if: one i use theology which came about by logical thought about the nature of God, and two you accept the fact that thoughts are things, thoughts are vibrations.

On a side note philosophy is a very important concept to acknowledge in these discussions. Science is backed by a logical philosophy, as is what i am going to tell you. The ideal of science is left uncehecked by how things are discovered in science though. Science is the discovery of knowledge through observation. That statement of what science is, is is left untested by what science uses to observe knowledge.


Ok God exists as a thought vibration in my mind. Thought vibrations are real things they can be measured. For someone who believes in God it would be better if God existed in their reality. It is God's nature that nothing is better than Him, so logically if God definatelty exists as a thought vibration He then must exist in my reality because that is the thing that would be greater than God existing as a thought He must exist as a reality because it is God's nature to be the most absolute good.

 

[Ironslave]

Thought vibrations?

I'm going to go and vibrate my mind into creating the reality that Maria Sharapova and I are an item..... until this thought vibration comes true (you know, as in, there's proof of it), I will only be posting humorous images/videos in religion threads.

 

[thicknasty]

No one will ever be able to prove God's existence. If God was small enough for us to figure Him out and prove his existence then He wouldn't be much a God. All of the atheists I’ve spoken with tend to think completely with their head and not all with their heart (as stupid as that may sound). They come to their conclusions through analysis only, but God can't be analyzed, He's too big. If God created us with the ability to sit down and analytically prove His existence then everybody would just mindlessly fallow and obey Him like robots because He's been proven and nobody wants to go to hell. That's not the kind of commitment God wants from his us.
And I can't look at our own existence and think that we've come from anything other than intelligent design. If you look at Mount Rushmore and think to yourself whether or not the heads on that mountain could have been created by just natural causes and weathering over billions of years, you'd probably think "of course not, something that complex and detailed could not have happened from just coincidental natural causes. Obviously their was a creator, an intelligent designer behind the carving and sculpting of the faces on the mountain." So if you don't think that those faces on Mount Rushmore could have appeared from anything other way than by an intelligent designer, then how can you believe that the actual human-beings where those faces originated from be the result of anything other than intelligent design? When looking at the sand walking down the beach the difference in what is man made and nature made is obvious. You can see dunes and ripples in the sand that are can obviously be the result of natural causes, i.e. the wind blowing and waves crashing and rolling on to shore. However, when you walk up upon a sand castle with intricate designs of doors, windows and a draw bridge you know that there was obviously a creator behind it, there's no way something like that can be a result of the wind blowing and waves crashing, even over billions and billions of years. When attempting to think of how we all came to be without the existence of an intelligent design, it doesn't seem any different than someone carrying bag of sugar, flour, butter and vanilla extract, throwing it of the ground and it turning itself into a cake over millions of years.

 

[Skeptic]

Speciation is really adaption is it not. Their is always still something in common with what the species originally came from, if their was not we would not be able to link anything to anything else with DNA. What is different is the adaption or evolution within the species that had to come about for the animal to survive in its new habitat. The core of what the animal came from is the same, dogs and cats must have some DNA features that are the same if they both evolved from the same original thing the same original thing must be common in both creatures DNA. What makes them different is the adaption that the creature had to make to survive in its climate, this is where the DNA would differ so we name it something else, but the core of what makes that animal what it is is still related to what it came from in regards to its DNA.

Evolution from one species to another(ie fish to rat or something) must then be the complete change of that core into something entirely new where as in the old is completely unrelated to the new.

Adaption is a big part of evolution.

Evolution is the adaption of species to the change in conditions.

 

[BigBen]

Thought vibrations?

Thought vibration as in brain waves, what can be measured by machines when we think, when our brain is active. But basically science is a self governing entity that does not try to falsify any of its tehories it comes up wit new paradigms and then only does experimentation to try and prove the paradigm not try to disprove it. For the record Pysics not work when applied to quantum mechanics.

COnfronted with the contradictions observed with realtion to physics and subatomic pehnomena einstein wrote: "All of my attempts to adapt the theorhetical foundation of physics to this knowledge failed completely."

For the modern mind it is science that presents us with the most realistic and and reliable world picture, even if that picture is limited to "techinical" knowledge of the natural occuring pehnomena in nature. Science basically accepts the newest idea that it is presented with that sovles the problems they have as their incorrect hypothesis are proved wrong by their own scientifc theory. The philosophy behind science is to gathering knowldge through observation. All scientific knowledge is based on fundemental paradigms or conceptual models that allow researches to isolate data, elaborate theories, and solve problems. The problem with that is that the scientists do not get into the ideal of self-criticism by trying to falsify exsisting theories. Instead sciens comes up with teh latest paradigmand then gathers facts in light f that theory, performs experiments on its basisand tries to articulae its structure, attempting to clarify the paradigms problems. Far from subjecting the paradigm itself to testing normal science(existing science) was just reinterpreted in light f the new tehory as to not have it be contradicted,, but rather have old science support the paradigm or just ignore the old data all together.

To an extent never consciencly recognized by scientists, the nature of scientific practice makes its governing model(scientific theory) self-validating. The model(paradigm) acts as a lens through which every observation is filtered. Teachers and texts and scientific teaching sustains the current model and ratifies its credibility dispite the flaws in the paradigm of the philosphy behind scientific theory itself, something that self governs is not subject to its own errors.

When gradulal accumulation of conflicting information finally produces a paradigm crisis a new synthesis eenually wins scientific favor, the process of how that happens is far from rational. The new paradigm depends greatly on the customs established in the scientific community, aestetic, psychological, and sociolgical factors on the presence of contemporary root metaphors and popular analogies and on unpredictable imaginative leaps. Rival paradigms are rarely comparable. They are selectively based on different models of interpretation, which explains different sets of data. Each paradigm creates its own oraganized field having specific properties that connot be derived from the summary of the principle points that paradigm follows. So including in fact that scientists that are working on different models seem to be living in different worlds.

The history of science is not one of linear rational progress moving toward even more accurate and complete knowledge of an objective truth, but is one of radical shifts of vision in which a multitude of nonrational unguided factors play crucial roles. Science is now looked at as a relative matter, its only important for what can be proved, by trying to disprove the paradigm a scientist offers.

So it is like i discussed with you earlier science is only good for what it can prove, but these proofs or laws must come about not by manifesting a pradigm then shaping science to fit it but from maifesting a paradigm and trying to disprove it by the likes of laws we have come to discover in the same manner.

 

[tim290280]

BigBen after reading your posts in response to my critique of yours I only have this to say: You have no idea of what you are talking about!!

I will qualify this with you have no idea about science. I can't claim to be an expert, as I only have spent a dozen or so years in the field (not including high school which isn't real science, and is clearly the level that you are on), but cutting and pasting answers from Wikipedia shows how little you understand science. I also studied religion for several years, so don't think I'm not at least familiar with the topic.

I would also like to point out that evolution of new species is occurring everywhere in the insect and microbial world. Hell there are entire new species of plants coming into existence as we speak. Naivity does not change the way the world works.

 

[BigBen]

Tim read the post directly above yours of mine. I would appreciate it if you wouldnt insult me too. I did not copy and pasta ANYTHING so dont insult me by saying i did. Read the entire discussion befor eyou post im not going to retype things. The evolution discussion has happened you missed the culmination.

 

[tim290280]

Sorry Ben, the cut and paste wasn't yours, the text wasn't in quotes as I scanned down

My criticism about your understanding of science still stands though. Evolution is occurring and if you had more knowledge on the subject you would be aware of this fact. I appreciate that at least you are trying to be rational, my argument is not with individuals but with the perpetuation of ignorance.

 

[El Freako]

So onto the next argument... :methman:

No one will ever be able to prove God's existence. If God was small enough for us to figure Him out and prove his existence then He wouldn't be much a God. All of the atheists I’ve spoken with tend to think completely with their head and not all with their heart (as stupid as that may sound). They come to their conclusions through analysis only, but God can't be analyzed, He's too big. If God created us with the ability to sit down and analytically prove His existence then everybody would just mindlessly fallow and obey Him like robots because He's been proven and nobody wants to go to hell. That's not the kind of commitment God wants from his us.
And I can't look at our own existence and think that we've come from anything other than intelligent design. If you look at Mount Rushmore and think to yourself whether or not the heads on that mountain could have been created by just natural causes and weathering over billions of years, you'd probably think "of course not, something that complex and detailed could not have happened from just coincidental natural causes. Obviously their was a creator, an intelligent designer behind the carving and sculpting of the faces on the mountain." So if you don't think that those faces on Mount Rushmore could have appeared from anything other way than by an intelligent designer, then how can you believe that the actual human-beings where those faces originated from be the result of anything other than intelligent design? When looking at the sand walking down the beach the difference in what is man made and nature made is obvious. You can see dunes and ripples in the sand that are can obviously be the result of natural causes, i.e. the wind blowing and waves crashing and rolling on to shore. However, when you walk up upon a sand castle with intricate designs of doors, windows and a draw bridge you know that there was obviously a creator behind it, there's no way something like that can be a result of the wind blowing and waves crashing, even over billions and billions of years. When attempting to think of how we all came to be without the existence of an intelligent design, it doesn't seem any different than someone carrying bag of sugar, flour, butter and vanilla extract, throwing it of the ground and it turning itself into a cake over millions of years.

I honestly think that the "intelligent design" concept is one of the most conceited ideas I've ever heard. Its like everybody looking at themselves and going "oh, I'm so beautiful and wonderful that I couldn't possibly be an accident" yet the sad truth is, even your conception is random. Of the millions of sperm released only one will make it to the egg, and the surety that any of the sperm will reach the egg isn't even 100%. Our faces are random, sure we all generally carry some sort of resemblance to our parents but even then you've still can't be sure what the similarities will be. Hence if our faces are random then the faces on Mount Rushmore are merely copies of the random results of genetics. We only think our human form is so beautiful because it is "our form", it's natural conceit. The truth is our faces are the random results of millions of years of random mutations, our eyes are in the front because animals with eyes more to the front have better vision, a good survival trait. Our cranium dramatically enlarged because animals with bigger brains are smarter and therefore more likely to survive. The animals born with these fortunate mutations were more likely to survive than others and hence they passed on these mutations in their genes to their offspring and so on. This isn't design, its adaption to our environment, slow random adaption. A lot of things can happen in a million years.

Also, If "intelligent design" were true then how would you account for genetic birth defects in babies. Children born with hideous disfigurements while there parents are perfectly normal looking.

Further, take a good look at nature, there are many examples of intricate and beautiful geographical phenomena which has been created over thousands of years by the elements.

 

[Napol3onator]

why do i have to have a friggin' title?

So onto the next argument... :methman:



I honestly think that the "intelligent design" concept is one of the most conceited ideas I've ever heard. Its like everybody looking at themselves and going "oh, I'm so beautiful and wonderful that I couldn't possibly be an accident" yet the sad truth is, even your conception is random. Of the millions of sperm released only one will make it to the egg, and the surety that any of the sperm will reach the egg isn't even 100%. Our faces are random, sure we all generally carry some sort of resemblance to our parents but even then you've still can't be sure what the similarities will be. Hence if our faces are random then the faces on Mount Rushmore are merely copies of the random results of genetics. We only think our human form is so beautiful because it is "our form", it's natural conceit. The truth is our faces are the random results of millions of years of random mutations, our eyes are in the front because animals with eyes more to the front have better vision, a good survival trait. Our cranium dramatically enlarged because animals with bigger brains are smarter and therefore more likely to survive. The animals born with these fortunate mutations were more likely to survive than others and hence they passed on these mutations in their genes to their offspring and so on. This isn't design, its adaption to our environment, slow random adaption. A lot of things can happen in a million years.

Also, If "intelligent design" were true then how would you account for genetic birth defects in babies. Children born with hideous disfigurements while there parents are perfectly normal looking.

Further, take a good look at nature, there are many examples of intricate and beautiful geographical phenomena which has been created over thousands of years by the elements.

Well, if that's what you believe, cool..I agree with you on one thing. We are animals:
I am a sheep and Jesus is my sheppard.bingo.

 

[Skeptic]

^ you definately are a sheep.

 

[El Freako]

Well, if that's what you believe, cool..I agree with you on one thing. We are animals:
I am a sheep and Jesus is my sheppard.bingo.

*Groan*

 

[alex]

@ sheep and the shepard
thats why romans threw christians to the lions!They were saying the same bs

 

[Hypocrisy86]

ookay

 

[BigBen]

Sorry Ben, the cut and paste wasn't yours, the text wasn't in quotes as I scanned down

My criticism about your understanding of science still stands though. Evolution is occurring and if you had more knowledge on the subject you would be aware of this fact. I appreciate that at least you are trying to be rational, my argument is not with individuals but with the perpetuation of ignorance.

I never argued against evolution as adaption withing species, leading to new species, i said one thing could never turn completely into another. The core of waht the species is must remain the same, their has to be some common DNA to lead it to the beginning otherwise their would be no link. El freako agreed with my views actually, and he is evolution all the way. I think you misunderstood me at some point.