Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

by ROB Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:00 pm

First topic message reminder :

Shirina wrote:
Humans are easily fooled.

Perhaps that’s why atheism is growing in spite of its illogicalness.

To prove that an omniscient being does not exist, one must be an omniscient being. Only God can prove God’s existence, and only God can prove God’s nonexistence; thus, if God’s nonexistence is ever proven, God will have proven God’s own nonexistence.

by Tosh Fri May 24, 2013 7:46 pm

Try sign language, even chimps can master that.

Debating with polyglide is simply beneath me.

by Shirina Sat May 25, 2013 6:41 am

Debating with polyglide is simply beneath me.

Worthy opponents are in short supply.

by polyglide Sat May 25, 2013 11:58 am

You miss the whole point.
There are people far worse off in every respect than yourself, many can and are being given help but many more thousands are not.

Why do you think we have all the problems?

Mankind has caused all the problems in one way or another.

Firstly by taking the least line of resistance and becoming a victim of temptation.

It is no harder to be a true Christian than an atheist or a drug addict, a pervert, or any manner of low life, the choice is there for everyone.

There are thousands of people in the world who have vertually nothing, you are fortunate to have been born in a place where you can obtain treatment and live a comfotable life.

If computers and all the other technology are so good why are the present circumstances in the wolrd so despairing.

There are the means without a computer to feed everyone in the world, why do we not do it?

There are means by which the illnesses caused by man could be treated throughout the world, why are they not?

by Shirina Sat May 25, 2013 2:40 pm

You miss the whole point.

No, I haven't. I simply do not subscribe to your belief that today is the worst time in human history to be alive. I asked you which historical era you would rather be living in, and you failed to answer. I think this is because you KNOW your own premise is untrue, but you have to cling to it anyway because you desperately want this to be the End Times.

There are people far worse off in every respect than yourself

I used myself as an example of why computers are beneficial, not to compare battle scars with the rest of the world.

Mankind has caused all the problems in one way or another.

Mankind does not create natural disasters, disease, and mortality. Ninety-nine percent (99%) of all species are extinct. The vast majority of those species went extinct long before Mankind entered the picture. That should be proof that your perception of Man's culpability is dead-bang wrong.

There are thousands of people in the world who have vertually nothing

Yes. But there are fewer people today with virtually nothing than there were a hundred years ago.

you are fortunate to have been born in a place where you can obtain treatment and live a comfotable life.

I was born into abject, Third World poverty in India.

If computers and all the other technology are so good why are the present circumstances in the wolrd so despairing.

Because you're one of those "the glass is half empty" kind of people.

There are the means without a computer to feed everyone in the world, why do we not do it?

There are means by which the illnesses caused by man could be treated throughout the world, why are they not?

Because, for many people, it's all about making money, not feeding the hungry or treating the sick.

by trevorw2539 Sat May 25, 2013 2:52 pm

polyglide wrote:You miss the whole point.
There are people far worse off in every respect than yourself, many can and are being given help but many more thousands are not.

Why do you think we have all the problems?

Mankind has caused all the problems in one way or another.

Firstly by taking the least line of resistance and becoming a victim of temptation.

It is no harder to be a true Christian than an atheist or a drug addict, a pervert, or any manner of low life, the choice is there for everyone.

There are thousands of people in the world who have vertually nothing, you are fortunate to have been born in a place where you can obtain treatment and live a comfotable life.

If computers and all the other technology are so good why are the present circumstances in the wolrd so despairing.

There are the means without a computer to feed everyone in the world, why do we not do it?

There are means by which the illnesses caused by man could be treated throughout the world, why are they not?

You are so blinded by your religious beliefs you cannot see. Man has certainly not 'caused all the problems one way or another'.
A great deal of hunger is caused by drought, floods, locusts, and other natural phenomena.

You remind me of an ancient Egyptian. When the Nile flood failed and food ran short they turned to Pharaoh - man/god. They believed it was his place to hold things in balance - between order and chaos. Obviously he had failed. As we know now the answer was a natural phenomenon. Not what they had done. The rains had failed 3000 miles away in Central Africa, and so water had not travelled to Egypt. It wasn't man's fault but nature's.

Computers and technology have little to do with 'man's despair' You are mixing human-ity with technology

Man is human - technology is a servant. Man is free to do as he wishes - technology does what it is commanded by man. One is animate - the other inanimate.

Science/MAN is striving to increase plant yields for the purpose of feeding the hungry.

Most illnesses and diseases are not caused by man, but by nature. Often in the way man is 'made'. Genetic disorders, many genetic cancers etc. This is the way nature has 'made' man.

Man certainly causes some of the problems we have, but that again is down to our makeup.

Perhaps you can explain to me that if God made man why did he exclude those whose skin was blemished or had other physical problems from serving with the Levi's in the Temple.

by Tosh Sun May 26, 2013 12:42 am

Good evening folks,

Texas, over the years you have always provided a brief answer to the question of how God made all the species, you simply don't know nor care.

As an intellectual I want to you consider how your mind works.

Maco-evolution is unproven despite evidence to the contrary, and God made each species then they evolved, with no evidence.

When I ask you why God would take billions of years to make all the species, to then watch them go extinct, to then make humans sometime in the last 2 million years or 200,000 years or 6,000 years, you answer don't know....as if it is nothing important.

You know God created every species but you don't think the evidence that contradicts this is important, God was making species as the dinosaurs were becoming extinct from a comet he sent to earth !!!!!

And he saved us to last, using a chimp DNA model.....gee thanks, the rest is theology, just utter horseshit to explain mythology.

I do not believe " don't know " is a scholarly response, its just simple evasion, you avoid evidence that clearly makes your theory suspect, God spending 2 billion years creating and destroying millions of species in an ordered and directed fashion. If he can make a freakin T-Rex 150 million years ago then he could have made us, and since little has changed in the last 20-30 million years why wait until a few hundred thousand years ago to make us?

The question is, why did god not make all the species and humans at the same time, why bother with millions of extinct species ?

So you reject evidence contrary to your no evidence belief, and you reject logic contrary to your illogical belief, that is how far you can bend your mind, not much precision in here my friend.

by Tosh Sun May 26, 2013 1:13 am

If God made us from dust then why bother with a flood, just turn people back to dust ??

Then he wouldn't need to save the animals, god wasn't thinking straight.

by polyglide Fri May 31, 2013 10:24 am

Man has caused every kind of problem on earth.

He has participated in every possible perversion, used and abused both animal and vegitable life, experimented with everything that God created and used and abused evrything he has come into contact with.

The natural disasters can be attributed to man allowing the Devil to have his way by submitting to temptation.

by polyglide Fri May 31, 2013 10:34 am

I have not mentioned the fact previously because I feel that everyone should know that man is the root of all our problems, self inflicted.

My youngest sister had a baby girl when she was 20 years old, the hospital unfortunately suffered from some virous which affected my sisters baby, the baby neeeded 24 hours a day attention.

For 42 years my sister attended the neeeds of her daughter along with her husband every day for 24 hours a day.

They did get certain assistant but not for her personal needs.

We did not talk about fault or that God had indeed given them a bad hand.

I would like to think they were aware that it was man's fault and nothing to do with God.

The daughter died in 2012 and two weeks later my sister also passed away.

So please do not try telling me about disabilities

by polyglide Fri May 31, 2013 10:39 am

Every week I run a club for the disabled, about 40 attend every week.

There are also several friends who come along to help.

I will give you two chances to pick who laugh the most, enjoy themselves the most and who are a joy to be with.

No, I will make it three chances.

by Tosh Fri May 31, 2013 1:33 pm

I will give you two chances to pick who laugh the most,

They are laughing at you just like me, you are a complete nutter.

by Tosh Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:45 pm

If God created each individual species then why did he create extinct species before he created humans ?

What is the point in creating a species you know will be extinct before you create humans ?

by Shirina Mon Jun 03, 2013 11:59 am

We did not talk about fault or that God had indeed given them a bad hand.

Why should they? Blaming a bad hand on a non-existent God is foolish.

I would like to think they were aware that it was man's fault and nothing to do with God.

This attitude is actually part of the problem, part of the REASON why the world is so harsh. This need to "blame" ... whether Man or God ... has wrecked our civil society. Hell, people won't even stop to give a dying man CPR these days for fear of a lawsuit. When something goes wrong, we always find someone to blame, whether its an illness or a natural disaster. It HAS to be someone's fault. That's when the witch hunts and scapegoating begins.

So please do not try telling me about disabilities

There are few (if any) disability that is worse than non-stop torturous pain, especially in a country like mine with no NHS and a lack of access to both good health care and medications. Oh yeah, I used to get my medication for free from Phizer (the company that makes it). I was even warming up to the pharmaceutical companies that I hated so much. Well, at least until I got a letter a few weeks ago telling me that Phizer was yanking my particular medication off the "free" list - no reason given. Now I'm completely, totally, unequivocably, irrevokably screwed. Now I'm back to hating those asshats - as they jerk the carpet out from under people like me, with REAL disabilities, so they can focus on more boner pills and testosterone enhancement drugs (so guys can have even more sex). I hear they're coming out with another drug for female sexual enhancement. Gee, thanks, Phizer you shit-for-brains.

I can tell you right now that no one having a rip-roaring good time at your disability group is in constant pain. And ... no matter how much you may be around people with disabilities, YOU don't have one, so you do NOT have the right to tell me what I can and cannot say about being disabled. Pain is a disability you CANNOT overcome. It's not like being blind or missing a limb or even being paralyzed. Hell Stephen Hawking has done more with his life as a quadraplegic than I will ever do with mine ... because Dr. Hawking isn't in PAIN.

by polyglide Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:33 pm

You assume too many things.

i have had severe pain for two reasons for many years, both eased by drugs.

Sciatica and arthuritis, the former periodically and the other permanantly.

I have had a hip replacement to reduce the latter and believe me if your pain is worse than mine, you have my deepest sympathy.

The greatest pain I feel is for all the lost souls who think they have all the answers, when in fact they do not understand the questions.

by Tosh Mon Jun 03, 2013 5:37 pm

polyglide,

I have solved the puzzle, you are suffering from senile dementia, I have been debating theology for months with a man who drools and doesn't know what day it is.

by methought Mon Jul 29, 2013 9:39 am

We depend on 'mother' earth to feed us, yet develop technology to harvest and distribute the bounty over a wider area, to more people. If the rains fail we dig deeper for water and those who lack technology are disadvantaged.

People still pray to god for their daily bread, but also know that hard work is required if it is to get from seed to table. Love and compassion are qualities outside of reason, yet central to humanity and possibly also to godliness.

Religion and politics are closely interlinked though, and law-makers in many places call on the reinforcement of a higher power, to try and ensure internal policing is added to hierarchical social organisation.

I haven't yet solved the puzzle

by polyglide Tue Jul 30, 2013 1:58 pm

Take mankind away from the earth and nature would prevail.

methought, No one can solve the problems that mankind has made for themselves.

The further man goes the more problems he creates and although some would say mankind has improved certain areas it is only those that he created in the first place that has been improved.

There is no logic or reason where mankind is concerned because he was never intended to go along the path he prefered, rather than the one which would lead to a better life for all.

by Tosh Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:15 pm

The further man goes the more problems he creates

Back to caves and camels with a life expectancy of under 30.

and although some would say mankind has improved certain areas it is only those that he created in the first place that has been improved.

Nonsense, millions of lives are saved by vaccines against rather nasty natural organisms created by God, malaria etc etc.

by starlight07 Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:15 pm

Tosh wrote:If God made us from dust then why bother with a flood, just turn people back to dust ??

Then he wouldn't need to save the animals, god wasn't thinking straight.

Doesn't God turn His people into dust when they die?

by Shirina Wed Aug 14, 2013 7:23 pm

polyglide wrote:Take mankind away from the earth and nature would prevail.

Human beings are a part of nature. We are not "artificial" nor are we a "foreign species" introduced to this planet from an alien world. If human beings prevail over nature, it is because we are meant to - naturally. A beehive no more exists in nature than a skyscraper, yet no one would claim that a beehive is "unnatural." Yet by some quirky belief system, skyscrapers are unnatural - that "man made" is somehow artificial while "bee made" is not. This logic makes utterly no sense.

polyglide wrote:he was never intended to go along the path he prefered, rather than the one which would lead to a better life for all.

And what path, exactly, would lead to a "better life for all"?

by polyglide Fri Aug 16, 2013 1:15 pm

Humans are a million miles away from any other being.

Anything that depends on altering the basic nature of anything is artificial.

How can anyone compare a skyscraper with a butterfly, or a mouse with a power station etc; it is utter nonsense.

If everyone forgot about self and discrimination it would be a first step towards a better life for all.

If we started to feed the starving would be a step in the right direction.

[We have food banks to try to help some and that is in a supposed developed society]

We could make sure all had the water supply everyone deserves.

Housing and the need of those in dire straights who live in desperate and dangerous areas etc; could be helped.

All the paths leading to self destruction could be closed.

Instead of spending more on armaments than on societies needs a change in that direction would help.

And there are lots more examples Shirina.

by **Ivan** Fri Aug 16, 2013 2:25 pm

polyglide. Many of the problems that you list have become worse over the last forty years, not because of atheism but because of adherence to a neo-liberal economic agenda by followers of Milton Friedman. Those policies were given a kick start by his leading disciples – Pinochet, Reagan and Thatcher. Don’t you find it ironic that some of the worst offenders when it comes to increasing inequality are the so-called Christians in the US Republican Party?

In your bible, it says that the second greatest commandment is to love your neighbour as yourself (Mark 12:31). If these right-wing, so-called Christians practised that, maybe more people, not fewer, would have adequate food and water nowadays?

Or maybe there is one Jesus for the left and another for the right? A study at Stanford University in California found that the Jesus of liberal Christians is very different from the one envisaged by conservatives. It seems that while your book claims that God created man in his own image, this study suggests man creates God in his own image:-

https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t389-is-there-one-jesus-for-the-left-and-another-for-the-right#24148

by polyglide Fri Aug 16, 2013 4:04 pm

Ivan, I appreciate your comments that are without the rancour and nastiness of some.

You are correct in your ideas regarding the differences between the ideas of some all of whom profess to be Christians.

The same applies to many aspects of life.

There is only one true example of Christianity and that is when those who profess to be Christians behave like Christians.

The sad fact is there are fewer and fewer who actually attempt to do so but use it as a means of self.

I do not have the answer to many questions and do not pretend to have but I am steadfast in my belief in Jesus and God as the creator.

I feel man has created many questions through indulging in matters that he should have left alone.

The world offers a splendid life for all concerned if all were of a like mind, the odds under the present circumstances of that happening are the same as evolution being a possibility.

regards.

by Shirina Fri Aug 16, 2013 8:07 pm

polyglide wrote:Humans are a million miles away from any other being.

No, actually, we are not. We are only a few inches away from any other animal save, perhaps, insects. The vast majority of our time is spent doing exactly what animals do: acquiring and eating food, sleeping, fighting over and courting mates, excreting waste, defending our territory, having sex, and raising our offspring. Only our philosophical nature separates us from the jungle and, let's face it, most of us aren't all that philosophical. Many do not really think - they just go through life doing what's necessary to survive. Just like an animal. Only human arrogance supposes that we are "a million miles away" from any other being. It is easy to be blinded by Western abundance, but more than one-third of the human population live under primitive conditions where nature often prevails over human will. Ask them how far removed we are from the tiger or the hippo and you're liable to get a very different answer than that of a businessman in a Western city.

polyglide wrote:Anything that depends on altering the basic nature of anything is artificial.

The "paper" that bees use to build their hives alters the basic nature of the materials used. You won't find beehive "paper" lying about naturally -- bees have to make it. Therefore, according to your definition, a beehive is artificial.

polyglide wrote:How can anyone compare a skyscraper with a butterfly, or a mouse with a power station etc; it is utter nonsense.

What's nonsense is you misrepresenting what I actually said. I was comparing two structures - a beehive and a skyscraper. You're comparing structures with living organisms, something I did not do. If you plan on calling my points "nonsense," then at least get the premise right.

polyglide wrote:If everyone forgot about self and discrimination it would be a first step towards a better life for all.

I agree up to a point, but one cannot simply forget completely about "self." It's an unrealistic, nay, impossible goal. As for discrimination, well, all I can say is that perhaps you should work on that yourself. Remember when you drove away a homosexual poster because of your discriminatory comments toward homosexuals? I sure do ... and I'm sure Ivan does, as well. Christians talk a good game about equality and making the world a better place, but more often than not, what they REALLY mean is making the whole world Christian and forcing everyone to adhere to Bronze Age Christian laws.

polyglide wrote:And there are lots more examples Shirina.

Yep, and I agree with them all. I just feel that religion needs to be kept out of it.

by Shirina Fri Aug 16, 2013 8:12 pm

polyglide wrote:Ivan, I appreciate your comments that are without the rancour and nastiness of some.

No one has been nasty to you, polyglide, except perhaps for Tosh. But Tosh is like that towards everyone. Neutral

polyglide wrote:The world offers a splendid life for all concerned if all were of a like mind

"We are the Borg. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Lower your shields. Resistance is futile."

by polyglide Sat Aug 17, 2013 10:32 am

You base your opinion on man being close to animals on a basis that has been irrefutably proven to be wrong.

When God created life he used that which was necessary to do so, and we all know the basics.

The fact that there are similar genes etc involved proves nothing other than God used the same method to create man as all other living things.

It is obvious that at some point the genes etc; may be close as there are numerous other examples in life that appear close but are a million miles away in fact.

As I have said in a previous example, a bullet may miss you by a fraction of an inch but it might just as well have been a mile.

by Shirina Sat Aug 17, 2013 3:36 pm

polyglide wrote:You base your opinion on man being close to animals on a basis that has been irrefutably proven to be wrong.

By whom, exactly? Zoologists? Biologists? Genetic Engineers? Or by religious nutjobs, creationists, and Bible thumpers?

polyglide wrote:When God created life he used that which was necessary to do so

Necessary? Based on whose law? If God is truly all-powerful, there is no such thing as "necessary." Nothing HAS to be a certain way unless God is playing by someone else's rules. God didn't HAVE to design humans as they are. In fact, the glaring errors and inefficiencies of the human body speaks volumes for evolution. Either that, or it speaks volumes for an incompetent or capricious god. An all-powerful God could have designed humans to eat uranium and shit diamonds if he had wanted - there are no limitations to an all-powerful God. Therefore, it was NOT necessary for God to use similar genes or to have humans do all of the things animals do. It IS necessary, however, if a flawed, non-sentient process (like evolution) was at work.

polyglide wrote:As I have said in a previous example, a bullet may miss you by a fraction of an inch but it might just as well have been a mile.

How about I stand you down range and I shoot at you. I can guarantee that your reaction to a bullet missing you by an inch will be drastically different than if I drive a mile away and fire my gun there. My point is that our behavior is no different than animals with only a few notable exceptions - mainly our appreciation for beauty and aesthetics, something animals don't seem to possess. And, as I said before, our ability to think about things in the abstract separates us from all of the animals. Yet is that a reason to assume humans are special? Why aren't cats special since no other species is a cat and therefore do not have all of the features that makes a cat ... a cat. All animals are unique in their own ways, including humans.

But our behavior is no different than that of other mammals. I've explained to you how that is so.

by polyglide Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:43 pm

I have previously given you numerous sources of finding those who are equally as qualified as those who believe in evolution who disprove it on sound scientific grounds, were that not so then evolution would not still be classed as a thoery based on ridiculous grounds, it would be accepted as fact.

We are not talking about anyone being frightned by a bullet, we are talking about choose how close something may be to another it may just as well be a thousand miles away, as it is obvious that everything must be close in some repect to something but this may have no relevance whatsoever.

by Shirina Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:38 pm

They may be highly qualified, but that doesn't mean they're correct. The scientific community is based on consensus, and a consensus is developed based on the available evidence. You will *never* have everyone agreeing 100%. As I've said before: If 99.9% of the doctors in the world tell me I have cancer, why would I trust the 0.01% who say that I don't? Yet that's how it is with evolution. You're relying on the opinions of only 0.01% of qualified scientists -- and those 0.01% don't have the answers to life's origins, either. A "God of the Gaps" argument is still a "God of the Gaps" argument irrespective of who uses it.

by polyglide Fri Aug 23, 2013 11:26 am

Utter nonsense, there are far more scientists doubtful regarding evolution than you pretend.

If 99% said if you hit your finger with a hammer it would not hurt, would you try it?

by Shirina Sat Aug 24, 2013 12:25 am

polyglide wrote:Utter nonsense, there are far more scientists doubtful regarding evolution than you pretend.

That's wishful thinking, polyglide. Your assertion has no basis in fact ... at all. I know you WANT to believe that there are legions of scientists abandoning evolution in droves, embracing religion, mythology, and superstition as an acceptable alternative.

But that's not happening.

Let me repeat that for emphasis:

It's just not happening.

An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.

Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, have issued statements rejecting intelligent design

One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".

An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".

A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.

polyglide wrote:If 99% said if you hit your finger with a hammer it would not hurt, would you try it?

Nope ... because I know scientifically that it WILL hurt. I don't have to resort to supernatural warnings of wrathful gods and slithering demons coming for my soul in order to disuade me from hitting my finger with a hammer.

by polyglide Sat Aug 24, 2013 11:10 am

I believe things evolve, but they do not evolve from nothing, they evolve from that which God created and that is the point.

The theory of evolution is still a theory based on ignorance and the ability to dismiss the obvious. ie. things must have been created.

by Shirina Sat Aug 24, 2013 4:18 pm

polyglide wrote:I believe things evolve, but they do not evolve from nothing, they evolve from that which God created and that is the point.

\\

Ah, now we're getting somewhere.

You know, I really don't have a problem with people who believe that God kickstarted evolution. I don't personally believe that, but it's a more enlightened view than believing in the Adam and Eve story. Remember that evolution does NOT try to explain the origin of life. Evolution explains the diversity of life.

If God can create gravity, thermodynamics, nuclear physics, and a host of other scientific principles that Christians take no issue with, then it shouldn't be hard to believe God could have created evolution, as well.

polyglide wrote:The theory of evolution is still a theory based on ignorance and the ability to dismiss the obvious. ie. things must have been created.

You have it backward. Evolution is based on scientific experimentation and observation. It is religion that is based on ignorance -- it always has been. Plugging every hole in our knowledge with God is not an obvious answer -- it is simply the easiest one, and most brains seek the path of least resistance.

Science is hard. Religion is easy.

So what do you think the masses will believe?

by polyglide Tue Aug 27, 2013 2:20 pm

Evolution is based on mutations creating a new species, the fact is that a mutation very rarely lives for long and certainly I do not know of a case where they have actualy bred.

Numbers mean nothing, the majority thought the world was round, I think they were a little mislead.

by Dan Fante Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:01 pm

polyglide wrote:Evolution is based on mutations creating a new species, the fact is that a mutation very rarely lives for long and certainly I do not know of a case where they have actualy bred.

Numbers mean nothing, the majority thought the world was round, I think they were a little mislead.

There's a decent explanation on how mutation works here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
It's worth noting that not all mutations are useful (most in fact are not) to a species but the ones that are useful tend to be retained. A single mutation that changes the structure of a gene does not, in itself, bring about an altogether new species. It is a series of mutations over a very long period of time that does this. Or at least that is the most credible theory we currently have. Also, as you allude to - the vast majority of species that have lived have become extinct. Even 'useful' mutations may eventually cease to be so due to climatic, environmental changes, etc.

by Dan Fante Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:06 pm

polyglide wrote:I believe things evolve, but they do not evolve from nothing, they evolve from that which God created and that is the point.

The theory of evolution is still a theory based on ignorance and the ability to dismiss the obvious. ie. things must have been created.

What do you think God had in mind when he created this symbiotic relationship? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiocordyceps_unilateralis

by Bellatori Fri Oct 11, 2013 4:08 pm

polyglide wrote:I believe things evolve, but they do not evolve from nothing, they evolve from that which God created and that is the point.

Ahh... the blind watchmaker fallacy. Have you come across abiogenesis perhaps?

by Bellatori Fri Oct 11, 2013 4:20 pm

Shirina wrote:
If God can create gravity, thermodynamics, nuclear physics, and a host of other scientific principles that Christians take no issue with, then it shouldn't be hard to believe God could have created evolution, as well.

I have a problem with this. What actually did 'God' need to create? Once the big bang happened (is that a given I wonder?) everything else, if you take a Weak Anthropic Principle approach was a matter of evolution in a generic (rather than biological) sense. The point is that really only the big bang needed a kick start. The question then becomes 'Who, if anyone, gave the big bang a kick start?' The argument then goes that this must be 'God' as everything needs a designer (does it?). This is usually followed by the 'You cannot get something from nothing' argument.

The first of these arguments is the Intelligent Design argument based on the ~~Blind~~ Watchmaker fallacy and the second is simply a lack of understanding of science. We know from experiment that you can get something from nothing e.g. virtual pairs of particles e.g. positrons and electrons, but for very short times. It seems possible that dark energy and dark matter are related to this possibility.

So where does that leave us? It leaves us with a universe that was either created by God or created itself. The latter is actually a simpler hypothesis. Occam's Razor applies.

by Norm Deplume Fri Oct 11, 2013 4:46 pm

polyglide wrote:Evolution is based on mutations creating a new species, the fact is that a mutation very rarely lives for long and certainly I do not know of a case where they have actualy bred.

Speciation does not occur through a mutation but a series of changes arising from mutations spreading through the population by natural selection. Sudden appearance of a new species could be thought of as the 'X-Men' hypothesis, but Marvel Comics are not a good basis for scientific understanding.

Any consideration of the fossil record will show that species arrive and depart - mammals did not exist 250 million years ago but they/we do now. The reasonable view is that early mammals evolved from other species.

by snowyflake Fri Oct 11, 2013 6:31 pm

Welcome Dan, glad to see you made it Smile

by Shirina Sat Oct 12, 2013 4:57 am

Bellatori wrote:So where does that leave us? It leaves us with a universe that was either created by God or created itself. The latter is actually a simpler hypothesis. Occam's Razor applies.

Hello, Bellatori, and welcome aboard. Smile

Yeah, I agree with you, in truth, but ... I figure if I'm going to get people to see reason, I have to do it one step at a time. If I can get someone to accept evolution - even if they have to believe a God started it - then I've made some progress. That's a far sight better than someone believing in Adam and Eve and a 6,000 year-old earth, after all.

by Sponsored content