I'm not going to give you a reddie because it would be rude, but I completely disagree with you about this. Not everyone has a "god shaped" hole in their life, I don't. My husband doesn't. In fact, none of the atheists I know do. I'll never understand why it is you and many other Christians are convinced one cannot be happy without god; that atheists are miserable, lacking something, have a void, etc. It just simply isn't true. I won't deny there are people in this world that "need" god to make themselves feel complete, but to make a statement that "all" people have a "god void" is arrogant and incorrect. I get it, without god, YOU would be miserable. Did you stop to think that perhaps with god I would be miserable?
I also agree with the giving of a red,

Try to picture this,

I had a recovering 'friend' come to the meetings stating personal issues that she wouldn't tell anyone, at least in detail.

Eventually, through enough time and closeness to the small group, she did confide in me.

A person born and raised in a functional Satanic cult( believe me, not many get away from this situation and live outside for long)Her raising was for procreation of sacrificial babies,amongst other duties.

Now was she 'miserable' or missing something in herself that 'My God' would cure? I would like to think so, and tried to compassionately express,to no avail, She made it clear,what her beliefs were, and that she is OK in her shoes, just not in mine. Now, do I have to accept her as just another one of gods creatures, or look at her with disdain over the upbringing and past she has.My atheist side says, LIVE AND LET LIVE, the religious side says SAVE HER FROM HERSELF.

Who is right?

Ken

You all KBC, ordinary guy, NK, jillianleab; all have the right to "stand on your own" that is and always will be your choice. I am not pushing anything on either of you, although I would love to see you believe and be saved, I cannot force you or can anyone. You are free to make your own choice and clearly have. There is no point to further agree a point where two sides are so firmly grounded. If a reddie is what you see fit to give go ahead I don't see it as rude but I will continue to agrue or debate my beliefs against whatever topic is posed so if we come back to this point so be it. Take care

You all KBC, ordinary guy, NK, jillianleab; all have the right to "stand on your own" that is and always will be your choice. I am not pushing anything on either of you, although I would love to see you believe and be saved, I cannot force you or can anyone. You are free to make your own choice and clearly have. There is no point to further agree a point where two sides are so firmly grounded. If a reddie is what you see fit to give go ahead I don't see it as rude but I will continue to agrue or debate my beliefs against whatever topic is posed so if we come back to this point so be it. Take care

Are you talking about being saved by Jesus(alaihi salaam)?

Are you talking about being saved by Jesus(alaihi salaam)?


Yes

Then according to your thinking I will need saving too,but then as I already accept Jesus(alaihi salaam) a little differently from you I do not believe in what you believe.
I believe in an Almighty who has none equal or like Him.No partners.Not born of anyone, no offspring...

Now see the road this could take.

I believe mine is the One true religion,but I cannot show concrete proof as expected by most people.

The irony of what you say here is that most of the 'bible thumpers' have 'found' god because they hit rock bottom with addictions and abuse. Yet the non-believers have had no such issues.


Your statement about believers is just as wrong as if I classified all atheists as this monster:

Jeffrey Dahmer - Wikiquote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer)







Grace and Peace

But in here we can at least have a social discussion on a very volatile issue.

Catholicism,Judaism,atheism,satanism,paganism,wicc an,baptist,. the list could go on and on.

IS THERE A HAPPY MEDIUM WE CAN ALL AGREE TO?

NO!

What makes one better or more right than the other? NOTHING,just a concept.

If I can live without belief in a higher power/god figure,YES, I will 'stand on my own' like mountain_man stated. Is it something others have to accept,YES.

Anyone else?

Ken

You all KBC, ordinary guy, NK, jillianleab; all have the right to "stand on your own" that is and always will be your choice. I am not pushing anything on either of you, although I would love to see you believe and be saved, I cannot force you or can anyone. You are free to make your own choice and clearly have. There is no point to further agree a point where two sides are so firmly grounded. If a reddie is what you see fit to give go ahead I don't see it as rude but I will continue to agrue or debate my beliefs against whatever topic is posed so if we come back to this point so be it. Take care

I'm not giving you a reddie because it is rude to do so when someone has expressed their opinion. I felt it necessary, however, to point out the flaw in the reasoning you used to come to your opinion. You said "all" when you should have said "some". I'm sure you would disagree with me if I said, "All people would be better off if they were atheist".

As far as pushing anything on any of us, you've done just that. Rather than respect the differences in our views and beliefs, you have consistently told us to "ask god to see him" and so on. Have I asked you to turn away from god, except in the sense that if you do it will help you gain empathy for our position? You continue to say how you would "love to see us believe and be saved", yet no one has said they hope you reject god. So perhaps in your mind you are not pushing your views, but reverse everything you've said, and pretend it came from me.

All people would be better off if they are atheist.
No one has a "god shaped" hole.
Open your eyes, and you will see there is no god.
I would love to see you reject god and realize atheism is the true way.

If I said those things to you, would you not feel I was pushing my beliefs on you? I think you would. Here's the difference between you and me: I don't care what you believe. I really don't. You don't hurt me in any way, shape or form by believing in god. In fact, if your faith is what gives you moral guidance and keeps you from killing your neighbor, well, I'm GLAD you believe in god. But you, on the other hand, appear to have a problem with the fact that I don't believe. Despite the fact that I have morals and values, I don't commit crimes, I'm a good person, I contribute to society and my community, I have a family, etc, that's not enough for you. You insist I must believe to be "good" in your eyes. How about basing your opinion of someone based off their actions instead of their beliefs? How about respecting the differences people have, and keep your religion to yourself when you encounter someone who is satisfied with their spiritual self?

You say you will continue to argue or debate your beliefs, and I respect that, I really do, but this thread is not about YOUR beliefs. This is not the place to argue why Christianity is the "way" the "truth" or whatever. This thread was started to find out WHY atheists believe what they do and what they if fact, believe. It's here to clear up misconceptions, no to present an argument as to why atheism is better that Christianity. There's nothing personal about it, but you seem to have taken it as such.

I'm not giving you a reddie because it is rude to do so when someone has expressed their opinion. I felt it necessary, however, to point out the flaw in the reasoning you used to come to your opinion. You said "all" when you should have said "some". I'm sure you would disagree with me if I said, "All people would be better off if they were atheist".

As far as pushing anything on any of us, you've done just that. Rather than respect the differences in our views and beliefs, you have consistently told us to "ask god to see him" and so on. Have I asked you to turn away from god, except in the sense that if you do it will help you gain empathy for our position? You continue to say how you would "love to see us believe and be saved", yet no one has said they hope you reject god. So perhaps in your mind you are not pushing your views, but reverse everything you've said, and pretend it came from me.

All people would be better off if they are atheist.
No one has a "god shaped" hole.
Open your eyes, and you will see there is no god.
I would love to see you reject god and realize atheism is the true way.

If I said those things to you, would you not feel I was pushing my beliefs on you? I think you would. Here's the difference between you and me: I don't care what you believe. I really don't. You don't hurt me in any way, shape or form by believing in god. In fact, if your faith is what gives you moral guidance and keeps you from killing your neighbor, well, I'm GLAD you believe in god. But you, on the other hand, appear to have a problem with the fact that I don't believe. Despite the fact that I have morals and values, I don't commit crimes, I'm a good person, I contribute to society and my community, I have a family, etc, that's not enough for you. You insist I must believe to be "good" in your eyes. How about basing your opinion of someone based off of their actions instead of their beliefs? How about respecting the differences people have, and keep your religion to yourself when you encounter someone who is satisfied with their spiritual self?

You say you will continue to argue or debate your beliefs, and I respect that, I really do, but this thread is not about YOUR beliefs. This is not the place to argue why Christianity is the "way" the "truth" or whatever. This thread was started to find out WHY atheists believe what they do and what they if fact, believe. It's here to clear up misconceptions, no to present an argument as to why atheism is better that Christianity. There's nothing personal about it, but you seem to have taken it as such.
Well, since I can't give another greenie to you, I will just state the obvious, WE really do see alike on this issue, and I for one, am glad you can write out the feelings I feel so clearly, thank you for your outlook and opinion.

Ken

Your statement about believers is just as wrong as if I classified all atheists as this monster:
Jeffrey Dahmer - Wikiquote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer)
Grace and PeaceActually I was referring to this discussion board uniquely. And I wasn't painting all believers as such, you know me better than that, only the ones who constantly push scripture and can't understand why we don't want to be saved.

Then according to your thinking I will need saving too,but then as I already accept Jesus(alaihi salaam) a little differently from you I do not believe in what you believe.
I believe in an Almighty who has none equal or like Him.No partners.Not born of anyone, no offspring......

Now see the road this could take.

I believe mine is the One true religion,but I cannot show concrete proof as expected by most people.

I believe in the Bible and the road to salvation represented in that. We will all be ultimately be judged by the one true God, I can only do what I believe to be right and have faith that it is such.

I'm not giving you a reddie because it is rude to do so when someone has expressed their opinion. I felt it necessary, however, to point out the flaw in the reasoning you used to come to your opinion. You said "all" when you should have said "some". I'm sure you would disagree with me if I said, "All people would be better off if they were atheist".

As far as pushing anything on any of us, you've done just that. Rather than respect the differences in our views and beliefs, you have consistently told us to "ask god to see him" and so on. Have I asked you to turn away from god, except in the sense that if you do it will help you gain empathy for our position? You continue to say how you would "love to see us believe and be saved", yet no one has said they hope you reject god. So perhaps in your mind you are not pushing your views, but reverse everything you've said, and pretend it came from me.

All people would be better off if they are atheist.
No one has a "god shaped" hole.
Open your eyes, and you will see there is no god.
I would love to see you reject god and realize atheism is the true way.

If I said those things to you, would you not feel I was pushing my beliefs on you? I think you would. Here's the difference between you and me: I don't care what you believe. I really don't. You don't hurt me in any way, shape or form by believing in god. In fact, if your faith is what gives you moral guidance and keeps you from killing your neighbor, well, I'm GLAD you believe in god. But you, on the other hand, appear to have a problem with the fact that I don't believe. Despite the fact that I have morals and values, I don't commit crimes, I'm a good person, I contribute to society and my community, I have a family, etc, that's not enough for you. You insist I must believe to be "good" in your eyes. How about basing your opinion of someone based off of their actions instead of their beliefs? How about respecting the differences people have, and keep your religion to yourself when you encounter someone who is satisfied with their spiritual self?

You say you will continue to argue or debate your beliefs, and I respect that, I really do, but this thread is not about YOUR beliefs. This is not the place to argue why Christianity is the "way" the "truth" or whatever. This thread was started to find out WHY atheists believe what they do and what they if fact, believe. It's here to clear up misconceptions, no to present an argument as to why atheism is better that Christianity. There's nothing personal about it, but you seem to have taken it as such.


You are right, although I could respond to this I will not because it has nothing to do with the original post.

I believe in the Bible and the road to salvation represented in that. We will all be ultimately be judged by the one true God, I can only do what I believe to be right and have faith that it is such.

I was just saying what I said because when you want to save me or others from whatever fate is in store for us after death, it is not really in our hands.

We cannot change hearts,soften them or humble them, but the Almighty does when it is their time to accept.

As far as this thread goes, I asked for informations sake about atheists,because as a believer it is hard for me to think of not believing ever as it does not make sense for me not to believe.
Since I started this thread I have come to an understanding of the why's people may not believe and I accept that (not that I accept their beliefs),but just their reasoning.

As I cannot say who is and who isn't going to be saved from Hell (except those mentioned in the Book I follow), I am not going to say all those on this thread will go to Hell or Heaven. As far as I believe, someone who does sin all his life,may change his beliefs in an instant and that is all that takes for a change of heart from disbelief to belief.The same goes for those who believe, I cannot guarantee my place in Heaven just because I believe, it is by the Mercy of the Almighty if I am in Heaven in the afterlife.

All I know is that I am firm in my belief and that I believe I am on the truth,whether others accept that or not I really do not care.The only One I humble,submit myself to is the Almighty and His judgement alone is all that counts in the end.

None of you on this thread can prove to me that my belief is false because none of you can show me proof,nor can I show you proof of the truth of my beliefs except it takes a lot of faith to believe in an unseen Almighty God and as I had said somewhere I see sense in my belief.

I pray that those I do care about (that would include a lot of people on this thread and forum.. :)),see the light before their life ends,but then I cannot guarantee anything to any of you. All I know for certain is that the temporariness of this worldly life is something all of us will agree on.For each it lasts only as long as one is alive,then it ends for that person.

What lies beyond I believe my belief shows me the truth of the afterlife and what happens in the afterlife happens whether one believes or not.Heaven or Hell, its existence will be confirmed to each of us at the moment of our death.

For those of you who are trying to save those who do not have the same faith as you, please help those who seek help first, the ones that turn to you in need of guidance.

The ones that have not asked yet, are not ready to seek that path, no matter how much we wish for things, it happens only at the time it is supposed to happen,not before or after that moment.

The money we earn,the families we share,the friends, homes,degrees,knowledge... all these things matters,but without peace within ourselves there is little we can enjoy..
I wish all of you peace... complete Peace.
I believe that is what all desires for from the depths of their being.

For those of you who are trying to save those who do not have the same faith as you, please help those who seek help first, the ones that turn to you in need of guidance.

This needs repeating.

Wonderful post, firmbeliever.

Thank you Jill,
That post is from the depths of my soul.

We will all be...
There you go again. You'd get a lot better reception for your ideas if you could just avoid that word "all" when referring to people. Stick with "I" or "some" and you'll be amazed at how much more receptive people will be. Try it. The next time you're tempted to write "we will all" or "we are all" or "we all have" such and such, just say "I" instead. What you believe goes for you, and those who agree with you. Nobody else.

Thank you Jill,
That post is from the depths of my soul.
I feel like every post of yours is from the depths of your soul... That is why I respect you so much Firmy! You are good!;)

There you go again. You'd get a lot better reception for your ideas if you could just avoid that word "all" when referring to people. Stick with "I" or "some" and you'll be amazed at how much more receptive people will be. Try it. The next time you're tempted to write "we will all" or "we are all" or "we all have" such and such, just say "I" instead. What you believe goes for you, and those who agree with you. Nobody else.

I think I disagree with you here. It annoys me when people think they have a religion that only applies to them. If there is one true religion, then it will apply to all of us, and if there is no true religion, then the fact that we are nothing more than a fortuitous arrangement of salty water applies to all of us.

In that case, Cappy...

We're all going to be reincarnated. If the good things you did in your life outweigh the bad, then you'll come back as something or someone of a higher station than you are now. If your evil actions outweigh your good, you will come back as the thing you looked down on the most, so that you can have a better understanding and compassion for that position. If you don't learn your lesson in one life, rest assured that you will in another. And once we all learn all of our lessons, the peace and joy that we all will have, the understanding and knowledge, will allow us to stay by the side of the Goddess forever. The only hell that you will be condemned to, ever, is one of your own making... the hell of having to live as that which you despise or condemn the most.

/grin

I'm sorry... I just HAD to.

You can't say that "you'll come back as something or someone of a higher station than you are now" you can't tell or promise someone that because you don't know that is what will definitely happen, it's kind of giving people false hope.

you can't say that "you'll come back as something or someone of a higher station than you are now" you can't tell or promise someone that because you dont know that is what will definately happen, it's kind of giving people false hope.I think the post may have been tongue-in-cheek. ;)

Again I state:

It is a concept,lack of proof makes it just that,what one believes isn't what all believe, no one can say,with undeniable evidence,that there is a factual entity, they can, however, extend their compassion and what they have been taught by their religion to the masses( when they are so driven)

My earlier post stated,

How many atheists have come knocking on your door,asking to save you from your overt feelings of belief?

Or met you at the airport, passing out flowers in an act of? Servitude? To their religion?

Atheists(that I know) do not wish to, and are not in the habit of, judging others of their choices of religion,or others passion in their delivery of their concept of 'The Word' as dictated by their respective preachings.

They do not,however,want to be dictated to by those who have the 'Freedom of religion' and try to force their ideology on others.

If we believe, we believe, if not, live and let live.

Ken

This is getting so patheitc. Some people believe, some people dont believe. Neither person is wrong and neither is right. Let's just leave it at that

This is getting so patheitc. Some people believe, some people dont believe. Neither person is wrong and neither is right. Let's just leave it at that
That is what debate is about,discussion between people, without 'pulling the trigger'

As a believer in The Creator of the worlds, I have always wondered how an atheist comes to the conclusion that God is non existent ?
Please do not think that I am going to argue your points,just curious!!!:confused:

Thanks in advance.

It is a very strange point of view, atheism, considering there's no logic behind it. Nobody would say "there's no Creator" if they happened to come upon a fully-stocked, temperature controlled home during a walk through the woods... so why would someone say "there's no Creator" when you take a look at this planet, or look closer at the various cycles of the planet, or even the various systems of the human body. How can someone logically say that there was no intelligent creator or designer behind these things? It's a point of view that people ARE entitled to have, but it really doesn't appear to be any kind of logical rationale behind it.

Logic and religion do not go hand in hand, and they never will. If you choose to not get educated in evolution and physics and chemistry then that is your choice of course. Not understanding something does not logically mean that there is a god.

It is a very strange point of view, athiesm, considering there's no logic behind it. Nobody would say "there's no Creator" if they happened to come upon a fully-stocked, temperature controlled home during a walk through the woods.....so why would someone say "there's no Creator" when you take a look at this planet, or look closer at the various cycles of the planet, or even the various systems of the human body. How can someone logically say that there was no intelligent creator or designer behind these things? It's a point of view that people ARE entitled to have, but it really doesn't appear to be any kind of logical rationale behind it.
On the contrary,I see it as;

Science has proven the changes in human physiology,adapting to environmental needs,from eating fruits and nuts, to red meat.

Science shows,humans adaptation to survival in the arctic as well as the tropics,and succeeding in both places.

Are these an act of a higher power?A believer will think so,an atheist will say no its just evolution.

Look at the Milky way Galaxy and say this is a creation of a supreme being,and the atheist says,its natural evolution,science can show this.But religion asks to accept on words or preachings that this is creationism,Science is factual,religion is concept, Where is the logical thinking you are lost on? Facts are facts, Concepts are interpretation.

On the contrary,I see it as;

Science has proven the changes in human physiology,adapting to environmental needs,from eating fruits and nuts, to red meat.

Science shows,humans adaptation to survival in the arctic as well as the tropics,and succeeding in both places.

Are these an act of a higher power?A believer will think so,an atheist will say no its just evolution.

Look at the Milky way Galaxy and say this is a creation of a supreme being,and the atheist says,its natural evolution,science can show this.But religion asks to accept on words or preachings that this is creationism,Science is factual,religion is concept, Where is the logical thinking you are lost on? Facts are facts, Concepts are interpretation.


Sure, science can back up the facts of creation, but it cannot back up guesses as to everything coming about by chance, by the ridiculous theory of evolution, or by some big bang. Fact is that all of these things discussed CANNOT come about by mere chance.

Sure, science can back up the facts of creation, but it cannot back up guesses as to everything coming about by chance, by the ridiculous theory of evolution, or by some big bang. Fact is that all of these things discussed CANNOT come about by mere chance.

Have you tried to create life by mere chance over several billion years? I can tell you that nobody ever has, and so what you state as "fact" is in fact nothing of the sort. It's your own assertion, an assertion that I suggest is logically inept.

Have you tried to create life by mere chance over several billion years? I can tell you that nobody ever has, and so what you state as "fact" is in fact nothing of the sort. It's your own assertion, an assertion that I suggest is logically inept.

I have common sense and intelligence, and those things along say that you can have something come out of nothing all by itself. Pure impossibility. Logically inept would be to claim that life, this planet, and the universe came out of some chance combination of chemicals or "ooze" over billions of years and simply discounting that an intelligent creator made all things because the idea is too easy for arrogant scientific "experts" to accept.

It annoys me when people think they have a religion that only applies to them.
Have you thought about why it annoys you? Could it be because you want to apply your conclusion that you are "a fortuitous arrangement of salty water" to everybody else as well? Doesn't it give you pause to find yourself in bed with mountain man on this one?

If there is one true religion, then it will apply to all of us, and if there is no true religion, then the fact that we are nothing more than a fortuitous arrangement of salty water applies to all of us.
How can you (and mountain man) be so very sure that these are the only two possibilities? Of course, the logical mind loves unambiguous distinctions and mutually exclusive alternatives, but reality is often messier than that. I see a vast continuum between these two extremes.

I have common sense and intelligence, and those things along say that you can have something come out of nothing all by itself. Pure impossibility. Logically inept would be to claim that life, this planet, and the universe came out of some chance combination of chemicals or "ooze" over billions of years and simply discounting that an intelligent creator made all things because the idea is too easy for arrogant scientific "experts" to accept.

Where do the theories of the big bang, or evolution, or abiogenesis state that something comes out of nothing?

I think we should all respect eachother's beliefs, after all that's what makes us a cultural world. If everyone believed the same thing there would be no diversity and life would be so very boring :(

Have you thought about why it annoys you? Could it be because you want to apply your conclusion that you are "a fortuitous arrangement of salty water" to everybody else as well? Doesn't it give you pause to find yourself in bed with mountain man on this one?

How can you (and mountain man) be so very sure that these are the only two possibilities? Of course, the logical mind loves unambiguous distinctions and mutually exclusive alternatives, but reality is often messier than that. I see a vast continuum between these two extremes.

I should have stated the opposite I suppose. It seems a bit silly to me for someone to say "If i believe in reincarnation, I will be reincarnated, and if I believe in a final death, then I will have a final death". Both Christianity (within it's denominations, at least) and Atheism are fairly clear about what happens after death, and are very clear that it will happen to everyone.

I don't wish to apply the "salty bag of water" to everyone, since, if it's true, it applies regardless or not of whether I want it to. People can believe as they wish but I don't believe that what they believe will change squat.

I haven't heard of a religion that states that whatever you think will happen after death will in fact happen exactly the way you believe. Although that might be a very nice religion to be a part of.

I wasn't sure about the 2 possibilities at all. I am only sure about one of them.

Nobody knows the trust about what happens to us after death, the only way we will ever know for sure is when we die. It's abit pesimistic, but it is true. Maybe there's life after death or maybe not. I don't think we should dwell on the question too much, one day we will find out so why not enjoy your life now and worry later

Where do the theories of the big bang, or evolution, or abiogenesis state that something comes out of nothing?

Basically "big bang" says that there was a big explosion from gases and whatever... now how did those gases or materials come about? Were they simply always there? It offers no answers for that, just the blind conjecture that these things were there, they came together, and BANG. Evolution, depending on which person you're discussing it with, says that everyone came together after billions of years of being in some primordial soup... yet it doesn't explain where those elements came from, again assuming they were just always there. People put a lot of stock into these ridiculous theories and push and push and push them as fact simply because scientists word these things in a way so as to make them sound intelligent and plausible.

Nobody knows the trust about what happens to us after death, the only way we will ever know for sure is when we die. It's abit pesimistic, but it is true. Maybe theres life after death or maybe not. I dont think we should dwell on the question too much, one day we will find out so why not enjoy your life now and worry later

What we KNOW about death is that when someone dies, they have zero functions body wise... no brain activity, no working respiratory or circulatory systems, and eventually the body crumbles back into dust (of which the human body possesses many of the same elements). From what we can see, when a person or animal dies, that's it. There's only the speculation that anything additionally happens that people cling to.

Hello silent:

The big bang came from a singularity, not "gasses and whatever". The big bang and evolution have nothing to do with each other.

Criticism is fine, but base it on facts. Of course, that would involve study and you're probably not going to do that. Especially if you think it's ridiculous.

excon

Basically "big bang" says that there was a big explosion from gases and whatever.......now how did those gases or materials come about? Were they simply always there? It offers no answers for that, just the blind conjecture that these things were there, they came together, and BANG. Evolution, depending on which person you're discussing it with, says that everyone came together after billions of years of being in some primordial soup......yet it doesn't explain where those elements came from, again assuming they were just always there. People put a lot of stock into these ridiculous theories and push and push and push them as fact simply because scientists word these things in a way so as to make them sound intelligent and plausible.

No, it doesn't, please go and study big bang theory, stellar formation theory, planetary formation theory, and evolutionary theory. Then we can have an intelligent discussion.

No, it doesn't, please go and study big bang theory, stellar formation theory, planetary formation theory, and evolutionary theory. Then we can have an intelligent discussion.

Yes it does. Go study it yourself... and forget the discussion.

Haha this has been quite a topical debate :)

Hello silent:

The big bang came from a singularity, not "gasses and whatever". The big bang and evolution have nothing to do with each other.

Criticism is fine, but base it on facts. Of course, that would involve study and you're probably not going to do that. Especially if you think it's ridiculous.

excon


Sorry, excon, but I'm not going to take your word for it. I've heard the "big bang" theory in many different versions and forms, one of which I mentioned.

Basically "big bang" says that there was a big explosion from gases and whatever.......now how did those gases or materials come about? Were they simply always there? It offers no answers for that, just the blind conjecture that these things were there, they came together, and BANG. Evolution, depending on which person you're discussing it with, says that everyone came together after billions of years of being in some primordial soup......yet it doesn't explain where those elements came from, again assuming they were just always there. People put a lot of stock into these ridiculous theories and push and push and push them as fact simply because scientists word these things in a way so as to make them sound intelligent and plausible.
And the same can be said about religions,Who is pushing what?

By examination,study,factual evidence,and experiences in our lifetimes,documented and validated,even by the non scientific society, we can see evolution in process.Including the 'theory' looked at concerning the 'Big Bang'

Education and research are not 'ridiculous theories',they are based on fact, not concept.

To have bias towards the scientific community is shortsighted,not taking all possibilities into account,again, who is right? The creationist or the evolotionist,one is FACT, one is CONCEPT.

Yes it does. Go study it yourself.....and forget the discussion.

I have been studying it for the past 6 years. You're wrong, sorry. I knew that the opportunity for an intelligent discussion would be one that you would happily ignore.

This is getting fun now:):):)

And the same can be said about religions,Who is pushing what?

By examination,study,factual evidence,and experiences in our lifetimes,documented and validated,even by the non scientific society, we can see evolution in process.Including the 'theory' looked at concerning the 'Big Bang'

Education and research are not 'ridiculous theories',they are based on fact, not concept.

To have bias towards the scientific community is shortsighted,not taking all possibilities into account,again, who is right? the creationist or the evolotionist,one is FACT, one is CONCEPT.

I think you should realise that both evolution and creationism are theories. Just like Newtonian gravitation and General Relativity are both theories. Just that one fits the evidence more closely, makes more meaningful predictions etc than the other.

I completely agree :) You guys may have differing opinions but at least you have them. Many people don't

There you go again. You'd get a lot better reception for your ideas if you could just avoid that word "all" when referring to people. Stick with "I" or "some" and you'll be amazed at how much more receptive people will be. Try it. The next time you're tempted to write "we will all" or "we are all" or "we all have" such and such, just say "I" instead. What you believe goes for you, and those who agree with you. Nobody else.


Thank you for your fantastic insight about how to respond... obviously what I write is what I believe and I believe all will be judged by the one true and just God. I am not going to compromise the use of the word all to not offend you or someone else. That is what I believe and that is how I wanted it to come across. You or anyone else can receive me however they want to.:)

There is no need to be nasty to people is there? We're all good people and all deserve respect

I have been studying it for the past 6 years. You're wrong, sorry. I knew that the opportunity for an intelligent discussion would be one that you would happily ignore.

No, I'm not wrong, whether you think so or not. It makes no difference to me whether you studied it for 5 minutes, 6 years, or 30 years. Your condescending tone and arrogance do not lend an air of credibility to your statements. It appears you likewise ignore such opportunity for intelligent discussion.

You are full of good advice and your wife is so blessed to have a husband like you

No, I'm not wrong, whether you think so or not. It makes no difference to me whether you studied it for 5 minutes, 6 years, or 30 years. Your condescending tone and arrogance do not lend an air of credibility to your statements. It appears you likewise ignore such opportunity for intelligent discussion.
Do you have to turn everything into an argument

do you have to turn everything into an argument

I'm sure that question is posed to the wrong individual. My responses are to the one(s) starting the argument.

No, I'm not wrong, whether you think so or not. It makes no difference to me whether you studied it for 5 minutes, 6 years, or 30 years. Your condescending tone and arrogance do not lend an air of credibility to your statements. It appears you likewise ignore such opportunity for intelligent discussion.

I'm not starting an argument, I just wanted to ascertain if you knew what you were talking about. Since you don't, we can't have an intelligent discussion about the issues, and so I'm done with you.

I'm not starting an argument, I just wanted to ascertain if you knew what you were talking about. Since you don't, we can't have an intelligent discussion about the issues, and so i'm done with you.


Apparently I'm not the one here who doesn't know what he's talking about. And again, you don't encourage anyone to want to discuss anything with you by your condescending and insulting tone. You may want to work on your people skills.

I think you should realise that both evolution and creationism are theories. Just like Newtonian gravitation and General Relativity are both theories. Just that one fits the evidence more closely, makes more meaningful predictions etc than the other.

Hmm. I can't agree with that. Evolution, gravity, and relativity are scientific theories, based on loads of evidence (a coherent body of knowledge), whereas Creationism is not a scientific theory. In the Dover, Pennsylvania, intelligent design case, a federal judge (Judge Jones) listened to both sides and ruled that neither intelligent design nor creationism was science. Judge Jones himself is a conservative judge with religious beliefs, but he said that Intelligent Design was basically the same as Creationism and they are both religious.

There are a lot of people who accept evolution without fully understanding how it works. That is, they accept it on faith--just as I accept on faith that engineers know how to build bridges. Not everyone can know everything. But the important point is that engineers have a coherent body of facts and theories that help them understand how to build bridges strong enough to support cars, trucks, and even trains.

In the same way, biologists understand how species form and change over time. They have a coherent body of facts and theories that explain what actually happens and they can predict how living organisms will behave based on that knowledge. Just because a lot of Americans don't understand the science doesn't mean it doesn't exist. All of modern biology, including modern medicine, is based on our understanding that organisms change over time.

In contrast, there is no scientific evidence to support Creationism. Creationists have lots of questions about evolution and sometimes they are good questions (though often not), but their criticisms of evolutionary biology don't provide any facts that are evidence for Creationism. There are no scientific journals of creationism, no scientific papers on creationism, etc. Creationists only offer criticisms of evolution, and all of their criticisms are either wrong or picking at small details that don't affect the big picture. (It would be like arguing about what kind of paint to put on a bridge. The bridge is still strong enough to support a train.) Without studying evolution seriously, it's hard for the average person to see why the religious criticisms don't matter or are wrong. It would be as if a large group of people said that all of engineering theory was wrong. All the engineers can do is shrug and point to the bridges, because the math is hard to explain to someone who doesn't know anything about engineering. That's how biologists feel sometimes.

To my knowledge there are only two men with any serious training in biology who have supported Intelligent Design, out of hundreds of thousands of biologists. These are Michael Behe, who is a biochemist, whose latest book backs away from his earlier assertions because his ideas have been disproved. That is, he has all but given up attacking evolution. The other is Jonathan Wells who enrolled in graduate school and got a PhD in biology specifically so that he could use his knowledge to attack evolution. He has said that he planned to attack evolution even before he had studied it. Everything he learned about biology he has used to try to make evolution look untrue to people who don't know what he knows.

Evolution is a scientific theory, but creationism is a religious idea, not different from the virgin birth, the idea of hell, and so on.
Asking

Basically "big bang" says that there was a big explosion from gases and whatever.......now how did those gases or materials come about? Were they simply always there? It offers no answers for that, just the blind conjecture that these things were there, they came together, and BANG. Evolution, depending on which person you're discussing it with, says that everyone came together after billions of years of being in some primordial soup......yet it doesn't explain where those elements came from, again assuming they were just always there. People put a lot of stock into these ridiculous theories and push and push and push them as fact simply because scientists word these things in a way so as to make them sound intelligent and plausible.



Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait...

If something doesn't come from nothing--where the heck did your God come from? YOUR theory doesn't explain where THAT element comes from! If something doesn't come from nothing, and your God is something--who created Him? He can't have ALWAYS been, not if thoses gases and stuff couldn't have ALWAYS been! NOTHING could have ALWAYS been!

So... using YOUR logic--where did your God come from? How can I possibly believe that he was always there, if nothing else was always there?

(psssst... the answer you're looking for here is "I take it on faith. I believe because I believe it, just like other people believe what they do because they have faith in it, whether it's God or Goddess or Flying Spaghetti Monster or primordial soup.")

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait....

If something doesn't come from nothing--where the heck did your God come from? YOUR theory doesn't explain where THAT element comes from! If something doesn't come from nothing, and your God is something--who created Him? He can't have ALWAYS been, not if thoses gases and stuff couldn't have ALWAYS been! NOTHING could have ALWAYS been!

So...using YOUR logic--where did your God come from? How can I possibly believe that he was always there, if nothing else was always there?

(psssst....the answer you're looking for here is "I take it on faith. I believe because I believe it, just like other people believe what they do because they have faith in it, whether it's God or Goddess or Flying Spaghetti Monster or primordial soup.")


Why can't God have ALWAYS been? Is it because there is no "proof" or because human finite minds can't logical grasp "always" or for another reason?

Asking, you make an interesting point. I believe that every theory is entitled to some scientific investigation. It may well turn out that some theories are very obviously not fitting with the evidence, and some theories may blow open a whole new field of science, but both of these theories are, at the beginning, scientific and worthy of investigation.

For example, string theory, it fits no evidence and it makes no observable predictions, is this not a scientific theory?

I think you may be able to get me to agree with you on the falsifiability front, that the existence of a god is not falsifiable and so is not a scientific theory. But I'm not utterly convinced of that, at the moment, string theory is not falsifiable, although it may well be with the newer colliders coming in the next few years.

Why can't God have ALWAYS been? Is it because there is no "proof" or because human finite minds can't logical grasp "always" or for another reason?

If God can have always been, then why does he (and you) have an issue with these "gasses" having always been?

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait....

If something doesn't come from nothing--where the heck did your God come from? YOUR theory doesn't explain where THAT element comes from! If something doesn't come from nothing, and your God is something--who created Him? He can't have ALWAYS been, not if thoses gases and stuff couldn't have ALWAYS been! NOTHING could have ALWAYS been!

So...using YOUR logic--where did your God come from? How can I possibly believe that he was always there, if nothing else was always there?

(psssst....the answer you're looking for here is "I take it on faith. I believe because I believe it, just like other people believe what they do because they have faith in it, whether it's God or Goddess or Flying Spaghetti Monster or primordial soup.")

God didn't COME FROM anywhere. God has simply always been in existence. THAT very point is what "scientists" have the hardest time with. God is the Almighty, the Creator of all things, the Grand Designer. His existence precludes a beginning like it precludes an ending. He absolutely could have always been, but those gases would have had to come from somewhere. Gases are not omnipotent, they're elements, they're "things". God is not a "thing", per say. YES, GOD could have always been. For some, that concept is as hard to fathom as is the concept of the extreme temperatures generated by our sun. It's extremely difficult to comprehend, but that doesn't make the point any less valid. There's no way of telling how long (in time, as measured by human standards) God had been without the need or desire to create the visible universe. If you're going in under the assumption that only science, and science alone, can explain all of these answers, then you go in with a bias against there being an Intelligent Creator of all things. Science doesn't have to be at odds with creation. Although the Bible isn't a science textbook, whenever it does touch on scientific matters, it is always fully accurate with known scientific facts.

Psst... I'm sorry, but you're not going to provide my answer for me.

If God can have always been, then why does he (and you) have an issue with these "gasses" having always been?


You didn't exactly answer the question just posed another, but I believe He created everything including gasses and who is to say "He has an issue with these "gasses' having always been" Have you talked to Him about this?:D

If God can have always been, then why does he (and you) have an issue with these "gasses" having always been?


There's a big difference between the Creator of all things, and some inanimate gases. There would be no explanation for those gases having always been unless they had been put there, by someone, for some particular reason.

There's a big difference between the Creator of all things, and some inanimate gases. There would be no explanation for those gases having always been unless they had been put there, by someone, for some particular reason.
Not to pick on you in particular, silent (or pick on anyone at all really), but how can some of you keep saying that god can always have been there, while a mass of gases in space can't? Is it just out of sight out of mind for you, because that's not what you believe to be true? If one can exist on it's own, why not another?

See... I just want to point out to you that that is YOUR belief. YOUR religion explains it to you that way. You take it on faith.

The whole point (which I think you missed) was that you have faith that your god created the world, and that He could have been for always. I have faith that those gases are JUST as important as your god is. Seriously--they are EQUAL in importance.

What I was poking at was that I understand why you believe what you do. You, however, seem to have no comprehension that anyone else's worldview (or view of creation) is JUST as valid as yours is.

Ive never believed in God, maybe that's to do with my parents telling me nothing like that exists. But some people genuinely believe and are quite often better peope for it. Religion and faith can be a good thing provided it doesn't get out of hand and infringe upon other peoples right to fait

Ive never believed in God, maybe thats to do with my parents telling me nothing like that exists. But some people genuinely belive and are quite often better peope for it.
Define better because at the moment I'm going to take that as an insult

Not to pick on you in particular, silent (or pick on anyone at all really), but how can some of you keep saying that god can always have been there, while a mass of gases in space can't? Is it just out of sight out of mind for you, because that's not what you believe to be true? If one can exist on it's own, why not another?

It simply doesn't make sense than object, a thing, like a gas could just always be. A gas is inanimate, powerless, and so on. That's like saying, 'why couldn't it be possible for a house (or a car, or an airplane, etc.. etc... ) always be'? God is a being of incredible power, and incredible intelligence. His always having been and always being in existence (being the only one that can make such gases exist, by the way) makes more logical sense than accepting that any gases could always be. You can't compare one with the other, because there is no comparison.

I mean that some people have religion and are better in the sense that they are happier with their life, find they get on with peope better and generally have a more positive outlook on life :)

It simply doesn't make sense than object, a thing, like a gas could just always be. A gas is inanimate, powerless, and so on. That's like saying, 'why couldn't it be possible for a house (or a car, or an airplane, etc..etc...) always be'? God is a being of incredible power, and incredible intelligence. His always having been and always being in existance (being the only one that can make such gases exist, by the way) makes more logical sense than accepting that any gases could always be. You can't compare one with the other, because there is no comparison.
Why can't you compare one to another? I don't believe in a biblical god, but I can accept that one may exist. Do you just not respect people's right to have different beliefs than yourself?

I mean that some people have religion and are better in the sense that they are happier with their life, find they get on with peope better and generally have a more positive outlook on life :)
I tend to disagree with this statement.

I am religion less and I am totally content in my shoes.

Has a lack of a god image made me a lesser person? Not in my shoes,maybe yours.

I didn't mean that, I meant that having religion may make you a better person. If you're already a fantastic person and you don't feel you need religion then well done to you :) I'm a good person and I don't need religion

Why can't God have ALWAYS been? Is it because there is no "proof" or because human finite minds can't logical grasp "always" or for another reason?
Is there any other proof that god existed always,or is it the idea of faith that makes him that?

Is there any other proof that god existed always,or the idea of faith?
I sure hope there's other reasonging behind it than Faith. That wouldn't be very nice of them if they were allowed to believe that God has always been there because of faith, but I wasn't allowed to believe that Gasses have always been there because of faith.

Curious. Where do you suppose the gasses came from? You can't get something from nothing. So who created the gases?
Not to pick on you in particular, silent (or pick on anyone at all really), but how can some of you keep saying that god can always have been there, while a mass of gases in space can't? Is it just out of sight out of mind for you, because that's not what you believe to be true? If one can exist on it's own, why not another?

It simply doesn't make sense than object, a thing, like a gas could just always be. A gas is inanimate, powerless, and so on. That's like saying, 'why couldn't it be possible for a house (or a car, or an airplane, etc..etc...) always be'? God is a being of incredible power, and incredible intelligence. His always having been and always being in existance (being the only one that can make such gases exist, by the way) makes more logical sense than accepting that any gases could always be. You can't compare one with the other, because there is no comparison.


I'll try this again.

See... it DOES make sense to some people that a gas and a god are equal in importance. Would you say that oxygen, which you breathe every day, has less importance than your god? I would say they're equal in importance, because without one, you would have no reason for the other. Or--if you gave a person who couldn't breathe the choice between accepting God as their saviour, or a gas that could save their life--which becomes the more immediately important "thing"?

What I'm trying to say is that your logic doesn't work. If god could always be, then gases could always be. How can you prove different? How can logic say that one thing can exist always, because it's a GOD, and another can't, because it's just a gas? How do you know that the gas isn't a god too?

It simply doesn't make sense than object, a thing, like a gas could just always be. A gas is inanimate, powerless, and so on. That's like saying, 'why couldn't it be possible for a house (or a car, or an airplane, etc..etc...) always be'? God is a being of incredible power, and incredible intelligence. His always having been and always being in existance (being the only one that can make such gases exist, by the way) makes more logical sense than accepting that any gases could always be. You can't compare one with the other, because there is no comparison.

Although an object can be destroyed it's energy can not be. At least as far as we know right now. So you are right gasses haven't always existed but the energy contained in those gases has. An atom is stored energy. You can destroy an atom but in the process you release energy. That energy could then used to form a different atom. That energy will always be and it always has been. Maybe your religion isn't that different from science after all. Shame you won't study it.

Curious. Where do you suppose the gasses came from? You can't get something from nothing. So who created the gases?


Where did GOD come from? If you can't get something from nothing--who created the god?

Seriously--this is the SAME logic applied here! What is so hard to understand about it?

I'll try this again.

See...it DOES make sense to some people that a gas and a god are equal in importance. Would you say that oxygen, which you breathe every day, has less importance than your god? I would say they're equal in importance, because without one, you would have no reason for the other. Or--if you gave a person who couldn't breathe the choice between accepting God as their saviour, or a gas that could save their life--which becomes the more immediately important "thing"?

What I'm trying to say is that your logic doesn't work. If god could always be, then gases could always be. How can you prove different? How can logic say that one thing can exist always, because it's a GOD, and another can't, because it's just a gas? How do you know that the gas isn't a god too?
Because we do not pray to oxygen.

If the gases always were, then how did they suddenly decide to form into worlds, stars, plants, animals and people? Where did the order and beauty come from if not designed?
I'll try this again.

See...it DOES make sense to some people that a gas and a god are equal in importance. Would you say that oxygen, which you breathe every day, has less importance than your god? I would say they're equal in importance, because without one, you would have no reason for the other. Or--if you gave a person who couldn't breathe the choice between accepting God as their saviour, or a gas that could save their life--which becomes the more immediately important "thing"?

What I'm trying to say is that your logic doesn't work. If god could always be, then gases could always be. How can you prove different? How can logic say that one thing can exist always, because it's a GOD, and another can't, because it's just a gas? How do you know that the gas isn't a god too?

If the gases always were, then how did they suddenly decide to form into worlds, stars, plants, animals and people? Where did the order and beauty come from if not designed?
ONE WORD




EVOLUTION!

Because we do not pray to oxygen.


No... YOU don't pray to oxygen.

I do. Or rather, I pray to the Element of Air. And that of Fire, Earth, Water, and Spirit.

Others pray to trees. Or stars (ever wished on a star?). Or volcanoes. Get the picture?

YOU believe that your god created the universe. OTHERS don't.

YOUR religion is right for YOU. The fact that your mind is closed to what others believe is what scares the bejesus out of me.

I didnt mean that, i meant that having religion may make you a better person. If you're already a fantastic person and you dont feel you need religion then well done to you :) im a good person and i dont need religion
I still don't like the way you used the term better, I don't understand why some of those that have religion qualifies them to be a 'better' person than me or others

If the poison were sending down the Mississippi river eventually kills off all marine life at the gulf of Mexico, how will that area ever be restored?

Evolution,adaptation to the new surroundings,new and more tolerant species able to deal with the new chemical imbalances.

How did man come to make a wheel? Was it divine intervention that gave him the ability to deduce the idea from thin air?

How does nature decide to send planets spiraling around each other,divine also,NO it is fact,magnetism and gravity.

Even Darwin agreed that if there was one thing that proved him wrong he'd throw out the theory. He was always puzzled by the complexity of the eye and the peacock's feather. He wrote an essay stating that he could not account for these things, yet this is not common knowledge.
ONE WORD




EVOLUTION!

If the gases always were, then how did they suddenly decide to form into worlds, stars, plants, animals and people? Where did the order and beauty come from if not designed?
There's no reason why they had to be always there in a constant state, they coul dbe constantly part of a process, and the big bang happened when that process reached the stage when it became unstable and big banged. The collapse of the last universe could have caused the big bang of this one.

What order and beauty? Evolution only explains plants and people and animals. The universe is a dull and ugly place. Gravity explains most of the order out there.

He wrote an essay stating that he could not account for these things, yet this is not common knowledge.
The commer comes after the 'yet'

Where does magnatism and gravity come from? Why is the earth the only planet that has life? If evolution worked, wouldn't there be life everywhere since evolution states that the universe was created at once?
If the poison were sending down the Mississippi river eventually kills off all marine life at the gulf of Mexico, how will that area ever be restored?

Evolution,adaptation to the new surroundings,new and more tolerant species able to deal with the new chemical imbalances.

How did man come to make a wheel? Was it divine intervention that gave him the ability to deduce the idea from thin air?

How does nature decide to send planets spiraling around each other,divine also,NO it is fact,magnetism and gravity.

Even Darwin agreed that if there was one thing that proved him wrong he'd throw out the theory. He was always puzzled by the complexity of the eye and the peacock's feather. He wrote an essay stating that he could not account for these things, yet this is not common knowledge.

Have you ever read the origin of species? He goes on to suggest a way that the eye could have evolved a few pages after suggesting that it might be puzzling. He uses the same kind of asking a question then giving an answer throughout the whole book, it's the way he wrote. He was not puzzled by the eye.

They didn't suddenly come into being. It took billions of years. The reason earth is so perfect for us is because we adapted to life on earth, if earth was different we either wouldn't be or we would be different. It's that simple we are a peg that has been rounded over millions of years to fit the round hole.

Where does magnatism and gravity come from? Why is the earth the only planet that has life? If evolution worked, wouldn't there be life everywhere since evolution states that the universe was created at once?

How do you know there isn't?

I just went to the darwin exibit at the field museum in Chicago. He wrote the origin of species in a hurry because someone else was publishing something similar, after he had been afraid to publish his ideas that he had worked out, but not written into book form, over the past 15 years because he feared he would spark controversy with the Church, and he didn't want his wife to be involved in that.

It would be pretty natural for him to have been thinking about an eye being too comples on one page, then answer his own question later, if he was in such a hurry to write it.

Where does magnatism and gravity come from?
These come from inherent properties of matter? You want matter to have no inherent properties?


Why is the earth the only planet that has life? If evolution worked, wouldn't there be life everywhere since evolution states that the universe was created at once?
Earth is the only planet that has life? That's a pretty far-fetched statement. What evidence do you have? Evolution doesn't state anything about the creation of the universe.

No....YOU don't pray to oxygen.

I do. Or rather, I pray to the Element of Air. And that of Fire, Earth, Water, and Spirit.

Others pray to trees. Or stars (ever wished on a star?). Or volcanoes. Get the picture?

YOU believe that your god created the universe. OTHERS don't.

YOUR religion is right for YOU. The fact that your mind is closed to what others believe is what scares the bejesus out of me.
I am in total agreement with you, I don't subscribe to the creating of the universe by a divine being,I am too intellectual to fall prey to a concept which I see as unprovable.

Yes, I wish on stars almost every night( have yet to see a wish come true, that's show biz... LOL)

I am sorry it seems my views are looked at as closed minded, I am only looking for discussion,often playing the devils advocate.

Ken

The order and beauty of the human body for one. How do you explain the machinery of your cells?There are many studies done on the human cell that prove the order necessary for life to exist. Randomness does not produce life. The Biology Project: Cell Biology (http://www.biology.arizona.edu/CELL_BIO/cell_bio.html) There can be no mistakes in the cell or it dies or does not function as intended. DNA replication is a very precise order. http://207.207.4.198/pub/flash/24/menu.swf This is order and beauty.
Isaiah 45:7
I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the LORD, do all these things.'
What about the order of the seasons? The rotation of the earth? The process of life? All of these things are ordered and not random. Evolution was a theory based on randomness. Creation is based on order. There is order to life. Randomness and chaos to death.
Isaiah 65:18
But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create;

The order and beauty of the human body for one. How do you explain the machinery of your cells?There are many studies done on the human cell that prove the order necessary for life to exist. Randomness does not produce life. The Biology Project: Cell Biology (http://www.biology.arizona.edu/CELL_BIO/cell_bio.html) There can be no mistakes in the cell or it dies or does not function as intended. DNA replication is a very precise order. http://207.207.4.198/pub/flash/24/menu.swf This is order and beauty.
Isaiah 45:7
I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the LORD, do all these things.’
What about the order of the seasons? The rotation of the earth? the process of life? All of these things are ordered and not random. Evolution was a theory based on randomness. Creation is based on order. there is order to life. Randomness and chaos to death.
Isaiah 65:18
But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create;

Like I said, evolution explains the order of animals and plants. Anything that is not ordered enough to live just dies and does not pass on the disorder. Evolution is anything but random.

Hello saved:

It's not about randomness at all. You just don't understand it. You've got bits and pieces, but they don't make a theory. I think until you grasp the whole thing, you're better off not arguing about it.

excon

Evolution states that man came from ooze, or a single celled organism. This cannot be. Millions of different species cannot come from one cell. There is design in the order of creation.

Debunking Evolution - problems, errors, and lies of evolution exposed as false and wrong (http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html)

ACK---KBC, my apologies. I have to spread the love first, but you're right. I was looking at what you wrote, and not who wrote it. I, too, play devil's advocate, so I apologize for taking your words out of context.

I still mean what I said... I just don't think that you, personally, are close-minded. I was going with the argument, and I should have paid better attention to who wrote it.

For Saved:

http://enough_already.tripod.com/creation.htm

Debunking Evolution - problems, errors, and lies of evolution exposed as false and wrong (http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html)

That website seems to be very confused. The person who wrote it seems to misunderstand evolutionary theory.

ACK---KBC, my apologies. I have to spread the love first, but you're right. I was looking at what you wrote, and not who wrote it. I, too, play devil's advocate, so I apologize for taking your words out of context.

I still mean what I said...I just don't think that you, personally, are close-minded. I was going with the argument, and I should have paid better attention to who wrote it.
That's called being biased,

Asking, you make an interesting point. I believe that every theory is entitled to some scientific investigation. It may well turn out that some theories are very obviously not fitting with the evidence, and some theories may blow open a whole new field of science, but both of these theories are, at the beginning, scientific and worthy of investigation.

For example, string theory, it fits no evidence and it makes no observable predictions, is this not a scientific theory?

I think you may be able to get me to agree with you on the falsifiability front, that the existence of a god is not falsifiable and so is not a scientific theory. But i'm not utterly convinced of that, at the moment, string theory is not falsifiable, although it may well be with the newer colliders coming in the next few years.

Hi Capuchin! I'd certainly be willing to consider granting Creationism status as a hypothesis that bears investigation, IF it were falsifiable. But it's not falsifiable as far as I know. What would it take to show it's not true?

And, for now, it is not a theory that explains how the world works like the three other ideas you mentioned--Newton's theory of gravity, Relativity, and Evolution. I'm not up on string theory enough to argue that point. But as for evolution, we have literally 150 years of research from thousands of scientists to support evolution. Whereas Creationism just doesn't have any scientific evidence to support it. If scientists could test Creationism and get government grants to do the work, you can bet they'd jump on it!
Asking

Why can't you compare one to another? I don't believe in a biblical god, but I can accept that one may exist. Do you just not respect people's right to have different beliefs than yourself?

I never said that I didn't. But comparing apples to dump trucks doesn't make a logical argument to the alternative.

I'll try this again.

See...it DOES make sense to some people that a gas and a god are equal in importance. Would you say that oxygen, which you breathe every day, has less importance than your god? I would say they're equal in importance, because without one, you would have no reason for the other. Or--if you gave a person who couldn't breathe the choice between accepting God as their saviour, or a gas that could save their life--which becomes the more immediately important "thing"?

What I'm trying to say is that your logic doesn't work. If god could always be, then gases could always be. How can you prove different? How can logic say that one thing can exist always, because it's a GOD, and another can't, because it's just a gas? How do you know that the gas isn't a god too?


And I'll try it again too. There is no logic and no rationale for believing that an animate being and an inanimate object are equal in importance. None. Now, people are allowed to believe what they want and have their own views, but it doesn't necessarily mean that said views are logical. Yes, I would say that oxygen has less importance than my God, because my God created said oxygen in order to sustain my life. And, in the second instance, I would expect the person who couldn't breathe to accept God as their savior because in the very word "savior" it specifies God as the one who can save or restore their very life. The God would be the more immediate important "thing". You're still wrong. Gases are inanimate and had to have come from some source. God, being all powerful and all intelligent and the creator of all things does NOT have to have come from anywhere. You can't prove otherwise. Let me see you worship oxygen or hydrogen, or carbon monoxide. Just because you give something worship doesn't make it a true god. People today worship money, does that mean it's a true god? God absolutely can always be... a gas doesn't have that option.

Ive never believed in God, maybe thats to do with my parents telling me nothing like that exists. But some people genuinely belive and are quite often better peope for it. Religion and faith can be a good thing provided it doesnt get out of hand and infringe upon other peoples right to fait


My parents didn't teach me to believe either. They also didn't teach me NOT to believe. They told me it was up to me. When believing in something is optional, it's hard to take it seriously. So even when I tried to believe, I couldn't. When I was little, my friends were all Catholic and they told me I was going to go to Hell. So when I was 7 or 8, I tried hard to believe in God so I wouldn't go to Hell when I died. I was really scared. But I just couldn't honestly believe. So I decided not to believe in God or Hell and I felt better.

I tried to believe again when I was about 14. I went with my friends to Sunday school, but I kept asking lots of questions and the Sunday school teacher asked me not to come anymore. I was NOT disruptive. I was always a good student, quiet, shy kid in school. So it's not like I was making trouble. She just didn't like my questions. Many people tried to convert me when I was a teenager and in my early 20s, and I got tired of that. I didn't feel like they treated me very respectfully. They would dismiss my own thoughts and not listen to anything I said and tell me I was wrong. I was unpersuaded and bored by them after a while.
Asking

Just because you give something worship doesn't make it a true god.
Good point, maybe one day you'll realise that.

Darn it! I have to spread the love again!

Bravo, Cappy! Bravo! I'd give you a standing ovation for that if I could.

Although an object can be destroyed it's energy can not be. At least as far as we know right now. So you are right gasses haven't always existed but the energy contained in those gases has. An atom is stored energy. You can destroy an atom but in the process you release energy. That energy could then used to form a different atom. That energy will always be and it always has been. Maybe your religion isn't that different from science after all. Shame you won't study it.

Nice try, but no. As far as anything that's gone into the creation of the gas, any particle, any energy, any anything, it has not always been, it went into existence with the creation of the gas.

Good point, maybe one day you'll realise that.

And maybe you will as well.

Like i said, evolution explains the order of animals and plants. Anything that is not ordered enough to live just dies and does not pass on the disorder. Evolution is anything but random.

Evolution explains nothing. The sooner you realize that, the better.

Even Darwin agreed that if there was one thing that proved him wrong he'd throw out the theory. He was always puzzled by the complexity of the eye and the peacock's feather. He wrote an essay stating that he could not account for these things, yet this is not common knowledge.

Like all good scientists, Darwin was happy to entertain contrary evidence. All (good) scientists consider that their hypothesis may be wrong and they look for facts that could prove it wrong. But while Darwin spent years looking for holes in his own theory, he believed that it was fundamentally correct, which it was. It has been confirmed over and over again. Darwin wanted to know how inheritance works--because DNA and genes hadn't been discovered yet. But he did not think the peacock's tail or the eye disproved his theory. That's a myth.
Asking

I never said that I didn't. But comparing apples to dump trucks doesn't make a logical argument to the alternative.
I agree. Comparing the matter that the big bang and the universe was born from with a fictional character doesn't make sense. I guess I'll just start acting like some of the people here and refuse to see that while something isn't important to me, it may be to someone else.

Hey I can think of other people who saw things they didn't like as inferior. They were called nazis.

Even Darwin agreed that if there was one thing that proved him wrong he'd throw out the theory. He was always puzzled by the complexity of the eye and the peacock's feather. He wrote an essay stating that he could not account for these things, yet this is not common knowledge.

Like all good scientists, Darwin was happy to entertain contrary evidence. All (good) scientists consider that their hypothesis may be wrong and they look for facts that could prove it wrong. But while Darwin spent years looking for holes in his own theory, he believed that it was fundamentally correct, which it was. It has been confirmed over and over again. Darwin wanted to know how inheritance works--because DNA and genes hadn't been discovered yet. But he did not think the peacock's tail or the eye disproved his theory. If you are saying he doubted his own theory, that's not true.

Asking

Evolution explains nothing. The sooner you realize that, the better.
The sooner you realise that it does make sense when you think about it the better, but I think we both know that you won't even consider the possibility, tell me I'm wrong

And maybe you will as well.
Sorry, I don't worship anything. What am I meant to realise about worshipping nothing? That nothing is not a true God? What are you trying to tell me?

Have you ever read the origin of species? He goes on to suggest a way that the eye could have evolved a few pages after suggesting that it might be puzzling. He uses the same kind of asking a question then giving an answer throughout the whole book, it's the way he wrote. He was not puzzled by the eye.

Good answer!
Asking

Sorry, I don't worship anything. What am I meant to realise about worshipping nothing? That nothing is not a true God? What are you trying to tell me?

Obviously your blind devotion to science as the end-all/be-all of answers is a form of worship. So now you're saying science is nothing?

the sooner you realise that it does make sence when you think about it the better, but i think we both know that you wont even consider the possibility, tell me im wrong

And the same can apply to you, once you consider how little sense it actually makes.

I agree. Comparing the matter that the big bang and the universe was born from with a fictional character doesn't make sense. I guess I'll just start acting like some of the people here and refuse to see that while somthing isn't important to me, it may be to someone else.

Hey I can think of other people who saw things they didn't like as inferior. They were called nazis.


Comparing people who don't believe in evolution to nazis... that is absurb for one but childish. It seems to me you are the one that can't handle differentiating opinions?

Very much in agreement. Good response!

Obviously your blind devotion to science as the end-all/be-all of answers is a form of worship. So now you're saying science is nothing?

Scientists are committed to thinking things through based on evidence--information that can be measured accurately and verified. That is, everybody sees the same thing. So if I go outside and measure how bright the sky is today and 50 other people measure it and get the same number, we can all agree on how bright the sky is. This is the same way everybody operates normally every day.

If every time you take a certain freeway, you get caught in heavy traffic, you'll conclude that it's a bad way to go and take another route. It doesn't matter whether you are a Christian or an atheist. So science is just taking that way of thinking and formalizing it. You can call it "worshipping" science, but it's not any different from the way other people think in their practical day to day lives.

Where scientists differ from believers is in NOT taking some things on faith. If a friend tells us that the freeway is always clogged at 4 o'clock but it never is when we go on the freeway, we'll ignore their assertions instead of taking it on faith, EVEN if the friend says that God told them it was true.
Asking

And the same can apply to you, once you consider how little sense it actually makes.
I rest my case

Comparing people who don't believe in evolution to nazis....that is absurb for one but childish. It seems to me you are the one that can't handle differentiating opinions?
Hmm. I'd say that I handle other's opinions pretty well. Especially since I've already stated that I don't mind if others believe in God. What I do have a problem with is when people say that my beliefs are insignificant. For example, if someone were to say that the substance that the universe were born from doesn't matter, and that their beliefs are more important, for example saying that God can exist when matter couldn't have. I didn't compare anti-evolutionists to nazis. I compared people who can't accept that others have their own beliefs to nazis. If you don't believe me, you can go read my post again.

Hmm. I'd say that I handle other's opinions pretty well. Especially since I've already stated that I don't mind if others believe in God. What I do have a problem with is when people say that my beliefs are insignificant. For example, if someone were to say that the substance that the universe were born from doesn't matter, and that their beliefs are more important, for example saying that God can exist when matter couldn't have. I didn't compare anti-evolutionists to nazis. I compared people who can't accept that others have their own beliefs to nazis. If you don't believe me, you can go read my post again.


The nazis attempted to whip out an entire race of people and did pretty well at that, so to compare anyone on this board to nazis is childish and absurb.

I believe in God, you don't; we obviously will not get any farther than that with each other. Take care

It seems a bit silly to me for someone to say "If i believe in reincarnation, I will be reincarnated, and if I believe in a final death, then I will have a final death". Both Christianity (within it's denominations, at least) and Atheism are fairly clear about what happens after death, and are very clear that it will happen to everyone.

I don't wish to apply the "salty bag of water" to everyone, since, if it's true, it applies regardless or not of whether I want it to. People can believe as they wish but I don't believe that what they believe will change squat.

I havent heard of a religion that states that whatever you think will happen after death will infact happen exactly the way you believe. Although that might be a very nice religion to be a part of.

I wasn't sure about the 2 possibilities at all. I am only sure about one of them.
I think maybe you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that the content of one's belief about what happens after death actually determines what will happen to that person in the future. What I object to is the assertion, whether by believers or skeptics, that their formulation of the relevant distinctions and implied choices that face us as humans is the only possible formulation, and therefore that everyone else must accept and choose between the alternatives that they offer. The distinctions we make and the alternatives we allow may have nothing to do with what happens to us after we die, but they can make a huge difference in how we relate to each other in the meantime. That's what concerns me.

If evolution worked, wouldn't there be life everywhere since evolution states that the universe was created at once?
If I thought your description of "evolution" was accurate, I wouldn't believe it either. Until you take the trouble to at least learn what the theory does and, equally important, does not purport to describe and explain, don't expect your arguments against it to be taken seriously by anybody who has actually studied it.

Basically "big bang" says that there was a big explosion from gases and whatever.......now how did those gases or materials come about? Were they simply always there? It offers no answers for that, just the blind conjecture that these things were there, they came together, and BANG.
If I thought your description of "big bang" was accurate, I wouldn't believe it either. Until you take the trouble to at least learn what the theory does and, equally important, does not purport to describe and explain, don't expect your arguments against it to be taken seriously by anybody who has actually studied it.

>Thread Closed<