Question for atheists but all are invited to join the discussion, especially Lobster mobster.

I don't want you to think I'm tricking you or anything. This is a serious question and one of the questions, the answer to which, helped me become Christian.

Now, Lob seems to like logic. And logically speaking, nothing from nothing is nothing. If there were no God where did everything come from? As I see it, nothing from nothing is nothing. If we had nothing before anything then we should have nothing now.

Sincerely,

Where did god come from? Nothing from nothing is nothing remember and as far as I'm concerned if god was to exist (which I am convinced he doesnt) then where did he come from. He had to come from something too as far as my logic works.

Your logic doesn't work as far as I'm concerned.

Im sure some other atheists who are better versed than me at arguing their point will come along and give you even better reasons. Nice try though!

Where did god come from?

God was always here. And always will be. That is the point.


Nothing from nothing is nothing remember and as far as I'm concerned if god was to exist (which I am convinced he doesnt) then where did he come from. He had to come from something too as far as my logic works.

And there your logic fails. Because nothing can come from nothing. To put it differently, in order to have something today, you must have something then. And that something must be eternal, with no beginning because if nothing was first, there could be nothing after. That is an absolute.

So, something can come from something, but something can't come from nothing. It is impossible.


Your logic doesn't work as far as I'm concerned.

Im sure some other atheists who are better versed than me at arguing their point will come along and give you even better reasons. Nice try though!

Well, I hope they post. Lalala lala la la. Still waiting.

Sincerely,

Originally Posted by De Maria

Well, I hope they post. Lalala lala la la. Still waiting.

Sincerely,
De Maria


If you post it, they will come! :)

Because I wholeheartedly believe that anyone who seeks the truth deserves nothing, I have joined the Zeroastrianism religion, a religion that has nothing at its core. It involves the worship of the God Zeroaster, whom we believe never existed. Our motto, “Not seeing is believing.” It is our ultimate goal to achieve nothing. We make no effort to violate our one commandment, “Thou shall not.”

We do however believe that nothingness can be attained by:

Listening to bowling on the radio
Getting a government job
Picnicking on the lawn of the Embassy of Atlantis in Washington D.C.
Watching FOX News

Absolutely all Nothingness to you and yours and remember, there is no place like OM.

To assume that a state of nothingness ever existed is faulty. If it were so, how long was it that way? Could it be measured in time? Of course not. If there were no beginning of the nothingness, how then could it have been?

If God did create all matter, did God create an end to the nothingness that never had a beginning and therefore can not be? It would be impossible to end something that never was.

When then did God first get credit for this action? When was the first awareness of God? Only after the appearance of higher animals. In fact, man. What gives man the knowledge of this God? That which is in the mind of man. Why did this belief form of God? To explain the creation of all things or the beginning of matter for which there is no logical need for because there could never have been a state of nothingness which has no beginning.

What then accounts for matter that does exist? Consider E=MC(squared) for which Einstein's logic shows how energy and matter are different forms of the same thing. Energy could have therefore changed to matter. With this in mind, it is easier to view God as a "powerful" creator that is ever present within all people and places, as well as providing reasonable insights into positive and negative forms of energy equating to good and evil that compell one in different directions. Further examination of this pushes one toward an awareness of an afterlife such as when the soul of a person leaves the body upon death since we also know that energy is not destroyed. The energy or soul within only leaves the body to return to the whole of what some refer to as heaven or hell depending on positive or negative energies stored within the being.

In the religion of Zeroastrianism, we perfer to think of it as 0=00 (circled). That is purely Oinstein's logic. Since we have never seen Oinstein, we believe that he, like Zeroaster, never existed. Since 0 and 0 are nothing, we believe that they are the same form of nothing or, nothing nothing. Therefore, we have come to the conclusion that nothing squared is in fact not square at all but 0. Our Messiah, The Lord Billy Preston, said it best: "Nothin from nothin leaves nothin, ya gotta have nothin, if ya wanna be with me." Book of Zeroaster. Page 000000 Chapter 000 Verse 0000000000000000000

God was always here. And always will be. That is the point.Close but way off. :) Actually the singularity that started the big bang had always been there. Now we have this wonderful expanding universe.

Next question?

If God can be eternal, why can't anything else can be eternal? This is the flaw in your argument.

If there was a GodAlmighty, then there never was "nothing".

Why can't people accept the answer to the question on how the Universe originated and changed over time as being, "NO ONE KNOWS"? Which is the correct answer.

If God can be eternal, why can't anything else can be eternal? This is the flaw in your argument.

My point! Thanks Cap. I knew you'd be able to simplify. I bet its still hard for some to comprehend though! ;)

If there was a GodAlmighty, then there never was "nothing".

Why can't people accept the answer to the question on how the Universe originated and changed over time as being, "NO ONE KNOWS"? Which is the correct answer.

Exactly! A similar comment I was formulating as reading this post.

We will all each find out the real story once we pass on to wherever, and certainly all will when the Sun runs out of fuel.

Not sure where the nothingness concept came from. Scientists theorize there was a small, albeit, powerful, speck of matter, that expanded to what we see today.

Seems to them the universe is expanding still, what with the observations and measurements that confirm this fact. However, please note that scientists still call it the Big Bang "Theory", as the facts they seek for the beginning are still unreachable, and possibly unfathomable.

Perhaps there is some sort of natural cycle, expanding and contracting energy and matter. Who really knows?

One observation is that scientists offer only theories, as the facts or proof are so impossible to produce. Why are the religious so sure of their concept?

No one really knows for sure.

Why can't people accept the answer to the question on how the Universe originated and changed over time as being, "NO ONE KNOWS"? Which is the correct answer.
Well, another correct answer that is actually better because it's easier to support is "I don't know", but that's a minor point. It does seem like a perfectly good answer to me. Why do you think so many people are unsatisfied with it?

Man's quest for answers does not rest with I don't know. Trying to solve the questions and arrive at some conclusion, making sense of the universe, appears to give man purpose.

Chasing after another paradox like, “which came first, the chicken or the egg” uh, DM. Of course one had to come first, but which one?:p

Egg first

The first chicken hatched from an egg as a mutation or diversification from some other species, otherwise it would not have been a chicken, but some other closely related animal.

Think about it... if a tiger and a lion mate, the offspring is not a lion and it is not a tiger.

Everything is expanding, hummmm, so I can say I am not reallly getting fat, it is only the universe expanding.

everything is expanding, hummmm, so I can say I am not reallly getting fat, it is only the universe expanding.

How come clothes don't seem to expand at the same rate? Not enough elastic??

So, I see we all agree on nothing. I knew you would.

Close but way off. :) Actually the singularity that started the big bang had always been there. Now we have this wonderful expanding universe.

You just proved my point. Something had to always be here.

Sincerely,
.

If God can be eternal, why can't anything else can be eternal?

Because nothing else is God. Anything which is eternal is God. In Christianity we believe that there are three Divine Persons who are eternal and therefore God. But that is besides the point on this question.


This is the flaw in your argument.

Nope. You haven't even addressed the argument. The argument is that nothing can come of nothing. In order for anything to exist, something had to be there from all eternity.

Sincerely,

To assume that a state of nothingness ever existed is faulty.

Beautiful! Because if nothingness ever existed in the past, then nothing could be today.

Sincerely,

Exactly! A similar comment I was formulating as reading this post.

We will all each find out the real story once we pass on to wherever, and certainly all will when the Sun runs out of fuel.

Not sure where the nothingness concept came from. Scientists theorize there was a small, albeit, powerful, speck of matter, that expanded to what we see today.

It's the theory I've heard since I was a child:

You are here: Science >> Big Bang Theory

Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.....
Big Bang Theory (http://www.big-bang-theory.com/)


Seems to them the universe is expanding still, what with the observations and measurements that confirm this fact. However, please note that scientists still call it the Big Bang "Theory", as the facts they seek for the beginning are still unreachable, and possibly unfathomable.

Perhaps there is some sort of natural cycle, expanding and contracting energy and matter. Who really knows?

One observation is that scientists offer only theories, as the facts or proof are so impossible to produce. Why are the religious so sure of their concept?

No one really knows for sure.

That all seems besides the point. The point is that science points to a time of nothingess. If that ever were true, nothingness would still be the case.

Sincerely,

Nothing is what is coming from this entire thread, besides a lot of laughs, stupidity, and hot air.

Now at least there is a posted definition for "nothing"

State of having no substance... exactly this thread...

Nothing is what is coming from this entire thread, besides a lot of laughs, stupidity, and hot air.

Now at least there is a posted definition for "nothing"

State of having no substance... exactly this thread...

Exactly. Perhaps even a better definition of "nothing" is what is between the ears of the people who must relentlessly argue this garbage!

And logically speaking, nothing from nothing is nothing.
And mathematically speaking, zero minus zero equals zero.

These are good examples of a whole class of statements that are "true" in a mathematical and logical sense, but have no actual meaning or significance outside that context. They certainly have no bearing on the question of whether the universe had a beginning, what might have existed before that, or why it exists at all.

The argument is that nothing can come of nothing.
It's not an argument, it's an assertion which is devoid of meaning.

Nothing is what is coming from this entire thread, besides a lot of laughs, stupidity, and hot air.
It's "The Seinfeld Thread"!

What time is it?

What time is it?If you are at your computer then you can see the time at the bottom right of your screen.

Actually--COULD nothing have ever existed?

Isn't everything either energy or mass?

Forgive me if I don't have the scientific information right, but that's what I thought.

So... if there was nothing before our universe (no mass, I mean) wouldn't that mean there had been energy?

So... let the Christians call energy "God". I certainly don't care.

That's my assertion synnen (although energy is certainly something and not nothing). But I'm not sure how many Christians would be happy with god being unintelligent and bound by the laws of physics, as energy is.

That's my assertion synnen (although energy is certainly something and not nothing). But I'm not sure how many Christians would be happy with god being unintelligent and bound by the laws of physics, as energy is.


I am in the same belief boat with you, and trying to reason out if energy and matter are all tnere is, and people are a combination of energy and matter, is it the energy or the matter that enable the thought process? That thought process is what allows for an acknowledgement of some power. If both energy and matter are involved in thought, is thought then limited to the laws of physics as well?

The process certainly could be, where as the outcome not. Thus the God who is not bound by any laws is created through a process that is.

If we had nothing before anything then we should have nothing now.Hello De Maria:

Makes sense - if there was nothing. But we had something. It was called the singularity.

excon

I'm with you De Maria. God is not contained by matter. If there was ever a time when there was nothing, then something "out side" of matter had to create the mater that we have.

Matter and energy are interchangeable... Einstein's E=MC squared.

If there was always a god, then there was never a time when there was "NOTHING".

Exactly. Perhaps even a better definition of "nothing" is what is between the ears of the people who must relentlessly argue this garbage!

Sour grapes anyone?

Hello De Maria:

Makes sense - if there was nothing. But we had something. It was called the singularity.

excon

That's not what these guys say:
Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.....
Big Bang Theory (http://www.big-bang-theory.com/)

Sincerely,

De Maria

Nothing is what is coming from this entire thread, besides a lot of laughs, stupidity, and hot air

Nah. Just from one guy in Ohio.


State of having no substance... exactly this thread...

Again, just the messages from one guy in Ohio.

De Maria do you have the knowledge to respond appropriately to any of the posts I made other than the one where I asserted the stupidity and lack of substance related to any real debate related to the thoughts and opiniond of others, or is all your knowledge about nothing? I was intending no personal attacks toward anyone when I posted that comment, but rather felt that it was a comment on people making a lot of blind assertions, without addressing the points made by others.
If you must single me out for your personal attacks, it would seem that you must disagree? Can you show me anywhere in the posts where my logic was addressed by anyone prior to my post which you seem to have taken aim at? Or is it the case that you choose to dismiss logical thought that does not fit into you schema? Surely you must agree with me in part, because it would seem that you would have gotten "a lot of laughs" out of your last post. If you are unable to debate logic, attack the presenter personally. It does little to support your assertions, but if it makes you feel better, I suppose that is what your God would have you do.

De Maria do you have the knowledge to respond appropriately to any of the posts I made other than the one where I asserted the stupidity and lack of substance related to any real debate related to the thoughts and opiniond of others, or is all your knowledge about nothing?.

Sorry. I took this as an insult:


Nothing is what is coming from this entire thread, besides a lot of laughs, stupidity, and hot air.

Now at least there is a posted definition for "nothing"

State of having no substance... exactly this thread...

I actually liked your first post on this thread (#6).

Sincerely,

Nothing will give you piece of mind?

You call it a singularity we say God. Sounds like semantics to me.

Lot of fun stuff here. From here forward, all of us are eternal, just as God was and is.
I doubt the big bang thing. Every big bang I ever saw blew everythlng to bits. All you Atheists base your thoughts on the presuppostition that evolution is the cause of everything. Well, things don't improve, they degenerate. We have no record of any new species appearing, but we do have record of many species disappearing. (Reverse evolution, anyone?) The earliest languages we know about are the most complex. Why not accept the reasonable path and admit the fact that our Creator gave us a book explaining all these things, as much as we can grasp, and stop drowning in a sea of hopeless unbelief. Think about this; the Bible is a collection of 66 books, penned by many different men over the period of about 2,000 years and yet has no significant internal conflicts. That continuity is not found anywhere else as far as I have ever heard. Belief in evolution as a cause of anything takes much greater "faith" than to accept the record we have.

I doubt the big bang thing. Every big bang I ever saw blew everythlng to bits.

Bits that cool down and slowly coalesce into a statistically predictable pattern? Yep, that's about right.
The big bang was not an explosion inside spacetime, but a rapid expansion of spacetime itself. The common representation of it as an explosion leads too much misunderstanding.


All you Atheists base your thoughts on the presuppostition that evolution is the cause of everything.

Everything? You're showing your ignorance here. Evolution only explains how forms of life change over time. If things did not show evidence of change over time, nobody would be arguing about evolution. Thus it certainly wasn't presupposed. Sorry. Facts before theory is how all good science works.


Well, things don't improve, they degenerate.

Who says?


We have no record of any new species appearing, but we do have record of many species disappearing.

Wrong. How do you define species? How about wheat? That certainly looks nothing like the original crop that we have evolved it from. Sheep? Domestic sheep can no longer produce offspring with wild sheep as they have evolved, would this not be a new species? How about nylonase? (hint: there are many more.. )


The earliest languages we know about are the most complex.

Exactly, the earliest languages we know about. These are still very complex languages on par with the complexity of ours today. Language developed long before anyone worked out how to write it down.
In any case. This has nothing to do with evolution.


Why not accept the reasonable path and admit the fact that our Creator gave us a book explaining all these things, as much as we can grasp, and stop drowning in a sea of hopeless unbelief. Think about this; the Bible is a collection of 66 books, penned by many different men over the period of about 2,000 years and yet has no significant internal conflicts. That continuity is not found anywhere else as far as I have ever heard. Belief in evolution as a cause of anything takes much greater "faith" than to accept the record we have.

No significant internal conflicts? Like how entire towns should be burned if one person worships a God other than the biblical one (somewhere in Deuteronomy, I believe), but of course, "Thou shall not kill" (also in Deuteronomy)? How is that not conflicting? I suppose something was lost in translation somewhere? So how can we trust the translations we have now?

You think that a path of creationism, with no solid evidence, a path that is untestable, a path that is fundamentally useless to the progression of technology is somehow more reasonable than the "path" of evolution, which has shown itself to be accurate time and time again over the past 150 years, with hundreds of vaccines and farming methods based off it? Please...

I also want to point out a laughable contradiction you made. You say that evolution is a "sea of hopeless unbelief", then you claim that "Belief in evolution as a cause of anything takes much greater "faith" than to accept the record we have.". How can both these things be true? Which is it?

In short, evolution is observable fact. Tests of evolutionary theory show it to be accurate again and again. Creationism is faith. Believe it if you wish but just know that it has no use in the real world.

"Evolution only explains how forms of life change over time. If things did not show evidence of change over time, nobody would be arguing about evolution. Thus it certainly wasn't presupposed. Sorry. Facts before theory is how all good science works."


Oldest Horseshoe Crab Fossil Discovered | LiveScience (http://www.livescience.com/animals/080128-horseshoe-crab.html)

Prior fossils were dated back to 350 million years. These new discoveries now date 105 million years older to 455 million years ago.


"We wouldn't necessarily have expected horseshoe crabs to look very much like the modern ones, but that's exactly what they look like," Rudkin said.
"This body plan that they've INVENTED, they've stayed with it for almost a HALF A BILLION YEARS. It's a good plan," Rudkin told LiveScience. "They've survived almost UNCHANGED up until the present day, whereas lots of other animals haven't."



Please forgive my biases, but you would think that our fellow primates would get with the program and "evolve" to the more dominant and superior species. ;)

Please forgive my biases, but you would think that our fellow primates would get with the program and "evolve" to the more dominant and superior species. ;)

I don't get your point?

"You think that a path of creationism, with no solid evidence, a path that is untestable, a path that is fundamentally useless to the progression of technology is somehow more reasonable than the "path" of evolution, which has shown itself to be accurate time and time again over the past 150 years, with hundreds of vaccines and farming methods based off of it? Please...."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did vaccines, better farming methods, cars, computers etc... come about randomly or through human INTELLIGENCE?

Lets see Creationism teaches that we were INTELLIGENTLY designed by God, created for Him.

Evolution teaches us that humans are here due to random chance.

Here is another example of facts versus theory.

First Detailed Map Of Nuclear Pore Complex Made (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080124140140.htm)

"The scientists’ results have given them a peek into the early evolution of eukaryotic cells, the cells that make up all higher organisms, from people to plants to fungi. These cells split off from their progenitors when THEY DEVELOPED a nucleus and other specialized organelles that allowed them to compartmentalize different aspects of cellular metabolism."


It took 9 years, three lab, computer power and modeling, countless man hours
to decipher the nuclear pore complex. and these prokaryotic cells developed their own nucleus - purely by chance.?

Horseshoe crabs have not changed in half a billion years because they have such a good plan.

Do you think we have a better plan than our fellow primates, especially our intelligence?

If so, why are chimps and gorillas still around, unless we did not evolve from them.

Why are chimps and gorillas still around, unless we did not evolve from them.

We did not.

Evolution is not random.

You've pretty much shown the height of ignorance of how evolution works in your last 2 posts.

We did not?. evolve from them?

So evolution, if not random, is intentional? Whose intention?

Please educate me on evolution.

If evolution is so irrefutable, why is it that many of those who believe in to do everything within their power to keep young students from being permitted to hear anything about intelligent design? Afraid they might not swallow the idea of accidental complexity?

We did not?... evolve from them?

So evolution, if not random, is intentional? Whose intention?

Please educate me on evolution.

Both us an modern apes evolved from a single ape-like ancestor. The animal that was left behind died out long ago. We are different twigs on the same branch.

The mutation of genes is random, of course. But the selective pressure that competition for resources provides means that only beneficial mutations are passed on. This is very ordered - a generational selection process of the animals best mutated to take advantage of a resource. There is no intent behind it, it's just a very complex phenomenon arising from a very simple process - similar organisms fighting for the same resources.

If evolution is so irrefutable, why is it that many of those who believe in to do everything within their power to keep young students from being permitted to hear anything about intelligent design? Afraid they might not swallow the idea of accidental complexity?

I don't think anyone has a problem with kids being taught intelligent design. The problem is with it being taught in science class. It is a long stretch from being scientific, there is no evidence, it makes no observable predictions etc. etc. etc. All things that a scientific theory must do, and all things that evolution does by the bucketloads.

Again, evolution is not accidental, it's actually incredibly systematic, unpredictable but systematic.

Hello in:

If you flip a coin long enough, you'll find that heads comes up 50% of the time. That's not a random number. It's a law of nature. It just happens that way without intervention.

You, however, apparently think that God intended that to happen or it would not happen, and heads might always come up.

I wouldn't know how to convince you that it happens, automatically, without intention. Because that's how evolution happens, automatically, without intention. Without intention species that evolved without survival skills died off. Without intention, species with survival skills passed on those skills (genes), and the species, for lack of a better word, survived.

It happened like that just assuredly as coin flipping will follow the rules. It happens automatically, without intervention, and without intention.

excon

No significant internal conflicts? Like how entire towns should be burned if one person worships a God other than the biblical one (somewhere in Deuteronomy, I believe), but of course, "Thou shall not kill" (also in Deuteronomy)? How is that not conflicting? I suppose something was lost in translation somewhere? So how can we trust the translations we have now?

I don't expect you will understand this, but the destruction of the Caananites was necessary to keep the lineage of Jesus Christ from being assimilated and destroyed before His birth. Otherwise, the promise God gave to Eve of a descendent who would destroy Satan would have failed. Murder was forbidden, execution for crimes was not.

I also want to point out a laughable contradiction you made. You say that evolution is a "sea of hopeless unbelief", then you claim that "Belief in evolution as a cause of anything takes much greater "faith" than to accept the record we have.". How can both these things be true? Which is it?

Both. Your unbelief in anyone greater than yourself puts you in the position of trying to reach any eternal bliss without map or compass. Howevcer, you do "believe" in random chance as a FIRST CAUSE. You have to, because there is absolutely no proof of such being possible. Where has it ever been observed?

Teach the facts, the actually observed tested fact - let people come to their own conclusion.

How can evoultion be tested when it is a retrospective observation? First you believe in evolution, then you take the actual facts and attribute it to evolution.

Is that science?

Evolution has it backward.

Christianity [ and I think Islam and Judaism ] tells its believers to look forward to life; a life that has purpose, meaning, and innumerable possibilities to glorify God by trusting in Him. 1 Thess 1:3

If evolution is so irrefutable, why is it that many of those who believe in to do everything within their power to keep young students from being permitted to hear anything about intelligent design? Afraid they might not swallow the idea of accidental complexity?

And on the opposite side, why do intelligent design advocates fear the evolution teachings? Afraid their religious beliefs won't be swallowed by the masses without a trace of evidence?

Imagine if church profitably taught evolution? What need would there be to dispute it then?

If the bible says that man was created in God's image, who was there to see what that image looked like? Eve? Look at all the variety in Man... eye color, weight, height, skin color, and intelligence levels to name a few... Tell me which one was in God's image??

If a moment of time for God is 10,000 years for us, how can you know what happened in an hour of God's time during the world's creation... It doesn't tell how the creation was done, nor what happened in the process... That's a matter of interpretation.

Hi, ExCon. Passing genes on to offspring. OK. In that context explain the ant or honeybee, or any of several insect species. The parents exibit none of the beneficial traits of their offspring. Everything is designed in by intellect.

If a moment of time for God is 10,000 years for us, how can you know what happened in an hour of God's time during the world's creation... It doesn't tell how the creation was done, nor what happened in the process... That's a matter of interpretation.[/QUOTE]

Aha! You admit to a Creator!

To a creation

Teach the facts, the actually observed tested fact - let people come to their own conclusion.

How can evoultion be tested when it is a retrospective observation? First you believe in evolution, then you take the actual facts and attribute it to evolution.

Is that science?

Evolution has it backward.

Christianity [ and I think Islam and Judaism ] tells its believers to look forward to life; a life that has purpose, meaning, and innumerable possibilities to glorify God by trusting in Him. 1 Thess 1:3

I think what you mean by "retrospective observation" is "prediction". And yes, that is how science works, how else would you test your theories? Of course evolution wasn't formulated by prediction, but by observation. But we test well founded theories through prediction.

So the development of an extremely complex nucleus and nuclear pore complex:
1] developed by mutation? What scientific proof is there of this?
2] what selective pressure was there for a nucleus to be an advantage?
3] How does having a nucleus get a cell more resources? What particular resources?
4] Why are some humans outraged about chimp experiments - especially if it is to our
Advantage in studying diseases?
5] If we are all competing for the same limited resources in order to make sure our genes are passed on, why have social programs like unemployment, welfare, medicaid, disability? After all, survival of the fittest right?
- Or is this religion that teaches us to care.
6] Why do humans still pass along mutations, not "beneficial," like

Harvard Medical School Center for Hereditary Deafness (http://hearing.harvard.edu/db/genelist.htm)

Cystic fibrosis, huntinton's, sickle cell, hemochromatosis etc.

One only has to Google oncogene mutation herditary to see the scope of mutaions and how harmful they are - and this is the primary mechanism of evolution?

One guy


Evolution is taught as fact when it is not. _ see #5

Why do evolutionist fear intelligent design?

Why not let children know they are especially created, God gives them a purpose, God loves them - is that so bad?

Evolution is taught as fact when it is not. _ see #5
It's taught as science, there's a difference.

Why do evolutionist fear intelligent design?
No fear but teach it in the religion class not the science class.

Why not let children know they are especially created, God gives them a purpose, God loves them - is that so bad?
Children are created by sex between a man and a woman. People give themselves their own purpose.

Inthebox, for the lattert half of your question, humans have, in some limited ways, broken free from evolution through their intelligence. Medicine has meant that people with defective genes don't always die like they would in the wild.

Mutations can go both ways, by definition.

Evolution is taught as fact when it is not. _ see #5

Evolution is as much a fact as the attraction of 2 objects with mass, but I don't see you shouting heresy about that.

We can't just say a god did it and still preform science. Once we start saying god did it we have to stop. In that case we would have stopped along time ago. Why cure diseases could we not say they are the work of a god and stop right there.

But to answer your question the article you quote, your taking it to literal there wasn't nothing there was almost nothing. There never was nothing there has always been something we just aren't sure what yet. If your really interested in learning you should check out modern books on string and demential theory. If you really believe in god you should encourage this research because if your theory is correct and science proves god did it, it would prove god.

In the box, you apparently accept mutatations as a fact. I fail to see why you seem to believe that all mutations are detrimental. Many yes, but it only takes one success to improve the species in a positive way and provide some benefit that changes all who follow. Naturally, the negatives do not mean instant death, especially when there are ways to overcome.

As for my education on evolution, it was not presented as fact in a classroom with Catholics, Apostolics, Baptists, Mennonites, Non Believers, etc.

It was clearly stated as a theory. I was allowed to form my own opinion based on what I saw. I have studied mutations and genetics from Mendel's pea experiments... etc... I have personally worked with genetic researchers in Corn... as well as some work with environmental factors that creat mutations in mammals that are passed on to the offspring.

I've seen it and experienced it first hand. Sorry, but I'm still waiting to see any one walk on water.

All of what I am saying does not mean that I do not feel that there are higher powers or laws to govern things than what we as people are able to understand.

It might be interesting to note that even religions seem to be involved in evolution. Through such practices as raising the perfect sheep to offer as a sacrifice, shepherds were promoting positive changes in their flocks.

Look at how the dog species has changed in the last 200 years... that evolution through selective breeding has produced extreme changes in a relatively short time.

No one is saying that your great grand parents were chimps. Instead, the idea is that there is a common link between the two species. For further proof that species change over time, consider the difference between European peoples and the Aboriginees of Australia. At one time, not all that long ago, differences in races caused some groups of people not to be accepted as humans.

If you are saying that all man came from Adam, how do you justify the past belief that these different races of people exhist but can't be human? And if you accept their existence as human, how can you exclude the possibility that humans can change drastically over time into beings that do not seem to resemble their original forms?

One guy


Evolution is taught as fact when it is not. _ see #5

Why do evolutionist fear intelligent design?

Why not let children know they are especially created, God gives them a purpose, God loves them - is that so bad?


How about because I don't believe in your god, and don't want it forced on my children?

I was thinking that religions wanted separation of church and state, as long as the religious community gets to do what ever it wants... got to watch those double edged swords!

Attributing humans using intelligence to manipulate facts to make medicine, new technology is NOT evolution. Human choice to manipulate experiments is not evolution. Is it? Is selective dog breeding evolution? {This is human intelligence}
If so who or what forces selected humans to be "breeded" from a common primate ancestor?


Using God given "talents" is Biblical - aka the parable of the talents. I have never stated that God and science or mutually exclusive.

Science observes documents God's glory - from my point of view.


If evolution is a "fact" how come no one can answer the questions on post #61?

What scientific proof is there of creationism? Or of intelligent design?

What PROOF do you have of God?

Let me warn you--it has to be really good for me to believe it. It can't be based on the Bible (written by men). It can't be observations about nature (physics and gravity and spectrums of light and biology is NOT proof of god). It can't be the birth of a child (again, that's biology). It can't be a "miracle" like someone coming out of a coma after seeing a bright light and seeing their great-gramma and Aunt Susie--that's not proof of God. I don't know WHAT that's proof of, but you can't honestly attribute it to God.

So... what proof is there that GOD exists? What scientific evidence proves God?

And--if a God DOES exist---what proof do you have that it's YOUR god? Couldn't it be MY god that you're attributing whatever proof to? Or the FSM?

I agree with what's stated above. I don't have a problem with intelligent design being taught---in an elective class. NOT in Science classes.

? Is selective dog breeding evolution? {This is human intelligence}
If so who or what forces selected humans to be "breeded" from a common primate ancestor?


The forces that selected the humans included such things that go along with survival of the fittest. I used the example of dog breeding, because in that case the force that made the determination is the human choice... For the predicessors of man, the force was nature and natural selection. And choice may have also played a part... as in the various forms could have found others like themselves more appealing... either through mental desires or affiliations within a group.

I will now go back to post #61 and offer my thoughts

So the development of an extremely complex nucleus and nuclear pore complex:
1] developed by mutation? what scientific proof is there of this?
2] what selective pressure was there for a nucleus to be an advantage?
3] How does having a nucleus get a cell more resources? What particular resources?
4] Why are some humans outraged about chimp experiments - especially if it is to our
advantage in studying diseases?
5] If we are all competing for the same limited resources in order to make sure our genes are passed on, why have social programs like unemployment, welfare, medicaid, disability? Afterall, survival of the fittest right?
- Or is this religion that teaches us to care.
6] Why do humans still pass along mutations, not "beneficial," like


The proof would be in the existence of the process of sexual reproduction as opposed to asexual methods. The very process allows for greater diversity and adaptation. It can be seen in organisms such as viruses that adapt to overcome threats. If you assume that sexual reproduction was always present, then where did the need for asexual means originate?

Consider bacteria without a nucleus, but instead they have a nuclioid or cluster of DNA. The movement of such organisms revolves around some external factor such as water current... a higher single celled organism with a nucleus such as an Amoeba has a means of movent on it's own power through a pseudopod. What advantage does that give in seeking resources? Power to move toward desired location. What makes a nucleus responsible for these changes? An organizational benefit that occurred at the same time as the higher form was developing. It does not mean that one was directly responsible for the other. It does indicate that the development of such structures was for the benefit of the cells through such purposes as providing more protection or structure to the cell. As the cells were successful with the nucleus, it promoted higher development within the nuclues. If it was not successful, the organism would have died out.
People have free will to choose what outrages them. The fact that something is of potential benefit has nothing to do with it. Some people get upset that they can't smoke in certain places despite the obvious health risk. Organisms do not need to consciously decide what or how evolution will affect them. As for the social programs, many people do argue their detriment to the human race. Religion might promote the concept of caring, or you might find that such caring stems from animal type behavior... look at the instinct to protect the young of many animal species... why do they care to protect a competitor? To ensure survival of the species? Or would you believe that a wolf, bear, or lioness protects her young because of religious convictions?

I read through most of the post and just wanted to contribute some of my views and beleifs. Just to share them, not asking you to adopt them and defintely not saying my view is THE view :).

First, I think someone mentioned here if God is eternal, why are we all not eternal? But you see we are. This life is only temporary as we all know that to be a fact, and it is my belief that we are born to eternal life. Meaning, when we pass this life, our souls are joined with God in eternal life.

Proof there is a God? Oh my. That's a tough one. We can obtain proof in probably every aspect of life. Tangible proof. Proof we can touch, feel and see. This is one area that is different. As it takes faith. Blessed are those who believe without seeing. (Sorry, didn't mean to quote). I have been taught, (whether it's correct or not), that each of us will have the opportunity of being "introduced" to the knowledge that there is indeed a God, and will be given a chance to accept and embrace His love or turn away and not believe.

All of you are so bright with your questions and so inquisitive and rightly so. I meant that sincerely, all of you being so bright and intelligent, it comes through in your post, so yes, it must be difficult for you to accept something, that does not have an equation, does not have a tangible beginning, middle and end. Is not something you can see, fully understand, or rationalize. In my heart, I do understand. I smile at some of your questions, as they are excellent and remind me in some ways of very inquisitive children.

What I mean by that is you will continue to ask questions until you get to the bottom of it. And if it takes 40 questions and 40 "Whys", then so be it. And I say, good for you. To want to know, to want to learn and to want to understand.

I wish I could say, here, here is the answer. See, here, right here is God. But I can't provide that visual for you.

Do you remember as children, we would ask our parents, Why? Why does the sun shine? How many stars are in the Sky. Where did my little sister come from? And all the wonderful questions we placed at our parents feet. And bless their souls they answered us, as best they could. Some of the answers, they couldn't provide proof for, but in our little hearts, we knew they loved us and we believed. Some things were very hard to understand and most times, we probably didn't.

I think that is how I equate all of our wonderment. The answers can't be shown, at this time, can't be fully understood but may we all be blessed with faith to help us accept (if that is our choice)

I share all of this with you, not to say I am right, or what I have said is right. I guess I mostly share, that for me, there is no way I could survive this world without having faith in the love of God. I have made so many mistakes, made poor choices so I am not even close to perfect and so far removed from it.

To me, sometimes, life can be a challenge. Hurt feelings, loss of loved ones, loss of things we love, misunderstandings and all the more difficult things in life we all face. For me,
it is God's love and merciful forgiveness that helps lift me up again. So many times I forget and get lost and caught up in this thing called life. And that is when I find I struggle the most. But when I remember to turn to Him, I somehow find myself in a place of peace and understanding.

I want you all to also know, that I believe in God and turn to Him, not because I am a good person, it's because I want to be a good and better person.

Okay, Allheart sermon over. I promise all of you, I only share what is in my heart and what get's me through, yes, in hopes that maybe it will help you see things in a different light and perhaps help you through a difficult time but never to force you to accpet my view as yours.

Would a wolf feed the offspring of a rival pack when the biological mother was around or a lioness feed the young of a female from another pride?

Protecting your own descendants is a given, but attributing alturism as a trait that humans mimicked from lower life forms?

Okay - I remember watching mutual of omaha shows - A pride of lions are hunting wildebeest and invariably they get one that is old or young or unhealthy. Have you ever seen a healthy wildebeest that got away, turn around, and rescue the hapless wildebeest
As one or more lions are tearing into it?

Rival packs are in competition with each other so I wouldn't think the caring would extend beyond the positive affiliation of the animals.

Who is saying that the humans (higher life forms) are mimicking the behavior as they extend outside of their affiliated groups... Instead, it would be an extension of the internal programming as a method of promoting life for the species. As the higher cognitive processes developed, so to do the concepts of charity, compassion, and goodwill... as well as greed, hate, and criminal intent.

It's not hard to picture ancient mammals figuring out that if I help you, you might help me in the future. Such practice would be beneficial for survival. That does not mean that all mammals will follow that practice. Not even all people demonstrate a desire to do so.

There are reported cases of animals helping other species for unknown reasons. Look at examples of animals who provided care for human children lost in the wilderness. That does happen. Many species have formed mutual benefit relationships with other species.

The development of greater caring capacities would be beneficial in allowing higher life forms to form relationships with other species for mutual benefits. This can clearly be seen with the domestication of wild animals for food or service purposes. Caring for those animals kept them healthy longer and thereby increased survival for both species.

I posted this in another thread, but some of you are not there, and it fits this thread maybe even better than the other one.

When all mention of God is removed from the student's education, then the foundation of our culture is taken away. Several of you have let it be known in no uncertain terms that you consider the Bible irrelevant, but read on. The Bible speaks to biology, anthropology, physics, and geology.

It also addresses the subject of public sanitation. There are still countries that could have much healthier populations if they would practice what the Bible prescribes on that subject.

Biology: When did scientists determine that the human body is composed of the very same elements that are found in dirt? How did Moses know that 4,000 years ago?
Gen 2:7
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
(KJV)
Anthropology: Science now knows that all humans are related by blood. Dr. Luke told us that 2,000 years ago.
Acts 17:26
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
(KJV)
Physics: How lately have scientists discovered that apparently solid materials are not really solid, but are made up of atoms, with all their sub-atomic parts? Once again, the Bible beat them to it.
Heb 11:3
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
(KJV
Geology: The Bible tells us when the Earth's land mass was divided (I assume excluding Australia and Antarctica)
Gen 10:25
25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.
(KJV)
Definition of the name “Peleg”
6389 Peleg (peh'-leg);
The same as 6388; earthquake; Peleg, a son of Shem:
KJV-- Peleg.
You will respond by saying that the continental drift is too slow for this time frame, but how can you prove that the rate of drift has not slowed dramatically in 4,000 years?

You should stop saying that intelligent design has no place in the science classroom.

I was thinking that religions wanted separation of church and state, as long as the religious community gets to do what ever it wants... gotta watch those double edged swords!
I believe if you go back and read that again you will find that all the prohibitions are against the state, not the Church! Like so much of the Constitution, this has been twisted by activist judges who consider the Constitution a "living document" subject to their whim.

Both us an modern apes evolved from a single ape-like ancestor. The animal that was left behind died out long ago. We are different twigs on the same branch.

The mutation of genes is random, of course. But the selective pressure that competition for resources provides means that only beneficial mutations are passed on. This is very ordered - a generational selection process of the animals best mutated to take advantage of a resource. There is no intent behind it, it's just a very complex phenomenon arising from a very simple process - similar organisms fighting for the same resources.

Really? Then why do we have fossil records of primates BEFORE the assumed link, and fossil records of man AFTER the assumed link but no link? If we accept the assumption of the evolutionist theory, there would have to have been links for how long? A million years? More? Less? We have fossils before and after, but no complete fossils between. There should be millions of them. Sorry, no cigar!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

... reflected in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally authored by Thomas Jefferson, but championed by Madison, and guaranteeing that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination.

... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

Since the public is compelled to finance publc education, the above clearly states the founders opinions on the matter.

Question for atheists but all are invited to join the discussion, especially Lobster mobster.

I don't want you to think I'm tricking you or anything. This is a serious question and one of the questions, the answer to which, helped me become Christian.

Now, Lob seems to like logic. And logically speaking, nothing from nothing is nothing. If there were no God where did everything come from? As I see it, nothing from nothing is nothing. If we had nothing before anything then we should have nothing now.

Sincerely,

To get back to the original question at hand. You cannot use your logic because you logic is faulty. We don't have nothing from nothing and nothing. The argument is that we have SOMETHING FROM NOTHING THAT IS SOMETHING. If you are religious, you believe that some deity created all that is, SOMETHING FROM NOTHING. If you believe science we were created by matter that already existed and always has, SOMETHING FROM SOMETHING. You tell me what is more logical to believe, Something from Nothing, or Something from Something?

Religion has and always will be simply a way for people who cannot accept uncertainty to explain uncertainty. People will always be people and the always want to know "WHY?" From the time we can talk all we ask is "WHY?" People who believe in religion want an answer now because it comforts them even if it is a blind leap of faith. People who lean towards science are OK with not having an answer right now, because they are convinced that we will find it.

I think my Bald Headed Ex-Governor said it best "Organized religion is a crutch for weak minded people".

It is odd that the solution to the human condition of satisfying curiousity is solved by many simply by making up a story and having a little "faith".

THE BIBLE... the number one selling fiction writing of all time.

There is so much proof that there is a God, the God of the Bible. Lets say that there is a God even if you believe it is a crutch. When you die as will all of us at one time. You stand before an almighty and just God and he asks you why should I let you into heaven, what woud you say

there is so much proof that there is a God, the God of the Bible. lets say that there is a God even if you believe it is a crutch. when you die as will all of us at one time. you stand before an almighty and just God and he asks you why should i let you into heaven, what woud you say


I won't.


I will face the judgement of my Goddess, who will ask me what lessons I learned from my life, and whether I felt I lived to the best of my ability.

I will then be reincarnated to learn lessons in the next life that I didn't learn in this one.

Let's say you die, and there's NOT a god, and a chorus of angels, and heaven waiting for you--and the Goddess asks you why you've forsaken her. What will YOU do?

What proof? Seriously, I don't get it!

Why is the proof offered for evolution not good enough for creationists, yet they don't understand why the Bible isn't proof enough for those who don't believe?

I have no problem with creationism being taught as an elective, really--but honestly, I don't feel like paying taxes for Christianity based education, when I'm not Christian, and neither are ALL of the rest of the people in the US.

I think my Bald Headed Ex-Governor said it best "Organized religion is a crutch for weak minded people".




I am so sorry you feel that way. I don't think I am weak minded, some times I feel I have no mind :p and then there are times I most definitely have a mind of my own. With me, religion, I feel in my heart. So, perhaps I am weak at heart and yes, I do agree with that.

It saddens me you feel that way and your Bald headed Ex-Govenor Lol :). Maybe if he believed there was a God, he would have hair :p Just kiddn... just kiddn honest. My hubby is bald and believes with all his heart.

By the way your picture is beautiful and breathtaking.

I hope someday you see us that do believe as other then weak. I know that some who believe are pushy and unkind in their words and damn all those who don't believe to hell.
I don't really undersand them myself. God is a loving God and would never want us to speak to one another like that.

Hope I am not off topic here.

To get back to the original question at hand. You cannot use your logic because you logic is faulty. We don't have nothing from nothing and nothing. The argument is that we have SOMETHING FROM NOTHING THAT IS SOMETHING. If you are religious, you believe that some diety created all that is, SOMETHING FROM NOTHING. If you believe science we were created by matter that already existed and always has, SOMETHING FROM SOMETHING. You tell me what is more logical to believe, Something from Nothing, or Something from Something?

Religion has and always will be simply a way for people who cannot accept uncertainty to explain uncertainty. People will always be people and the always want to know "WHY?" From the time we can talk all we ask is "WHY?" People who believe in religion want an answer now because it comforts them even if it is a blind leap of faith. People who lean towards science are OK with not having an answer right now, because they are convinced that we will find it.

I think my Bald Headed Ex-Governor said it best "Organized religion is a crutch for weak minded people".

It is odd that the solution to the human condition of satisfying curiousity is solved by many simply by making up a story and having a little "faith".

THE BIBLE...the number one selling fiction writing of all time.



Karl marx said religion was the opium of the people, yet look at the history of atheistic states of USSR and China to see what the state sponsored elimination of religion does.


first law of thermodynamics - basically energy is conserved
---------------------------------
A materialistic view can never scientifically explain where this first source of energy comes from - they can plead ignorance because they have no proof or they can have 'faith' in a false belief.

A Christian believes God is the source of everything because He is all powerful and eternal and His creation depends on Him for life - - this is consistent with this law.


second law of thermodynamics
-----------------------------------
basically:

1] that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum (in simple terms, entropy is a measure of disorder)
2] usable energy is running out
3] information tends to get scrambled
4] order tends towards disorder
5] a random jumble won’t organize itself


evolution basically states the humans consisting of coordinated multiple organ systems, consisting of multiple coordinated tissues, individual made up of billlions of cells, cells consist of billions or probably more of molecules that came from somewhere.

Think about that. The order of your body and mind coming from molecules just getting together over time? Evolution tells us this scenario is possible : building supplies, add tornado then wala a house is formed.

What kind of 'faith' does it take to believe in that?

"The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed."


The Bible tells us we will all die [ our physical bodies ] the ultimate state of disorder.
This is consistent with this law. Again Christians believe everything is possible with God.


As to comfort - how did Christianity spread despite persecution and death prior to Constantine? How is it spreading in China and Africa yet declining in "comfortable" Europe?

Everything in the Bible is about God, not yourself. Trust in, depend in, give everything to God. Do not envy, turn the other cheek , love your enemy, forgive, be sexually pure and faithful. There will be trials, suffering, temptations in life. ETc.

How comfortable are these concepts to the non-believer?


The Bible, God's word does offer something that science and Atheism can never offer:
Hope in the mercy, forgiveness and the love of God. :D

The Bible, God's word does offer something that science and Atheism can never offer:
Hope in the mercy, forgiveness and the love of God. :DWhat does "hope in mercy" actually mean?
Forgiveness? Everyone has the capacity to forgive, no religion/god required.
Love of God? Why would an atheist care about that? Why would an atheist wish to worship anything?

What does "hope in mercy" actually mean?
Forgiveness? Everyone has the capacity to forgive, no religion/god required.
Love of God? Why would an atheist care about that? Why would an atheist wish to worship anything?


Hi NK - you were probably asking inthebox - but I hope you don't mind me answering too.
Sometimes by my answering, it clears things for me or reaffirms.

Hope in Mercy - For a believer - Hope in mercy means, that we hope God is merciful on us who have sinned. That he forgives us as long as we have confessed and are truly sorry.
So we hope and long for God's mercy.

But you are right, these things would not effect or enter to the beliefs of an atheist. Unless, I guess, they had an interest or a curiosity to know, so for their own knowledge sake.

But to answer your question, in my way, we as those who do believe, everyday hope for God's mercy and when a loved one passes we hope that they have asked and received God's mercy so they can be forgiven for those sins committed while on earth.

A materialistic view can never scientifically explain where this first source of energy comes from - they can plead ignorance because they have no proof or they can have 'faith' in a false belief.

A Christian believes God is the source of everything because He is all powerful and eternal and His creation depends on Him for life - - this is consistent with this law.

1. You still have the problem of where God came from. Also, God is violating the first law of thermodynamics because he is creating something out of nothing. Something that creates something out of nothing, even if they are all powerful, is breaking this law.

2. A materialistic view has absolutely no problem with accepting that there was equal energy now as there was at the big bang. Why does there need to be a "first sauce"? Couldn't it have always been? The God argument rests on the same fact that God could have always been.


building supplies, add tornado then wala a house is formed.

The tornado itself is proof that increasing entropy can seem to be violated if one doesn't look at the whole system. A tornado is formed by unpredictable and random winds, but somehow these form a stable structure.

BTW, It's voilà, not "wala", unless you're saying that Wala (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wala_%28goddess%29) did it.

Hope in Mercy - For a believer - Hope in mercy means, that we hope God is merciful on us who have sinned. That he forgives us as long as we have confessed and are truly sorry.
So we hope and long for God's mercy.H Allheart,
Thanks for the response. Based on this I was wondering, you say you hope for God's mercy, what happens when you don't get God's mercy?

H Allheart,
Thanks for the response. Based on this I was wondering, you say you hope for God's mercy, what happens when you don't get God's mercy?


You don't want to know that NK. :o Well, our belief is, and please I am not condeming people who don't. Just sharing our beleifs. Okay, It is our belief, that before we take our last breath and do not seek God's mercy, then we will not be able to get to heaven. Now, if we ask for God's merci and sincerely seek it, then we will always be given God's mercy.

By the way, I am uncomfortalble saying "our" because I wonder who I am talking for, so I will say... I have been taught and do believe.

I'll share a recent loss with you. My Uncle ( my Godfather ) just passed away. He was the most wonderful man alive and I am so grateful that he no longer is suffering.
Now my Uncle didn't really practice being Catholic, walked by many a church and kept on walking. Did he love God? I'm not really sure. Did he go to church. No. Was he raised to.. oh you bet.

Anyway, my Mom was in sheer panic to get him to open his heart to our Lord prior to his passing. My Mom took such good care of him. And when my Uncle was well he would yes my Mom to death about going to church.

Long story short, My Uncle did accept Jesus in his heart and asked for our Lord's mercy. NK, there was such a peach about him. When he passed, the moment he passed, he had a priest and two nuns at his side. It was beautiful.

I share this with you to kind of give you some insight on how much importance we put on asking God's forgiveness and receiving His mercy.

My Mom is so at peace too knowing my Uncle is resting, accepted our Lord and probably now is with my Grandmother, in heaven, looking down at my Mom, so very pleased and grateful.

Hope you don't mind me sharing but it was such a beautiful and peaceful transition and I think helps answer your question as far as what I believe.

Well I wasn't asking about our last seconds on earth, I was asking about your daily life. I can see how religion can be comforting to those that are uncomfortable with death, whatever gives them peace is OK of course.

Oh sorry. Daily life? Receiving mercy every day, what happens? I don't really think anything. I guess that's why I went to our last moments.

If you are wondering, do I believe, if we don't receive God's mercy on a daily basis, will He punish us? No, I do not believe that.

What I do believe is that on a daily basis He waits for us to ask for mercy.

I am so sorry I misunderstood. Sorry NK.

It's cool, don't worry. :)
So it seems that our daily lives are not that much different. What you call a sin I call a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes, that's how we learn, the key is not to repeat them. I don't believe anyone on this planet, no matter how devout, does not make mistakes.

It's cool, don't worry. :)
So it seems that our daily lives are not that much different. What you call a sin I call a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes, that's how we learn, the key is not to repeat them. I don't believe anyone on this planet, no matter how devout, does not make mistakes.

You are absolutely right. Our daily lives probably closley mirror each others, probably no different at all. High morals can be initated from many different resources.

And I do try not to make the same mistake, but somehow I get very creative and make a variety of different ones :).

No, we are not much different at all and in fact NK, I would only hope to hold some of the very strong morals that you do which comes through on many of your post. I mean that with the highest sincerety! I truly do.

Hello again:

There's another dynamic at work here. I'm not sure what it is.

When I was a kid in school, I loved experiencing those "ahaaa" moments. Do you know what I mean? It was the very moment when knowledge happened. It was when a problem I had in my head got solved – when a question got answered.

Now, I'm a curious soul, and I don't know why I had these questions roaming around in my head. Worse even, was my penchant for requiring proof. As you might have noticed, I'm an argumentative kind of guy. I NEVER accepted what anybody told me. As you might imagine, THAT caused me all sorts of trouble. However, in terms of science, that attitude has served me well.

So, back to the ahaaa moments. I love 'em. I don't know quite how to describe 'em. They're gorgeous. They're immensely satisfying. I seek them out as often as I can. I watch the Science Channel. I read science books. I read my computer manuals. I love this stuff. The only reason I don't want to die is because of all the discoveries that I'm never going to know about. I'm enthralled with it – even today.

And, I especially love those moments when somebody tells me THEY had one because of stuff I said. Those are the best ones. Inthebox gave me one recently. I remember it well.

So, I've been waiting for an ahaa moment from you Christians. I see now, that it ain't going to happen. Evolution has been explained in great detail. Cap is great at making it simple. Even dummy's could understand it, and you folks AREN'T dumb.

So, it isn't that you don't get it. Or that it hasn't been explained enough. It's that you don't want to get it. Something will happen to you if you do. I want to know what that is.

Is it that you get your ahaa moments in church and I get mine from a book? Oil and water, huh? I've been to church. When I was most vulnerable as a kid, I prayed to God long and hard. I really tried to do it. I never got an "ahaa" moment.

excon

excon you crack me up! I'll give you a ahhhhhhhhh moment all right! You are so brilliant as well as Cap. Just incredible and many others as well.

I wish like heck I could actually give you the ahaa moment. But excon, that comes from within, from within my heart. It's not logical thought.

The best way that I can explain to you or share with you something similar to the ahaa moment you speak of... is when I am in church, and I know I have done wrong, and I actually feel a presence, a loving presence, forgiving me and loving me in spite of all my flaws, in my heart I get that ahaa moment.

Spirital ahaa moments Ex, may just not be the same. They are so outside this thing we call life.

When do I get the ahaa moment? When I turn my mind off from life, from the reality of things, and turn my eyes and heart to all that is good, it is only then that I get that ahhaa moment.

( I stink at trying to share this Ex - but I'm trying )

1. You still have the problem of where God came from. Also, God is violating the first law of thermodynamics because he is creating something out of nothing. Somethign that creates somethign out of nothing, even if they are all powerful, is breaking this law.

2. A materialistic view has absolutely no problem with accepting that there was equal energy now as there was at the big bang. Why does there need to be a "first sauce"? Couldn't it have always been? The God argument rests on the same fact that God could have always been.



The tornado itself is proof that increasing entropy can seem to be violated if one doesnt look at the whole system. A tornado is formed by unpredictable and random winds, but somehow these form a stable structure.

BTW, It's voila, not "wala", unless you're saying that Wala (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wala_%28goddess%29) did it.


The tornado is not permanent and it causes disorder - the destruction of man's order.

If there does not need to be a first cause - how is tha believed in?

God makes the rules - the physical laws that science documents - He transcends them.

And yes voilà is correct. ;) thanks

Why does religion spread in places like China and Africa, but demise in flourishing areas like Europe? Is that a real question?

I'll bet that if the missionaries preached that God is responsible for why you and your family have suffered so much and why you are all dying from AIDS they wouldn't be converting. Religion prays on the people who need hope. Case and point. Along with the fact that you have welfare families giving dollars in collection plates to preachers who wear Rolex watches and drive Benzos. People in developed nations have began to realize that they are responsible for there own destiny. They don't need to pray to some abstract being in the sky to come down and help them. Like I said "Organized religion is a crutch for weak minded people."

And just for everyone out there, notice I said organized religion, not religion in general. I do not have a problem with people having their own belief systems and doing what they please. It is when they organize under false pretences to further their agendas and get rich. The church, is stupid, religion is not. It serves a purpose and helps people through hard times.

Here is a question for all you BELIEVERS out there: Why do people "thank god" when something goes right or something amazing happens, but if something bad happens no one flips him the bird?

I think that is unfair statement. Because I praise in hard times and bad times, its just whe the difficult times comes its easy to blame him like most people do. Like when 9/11 happened everyone was like wheres God even those who didn't believe. But when man succeeds he takes it on own account giving praise to himself not God. What ou said is kind of true when you said the poor need God more because in the bible its says that it easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle then for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. I don't have a religon, I have a relationship

Like I said "Organized religion is a crutch for weak minded people."

And just for everyone out there, notice I said organized religion, not religion in general.
Here is a question for all you BELIEVERS out there: Why do people "thank god" when something goes right or something amazing happens, but if something bad happens no one flips him the bird?

Hi again wewed,

I am Catholic, which is an organized religion, and I still don't think I am weak minded. Too me, it's just one of the roads that help lead to God. That's pretty much how I view all different faiths, roads that lead to God.

As far as your question, I haven't a clue. I truly don't. I do thank God with all my heart when a blessing is received. But if something bad happens, I surely don't blame him.
For instance, my sister was in a car accident, and we all thanked God that she was fine. Some bumps and bruises but all and all yes, thank God she is alive and well and no, she was not angry at God for the accident, and neither were any of us. She wasn't pleased with the women who ran the red light and rammed into her car, but the women was so concerned for my sister and so sorry for the accident, that we all just forgave her of course and yes, we all thanked God, that everyone was okay.

But if something bad happens, I surely don't blame him.I thinks that's his point, how come you don't blame him?

The tornado is not permanent and it causes disorder - the destruction of man's order.

If there does not need to be a first cause - how is tha believed in?

God makes the rules - the physical laws that science documents - He transcends them.

And yes voila is correct. ;) thanks

And there you have it. The tornado on it's own is full of order, but if you look at the whole system, there is disorder being created elsewhere.

Exactly the same as evolution and the Sun.

I don't know. I am being very honest. Never crossed my mind to.

I guess we look at the Lord as Our Father, Our heavenly Father. Who loves us and protects us. Similar in some ways to our earthly Father. So in that scenario, and this may be a stretch, but it is how I see it,

When a Dad works so hard, that now his family can enjoy a beautiful vacation to sunny wherever, and the family gleefully thanks Dad for making the vaction possible and off the go to sunny wherever. Now when it rains every day in sunny wherever, the family does not turn and blame good hard working Dad for the rain.

I guess I view it as blessings do come from the Father and to be quite honest, in each difficult time I can see God's loving hand either helping, guiding or supporting. So blame is never something that I would do or even think of doing.

I don't know. I am being very honest. Never crossed my mind to.

I guess we look at the Lord as Our Father, Our heavenly Father. Who loves us and protects us. Similar in some ways to our earthly Father. So in that scenario, and this may be a stretch, but it is how I see it,

When a Dad works so hard, that now his family can enjoy a beautiful vacation to sunny wherever, and the family gleefully thanks Dad for making the vaction possible and off the go to sunny wherever. Now when it rains every day in sunny wherever, the family does not turn and blame good hard working Dad for the rain.

I guess I view it as blessings do come from the Father and to be quite honest, in each difficult time I can see God's loving hand either helping, guiding or supporting. So blame is never something that I would do or even think of doing.


The only problem with your analogy is that you are talking about a human who can only control so much. My comment was pertaining to the fact that this all knowing, all powerful God of yours can prevent everything bad that happens, but doesn't. But that isn't his fault, the only things that are his fault are the good things!

The only problem with your analogy is that you are talking about a human who can only control so much. My comment was pertaining to the fact that this all knowing, all powerful God of yours can prevent everything bad that happens, but doesn't. But that isn't his fault, the only things that are his fault are the good things!?


Bingo - Now you got it ! Move to the front of the class :D Just trying interject a chuckle.

You are right, you are very right, when things go wrong I do not blame him. Now in some very odd way, in each bad thing, in each thing that "goes wrong", there is a blessing of some sorts. So perhaps that is why I don't blame God.

Some times when "bad things" happen we don't know why at the time but sometimes the why is revealed later.

But honestly, and I am sorry for this, I don't have a firm answer as to why I don't blame God when things go wrong, I tend to blame myself as to why I didn't do things differently.

Would you want us to blame God? Or you are just curious as to why we don't?

I don't want to lectur you but I will say the reason people do bad things is cause we are evil, yes even the religious people. God gave us a free will and what we choose to do with it is completely up to us. But there is consequenses for what we do

I'm not evil, are you?

i dont want to lectur you but i will say the reason peolpe do bad things is cause we are evil, yes even the religious peolpe. God gave us a free will and what we choose to do with it is completely up to us. but there is consequenses for what we do


I agree with that, but with one very important exception. I don't think we are evil. I think we are all human and capable of doing good and capable of doing bad.

Do I think that there are those that have fallen so hard and so deeply that evil has entered their behaviour... Yes. And it is quite scarey. Evil is amongst us, but no I do not believe God's children are evil.

when someone does thing that you are just like what would posses them to do that, things like murder, rape, etc. the evil I'm referring to is the sin nature we are born with. The reason we don't know is simply because we are spiriually dead. This may be a little to deep but questions are welcome

I'm not born with a sin nature nor am I spiritually dead. Everyone makes mistakes. Some people are psychotic due to their upbringing or a brain defect but I don't believe Satan made them do it.

You see, its kind of hard to just type everything out, and not really talk, so I will try to explain this with the best of my ability. Basically if have never read the bible or don't believe in it, you won't understand until you ask God to show you

OK

That's basically a non-answer. It's back to the faith basis of your belief.

you see, its kind of hard to just type everything out, and not really talk, so i will try to explain this with the best of my ability. basically if have never read the bible or dont believe in it, you wont understand until you ask God to show you

I need, please don't take this wrong, but that is the kind of answer that makes people sometimes feel cold.

I know it is so hard to explain, I've struggled all day. But there is more ways for the Lord to enter one's heart than the bible.

At least that is what I think.

Correct

you see, its kind of hard to just type everything out, and not really talk, so i will try to explain this with the best of my ability. basically if have never read the bible or dont believe in it, you wont understand until you ask God to show you


Why SHOULD I ask your god to show me?

MY goddess has it in hand, thanks.

And the Bible? Written by men. I have as much faith in the Qaran, the Kama Sutra, The Complete Works of Shakespeare, The Oxford English Dictionary, and the Encyclopedia Britannica.

You don't have to, that's why I said its choice that we make, wheter to believe or not to

you dont have to, thats why i said its choice that we make, wheter to believe or not to


Hi Ineed - I do understand how hard it is to communicate the love of God, so don't feel bad.

How do the priest and nuns make it looks so easy. I guess they are a lot closer to it then I am.

Understanding the bible is so difficult and it is left up to so many interruptations. When I do pick it up, I hang out in Psalms -

Just letting you know, I do understand how difficult it is.

Thank you for your kindness

thank you for your kindness

And thank You for trying. And I think everyone appreciates you trying we all are feeling our way around together. As they say... It's all good :)

Where did god come from? Nothing from nothing is nothing remember and as far as im concerned if god was to exist (which i am convinced he doesnt) then where did he come from. He had to come from something too as far as my logic works.

Your logic doesnt work as far as i'm concerned.

Im sure some other atheists who are better versed than me at arguing their point will come along and give you even better reasons. Nice try though!

Your' logic doesn't work either. Nothing is something and something is nothing. If God didn't exsist, then something had to have created us? You can't always believe in the ape theory because, who made them? Who made the tiny organisms? The cells? SOMEONE HAD TO OF!

I choose to have faith because I do not believe that we popped here. Then someone would have created the 'pop' effect as well.

I'm talking to Capuchin and it seems like he's open could you keep him in your prayers

Close but way off. :) Actually the singularity that started the big bang had always been there. Now we have this wonderful expanding universe.

Next question?

Someone had to have created the big bang!

Someone had to have created the big bang!


Why?

We know from physics that nothing is ever destroyed--matter becomes energy, and energy becomes matter.

So why couldn't it have just been energy exploding into matter?

And if GOD can always be around, why couldn't energy?

im talking to Capuchin and it seems like hes open could you keep him in your prayers


Oh I love Cap... and yes of course I will keep him in my prayers. He's a wonderful wonderful guy!

Why?

We know from physics that nothing is ever destroyed--matter becomes energy, and energy becomes matter.

So why couldn't it have just been energy exploding into matter?

And if GOD can always be around, why couldn't energy?

Hi Synn hun,

I hope you know I am not ignoring you... and that I love you and miss you... it's just I don't know the answers to your questions. I don't know too much about about this big banging thing :o

Love you

Allheart, I love you too, and you're always in my prayers.

If we pray for each other to multiple deities, it can't hurt, right?

Of course, to me this is just one of those things where I'm trying to get people to look at their logic.

Plus, I hate when people try to convert me.

I'm not ignoring you either--I have faith that YOU have faith. Same goes for so many others.

As long as you accept that I'm happy in my faith, and others in their lack of faith, I'm happy that you have your faith (and honey--you're always tolerant).

I just hate it when people tell me what I believe is "wrong"--when they can't PROVE that what they believe is "right". If they can't prove it to me, I'm just as right in what I believe as they are.

Which, I believe, is what most atheists believe too. They (and I) don't care that YOU (the collective you, Allheart, honey--not directing ALL of this at you!) believe in your God, as long as you let us believe in whatever we do or don't want to.

Bravo to Synnen!

I think you touched on a very pertinent point here.

Something as spiritual and personal as your beliefs in your and everybody else's origin and ultimate resting place cannot be forced upon someone.

Faith has to come from within, whether your argument for it makes sense or not. It has to be a choice, not medicine forced down your throat, because then it is tainted.

This is what makes our country so amazing, we can all say what we want about the most serious of topics and not worry about being burned at the stake.

God(s) bless our forefathers and their amazing Constitution!

Allheart, I love you too, and you're always in my prayers.

If we pray for each other to multiple deities, it can't hurt, right?

Of course, to me this is just one of those things where I'm trying to get people to look at their logic.

Plus, I hate when people try to convert me.

I'm not ignoring you either--I have faith that YOU have faith. Same goes for so many others.

As long as you accept that I'm happy in my faith, and others in their lack of faith, I'm happy that you have your faith (and honey--you're always tolerant).

I just hate it when people tell me what I believe is "wrong"--when they can't PROVE that what they believe is "right". If they can't prove it to me, I'm just as right in what I believe as they are.

Which, I believe, is what most atheists believe too. They (and I) don't care that YOU (the collective you, Allheart, honey--not directing ALL of this at you!) believe in your God, as long as you let us believe in whatever we do or don't want to.

You are 100% right in all that you say Synn and I hope you and everyone does know that I would never want to force my views or beliefs on anyone and happy for whatever anyone carries in their heart. To want to force anything on anyone, is just not right.. period.

And there is no letting of anything. We freely believe and love God, why should those, who do not have to apologize or not be able to feel that same freedom.

Do I want people to share my views? NO, not at all. I want them to have their very own views to be and feel loved. I am not sure what my obligation is in reference to sharing God's love to be honest, but share is the oppertive word not force.

God loves all of us and hurts when we hurt each other. He would embrace a non-believer just as he would a beleiver.

But if there are people who don't believe, who am I to judge, condemn or force or say my way is the right way.

We all are brothers and sisters in this world and it is the differenes as well as the similarites that make us grow and learn.

From my heart, I would never want and hope I never have forced my faith on anyone.

May love always surround one and all.

Your' logic doesn't work either. Nothing is something and something is nothing. If God didn't exsist, then something had to have created us? You can't always believe in the ape theory because, who made them? Who made the tiny organisms? The cells? SOMEONE HAD TO OF!

I choose to have faith because I do not believe that we popped here. Then someone would have created the 'pop' effect as well.
"The ape theory"? Ahaahhahahahhahahhahahha. That is all.

Think about it... if a tiger and a lion mate, the offspring is not a lion and it is not a tiger.

Nope, that's a Liger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger), and I have it on good authority it's bred for its skills in magic! :)

(Napoleon Dynamite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_Dynamite) told me so!)

Nope, that's a Liger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger), and I have it on good authority it's bred for its skills in magic! :)

Don't forget the often overlooked Tigon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigon) :(

Don't forget the often overlooked Tigon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigon) :(

They're rubbish, no magic skills to speak of at all! :p

How about because I don't believe in your god, and don't want it forced on my children?

You say teaching intelligent design is teaching religion. I say teaching evolution is teaching religion. I don't want it forced on my grandchildren. There is at least as much evidence to support intelligent design as there is to support evolution as a first cause. How about this? Just give the kids the facts as to what is, and not the why. Your religion has no more place in the classroom than anyone else's.

MY religion isn't in the classroom.

As a matter of fact, most people have never HEARD of my religion, and the majority of those who have heard of it have HUGE misconceptions about it (eye of newt and tongue of bat and all that).

Do I believe that evolution is how everything started? Not necessarily. Do I think that evolution HAPPENS? Yes. Mutations are a form of evolution, and they happen ALL the time. Or would you deny that a virus evolves to adapt to the medications used to fight it? If you're denying THAT--why is there no cure for AIDS? Or the common cold?

I absolutely do NOT believe that tripe about everything ever imagined being created in 7 days. I don't think the Bible is anything other than a history of a people and a possible moral guideline. Christianity is a RELIGION. Evolution is SCIENCE.

The difference between the two is that one is accepted by many different people of many different religions, and the other is generally a Christian thing.

I'm so SICK of Christians trying to shove their religion down everyone else's throat because they're so SURE that they're the only ones that could POSSIBLY be right. Well guess what? Christians once believed the world to be flat, too. Amazing how they bounced back from THAT one.

My religion is just as "right" as yours, only mine is more tolerant and doesn't seek to force everyone to believe the way I do, like yours does.

THAT is why I don't want Christian theories and tenets (like intelligent design) taught in public schools. Christianity in general has a poor track record of being tolerant of any beliefs but their own, and I absolutely do NOT want my children taught intolerance and egoism of that level.

Hey Synnen, I'd give you an agree, but it's not visible for me right now? Anyway, I liked your post!

[QUOTE=Synnen]
I'm so SICK of Christians trying to shove their religion down everyone else's throat because they're so SURE that they're the only ones that could POSSIBLY be right. ]

As in any group, you have those that give a group a very bad name. Not all of those who believe in Christ fit into the negative sterotype.

Bad apples exsist in every bunch.

There is at least as much evidence to support intelligent design as there is to support evolution as a first cause.

This is where you are wrong: Evolution does not say ANYTHING about a first cause. Please learn more about the theory you are so opposed to. You're comparing apples and oranges.

[QUOTE=Synnen]
I'm so SICK of Christians trying to shove their religion down everyone else's throat because they're so SURE that they're the only ones that could POSSIBLY be right. ]

As in any group, you have those that give a group a very bad name. Not all of those who believe in Christ fit into the negative sterotype.

Bad apples exsist in every bunch.

Oh, Allheart--you're right.

I've met several good Christians over the years, They were never pushy, never demanding, and accepted that my religion was as important to me as theirs was to them. They LIVED as Christians, not just said they were Christian and then tried to convert me. Forgiveness and tolerance were very much a part of their day-to-day lives, and frankly, they were some of the happiest people I ever knew.

Why does religion spread in places like China and Africa, but demise in flourishing areas like Europe? Is that a real question?

I'll bet that if the missionaries preached that God is responsible for why you and your family have suffered so much and why you are all dying from AIDS they wouldn't be converting. Religion prays on the people who need hope. Case and point. Along with the fact that you have welfare families giving dollars in collection plates to preachers who wear Rolex watches and drive Benzos. People in developed nations have began to realize that they are responsible for there own destiny. They don't need to pray to some abstract being in the sky to come down and help them. Like I said "Organized religion is a crutch for weak minded people."

And just for everyone out there, notice I said organized religion, not religion in general. I do not have a problem with people having their own belief systems and doing what they please. It is when they organize under false pretences to further their agendas and get rich. The church, is stupid, religion is not. It serves a purpose and helps people through hard times.

Here is a question for all you BELIEVERS out there: Why do people "thank god" when something goes right or something amazing happens, but if something bad happens no one flips him the bird?


Read some of the psalms 6,10, 44 for example. The book of Job.

If you read through the entire Bible, suffering is to be expected and is a fact of life.
There is no direct correlalation between "goodness" and lack of suffering and "wicked" and suffering , in this lifetime. Non believers can see this. For believers, there is hope and joy in this life, because of God, no matter the circumstance. 1 Thess 5:16. Our rewards are in Heaven for all eternity.


Personally, I'll give you an example: 21 years ago I was waiting to get accepted to a professional school. I had average qualifications to be accepted according to prior years.
I applied to 13 schools eat of the Mississippi River. Most of my qualified peeres got their acceptance in the Spring. I did not, I got a job after I got by Bachelors. At lunch I would go to a local Catholic church, it was generally empty at that time, and prayed. I never got an answer, and I did question God, "why" "please" etc. It was not till 1 month before school started that I received an acceptance, and later that week , I received 2 more acceptances. - I suffered waiting, it would have been an easier summer knowing what the future held. But God did answer my prayers, and it was that more joyous. And yes, all praise to the Lord.


But you never really answered the question of why Christianity spreads in the most oppressive places?


My answer:

These people already know of suffering - without God, at the hands of their fellow human beings. The Gospel says, come as you are, because we are all sinners. These people, whether the lowest castes in India, or refugees, are already humbled by their circumstances. These are the poor in spirit. They see misionaries that help them - they chose to leave their comfortable first world lives - accept them, tell them that God accepts them and loves them. God gives them hope through His believers.

Now here in the US and Europe - we have it comfortable, we rely on self, we are materialistic, and full of pride in self - it is hard to hear the Gospel message and admit that we are evil in the sight of a perfect and holy God. You see examples of that denial here on this thread. We are the rich man walking away when told to sell all that we have to follow Christ.



While the church is not perfect and committed atrocities in its history, why don't the anti - religious admit to the good that organized religion does?

The Katrina Quandary | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/november/10.94.html)

And there you have it. The tornado on it's own is full of order, but if you look at the whole system, there is disorder being created elsewhere.

Exactly the same as evolution and the Sun.


But does a tornado "build" a house ? - unfortunantly recent events here in the South know otherwise.

But does a tornado "build" a house ? - unfortunantly recent events here in the South know otherwise.

The tornado example is not very fitting for evolution. Evolution does not work from building from random parts, but from selective and gradual alterations to an organism.

Why does the tornado HAVE to build a house?

The house was built by man, not nature.

Nature actually DOES replace and replenish in places where disaster happened. Look at Mt. St. Helens, for example. The "experts" thought that it would take a very long time for life to return to the area, yet life was there relatively quickly. Now, 25 years later, the scars are actually somewhat hard to see.

Just because Nature doesn't fix the house for man, doesn't mean that the natural forces that happen are all spiraling towards disarray and disorder. Nature abhors a vacuum, and will fill it.

Out of curiosity--in your philosophy, God created tornadoes, right? Well, does HE build houses?

A tornado would build a house if every time it moved a board by 1 micron in the right direction it gave the board a better chance at surviving the tornado and if it didn't give the board a better chance at surviving the tornado the board was removed and you had a nearly endless supply of boards and 4 billion years to do it in. Humans are not the result of evolution, we are here because as we increased our brain power we increased our survival rate so since more smart humans survived, we got more and smarter humans.

Evolution is not a driving force to reach an end point it is a driving force that causes life to fit the environment better than the life before it.

I have a question. If you who say that the (theory!) of evolution does not claim to be a first cause, then what do you think the first cause is? It either has to be chance (evolution) or intellect. What other choices are there?

I asked a question in post #79 that I believe is significant to this discussion, and no one has attempted to answer it.

Why does there HAVE to be a link?

Can't we just take it on faith, like taking the Bible on faith?

I mean, YOU don't have proof that your god created everything, either!

Personally, I DO think it was chance. I've seen some very strange things happen by chance. Ever seen the path of a tornado? Things are strewn everywhere, yet a clutch full of bird's eggs FROM THE SAME PATH will be completely untouched. I've heard of people picked up by a tornado and put down completely unharmed--and completely naked--except for their shoes. Was that god's intervention? Or pure chance? And if god could intervene on behalf of the poor little birdies--why didn't he intervene for the people whose house the nest was on?

Honestly--I really think that every single action has an impact on the world. The wings of a butterfly in Asia could have been what started Hurricane Katrina, for all we know.

The thing is--we don't know everything. How could we? But we learn more in each age of man that helps explain the world around us.

But to me, it sounds more plausible, and more --I don't know. Livable? More sane? More rational? I'm looking for a word here, and it's not coming to me. Anyway, it's more whatever to believe that chance and our own actions influence the world and the creation of NEW worlds than to believe in some all powerful being that stuck us here, punished us for wanting to know more (the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) because "he said so" (like a capricious parent that is angry because his kid is growing up too fast and starting to have a mind of his own), cast us out of perfection to live in a horrid world where the only chance of survival is to beg His forgiveness every day of our lives. So... I sin because my great-great-great-great-etc-grandparents got in trouble as teens? And *I* get punished for it because he still hasn't just said "oh, all right. You're done being punished. Now go out and play!"? We have choice, but we're punished for choosing the wrong one, hmm? That's really no choice at all, you know. It's kind of like--You can be raped, or I'll just shoot you. Gee... wonder what I'll pick? How can you POSSIBLY consider that to be a kind and benevolent god? He doesn't cause disasters to punish people, yet will save SOME of those people, and not others, and His choice is random, not based on how well you serve Him? Sounds insane to me. No WAY would I follow a leader like that!

I personally like the idea put forth in L'Engel's "Wrinkle In Time" books---there are universes within universes--and for all we know, our universe is the cell of a unicorn's stomach lining, and we will die when the unicorn does, just as the universes that exist within our own cells die when we do.

One current theory on how life can to be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4
If you can see the video the link is YouTube - 3 -- The Origin of Life made easy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4)

If anyone is intrested I can give you seven good reasons
Why the bible is true.

I can give you seven good valid reasons the bible is true, if anyone is intrested or even wants to know.

Sorry for the repost, it said it didn't go through or something so I did it again.

Really? Then why do we have fossil records of primates BEFORE the assumed link, and fossil records of man AFTER the assumed link but no link? If we accept the assumption of the evolutionist theory, there would have to have been links for how long? A million years? More? Less? We have fossils before and after, but no complete fossils between. There should be millions of them. Sorry, no cigar!

You just seem to be ignorant of the evidence here. We have many fossils that show gradual changes from ape to human starting at around 3 million years ago. The change that is exibited from these fossils is so gradual that scientists (and creationists) argue about where to draw the line between human and ape.

I see no reason to conclude that there should be millions of them either - fossilization is a rare event.


I have a question. If you who say that the (theory!) of evolution does not claim to be a first cause, then what do you think the first cause is? It either has to be chance (evolution) or intellect. What other choices are there?

Evolution does not say anythign about a first cause. It only explains how we got here from the first replicating molecule, and certainly at the beginning of that timeline it has many questions left to answer. As I stated before, evolution is not chance. Not even if you want it to be. Please stop claiming that it is.

I'm unsure what you mean by first cause? Do you mean of the Universe? Or of Life? Or something else?

By first cause, I mean what started it all? Regardless of how you explain progression, or for what length of time, there must be a starting point. Either this complex universe (everything included) is carefully engineered, or it is an accident. To me, the idea of an accident exhibiting such ingenuity is preposterous.
So many refuse to read the Bible with an open mind. The first few verses in Genesis give us a wealth of information that could be compared with scientific observations. Are you game?

i can give you seven good valid reasons why the bible is true, if anyone is intrested or even wants to know.

I agree with you, but let's see your reasons. I may be the only one here who wants to see them.

By first cause, I mean what started it all? Regardless of how you explain progression, or for what length of time, there must be a starting point. Either this complex universe (everything included) is carefully engineered, or it is an accident. To me, the idea of an accident exhibiting such ingenuity is preposterous.
So many refuse to read the Bible with an open mind. The first few verses in Genesis give us a wealth of information that could be compared with scientific observations. Are you game?


Are YOU reading it with an open mind? Or with pre-conceived ideas that it's "true"?

I took several Bible study courses, from the religious perspective, the literature perspective and the historical perspective.

I think my mind is pretty open to the possibilities there.

I just don't understand how someone can possibly believe that every minute little piece of this earth was constructed by some all powerful being WITHOUT the possibility of evolution and change. You think god just threw it all out there, and it's all the same as it was when he made it? Or has it "evolved"?

I frankly don't CARE how it all started--but a cosmic sneeze is as good an idea as someone plotting and planning every little detail to make an ecosystem work.

By first cause, I mean what started it all? Regardless of how you explain progression, or for what length of time, there must be a starting point. Either this complex universe (everything included) is carefully engineered, or it is an accident. To me, the idea of an accident exhibiting such ingenuity is preposterous.
So many refuse to read the Bible with an open mind. The first few verses in Genesis give us a wealth of information that could be compared with scientific observations. Are you game?

Science has several theories as to what started the big bang. We have no evidence or observations in order to decide which is true yet. God can fit in here if you wish.

Science has several theories as to what started the big bang. We have no evidence or observations in order to decide which is true yet. God can fit in here if you wish.
Yeah, I like it. I wonder if it was started by God clapping his hands, snapping his fingers, or slapping his forehead?

Now man builds a house. I believe man is created by God, so indirectly God builds the house. Everything, including the tornado is from God.

I get the impression from those that have posted, that everything that comes from man's intelligence, like building a house, is from evolution or can be attributed to evolution since mankind is part of evolution. Am I correct?

If this is your belief, then we can disagree, but if this is your belief how did man "evolve" from a single cell organism? How did that single celled organism "evolve " from billions of chemicals?

Gen 1:1-2
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
(KJV)

1961 hayah (haw-yaw);

a primitive root [compare 1933]; to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):

KJV-- beacon, X altogether, be (-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (oneself-), require, X use.

There is a time gap betrween verse 1 and verse 2 of unknown duration. God did not create the Earth without form and void. Verst 2 tells us it became void. (see definition below) Some catastrophe destroyed everything on this planet for an unknown period. You have as much time to account for various fossils of great antiquity as needed without contridicting what the Bible says.


Gen 1:27-28
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
(KJV)

Here is further proof of a prior creation. The word replenish means to replace something that is lost. The Hebrew word can have many meanings, but the Bible defines itself in this case.

Gen 9:1

1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
(KJV)

Here we have words spoken to Noah & sons. The same Hebrew word for replenish is used here, and we know that it means to re-populate the Earth after that flood.

My point is that any seeming conflict between the Bible and true science is explained by a flawed understanding of either the Bible, or science. There have been instances of both things happening.

Thanks Galveston, but book means nothing to us, scientifically speaking. :)

Thanks Galveston, but book means nothing to us, scientifically speaking. :)

Well, unless he doesn't mind us quoting counter points from THGTTG

My point is that any seeming conflict between the Bible and true science is explained by a flawed understanding of either the Bible, or science. There have been instances of both things happening.
This, I can agree with. I salute you for recognizing that it is possible to have a flawed understanding of the Bible. This is a peculiar blind spot that too many Bible quoters have. They seem to be willfully ignorant of the choices that they themselves have made in order to arrive at their interpretation of the book. Any suggestion that their understanding is flawed is taken as irrefutable evidence that the suggestion is offered out of selfish (at best) or, more likely, evil motives.

Science, on the other hand, is all about ferreting out the flaws in our understanding and exposing the inconsistencies in our explanations. It accepts the fact that every explanation, model, or theory is limited, incomplete, and inaccurate to some degree and under some conditions. Careful measurements of the degree of those inaccuracies and the conditions under which they occur are the clues that lead to a clearer explanation, a better model, a more general theory.

I generally prefer the company of scientific folks to religious folks because they tend to be more humble.

Hello again:

For what it's worth, Jews make the best scientists because Jews are taught from the get go to question their faith. That's why they're the best lawyers too, because Jews argue about their religion all the time, and it's very Jewish to do so.

Christians are taught to blindly accept it.

You can't be a good scientist if you accept ANYTHING blindly, In my opinion.

Go Jews.

excon

... Science, on the other hand, is all about ferreting out the flaws in our understanding...

Not so. That's what it should be about. But the fact is that many if not most people make a religion of science.

That is the entire point of this post. It is literally impossible to bring something from nothing, yet Science insists that it happened.

It is impossible to bring life from nonlife, yet many scientists rabidly insist that it happened.


and exposing the inconsistencies in our explanations.

That also isn't true. That is why the scientific community is against comparing any other theory to evolution in the classroom. Evolution is their dogma.


It accepts the fact that every explanation, model, or theory is limited, incomplete, and inaccurate to some degree and under some conditions. Careful measurements of the degree of those inaccuracies and the conditions under which they occur are the clues that lead to a clearer explanation, a better model, a more general theory.

In theory. But in practice, what actually happens is each person goes around defending his own work and attacking everyone else's.

And sometimes that process does lead to innovations which are better for humanity. But frequently, serendipity has more to do with a new discovery than actual logic.


I generally prefer the company of scientific folks to religious folks because they tend to be more humble.

In my opinion, it's the other way around. Religious folk tend to be more humble because they have humbled themselves before God. And if they are vocal in defending the truths revealed by God, that is also humility in comparison to someone that is only defending what he spouts.

Sincerely,

De Maria

But the fact is that many if not most people make a religion of science. Actually that is false. We've been down that road before. You are a little confused. Science and its tenets have changed with the discovery of new evidence, not so with the truly religious types.


In my opinion, its the other way around. Religious folk tend to be more humble because they have humbled themselves before God. You need to read more of the posts on this board by your supposed religious friends. You just may have your head in the sand. :)

Humble? RELIGIOUS people, humble?

At least the scientists I've met will admit when they don't know something, or that they may not be right about something, but that they have a theory and want to test it.

Religious people are incredibly convinced that they, and ONLY they, are right about their specific religion.

If that were not true, we wouldn't have half the wars in this world that we have. I mean, really--what's the constant bombing in Jerusalem about, if not religion? And what about the most recent attack on US soil? Wasn't that Muslims thinking THEIR religion was right?

I've never yet heard of someone going to war for science. I've heard of people getting burned at the stake, beheaded, and tortured for not being religious, though.

That is why the scientific community is against comparing any other theory to evolution in the classroom.

Give us another theory and we'll compare it to evolution...

Give us another theory and we'll compare it to evolution...

Intelligent Design.

Actually that is false. We've been down that road before. You are a little confused. Science and its tenets have changed with the discovery of new evidence, not so with the truly religious types.

You need to read more of the posts on this board by your supposed religious friends. You just may have your head in the sand. :)

Yes, we have been down this road before. Your friend the Pitbull guy had to warn you against getting all upset because we religious folks have opinions which are just as valid as yours.

Now, if you want to start another round of insults, then post another message to me telling me that I'm confused and I have my head in the sand. Then I'll respond and you can start crying to the mods because you can't take what you dish out.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Intelligent Design.

It's not a theory, it doesn't give meaningful or testable predictions. It also seems to be very subjective, something that a scientific theory cannot be.

Duplicate, please ignore.

Humble? RELIGIOUS people, humble?

That is correct.


At least the scientists I've met will admit when they don't know something, or that they may not be right about something, but that they have a theory and want to test it.

I have met many religious people who admit when they are wrong also. Are you saying you haven't met any? And that is only one aspect of humility.

# marked by meekness or modesty; not arrogant or prideful; "a humble apology"; "essentially humble...and self-effacing, he achieved the highest formal honors and distinctions"- B.K.Malinowski
# cause to be unpretentious; "This experience will humble him"
# used of unskilled work (especially domestic work)
# humiliate: cause to feel shame; hurt the pride of; "He humiliated his colleague by criticising him in front of the boss"
# base: of low birth or station (`base' is archaic in this sense); "baseborn wretches with dirty faces"; "of humble (or lowly) birth"
Wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I've met many religious people who work to help the poor and feed the hungry.

And very few in the scientific community who care about anything besides their experiments.


Religious people are incredibly convinced that they, and ONLY they, are right about their specific religion.

Will you please read what you just said. Scientists constantly object to non-Scientists when they think non-scientists have crossed their border. And rightly so.

And it is also right when a Religious person defends his beliefs from someone who doesn't know them as well as he does.

Or do you think ignorance should win out over knowledge? Is that what you are suggesting?


If that were not true, we wouldn't have half the wars in this world that we have. I mean, really--what's the constant bombing in Jerusalem about, if not religion? And what about the most recent attack on US soil? Wasn't that Muslims thinking THEIR religion was right?

I've never yet heard of someone going to war for science. I've heard of people getting burned at the stake, beheaded, and tortured for not being religious, though.

But is war the criteria for dogma? What is the secular definition of dogma?

# a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
# a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative; "he believed all the Marxist dogma"
Wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

So, just because scientists have not gone to war to prove that something comes from nothing, doesn't mean that they don't still want to pass it off as true without proof. And there is no proof that a state of nothingness ever existed. And there is no proof that life evolved from non-life. Yet they keep trying to pass that off as truth.

And by definition that means that science has turned those theories into religious doctrines.

Sincerely,

De Maria

It's not a theory, it doesn't give meaningful or testable predictions. It also seems to be very subjective, something that a scientific theory cannot be.

Then neither is the Big Bang nor Evolutionary theory. Because they each make assumptions which can't be tested.

The Big Bang rests on the assumption that something comes from nothing. Show me the test that reproduces that prediction.

Evolution rests on the assumption that life comes from non life. Show me the test that reproduces that prediction.

And they both rest on the assumption that complete randomness can create intelligent life and intricate, complex organisms. Show me the test that reproduces that prediction.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Then neither is the Big Bang nor Evolutionary theory. Because they each make assumptions which can't be tested.

The Big Bang rests on the assumption that something comes from nothing. Show me the test that reproduces that prediction.

Evolution rests on the assumption that life comes from non life. Show me the test that reproduces that prediction.

And they both rest on the assumption that complete randomness can create intelligent life and intricate, complex organisms. Show me the test that reproduces that prediction.

Sincerely,

De Maria
You are showing your ignorance here.

Firstly your misconceptions about what these theories predict: The Big bang theory explains how we got here from a singularity, not from nothing. Evolution explains how we got here from the first replicating organism, not how we got here from non-life. We don't have enough evidence to form a theory of how life came from non-life, and we don't have enough evidence to explain how the singularity got there before the big bang. There are multiple scientific hypotheses about both of these subjects, none of which are "it was magic" like the creationist hypothesis, since we have no evidence that magic happens.

Secondly you seem to believe that both theories are based around randomness. This couldn't be farther from the truth. Evolution is a selective process based around individuals of a population competing for limited resources. The big bang theory is based around the formation of matter as the universe expanded and cooled, and later how this matter clumps together under gravitational force. (neither of these are random, and are commonly tested with predictions in particle accelerators and astronomical observation).

You show a complete lack of understanding about these 2 theories, and it's no wonder you don't believe them, because you think they are something completely different from what they actually are.

Not so. That's what it should be about. But the fact is that many if not most people make a religion of science.

That is the entire point of this post. It is literally impossible to bring something from nothing, yet Science insists that it happened.

It is impossible to bring life from nonlife, yet many scientists rabidly insist that it happened.



That also isn't true. That is why the scientific community is against comparing any other theory to evolution in the classroom. Evolution is their dogma.



In theory. But in practice, what actually happens is each person goes around defending his own work and attacking everyone else's.

And sometimes that process does lead to innovations which are better for humanity. But frequently, serendipity has more to do with a new discovery than actual logic.



In my opinion, its the other way around. Religious folk tend to be more humble because they have humbled themselves before God. And if they are vocal in defending the truths revealed by God, that is also humility in comparison to someone that is only defending what he spouts.

Sincerely,

De Maria

You mis-characterize scientific methods and conclusions, and then ridicule your own misconception. I'm afraid you're doing your cause more harm than good. Attacking a straw man version of "science" accomplishes nothing except to make you appear both arrogant and misinformed.

You mis-characterize scientific methods and conclusions, and then ridicule your own misconception. I'm afraid you're doing your cause more harm than good. Attacking a straw man version of "science" accomplishes nothing except to make you appear both arrogant and misinformed.

Lol!! Typical. Since you don't have a reasonable response, you try to tarnish mine. But I notice you have no specifics as to what strawman was created nor where the mis-characterizations took place.

You are showing your ignorance here.

Firstly your misconceptions about what these theories predict: The Big bang theory explains how we got here from a singularity, not from nothing.

No, no. I'm certain that it purports to explains how we got here from nothing.

Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.
Big Bang Theory (http://www.big-bang-theory.com/)


Evolution explains how we got here from the first replicating organism, not how we got here from non-life.

Again, abiogenesis has always been part and parcel of Darwin's theory.

The fifth phase is "Organic Evolution" (also known as "spontaneous generation"). The theory is that the planet Earth began as a molten mass of matter a few billions years ago. It cooled off into solid, dry rock. Then, it rained on the rocks for millions of years, forming great oceans. Eventually, this "prebiotic rock soup" (water + rock) came alive and spawned the first self-replicating organic systems.
Theory Of Evolution (http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/theory-of-evolution.htm)

In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[9] Charles Darwin made the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes".
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life)


We don't have enough evidence to form a theory of how life came from non-life, and we don't have enough evidence to explain how the singularity got there before the big bang.

Thank you! Yet many, many scientists spout that as dogma.

And they proclaim their assumptions are valid but when we proclaim our assumption that God is the author of creation and of life, they call our assumption invalid. Yet we have more proof from logic and from observation that only an intelligence can create and design than they have that something came from nothing and that life spontaneously generated from non life.


There are multiple scientific hypotheses about both of these subjects, none of which are "it was magic" like the creationist hypothesis, since we have no evidence that magic happens.

Yes, all those scientific hypothesis which proclaim that something came from nothing amount to forms of magic. And Creationists do not believe in magic.


Secondly you seem to believe that both theories are based around randomness. This couldn't be farther from the truth. Evolution is a selective process based around individuals of a population competing for limited resources.

Evolution is based on the notion that random changes in the genes will cause variation in the organism which makes those specimens more likely to survive random changes in the environment.

How does evolution work? - Natural History Museum
Evolution is driven by random changes in the genes of organisms, called mutations,.
www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/evolution/what-is-evolution/


The big bang theory is based around the formation of matter as the universe expanded and cooled, and later how this matter clumps together under gravitational force. (neither of these are random, and are commonly tested with predictions in particle accelerators and astronomical observation).

The Big Bang theory is based precisely upon the effects of an explosion. An explosion does not produce orderly results but by its very nature produces random results.


You show a complete lack of understanding about these 2 theories, and it's no wonder you don't believe them, because you think they are something completely different from what they actually are.

1. I think I've expounded a thorough understanding of these theories.
2. I never said I didn't believe certain aspects of these theories.
a. But I don't believe they are unassailable facts. As many here seem to believe.
b. I believe many of their assumptions are unproven and unprovable.

And, you have admitted that there is not enough evidence to support those aspects of these theories which I question.

It is significant that the random theory of the universe which was in vogue 20 and 30 years ago is beginning to die out. Perhaps these other illogical ideas will die with it.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Your first two links are part of this website: Holy Bible (http://www.allabouttruth.org/holy-bible.htm)

Not very objective.

Hello again:

I'm getting off this marygoround...

excon

No, no. I'm certain that it purports to explains how we got here from nothing.

Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.
Big Bang Theory (http://www.big-bang-theory.com/)



Again, abiogenesis has always been part and parcel of Darwin's theory.

The fifth phase is "Organic Evolution" (also known as "spontaneous generation"). The theory is that the planet Earth began as a molten mass of matter a few billions years ago. It cooled off into solid, dry rock. Then, it rained on the rocks for millions of years, forming great oceans. Eventually, this "prebiotic rock soup" (water + rock) came alive and spawned the first self-replicating organic systems.
Theory Of Evolution (http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/theory-of-evolution.htm)

In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[9] Charles Darwin made the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes".
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life)



Thank you! Yet many, many scientists spout that as dogma.

And they proclaim their assumptions are valid but when we proclaim our assumption that God is the author of creation and of life, they call our assumption invalid. Yet we have more proof from logic and from observation that only an intelligence can create and design than they have that something came from nothing and that life spontaneously generated from non life.



Yes, all those scientific hypothesis which proclaim that something came from nothing amount to forms of magic. And Creationists do not believe in magic.



Evolution is based on the notion that random changes in the genes will cause variation in the organism which makes those specimens more likely to survive random changes in the environment.

How does evolution work? - Natural History Museum
Evolution is driven by random changes in the genes of organisms, called mutations,...
www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/evolution/what-is-evolution/



The Big Bang theory is based precisely upon the effects of an explosion. An explosion does not produce orderly results but by its very nature produces random results.



1. I think I've expounded a thorough understanding of these theories.
2. I never said I didn't believe certain aspects of these theories.
a. But I don't believe they are unassailable facts. As many here seem to believe.
b. I believe many of their assumptions are unproven and unprovable.

And, you have admitted that there is not enough evidence to support those aspects of these theories which I question.

It is significant that the random theory of the universe which was in vogue 20 and 30 years ago is beginning to die out. Perhaps these other illogical ideas will die with it.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Sigh, there's too much stuff to set you right on here. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of science, a fundamental misunderstanding of these theories, and enough arrogance to not listen when someone tries to help you to understand it. I give up, I have science to do (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RthZgszykLs). It's obvious that you made this topic to spout your point of view, with no intent of really listening to the answers.

This is amusing in that it goes back and forth like a ping pong ball.

Pro-creationists: Science is flawed! Only God is perfect!

Pro-science: God is your imaginary friend. Prove God.

I'm with excon, and going to go play on the swings.

Sigh, there's too much stuff to set you right on here. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of science, a fundamental misunderstanding of these theories, and enough arrogance to not listen when someone tries to help you to understand it. I give up, I have science to do (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RthZgszykLs). It's obvious that you made this topic to spout your point of view, with no intent of really listening to the answers.

Nah. I just disagree with you and I can support my arguments with facts. Apparently you think I should agree with you because YOU SAY SO. But it is obvious that you know little about what you are saying. For instance, this nonsensical statement of yours:

Quote:
Secondly you seem to believe that both theories are based around randomness. This couldn't be farther from the truth.

That proves that either you know very little about evolution. Very little about science. Or that you don't care about the facts.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Your first two links are part of this website: Holy Bible (http://www.allabouttruth.org/holy-bible.htm)

Not very objective.

Two? I only see the one. And I posted the explanation because it is an accurate depiction of how science says life came into being.

The following is from NASA's Planetary Biology Program. Note that they depict the spontaneous generation of life from lifeless material:

The final, most important events leading to the origin of life are perhaps the least understood chapters of the story. Life began during the first billion years of an Earth history which is 4.5 billion years old. The illustration depicts an early Earth in which volcanoes, a gray, lifeless ocean, and a turbulent atmosphere dominated the landscape. Vigorous chemical activity is represented by the heavy clouds, which were fed by volcanoes and penetrated both by lightning discharges and solar radiation. The ocean received organic matter from the land and the atmosphere, as well as from infalling meteorites and comets. Here, substances such as water, carbon dioxide, methane, and hydrogen cyanide formed key molecules such as sugars, amino acids, and nucleotides. Such molecules are the building blocks of proteins and nucleic acids, compounds ubiquitous to all living organisms. A critical early triumph was the development of RNA and DNA molecules, which directed biological processes and preserved life's "operation instructions" for future generations. RNA and DNA are depicted in the illustration, first as fragmets and then as fully assembled helices. These helices formed some of the living threads, as shown in the illustration, however, other threads derived from planetary processes such as ocean chemistry and volcanic activity. This evolving bundle of threads thus arose from a variety of sources, illustrating that the origin of life was triggered not only by special molecules such as RNA or DNA, but also by the chemical and physical properties of the Earth's primitive environments.

Obviously this is all unverifiable speculation which these scientists are passing off as facts.

The Prebiotic Earth (http://cmex.ihmc.us/VikingCD/Puzzle/Prebiot.htm)

This is from RESA, an educational service agency that provides a broad spectrum of services and support to Wayne County’s 34 school districts...

"An equally interesting question that is currently studied in laboratories on Earth is how life originally could have arisen from lifeless molecules, and evolved into the already sophisticated isotope fractioning life forms... [in such a short period of time]... "
From Life on Earth began at least 3.85B years ago
Origins of Life (http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm)

So, the content of the reference was accurate and unbiased. Science does claim that life was created spontaneously from non-life.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I'm with excon, and going to go play on the swings.

Better watch out! Even children sometimes fight over the swings!

1. You still have the problem of where God came from.

Not so. Logically speaking, God had to be here from all eternity. That is the only way that anything could be here now. Otherwise, the law of thermodynamics says that nothing from nothing is nothing.


Also, God is violating the first law of thermodynamics because he is creating something out of nothing.

No. It is Science which claims that something was created from nothing. Therefore that theory is violating the law of thermodynamics.


Something that creates something out of nothing, even if they are all powerful, is breaking this law.

Again, that is illogical. Since there was no universe, there was no law to explain the creation of the universe. It is He who in creating the universe put the law in place.

Compare this to your theory that the universe and the law of thermodynamics which was derived by men to explain the universe, came to be on their own without any intelligence to create them. There is no way of testing this assumption of yours. And that means that your assumption isn't science. Since scientific results are supposed to be testable.

Nor is there any experience of any law being created without an intelligence to create it. Its an assumption based on a broken law. It contradicts the law of thermodynamics. Therefore what makes your assumption better than ours? Just your superiority complex? You said it so it must be so?

Sorry, but our assumption is logically superior to yours. And it is testable. Look around. We know that every mechanical device we see was created by man because of the wisdom of their design. But nature is even grander in design. Look at a human body. Yet science assumes that biological entities created themselves by sheer chance? No, the logical answer is that a vast intelligence far grander than human intelligence created them.


2. A materialistic view has absolutely no problem with accepting that there was equal energy now as there was at the big bang.

But not before the Big Bang. The theory of the Big Bang assumes that nothing existed before that first particle which exploded for no apparent reason.


Why does there need to be a "first sauce"? Couldn't it have always been? The God argument rests on the same fact that God could have always been.

Because the existence of God explains why the Big Bang banged. A body at rest remains at rest. If there was nothing to cause that first particle to explode, it would have remained at rest for eternity.


The tornado itself is proof that increasing entropy can seem to be violated if one doesn't look at the whole system. A tornado is formed by unpredictable and random winds, but somehow these form a stable structure.

Tornados are unpredictable to humans but they aren't totally random. The law of probability shows that in a world of complete randomness, the event would not be related to the outcome. In this world, we know that mixing hot and cold air results in predictable outcomes. But world is still too vast for human beings to keep track of all the possibilities.

Lets take a die for instance. You roll a die and there are six possibilites. Who made it so? The man who invented dice. There are other configurations. Coins have two sides. Who ever decides to use a coin will have two possibilities, 50/50 chance.

But who reduced the possibilities of the universe. Who made it so the universe would have order? Who said apple trees will bear apples?

Genesis 1 12 And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Hi DeMaria

I just wanted to pop in and let you know that I don't really understand or I don't let my mind focus on the “science” portion of things. I never liked science, so I guess that is why I don't understand it, or perhaps it is the reverse.

I don't see how religion and science mix and perhaps they don't. What I am trying to say is I don't really understand any of the science things that are being said so I can't really ascertain who is saying what to whom.

But if you are doing all of this, out of Love for your fellow man and for the love of God, I admire you and respect you and send you a hug. You are carrying the torch alone and I just hope your heart is not getting sad because of the difference in opinions.

There are some on this thread that see things very differently then you, that I have been blessed to know, and who I actually love dearly and are sharing their viewpoints on this thread brilliantly (even though most of it is over my head)

I feel that you are doing this with God's love in your heart and I did want to send you encouragement. I guess, if it was me, not sure I would have held up, it would have saddened me by now. So that's why I pop in to send a hug.

It's not that I am siding with anyone here and haven't read through every post so I don't know if any hurtful words have been exchanged, but I just was hoping none of this was making you sad and to keep sharing God's love, either by loving words or actions.

And the same goes for everyone on this thread, don't want anyone to feel frustrated or upset.

I have been experiencing bouts of being “emotional”. I have been doing very well, but it's crept back on me, and it's okay, but I guess that's why it feels twice as important to me to let you know that you don't stand alone and this is only a discussion and I hope the others on here don't get upset at me. I guess what I am trying to say is that I have love and concern for all of you and De Maria , I include you in that.

I know I may sound like a loopy loop, but it is part of who I am.

Take care.

Nah. I just disagree with you and I can support my arguments with facts. Apparently you think I should agree with you because YOU SAY SO. But it is obvious that you know little about what you are saying. For instance, this nonsensical statement of yours:

Quote:
Secondly you seem to believe that both theories are based around randomness. This couldn't be farther from the truth.

That proves that either you know very little about evolution. Very little about science. Or that you don't care about the facts.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Of course you shouldn't agree with me because I say so. You should check the facts, realise that I'm right and then agree with me.

As you say, I know very little about evolution and science, you're right. But you know even less and you're too arrogant to admit it. The fact you think that the big bang was an explosion just shows you haven't studied even the most basic course in it.

I know that you don't realise that you are misrepresenting science, but you have to believe me that you are. Neither of the theories assert what you say they assert. Evolution does not say where life came from at all. Big bang theory does not say what happened before the big bang at all. This is for the exact reason that you give, we don't have evidence, so we don't claim to have knowledge about it. We do however have hypotheses which we can use to make models and predictions and see if they lead to the things that we do observe, however these are never set in stone and they are always subject to change. And they are EXPECTED to be changed to fit further observations.

I don't know why you state that life from non-life is impossible. Research has shown that it is possible at least in theory. But of course we have not observed it yet (except from the fact that it obviously happened at some point).

If you actually want to learn more about where you're misrepresenting science and want to learn more about these theories, let me know. Otherwise I'm done here.

Hi DeMaria

I just wanted to pop in and let you know that I don’t really understand or I don’t let my mind focus on the “science” portion of things. I never liked science, so I guess that is why I don’t understand it, or perhaps it is the reverse.

I don’t see how religion and science mix and perhaps they don’t. What I am trying to say is I don’t really understand any of the science things that are being said so I can’t really ascertain who is saying what to whom.

But if you are doing all of this, out of Love for your fellow man and for the love of God, I admire you and respect you and send you a hug. You are carrying the torch alone and I just hope your heart is not getting sad because of the difference in opinions.

There are some on this thread that see things very differently then you, that I have been blessed to know, and who I actually love dearly and are sharing their viewpoints on this thread brilliantly (even though most of it is over my head)

I feel that you are doing this with God’s love in your heart and I did want to send you encouragement. I guess, if it was me, not sure I would have held up, it would have saddened me by now. So that’s why I pop in to send a hug.

It’s not that I am siding with anyone here and haven’t read through every post so I don’t know if any hurtful words have been exchanged, but I just was hoping none of this was making you sad and to keep sharing God’s love, either by loving words or actions.

And the same goes for everyone on this thread, don’t want anyone to feel frustrated or upset.

I have been experiencing bouts of being “emotional”. I have been doing very well, but it’s crept back on me, and it’s okay, but I guess that’s why it feels twice as important to me to let you know that you don’t stand alone and this is only a discussion and I hope the others on here don’t get upset at me. I guess what I am trying to say is that I have love and concern for all of you and De Maria , I include you in that.

I know I may sound like a loopy loop, but it is part of who I am.

Take care.

Thanks AH. May God bless you for your kind words.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Of course you shouldn't agree with me because I say so. You should check the facts, realise that I'm right and then agree with me.

Ok, and to be fair, you shouldn't agree with me because I say so either. You should check the facts, realize that I'm right and then agree with me.


As you say, I know very little about evolution and science, you're right. But you know even less and you're too arrogant to admit it.

Arrogant I may be. But I'll let reasonable people decide who is making more sense in this discussion.


The fact you think that the big bang was an explosion just shows you haven't studied even the most basic course in it.

Are you saying that it is wrong to characterize the Big Bang event as an explosion?

THE BIG BANG
About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event ...
THE BIG BANG (http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm)

These folks from the University of Michigan are doing just that.

MOST POWERFUL EXPLOSION SINCE THE BIG BANG
CHALLENGES GAMMA RAY BURST THEORIES
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/1998/98-075.txt


This guy from NASA describes it the same way, as an explosion.

I would think these folks know a little bit about science considering where they work. Are you a higher authority than they?


I know that you don't realise that you are misrepresenting science, but you have to believe me that you are.

Not until you provide the proof as we agreed above. Otherwise you'll have to believe me.


Neither of the theories assert what you say they assert. Evolution does not say where life came from at all.

Then why do evolutionists always compare evolution to Biblical Creation.

Why did Darwin say?
Charles Darwin made the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes".
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life)

Why does this short summary from the NASA website describe the spontaneous generation of life from non living matter:
The final, most important events leading to the origin of life are perhaps the least understood chapters of the story. Life began during the first billion years of an Earth history which is 4.5 billion years old. The illustration depicts an early Earth in which volcanoes, a gray, lifeless ocean, and a turbulent atmosphere dominated the landscape. Vigorous chemical activity is represented by the heavy clouds, which were fed by volcanoes and penetrated both by lightning discharges and solar radiation. The ocean received organic matter from the land and the atmosphere, as well as from infalling meteorites and comets. Here, substances such as water, carbon dioxide, methane, and hydrogen cyanide formed key molecules such as sugars, amino acids, and nucleotides. Such molecules are the building blocks of proteins and nucleic acids, compounds ubiquitous to all living organisms. A critical early triumph was the development of RNA and DNA molecules, which directed biological processes and preserved life's "operation instructions" for future generations. RNA and DNA are depicted in the illustration, first as fragmets and then as fully assembled helices. These helices formed some of the living threads, as shown in the illustration, however, other threads derived from planetary processes such as ocean chemistry and volcanic activity. This evolving bundle of threads thus arose from a variety of sources, illustrating that the origin of life was triggered not only by special molecules such as RNA or DNA, but also by the chemical and physical properties of the Earth's primitive environments.
The Prebiotic Earth (http://cmex.ihmc.us/VikingCD/Puzzle/Prebiot.htm)


Big bang theory does not say what happened before the big bang at all. This is for the exact reason that you give, we don't have evidence, so we don't claim to have knowledge about it. We do however have hypotheses which we can use to make models and predictions and see if they lead to the things that we do observe, however these are never set in stone and they are always subject to change. And they are EXPECTED to be changed to fit further observations. I don't know why you state that life from non-life is impossible. Research has shown that it is possible at least in theory.

Lol!! In theory!! In other words speculation substituted for science. Please direct me to the experiment that created life from non living matter.


But of course we have not observed it yet (except from the fact that it obviously happened at some point).

Yeah, when God created it.


If you actually want to learn more about where you're misrepresenting science and want to learn more about these theories, let me know.

I'm sure if I was misrepresenting science, you would be flaunting all the specifics right here and now. But I'm not, so you can't but you want to make a grand exit. But before you go, I do have specifics.

You have just illustrated how so many scientists make dogma out of their unsubstantiated beliefs. Obviously you think that life can come from non life so you claim research has shown it. In theory. As though that were somehow a fact. But it isn't.

You have assumptions. Not facts. Some of you say nothing existed before the Big Bang, you and others say it was a single point in space, and others make other assumptions equally as unprovable as the existence of God in any experiments.

But the existence of God is the most logical of all the assumptions. If any of you found a simple utensil on the ground, a spoon or a watch, you'd assume that an intelligent being made it. But you see things infinitely more complex and wonderful and you assume that they happened by an accumulation of chance events.

Makes no sense.


Otherwise I'm done here.

I agree.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Arrogant I may be. But I'll let reasonable people decide who is making more sense in this discussion.

Sincerely,

De Maria

You don't really want to know the answer to that!

My vote: De Maria makes more sense.

My vote: De Maria makes more sense.

She said reasonable people :p :p

The Steve's seem to support evolution.
NCSE Resource (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp)

Sorry, I am going with team Capuchin on this one.

Missing link shows bats flew first, developed echolocation later (http://www.physorg.com/news122102502.html)

"It's clearly a bat, but unlike any previously known. In many respects it is a missing link between bats and their non-flying ancestors."...

"The limb proportions of Onychonycteris are also different from all other bats---the hind legs are longer and the forearm shorter---and more similar to those of climbing mammals that hang under branches, such as sloths and gibbons. "

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Did any of them tell us how complex capabilities like echolocation or flight could have arisen by chance? Did they elaborate the dozens, if not thousands, of lucky mutations that would have had to come together blindly to produce a flying mammal from a mouse? No! If anything, they uncovered a more astonishing thing – that the flight capabilities of bats are dynamically integrated with their sonar systems. Did they watch 52 million years go by? Did they watch the so-called primitive bat change into a more advanced creature? Did they seriously entertain any of the many, many scientific criticisms that could be leveled against their tale? NO."
This is dogmatism masquerading as science.


Looks like true science makes it harder and harder for evolutionist to explain the things we observe. New findings like these only lead to more theories and hypothesis that CANNOT BE PROVED OR TESTED.


Science glorifies God's creations. :)

Missing link shows bats flew first, developed echolocation later (http://www.physorg.com/news122102502.html)

"It's clearly a bat, but unlike any previously known. In many respects it is a missing link between bats and their non-flying ancestors." ...

"The limb proportions of Onychonycteris are also different from all other bats---the hind legs are longer and the forearm shorter---and more similar to those of climbing mammals that hang under branches, such as sloths and gibbons. "

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Did any of them tell us how complex capabilities like echolocation or flight could have arisen by chance? Did they elaborate the dozens, if not thousands, of lucky mutations that would have had to come together blindly to produce a flying mammal from a mouse? No! If anything, they uncovered a more astonishing thing – that the flight capabilities of bats are dynamically integrated with their sonar systems. Did they watch 52 million years go by? Did they watch the so-called primitive bat change into a more advanced creature? Did they seriously entertain any of the many, many scientific criticisms that could be leveled against their tale? NO."
This is dogmatism masquerading as science.


Looks like true science makes it harder and harder for evolutionist to explain the things we observe. New findings like these only lead to more theories and hypothesis that CANNOT BE PROVED OR TESTED.


Science glorifies God's creations. :)

Why are we still expecting things to have to evolve by chance? I've said over and over that evolution doesn't work by chance, any source who says so obviously doesn't understand evolution or it's mechanisms.

Furthermore are you really expecting full detailed explanations of morphologies etc in a popular science article? The evidence is recent and I'm sure many scientists will study it further and explain how it evolved in the future. Science is an ongoing thing. We don't have all the answers right now.

New findings like these only lead to more theories and hypothesis that CANNOT BE PROVED OR TESTED.Of course they can be tested, that's how science proceeds, in contrast to your explanation, "God did it", which CAN'T be tested. That's why creationism, even after being rebranded as "Intelligent Design", isn't science.

Believe me, I know how irritating it must be for you to hear it, but it really does come down to picking an explanation that suits you. If "God did it" works for you, I'm happy for you, really. But for a lot of people, it's no explanation at all, so it's a waste of your time as well as theirs to get in their face with it.

Hello again, Christians:

You think we're the same. You think we're just as religious about evolution as you are about religion. You think that our entire scientific based world would collapse under its own weight, if only we would allow ourselves to see the logic of your argument. But, we're blinded by our religion - science.

Well, that may be true for some, but not me. Science takes work. It takes rigor. It's HARD. And, it STILL doesn't have the answers. So, I'm left scratching my head. Nope, science really sucks!

Believe me, I'd love to have the easy answer - God did it. That would clear up SOOOOO much stuff for me. I could relax and not think about those things, because I'm bothered that I don't know where I came from. I really want to know.

So, I don't have a stake in science. I'd really rather have some other explanation. I WANT an easy way to explain it. I want it very desperately... But, you're not convincing me. I don't know. Is it me? I'm willing. I want to believe.

excon

Hello again:

You think we're the same. You think we're just as religious about evolution as you are about religion. You think that our entire scientific based world would collapse under its own weight, if only we would allow ourselves to see the logic of your argument. But, we're blinded by our religion - science.

That may be true for some, but not me. Science takes work. It takes rigor. It's HARD. And, it STILL doesn't have the answers. So, I'm left scratching my head. Nope, science really sucks!

Believe me, I'd love to have the easy answer - God did it. That would clear up SOOOOO much stuff for me. I could relax and not think about those things, because I'm bothered that I don't know where I came from. I really wanna know.

So, I don't have a stake in science. I'd really rather have some other explanation. I WANT an easy way to explain it. I want it very desperately...... But, you're not convincing me. I dunno. Is it me? I'm willing. I wanna believe.

excon

Ex - You are a bright and beautiful man ( I truly believe that and mean that)

The answer is in your heart. It truly is. When you sit quietly - and remove all the "life" stuff from your thoughts... what remains?

When you sit quietly - and remove all the "life" stuff from your thoughts...what remains?Hello again, All:

I'm unable to do that. Life stuff is always front and center.

In fact, I wonder if you could remove all that "religious" stuff from your thoughts... would science remain?

excon

Hello again, All:

I'm unable to do that. Life stuff is always front and center.

In fact, I wonder if you could remove all that "religious" stuff from your thoughts..... would science remain?

excon

Hi Ex,

Good point and I hope you don't think I was directing you what to do. I just find things easier to understand when I turn off life, which I can not understand at all.

But if I shut off my religion stuff... would science remain? No, only because, I respect science meaning I believe it has a huge purpose and I respect scientist, but I don't understand it much, but do respect it.

Truth? If I turned off my religious thoughts, I would think, what's the purpose of even being here. To me, I see nothing but struggle, heartache. But then a see a child smile and back come my religious thoughts.

Does any of that make sense.

Ex, hope you know I wasn't be smart or anything, K?

Truth? If I turned off my religious thoughts, I would think, what's the purpose of even being here. To me, I see nothing but struggle, heartache.I think that's probably the biggest difference right there between yourself and us who don't have a need for religion. We do not see only struggle and heartache, we are more optimistic I guess. Plus, if I may speak for myself, how can keep thinking about struggle and heartache went I have my kids, my wife, my job, my house, road trips, sports, etc. to occupy my time.

It is possible that you have had a hard life and I'm sorry for that but you can't attribute your 'coping mechanism' to the rest of us - you've found what works for you, we have what works for us.

I think that's probably the biggest difference right there between yourself and us who don't have a need for religion. We do not see only struggle and heartache, we are more optimistic I guess. Plus, if I may speak for myself, how can keep thinking about struggle and heartache went I have my kids, my wife, my job, my house, road trips, sports, etc. to occupy my time.

It is possible that you have had a hard life and I'm sorry for that but you can't attribute your 'coping mechanism' to the rest of us - you've found what works for you, we have what works for us.

Oh NK I understand what you are saying. And I am grateful for the beatufiul things in my life more then you will ever know. I could never say I had a hard life... ever... when I see starvation.. and all the other hardships.

That's what I mean about struggle. From people starving, seeing their heartaches, hearing they have cancer... to just have a disagreement with someone.

There are beautiful things in life that I hold precious... but I also see pain and heartache and lots of it.

I just can't find complete joy with all that going on.

NK I am more blessed then I could ever relay and wonder every day why? I have been told I am too optimstic but that's what I mean about struggle.

For me, God's love helps to lighten the load of what I see and gives me the strength to somehow change.

In all painful things of this life - I see God's love. Have you ever seen a special child (down syndrome or something similar?) smile, I light up inside because in that smile I see God's love.

I just find things easier to understand when I turn off life, which I can not understand at all………… There are beautiful things in life that I hold precious....but I also see pain and heartache and lots of it.
Hello again, All:

Now we're getting somewhere.

I don't understand life either. But, I understand our nature. What you see as good and evil, I see as the natural acts of man.

Lest you think that leaves me depressed, however, you are wrong. I'm quite optimistic about our future.

Man has outlived (evolved if you will) beyond his need to act tribally, which is the way we've ALWAYS acted. The speed of technology has far outpaced the speed of evolution. But, I'll bet evolution is just going to speed up too, though.

Therefore, our species will adapt/adjust/morph/evolve into one that's better able to survive in a technological age, rather than a tribal age. We DO think like tribes, don't we?? Oh, we look very cool in our three piece suites, but we're barely a generation or two out of the jungle. That's a minuscule amount of time to observe evolution at work. Evolution hasn't caught up.

But we will survive, or we'll wind up in the dustbins of history with the millions of other species that didn't pan out.

excon

Hello again, All:

Now we're getting somewhere.

I don't understand life either. But, I understand our nature. What you see as good and evil, I see as the natural acts of man.

Lest you think that leaves me depressed, you are wrong. I'm quite optimistic about our future.

Man has outlived (evolved if you will) beyond his need to act tribally, which is the way we've ALWAYS acted. The speed of technology has far outpaced the speed of evolution. But, I'll bet evolution is just gonna speed up too, though.

Therefore, our species will adapt/adjust/morph/evolve into one that's better able to survive in a technological age, rather than a tribal age. We DO think like tribes, don't we???? Oh, we look very cool in our three piece suites, but we're barely a generation or two out of the jungle. That's a miniscule amount of time to observe evolution at work. Our culture hasn't caught up.

But we will survive, or we'll wind up in the dustbins of history with the millions of other species that didn't pan out.

excon

Ex - I just think you are such a special and precious man and hope you don't mind me saying that or I embarrass you - I don't mean to.

I completely understand what you are saying and no we really are not that very far removed from hunt or be hunted - but I have hope to that we are better then that.

I don't necessarily see "evil" so much - I see far more good and mostly all good. Rarely do I see evil. I see struggle. The only time I would say I see evil, is when someone is so disturbed there is no way back for them. Where they are brilliant and of sound mind - but evil has pentrated them so much that all they want to do is cause harm merely for the sake of causing harm.

Why are we still expecting things to have to evolve by chance? I've said over and over that evolution doesnt work by chance, any source who says so obviously doesn't understand evolution or it's mechanisms.

Furthermore are you really expecting full detailed explanations of morphologies etc in a popular science article? The evidence is recent and i'm sure many scientists will study it further and explain how it evolved in the future. Science is an ongoing thing. We don't have all the answers right now.

If it isn't by chance, its by design.

By chance (adv)

Synonyms: accidentally, by accident, unintentionally, inadvertently, coincidentally, unexpectedly, by luck, fortuitously, by coincidence, by a quirk of fate

Antonym: on purpose
Synonym for by chance (adv) - antonym for by chance (adv) - Thesaurus - MSN Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/thesaurus_561567870/by_chance.html)


Antonyms: chance

Adj

Definition: accidental, unforeseeable
Antonyms: designed, foreseeable, planned, understood
chance: Definition, Synonyms and Much More from Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/chance)

If it isn't by chance, its by design.


No, it's by selection. Which is nether chance or design. The selection is done by who ever survives to reproduce hence "survival of the fittest".

No, it's by selection.

You are using "selection" as a synonym for "survival". In other words, since it is "left behind" after the others have died, then it has been "selected" or "chosen" for survival. This is what is more commonly called "natural" selection. But natural selection is the result of so called "random" mutations in the genes which permit some individual specimens to overcome the changes in the environment while others don't. These individuals then pass on their genetic mutations and they become the norm.

Now tell me, who rolled the dice? In other words, who put these variations in the genetic code so that they might appear as mutations when they were needed?

Who wrote the genetic code in the first place? A code implies intelligence, communication, language and design.


Which is nether chance or design.

It is design. Are you familiar at all with programming? Have you ever heard of an "if" statement? What does it do?

The surviving individuals are the "if" statements of nature.


The selection is done by who ever survives to reproduce hence "survival of the fittest".

Correct. But that selection was made by an intelligence.

Sincerely,

De Maria

It is design. Are you familiar at all with programming? Have you ever heard of an "if" statement? So it is your contention that your god programs all the DNA in every cell of every living thing?

So it is your contention that your god programs all the DNA in every cell of every living thing?
He must use a mac.

So it is your contention that your god programs all the DNA in every cell of every living thing?

Not only programs it, but created it to start with.

not only programs it, but created it to start with.Busy guy, no wonder he has no time to heal amputees.

No wonder he has no time to answer prayers and grant miracles.

He's too busy chasing down bugs and eliminating them.

God as a Dev/GM in an online game makes it soooooo much easier to understand!

No time for the average player, just the ones that scream and whine for his attention, the "bugs" that are fixed are random, based on what He feels like working on, or on what people are demanding the most, every now and again someone figures out an "exploit" that God scrambles to fix, only in fixing it, He screws up 17 other things that generally leaves most of the game's community unhappy with his customer service, and they report him to the OTHER "devs" (the other gods) who can't do anything about what HE is doing, but they fix the problems those players come to them with, so even though they're "lesser" devs, they have a large following because they do what they can to fix the things the main dev has screwed up.

All we need now is God announcing that he's selling out to Sony, who can better handle the customer service complaints and distribution.

So it is your contention that your god programs all the DNA in every cell of every living thing?

Yes. If you've ever looked at and considered a DNA strand, the order and design which it reveals leaves no question that an Intelligence designed it.

Nah, that's not my belief. Sorry.

I think more why do you believe in god a book that was written thousands of years ago.

You are using "selection" as a synonym for "survival". In other words, since it is "left behind" after the others have died, then it has been "selected" or "chosen" for survival. This is what is more commonly called "natural" selection. But natural selection is the result of so called "random" mutations in the genes which permit some individual specimens to overcome the changes in the environment while others don't. These individuals then pass on their genetic mutations and they become the norm.

Now tell me, who rolled the dice? In other words, who put these variations in the genetic code so that they might appear as mutations when they were needed?


I think you might actually believe in evolution De Maria you just don't know it, yet.

I think we just need to define mutations a little and I think you'll have it. How the mutations come across is because a copy is being made. No creature is able to replicate its self with 100% accuracy because if it could it would be perfect and only god is perfect right. So when a creature replicates its self there are minor changes some good, some bad. The bad ones don't reproduce the good ones do "survival of the fittest". Now that is all evolution states if you want to say that it's all gods plan that's fine but as long as you get that the good genes get passes on because of survival and the genes change because of mutation(coping errors) that is evolution.

I think you might actually believe in evolution De Maria you just don't know it, yet.

I'm Catholic. I believe in evolution by God's design.

Evolution and the Pope

To paraphrase Santayana: Newspapers ignorant of history are condemned to reprint it. How else should we interpret the recent headline, describing Pope John Paul II's address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, "Pope Says Evolution Compatible with Faith"?

There's not much "news" there. Fifty years ago Pope Pius XII said almost the same thing in the encyclical Humani generis: "The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter."

While not exactly canonizing Darwin, Pius XII did imply that the theory of evolution isn't necessarily inimical to Christianity. Certainly he didn't reject evolution altogether. How then do we explain the big headlines when John Paul II says basically the same thing in 1996? ....
Article: EVOLUTION AND THE POPE (http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html)


I think we just need to define mutations a little and I think you'll have it. How the mutations come across is because a copy is being made. No creature is able to replicate its self with 100% accuracy because if it could it would be perfect and only god is perfect right. So when a creature replicates its self there are minor changes some good, some bad. The bad ones don't reproduce the good ones do "survival of the fittest". Now that is all evolution states if you want to say that it's all gods plan that's fine but as long as you get that the good genes get passes on because of survival and the genes change because of mutation(coping errors) that is evolution.

Thanks Michealb. Because you have just permitted me to say what has seemed to twist everyone else's panties into knots. You said, "...if you want to say that it's all gods plan thats fine...".

That's EXACTLY WHAT I WANT TO SAY.

Thanks. Sounds like you and I have come to understanding.

You see, for us, Christians, science is a means by which we come to understand God's universe. But secular scientists have written God off and they accuse anyone who believes in God of being anti-reason. But that is far from the truth.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I think you might actually believe in evolution De Maria you just don't know it, yet.

I think we just need to define mutations a little and I think you'll have it. How the mutations come across is because a copy is being made. No creature is able to replicate its self with 100% accuracy because if it could it would be perfect and only god is perfect right. So when a creature replicates its self there are minor changes some good, some bad. The bad ones don't reproduce the good ones do "survival of the fittest". Now that is all evolution states if you want to say that it's all gods plan thats fine but as long as you get that the good genes get passes on because of survival and the genes change because of mutation(coping errors) that is evolution.


Okay - what mutaions led to the development of the eye,
Flight in birds
Bipedalism in humans
Echolocation in bats
From invertebrates to vertebrates
Exo vs endo skeletons
etc..
These cannot be "proved" or "tested"





Mutations are responsible for:

Cystic fibrosis
Sickle cell
Huntington's
Tay sachs
Breast cancer [ brca 1 ]
Certain post chemo leukemias
Muscular dystrophy
Certain types of alzheimer's
Crohn's [ nod 2 ]
Some forms of colon cancer

The list of medical diseases caused or associated with or a increased risk for
By gene mutations grows every year, but this is the process by which we are to have developed from a single cell? Remember selection cannot work if there are no mutations.

Okay - what mutaions led to the development of the eye,
flight in birds
bipedalism in humans
echolocation in bats
from invertebrates to vertebrates
exo vs endo skeletons
etc..
these cannot be "proved" or "tested"


Of course they can, we see the eye in many stages of development in creatures that are alive today. - It's outlined in the origin of species. And, shock horror, God gave octopi better eyes that he gave us, maybe he loves octopi more.
I don't have time to go over all of these. Try reading a book.



mutations are responsible for:

cystic fibrosis
sickle cell
huntington's
Tay sachs
breast cancer [ brca 1 ]
certain post chemo leukemias
muscular dystrophy
certain types of alzheimer's
Crohn's [ nod 2 ]
some forms of colon cancer

the list of medical diseases caused or associated with or a increased risk for
by gene mutations grows every year, but this is the process by which we are to have developed from a single cell? Remember selection cannot work if there are no mutations.

Yes. It is. You ignore the mutations that let people run 100m in under 10 seconds, that let them hold their breath longer underwater, that give them resistance to developing cancer, that stop them from developing AIDS etc etc etc.

Taking cystic fibrosis as an example - these people would die at birth outside of our society. They would be unable to procreate.

I agree with you One hundred percent you can't get something from nothing, This is something I strugled with growing up in a cristian home however I can give you two examples one from each side.

First off the non believers you can't get something from nothing that is correct based off
Everything we know and what our experience teaches us growing up, For example you put a fire craker inside a glass cube and sispend that from a scale giving you a weight now regardless of what it wheighs if you set it off will the box wheigh the same? Most people would assume no because there is no fire cracker left however the box will wieght the same every time, Why? Because the powder and everything that made up the firework has now been turned to gas or smoke however the weight still remains the same!

Now if your able to think outside the box for just one moment and consider the possability that the universe and I don't me god! Has its own set of rules not like what we all believe
Is it possible that what most of us believe is parcialy a buyproduct of what our parents have engrained into us? Perhaps society? Or is it simply because we can't wrap our minds of which we only us ten percent of around the possability that a human's perseption of thing works much like every other species. Take a great white shark for instance usually when a shark approches a object of which it cannot understand it becomes cureus and will test the object by rubbing up against it and biting it. Is this much different than a child learning and testing new things? Instanly learning the first time it cry's out in hunger pains and gets a bottle, or cry's and gets picked up, These thing's become programed into our minds as fact and reality!

The point Im trying to make here is that is it mabe possible that the reason we believe we can't get something from nothing is because that's what we live what we see?
We cannot understand it because everything on our planet lives and die's, Its bourne and then expires, Our brains simply cannot comprehend always has been because we and everything around us are not! But if your willing to think outside the box then this maybe a interesting theory for you!

I agree with you One hundred percent you can't get something from nothing, This is something I strugled with growing up in a cristian home however I can give you two examples one from each side.

First off the non believers you can't get something from nothing that is correct based off of
everything we know and what our experiance teaches us growing up, For example you put a fire craker inside a glass cube and sispend that from a scale giving you a weight now regardless of what it wheighs if you set it off will the box wheigh the same? Most people would assume no because there is no fire cracker left however the box will wieght the same everytime, Why? Because the powder and everything that made up the firework has now been turned to gas or smoke however the weight still remains the same!

Now if your able to think outside the box for just one moment and concider the possability that the universe and I dont me god! Has its own set of rules not like what we all believe
is it possible that what most of us believe is parcialy a buyproduct of what our parents have engrained into us? Perhaps society? Or is it simply because we can't wrap our minds of which we only us ten percent of around the possability that a human's perseption of thing works much like every other species. Take a great white shark for instance usualy when a shark approches a object of which it cannot understand it becomes cureus and will test the object by rubbing up against it and biting it. Is this much different than a child learning and testing new things? Instanly learning the first time it cry's out in hunger pains and gets a bottle, or cry's and gets picked up, These thing's become programed into our minds as fact and reality!

The point Im trying to make here is that is it mabe possible that the reason we believe we can't get something from nothing is because thats what we live what we see?
We cannot understand it because everything on our planet lives and die's, Its bourne and then expires, Our brains simply cannot comprehend always has been because we and everything around us are not! But if your willing to think outside the box then this maybe a interesting theory for you! df

Okay - what mutaions led to the development of the eye,
flight in birds
bipedalism in humans
echolocation in bats
from invertebrates to vertebrates
exo vs endo skeletons
etc..
these cannot be "proved" or "tested"





mutations are responsible for:

cystic fibrosis
sickle cell
huntington's
Tay sachs
breast cancer [ brca 1 ]
certain post chemo leukemias
muscular dystrophy
certain types of alzheimer's
Crohn's [ nod 2 ]
some forms of colon cancer

the list of medical diseases caused or associated with or a increased risk for
by gene mutations grows every year, but this is the process by which we are to have developed from a single cell? Remember selection cannot work if there are no mutations.
If you're really interested in learning about mutations, differing mutation rates across species, and how mutation rates within a species change in response to environmental conditions, check out Evolving Mistakes - The Wild Side - Olivia Judson (http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/evolving-mistakes/). If your mind is closed on the subject and you aren't willing to open it again, don't bother.

Oh, and inthebox, some variants of sickle cell anemia have resistance to malaria - so it has it's advantages in places like africa where malaria is rampant.

Hi everyone -

I am just popping in to say hello and just comment on how bright you folks are. I truly mean that.

You possess such great blessings.

That's all I can contribute - as I'm lost on the outside - but I just had to share my observation.

I do often wonder sometimes, this may sound strange, but does it get to be frustrating when you are so bright, see things so clear, as clear as day, and then there are folks, like myself, not ashamed to admit it, have no clue what you are talking about?

I am not putting myself down, honest I am not. I just wonder if it can get frustrating.

Carry on :).

It only gets frustrating when people argue out of ignorance. It is perfectly acceptable to say that a scientific theory is wrong, if you have proof it's wrong or there is no proof it's right, but when you don't understand the theory that your claiming to be wrong that gets annoying.

Gotcha.

You'll never catch me doing that :).

My post on faith are just based on what I do know.

The Science stuff, which I am so incredibly impressed with Scientist and Engineers minds,
But it's almost like another language.

But I would never say it's wrong, when I don't know what it is. :)

I just recogonize the intellectual gifts that people have. My husband is very smart and sometimes he gives me a very funny look.

Guess I am trying to say is I respect and am in awe of all of your intellegence and hope that you do enjoy that.

There are times that am glad that I am in the dark - Sometimes to know so much is not always a blessing. Not even on this topic, politics, life , people.

Anyway - Embrace your blessings - I truly think it's wonderful.

Like I said Cap.

Brca is associated with a higher risk for breast cancer.

A single amino acid substitutionis responsible for sickle cell.

Again what SPECIFIC mutation is responsible for bipedalism or echolation?

What specific gene or mutation is responsible for a sub 4 minute mile?
Name names.

How do you control for training, shoes, nutrition, wind, better expression of an allele that has always been present? Jimmy the Greek sound familiar?



Do humans that can dunk have different genes than the rest of us? A hundred thousand or more base pairs in their dna?

Read more about mutations and disease - the science is there if you're willing to do the research.

Hi everyone -

I am just popping in to say hello and just comment on how bright you folks are. I truly mean that.

You possess such great blessings.

That's all I can contribute - as I'm lost on the outside - but I just had to share my observation.

I do often wonder sometimes, this may sound strange, but does it get to be frustrating when you are so bright, see things so clear, as clear as day, and then their are folks, like myself, not ashamed to admit it, have no clue what you are talking about?

I am not putting myself down, honest I am not. I just wonder if it can get frustrating.

Carry on :).

I agree with you Allheart most things go right over my head

I agree with you Allheart most things go right over my head


LOL I kind of like in the world of Fog :)

Colon cancer test maker's shares soar - Daily Business Update - The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2008/03/colon_cancer_te.html)



"Exact Sciences makes a noninvasive test in which a patient collects a stool sample at home and ships it to a lab that analyzes the DNA to look for MUTATIONS that could indicate COLON CANCER."



Yeah I'm reading ;)

Read more about mutations and disease - the science is there if you're willing to do the research.
Nobody is arguing that all mutations are beneficial or denying that most mutations are harmful. But you seem to be arguing that mutations can never be beneficial, and therefore that mutations cannot produce successful evolutionary innovations. If that's your position, you're the one who needs to "read more about mutations". A good starting point would be the link (http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/evolving-mistakes/) I provided above.

inthebox, there are no single genes for the beneficial adaptations you listed. The things you listed are complicated things that evolve over large stretches of time.

Nobody is arguing that all mutations are beneficial or denying that most mutations are harmful. But you seem to be arguing that mutations can never be beneficial, and therefore that mutations cannot produce successful evolutionary innovations. If that's your position, you're the one who needs to "read more about mutations". A good starting point would be the link (http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/evolving-mistakes/) I provided above.


Read your link -

viruses and bacteria, due to their high reproductive rates mutate an enormous amount of times over a short period. The article claims 100,000 deleterious mutations to one beneficial. But no where does it state or even imply that despite all these mutations e.coli remains e.coli, influenza remains influenza. No "proof" that humans came from single celled organisms. No "macroevolution"

Well.

I'd just like to point out that we haven't been watching those bacteria for millions of years yet, either.

Macroevolution was made up by the creationist to make evolution sound implausible. Macroevolution doesn't exist. There are no great leaps in evolution like you are thinking.
What you get are minor almost undetectable changes that add up to great leaps over thousands of years. That is why Darwin himself said that if any organ was found that didn't break down into a simpler form it would disprove his entire theory.
Evolution for the most part is slooowwww. That's why it takes thousands of years for species to evolve.

Also just so you know almost every scientist out there would love to disprove evolution. If I could disprove evolution as a valid theory, I would do it in a heart beat. Why would I do that you ask? Simple I want to be better known than those that came before me and who better to debunk than Darwin. It's what scientist do, they seek knowledge not cover it up.

No "proof" that humans came from single celled organisms. no "macroevolution"
The physical and life sciences deal in inferences and interpretations, not proof. If it's proof you're after study mathematics.

Also just so you know almost every scientist out there would love to disprove evolution. If I could disprove evolution as a valid theory, I would do it in a heart beat. Why would I do that you ask? Simple I want to be better known than those that came before me and who better to debunk than Darwin. It's what scientist do, they seek knowledge not cover it up.

This is very true, it's almost like creationists think that evolution was thought up to challenge creation. That's very arrogant of them. Scientists couldn't give a rat's behind. They want a better model for the world, if they end up crushing some widely held delusions then that's just the way it goes.

read your link -

viruses and bacteria, due to their high reproductive rates mutate an enormous amount of times over a short period of time. The article claims 100,000 deleterious mutations to one beneficial. But no where does it state or even imply that despite all these mutations e.coli remains e.coli, influenza remains influenza. No "proof" that humans came from single celled organisms. no "macroevolution"

We know that multicellular life took 3.5 billion years to form on Earth. It's a hard thing to do. You need a lot of time, even reproducing at the rate of bacteria or viruses.

Scoop: Mazur: Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution? (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00051.htm)

A bunch of evolutionists and they can't even agree among themselves. Some interseting excerpts:


"Oh sure natural selection's been demonstrated. . . the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations. . . . Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is JUST WHAT HAPPENED TO HAPPEN."




"Pigliucci cites epigenetic inheritance as one of the mechanisms that Darwin knew nothing about. He says there is mounting empirical evidence to "suspect" there's a whole additional layer chemically on top of the genes that is inherited but is not DNA. Darwin, of course, did not even know of the existence of DNA"



-----Evolution cannot explain DNA and yet these scientists think there is something more complex than just genes involved? ------



"Thus the scramble at Altenberg for a new theory of evolution.

But Kauffman also describes genes as "utterly dead". However, he says there are some genes that turn the rest of the genes and one another on and off. Certain chemical reactions happen. Enzymes are produced, etc. And that while we only have 25,000 to 30,000 genes, there are many combinations of activity.

Here's what he told me over the phone:


"Well there's 25,000 genes, so each could be on or off. So there's 2 x 2 x 2 x 25,000 times. Well that's 2 to the 25,000th. Right? Which is something like 10 to the 7,000th. Okay? There's only 10 to the 80th particles in the whole universe. ARE YOU STUNNED?"




No wonder they are scratiching their heads: trying to fgure out how what is actually known fits into the evolutionary theory.

Exactly people are trying hard to disprove evolution theory. They haven't been able to yet, that's what we're saying.

Oh and if your point is how can scientists be trusted because they don't agree, how many different religions are there? How many different versions of just christianity are there?

There is a start and an end to everything.

Not necessarily true, we observe that energy is always conserved. It is never created or destroyed. Of course, creationists like to say that god can always have existed but the universe cannot have - and I cannot understand the logic behind that claim. What goes for one goes for the other. I have no trouble believing that the universe has always been, in one form or another.

I note that you believe only that "God" always existed, and not that "God" always existed.
I think I catch your drift, and I think I agree, but this statement is nonsenscal. Is it a typo?

I think I catch your drift, and I think I agree, but this statement is nonsenscal. Is it a typo?
Sorry : I should have been more clear here : let me rephrase that!
.
`I note that you BELIEVE only that "God" always existed. Not that it is a fact that "God" always did exist´.
.
Yes, that is better!
.
Thanks ordinaryguy for pointing that out!
:)

Hey cred so you believe in the wind?

hey cred so you beleive in the wind?

How do you believe in the wind?