Some of my issues with "intelligent design."

[mrdevious]

I don't mean this as an attack on anybody for holding such beliefs, but I do bleieve it's essential to give serious and logical consideration to both sides of such a claim. It's nobody's "fault" for holding beliefs for or against god, but merely their belief that their reasoning is sound, is what's faulty. That being said...


INTELLIGENT DESIGN:

Before considering intelligent design, also consider this; does it not seem a bit suspicious to you that that we carry SO many behavioral similarities to all the lower species, almost as if we're related (IE. evolution). When dolphin's reach the equivilant of their teen years, they often leave the pack temporily with other teenage dolphins and go to other dolpin packs. There they form friendships with other teenage dolphins, they often pick fights with the other teenagers, and often screw the teenage girls from that pack.
Look at kids, especially in high school. They act just like animals in the pack mentality. I remember how all the boys were constantly trying to vye for dominance, picking fights with the weaker ones to secure their dominance over them, fighting the stronger ones to climb the dominance ladder. This is even more prevelant in prison societies.
Puberty: pretty much every complex organism goes through a stage of sexual developement similar to puberty, whether it be boys turning into men, or tadpoles turning into frogs.
Flirting. Have you ever seen a dog or a gorilla try to strut his stuff in front of a female to impress her, show off his masculinity and strength, and often be shot down by the less-than-impressed female? I've seen dogs do the EXACT same thing that guys do in bars, and the same goes for every animal that fights for a female.

Not to metion our genetics. We share 99.95% of our genetic code with neanderthal's (where do all these sub-genus version of humans fall into the bible anyway?). We share 98.5% of the genetic code with monkeys, just a coincidence I suppose, even though genetic codes have billions upon billions of pieces of informaiton. In fact every species on earth, including plant life, has a certain degree of their genetic code that's shared with everything else.

Mammals: We, like it or not, are mammals. There are tonnes of species on this planet who "coincidentially" fall into the same genetic family as us, that being mamilian. We, like so many animals, all have mamary glands (breasts) and use them to feed our offspring. We nurture, care for, and protect them in much the same way as every other mammal.

Dinosaurs: I'm not really sure how they'd fall into the 6,000 year old earth claimed by many creationists. Many people make silly claims like "the great flood wore them down quickly and made them look older". That simply doesn't work. We don't test the age of dinosaur, and MANY other and older fossil's by by "looking" at them and guessing their age, we use carbon dating and a couple other methods I forgot at the moment. Carbon dating measures the rate of radiological decay within the carbon-based lifeform, and the rate of decay is 100% consistent. The life-span of radiological decay can be measured up to 500 million years.

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

Now in considering intelligent design, and the desigh behind it:


Such a logical answer to our complexity isn't it? It always struck me as odd that in god's "intelligent design", he would create the vastly varried plethora of diseases we have today. I mean he couldn't just create one, or a huge variety of diseases that efficiently and relatively painlessly kill us. Instead he had to create the Ebola virus, where you liquify your organs and shit them out; AIDS, where you can fall victim to any number of infections and suffer for years; cancer, just to endure the pain and slow degrading of your body for weeks/months/years before death; the common cold... you know, just for some inconvenient and needless suffering; ecoli or salmonela, for several days of horrible stomach pain, diarhea, nausea, and I'm sure a few more that you have a good chance of surviving anyway....

But not just the foreign invaders of course. Apparently god saw it fit to design my body to have permanent and intense neurological pain that couldn't be fixed and we still can't find an answer to, other than a couple specific injuries from 5 years ago that have long since healed. This all happened when I had strong faith in the lord btw. My little brother, who's a really good kid, for some reason has to endure aspergers and all the social and psychological problems that go with that. My dad gets the fun of diabetes, not sure what the point is there....

And while we're at it, lets not forget mosquito's! God just woke up in a bad mood on the 6th day I guess, and decided to just make us all really itchy. The only other function carried out by mosquito's of course, is to arbitrarily spread malaria and kill millions of people every year.

Poisonous snakes? well I guess that's just the leftover from god turning, um... how did it go again? It seems Satan turned into a legged snake in the garden of eden, then after all his doings god punished him by taking away the snakes legs.... even though Satan only took the form of a snake, and there are clearly thousands of varriations of snake, and Satan was clearly banished to hell as his punishment.... well maybe they're just poisonous for the heck of it. Lets face it, the story of Adam and Eve sounds no more credible or logical than any piece of mythology about thor or poseidon.

Our reproductive systems:

- Why are women designed with a reproductive system that requires at least 4 days of severe menstrual cramps, bleeding through the vagina, and awful mood swings? Don't even trying feeding me that chauvinistic crap about punishing ALL women for the supposed crimes of eve. It seems a recurring theme in the bible is punishing hundreds of generations of decendents for the crimes of their anscestors. Sounds like primitive thinking of an ancient day to me.

- Boys: why is that when they go through puberty and have their voices "break" every so often during the maturity process? God just thought it would be funny to have friends/classmates laugh at them at awkward times?

- why must our balls be so delicate?

- Why must sex on the first time be so painfull for girls?

- why are there sexually transmitted diseases that are incredibly painfull and/or itchy, but don't kill? Is there a purpose there?


Why did god make Earth such an isufficient size to withstand our innevitable exhaustion of resources and pulluting of the planet? Free will or no, god would have seen it coming, and he could have made the Earth a LOT larger and with more adundant resources.

Wisdom Teeth: Those damn painfull teeth that grow at the back of our jaw, don't have enough to room to flourish, and generally get in the way. Wisdom teeth serve no purpose other than to help dentists make a living, and are certainly not suited to the homosapien body. It's almost as if.... I don't know, they were left over from an ascestor that we evolved from who had a wider jaw (we've found plenty of fossil's of such).


Though unfortunately, it seems if a person is entirely devoted to their faith, no amount of arguments, no matter how perfect or logical, will sway them. The entire premise of faith is to put desire before logic, to convince yourself so thoroughly that blind faith is an attribute, that to even consider otherwise would be a crime against god. And so any arguments to the contrary are readily dismissed and not seriously considered. But as I came to think about my faith as I got older, I felt compelled to ask questions and believed that if god really did exist, he could easily stand up to any and all challenges to his existence.

"faith", to me, is the ultimate insult to human intelligence. That's not to say a person cannot have faith and be intelligent, but it is nontheless a means of instilling devotion in the mind so powerfully that it disallows one from considering the logic behind it.

[Polymirize]

inquiring minds want to know huh?

actually it's a pretty nice list D.

[Squishy(tm)]

Mr Devious ... you couldnt have explained this any better ... I concur ... how old are you btw?

[MastaChronic]

i consider "intelligent design" to be just another ploy made by the chruche to garner more potential donaters and/or church goers. they parade it around as science but it is just another sneaky attempt to infiltrate schools and bypass the seperation of church and state

[Stemis516]

u give plenty of logical reasons for intelligent design but i have yet to see real proof of long term evolution resulting in us coming from apes

therefore you are just the same as a "person of faith" that u mention....it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to doubt it....nothing has been proven

keep in mind, when it comes down to it, i believe in evolution...i say belive because if there was real proof of evolution then there wouldnt be any creationists left because the decision would be obvious

u listed alot of evidence that is pro evolution just like many creationists can list evidence against intelligent design...evidence and proof are not the same thing

i hate to play devils advocate but i hate when people single out people because of faith and faith alone when in reality every1 who is for intelligent design in the end, is going on faith too...including me

[MastaChronic]

u give plenty of logical reasons for intelligent design but i have yet to see real proof of long term evolution resulting in us coming from apes

therefore you are just the same as a "person of faith" that u mention....it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to doubt it....nothing has been proven

keep in mind, when it comes down to it, i believe in evolution...i say belive because if there was real proof of evolution then there wouldnt be any creationists left because the decision would be obvious

u listed alot of evidence that is pro evolution just like many creationists can list evidence against intelligent design...evidence and proof are not the same thing

i hate to play devils advocate but i hate when people single out people because of faith and faith alone when in reality every1 who is for intelligent design in the end, is going on faith too...including me


there is plenty of proof.
we can see a miniaturized version of evolution by watching the influenza virus. we need a new innoculation every few years and why? because it evolves a resistance to the present vaccine.

[muffinman]

i am amazed, but one thing i must point out, the AIDS virus from what i have heard was actually man made or so it seems to me i'll see if i can find my sources brb.

[Pass That Shit]

Stemis,
You hit the nail right on the head.

Mr. Devious chooses to put his faith in man, and I choose to put mine in God.
You can try as hard as you like, but you will NEVER prove God wrong. It's not possible.

[harris7]

u give plenty of logical reasons for intelligent design but i have yet to see real proof of long term evolution resulting in us coming from apes

therefore you are just the same as a "person of faith" that u mention....it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to doubt it....nothing has been proven

keep in mind, when it comes down to it, i believe in evolution...i say belive because if there was real proof of evolution then there wouldnt be any creationists left because the decision would be obvious

u listed alot of evidence that is pro evolution just like many creationists can list evidence against intelligent design...evidence and proof are not the same thing


I always like to point this out,

In science evolution is considered FACT.

as well evolution isn't a theory saying that organisms changed and differentiated creating new theories.

evolution is an explanation as to WHY these things happened. there is no doubt that it has occurred, fossil records show it. Genetic rRNA maps show it.

PLEASE if you know any "logical" reasons to believe in creationism make a thread, i've never heard one. and i've looked good and hard 4 one.

i even made a thread asking for one, none came up. wonder why

also, he is arguing against intelligent design (i think you gots your terms mixed up). Intelligent design = creationism

as well, if you havenâ??t seen the evidence then you havent looked. if you are interested i can give you links.

But you are correct about one thing, there is a huge difference between evidence and proof. In science there isnâ??t proof, only evidence and disproving. This is the misunderstanding people have about science that allows creationists to make their arguments to the ignorant (no offence)

[harris7]

And I go on:

The only “Faith” one needs to believe in evolution is faith that we are observing reality. And faith that we are not being completely mislead in a similar fashion as in the Matrix.

I can understand that for you, someone who doesn’t know much about evolution, might have to accept it on faith. You say you only “believe” in it because some people don’t, so you assume they are speaking from reasonable footing.

What does that mean about people who believe that the white race is superior.
Nothing supports that, yet people believe it.

It is all related to the power of beliefs and our resistance to change them.

And… We didn’t evolve from apes. What happened, approximately:
Is that we share our origin with the apes. We both evolved from the same organism.
So at one time there was a big population of our ancestor, the population got divided some how and each sect went their separate ways. Then experienced different environmental stresses and turned out different after a few million years.


To muffinman:

As well, humans didn’t create the HIV virus… you should check your sources. Humans haven’t created Any virus it is far beyond our ability. WE can modify them, but we didn’t. HIV came from some species of Ape in Africa and it mutated and crossed over to humans.

[mrdevious]

Mr. Devious chooses to put his faith in man, and I choose to put mine in God.

Ah that old chestnut. Thing is, Evolution isn't strictly a matter of faith because it is supported by VAST amoungs of evidence, and most people don't understand or know of 1% of the evidence that exists. I'm no evolutionary biologist, but I have a friend who's a 3rd year science student and has explained quite a huge amount to me. As he pointed out "I've argued with creationists and I haven't heard from one that actually understood evolution, or how it works. Every argument they've given against it I can already explain". Evolutionists put "faith" in evolution, like Albert Hoffman put "faith" in his formula for LSD.

Regardless (and here's the kicker), I'm not a strict proponent of evolution. I believe, from examining the huge amount of facts, that evolution plays some degree in the developement of species. I don't actually know if evolution is the sole catylist of complexity found in life.
But therein lies the different between our supposed "faiths". Evolution is based on the interpretation of empiricle evidence. Creationism is based on filling god in as an explanation where we don't currently have one. Creation doesn't actually utilize any empiracle evidence, or examine and build on observable and repeatable evidence, it rather works under a false notion of "well we don't have the answers here, here, and here.... therefor that proves god did it."

So yes, there is a clear distinciton between the two supposed "faiths". And as for faith itself, I only hold it for that which has repeatedly and consistently held true. The only absolute faith I have is that the world is a very complex place that we'll continuously need to explore and examine. I'm not just going to fill in the answer where I don't have one.



You can try as hard as you like, but you will NEVER prove God wrong. It's not possible.

Funny, because it's been done countless of times. But in a way you are right, I've seen a thousand different creationist arguments proved wrong time and again, only to be ignored by the devoted and used once again. So yes, it is impossible to prove god wrong in the eyes of those so devoted to him that they won't consider reasoning which doesn't match up with their presuppositions. God has been proven wrong on many fronts, however, in the eyes of those who weigh information objectively.

You can say I'm biasedly only supporting evidence in favour of my presupposition, but you would be wrong. I firmly believed in god till I was 19 years old, and I only became an atheist (at least in the sense of god being some spitefull external being as portrayed in many primitive texts) after spending 2 year examing every logical argument made by every side of the debate. Every creationist argument I heard, no matter how much I wanted to believe it, had an obvious logical flaw. My 2 year search was with the purpose of finding the right arguments and confirming what I so badly wanted to believe, that god really was up there. Instead I found a much harder truth.

[Stemis516]

theres two different types of evolution

micro and macro....micro being what some1 described with the flu virus example...macro being the theory that we evolved from apes

show me the proof of macroevolution plz....it has yet to be reproduced in a lab, and there is still no full blown proof of evolution over millions of years......sure a few things in humans have changed...for example some people have wisdom teeth some dont, but we have yet to prove evolving into a completely differnet spiecies

i respect your beliefs bro but to think that evolution in the sense of macroevolution is complete and infallible fact is just being ignorant....u give plenty of evidence to back ur point up and thats fine, but i can list plenty of evidence in support of God too...can i prove God exists??? not a chance

faith brother....ur using it one way or another

[MastaChronic]

ho hum....what will i do? oh what willlll i do?....... i could go on to repeat the same exact things that mrdevious has stated, but i wont because you obviously just refuse to open your eyes to the truth that is science and insted keep looking up in the sky searching for your invisible magical man that protects you from evil

[mrdevious]

theres two different types of evolution

micro and macro....micro being what some1 described with the flu virus example...macro being the theory that we evolved from apes

show me the proof of macroevolution plz....it has yet to be reproduced in a lab, and there is still no full blown proof of evolution over millions of years......sure a few things in humans have changed...for example some people have wisdom teeth some dont, but we have yet to prove evolving into a completely differnet spiecies

i respect your beliefs bro but to think that evolution in the sense of macroevolution is complete and infallible fact is just being ignorant....u give plenty of evidence to back ur point up and thats fine, but i can list plenty of evidence in support of God too...can i prove God exists??? not a chance

faith brother....ur using it one way or another


I was under the impression that Macro and Micro evolution were terms coined by creationists. Regardless, both perspectives can be presented.

First of all, you can't reproduce large-scale evolution in a lab because it would require a lab with extremely varrying environmental factors all of which we can understand and take into consideration regarding their effects (which is damn-near impossible), several different species, and a few hundred million years to carry out the experiment. So no, it can't be reproduced in a lab.

Here's one interesting site regarding evolution on a larger scale. You may want to actually research the potential arguments before dismissing them as non-existent.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


And once again, I'm not stating evolution as an infallable fact, I'm stating that it obviously has some degree of influence on the course of speciation, how much influence remains in question.

Still, creationist's greatest weapon is their distortion of all theory, law, and ideas; that being, trying to place scientists and creationists on equal grounds by perpetuating the false notion that any and every point of view is just "faith", that every idea and standpoint is all just a matter of faith and therefor it all is equally valid. I've yet to hear a real, solid creationist argument based on real research, sound logic, and reasonable interpretation of empiricle evidence. If anybody can prove to me, or at least present reasonable and existent evidence that god exists, I'll not only believe in your god, I just might dance a jig with joy.

[mrdevious]

Nobody can, and that's whats so damned cool about it. It's kind of like how the government beats down on marijuana, when we all knows it's not as bad as they claim.

And our belief that marijuana isn't as bad as they say, and our believe that we don't deserve to be imprisoned for it, is based on real evidence. It's based on a huge multitude of scientific studies (IE. some of the ones in my sig), a logical interpretation of the success of the "war on drugs", and our own observations of its effects and how it doesn't destroy our lives like we're told. Simply "experiencing" god is not evidence of him, it's evidence of a mental event that has all sorts of causes such as emotion, social/parental conditioning, and fallable leaps of logic. We would need to actually see this god, or have some physical evidence of his existence, in order to believe in him.

Otherwise people interpret their own neuro-chemical events which create certain psychological images/notions, as their "proof" because "I can just feel it deep down. I know deep in my heart".... IE. the processes in their brain have convinced them so thoroughly there's a god, they replicate the emotional/psychological conditions that would arise from actual evidence, leading them to accept the pre-concieved notion as fact because it has the same psychological impact. What people don't, or refuse to consider, is that the right mental conditioning, regarding any concept, can easily convince you of anything with the same result of actually seeing it with your own eyes. Most people think that there would surely be some small degree of doubt within their psyche to counteract this if it didn't really exist, but this is simply not so. People don't give the capabilities of their own brains to fool them enough credit. There are solid neuro-chemical reasons why schizophrenics can be CONVINCED beyond any doubt whatsoever, more real than any belief in god, that the voices in their head threatening them are absolutely real.


Well, some of us have a relationship with God that others do not. Feels just as good.

I'm sure it does feel just as good, but this only proves an internal mental event, not an external being (especially one that has a petty ego, imposes codes of morality that are primite products of primitive societies, and imparts wisdom that's immensely weak. "thou shalt not kill"? Anybody can do that, how about a blueprint for a clean-burning car fuel? How about a cure for cancer?).

All I'm saying is that if you really believe in god, there should be no fear in considering and thoroughly researching every argument and every argument against that argument. I went in, firmly holding to my belief in god, researching these arguments and debates so that I could firmly know that my assumption of god was correct. Instead I found the opposite of what I was looking for, and rather than throwing away my intellect and believing what I wanted, I realized that I couldn't hold to something just because it's a nice idea, the evidence supporting the non-existence of god was clearly more logical.

Merry Christmas all.

[Stemis516]

how many times do i have to say it??? i believe in evolution, i also believe in God but not in the way that ur typical born again christians believe...basically i acknowledge he exists and that he is good...and thats as far as it goes for now, but one again, i believe in evolution

but i dont accept it has fact...just like i dont accept God to be a fact....i realize that both views could be completely wrong and we have no way of finding out

ok so u cant repeat macro evolution in a lab....can u observe it in the world??? did any1 observe apes evolve into us??? didnt think so, and until some1 invents a time machine we will never know for sure, no matter how much "evidence" u think there is

[mrdevious]

how many times do i have to say it??? i believe in evolution, i also believe in God but not in the way that ur typical born again christians believe...basically i acknowledge he exists and that he is good...and thats as far as it goes for now, but one again, i believe in evolution

but i dont accept it has fact...just like i dont accept God to be a fact....i realize that both views could be completely wrong and we have no way of finding out

ok so u cant repeat macro evolution in a lab....can u observe it in the world??? did any1 observe apes evolve into us??? didnt think so, and until some1 invents a time machine we will never know for sure, no matter how much "evidence" u think there is


I'm not sure you entirely understand evolution. Even if we could go back in time, we STILL couldn't observe it. Evolution is only observable through transitional fossile records and genetic variations with consistencies. Evolution isn't a magical force that makes a monkey one day turn into a man, it's an incredibly gradual process.

But still, my point stands, evolution is based on real empiricle evidence that exists in every species and fossil known. What is the evidence for god? I understand that you don't believe in the old-school traditional god, and that's actually admirable in that you most likely have a more reasonable view of the universe. Even my best friend, the 3rd year biology/chemistry student I told you about, believes in god closer to your sense. But if god is based on these ancient scriptures, and these scriptures don't stand up, what is the rest being based on? Logical reasoning you might say, but if so I've yet to hear it.

[harris7]

theres two different types of evolution

micro and macro....micro being what some1 described with the flu virus example...macro being the theory that we evolved from apes

show me the proof of macroevolution plz....it has yet to be reproduced in a lab, and there is still no full blown proof of evolution over millions of years......sure a few things in humans have changed...for example some people have wisdom teeth some dont, but we have yet to prove evolving into a completely differnet spiecies

i respect your beliefs bro but to think that evolution in the sense of macroevolution is complete and infallible fact is just being ignorant....u give plenty of evidence to back ur point up and thats fine, but i can list plenty of evidence in support of God too...can i prove God exists???

I am currently at second year university biology level and starting third year genetics next semester.

There is no differentiation in science between the two, micro and macro. They are one and the same. There is one theory, Evolution, this theory has lots and lots of aspects to it. Iâ??m sure 99% of them youâ??ve never heard of. (like genetic drift)

This distinction I assume was created by creationists because they know they canâ??t object to micro itâ??s too obvious. Itâ??s pretty much the same tactic religious people always use.
Something else is proved wrong, so they just keep going with the other bullshit.


No one in science believes that anything â??is complete and infallible factâ?�
Only religious people believe things like that.

Scientists look at all the data we have, think up some ideas that explain it. And accept the best one. If more data is complied which contradict something. Our views change.
Eventually a â??theoryâ?� explains so much information and is constantly correctly predicting amazing things (eg, genetics) and this theory has little or nothing against it, we start to consider it fact. Just as we consider theories of electricity/gravity and so on, fact.

I cant â??proveâ?� electrons exist to you. Nor can I â??proveâ?� evolution occurred.

We essential accept the best solution. And even if creationism was equal to evolution in itâ??s explanatory ability (it is not) science always accepts the simplest solution (itâ??s called Occamâ??s Razor)


I suggest you inform yourself on the Theory before you try to speak against it. Because if everyone on here understood evolutionary theory, we wouldnâ??t be having these discussions.

[harris7]

Oh yes and something doesn’t have to be observed to be “proven”.

There is something called scientific inference, it’s how we know what is in the middle of the earth.

[mrdevious]

It's nice to have your on board harris! :)

Sometimes it feels like I'm the only person who goes against the general concensus and and questions all this stuff.

[mrdevious]

BTW, in this entire thread nobody has yet tackled the issues I brought up in the original post. Is somebody going to give me a little intellectually stimulating debate, or should I throw up my arms and except I'm just going to get more "I know I'm right, I put my faith in god."

My fellow posters, please, realize that if your beliefs are true then questioning them and researching the arguments against them (as well as for)will only confirm what you now hold so dear. and if it doesn't, then it's better to have found the truth.

[Stemis516]

lol intellectually stimulating??? u guys ruined that awhile ago

im not necessarily disagreeing with you guys, im just arguing more for an open mind....the fact that you guys fight so hard for this and that some of the ignorance clearly shows through your logic worries me

i on the other hand am open to anything...sure i have my set of beliefs which i personally believe to be the most likely through my understanding of truth, but i am fully aware that i am most likely wrong, or at the very least could be wrong...in fact the statement that probably most clearly sums it up for me is that id be willing to bet that no one got it right but that wont matter in the end

[harris7]

im not necessarily disagreeing with you guys, im just arguing more for an open mind....the fact that you guys fight so hard for this and that some of the ignorance clearly shows through your logic worries me


IF you see a flaw in my logic point it out. I do not believe there is one, and the fact that you havent pointed any out makes me think you are bluffing.

And you know, you can stop blaming our disagreements on my "ignorance".

a more open mind... an open mind dosn't mean believing everything. it means considering everything criticaly.
I have done this, it sounds like you have two. but I do not believe you can properly consider evolution without a good understanding of it.

I assume you dont have a good understanding of it because really few people do. i didn't untill last year when i formaly learned aoub it

[ate]

You gotta admit, it's a pretty intelligent design.

I mean who could come up with a design that actually evolves based on it's environment.

[Oneironaut]

There is no doubt that evolution is a fact. It is the only conceivable explanation for how a complex intelligence of any type could arise in the universe. As a million creationists have already pointed out, complex things don't just come out of nowhere by chance. They come into existence only by small incremental changes to self-replicating beings whose occasional mutations provide a gene pool in which natural selection selects more advantageous forms for surviving and replicating in a given environment. If there is an intelligence complex enough to design universes out there, then it must have evolved somehow. And if it evolved, it does not deserve the name "God".

Sorry to burst your bubbles, but we are apes. The DNA sequences of the primates have been studied extensively, and mathematically it's simply impossible that our DNA just looks exactly like it's descended from ape DNA through sheer luck. Either God is trying to trick us into thinking we're closely related to the other ape species, or we really are apes.

And honestly, if you were God, why would you create man in your own image, and then go on to make chimpanzees in 97% of your own image, and gorillas in 95% of your own image, and so forth? Why would you even design it so their junk DNA (the huge strands of DNA that don't do anything at all) looks uncannily similar to each other?

Why would you go around making DNA strands that can be arranged in hierarchical evolutionary trees that look mathematically identical to what we would expect from random modifications and Darwinian natural selection? Why would you place abundant fossil evidence of proto-human like creatures, the Australopithecines and the various species of Homo, to make it look like there is a continuous line between apes and humans?

The universe is not made for us. We have to get over our arrogant aspirations and accept that. We, and the rest of the life-forms on this planet, are just the product of what happens when natural selection is allowed to develop simple self-replicating molecules into ever more complex forms over geological timescales. There is no giant father figure in the sky looking down on us, guiding our particular species, meticulously looking after the world for our benefit.

In this world without meaning are those who pretend
that their lives and their deeds serve some grand cosmic end
and that they are the reason for all that exists
and the fate of the cosmos is right in their fists

And to them we're not apes with less hair and big brains,
we're the center of everything there's to explain!
Not just masses of atoms traversing through space,
rather far grander things from a far grander place!

We're just specks on this planet which, I do believe,
is much larger than anything we can conceive,
and that planet's a speck to its star that's a speck
in a universe which is gigantic as heck!

[Oneironaut]

You gotta admit, it's a pretty intelligent design.

I mean who could come up with a design that actually evolves based on it's environment.
It's not a design. It's just what happens when entities become capable of making pretty faithful copies of themselves. Once you get that going, there's no way to prevent it!

The real question is, who could come up with a design for a designer who can create the whole universe and millions of complex lifeforms? And who could come up with a design for an intelligent designer designer? Surely if God created the whole universe, and has the machinery for monitoring everything that goes on inside it, and the machinery for generating all the biological diversity around us, then he must be way more intricate and complex than life itself!

[Stemis516]

IF you see a flaw in my logic point it out. I do not believe there is one, and the fact that you havent pointed any out makes me think you are bluffing.

And you know, you can stop blaming our disagreements on my "ignorance".

a more open mind... an open mind dosn't mean believing everything. it means considering everything criticaly.
I have done this, it sounds like you have two. but I do not believe you can properly consider evolution without a good understanding of it.

I assume you dont have a good understanding of it because really few people do. i didn't untill last year when i formaly learned aoub it

the flaw in ur logic is that u accept evolution to be 100% true without a doubt in ur mind

gravity is 100% true, thats why its called a law....show me a person who doubts the existence of gravity plz

[Stemis516]

It's not a design. It's just what happens when entities become capable of making pretty faithful copies of themselves. Once you get that going, there's no way to prevent it!

The real question is, who could come up with a design for a designer who can create the whole universe and millions of complex lifeforms? And who could come up with a design for an intelligent designer designer? Surely if God created the whole universe, and has the machinery for monitoring everything that goes on inside it, and the machinery for generating all the biological diversity around us, then he must be way more intricate and complex than life itself!


the very definition of God proves your statement wrong....

[mrdevious]

the flaw in ur logic is that u accept evolution to be 100% true without a doubt in ur mind

gravity is 100% true, thats why its called a law....show me a person who doubts the existence of gravity plz


Actually gravity is a theory (that scary word that creationists constantly mix up with "hypothesis"). The law of gravitation, however, is indeed the law you speak of.

[mrdevious]

lol intellectually stimulating??? u guys ruined that awhile ago

im not necessarily disagreeing with you guys, im just arguing more for an open mind....the fact that you guys fight so hard for this and that some of the ignorance clearly shows through your logic worries me

i on the other hand am open to anything...sure i have my set of beliefs which i personally believe to be the most likely through my understanding of truth, but i am fully aware that i am most likely wrong, or at the very least could be wrong...in fact the statement that probably most clearly sums it up for me is that id be willing to bet that no one got it right but that wont matter in the end


You're not letting off as the open minded person you keep claiming to be, just presenting arogance through ignorance. Simply stating that everything is unsure and never taking a stance isn't "open minded", it's just choosing not to take any risks or make any real effort to search for the truth. Real open mindedness isn't shying away from reality, it's engaging in intellectual debate and considering all points of logic so as to get closer to the truth than you were before.

[mrdevious]

I don't see why things have to be logical to be true.

Because logic is not an exclusive human invention, it is only a human understanding. Logic is not what we already know, it is not a limitation on our understanding of reality, it is a means by which we can understand our existence.


If you have to have cold hard facts to believe, you're missing out on a wonderful feeling.

Logic is often portrayed as "cold" and "hard" which turns a lot of people off, though it is anything but. Logic isn't about measuring everyting by means already discovered, it's about finding new ways to look at things, new ways to understand how the universe really works. Being a "wonderfull feeling" doesn't make something true, it just gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling. There are those of us who find a great mystery and wonder in life by not surrenderinr ourselves to fuzzy feelings, but through searching for the truth constantly and always pushing the limits of what we supposedly know. If you just throw logic out the window, you're not "opening up" to the universe, you're passively sitting back while the world passes you by rather than emracing it and seeking to discover its mysteries.

Everything is possible, but that doesn't make everything plausible. If you want the possible to be plausible, that's where exploration comes in.

[Kippo]

I'm glad Mr Devious and Billionfold can at least have an argument about this subject that is sensible to both sides. However, Stemis, you look like a fucking idiot. Are you even reading the posts above you? If you want to argue your point, answer Mr Devious's questions or try and say why you think that they're wrong. Stop just answering questions with questions or making statements that go off the topic of what he asked.
Continue...

[harris7]

the flaw in ur logic is that u accept evolution to be 100% true without a doubt in ur mind

gravity is 100% true, thats why its called a law....show me a person who doubts the existence of gravity plz

First off that wouldnâ??t be a flaw in my logic it would be a flawed conclusion! Which would be caused by a false premise. anyways


as I said, you clearly are not reading what I write. Remember a few posts ago when I said:

â??No one in science believes that anything â??is complete and infallible factâ?�
Only religious people believe things like that.â?�

I do not accept evolution to be 100% true. That is not how science works. I currently believe evolutional theory because it is the best explanation. If something in the future better explains the facts I will believe that. Something replacing evolution is very unlikely because it explains such a daunting body of data.

Again Iâ??ll say it, in science nothing can be proven 100%. Things can only be supported and falsified. Evolution is very strongly supported.
The theory will probably be changed but the fundamental part of it (that species change and become new ones) will not change, it is too strongly supported by evidence

And again, you show that you do not understand science. Law of Gravity isnâ??t 100% true. Itâ??s funny that you believe that gravity is true when evolution is. He he he

The word gravity is just a name for a phenomenon. How can a name be true or false? Names are arbitrary so they are all true!

If you mean the theory of gravity you probably mean Newtonâ??s law of gravity

Newtonâ??s law of gravity is a equation that describes the relationship between the velocity of an object in freefall and time. It actually isnâ??t very accurate. It is only somewhat accurate a few km from the earth surface at speeds less than ½ the speed of light and so on.

Stemis, you keep saying that evolutionists can put lots of evidence behind evolution. But you belittle this by saying that intelligen design supporters can too. I beg of you, please put some support for I.D. forward. I doubt you have anything significantâ?¦

[harris7]

You gotta admit, it's a pretty intelligent design.

I mean who could come up with a design that actually evolves based on it's environment.

This is a valid point, Creationism doesnâ??t conflict with evolution. They are both true if god created the universe then evolution took place.


I don't see why things have to be logical to be true. If you have to have cold hard facts to believe, you're missing out on a wonderful feeling. .

I donâ??t necessarily believe that things have to be logical to be true.
Bush got elected, that wasnâ??t logical but itâ??s trueâ?¦:rasta:


But I do think beliefs should be based in logic.
I really donâ??t like using the word logic, people have put it up on to high of a pedestal.
Anyways, the opposite of logic is irrational.

So if you are not basing a belief on logic it is an irrational belief to have.

A belief produced by logic is a belief of which one has reason to have.

Billonfold, do you believe that beliefs need to be based in logic? Because that is what we are talking about here.

Regardless of the existence of god. Should one believe in god? I donâ??t think so. I think this because I believe there is a large gap between the evidence and our observation and drawing the conclusion that god exists.

What do you think?

[mrdevious]

I'd just like to point out to any creationists out there, that I will not be a condescending asshole and say "yeah! see! I told you so, I'm right, I'm the winner, blah blah blah blah....". I can't stand it when people do that. I hold these discussions solely for the purpose of engaging, and encouraging others, to have philisophical discussions and have hopefully make us all questions our suppositions and give our brains a workout.

[phoenix]

I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed reading MrDevious's and harris7's posts....Stemis516, you basically keep making yourself look like an idiot, like Kippo said.

Carry on fellas.

[Stemis516]

look im done with this conversation because i dont care enough, or have enough organization or the time to put together a legit post with sources and all kinds of evidence....besides whats the point when i could make a good arguement and it wouldnt sway any1....im satisfied with my what i think and thats enough for me

let me just take the time to at least salute devious and harris for being reasonable and mature about the situation


however for the children who have nothing to say but yet still feel they can fling mud just because they think they are funny....well good game, is all i can say to that

[harris7]

billion. i'm talkin to you too about non religious things too

look 5 posts up

or will it be 6 once i post this hmmmm

[Cyclonite]

God works in mysterious ways...just kidding. You make some good points Mr D, I think everyone who has faith in an organized religion does so for one or more of these reasons.

1. Hardwired as a child
2. Can't accept the unknown.
3. Tramatic experience, had no one to turn to but "God"

[Cyclonite]

I think if religion wasn't a strong influence in someones life and if they were able to think without bias most wouldn't believe. I have yet to find someone who doesn't fit in one of the three categories. I don't believe in any man made god but don't discredit a superior alien race that could act as a "god".

[Cyclonite]

Well to most people it does sound far fetched but statistically it would be foolish to bet against it.

POST 420

[harris7]

billion writes
“I think he's just looking for a religious argument. To me, there's nothing to debate about it. Either you believe, or you do not.”
I understand you, you can’t debate it’s existence. I hope I don’t come across that way. No one can know for sure, right?
But, what you can debate is if you should believe.
If you don’t think logic is necessary for a belief (not saying I do) what else justifies one.
I don’t mean what does in reality, but what would you consider enough to justify a belief.

For example brainwashing is a reason someone has a belief. Like in reality people have beliefs because of this. But I do not think these are valid beliefs. They are not justified.

Would you consider things like wants or needs justification for beliefs. If someone wants god to exist. Is it valid that someone has it.
I do not think it does. I would call that an invalid belief.

[harris7]

See i think believing something because you want to is 100% wrong. and it is invalid.
(validity is a measure of logical correctness)

People are making a claim about the nature of our reality based on desire.

Beliefs are statements about reality which are right and wrong. Unlike opinions which are neither right nor wrong.

to summarize,

I think it is wrong to have a belief based only on your want to have it.

[mrdevious]

I don't think Devious even read my posts. I think he's just looking for a religious argument. To me, there's nothing to debate about it. Either you believe, or you do not.


I dont' know why you think that billionfold, I directly quoted and responded to several of your posts. I never said I wanted a religious argument, the original post was simply to challenge the notion that the design of the species is from an intelligent designer. That did expand to the belief in god later, and I made very clear responses to people's reasoning. Thus far all you've said is that god is possible, and that you believe because you just do. I've been asking again and again for an actual logical argument, and now you take the easy road out and try to sell an argument that you can just throw logic out the window and still consider a belief rational, once again with no explanation. I also clearly made my case for why you can't just throw logic out the window, and why logic is not an entity limited to one view of reality while still being able to call it "reality". If you don't actually want to have a logical discussion, and simply claim that a belief is valid because you believe it, then that's cool but don't bother being so active in a thread you clearly don't plan to participate in; otherwise you're just dismantling its original intention by integrating another type of discussion altogether.


Regarding everybody else: I understand that a lot of you may not want to invest the time in this debate, and that's cool. I'm not declaring anybody the "loser" for not debating, so there's no need to explain why you can't be bothered. This is my cup of tea, a philisophical debate through intellectual reasoning, but it may not be everybody's. Some like to just chill and chat, some like to discuss politics or medicine, some just want to share their beliefs and not have debates over them. I enjoy all those things too, and if you enjoy them (and more I'm sure) more power to you. I still love and respect all of you, even those I disagree with. Compassion, friendship, and the pursuit of peace for all humanity is more important than any of these debates, they are only held for those interested in exploring them.

Peace to you all and good luck in pursuit of your hapiness, that's the biggest thing no matter what form it takes.

[Pass That Shit]

Mr.D,
I said that you put your faith in man. To you, the past in all unknown. Did you come to your conclusions on your own? You rely on the findings of man to tell you what might have happened right? You rely on the date that man puts behind their findings right? You rely on the machines that man built to come up with things that you find to be true right? What if I throw you the same agrument that is always coming my way? Is not man wrong? What makes you think that all the findings of man are true if everything they touch is corrupt according to your side of the debate?

But since I know that man is wrong, I trust in God. There's no way around it, if God says that his word is pure, and you guys say he's not true, you are calling him a liar. You have to live with that FACT. Don't you fear going against God since everything around us points that he exists?

Can someone explain to me how evolution plays a part in a woman giving birth to a child? How does evolution play a part in her breasts providing milk to the child? How does evolution play a part in male and female? Has man evolved since the first man? Plenty of us are well aware that the facts pointed out by the other side are simply theories. So when it comes down to it, you have to put your faith in something. Mine is in God.

[mrdevious]

Mr.D,
I said that you put your faith in man.

Not everything is strictly a matter of faith. The closest thing I put my "faith" into is my ability to think rationally.


To you, the past in all unknown. Did you come to your conclusions on your own?

I came to my conclusions (which are always subject to change if the right evidence comes along) through researching every argument I could find, and considering the logical attributes and flaws found in each of them using my own critical thinking skills.


You rely on the findings of man to tell you what might have happened right? You rely on the date that man puts behind their findings right? You rely on the machines that man built to come up with things that you find to be true right? What if I throw you the same agrument that is always coming my way? Is not man wrong? What makes you think that all the findings of man are true if everything they touch is corrupt according to your side of the debate?

You'll need to clarify on this one. What do you mean that I believe "everything man touches is corrupt". I would hope you're not seriously positing that every single thing human beings know is wrong. Man is subject to flaws, that doesn't mean everything he does is flawed.


But since I know that man is wrong, I trust in God.

But you've yet to give reason's for why man is wrong and god is not. And wrong about what exactly? Man is right and wrong about many a things, but it's our exploration, research, philosophical thought, and inguenity that creates progess and expansion of our knowledge.



There's no way around it, if God says that his word is pure, and you guys say he's not true, you are calling him a liar.

We've already been through this. You can't call god a liar because you say he doesn't exist. It works under the logical falsehood of using your premise as the conclusion:

1. The bible says that god claims to exist
2. You say he doesn't exist.
3. Therefor your'e calling him a liar because he already exists simply because of a claim that he exists.

If such logic is true then I'm calling Santa Clause a Lair, along with the toothfairy and the flying spegetti monster. What if I tell you that Evil Lord Xenu says he exists, and I already assume that he does. Does that mean you're calling him a liar? Of course not.


You have to live with that FACT.

Capital letters don't make it a fact just because you say it is.


Don't you fear going against God since everything around us points that he exists?

Again, if everything points to his existence, and there's actually real evidence, then lets here it. Simply claiming that there's proof and never presenting any, isn't proof.


Can someone explain to me how evolution plays a part in a woman giving birth to a child?

What's not to understand? When a genetic sequence is constructed to self replicate, life replicates. Gradual environmental shifts inevitably lead to adaptation and speciation, and increases in the complexity of the reproduction process over billions of years.


How does evolution play a part in her breasts providing milk to the child?

Species with a genetic structure with a more efficient means of nourishing their offspring will inevitably have an advantage in survival, thereby passing on their genetic code in significantly larger quantities and making their variation within the species the dominant one. Those who had a very poor means of nourishing their young would have their offspring die, and thus not pass on their genetic code.


How does evolution play a part in male and female?

Adaptation of multiple different organisms eventually leads to multiple different variations within a species. When 2 of those variations are compatible in a way that allows them to share their genetic code, it gives them a significant advantage in maintaing a stronger genetic structure and therefor the advantage in survival and retaining of the species.



Has man evolved since the first man?

Actually yes. We've grown much taller, and split off into different variations within the species to create different "breeds", or races. The main change, however, is that our intelligence has grown immensely from early primates. This largely due to dietary changes in the beginning.

Keep in mind that evolution is not a magical force from nothingness that always occures. Evolution only occures if adaptation to ones environment is necessary for the survival of the species. Since the creation of society, and particularily technology, we used our brains to do something for the first time in the history of any species, we bipassed evolutionary requirements by depending on technology rather than naturlal selection to survive. Right now Humanity will see little evolution so long as the weak are not allowed to die, and taken care of by welfare systems, medicines, and government protection. If anything our system of society will only weaken the human gene pool as those unfit for survival are kept alive to breed by artificial means.



Plenty of us are well aware that the facts pointed out by the other side are simply theories.

Then don't mix up the terms "theory" and "hypothesis". A theory is not just an idea, it is a collection of knowlege gained from evidence and proofs used to formulate a knew idea based on current knowledge. Remember, even gravity is a theory ("The theory of gravity"). The law of gravitation is the set and proven principle that explains the consistent action of gravity. The theory of gravity is an explanation of how gravity works and by what mechanism, base on observations. Atomic structures are also theories as well, we can't actually observe the motion of electrons.
My point being, something being a theory does not mean it is without credibility.



So when it comes down to it, you have to put your faith in something. Mine is in God.


This is the most common creationist distortion of all logical processes of thought, that each and every piece of knowledge is a matter of faith. Faith is an emotional decision based on desire, the abdication of critical thought in exchange for the rewards wrought by blind acceptance. Science and anything measurable is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of basing an opinion on consistent observations that have a visible, measurable, repeatable, and consistant result that is directly seen to affect us or our obersved suroundings. The effect belief in god has is not proof of god, it is proof of a mental event which may or may not be caused by god.


Now even assuming that evolution is a big crock, and it very well may not explain the whole of life and it's complexity, there's still a very big logical error being made on the part of most believers: Disproving one theory, does not automatically prove another. The mere fact that we don't currently have an explanation for everything in the universe, does not mean that a hypothesis (that being god) is correct simply because it fits. We can come up with any number of explanations that fit the result, but an explanation is not a fact until it has been proven. If I claim that the universe came into being because a magic space-jellyfish sneezed, that explanation would fit perfectly, but now it's up to me to prove it.

[harris7]

Mr.D,
But since I know that man is wrong, I trust in God. There's no way around it, if God says that his word is pure, and you guys say he's not true, you are calling him a liar. You have to live with that FACT. Don't you fear going against God since everything around us points that he exists?

Can someone explain to me how evolution plays a part in a woman giving birth to a child? How does evolution play a part in her breasts providing milk to the child? How does evolution play a part in male and female? Has man evolved since the first man? Plenty of us are well aware that the facts pointed out by the other side are simply theories. So when it comes down to it, you have to put your faith in something. Mine is in God.
No pass that, you donâ??t know man is wrong; you hope man is wrong.

Weâ??ve gone over your arguments several times and they are still circular. They all work under the assumption that god exists. Such as this one

â??If you say god doesnâ??t exist your calling him a liarâ?�

see the problem is, you are assuming god wrote the bible. What we are saying is that the bible is wrong.

God did not say â??I existâ?� and then we: â??no youâ??re a liarâ?�
That doesnâ??t make any sense.

What happened is a book says, â??there is a godâ?� and we say, â??why should we think thatâ?�?

And I would love to go into depth with your evolution questions, thatâ??s why I made a thread of it. Why didnâ??t you ask them there? Iâ??m not going to spend the time answering them because to be honest any answer I give would be guesses and speculation.

Itâ??s like asking you, Pass thatâ?¦ what does this little grain of sand have to do with god.
You might answer but it would be a guess.

But I will answer them a little, Saying â??first manâ?� isnâ??t really correct as evolution is constant and doesnâ??t make distinctions like that. It falls under the â??paradox of the heapâ?�.
But, yes if their was a â??first manâ?� we have changed since him.
Our change is very obvious, humans spread over the earth into different environments. These environments placed different pressures on us and we evolved differently.

The result: black people, white people, Asians and so on. In genetics we call these â??deemsâ?� or sub groups in a species.
A deem is the first step to becoming an independent species. If these populations were left to evolve independently they would have all split into individual species. But, globalization stopped all of that

If you would like, start up the evolution thread again
i'll be there for you:stoned: probaly high then

[mrdevious]

What's particularily frustrating is that PTS has used this "you're calling god a liar" argument over and over and over, at least 5 times in 5 different threads. Every time I prove why that's rediculous, and every time he just doesn't respond then uses the same argument in the next thread a few weeks later. Though I've honestly seen MANY creationists do this same thing. I just can't understand how some people can so adamanently shut out critical thought when it doesn't agree with what they want to believe, then actually spew the same nonsense again as if nothing was ever shown to be wrong with it.

I know, I know, I'm probably coming off as hostile and I'll probably regret it, but this is a frustrating repetetive theme, and honestly I've been in an assload of pain all day, and now I'm totally high on Tramadol (legally, with prescription) and free of pain, but it makes anything that irritates me 20x worse.

[Stemis516]

This debate isn't going anywhere fast. Neither of you have proved or disproved the existence of God.

QFT, but these kids wont ever understand that

[mrdevious]

This debate isn't going anywhere fast.

I agree with you there.



Neither of you have proved or disproved the existence of God.

Need I go over, once again, why that's a flawed supposition? The burden of proof does not fall on one to disprove god, but to prove him. To disprove god is utterly impossible, because you cannot disprove the existence of that which already doesn't exist. Just as if I were to say to you that there is a microscopic teacup orbiting some sun somewhere in the universe, you could never disprove it. Yet even though you cannot disprove it, you are a teacup atheist. We both know it's possible that the teacup could exist, but there's yet to be any proof or even decent evidence that there's valid reason to believe in it.

Besides, nobody said they would prove their point in a single post, the goal here was to logically debate each point as it is presented to see if any for the existence of god holds up. Again, since you obviously have no intention of paricipating in this thread, and instead continue to have this smug attitude acting as though you're so immensely wise because you won't take the intellectual challenge of posing an argument, please quit sabotaging this thread. PTS has still earned more respectability here by at least posing an argument. Refusing to discuss any train of philosophical thought doesn't make you sound wise of more "open minded", you just sound consistently arrogant and without any philisophical considerations of your own.

[mrdevious]

PassThatShit, you have my sincere apologies for being rude to you in my last response. I just get incredibly irritable when I'm on Tramadol, I also bit off my little brother's head last night when I shouldn't have as well.

[Oneironaut]

Of course proving a negative is pretty damn near impossible, for the same reason that we cannot, with our limited evidence and capabilities for observation, disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or a race of leprechauns living beneath the surface of Pluto. It is the job of people who hold such beliefs to justify them, not the job of the skeptic to disprove every wacky claim and possibility that people can come up with. Invisible, undetectable things whose origins cannot be explained, which work in inexplicable ways, whose substance is unknown, and for which there is no evidence, do not need to be disproven, because they are indistinguishable from non-existent things.

And it is a pretty wacky claim to suggest that a really really complex intelligent being, with all the parts put intricately together so that it is capable of designing universes and lifeforms and monitoring all events that ever occur, capable of creating morality and logic and the fabric of matter itself, could just spontaneously appear out of nowhere with no explanation required of it.

We might as well just say that the universe, in its primordial simplicity, came out of nowhere with no explanation required of it. It is a much more parsimonious explanation, since it requires only the simplest of beginnings (a Hawkings singularity). Theists propose instead that there was first a really inconceivably complex being who chose to make a universe in which it was subsequently possible to be an atheist because he deliberately chose to not provide any objective proof of his creation or interaction with the world.

If you're going to persist in the delusion that the world had to be designed by someone (why people need to anthropomorphize the creation of the universe is beyond me), it would be far more logical to say that the universe is just a computer program written by a super advanced race of aliens who evolved over long periods of time from simple beginnings via Darwinian natural selection, because then at least you'd have an explanation for how the universe-designer got there. It's pretty far-fetched, but not nearly as far-fetched as the God hypothesis.

[harris7]

This debate isn't going anywhere fast. Neither of you have proved or disproved the existence of God.

I've told you that isn't my purpose.

No one can know if he exists or not, everyone realizes that.

But we can argue whether or not to believe he exists

[Pass That Shit]

I'm not trying to prove that God exists. Why would someone who believes in him have to prove that he is true? I sometimes pop in here to share what I believe. It's not to convince you, cause I'm well aware that I can't. I'm confident that the day will come when everyone will be convinced. So you will have to stayed tuned for the final chapter.

You see, as strong of an argument you feel you're making for your side, it comes across as foolishness to me. I'm not trying to offend you, but I can see what you don't know and don't understand. Science is true, but you can't see the man behind the science.

Now you're gonna tell me that the "Adam" generation didn't live close to 1k years right? Is evolution traveling backwards? How can you prove that those men didn't live over 900 years? How can you disprove the writings of the men that seen Jesus and his miracles? Why do you think he has such fame today? Has anyone done anything close to what he did to earn them this much fame for so long? Let's be realistic, bible excluded, Jesus must have done some amazing things for us to still be arguing about him. But as the bible teaches, after what he did, the word was spread worldwide and everyone knew about him and his fame spread until this day. Would a humble carpenter with some good morals really get this much publicity? I think not. I don't have to prove anything to anyone about the bible, cause the substance and evidence is in my heart and you can never take that from me.

[harris7]

PTS,

No one can prove or disprove gods existence. If one could, it probably would have been done by now by men smarter than us.

And it is irrelevant whether or not god exists because we are talking about the belief that god exists. Not that he does. And, I am not asking you to prove he exists. I am asking you to support your belief. The best thing you’ve come up with is your personal experience we talked about a while ago.

I know you don’t understand our arguments and they seem foolish to you. But it probably due to your lack of understand of logic, or something of that sort. Because, they are quite valid. And I do not make arguments I ask questions: “why believe?”. And I counter your statements (not arguments)

I also do not try to disprove their statements, I don’t need to. You need to support them.
But, alas we’ve gone over this.
“the burden of proof rests on the person making the claim”

What I don’t understand is why you believe their accounts. It doesn’t matter if they are true because neither of us can ‘know”that. But why do you believe them, this will always escape me. Is it because your mom told you when you were a kid the bible’s “non-fiction”.
The plane fact is, there is NO reason to believe the accounts. It is faith.
And faith is irrational by definition

[ate]

It's not a design. It's just what happens when entities become capable of making pretty faithful copies of themselves. Once you get that going, there's no way to prevent it!


Yes, but how did life get that way?



The real question is, who could come up with a design for a designer who can create the whole universe and millions of complex lifeforms? And who could come up with a design for an intelligent designer designer? Surely if God created the whole universe, and has the machinery for monitoring everything that goes on inside it, and the machinery for generating all the biological diversity around us, then he must be way more intricate and complex than life itself!

Synonymous to the first question.

[harris7]

There's no argument there. Unless you're trying to get people to believe or not believe, who really cares?

I dont really know what you mean. I wasn't making an argument i was trying to clarify a misunderstanding we had.

[sm0k1t]

Ok so if I understand correctly...its obvious that the existance of God can't be proven. But what you guys want to know is WHY THE BELIEF of the existance of God stands strong in the heart of PTS and a whole lot of others and even me. Unfortunatly, the support of our belief that god exist will not satisfy you.

The reason why the support of our belief wont satisfy you is because it wont be based on a theorie, fact, evidence, proof or whatever procedure that we use in science. Eck you might probably think its an irrational belief but if it was the case then there is a shitstorm of irrational believers..so il try in the best of my abilities (I'm french so its kinda hard ) to show you some support of the belief of the existence of God that are somehow rational...logic

The reasons why there is a lot of people who believes in God today are

1- The past of our human kind and the ignorance of the primitive mind. The ignorance can be seen twice through the age of man.

First, I think that science (a majority I guess...) as come up to a hypothesis (its maybe a theory..) that before society ever existed, when we where in total survival mode (Kinda like what Rousseau thought) we were probably very well and food was abondant (like the garden in the bible..that garden might represent earth...well maybe more like Africa with a hole lot a fruit trees. This might look irrelevant but its still still plausible for many people today hehe).

Anyway, to make it short man always loved sex if you just think of how it feels and thus we end up making a lot of babies..multiplying till we one day see that we are to many now and there is not enough food and etc etc...thats paleontology and history...you can find the rest of the story up to date somewhere or in the educational system.

Ok so from the start we were happy and food was abondant..but what were we thinking back then on the meening of life. We suppose that the surviving DNA of our kind might be Adam...(BTW that Adam DNA thing I saw it on a respectable tv channel but I cant remember the show so please correct me if I'm wrong). Even so, there were probably pacific tribes or mini-societies that were thankfull for there periods of prosperity. If that kind of thinking were present for many generations well when your thankfull you adresse to who?...Today it is by some to science because its helped us in countless ways but by a lot of people it was and it is still a higher power ( again check your history on mankind) like nature or whateverstay they did adress to in the past and now.

Second, I suppose strongly that when Descartes developped is theory of the cogito and therefore the importance of developping sciences and technics based of mathematics. Basicaly the new logical way of explaining the ways of the world. I meen by the word logical in our capacity of reason: science and all the *sciences that goes with that
**Philosopy, sociologie, history, geologie etc for human sciences
***Mathematics, physics, biology etc for pure sciences

2- Therefore, some of the anwser found by science disaprouved many things that were told, believed or even worshipped (in worst cases hehe) but the thing is that at that time man was without a doubt curupted by power (organised religions thats you hehe) so the problem was the wrong doings of some men that controlled the masses like a shephard with is sheeps. Eh the irony is that usualy the shephard care for is sheeps. Why? because its is food to survive. The basics. So that's why billions of people still believe that there is a god who gaved us nature, evolution, reason etc wich is good in our lives And to know that by all means we humans have a common goal wich is the survival first (this is not attained everywhere but it could and everyone knows that) and global happiness (still needs a lot of work). These goals exist and we are making our way up to it but what seems to happen here is that it slows down because of a greed for power. This greed that we didn't have before until we faced the rarety of ressources versus the unlimited needs of humans wich is worsed by the developped society since its filled with greed..devouring and polluting nature. So living in a luxurious world burning up he ressources is the product of what we worshipped before...for some yes but at a time were everything was abondant things were different, we were thankfull.

Now, I'm not saying that I despise all of what science created...for that of wich is good that comes out of a man's hands or mind I am thankfull. I put my faith in science and in man. But, this does not meen that I am not thankfull for the things that were there long ago, wich man as nothing to do with or can't modify....yet.

ok I could go on but I think its time for me to tell you my beliefs wich i think is a God.

First the definition of a god is defined by us humans so if we can define God or what is it well its everything that we can come up that is impossible for us to do or comprehend. But, the thing is that with evolution, we might yet understand if we survive for say a couple of billion years. See where I'm going here.

Then what is God? Who is he? I don't know..maybe someone that gave us purpose. A man perhaps...or maybe the will of mankind....Yep..I'd go for that idea wigh seems logic but still unprovable but luckly there is a lot of time to think about it if we survive =)

Feel free to put any comments on it ;)
peace

[harris7]

I can see what your saying. When I use the word god on here (it goes for most people )I am strictly speaking about the literal God described in the bible. And generally only confronting people who are fundamentally religious. So much that they don’t believe in evolution.

I am totally open to other concepts of god, and I plan to peruse my own spirituality in the future (I just don’t have time now, and it’s not time for me to do that yet)

My father is very atheist, but I didn’t’ know this until a few years ago. And more so in the last year because we’ve talked about it. I talked about my logical arguments against Christianity (the only religion I know enough about to be critical of) and he told me that they would never “work” on believers. He said that these people disallow themselves from even examining their philosophy. They are so entrenched in faith that nothing, not even Buda appearing and letting them know about the misunderstanding. I’ve read and heard about such believers, ones that don’t believe in dinosaurs and think the devil placed the bones there to fool us!

This message board is the first place I’ve been able to engage with such minded individuals (as in Canada we really don’t have many). And my current conclusion, after reading what PTS believes, I think he was right. And it scares me, I no longer wonder how bush could get elected twice.

[mrdevious]

I'm pretty much done with this thread, though I have learned something. I never undstood until recently why Richard Dawkins said he refused to engage theists in logical televised debates. Now I understand. Those completely devoted to their faith will indeed claim to have plenty of logical evidence. But once you deconstruct it, they take the easy and entirely irrational road out. They simply throw logic out the window, then claim that logic is unnecessary but their beliefs are still rational. Their justification is that they simply KNOW, deep down, that god exists. That their relationship with him is something only they can see, and therefor exists.
In reality, this is an excuse for the worse symptom brought upon by the virus of faith. What this virus does is convince you thoroughly that you are right. It makes your brain shut out logic and reasoning, and convinces you that because your brain has reached a state congruent with a logically-held conclusion, it must therefor be true. It puts your mind in a state where your beliefs no longer need rationality, no longer need a reason, they simply need to be reinfoced by a powerfull devotion so strong that it supresses everything to the contrary. It convinces you that your devotion is of the highest importance, that everything that threatens such devotion is a threat to be rejected.

And, sadly enough, people convince themselves to forget that the brain is capable of absolutely anything and everything. There is NO LIMIT to what it can convince you of, there is NO LIMIT to how real it can make something seem. The brain's ability to convince you of the authenticity of a belief or perception is so powerfull that it can seem a thousand times more convincing than anything percieved in the real world can be. It is why schizophrenics cannot be convinced that the voices aren't real, it is why terrorists cannot be convinced that god is not a tool of hatred, it is why fellow's like Bong30 in the political forum cannot be convinced their perception can be wrong, no matter what evidence exists to the contrary. Instead people cling to the false belief that if something weren't real, there would be some small SOMETHING that would feel or seem wrong; but it simply isn't so. And so the cycle continues, and people continually justify themselves in whatever belief they hold, that it MUST be true because their mind sees it as so incredibly, convincingly real. Justifiction is no longer needed because the belief is clamped down by iron spikes that will allow no train of reasoning to dislodge it.

[MastaChronic]

I'm pretty much done with this thread, though I have learned something. I never undstood until recently why Richard Dawkins said he refused to engage theists in logical televised debates. Now I understand. Those completely devoted to their faith will indeed claim to have plenty of logical evidence. But once you deconstruct it, they take the easy and entirely irrational road out. They simply throw logic out the window, then claim that logic is unnecessary but their beliefs are still rational. Their justification is that they simply KNOW, deep down, that god exists. That their relationship with him is something only they can see, and therefor exists.
In reality, this is an excuse for the worse symptom brought upon by the virus of faith. What this virus does is convince you thoroughly that you are right. It makes your brain shut out logic and reasoning, and convinces you that because your brain has reached a state congruent with a logically-held conclusion, it must therefor be true. It puts your mind in a state where your beliefs no longer need rationality, no longer need a reason, they simply need to be reinfoced by a powerfull devotion so strong that it supresses everything to the contrary. It convinces you that your devotion is of the highest importance, that everything that threatens such devotion is a threat to be rejected.

And, sadly enough, people convince themselves to forget that the brain is capable of absolutely anything and everything. There is NO LIMIT to what it can convince you of, there is NO LIMIT to how real it can make something seem. The brain's ability to convince you of the authenticity of a belief or perception is so powerfull that it can seem a thousand times more convincing than anything percieved in the real world can be. It is why schizophrenics cannot be convinced that the voices aren't real, it is why terrorists cannot be convinced that god is not a tool of hatred, it is why fellow's like Bong30 in the political forum cannot be convinced their perception can be wrong, no matter what evidence exists to the contrary. Instead people cling to the false belief that if something weren't real, there would be some small SOMETHING that would feel or seem wrong; but it simply isn't so. And so the cycle continues, and people continually justify themselves in whatever belief they hold, that it MUST be true because their mind sees it as so incredibly, convincingly real. Justifiction is no longer needed because the belief is clamped down by iron spikes that will allow no train of reasoning to dislodge it.

theres a psychiatric term for what you have just described, it is called SCHIZOPHRENIA

[harris7]

no not really. schizophrenia is a genetic caused psychological disorder that manifests itself in delusions and hallucinations. Irrationality isn’t part of it

They do have irrational beliefs but they are receiving pretty solid proof. Like if they believe the devil is talking to him, it’s because they actually perceive that it’s wrong but not irrational

[MastaChronic]

okay........let me rephrase it a little bit.
what mr.devious posted sounds quite a bit like schizophrenia

[Pass That Shit]

The logic one always makes me laugh. Logic?

Where is the logic in putting your life (eternal) on the line for something that man has never proven to be untrue? If it's so unlogical to believe in God, then why hasn't any brilliant scientist disproven any of the biblical writers from any generation? Where is the logic in not believing in something that tells you to believe if you want to live? You guys will write long paragraphs explaining how you think the bible is untrue. But really, you're not disproving it either. So since no one has proven it wrong, why is it so illogical to believe in God?

Here is my logic.

God said he made the light. I look up and see the sun.
God made the evening and the morning. Our day starts at midnight.
God gave us the sun, moon and the stars. We have a calendar.
God made us of the dust of the ground. We will return to the dust of the ground.
God made man and female. I have penis and my wife has vagina.
God told us to multiply. I have a 3 month old daughter. :D
God planted trees and plants. I grow all kinds of fruits and vegetables to eat.
God put the fish in the ocean. I see fishermen at work.
God was manifest in the flesh. Men witnessed Jesus.
Jesus was seen put to death. Jesus was seen after his resurrection.

Where is the logic in believing in an unknow energy that created all this and is not perfect? In other words, the energy is perfect enough to create all of this and it has an end? What is behind the science? Luck? Is that your logic? You got here by luck?

God said let there be light = Big Bang Theory
How can you prove that the big bang was not created by God?
Foget God. How can you prove what created the big bang theory?
Where does your logic come from? You can trust in man all you like, but my faith is in God.

[MastaChronic]

The logic one always makes me laugh. Logic?

Where is the logic in putting your life (eternal) on the line for something that man has never proven to be untrue? If it's so unlogical to believe in God, then why hasn't any brilliant scientist disproven any of the biblical writers from any generation? Where is the logic in not believing in something that tells you to believe if you want to live? You guys will write long paragraphs explaining how you think the bible is untrue. But really, you're not disproving it either. So since no one has proven it wrong, why is it so illogical to believe in God?

Here is my logic.

God said he made the light. I look up and see the sun.
God made the evening and the morning. Our day starts at midnight.
God gave us the sun, moon and the stars. We have a calendar.
God made us of the dust of the ground. We will return to the dust of the ground.
God made man and female. I have penis and my wife has vagina.
God told us to multiply. I have a 3 month old daughter. :D
God planted trees and plants. I grow all kinds of fruits and vegetables to eat.
God put the fish in the ocean. I see fishermen at work.
God was manifest in the flesh. Men witnessed Jesus.
Jesus was seen put to death. Jesus was seen after his resurrection.

Where is the logic in believing in an unknow energy that created all this and is not perfect? In other words, the energy is perfect enough to create all of this and it has an end? What is behind the science? Luck? Is that your logic? You got here by luck?

God said let there be light = Big Bang Theory
How can you prove that the big bang was not created by God?
Foget God. How can you prove what created the big bang theory?
Where does your logic come from? You can trust in man all you like, but my faith is in God.

not to be argumentative, but........... something that doesnt exist cannot be disproven because it doesnt exist for you to disprove it and the bible was written by the church to give support to their claims.
theres my simple explanation. now for an analogy
the bible says that god said "let there be light" your getting this information from a second source so it is much like somebody telling you that "jimmie" told them that he wants to fuck you in the ass. you cant disprove it and if you go looking for jimmie, but you cant find him (because he doesnt really exist) but you cant disprove that jimmie because you cant find him, does that make jimmie real? simply becuase you cant find him? your going to have to go on second party information if your going to believe it and second party information isnt always reliable, sometimes its made up.

[Pass That Shit]

So your sources are trustworthy?

Spin it anyway you like, but these men left writings and you're accusing them of lying. This is a fact.
What if they are not lying about the things to come? Are you ready?

[mrdevious]

Holy hell PTS, this is exactly why I quit debating. You're making the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS that you've made 10 times before. And every time I've completely proven why they are false, you once AGAIN ignored them and didn't manage to counter it with any kind of argument, then proceeded to make it once again. This time you even did it in the same thread!

[Stemis516]

mrdevious


we would all appreciate if u stayed true to ur word and stopped posteing in this thread

[harris7]

^^ i would rather he stay.

PTS,
the problem is there is a very obvious explanation other than god existing.

I don’t believe that you would jump to the conclusion based on what you said that God exists when a simpler explanation is so obvious.

Someone doing the same things as you, looking at sun, growing fruit and so on. Wrote the bible. Seriously man.

Now I will proceed to convince you to believe in another god named Bob

Bob said water will fall from the sky. (we call it rain)
Bob put fish in the ocean. (wow there are fish in the ocean)
Bob planted trees and plants. I have all kinds of fruits and vegetables to eat.

Well you life just got confusing because now you have two religions. Christianity and Bobism

[mrdevious]

mrdevious


we would all appreciate if u stayed true to ur word and stopped posteing in this thread

Is there some non-justification in what I said above? It's 100% true, and I've been dealing with it a long time. When somebody acts that rediculously and keeps pouding us with the same non-sensicle arguments that he continuously and repeatedly uses, yet never backs up after it's been completely shot down, I'm going to call him on it. Don't blame me for not rolling over at such astounding ignorance.

Besides, I said I'm pretty much done with the thread. That's not a written-in-stone promise to never post a single thing, that's a declaration of my choice to no longer participate in an argument where my opponent just ignores the counter-points and keeps at the non-sensicle jabbering.

[harris7]

The Big Bang is a pretty iffy theory. I mean, our laws of physics state that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Except by God, that is.

the big bang dosn't contradict that. Matter can be "created" from energy

E=Mc2 right. Thats what it's all about.

there was a big ball of enery then Bang it became matter.

Some people would call that energy god.

[MastaChronic]

i think it may have something to do with baptism, i mean, you hold a guy under water until he cant take it anymore, then you bring him back up and give him barely any air and then you thrust him back under, repeatedly.
obviously its gonna cause some brain damage.

[harris7]

none of the baptism's i've been to were like that. just putting some oil on the kid, to ya know. fix all his sin

[Stemis516]

see well this went from an arguement to a bashing, thats why its pointless to get something into your people's heads

just because some1's justicifaction isnt good enough for you doesnt mean its still justification....for example what u claim to be proof of evolution isnt good enough for me nor the rest of the world, but u dont see me calling u out and bashing you....i still accept the fact that u could be right

[harris7]

Stemis, the only negative force i feel in this thread is you.

As well the evidence for evolution is good enough for the rest of the world. As in every country except the usa it is taught as fact without opposition. Believers in the intelligent design hypothesis is localized to the USA.

[Stemis516]

so thats ur arguement?? they teach it as fact so it must be true



niiiice

[Stemis516]

and keep in mind im not the one bashing u for believing a certain way


i was baptized u know and id appreciate it if ud keep it down

[MastaChronic]

none of the baptism's i've been to were like that. just putting some oil on the kid, to ya know. fix all his sin

you havent?
ive seen it done wit me own three eyes.....errr...two

[harris7]

and keep in mind im not the one bashing u for believing a certain way

i was baptized u know and id appreciate it if ud keep it down

Well i though i was defending baptisms as not being drowning ceremonies

No that is not my argument it is just a fact.
The arguments/evidence for evolution is very strong and thus the majority of the civilized world (i mean to exclude 3rd world countries who dont come into contact with these things, not religious places or people) thinks of it as fact.

[MastaChronic]

evolution is accepted as fact, it will be accepted as fact until something that explains things better comes along.
i dont know about you, but i got no problem thinking i evolved from monkeys. monkeys are cool, they climb trees and throw poo at people

[Pass That Shit]

I agree with Stemis. I don't bash you guys either. But I understand that faith is offensive. I would need to sit and type for 18 hours to explain to Mr.D why he lacks knowledge and understanding. So I don't. Mr.D, I'm just sharing my point of view. I'm not seeking the truth in a conversation with you. I'm sharing my testimony. If you have made your points, everyone will read them and see your wisdom. We don't have to prove each other wrong. I read your posts and I can see what you don't see (him). I can't make you see what I see (him). Your gospel is not rooted and grounded in truth. You lack moisture. You can keep making the same point about proving me wrong, but I don't stear from you cause I don't have an answer. I post as I please.

You guys want to act like it's only the christians saying that we're right.
Do you guys ever say that we're right? We are all the same. Share your heart.

[braddog10]

Hey Mr.D Man It's good to see you. I went to your link for Talk Origins. You do realize that their arguements are posted with no rebutal. Something also I found weak is that the bulk of there reference sources are 20 and 30 yrs old. Even Going to the latest areas of research involving Molecular Biology is pretty feeble. Their argueing that Items missing in a forming cell can still live or bring forth life. They touched on a few points. . . protein transports for one. Very weak. The References on the site had just a few after the year two thousand. Most were from the 60's and 70's. Scientific researchers are shifting more toward intelligent design. It has been too much a frustration to argue that an irreducible cell could just occur. There are inumerable chemical interactions necessary for a cell to live, and for complex DNA to form for that cell? Ahuge stretch. The absence of much at all can't make it. It is becoming more agreed that a single cell is irreducible. It's just too weak to argue otherwise. I guess we can say It requires too much faith. Ironic isn't it. On the fringe some have adopted some kind of extraterestial influence, which I deem strange.
For some of these people it's like "Anything But God".

Have a good Holiday my friend.

[Delta9 UK]

I studied Medical Microbiology to honours degree level.

There is an overwhelming amount of data and study to support evolution.

The notion that there is a true alternative to what I see, understand and experience - simply boggles my mind. Now maybe I'm brainwashed by science but there is a whole hell of a lot more there for me to beleive in.

I don't see science and faith as the same either and I'm not mixing the actions of organised religions (mostly bad) with personal belief systems.

I don't mean to offend or insult anyone (your beliefs are your own) and I think part of being human is just wanting to reason with the world and make your own path.

I'm just a bit stunned when creationist arguments even get credibility vs science. Only in the US of course ;)

[Delta9 UK]

So until scientists can tell us what caused the energy to create the Big Bang, God is just as "logical" as anything.

That's not evidence of god, its just proof that we don't know for sure how it happened.

We didn't know how the Earth was formed at one point in time and assumed a higher power created it - now we know better. If at the time you believed god made the Earth you were wrong, wrong then and wrong now.

The thing is that this argument will go on forever - if we solve how the big bang started - then who created that? and who created whatever created the thing that created the big bang and so on and so forth... ad infinitum

[harris7]

I think billafold is right, (not that i agree though)

god will continue to fill the gaps in science until science is able to fill the gaps. We've seen it in the past. and what he says is kinda true.
But it shouldn't!

Delta, I also have formally studied biology, ecology and evolution. You have a higher edu. in it than me and I'm wondering if you would check out my evolution thread and tell me what you think of my short breakdown of evolution. (i actually forgot to finish it, but a lots there)

http://boards.cannabis.com/showthread.php?t=88860

[Delta9 UK]

:o Why did I open with my Degree.... Now I sound like a jerk.

That thread looks intersting I'm reading now :)

[Delta9 UK]

OK I spammed your Evolution thread harris :)