MOCpages : Share your LEGO® creations
LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop The International Fan of LEGO Debate ClubOther
Welcome to the world's greatest LEGO fan community!
Explore cool creations, share your own, and have lots of fun together.  ~  It's all free!
Conversation »
Creation VS evolution #2
Join to comment
 Group admin 
(The other thread was taking years to load, you can carry on here. Better yet, admit that God is the only way! Just throwing that out there to spice up the debate.)


DEBATE!
Permalink
| October 8, 2013, 4:24 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
(The other thread was taking years to load, you can carry on here. Better yet, admit that God is the only way! Just throwing that out there to spice up the debate.)


DEBATE!

Agreed!!

In regards to Luke Clarence what exactly are you talking about?
Permalink
| October 8, 2013, 5:31 pm
Hello, I'm BobaFett2, a liberal atheist.

A few things...

Lack of perfect evidence does not disprove something. An incomplete fossil record does not mean that evolution did not occur - it means that we don't have a lot of fossils. Fossilization does not happen to everything.

Something's working out well does not mean that it was planned to work. We wouldn't exist as we are if the conditions weren't right - and random chance does not imply forethought. If I win the lottery one, two, three times, I got really, really, really, lucky - it doesn't require a higher power for that to happen.

A mutation in DNA can make weird stuff happen.

Not being able to explain something does not make it magic. The big bang theory is not magic - there's a lot of math and evidence around it, and if you're going to argue with math, then you probably shouldn't be debating with anyone.

Amino acids have been found to form on their own under the right conditions. Amino acids are the building blocks for proteins. Blah blah blah.

Things with a very low chance of occurring can happen, and given a large enough time frame, are more likely than not to happen. Human intelligence isn't in any way a proof of a higher power, that's just wishful thinking.

The second law doesn't clash with evolution. I don't know where anyone got that idea. Evolution isn't an organized process or one of organization. Random chance makes random things happen.

Permalink
| October 8, 2013, 6:08 pm
Quoting Luke the Swift
To my knowledge, any and all, transitional fossils such as the neanderthal man, and such have never been found. The ones that have been found are fakes. So the Missing links are still missing.
They actually have found many missing link fossils, and only a few have ever been shown to be fake (I can only think of two examples). Here's a few transitional fossils: Archaeopteryx, Australopithecus, Aardonyx, Acanthostega and the other early tetrapods, Ambulocetus (one of my favorties), Aetiocetus, Eohippus and the horse series, Amphistium, Eomola, Gerobatrachus, the list goes on.

Quoting Luke the Swift
Yes what your saying is true, but there is no evolution of kinds. The bacteria did not change from bacteria to something else. It changed into more bacteria.
First of all, 'bacteria' is a grouping probably more diverse than animals, plants, and fungi combined, so a change from bacteria to bacteria doesn't mean there's not a big change. Second, for something to change from one thing to a completely new thing is just a series of small changes. You can't expect it to change into a completely new organism in just a few years, it takes thousands of years for a new species to evolve. But, I think it's pretty obvious that if, over time, small changes build up, eventually two separated populations will be different enough to be called different species (or 'kinds' if you like that word better).
Permalink
| October 8, 2013, 6:11 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Luke the Swift
To my knowledge, any and all, transitional fossils such as the neanderthal man, and such have never been found. The ones that have been found are fakes. So the Missing links are still missing.
They actually have found many missing link fossils, and only a few have ever been shown to be fake (I can only think of two examples). Here's a list of some I can think of off the top of my head: Archaeopteryx, Australopithecus, Aardonyx, Acanthostega and the other early tetrapods, Ambulocetus (one of my favorties), Aetiocetus, Eohippus and the horse series, Amphistium, Eomola, Gerobatrachus, the list goes on.

Quoting Luke the Swift
Yes what your saying is true, but there is no evolution of kinds. The bacteria did not change from bacteria to something else. It changed into more bacteria.
Seriously? First of all, 'bacteria' is a grouping probably more diverse than animals, plants, and fungi combined, so a change from bacteria to bacteria doesn't mean there's not a big change. Second, for something to change from one thing to a completely new thing is just a series of small changes. You can't expect it to change into a completely new organism in just a few years, it takes thousands of years for a new species to evolve. But, I think it's pretty obvious that if, over time, small changes build up, eventually two separated populations will be different enough to be called different species (or 'kinds' if you like that word better).

That's correct. Changes build up over time and eventually a species diverges. Various external pressures usually fuel this process, and a bottleneck or split will often speed it up.
Permalink
| October 8, 2013, 6:13 pm
I would try to see what positions everyone has, but then I'd have to read the first part of this...
Permalink
| October 8, 2013, 11:56 pm

Quoting Luke the Swift
To my knowledge, any and all, transitional fossils such as the neanderthal man, and such have never been found. The ones that have been found are fakes. So the Missing links are still missing.
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible They actually have found many missing link fossils, and only a few have ever been shown to be fake (I can only think of two examples). Here's a few transitional fossils: Archaeopteryx, Australopithecus, Aardonyx, Acanthostega and the other early tetrapods, Ambulocetus (one of my favorties), Aetiocetus, Eohippus and the horse series, Amphistium, Eomola, Gerobatrachus, the list goes on.


would mind giving me links to website which contains those evidences for me to follow up on them.

Quoting Luke the Swift
Yes what your saying is true, but there is no evolution of kinds. The bacteria did not change from bacteria to something else. It changed into more bacteria.
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible First of all, 'bacteria' is a grouping probably more diverse than animals, plants, and fungi combined, so a change from bacteria to bacteria doesn't mean there's not a big change. Second, for something to change from one thing to a completely new thing is just a series of small changes. You can't expect it to change into a completely new organism in just a few years, it takes thousands of years for a new species to evolve. But, I think it's pretty obvious that if, over time, small changes build up, eventually two separated populations will be different enough to be called different species (or 'kinds' if you like that word better).


So you are admitting there is no observable evidence to support these claims...Your saying that [by faith] you are believing that something can change slowly over thousands of years, but you yourself will never see it?

Permalink
| October 9, 2013, 10:25 am
 Group admin 
Quoting BobaFett 2
Hello, I'm BobaFett2, a liberal atheist.
Welcome! This group has lots of different viewpoints, which is what makes this debate group work. Feel free to participate in all the debates and give us suggestions for future topics in the "New topics and new announcements" thread!

Quoting BobaFett 2
Lack of perfect evidence does not disprove something. An incomplete fossil record does not mean that evolution did not occur - it means that we don't have a lot of fossils. Fossilization does not happen to everything.
For evolution to be true we should still have an exponential amount of transitional fossils even if only the tiniest percentage of creatures were fossilized. We're talking about millions upon millions of years here.

Quoting BobaFett 2
Something's working out well does not mean that it was planned to work. We wouldn't exist as we are if the conditions weren't right - and random chance does not imply forethought. If I win the lottery one, two, three times, I got really, really, really, lucky - it doesn't require a higher power for that to happen.
Let's use the lottery example for a moment. The odds of evolution functioning as many believe, would be like winning the lottery several million times in a row. Those are slim odds to believe in! Even then other problems plague this theory (More info below).

Quoting BobaFett 2
A mutation in DNA can make weird stuff happen.
And tends to break things, not make them better.

Quoting BobaFett 2
Not being able to explain something does not make it magic. The big bang theory is not magic - there's a lot of math and evidence around it, and if you're going to argue with math, then you probably shouldn't be debating with anyone.
What kind of math and evidence? Please share. If the consolidated mass of the big bang was the only thing in an endless void, what made it begin to expand?

Quoting BobaFett 2
Amino acids have been found to form on their own under the right conditions. Amino acids are the building blocks for proteins. Blah blah blah.
Evolutionary scientists say the amino acids were swirling around in water and connecting into proteins. However they don't tell you that water breaks down proteins.

Permalink
| October 9, 2013, 4:04 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
Evolutionary scientists say the amino acids were swirling around in water and connecting into proteins. However they don't tell you that water breaks down proteins.

Very observant... Do you know what an oversimplification that is? Do you even know in what conditions that happens? Do you know that in experiments which, admittedly did not spontaneously create life, but solved the mystery of how life probably began, those amino acids were stabile?

Biochemistry is an exact science and no matter what anybody says, molecules will act as they do.

And what I really hate is how people think that how well and perfectly everything fits together, it indicates intelligent design. Well, no. if they had not fitted so well, they would fit another way. And if they had not, life would just be bigger. Or maybe universe would just be boring.

But seriosly, stop serching for reasons in universe. It just is. Universe is the manifestation of existance as a concept.
Permalink
| October 9, 2013, 4:15 pm
Quoting Luke the Swift
you yourself will never see it?

That is sort of like saying I am not human because you do not see me.

Quantum theory agrees.

You do not, though.

Inductive reasoning is a thing. When you see something... And it is the same everywhere and you have a lot of indirect and direct evidence to prove it (fossils and DNA as indirect, bacteriae and viruses as direct evidence).


O.K., I have a better comparison. You are saying like we can not predict when the sun will die, because we are not seeing it. Also, we can not predict what 32167+1337 is because we have never seen it. Or a more american christian neo-fundamentalist friendly (O.K., just christian, but you get the point) way of telling - nobody was there when your god created Earth, so that did not happen, right?


Fun fact: Pope said evolution is true.
Permalink
| October 9, 2013, 4:21 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
This group has lots of different viewpoints

Two and LCV. Not a lot.
Permalink
| October 9, 2013, 4:26 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
what made it begin to expand?



If you are looking at it from the wrong side, which will still show you correct results, just not help you get anywhere from there, it never began to expand. The first moment of time's existance wasthe speck, the next moment (time actually does work in ticks) was different. That is the modern definition of time - the previous moment being different from the next. And when every speck of information of the universe is lost, time will stop and the-end.

Of course, the fact is that before the big bang, there was a symetrical structure of time flowing backwards from the dissappearance of the last black hole through all universe's history all reverse to the big bang. Chaos theory. The big boom was perfectly orderly and spherical. Well, bubbly, but created of symetrical spherical features.
Permalink
| October 9, 2013, 4:33 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
... And? How does any of this disprove what I said?

Permalink
| October 9, 2013, 4:40 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting BobaFett 2
Lack of perfect evidence does not disprove something. An incomplete fossil record does not mean that evolution did not occur - it means that we don't have a lot of fossils. Fossilization does not happen to everything.
For evolution to be true we should still have an exponential amount of transitional fossils even if only the tiniest percentage of creatures were fossilized. We're talking about millions upon millions of years here.

Quoting BobaFett 2
Something's working out well does not mean that it was planned to work. We wouldn't exist as we are if the conditions weren't right - and random chance does not imply forethought. If I win the lottery one, two, three times, I got really, really, really, lucky - it doesn't require a higher power for that to happen.
Let's use the lottery example for a moment. The odds of evolution functioning as many believe, would be like winning the lottery several million times in a row. Those are slim odds to believe in! Even then other problems plague this theory (More info below).

Quoting BobaFett 2
A mutation in DNA can make weird stuff happen.
And tends to break things, not make them better.

Quoting BobaFett 2
Not being able to explain something does not make it magic. The big bang theory is not magic - there's a lot of math and evidence around it, and if you're going to argue with math, then you probably shouldn't be debating with anyone.
What kind of math and evidence? Please share. If the consolidated mass of the big bang was the only thing in an endless void, what made it begin to expand?

Quoting BobaFett 2
Amino acids have been found to form on their own under the right conditions. Amino acids are the building blocks for proteins. Blah blah blah.
Evolutionary scientists say the amino acids were swirling around in water and connecting into proteins. However they don't tell you that water breaks down proteins.


There are various evolutionary scientists and it's definitely not just water in which life, according to them, may have occurred in what is known as the "primordial ooze", which is definitely not water.

With the mutation thing and lottery we come back to chance. If there's a one in a million chance of something happen, and it happens a million times, the chance of it having happened is pretty high - you used that argument (more or less) for fossils above. And unlikely things do happen. Also, evolution isn't a direct process or something with an end goal - it's merely an explanation of how creatures come to be the way they are. Mutations aren't all that uncommon, and even if they were, considering not only the timeframe we have but the quantities, it only makes sense for a lot of mutations to happen and spread.

We have a lot of fossils, actually, but fossilization requires very specific conditions. Creatures living in certain environments are very unlikely to fossilize, and even in environments where it can occur there isn't, as far as I know, a 100% chance of it occurring even under "optimal" conditions for fossilization. Also, fossils can break and scatter and they aren't always easy to find. We can't just dig everywhere.

Mutations often do break things (or do nothing), but sometimes they make things "work" better in their current environment.
Permalink
| October 9, 2013, 5:49 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Very observant... Do you know what an oversimplification that is? Do you even know in what conditions that happens? Do you know that in experiments which, admittedly did not spontaneously create life, but solved the mystery of how life probably began, those amino acids were stabile?

Biochemistry is an exact science and no matter what anybody says, molecules will act as they do.

And what I really hate is how people think that how well and perfectly everything fits together, it indicates intelligent design. Well, no. if they had not fitted so well, they would fit another way. And if they had not, life would just be bigger. Or maybe universe would just be boring.

But seriosly, stop serching for reasons in universe. It just is. Universe is the manifestation of existance as a concept.

Yay, Deus makes me happy.
Permalink
| October 9, 2013, 5:49 pm
Quoting Luke the Swift

So you are admitting there is no observable evidence to support these claims...Your saying that [by faith] you are believing that something can change slowly over thousands of years, but you yourself will never see it?
Just because it hasn't been directly observed by no means implies that there is not observable evidence that something happened. The fossil record is the most obvious example of evidence for long-term evolution.

Permalink
| October 9, 2013, 9:04 pm
Quoting Luke the Swift
Would mind giving me links to website which contains those evidences for me to follow up on them.

I got most from Wikipedia.
It's got a nice page called "List of Transitional fossils" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils ), I just took the best examples from the list (most are simply early members of their respective groupings).
Permalink
| October 9, 2013, 9:08 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting BobaFett 2
Lack of perfect evidence does not disprove something. An incomplete fossil record does not mean that evolution did not occur - it means that we don't have a lot of fossils. Fossilization does not happen to everything.
For evolution to be true we should still have an exponential amount of transitional fossils even if only the tiniest percentage of creatures were fossilized. We're talking about millions upon millions of years here.
Technically, since evolution always is an ongoing process, all fossils are transitional. Since there's only a few missing links you could find (just to put a number out there, probably less than one in ten million species is what you might call a missing link), and the probability of fossilization is minute (like, far less than one percent), it's not surprising only about ten of the missing links aren't actually missing.

Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting BobaFett 2
A mutation in DNA can make weird stuff happen.
And tends to break things, not make them better.
But every now and then, it does make things better (this has been observed in bacteria, so don't say it hasn't). These are the ones that survive.
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting BobaFett 2
Not being able to explain something does not make it magic. The big bang theory is not magic - there's a lot of math and evidence around it, and if you're going to argue with math, then you probably shouldn't be debating with anyone.
What kind of math and evidence? Please share. If the consolidated mass of the big bang was the only thing in an endless void, what made it begin to expand?
Now one's sure about the pre-Big Bang yet, but the model works well for things after it.

Permalink
| October 9, 2013, 9:10 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Two and LCV. Not a lot.

There's variants within the two.
Permalink
| October 9, 2013, 9:19 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
But seriously, stop searching for reasons in universe. It just is. Universe is the manifestation of existence as a concept.

Seriously, stop trying to not see reasons in the universe. They're there. The universe is God's work of art.
And this really isn't relevant to this thread anyway.
Permalink
| October 9, 2013, 9:23 pm
So, this is one of those conversations that will never be proved right or wrong. Because no matter what, religions may disregard many new scientific findings and science may not accept it if a god like being revealed to us the answer.
Permalink
| October 10, 2013, 12:11 am
Quoting Bob the Almighty
So, this is one of those conversations that will never be proved right or wrong. Because no matter what, religions may disregard many new scientific findings and science may not accept it if a god like being revealed to us the answer.

Science is a system by which we learn about the world around us.

If some higher power were to reveal itself to us, and after testing it were proven not to be a hoax, then no, "science" wouldn't reject it because it would be nonsensical.

The empirical evidence for any sort of higher power is next to none, so there's no reason to believe in one.
Permalink
| October 10, 2013, 8:44 am
Quoting BobaFett 2
The empirical evidence for any sort of higher power is next to none, so there's no reason to believe in one.

This is obvious if the higher power is rational, and if we are (to some extent) rational. When we see what God does in the universe, we say, "That makes sense" and don't give a second thought to the fact that God was behind it.
Permalink
| October 10, 2013, 9:39 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
This is obvious if the higher power is rational, and if we are (to some extent) rational. When we see what God does in the universe, we say, "That makes sense" and don't give a second thought to the fact that God was behind it.

What you're saying doesn't make any sense.

First, you're assuming that there is a higher power, then you're assuming that it's rational, and using it as your argument. You're not using any logic or evidence.
Permalink
| October 10, 2013, 10:46 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
... And? How does any of this disprove what I said?

No disproving, none at all.

It did seriosly reduce your credibility though.
Permalink
| October 10, 2013, 4:15 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Seriously, stop trying to not see reasons in the universe. They're there. The universe is God's work of art.
And this really isn't relevant to this thread anyway.

Oh, there actually is a reason. But I do not know who won the First War.
Permalink
| October 10, 2013, 4:16 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
if if

Yeah...

But seriosly, what if the ultimate power made humanity with a sabotaged brain to not be able to understand it?

And in response to your future question of the reasons for that:
If it is true, I am phisically inable to answer that. And so are you. And everybody else.
Permalink
| October 10, 2013, 4:18 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Yeah...

But seriosly, what if the ultimate power made humanity with a sabotaged brain to not be able to understand it?

And in response to your future question of the reasons for that:
If it is true, I am phisically inable to answer that. And so are you. And everybody else.

If the ultimate power did do that, then we are simply living life to live it and get it over with, then we die; the end. I'm not countering your statement, but rather trying to reason. I'd rather live life looking for some sort of further purpose and meaning beyond in and beyond life, but that just might be how my brain was sabotaged.


Permalink
| October 10, 2013, 4:27 pm
Quoting Alex Rode
If the ultimate power did do that, then we are simply living life to live it and get it over with, then we die; the end. I'm not countering your statement, but rather trying to reason. I'd rather live life looking for some sort of further purpose and meaning beyond in and beyond life, but that just might be how my brain was sabotaged.


Searching for meaning of life is useless. You have to create it. For yourself, but mainly for others.
Permalink
| October 10, 2013, 4:29 pm
Quoting Alex Rode
If the ultimate power did do that, then we are simply living life to live it and get it over with, then we die; the end. I'm not countering your statement, but rather trying to reason. I'd rather live life looking for some sort of further purpose and meaning beyond in and beyond life, but that just might be how my brain was sabotaged.


You can give yourself a purpose without resorting to belief in things with next to no evidence.

I have a lot of goals in life. Yes, I'll die eventually, but we all do. I'll try my best to prolong my life, but it's inevitable that I'll be gone one day, but that doesn't mean that what I do doesn't matter.

Permalink
| October 10, 2013, 4:29 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Searching for meaning of life is useless. You have to create it. For yourself, but mainly for others.

Creating the meaning of life . . . I don't quite understand what you mean. Like, building your own future and others? Living what you think is best and what you want most?
Permalink
| October 10, 2013, 4:40 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
You can give yourself a purpose without resorting to belief in things with next to no evidence.

I have a lot of goals in life. Yes, I'll die eventually, but we all do. I'll try my best to prolong my life, but it's inevitable that I'll be gone one day, but that doesn't mean that what I do doesn't matter.

First thing you said: I have chose to believe in something with evidence, Christianity. Just so you know for this debate where I stand.

I understand that you have settled on this: You'll get as much out of life as you can, but everyone dies, and when you do, that'll be that. I can see that point of view. I partly share it. I believe in getting the most out of life, the most that you possibly can, but I also believe, in addition, that there is more beyond death.
Permalink
| October 10, 2013, 4:43 pm
Quoting Alex Rode
Creating the meaning of life . . . I don't quite understand what you mean. Like, building your own future and others? Living what you think is best and what you want most?

All cultures who created time travel (humanity invented it about six hours ago) fought a great war very close to the universe's beginning (it was a weird war. I will try to attend in my future/past). The victor created the universe, with a purpouse and that is the meaning of life.

Man... Out of theme much.
Permalink
| October 10, 2013, 5:09 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
All cultures who created time travel (humanity invented it about six hours ago) fought a great war very close to the universe's beginning (it was a weird war. I will try to attend in my future/past). The victor created the universe, with a purpouse and that is the meaning of life.

Man... Out of theme much.

Heh . . . interesting. I'll stick with Christianity. I dunno . . . I still don't quite get it. The one final victor got to create the universe and he created a purpose for life. So what's the purpose? Like I said, I don't quite understand.
Permalink
| October 10, 2013, 5:15 pm
Ah, sorry, but I can't continue with this debate now. I have to go. But thanks! It's been fun!
Permalink
| October 10, 2013, 5:28 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
What you're saying doesn't make any sense.

First, you're assuming that there is a higher power, then you're assuming that it's rational, and using it as your argument. You're not using any logic or evidence.

I wasn't trying to make an argument, I was simply saying that the fact that you can't see evidence for God does not mean it is not there.
Permalink
| October 10, 2013, 5:52 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Yeah...

But seriosly, what if the ultimate power made humanity with a sabotaged brain to not be able to understand it?
That's possible, but even if it were true, it would not be at all useful to know it.
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
And in response to your future question of the reasons for that:
If it is true, I am phisically inable to answer that. And so are you. And everybody else.
Obviously. And by the way, I wasn't planning on asking that.

Permalink
| October 10, 2013, 5:55 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
All cultures who created time travel (humanity invented it about six hours ago) fought a great war very close to the universe's beginning (it was a weird war. I will try to attend in my future/past). The victor created the universe, with a purpouse and that is the meaning of life.

Man... Out of theme much.

Deus, maybe instead of trying to make up your own religion, you should stick to one that has been around awhile. After all, if multitudes of people have followed a belief system for hundreds of years, then maybe the system has some value.
Permalink
| October 10, 2013, 6:02 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Deus, maybe instead of trying to make up your own religion, you should stick to one that has been around awhile. After all, if multitudes of people have followed a belief system for hundreds of years, then maybe the system has some value.

The people believed that the Earth was flat for thousands of years, but that doesn't mean that it's any more correct than people who have believed that the Earth is really a giant pizza for a day.

Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
I wasn't trying to make an argument, I was simply saying that the fact that you can't see evidence for God does not mean it is not there.

The fact that you can't see evidence for something means that you shouldn't believe it's there. Belief should be based on evidence.
Permalink
| October 10, 2013, 6:31 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
The people believed that the Earth was flat for thousands of years, but that doesn't mean that it's any more correct than people who have believed that the Earth is really a giant pizza for a day.

Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
I wasn't trying to make an argument, I was simply saying that the fact that you can't see evidence for God does not mean it is not there.

The fact that you can't see evidence for something means that you shouldn't believe it's there. Belief should be based on evidence.


I agree, belief should be based on evidence. I think there is a fair amount of evidence for Christianity, but that is only part of why I am a believer.

So, we should believe in things there is evidence for. Atheism is the belief that there is no god. Evidence? All the things that happen and have happened, happened just because they happened. Then all the other religions . . . I guess we already had a thread for religion. I also guess that we'll believe what we want, and one day we'll see what's what.
Permalink
| October 10, 2013, 6:35 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
After all, if multitudes of people have followed a belief system for hundreds of years, then maybe the system has some value.

Multitudes of people believed the world to be flat, and even ostracized those who disagreed. But even that aside, there are several religions that have lasted hundreds of years. Why is yours better?
Permalink
| October 10, 2013, 6:38 pm
Quoting Medieval Guy
Multitudes of people believed the world to be flat, and even ostracized those who disagreed. But even that aside, there are several religions that have lasted hundreds of years. Why is yours better?

Do christians ostracize non-christians?
Permalink
| October 10, 2013, 6:39 pm
Quoting Medieval Guy
Multitudes of people believed the world to be flat, and even ostracized those who disagreed. But even that aside, there are several religions that have lasted hundreds of years. Why is yours better?

There have been religions that have lasted as long as Christianity. What a religion needs to last is followers who are faithful, who strongly believe in their religion that they sacrifice much for it. Christianity is not the only one. What makes it different, is God. And God is love. Jesus' sacrifice is the prime example of God's love. Christianity has claims that would surprise some people. I would really like to continue, but this time I really do have to go. Supper. See ya! Thanks for the debate!
Permalink
| October 10, 2013, 6:46 pm
Quoting Zach "gothambygaslight" L.
Do christians ostracize non-christians?

Yes. But it's not just Christians. The larger group often ostracizes the outlier.

Quoting Alex Rode
I agree, belief should be based on evidence. I think there is a fair amount of evidence for Christianity, but that is only part of why I am a believer.

So, we should believe in things there is evidence for. Atheism is the belief that there is no god. Evidence? All the things that happen and have happened, happened just because they happened. Then all the other religions . . . I guess we already had a thread for religion. I also guess that we'll believe what we want, and one day we'll see what's what.



You don't prove the negation of something - you prove the existence. No one can prove that there is no higher power, but if there's no higher power whose existence demonstrable through use of empirical study and mathematics, then there's no reason to believe that there is one - I'm not going to believe that everything everyone can't observe is red, and becomes it's "true color" when observed, because I have no reason to. That's (basically) atheism.

Edit: Somehow it's bolded. No idea why.
Permalink
| October 10, 2013, 6:46 pm
Quoting Alex Rode
If the ultimate power did do that, then we are simply living life to live it and get it over with, then we die; the end. I'm not countering your statement, but rather trying to reason. I'd rather live life looking for some sort of further purpose and meaning beyond in and beyond life, but that just might be how my brain was sabotaged.


That's a pretty morbid view on life. The point of life seems to be to make the most of it and enjoy it while you can, not to find some greater meaning in it. If all you look forward to is a next life, you'll never enjoy the current one.
Permalink
| October 10, 2013, 11:11 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Deus, maybe instead of trying to make up your own religion, you should stick to one that has been around awhile. After all, if multitudes of people have followed a belief system for hundreds of years, then maybe the system has some value.

What about Hinduism. It's older than Christianity but it's views on the creation of the universe and God are utterly different.
Permalink
| October 10, 2013, 11:13 pm
Looks like you lot have gone off the rails.
Permalink
| October 10, 2013, 11:59 pm
Quoting Areetsa C
Looks like you lot have gone off the rails.

Feel free to lay down some new ones. And save us from our descent into the abyss.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 12:23 am
Quoting Bob the Almighty
Feel free to lay down some new ones. And save us from our descent into the abyss.

Definitely initially read that as 'lay down on some new ones' and I was impressed by the brutal comeback but never mind that. All so nice.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 12:30 am
Quoting Josh B.
Definitely initially read that as 'lay down on some new ones' and I was impressed by the brutal comeback but never mind that. All so nice.

Would I, a measly inactive moccer, challenge and insult such a person as HIM. I DARESAY NOT.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 12:49 am
Quoting Medieval Guy
Multitudes of people believed the world to be flat, and even ostracized those who disagreed. But even that aside, there are several religions that have lasted hundreds of years. Why is yours better?
I could ask you the same question.

By the way, no one (to my knowledge, if you have any examples, that'd be great) was ever ostracized for believing the world is not flat.
But the case is very different here. In the case of a flat earth, people had evidence to believe the earth was round, that's why the belief system has changed. In this case however, you reject tradition on no better grounds than the fact that you don't like it.

Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 1:09 am
Quoting Bob the Almighty
That's a pretty morbid view on life. The point of life seems to be to make the most of it and enjoy it while you can, not to find some greater meaning in it.
Speaking of morbid views of life..
Quoting Bob the Almighty If all you look forward to is a next life, you'll never enjoy the current one.
Who cares? This life is only 80 or so years, a mere blink of an eye.

Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 1:10 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
By the way, no one was ever ostracized for believing the world is flat.
But the case is very different here. In the case of a flat earth, people had evidence to believe the earth was round, that's why the belief system has changed. In this case however, you reject tradition on no better grounds than the fact that you don't like it.

Um. I'm pretty sure he meant that the ones who believed that the world was spherical were ostracized. You may know this and I might be interpreting you wrong. But there are way better grounds than that. Years of science and research upon the matter. Even if, let's say they just HAPPEN to be wrong in some strange way, they still have evidence of such and don't make assumptions and arguments based on a personal hatred of religion.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 1:18 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Who cares? This life is only 80 or so years, a mere blink of an eye.

That's a terrible way to look at it. Think about it as a glorious 80 years to do anything and everything you want.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 1:19 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Who cares? This life is only 80 or so years, a mere blink of an eye.

That is a bad way to think of life. Think instead about 80 years of happiness and enjoyment.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 1:20 am
Quoting BobaFett 2
You don't prove the negation of something - you prove the existence. No one can prove that there is no higher power, but if there's no higher power whose existence demonstrable through use of empirical study and mathematics, then there's no reason to believe that there is one
There's no reason to believe there's not. You should be an agnostic, not an atheist.
Quoting BobaFett 2 - I'm not going to believe that everything everyone can't observe is red, and becomes it's "true color" when observed, because I have no reason to. That's (basically) atheism.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
Atheism is an idea that there is no god. It is a religion not based on reason any more than any other religion.
It's funny how atheists think they have a unique perspective on other religions, how the see all other religions clamoring about how each is, of course, the true religion. But the atheist knows the utter futility of their claims and has no reason to believe in any one of them over any of the others, so he just stays where he is. Well guess what, I see it the same way. I see all other religions trying to tell me that theirs is the truth, and yours is one of them, but I stick to God in exactly the same way you stick to you god, empirical evidence.
Quoting BobaFett 2
Edit: Somehow it's bolded. No idea why.

You put an extra four greater than signs in.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 1:21 am
Quoting Bob the Almighty
What about Hinduism. It's older than Christianity but it's views on the creation of the universe and God are utterly different.

That's not my point. My point is, if you have no ground to reject tradition, then why reject tradition?
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 1:21 am
Quoting Bob the Almighty
That is a bad way to think of life. Think instead about 80 years of happiness and enjoyment.

I can live 80 years happy in the knowledge that at their end, I will meat God.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 1:23 am
Quoting Bob the Almighty
Um. I'm pretty sure he meant that the ones who believed that the world was spherical were ostracized.
That was a typo, lemme fix that.
Quoting Bob the Almighty You may know this and I might be interpreting you wrong. But there are way better grounds than that. Years of science and research upon the matter. Even if, let's say they just HAPPEN to be wrong in some strange way, they still have evidence of such and don't make assumptions and arguments based on a personal hatred of religion.
There have never been any scientific experiments which have done anything to disprove religion. By the way, I did not say hatred, I said dislike. Huge difference.

Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 1:24 am
The question of whether God exists or not is pretty much irrelevant to the Creation/Evolution debate, so I propose we move it to the 'religion' thread.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 1:28 am
Quoting Bob the Almighty
That's a terrible way to look at it. Think about it as a glorious 80 years to do anything and everything you want.

I want to serve God, so that's what I'll do.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 10:10 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Medieval Guy
Multitudes of people believed the world to be flat, and even ostracized those who disagreed. But even that aside, there are several religions that have lasted hundreds of years. Why is yours better?
I could ask you the same question.

By the way, no one (to my knowledge, if you have any examples, that'd be great) was ever ostracized for believing the world is not flat.
But the case is very different here. In the case of a flat earth, people had evidence to believe the earth was round, that's why the belief system has changed. In this case however, you reject tradition on no better grounds than the fact that you don't like it.

Sorry, but that's incorrect. I have no idea if people were ostracized for saying that the Earth is round, but people definitely WERE punished/ostracized/killed for making the claim that the Earth revolves around the Sun and not the other way around.

Also, it's not rejection on the grounds that we don't like it - it's rejection on the grounds that the evidence is so insubstantial and nonexistent that there's no point in believing.

And sorry, but no. Not believing in something doesn't mean being unsure about it - the lack of evidence combined with the fact that religious texts keep being proven wrong is evidence against your religion. I'm unsure about the existence of gravitons. I'm sure that there's no Judeo-Christian god. If there is a higher power, it's definitely not that specific one, and I have no reason to believe that there is one.

I don't think that I have a unique perspective on religion - I have no idea where you got that idea. Nor does a real atheist "know the utter futility of their claims" - that's just bogus. "Just stays where he is"? I don't understand what you're trying to say - I assume you mean that our lives are pointless if we believe that there is no higher power, but I strongly disagree - we can give meaning to our own lives. Or, if you mean that we have no more backing than religion, then you probably don't know about math, which is pretty reliable, and its applications. Physics is applied math. Chemistry is applied physics. Etc.

What empirical evidence do you have for the existence of a god? I have yet to see any.

Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
That's not my point. My point is, if you have no ground to reject tradition, then why reject tradition?

But you are rejecting tradition - Hinduism is way more traditional than Christianity - that doesn't make it any more right. There are thousands of traditions, many more ancient than Christianity.

Scientific experiments can't disprove that religion exists. That's obvious from this thread. But assuming you meant that your religion is correct, time and again the church and its teachings have been shown to be bogus.

This is somewhat, but not totally, irrelevant to the thread. That said, it is part of the discussion and it does possess some relevance.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 10:22 am
Quoting BobaFett 2
Sorry, but that's incorrect. I have no idea if people were ostracized for saying that the Earth is round, but people definitely WERE punished/ostracized/killed for making the claim that the Earth revolves around the Sun and not the other way around.
Of course, but I did not say that did not happen.
Quoting BobaFett 2
Also, it's not rejection on the grounds that we don't like it - it's rejection on the grounds that the evidence is so insubstantial and nonexistent that there's no point in believing.
There is a point in believing. Not because there's such an overwhelming body of evidence for it (because there's not), but because it gives you hope and happiness.
Quoting BobaFett 2
And sorry, but no. Not believing in something doesn't mean being unsure about it - the lack of evidence combined with the fact that religious texts keep being proven wrong is evidence against your religion.
Do you have an example?
Quoting BobaFett 2 I'm unsure about the existence of gravitons.
I'm sure that there's no Judeo-Christian god.
Yet you have no evidence that he doesn't exist.
Quoting BobaFett 2 If there is a higher power, it's definitely not that specific one, and I have no reason to believe that there is one.
You don't need reason, you need faith. See, religion isn't like science. In religion, you have faith, then understanding.
Quoting BobaFett 2
I don't think that I have a unique perspective on religion - I have no idea where you got that idea.
You believe you see religion from the outside, right?
Quoting BobaFett 2 Nor does a real atheist "know the utter futility of their claims" - that's just bogus.
You say that religious texts have been refuted, doesn't this make their claims futile? You're sure there is no Judeo-Christian God, doesn't that make the claims of Christianity and Judaism futile?
Quoting BobaFett 2 "Just stays where he is"? I don't understand what you're trying to say
I'm trying to say that the only reason you follow your religion is because you don't see any reason to follow any other religion. Now, I'm not sure if this is correct, but your comments have given me that impression.
Quoting BobaFett 2 - I assume you mean that our lives are pointless if we believe that there is no higher power, but I strongly disagree - we can give meaning to our own lives.
That is not what I mean.
Quoting BobaFett 2 Or, if you mean that we have no more backing than religion, then you probably don't know about math, which is pretty reliable, and its applications. Physics is applied math. Chemistry is applied physics. Etc.
Right, but none of those have ever done anything to disprove religion. "Scientific experiments can't disprove that religion exists."
They have nothing to do with religion, as a matter of fact.

Mathematics is God's art.

Quoting BobaFett 2
What empirical evidence do you have for the existence of a god? I have yet to see any.
If you can think of an experiment that would test the existence of God, then there might be some empirical evidence.

You have no reason but empirical evidence to make you trust empirical evidence. I have nothing but God to make me trust God.
Quoting BobaFett 2
But you are rejecting tradition - Hinduism is way more traditional than Christianity - that doesn't make it any more right. There are thousands of traditions, many more ancient than Christianity.
But Christianity has taken root, and has become part of tradition. Different degrees of traditionality aren't really relevant, only whether something is present in tradition or not.
Quoting BobaFett 2
Scientific experiments can't disprove that religion exists.
Then why do you say things like "religious texts keep being proven wrong"?
Quoting BobaFett 2 That's obvious from this thread. But assuming you meant that your religion is correct, time and again the church and its teachings have been shown to be bogus.
So religion can't be disproved, but it has time and time again?
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 10:59 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoted text

I agree that belief is alright for some people, but it's not for me.

Example: Heliocentrism. Age of the Earth. Evolution. Etc...

I don't believe in the Judeo-Christian god for the same reason I do not believe in Xenu. And yes, I do believe that the claims are not correct.

Atheism is not a religion. It's an absence of belief. It may be a little organized, but it's definitely not religion.

Everyone sees everybody else's religions from the outside.

If you can't trust that 1+1 is 2, then you can't start from anywhere. I trust basic math, I trust that which can be derived from basic math, and I trust the applications of basic math. I trust that which works.

Hinduism has taken root in India, and is part of their tradition. Christianity merely happens to be part of YOUR tradition. The one I was raised in was a Jewish one.

I should have clarified - the existence of religion is obvious. People believe in things and are religious. That doesn't mean that their religions are correct.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 11:05 am
Quoting BobaFett 2
I agree that belief is alright for some people, but it's not for me.
Why's it not for you?
Quoting BobaFett 2
Example: Heliocentrism. Age of the Earth. Evolution. Etc...
Actually, those have nothing to do with religion.
Quoting BobaFett 2
I don't believe in the Judeo-Christian god for the same reason I do not believe in Xenu. And yes, I do believe that the claims are not correct.
Alright then, you do see the utter futility of their claims, to put my phraseology on it.
Quoting BobaFett 2
Atheism is not a religion. It's an absence of belief. It may be a little organized, but it's definitely not religion.
It is a religion, because you believe things about metaphysics with no factual basis.
It's kind of a degenerate religion, but religion nonetheless.
Quoting BobaFett 2
Everyone sees everybody else's religions from the outside.
Right, but since you think you have no religion, you think you see religion in general from the outside.
Quoting BobaFett 2
If you can't trust that 1+1 is 2, then you can't start from anywhere. I trust basic math, I trust that which can be derived from basic math, and I trust the applications of basic math. I trust that which works.
So do I.

Math is like God in a lot of ways: Both are eternal, unchanging, complex, beautiful, logical, exist whether you believe in them or not, and are necessary for the existence of the universe.
Why can you believe in one and not the other?
Quoting BobaFett 2
Hinduism has taken root in India, and is part of their tradition. Christianity merely happens to be part of YOUR tradition. The one I was raised in was a Jewish one.
Well then, why aren't you Jewish?
Quoting BobaFett 2
I should have clarified - the existence of religion is obvious. People believe in things and are religious. That doesn't mean that their religions are correct.
And atheism has no more evidence backing it up than any other religion.

Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 11:19 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoted text

I'm pretty sure the age of the Earth was calculated by biblical scholars and was found to be wrong, and evolution doesn't fit in with the bible.

No, it's not. Metaphysics? I guess...but not really. Atheism isn't a religion. Metaphysics...uhm, no. And you have no idea what you're saying, again. Atheism isn't a belief in metaphysics. Atheism is a lack of belief (technically in a deity, but generally in any religion). Black is not a color of light (although it is a color of paint) - it's the absence of color.

Atheists don't "believe" in anything - they rely on experimental and empirical evidence, mathematics, and observation to define their worldview, which is not the same as belief. Belief does not require proof.

Again, you're presupposing that a higher power is necessary. It's not.

I'm not Jewish because there was no reason for me to believe in it. I've been explaining this...
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 11:29 am
Quoting BobaFett 2
I'm pretty sure the age of the Earth was calculated by biblical scholars and was found to be wrong, and evolution doesn't fit in with the bible.
Some religious people try to make religion intrude on science, but in reality, the evolution question is not relevant to the Bible.
The Bible is meant to teach us about God, not about science, so, naturally, if appears makes a scientific claim, the point lies elsewhere.
Quoting BobaFett 2
No, it's not. Metaphysics? I guess...but not really. Atheism isn't a religion. Metaphysics...uhm, no. And you have no idea what you're saying, again. Atheism isn't a belief in metaphysics. Atheism is a lack of belief (technically in a deity, but generally in any religion). Black is not a color of light (although it is a color of paint) - it's the absence of color.
Atheism is not lack of belief, that's agnosticism. Atheism is belief in no deity.
Quoting BobaFett 2
Atheists don't "believe" in anything - they rely on experimental and empirical evidence, mathematics, and observation to define their worldview, which is not the same as belief. Belief does not require proof.
Belief is still belief if it has proof. Of course, it has never been proven that there is not god, so atheism has a belief not grounded in empirical or experimental evidence.
Quoting BobaFett 2
Again, you're presupposing that a higher power is necessary. It's not.
Yes, it is. But this will degenerate into a 'yes, no' debate, so let's not go there.
Quoting BobaFett 2
I'm not Jewish because there was no reason for me to believe in it. I've been explaining this...
There's no reason for you not to. People have been following Judaism for 3000 years, maybe there's actually something of value there.


Religion is, essentially, what you believe about things which can't be proven. Atheists believe in nothing that can't be proven. This is a belief, so that is religion.

Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 11:44 am
Quoting BobaFett 2
I'm pretty sure the age of the Earth was calculated by biblical scholars and was found to be wrong, and evolution doesn't fit in with the bible.

No, it's not. Metaphysics? I guess...but not really. Atheism isn't a religion. Metaphysics...uhm, no. And you have no idea what you're saying, again. Atheism isn't a belief in metaphysics. Atheism is a lack of belief (technically in a deity, but generally in any religion). Black is not a color of light (although it is a color of paint) - it's the absence of color.

Atheists don't "believe" in anything - they rely on experimental and empirical evidence, mathematics, and observation to define their worldview, which is not the same as belief. Belief does not require proof.

Again, you're presupposing that a higher power is necessary. It's not.

I'm not Jewish because there was no reason for me to believe in it. I've been explaining this...

This sheds even more light on atheism; that's great.

Atheism is not actively believing something supernatural, it's actively counting on science, mathematics, that type of thing to build your worldview on.

The reason Christians don't completely share that is because humans are flawed. All our experiments and whatnot that even the best scientists perform may be flawed. So, we wonder. If human's can't completely accurately know our world, then who can? The question leads to a creator. A creator who would know the ins and outs of this earth.

This is not to say that our conclusions that we make on this earth are not to be trusted. But, of course, science can't prove anything. All Christians do is know someone who can be completely trusted in any area of anything. Jesus.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 12:23 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible

Atheism/agnosticism are basically the same thing.

I'll stop arguing about this, but Atheism is not a religion. A religion is (basically) a set of beliefs that a group of people subscribe to. Atheists don't have a set of beliefs common to them, and there's no official Atheist text, nor is there a doctrine or any form of priest or church.

No, it's not a religion. Religion is not just belief, and atheism isn't about belief. It's about lack of belief. Absence isn't existence.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 12:30 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
Atheism/agnosticism are basically the same thing.
Not quite. Agnosticism is the lack of commitment to whether God exists or not, whereas atheism is the belief that God does not exist.
Quoting BobaFett 2
I'll stop arguing about this, but Atheism is not a religion. A religion is (basically) a set of beliefs that a group of people subscribe to. Atheists don't have a set of beliefs common to them, and there's no official Atheist text, nor is there a doctrine or any form of priest or church.
That's true to some extent. Atheism is a blanket term covering the individual religions of each of its practitioners.
Quoting BobaFett 2
No, it's not a religion. Religion is not just belief, and atheism isn't about belief. It's about lack of belief. Absence isn't existence.
Atheists believe there is no god. How is that not a belief?

Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 12:42 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting BobaFett 2
I'm pretty sure the age of the Earth was calculated by biblical scholars and was found to be wrong, and evolution doesn't fit in with the bible.
No evidence has been confirmed that disproves the Biblical young-earth idea. Correct, evolution does not agree with Bible but many try to manipulate the creation account to say otherwise.

Quoting BobaFett 2
No, it's not. Metaphysics? I guess...but not really. Atheism isn't a religion.
It depends on your definition of 'religion'. If 'religion' is the same as 'worldview' than atheism is indeed religion. It doesn’t really matter though because either way, you believe in something by faith.

1-Creationists believe in God.
Logically, historically, and scientifically this theory cannot be disproved.

Quoting BobaFett 2
Atheists don't "believe" in anything - they rely on experimental and empirical evidence, mathematics, and observation to define their worldview, which is not the same as belief. Belief does not require proof.
You might change your mind in a minute. If we look at facts we see that atheists actually rely on blind faith.

1- Atheists believe in a chance.
A nearly impossible chance that a so called “big bang” of rapidly expanding matter could form anything at all, and that something made it start expanding in the first place. That’s major faith.
2- They believe in fossils that haven’t been found.
They say that one day fossils will be found that prove their theory, but so far that hasn’t been the case. That’s putting faith in something that might never be found!
3- They believe in mutations and reactions. Supposedly mutation advanced simple organisms into more complex creatures, however most (If not all) recorded mutations have ended up breaking the organisms. At the same time they trust that the creature somehow obtained new information in order to evolve, but new information has never been created, only modifications of what is already present.
4- They believe in a comet nursery. All comets would have died or spun off long ago if the world was as old as they say, so now they must also believe in a comet nursery somewhere beyond the reach of our telescopes. They have faith that this is where our current comets came from, even though a ‘new’ comet has never been observed.
5,6,7,8… The list goes on and on. Clearly atheism is a “belief” by your definition.


To be logical and reasonable, we cannot believe in something just because it is POSSIBLE. We must believe in what is PROBABLE. Creation is far more probable than evolution.

Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 1:25 pm
Atheism is a belief. If you are an atheist, you believe in disbelieving God or any high power. You actively believe in disbelieving a higher authority. Why? From my experience: Atheists don't want to acknowledge God or believe in Him because they'd be subject to Him. (Not slaves. Followers.) They don't want to be held accountable for their actions. That's what I've thought, but atheists, please, tell me what you think. If I'm not correct I'd like to learn more.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 2:06 pm
Quoting Alex Rode
Atheism is a belief. If you are an atheist, you believe in disbelieving God or any high power. You actively believe in disbelieving a higher authority. Why? From my experience: Atheists don't want to acknowledge God or believe in Him because they'd be subject to Him. (Not slaves. Followers.) They don't want to be held accountable for their actions. That's what I've thought, but atheists, please, tell me what you think. If I'm not correct I'd like to learn more.

That's totally incorrect. The assumption you're making, which is understandable, is that atheists believe in a higher power and then reject it. That is false.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a higher power on scientific grounds - there is no significant scientific evidence of a higher power, so why believe in one? A lack of belief is not the same as belief, as I've said above.

Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting BobaFett 2
I'm pretty sure the age of the Earth was calculated by biblical scholars and was found to be wrong, and evolution doesn't fit in with the bible.
No evidence has been confirmed that disproves the Biblical young-earth idea. Correct, evolution does not agree with Bible but many try to manipulate the creation account to say otherwise.

Quoting BobaFett 2
No, it's not. Metaphysics? I guess...but not really. Atheism isn't a religion.
It depends on your definition of 'religion'. If 'religion' is the same as 'worldview' than atheism is indeed religion. It doesn’t really matter though because either way, you believe in something by faith.

1-Creationists believe in God.
Logically, historically, and scientifically this theory cannot be disproved.

Quoting BobaFett 2
Atheists don't "believe" in anything - they rely on experimental and empirical evidence, mathematics, and observation to define their worldview, which is not the same as belief. Belief does not require proof.
You might change your mind in a minute. If we look at facts we see that atheists actually rely on blind faith.

1- Atheists believe in a chance.
A nearly impossible chance that a so called “big bang” of rapidly expanding matter could form anything at all, and that something made it start expanding in the first place. That’s major faith.
2- They believe in fossils that haven’t been found.
They say that one day fossils will be found that prove their theory, but so far that hasn’t been the case. That’s putting faith in something that might never be found!
3- They believe in mutations and reactions. Supposedly mutation advanced simple organisms into more complex creatures, however most (If not all) recorded mutations have ended up breaking the organisms. At the same time they trust that the creature somehow obtained new information in order to evolve, but new information has never been created, only modifications of what is already present.
4- They believe in a comet nursery. All comets would have died or spun off long ago if the world was as old as they say, so now they must also believe in a comet nursery somewhere beyond the reach of our telescopes. They have faith that this is where our current comets came from, even though a ‘new’ comet has never been observed.
5,6,7,8… The list goes on and on. Clearly atheism is a “belief” by your definition.


To be logical and reasonable, we cannot believe in something just because it is POSSIBLE. We must believe in what is PROBABLE. Creation is far more probable than evolution.

Confirmed? What do you mean by confirmed? We have very sound methods for determining that age of things.

https://www.google.com/#q=definition+religion
None of those apply

"Creationists believe in God" isn't a theory - it's a fact. I never said anything about that being untrue, because that would be ridiculous.

"Atheists really rely on blind faith"...oh boy.

I'm not sure where the "nearly impossible" thing comes from, but there's a lot of evidence about the expansion of the universe from a single point which we can see today and mathematics works. You're not a professional physicist, are you?

We don't "believe in fossils that haven't been found". The fossil record is not the only evidence for evolution, and a perfect fossil record does not exist. It's just part of the multitude of information which agrees with it.

"They believe in mutations and reactions. Supposedly mutation advanced simple organisms into more complex creatures, however most (If not all) recorded mutations have ended up breaking the organisms." - far from correct. Domestic animals are "broken up"? And the second thing doesn't make sense..."new information"? Assuming you mean DNA, mutations happen all the time. When cells divide, the DNA is often copied imperfectly. We can see this in humans, which is why it's not a good idea for older men to have children (their sperm have divided countless times).

Comet nursery...?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt
I assume you mean the Oort Cloud, but that's a hypothesis. Hypotheses are nice, but I prefer theories (the scientific equivalent of a fact).

This is science. Atheists don't "believe" in this stuff. It's not a matter of belief to say that 1+1 is 2, that a telescope lets me see farther, that the parallax effect is real, that elements decay over time.

Creation is probably? Really? No, you're presupposing that it makes sense in the first place. Can you calculate the probability of that randomly happening? It's ridiculously unlikely for a supreme being to appear out of nothing and create everything. I'm sure it's possible in some universe, but the big bang is a lot simpler and more sensible an explanation.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 2:25 pm
A creator didn't come from nothing. A creator was and is everything. God claims to be Alpha and Omega, beginning and end. He was there before he created the universe.

Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 2:35 pm
Quoting Alex Rode
A creator didn't come from nothing. A creator was and is everything. God claims to be Alpha and Omega, beginning and end. He was there before he created the universe.

Either way, it's not at all a "likely" thing to occur.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 2:36 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
That's totally incorrect. The assumption you're making, which is understandable, is that atheists believe in a higher power and then reject it. That is false.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a higher power on scientific grounds - there is no significant scientific evidence of a higher power, so why believe in one? A lack of belief is not the same as belief, as I've said above.

Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting BobaFett 2
I'm pretty sure the age of the Earth was calculated by biblical scholars and was found to be wrong, and evolution doesn't fit in with the bible.
No evidence has been confirmed that disproves the Biblical young-earth idea. Correct, evolution does not agree with Bible but many try to manipulate the creation account to say otherwise.

Quoting BobaFett 2
No, it's not. Metaphysics? I guess...but not really. Atheism isn't a religion.
It depends on your definition of 'religion'. If 'religion' is the same as 'worldview' than atheism is indeed religion. It doesn’t really matter though because either way, you believe in something by faith.

1-Creationists believe in God.
Logically, historically, and scientifically this theory cannot be disproved.

Quoting BobaFett 2
Atheists don't "believe" in anything - they rely on experimental and empirical evidence, mathematics, and observation to define their worldview, which is not the same as belief. Belief does not require proof.
You might change your mind in a minute. If we look at facts we see that atheists actually rely on blind faith.

1- Atheists believe in a chance.
A nearly impossible chance that a so called “big bang” of rapidly expanding matter could form anything at all, and that something made it start expanding in the first place. That’s major faith.
2- They believe in fossils that haven’t been found.
They say that one day fossils will be found that prove their theory, but so far that hasn’t been the case. That’s putting faith in something that might never be found!
3- They believe in mutations and reactions. Supposedly mutation advanced simple organisms into more complex creatures, however most (If not all) recorded mutations have ended up breaking the organisms. At the same time they trust that the creature somehow obtained new information in order to evolve, but new information has never been created, only modifications of what is already present.
4- They believe in a comet nursery. All comets would have died or spun off long ago if the world was as old as they say, so now they must also believe in a comet nursery somewhere beyond the reach of our telescopes. They have faith that this is where our current comets came from, even though a ‘new’ comet has never been observed.
5,6,7,8… The list goes on and on. Clearly atheism is a “belief” by your definition.


To be logical and reasonable, we cannot believe in something just because it is POSSIBLE. We must believe in what is PROBABLE. Creation is far more probable than evolution.

Confirmed? What do you mean by confirmed? We have very sound methods for determining that age of things.

https://www.google.com/#q=definition+religion
None of those apply

"Creationists believe in God" isn't a theory - it's a fact. I never said anything about that being untrue, because that would be ridiculous.

"Atheists really rely on blind faith"...oh boy.

I'm not sure where the "nearly impossible" thing comes from, but there's a lot of evidence about the expansion of the universe from a single point which we can see today and mathematics works. You're not a professional physicist, are you?

We don't "believe in fossils that haven't been found". The fossil record is not the only evidence for evolution, and a perfect fossil record does not exist. It's just part of the multitude of information which agrees with it.

"They believe in mutations and reactions. Supposedly mutation advanced simple organisms into more complex creatures, however most (If not all) recorded mutations have ended up breaking the organisms." - far from correct. Domestic animals are "broken up"? And the second thing doesn't make sense..."new information"? Assuming you mean DNA, mutations happen all the time. When cells divide, the DNA is often copied imperfectly. We can see this in humans, which is why it's not a good idea for older men to have children (their sperm have divided countless times).

Comet nursery...?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt
I assume you mean the Oort Cloud, but that's a hypothesis. Hypotheses are nice, but I prefer theories (the scientific equivalent of a fact).

This is science. Atheists don't "believe" in this stuff. It's not a matter of belief to say that 1+1 is 2, that a telescope lets me see farther, that the parallax effect is real, that elements decay over time.

Creation is probably? Really? No, you're presupposing that it makes sense in the first place. Can you calculate the probability of that randomly happening? It's ridiculously unlikely for a supreme being to appear out of nothing and create everything. I'm sure it's possible in some universe, but the big bang is a lot simpler and more sensible an explanation.

I admire how you won't change sides, but you're on the wrong side. If you simply will never, ever, come to the truth, if you mind is set so vehemently against it, and you are rock solid in atheism until the day you die, I think this debate will go nowhere. It'll just be back and forth, the same argument, and for no purpose because it is repeated. I hope strongly that you will come to the truth, though. I've said what I can and I hope that God speaks to you.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 2:38 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
Either way, it's not at all a "likely" thing to occur.

I can see where you come from, and I understand. It takes faith.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 2:38 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Neither is a universe which just creates itself.

Nice one man.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 2:57 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Neither is a universe which just creates itself.

String Theory provides answers to that, actually.

Also, that doesn't really support your own case.


Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 2:57 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
Atheism is a lack of belief in a higher power on scientific grounds - there is no significant scientific evidence of a higher power, so why believe in one? A lack of belief is not the same as belief, as I've said above.
It's kind of strange that, because you value empirical evidence and science so much, if something is scientifically untestable, then you do not believe it.
Well, it's scientifically impossible to prove that there is no God, so I reject that notion.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 3:03 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
String Theory provides answers to that, actually.

Also, that doesn't really support your own case.


'Universe' includes string theory.
I know string theory can have nothing turn into something (essentially), but 'nothing' is not really strictly nothing.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 3:04 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting BobaFett 2
Atheism is a lack of belief in a higher power on scientific grounds - there is no significant scientific evidence of a higher power, so why believe in one? A lack of belief is not the same as belief, as I've said above.
It's kind of strange that, because you value empirical evidence and science so much, if something is scientifically untestable, then you do not believe it.
Well, it's scientifically impossible to prove that there is no God, so I reject that notion.

Did I understand you correctly?

You said: "If there is no way to test something, it must be right". I think. I did tell you my "every unobservable thing is red" corollary, earlier, right?

Call me crazy but that does not make sense.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 3:05 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
'Universe' includes string theory.
I know string theory can have nothing turn into something (essentially), but 'nothing' is not really strictly nothing.

We don't ever have to know 100% what created...something...but we can sure try. That's the point of scientific exploration - not to find some ultimate answer, because that'd be impossible, but to understand the world around us.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 3:06 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
Did I understand you correctly?

You said: "If there is no way to test something, it must be right". I think. I did tell you my "every unobservable thing is red" corollary, earlier, right?

Call me crazy but that does not make sense.
Of course it makes no sense.
But you say, "If there is no way to test something, it must be wrong", which is equally fallacious.

Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 3:07 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
We don't ever have to know 100% what created...something...but we can sure try. That's the point of scientific exploration - not to find some ultimate answer, because that'd be impossible, but to understand the world around us.
So the ultimate answer always remains undiscovered. Science cannot, thus, provide you with a complete worldview. It must be supplemented by supernatural belief.

Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 3:08 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting BobaFett 2
Did I understand you correctly?

You said: "If there is no way to test something, it must be right". I think. I did tell you my "every unobservable thing is red" corollary, earlier, right?

Call me crazy but that does not make sense.
Of course not.
But you say, "If there is no way to test something, it must be wrong", which is equally fallacious.

I don't believe that. I believe that if there is no way to test something, there's no reason to believe in it.

Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 3:09 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
I don't believe that. I believe that if there is no way to test something, there's no reason to believe in it.

1) There's no way to test atheism.
2) It's not true that if something is untestable there's no reason to believe it. Believing in God makes my life happier, more fulfilling, and makes me a nicer person.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 3:12 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting BobaFett 2
We don't ever have to know 100% what created...something...but we can sure try. That's the point of scientific exploration - not to find some ultimate answer, because that'd be impossible, but to understand the world around us.
So the ultimate answer always remains undiscovered. Science cannot, thus, provide you with a complete worldview. It must be supplemented by supernatural belief.

No, it doesn't have to be. That makes no sense.

If I can't explain "A" and can explain "B", therefore "A" must be supernatural?


Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 3:13 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
No, it doesn't have to be. That makes no sense.

If I can't explain "A" and can explain "B", therefore "A" must be supernatural?

If "B" is defined as all things natural, then yes.

Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 3:14 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
No, it doesn't have to be. That makes no sense.

You're right, I should clarify. In order for the scientific worldview to be complete, it must have something outside of science to fill in the unsolvable gaps.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 3:21 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting BobaFett 2
No, it doesn't have to be. That makes no sense.

You're right, I should clarify. In order for the scientific worldview to be complete, it must have something outside of science to fill in the unsolvable gaps.

But then it's no longer scientific. A world view doesn't need to be complete.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 3:34 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
But then it's no longer scientific. A world view doesn't need to be complete.

So you value scientificness over completeness?

Following a religion is nice that way, because it adds completeness without sacrificing scientificness.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 3:37 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
So you value scientificness over completeness?

Following a religion is nice that way, because it adds completeness without sacrificing scientificness.

I could never live with myself that way.

Still, it's nice to understand why you believe.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 3:38 pm
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
Organized religion is wrong because you donate your time and money to men and not God.
I'm pretty sure most of the money I give goes to help people in need or to improve the community. (For example, much of the offering money at my church goes to the school which is attached).
Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
Follow the God of your heart, and the science of your mind, and you will never be left disappointed.

Follow God with your heart, mind, and soul, and then you'll never be disappointed.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 3:43 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
I could never live with myself that way.
I think you could. Why don't you give it a shot.

Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 3:44 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting BobaFett 2
I could never live with myself that way.
I think you could. Why don't you give it a shot.

Trust me, I know myself.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 3:44 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
Trust me, I know myself.

You should try it.
I want you to find the happiness that I've found.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 3:48 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
You should try it.
I want you to find the happiness that I've found.

No thank you. Again, I have no interest in doing that. Anyway, I'm done with religion threads. I'll discuss politics but this has been tiring.

Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 3:49 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
No thank you. Again, I have no interest in doing that. Anyway, I'm done with religion threads. I'll discuss politics but this has been tiring.
Alright, but I'm telling you, you're really missing out.

Politics is not my specialty, so I won't get myself involved in it.

Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 3:52 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Deus, maybe instead of trying to make up your own religion, you should stick to one that has been around awhile. After all, if multitudes of people have followed a belief system for hundreds of years, then maybe the system has some value.

I am not trying to make my own religion. Even if I did, it would be as correct as any other. Minus the obvious manipulation factor.

Just because I know how the universe works, it does not mean I am religious.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 5:46 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
If "B" is defined as all things natural, then yes.

Well, it is not.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 6:04 pm
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Just because I know how the universe works, it does not mean I am religious.
I could say the same thing, but I would know I was wrong.
All people are religious, whether they admit it to themselves or not.
Permalink
| October 11, 2013, 7:06 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Just because I know how the universe works, it does not mean I am religious.
I could say the same thing, but I would know I was wrong.
All people are religious, whether they admit it to themselves or not.

Please explain.
Permalink
| October 12, 2013, 4:57 am
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Please explain.

He won't read the definition of religion...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
Permalink
| October 12, 2013, 9:09 am
Quoting BobaFett 2
No thank you. Again, I have no interest in doing that. Anyway, I'm done with religion threads. I'll discuss politics but this has been tiring.

Like I said, that's your choice, but it has been a good debate. I hope the one I love will talk to you sometime.
Permalink
| October 12, 2013, 9:46 am
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
I am not trying to make my own religion. Even if I did, it would be as correct as any other. Minus the obvious manipulation factor.

Just because I know how the universe works, it does not mean I am religious.

I think I kind of get it . . . You have a set of beliefs (Not a religion) that you stand firm in, and you believe it's correct. I admire that, but you have the wrong set of beliefs. They may reward you with happiness and richness in your life, but it won't give you salvation for after death.
Permalink
| October 12, 2013, 9:48 am
Quoting Alex Rode
I think I kind of get it . . . You have a set of beliefs (Not a religion) that you stand firm in, and you believe it's correct. I admire that, but you have the wrong set of beliefs. They may reward you with happiness and richness in your life, but it won't give you salvation for after death.

Wrong-o.

I do not believe that what I believe in is correct.

As for the last part - the joke is on you! I am immortal!
Permalink
| October 12, 2013, 10:05 am
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
I do not believe that what I believe in is correct.
Then you don't believe in it...
Permalink
| October 12, 2013, 11:49 am
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Wrong-o.

I do not believe that what I believe in is correct.

As for the last part - the joke is on you! I am immortal!

Deus, one day you'll see the truth. I've said what I can.
Permalink
| October 12, 2013, 11:52 am
Quoting BobaFett 2
He won't read the definition of religion...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

Seriously?

Religion is not your belief in God, but what you believe about God. Not believing in God is a belief about God, so therefore atheism is a religion (or at least, a religious belief).
Permalink
| October 12, 2013, 11:53 am
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Please explain.

Religion is simply what you believe about God (and any beliefs that stem from that). If you believe in God, then that's obviously religious. If you don't believe in God, that is still a belief about God so thus it is religious.
Permalink
| October 12, 2013, 11:57 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Seriously?

Religion is not your belief in God, but what you believe about God. Not believing in God is a belief about God, so therefore atheism is a religion (or at least, a religious belief).

Dictionary Definition > Your Definition - always.
Permalink
| October 12, 2013, 12:28 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
Dictionary Definition > Your Definition - always.

Alright then, what word should I use to encompass the idea I want to express?
I see a definite similarity between atheism and those things which you call religion, and I think the partitioning is somewhat arbitrary.
Permalink
| October 12, 2013, 12:41 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Medieval Guy
Multitudes of people believed the world to be flat, and even ostracized those who disagreed. But even that aside, there are several religions that have lasted hundreds of years. Why is yours better?
I could ask you the same question.

By the way, no one (to my knowledge, if you have any examples, that'd be great) was ever ostracized for believing the world is not flat.
But the case is very different here. In the case of a flat earth, people had evidence to believe the earth was round, that's why the belief system has changed. In this case however, you reject tradition on no better grounds than the fact that you don't like it.

Since when has the believe of Evolution been tradition? Christianity has been around since the dawn of time! How long has evolution been around!!?
Permalink
| October 15, 2013, 3:08 pm
Quoting Luke the Swift
Since when has the believe of Evolution been tradition? Christianity has been around since the dawn of time! How long has evolution been around!!?

Christianity's only been around since Christ. Before that, it was Judaism. Besides, I wasn't talking about evolution, I was talking about religion.
Permalink
| October 17, 2013, 9:40 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Christianity's only been around since Christ. Before that, it was Judaism. Besides, I wasn't talking about evolution, I was talking about religion.
True, however, the basis of the Bible was started well before the birth of Christ in the Torah and the Old Testament. Like several religions, Christianity was started up by one amazing person. Muhammad started Islam. Both religions have similar texts. However, this discussion is between creation and evolution, so I will put my two-cents in there.
Granted, creation goes off of the word of a several thousand year old book that has never changed. However, science changes almost daily. It is a matter of trust and logic.
Permalink
| October 21, 2013, 8:04 pm
 Group admin 
Sorry I haven't been around here much.

Quoting BobaFett 2
I'm not sure where the "nearly impossible" thing comes from, but there's a lot of evidence about the expansion of the universe from a single point which we can see today and mathematics works. You're not a professional physicist, are you?
I didn't say the universe didn't expend from a central point. What is "nearly impossible" is that this expanding matter could combine into anything at all.
In creation, however, God creates a mature solar system, and it expands from that point.

Quoting BobaFett 2
We don't "believe in fossils that haven't been found". The fossil record is not the only evidence for evolution, and a perfect fossil record does not exist. It's just part of the multitude of information which agrees with it.
"multitude of information which agrees with it"? Like what? The fossil record stands in direct opposition to evolution.
1-The enormous lack of transitional fossils. As I explained before, even if only the smallest percentage of the bones of transitional species were fossilized, there should be tons of them. This is millions and millions of years we're talking about.
2-Trees and other fossils extend through multiple layers of rock stratum that evolutionists say were laid down over millions of year.
3-Fish fossils found on the tops of mountains, only make sense if there was a worldwide flood.
4-A fossilized human footprint inside a dinosaur print has been discovered. This disproves evolution at the most fundamental level!
5-Extremely inaccurate dating methods. Evolutionists love to use carbon dating because it gives them the results they want. Scientists carbon dated the bone of a pig that had died only a few years earlier, and the reading said that the bone was tens of millions of years old!

Quoting BobaFett 2
Assuming you mean DNA, mutations happen all the time. When cells divide, the DNA is often copied imperfectly. We can see this in humans, which is why it's not a good idea for older men to have children (their sperm have divided countless times).
To restate what I said- When something mutates it is damaged not improved as evolution suggests.
An evolutionary scientist spent 20 year rapidly producing generation after generation of a certain microorganism. After millions of generations, no evolution had occurred, in fact, the organism could no longer function properly!
The problem is no new information can be made in the DNA, it can only be copied or altered. The one celled organism from which evolutionists say all life originates would never have had all the information needed for every creature that has been discovered. This means it couldn't have evolved into the complex animals we have today.

Quoting BobaFett 2
I assume you mean the Oort Cloud, but that's a hypothesis. Hypotheses are nice, but I prefer theories (the scientific equivalent of a fact).
New name, it sounds better but has the same problem.
However comets aren’t the only problem with evolution’s time scale.
1-All star clusters would have separated if the universe was as old as evolutionists believe.
2-The moon would have many times the meteor material it has.
3-There would be far more nickel present on earth.
4-Our atmosphere would have been overwhelmed by helium, and everything would dead.
5-The moon would have spun off.
6-The earth mantle would have separated from the core because of the higher rotational speed it would have had to have that many years ago.
…and on the list goes…

Quoting BobaFett 2
This is science. Atheists don't "believe" in this stuff.

They believe new comets came from somewhere (Even though that is strictly wishful thinking), that there are transitional fossils that just haven’t been found yet, that expanding matter could form into something (Even though this is as improbable as it sounds), that God does not exist (Even though there are thousands of accounts of people hearing from him), that something could evolve into a new species (Even though that has never been observed)… I can go on like this for hours. The fact is that Atheists believe in so many things without evidence that one couldn’t count them all! You need more faith to be an atheist than a theist.

Quoting BobaFett 2
Creation is probably? Really? No, you're presupposing that it makes sense in the first place. Can you calculate the probability of that? It's ridiculously unlikely for a supreme being to appear out of nothing and create everything. I'm sure it's possible in some universe, but the big bang is a lot simpler and more sensible an explanation.
The word is probable. Oh yes, creation is much more probable than evolution. Let we correct some of you misunderstandings.
First of all, it did not happen randomly. Second, God didn’t come out of nothing. He is infinite, so He has always existed. Third, you can indeed calculate probability. Compare the flaws, no objection has stood up against creation. On the other hand, everything I mentioned above plus a thousand other things disprove evolution.

Permalink
| October 22, 2013, 8:27 am
 Group admin 
Wow, that was a long post!
Permalink
| October 22, 2013, 8:29 am
I'll be brief, cuz this is my first comment here, and I don't know what we're talking about since I don't a have so much to read everything you say, so huh...
I'm an atheist, and like BobaFett said... Belief should be based on evidence....
I mean, I don't believe in some invisible superior beings that just popped out and created everything in a week, just because an old book told me so...
It makes no sense to me... Now, you can bombard me with insults and criticisms but that's what I believe.

Permalink
| October 22, 2013, 9:39 am
Quoting Bad Guy XD
that's what I believe.

Yes, but you are wrong because somebody else believes something else!

Or how exactly does religion work..?
Permalink
| October 22, 2013, 9:41 am
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus


Or how exactly does religion work..?

Personally, I think the religion thing is kind of a mess... I mean everybody can believe what they choose to believe but then somebody says "my god is better than yours, my god created everything and yours nothing, yours doesn't exist etc...
I think people should also respect other religions, just like I do, but I forgot to mention it in the last post... -_-
Permalink
| October 22, 2013, 9:47 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Bad Guy XD
Personally, I think the religion thing is kind of a mess... I mean everybody can believe what they choose to believe but then somebody says "my god is better than yours, my god created everything and yours nothing, yours doesn't exist etc...
I think people should also respect other religions, just like I do, but I forgot to mention it in the last post... -_-
Only one religion can be true. To just stand back a watch people follow a lie is cruelty, especially since eternity is on the line. It's not about one god verses another, it's fact against fiction. Truth is out and we have to, then lead others to it.
Permalink
| October 22, 2013, 12:27 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Bad Guy XD
I'm an atheist, and like BobaFett said... Belief should be based on evidence....
I mean, I don't believe in some invisible superior beings that just popped out and created everything in a week, just because an old book told me so...
It makes no sense to me...
Welcome, I hope you will post more in the different topics. I'd like to hear you opinions! Feel free to post in any conversation, just jump right in!

Here is my reply to BobaFett 2. It may surprise you how little evidence evolution really has. http://www.mocpages.com/group_conversation.php?id=22580&topicid=92128#comment-1254244
Permalink
| October 22, 2013, 12:30 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Bad Guy XD
I'm an atheist, and like BobaFett said... Belief should be based on evidence....
I mean, I don't believe in some invisible superior beings that just popped out and created everything in a week, just because an old book told me so...
It makes no sense to me...
Welcome, I hope you will post more in the different topics. I'd like to hear you opinions! Feel free to post in any conversation, just jump right in!

Here is my reply to BobaFett 2. It may surprise you how little evidence evolution really has. http://www.mocpages.com/group_conversation.php?id=22580&topicid=92128#comment-1254244


I don't know a lot about astrology or DNA stuff, but I can tell you a bit about fossils...
It is completely normal to find fish fossils in places above sea level, even mountains... I live in Italy and it's full of excavations everywhere (even on the top of mountains) This is because of the continental drift that reshaped our planet (don't tell you don't know about the supercontinent Pangaea) and during this process, new mountains were born, places that were beneath the sea, are now thousands of meters above the sea level, mount Everest is a result of the continental drifting for instance...
About the "fossilized human footprint" inside the dinosaur print... It's completely ridiculous, everyone could play a silly joke by stepping on a paleontological find, in this case, the dinosaur print. -_-
Even the pig bone thing, you don't know anything about that kind of technology
and you you should look for better sources, cuz you should just choose the first you see and use it against the opinions and thoughts of people like me...
You can see everyday all those silly news about UFOs, chupacabras and stuff, I'm not saying I don't believe at all in those things but I think those kind of sources aren't very reliable. Science isn't 100% perfect, but it cannot make such huge mistakes...
Now I don't know what you said before about this, but I think the lack of transitional fossils is normal, we're talking about animals that lived on our planet millions of years ago, you can't expect to find a perfect fossil as BobaFett said.
Permalink
| October 22, 2013, 1:37 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend Only one religion can be true.

I suppose you mean christianity...
Permalink
| October 22, 2013, 1:39 pm
Quoting Bad Guy XD
I suppose you mean christianity...

Yes. Christianity is true because of the founder and who He claims to be. And there have been many, many martyrs in Christianity because they know what they believe is true.
Permalink
| October 22, 2013, 1:43 pm
Quoting Alex Rode
Yes. Christianity is true because of the founder and who He claims to be. And there have been many, many martyrs in Christianity because they know what they believe is true.

Okay, but just respect other religions by not saying whatou said so... "loudly".
Permalink
| October 22, 2013, 2:07 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Bad Guy XD It is completely normal to find fish fossils in places above sea level, even mountains... This is because of the continental drift that reshaped our planet and during this process, new mountains were born, places that were beneath the sea, are now thousands of meters above the sea level
Indeed, but many of these mountains rose in places miles from any body of water and yet we find aquatic fossils on top. Ponder that for a moment.

Quoting Bad Guy XD
About the "fossilized human footprint" inside the dinosaur print... It's completely ridiculous,
Obviously you haven't done any research. The print is not new. It has been around for years now, and still has not been disproved.

Quoting Bad Guy XD
Even the pig bone thing, you don't know anything about that kind of technology
and you you should look for better sources, cuz you should just choose the first you see and use it against the opinions and thoughts of people like me
Aren't you assuming a lot? There are many other stories like this, about the problems with carbon dating. I'm sure they'd be easy to look up if you're interested. I'm sorry if I've offended you in any way.

Quoting Bad Guy XD
You can see everyday all those silly news about UFOs, chupacabras and stuff, I'm not saying I don't believe at all in those things but I think those kind of sources aren't very reliable. Science isn't 100% perfect, but it cannot make such huge mistakes...
Such sources are very unreliable, that's why I don't use them. Science isn't what's making the mistakes, it's the scientists. Scientists have beliefs of their own and they try to manipulate or conceal data in order to promote their views.

Quoting Bad Guy XD
Now I don't know what you said before about this, but I think the lack of transitional fossils is normal, we're talking about animals that lived on our planet millions of years ago, you can't expect to find a perfect fossil as BobaFett said.
I didn't say anything about a perfect fossil. No fossil is perfect. In this case the fossil can be broken or extremely weathered, as long as we find bunches of them. In hundreds of millions of years, there should be tons of bones! Where are they? Maybe they don't exist.
Permalink
| October 22, 2013, 2:08 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Bad Guy XD
I suppose you mean christianity...
It has the most archeological evidence, agrees with logic and reason, agrees with scientific fact... So yes, and there's good reason to say so.
Permalink
| October 22, 2013, 2:13 pm
Quoting Bad Guy XD
Okay, but just respect other religions by not saying whatou said so... "loudly".

I respect other religion's followers in some ways. Like Muslims. They go out of their way to make sure they bow at the right times. I respect that hard work to make sure they follow their religion, even if it's the wrong religion.
Permalink
| October 22, 2013, 2:13 pm
Quoting Alex Rode even if it's the wrong religion.

That's what they say about yours...
Permalink
| October 22, 2013, 2:16 pm
Quoting Bad Guy XD
That's what they say about yours...

What. . . that Christians faithfully obey what their God tells them to? If that's what "they" say about Christianity, that that's awesome! God commands Christians to obey his commands, and if people see that we do, well, I guess that's what we want them to see. We truly obey God because we truly love him.
Permalink
| October 22, 2013, 2:18 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Bad Guy XD It is completely normal to find fish fossils in places above sea level, even mountains... This is because of the continental drift that reshaped our planet and during this process, new mountains were born, places that were beneath the sea, are now thousands of meters above the sea level
Indeed, but many of these mountains rose in places miles from any body of water and yet we find aquatic fossils on top. Ponder that for a moment.

Quoting Bad Guy XD
About the "fossilized human footprint" inside the dinosaur print... It's completely ridiculous,
Obviously you haven't done any research. The print is not new. It has been around for years now, and still has not been disproved.

Quoting Bad Guy XD
Even the pig bone thing, you don't know anything about that kind of technology
and you you should look for better sources, cuz you should just choose the first you see and use it against the opinions and thoughts of people like me
Aren't you assuming a lot? There are many other stories like this, about the problems with carbon dating. I'm sure they'd be easy to look up if you're interested. I'm sorry if I've offended you in any way.

Quoting Bad Guy XD
You can see everyday all those silly news about UFOs, chupacabras and stuff, I'm not saying I don't believe at all in those things but I think those kind of sources aren't very reliable. Science isn't 100% perfect, but it cannot make such huge mistakes...
Such sources are very unreliable, that's why I don't use them. Science isn't what's making the mistakes, it's the scientists. Scientists have beliefs of their own and they try to manipulate or conceal data in order to promote their views.

Quoting Bad Guy XD
Now I don't know what you said before about this, but I think the lack of transitional fossils is normal, we're talking about animals that lived on our planet millions of years ago, you can't expect to find a perfect fossil as BobaFett said.
I didn't say anything about a perfect fossil. No fossil is perfect. In this case the fossil can be broken or extremely weathered, as long as we find bunches of them. In hundreds of millions of years, there should be tons of bones! Where are they? Maybe they don't exist.

Actually, I read about that footprint story...
And I'm not assuming anything, I'm just saying that internet is full unreliable sources, and I doubt that somebody would put so much effort to look for the reliable ones, who would??
Now this is my last comment probably, because I'm not a native speaker, my english isn't good enough for these debates, but what I think is that this debate (religion vs science) doesn't have an ending: people are always standing up for their own beliefs and opinions and criticize the others...
So, imo it's a waste of time... -_-
Permalink
| October 22, 2013, 2:27 pm
Quoting Alex Rode
What. . . that Christians faithfully obey what their God tells them to? If that's what "they" say about Christianity, that that's awesome! God commands Christians to obey his commands, and if people see that we do, well, I guess that's what we want them to see. We truly obey God because we truly love him.

No, wait... You said their religion is wrong, fine, but they probably say the same thing about yours, just think about this...
Permalink
| October 22, 2013, 2:31 pm
Now, I'm done talking here, as I said before, it's a waste of time...
Permalink
| October 22, 2013, 2:33 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Bad Guy XD
Actually, I read about that footprint story...
And I'm not assuming anything, I'm just saying that internet is full unreliable sources, and I doubt that somebody would put so much effort to look for the reliable ones, who would??
Now this is my last comment probably, because I'm not a native speaker, my english isn't good enough for these debates, but what I think is that this debate (religion vs science) doesn't have an ending: people are always standing up for their own beliefs and opinions and criticize the others...
I compliment you, your english is extremely good. It's is a shame to lose you so soon.
It's not a debate of religion vs science, it is science vs science and worldview vs worldview. Only one view can be right, having the truth is essential for life and eternity. Don't stop seeking the truth. I have given you points you cannot refute, isn't is possible that creation is true?

Permalink
| October 22, 2013, 3:17 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Bad Guy XD
No, wait... You said their religion is wrong, fine, but they probably say the same thing about yours, just think about this...
Naturally. You are exactly right. Something must be true, something must be the cause of our universe.
Permalink
| October 22, 2013, 3:23 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Bad Guy XD
Actually, I read about that footprint story...
And I'm not assuming anything, I'm just saying that internet is full unreliable sources, and I doubt that somebody would put so much effort to look for the reliable ones, who would??
Now this is my last comment probably, because I'm not a native speaker, my english isn't good enough for these debates, but what I think is that this debate (religion vs science) doesn't have an ending: people are always standing up for their own beliefs and opinions and criticize the others...
I compliment you, your english is extremely good. It's is a shame to lose you so soon.
It's not a debate of religion vs science, it is science vs science and worldview vs worldview. Only one view can be right, having the truth is essential for life and eternity. Don't stop seeking the truth. I have given you points you cannot refute, isn't is possible that creation is true?

I didn't say I'm leaving, I said I'm done here, thos debate, no the group... :1

Permalink
| October 22, 2013, 3:26 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Bad Guy XD
I didn't say I'm leaving, I said I'm done here, thos debate, no the group... :1
That's good to hear. There are other topics you might prefer, or you can suggest your own in the "New topics and new announcements!" thead.
Permalink
| October 22, 2013, 3:28 pm
Quoting Bad Guy XD
I didn't say I'm leaving, I said I'm done here, thos debate, no the group... :1

Yes, a good thing you're not leaving. Totally fine that you don't like a debate!
Permalink
| October 22, 2013, 3:29 pm
Quoting Glorified Pessimist
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Christianity's only been around since Christ. Before that, it was Judaism. Besides, I wasn't talking about evolution, I was talking about religion.
True, however, the basis of the Bible was started well before the birth of Christ in the Torah and the Old Testament. Like several religions, Christianity was started up by one amazing person. Muhammad started Islam. Both religions have similar texts. However, this discussion is between creation and evolution, so I will put my two-cents in there.
That's right.
Quoting Glorified Pessimist
Granted, creation goes off of the word of a several thousand year old book that has never changed. However, science changes almost daily. It is a matter of trust and logic.

I trust the bible as a guidebook about God, but it is not a science book.
Permalink
| October 22, 2013, 8:44 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
I trust the bible as a guidebook about God, but it is not a science book.
It's God's Word, so you either believe what It says is true or you consider it just a story.

Permalink
| October 23, 2013, 6:20 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
I trust the bible as a guidebook about God, but it is not a science book.
It's God's Word, so you either believe what It says is true or you consider it just a story.
Alright then, I believe the Bible is true.

But looking for scientific facts in it is like trying to look for information about God in a science textbook. It just doesn't make sense, because the Bible isn't about science.

Permalink
| October 23, 2013, 11:42 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
That's much more clear.

Permalink
| October 24, 2013, 6:54 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
I trust the bible as a guidebook about God, but it is not a science book.
It's God's Word, so you either believe what It says is true or you consider it just a story.
Alright then, I believe the Bible is true.

But looking for scientific facts in it is like trying to look for information about God in a science textbook. It just doesn't make sense, because the Bible isn't about science.

True, the bible is beyond science or else it would not be special. Oh wait, creation vs. evolution, right. Up until the last several hundred years, all the world believed in one or more gods and their creation of the world. As we know more, we know less.
Permalink
| October 26, 2013, 6:34 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Alright then, I believe the Bible is true.

But looking for scientific facts in it is like trying to look for information about God in a science textbook. It just doesn't make sense, because the Bible isn't about science.

As do I. As a Christian it is my duty to discern the truth from the teachings. This said, I believe that the world was formed in the space of six days, and all very good.
Permalink
| October 26, 2013, 7:12 pm
Quoting Zach Lucia
As do I. As a Christian it is my duty to discern the truth from the teachings. This said, I believe that the world was formed in the space of six days, and all very good.

It's kinda interesting. I watched, "The Creation Adventure Team," when I was a kid and they had something very interesting to say about the six days: they said that the word in either Hebrew or Greek was, "yam," which meant one actual day. Not a day of thousands of years, but an actual, 24 hour time period. In that time, God broke physics.
Permalink
| October 27, 2013, 2:48 pm
As an agnostic, the argument has never really interested me - we're here, why the heck do we care why or how? It's what we do in the future that matters.

But I'm well aware as this is a debate club, that won't do justice. :P

Just a forenote - for this case, the Bible does not count as viable evidence. I could write a book now, surround it in mystery, bury it at a Mayan temple and then magically find it. Sure there would be sceptics, but there are sceptics of the Bible - ultimately, scientific or otherwise, the Bible does not provide proof, it provides a way to live your life.

So tackling first the side of the creation argument.
It may surprise some here that I don't think this argument is as outrageously impossible as it may first seem when compared with science. We weren't there when the world was created, so how can we disprove it? It does however have various flaws to it - just as the scientific argument does too, mind. Firstly, a prerequisite of this is that God exists, and bringing that into play makes us question - who created God? Without any viable proof, the argument of "He was always there" doesn't really work. Secondly, going on the basis of the Adam/Eve version of events, why was there evil in the garden in the first place (the serpent)? Why would God, a being who wants us to be good, create evil?

Next, the scientific viewpoint - evolution. Evolution is a concrete theory - say what you might, it is hard to disprove it. Some may point out that there are missing links - this is true, but "missing" does not mean "non-existent". Just because we cannot find them doesn't mean they aren't there. I can't find my socks in the mornings, and then I check under the bed in the evening, and there they are. Stretch that timescale out to several thousand, even million years, and replace socks with fossils, and you get the idea. I do agree though - it does place doubt on the situation. Unfortunately the argument that you cannot observe evolution no longer holds true. Pokemon aside (:P), we can make bacteria evolve in Petri dishes by changing their conditions - that's observable. If it can happen with bacteria, then chances are it's happening with us.
The Big Bang theory doesn't come into things in my mind - there is no reason why the Big Bang could have occurred and then God populated the Earth.

In conclusion of my case, I would like to bring to the fore a series of books by David Brin - the two Uplift trilogies. These put forward the idea that all sentient races in the universe were "uplifted" by another, patron race. We Earthlings are far behind on technology, but are catching up - and we seemingly have no patron race; that or they abandoned us. The fact that none of the other alien races, patron or otherwise, have had any contact or are rarely engaged in any religion places doubt on our religious ideas.

The scary thing is, that idea is just as plausible at the moment as any other argument we can put forward - religious, scientific or otherwise.
Permalink
| October 27, 2013, 4:39 pm
Quoting Jak TheMad
As an agnostic, the argument has never really interested me - we're here, why the heck do we care why or how? It's what we do in the future that matters.

Excuse me, but if the future is all that matters, then it will become the past, and once it is the past, it becomes meaningless.
Quoting Jak TheMad
But I'm well aware as this is a debate club, that won't do justice. :P

Can't argue with that. :D
Quoting Jak TheMad
Just a forenote - for this case, the Bible does not count as viable evidence. I could write a book now, surround it in mystery, bury it at a Mayan temple and then magically find it. Sure there would be sceptics, but there are sceptics of the Bible - ultimately, scientific or otherwise, the Bible does not provide proof, it provides a way to live your life.

Ha! I was kinda hoping something like this question would come up. Let me ask you, have you ever seen evolution happen? Do you have any proof that anything like this could happen?
Quoting Jak TheMad
So tackling first the side of the creation argument.
It may surprise some here that I don't think this argument is as outrageously impossible as it may first seem when compared with science. We weren't there when the world was created, so how can we disprove it? It does however have various flaws to it - just as the scientific argument does too, mind. Firstly, a prerequisite of this is that God exists, and bringing that into play makes us question - who created God? Without any viable proof, the argument of "He was always there" doesn't really work. Secondly, going on the basis of the Adam/Eve version of events, why was there evil in the garden in the first place (the serpent)? Why would God, a being who wants us to be good, create evil?
Who created the big bang? Ever heard of free will? It is the idea that God allows us to do whatever we want, whether we have the right to do it or not.
Quoting Jak TheMad
Next, the scientific viewpoint - evolution. Evolution is a concrete theory - say what you might, it is hard to disprove it. Some may point out that there are missing links - this is true, but "missing" does not mean "non-existent". Just because we cannot find them doesn't mean they aren't there. I can't find my socks in the mornings, and then I check under the bed in the evening, and there they are. Stretch that timescale out to several thousand, even million years, and replace socks with fossils, and you get the idea. I do agree though - it does place doubt on the situation. Unfortunately the argument that you cannot observe evolution no longer holds true. Pokemon aside (:P), we can make bacteria evolve in Petri dishes by changing their conditions - that's observable. If it can happen with bacteria, then chances are it's happening with us.
The Big Bang theory doesn't come into things in my mind - there is no reason why the Big Bang could have occurred and then God populated the Earth.

So, lets see. How many error's in your statement can I find? 1, 2, 3, ah never mind. Lessee. The first one is this, WE CHANGE THE CONDITIONS! It need's an outside force to change. God. HA! Second. It doesn't make sense, but if you need an outside force, then, the big bang CANNOT be true!
Quoting Jak TheMad
In conclusion of my case, I would like to bring to the fore a series of books by David Brin - the two Uplift trilogies. These put forward the idea that all sentient races in the universe were "uplifted" by another, patron race. We Earthlings are far behind on technology, but are catching up - and we seemingly have no patron race; that or they abandoned us. The fact that none of the other alien races, patron or otherwise, have had any contact or are rarely engaged in any religion places doubt on our religious ideas.

So were did they come from? This said, you then believe in an infinite series of finite events.
Quoting Jak TheMad
The scary thing is, that idea is just as plausible at the moment as any other argument we can put forward - religious, scientific or otherwise.

Religion plausible. HA!
Permalink
| October 27, 2013, 8:37 pm
Quoting Glorified Pessimist
...In that time, God broke physics.

Quoting Glorified Pessimist
...God broke physics.

Quoting Glorified Pessimist
...God...

Quoting Glorified Pessimist
...broke physics.

Some things are implied by definition.
Permalink
| October 27, 2013, 11:04 pm
Quoting Zach Lucia
Ha! I was kinda hoping something like this question would come up. Let me ask you, have you ever seen evolution happen? Do you have any proof that anything like this could happen?

Have I personally ever seen evolution? No. Have scientists with bacteria? Yes, as I will now clarify...

Quoting Zach Lucia
So, lets see. How many error's in your statement can I find? 1, 2, 3, ah never mind. Lessee. The first one is this, WE CHANGE THE CONDITIONS! It need's an outside force to change. God. HA! Second. It doesn't make sense, but if you need an outside force, then, the big bang CANNOT be true!

Allow me to clarify when I say we can change the conditions - that is replicating the way in which animals are affected by their surrounding habitat. You want an example? The ice age. Once the world started to warm, many animals lost their thick fur, and developed to cope with this new terrain - same goes for plants. That is in essence the same as what we can do to bacteria in a Petri dish - the ice age was not caused by any "higher being", it is merely the way our Earth fluxes - as you may have read in the Global Warming thread, we are in fact in a mini ice age now. There is no difference between an animal moving habitat and evolving and us changing the conditions around bacteria and it evolving - it is essentially the same thing.

Also, your second statement makes absolutely no sense - as I already clarified just above, evolution doesn't require an outside force. Therefore the Big Bang is perfectly possible.
Quoting Zach Lucia
Religion plausible. HA!

...so are you saying it is or it isn't?

Just pointing out, I couldn't help feeling you were sneering at me during the whole of your reply. Punctuating things with "HA!"s of derision doesn't make your points more valid, it just makes you look like a bit of an ass. :/

No hard feelings though - we're here to debate and have fun, not get at each other's throats. ;)
Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 6:18 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Glorified Pessimist In that time, God broke physics.
How so?

Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 6:30 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Jak TheMad
It does however have various flaws to it - just as the scientific argument does too, mind. Firstly, a prerequisite of this is that God exists, and bringing that into play makes us question - who created God? Without any viable proof, the argument of "He was always there" doesn't really work.

Of course He was always there, that is a requirement of being God. A claim that this argument doesn’t work is a claim that God doesn’t work. Let’s get that straight. At some point you must have something that had no beginning and that from which everything was created. For most people the choice is between God and the big bang. If you choose the big bang then you have to explain what made it start expanding in the first place.

Quoting Jak TheMad
Secondly, going on the basis of the Adam/Eve version of events, why was there evil in the garden in the first place (the serpent)? Why would God, a being who wants us to be good, create evil?
God didn’t create evil, He created beings with a free will. Satan was created good, but rebelled against God just as so many humans do.
Why did God give us a free will, that’s simple. Love is a conscience choice to put someone else above yourself, so without the ability to choose between right and wrong love cannot exist. God created us to love Him and to be loved by Him, and a free will is a required part of making that happen. To accomplish this, God told humanity not to eat of one tree in the garden. One tree on the entire planet. He couldn’t have made it any safer! However Adam and Eve did that one single thing that they were told not to.

Quoting Jak TheMad
Next, the scientific viewpoint - evolution. Evolution is a concrete theory - say what you might, it is hard to disprove it.
It could hardly be easier actually, so much claim by evolution goes against logic and science itself. It’s not a concrete theory, it’s a jelly theory.

Quoting Jak TheMad
Some may point out that there are missing links - this is true, but "missing" does not mean "non-existent". Just because we cannot find them doesn't mean they aren't there. I can't find my socks in the mornings, and then I check under the bed in the evening, and there they are. Stretch that timescale out to several thousand, even million years, and replace socks with fossils, and you get the idea. I do agree though - it does place doubt on the situation.
It’s not a missing link, it is a billion missing creatures. Even if only the tiniest percentage of the bones of these creatures were fossilized, there should be tons of transitional fossils. We talking about millions and millions of years. We find plenty of dinosaur fossils and tons of fossils from present day animals, so why don’t we find anything supposedly in between.

Quoting Jak TheMad
Unfortunately the argument that you cannot observe evolution no longer holds true. Pokemon aside (:P), we can make bacteria evolve in Petri dishes by changing their conditions - that's observable. If it can happen with bacteria, then chances are it's happening with us.
And what does that bacteria become? Mutant bacteria. Nothing new was created because nothing new can be created, and here’s why.
New information, DNA, cannot form on its own, it has to come the creature’s parents. New DNA is never created. When creatures adapt to their surroundings, they take the information they need and lose some of the old information. All this means that an organism could never, not in a billion years, evolve into a new species, it doesn’t have that DNA.

Quoting Jak TheMad
The scary thing is, that idea is just as plausible at the moment as any other argument we can put forward - religious, scientific or otherwise.
Except for creation, which happen to make sense. The fossil record, DNA, science, stars, and much more, agrees with creation, so why don’t you?

Here are some links to some of my other posts if you would like more specific information.
1-http://www.mocpages.com/group_conversation.php?id=22580&topicid=92128#comment-1254244
2-http://www.mocpages.com/group_conversation.php?id=22580&topicid=92128#comment-1254351

Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 7:32 am
I lack the scientific know-how to argue against some of your counter arguments (I'll leave that to BobaFett2 :P), but there is just one thing I can comment on.

Quoting The Object of Legend
And what does that bacteria become? Mutant bacteria. Nothing new was created because nothing new can be created, and here’s why.
New information, DNA, cannot form on its own, it has to come the creature’s parents. New DNA is never created. When creatures adapt to their surroundings, they take the information they need and lose some of the old information. All this means that an organism could never, not in a billion years, evolve into a new species, it doesn’t have that DNA.


When a species evolves, we are not saying something new is created. A creature may go through hundreds of transitional evolutionary steps, adding something, losing something, to become ideal for the situation. It may end up looking like a completely different species, but it is still technically the *same* species - there are probably lots of sciencey reasons why we class this final product as a new species, but for the most part, it seems more to make our lives easier than anything else.

Also, I'm curious - you said that science proves the creation argument (I assume you mean the religious side) - how so?

Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 7:43 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Glorified Pessimist In that time, God broke physics.
How so?

The Law of the Conservation of Mass states that mass and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Though technically at that time, physics had not been created or written by us. Physics are what God decrees is best.
Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 4:26 pm
Quoting Glorified Pessimist
It's kinda interesting. I watched, "The Creation Adventure Team," when I was a kid and they had something very interesting to say about the six days: they said that the word in either Hebrew or Greek was, "yam," which meant one actual day. Not a day of thousands of years, but an actual, 24 hour time period. In that time, God broke physics.

Physics weren't physics back then. God could do things, and whatever he pleased, he'd do. He was the founder of physics.
Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 4:27 pm
Quoting Glorified Pessimist
The Law of the Conservation of Mass states that mass and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Though technically at that time, physics had not been created or written by us. Physics are what God decrees is best.

I guess that kind of proves the point of God. He doesn't conform to our silly laws. He'll do whatever he wants; he's God, so He can. But he has extreme love and everything He does is out of supreme wisdom an love.
Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 4:29 pm
Quoting Alex Rode
I guess that kind of proves the point of God. He doesn't conform to our silly laws. He'll do whatever he wants; he's God, so He can. But he has extreme love and everything He does is out of supreme wisdom an love.

Hello, Alex!
Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 4:30 pm
Quoting The evil Jack-o-lantern
Hello, Alex!

Hey there! I've been doing a ton of debating here and the first one for Creation vs Evolution. Also, I did a ton in the Religion topic. Great to have you here!
Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 4:36 pm
Quoting The evil Jack-o-lantern
Hello, Alex!


This isn't a general convo thread.
Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 4:37 pm
Quoting Thomas of Tortuga

This isn't a general convo thread.

A simple greeting, I would say, is fine.
Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 4:38 pm
Quoting Alex Rode
Hey there! I've been doing a ton of debating here and the first one for Creation vs Evolution. Also, I did a ton in the Religion topic. Great to have you here!

I have been here for quite a long time, I just never did any debating.
Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 4:38 pm
Quoting Thomas of Tortuga

This isn't a general convo thread. (and please don't reply "Sorry!" to this :P)

I was just saying hi to let him know I am here....Is that against the rules?!
Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 4:39 pm
Quoting Alex Rode

If God designed the laws of physics, it would be foolish to think He was constrained by them.
Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 4:40 pm
Quoting Thomas of Tortuga
Quoting Alex Rode

If God designed the laws of physics, it would be foolish to think he was constrained by them.

He didn't design them . . . He created the world an its functions. The world of physics was installed by Him to be discovered by us. It is us who are constrained by them, being humans with finite minds. But seriously, God created the universe. The whole universe. Constrained? I think not.
Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 4:42 pm
Quoting Thomas of Tortuga
Quoting Alex Rode

If God designed the laws of physics, it would be foolish to think he was constrained by them.

True, that's why miracles are named thus.
Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 4:43 pm
Quoting Jak TheMad
Quoted text

Generally it has to do with not being able to reproduce with the original species. That said, there's a whole lot more to it.

To others:
New DNA is 'created' all the time. Polymerases sometimes drop letters or switch them with others, resulting in changes. This happens both in gametes and other cells. If it happens in gametes, and the gametes end up forming another being, you have a mutation which was passed on to the next generation.

There mutations are relatively rare, but with the amount of cell division and replication and other stuff that happens, they're not uncommon at all.

DNA is basically a programming language. Think of it as binary. Different strings of text create different things. If you mess around with stuff, things happen.


Why does creation make sense? Let me put it another way:
"Magical sky wizard comes into being. Magical sky wizard is all powerful and can do whatever he wants. Magical sky wizard decides to create a universe and make stuff. Magical sky wizard then makes animals and other stuff. Then people, who are somehow part of a perfect plan that involves having them kill each other because someone who knows and loves everyone and knows everything decides to 'test' people can't just make everything perfect and make people happy."
Yeah, it's not really sensible.

Also, quantum theory is strange as can be, but it definitely works. The idea that the universe came from a point isn't that weird.
Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 4:44 pm
Quoting The evil Jack-o-lantern
I was just saying hi to let him know I am here....Is that against the rules?!

Mea culpa.
Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 4:44 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
Generally it has to do with not being able to reproduce with the original species. That said, there's a whole lot more to it.

To others:
New DNA is 'created' all the time. Polymerases sometimes drop letters or switch them with others, resulting in changes. This happens both in gametes and other cells. If it happens in gametes, and the gametes end up forming another being, you have a mutation which was passed on to the next generation.

There mutations are relatively rare, but with the amount of cell division and replication and other stuff that happens, they're not uncommon at all.

DNA is basically a programming language. Think of it as binary. Different strings of text create different things. If you mess around with stuff, things happen.


Scientifically true, all of it. However, the fact that DNA changes slightly over time to form new species in no way eliminates the possibility that God directs the genetic variations.
Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 4:48 pm
Hmm ok bye...
Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 4:49 pm
Quoting Thomas of Tortuga

Scientifically true, all of it. However, the fact that DNA changes slightly over time to form new species in no way eliminates the possibility that God directs the genetic variations.

Which god? I prefer Ra, personally. I find the stuff about being rolled across the sky by a dung beetle and dying at night being pretty interesting.

Not that I believe in any.
Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 4:49 pm
Also, claims against evolution are almost always made by people who don't actually know anything about the science (or care to know only what is convenient) and have little training in that area. If it is your life's work to study something and you're building on the body of work of countless (tens of thousands, probably) of people before you who have been constantly refining and retesting the theories...

...your discoveries have a lot more validity than those of people who know nothing about the subject.


Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 4:51 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
Which god? I prefer Ra, personally.

Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 4:51 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
Also, claims against evolution are almost always made by people who don't actually know anything about the science (or care to know only what is convenient) and have little training in that area. If it is your life's work to study something and you're building on the body of work of countless (tens of thousands, probably) of people before you who have been constantly refining and retesting the theories...

...your discoveries have a lot more validity than those of people who know nothing about the subject.


You are very right. I have minor knowledge of evolution, but in my studies so far (Heh, I'm 14) I have learned some important facts. I've also learned that in order to disprove something, you have know the ins and outs of it.
Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 4:53 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
Which god? I prefer Ra, personally.

Ra? I thought you were an atheist.
Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 4:54 pm
Quoting The evil Jack-o-lantern
Ra? I thought you were an atheist.

It was a joke.
Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 4:54 pm
Quoting Alex Rode
Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

Amen!
Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 4:55 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
It was a joke.

Oh.
Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 4:55 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Jak TheMad
When a species evolves, we are not saying something new is created. A creature may go through hundreds of transitional evolutionary steps, adding something, losing something, to become ideal for the situation. It may end up looking like a completely different species, but it is still technically the *same* species - there are probably lots of sciencey reasons why we class this final product as a new species, but for the most part, it seems more to make our lives easier than anything else.
You fail to see the problem, nothing new can be added. That would require new DNA and new DNA never is never created. evolutionists claim all life originated for a one celled organism, but for this to work, that cell would have to contain all the DNA for every present day organism, extinct creature, and the hundreds of millions of transitional species. This is impossible.
Even if the cell could hold all that information, it would have no use of that information and would lose it. But here's the most interesting point of all, where would the first cell get DNA from?

Quoting Jak TheMad
Also, I'm curious - you said that science proves the creation argument (I assume you mean the religious side) - how so?
I said science agrees with creation, meaning they do not oppose each other as evolution and science do. This thread is for science vs science, so I meant the scientific side of creation. If you would like to discuss religion there is another topic for that. Creation agreeing with science means that science does not disprove it, nor any of the other things I mentioned.
Permalink
| October 29, 2013, 6:44 am
 Group admin 
Quoting BobaFett 2
New DNA is 'created' all the time. Polymerases sometimes drop letters or switch them with others, resulting in changes. This happens both in gametes and other cells. If it happens in gametes, and the gametes end up forming another being, you have a mutation which was passed on to the next generation.
Look at what you just said, 'Polymerases sometimes drop letters or switch them with others'. Nothing new was created, DNA was lost! The polymerase will never be able to get that information back. This means the organism can only become less complex, the opposite of evolution.

Quoting BobaFett 2
DNA is basically a programming language. Think of it as binary. Different strings of text create different things. If you mess around with stuff, things happen.
Things get broken. That's what happens if you mess with a computer's binary code and that is what has happen in all recorded mutations.

Quoting BobaFett 2
Also, quantum theory is strange as can be, but it definitely works. The idea that the universe came from a point isn't that weird.
I didn't say it was, I just said that the point from which the universe came would have to be God.

Quoting BobaFett 2
Why does creation make sense? Let me put it another way:
"Magical sky wizard comes into being. Magical sky wizard is all powerful and can do whatever he wants. Magical sky wizard decides to create a universe and make stuff. Magical sky wizard then makes animals and other stuff. Then people, who are somehow part of a perfect plan that involves having them kill each other because someone who knows and loves everyone and knows everything decides to 'test' people can't just make everything perfect and make people happy."
You talking about one religion not creation. You have targeted Christianity rather than intelligent design.
Though we're off topic here, I'll clear things up for you.
God never came into being, if He had, He wouldn't be God. That is part of the definition of God. As I explained to Jak TheMad, 'At some point you must have something that had no beginning and that from which everything was created. For most people the choice is between God and the big bang.' God created a perfect world for us, too bad we ruined it, and created us to love Him and to be loved by Him. A free will is a required part of making that happen, because love is the conscious choose to put someone else above oneself. People rebelled against God and have done all sorts of things in opposition to His will. He did make everything perfect, and then we messed it up. If He forced everything to be perfect again, He would be robbing us of our free will and that would be wrong. A holy God cannot do wrong.
The wages of our sin is death, however God has made a way for our wrongs to be wiped away. He took on flesh and lived a sinless life then died to pay the price of our sin and rose from the dead. Your sins have been paid, you just have to claim that gift by trusting in Jesus as your Savior.
If you would like to discuss this further, please do so in the 'Religion' thread.
Permalink
| October 29, 2013, 7:44 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting BobaFett 2
Quoted text



Polymerase response response:
...really? Sometimes letters are added. If, in binary, if I move around a 1 or 0, the program changes - it may work, or it might do something a little different. If I drop or add a number, the changes could be drastic.

Second part response:
...not all changes to DNA work. Many don't...but there are some that do, or some that do nothing.

Third part response:
The creation here is a Judeo-Christian tale, argued from a Christian perspective, so yes, that one religion is the relevant one in this thread. We're not arguing science vs. Hindu belief, we're arguing science vs. Judeo-Christian belief.

Also, your evidence for it is next to none - just a book.

Other stuff:
The one organism thing is oversimplification. It's not that simple.

Science does NOT, in fact, agree with creation, unless you want to take a very loose view of things and claim that everything in the bible is just an interpretation or something like that. There is nothing in physics about the existence of a deity. Physicists are actually one of the least religious groups of scientists (who as a whole are a lot less religious than the American public). Like with global warming, any claims of science on the opposition side are made by fringe 'scientists' whose work is not particularly well respected by the scientific community and people who don't actually understand and/or have no formal training in the field.

The most religious group of scientists (out of geologists, biologist, physicists, and chemists) is chemists...and they're still a lot less religious than the general populace. The other three fields, whose studies are blatantly disprove assertions made by religious officials and the bible, are a lot less religious because it's harder to believe that the Earth is 6000 years old when you see evidence every day that it's much older than that.
Permalink
| October 29, 2013, 9:27 am
 Group admin 
Quoting BobaFett 2 Sometimes letters are added. If, in binary, if I move around a 1 or 0, the program changes - it may work, or it might do something a little different. If I drop or add a number, the changes could be drastic.
No, DNA is never added, it's impossible. Yes, changes can occur, that's why animals can adapt to new environments, I never said they couldn't. However, when it comes to mutations (and even smaller adaptations over a long period of time) things tend to break down. That's a fact, and records prove it.

Quoting BobaFett 2 not all changes to DNA work. Many don't...but there are some that do, or some that do nothing.
Agreed. These are slight changes that come about as a creature selects and loses DNA.

Quoting BobaFett 2
The creation here is a Judeo-Christian tale, argued from a Christian perspective, so yes, that one religion is the relevant one in this thread. We're not arguing science vs. Hindu belief, we're arguing science vs. Judeo-Christian belief.
You have this all wrong. This topic is for science vs science alone. This comes in the form of theism vs atheism and intelligent design vs evolution.

Quoting BobaFett 2
Also, your evidence for it is next to none - just a book.
Evidence for what? Christianity or creation?

Quoting BobaFett 2
The one organism thing is oversimplification. It's not that simple.
Do tell, if you actually have anything that is.

Quoting BobaFett 2 Science does NOT, in fact, agree with creation, unless you want to take a very loose view of things and claim that everything in the bible is just an interpretation or something like that. There is nothing in physics about the existence of a deity.
Show me one area in which they disagree? When two thing agree it means they don't disprove each other, that is all. I thought I made that quite clear, my apologizes if I didn't.

Quoting BobaFett 2
any claims of science on the opposition side are made by fringe 'scientists' whose work is not particularly well respected by the scientific community and people who don't actually understand and/or have no formal training in the field.
How do you know that's true? This is a completely random assertion. Believe it or not there's long list of top notch creationists scientists. You keep talking about which scientist are religious and which aren't, but why does that matter and what do you mean by religious?

Quoting BobaFett 2
because it's harder to believe that the Earth is 6000 years old when you see evidence every day that it's much older than that.
Really? What evidence? I gave you a list of evidence why it can't be that old here- http://www.mocpages.com/group_conversation.php?id=22580&topicid=92128#comment-1254244 Do you need more?
Permalink
| October 29, 2013, 5:46 pm
Quoting Jak TheMad
...so are you saying it is or it isn't?

Just pointing out, I couldn't help feeling you were sneering at me during the whole of your reply. Punctuating things with "HA!"s of derision doesn't make your points more valid, it just makes you look like a bit of an ass. :/

No hard feelings though - we're here to debate and have fun, not get at each other's throats. ;)

Sorry bout that. :D It's cool. But how do you know the scientist's haven't been lying?
Permalink
| October 29, 2013, 6:11 pm
Quoting Zach Lucia
Sorry bout that. :D It's cool. But how do you know the scientist's haven't been lying?

That's not a valid argument. A politician or news network could lie, sure. But science isn't a cult - it's not some closed doors thing. It's literally a bunch of people testing stuff. I'm simplifying a bit, but there's no massive scientific conspiracy.
Permalink
| October 29, 2013, 6:34 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
That's not a valid argument. A politician or news network could lie, sure. But science isn't a cult - it's not some closed doors thing. It's literally a bunch of people testing stuff. I'm simplifying a bit, but there's no massive scientific conspiracy.

So science isn't a religion?
Permalink
| October 29, 2013, 6:36 pm
Quoting Zach Lucia
So science isn't a religion?

Not in the least bit.
Permalink
| October 29, 2013, 6:37 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
Not in the least bit.

The definetion of religion.
A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.
Permalink
| October 29, 2013, 6:39 pm
Quoting Zach Lucia
The definetion of religion.
A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=ww&ei=mzlwUozEPILkyQHqv4DoBg&ved=0CBoQ1S4#hl=en&q=definition+religion
Nope.

Science does not involve worship.
Science does not involve belief in a higher power.
Science is in no way a unified system, except that it focuses on empirical evidence.
Permalink
| October 29, 2013, 6:41 pm
BobaFett 2 Reply

Quoting Zach Lucia
The definetion of religion.
A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=ww&ei=mzlwUozEPILkyQHqv4DoBg&ved=0CBoQ1S4#hl=en&q=definition+religion
Nope.

Science does not involve worship.
Science does not involve belief in a higher power.
Science is in no way a unified system, except that it focuses on empirical evidence.

The thing isn't working, now to the point.


Scientist devote there entire life to science. And how is that different than worship?

Actually it does. Many say that there were aliens that planted us humans here. A HIGHER POWER!

There are many different denominitaions in the church, like there are many different labratories.
Permalink
| October 29, 2013, 6:49 pm
Quoting Zach Lucia
Quote

Wait, what? There's a drastic difference. Science has no 'dogma' and such. ANYTHING can be overturned and modified. Granted, the laws of thermodynamics are probably set in stone up until the planck energy, at the very least, and the theory of evolution is so well established and supported by evidence and observation that it's unlikely to ever be overturned or modified significant, but there is no central theme to 'science'. Science is the study of the world around us. If you consider that to be religion, then economics is a religion. Medicine becomes religion, which doesn't make sense (not anymore, at least).

Many? Who are these many? Scientologists, right? Scientology isn't actually science.

But each demonination is basically it's own religion.
Permalink
| October 29, 2013, 7:00 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
Super long argument

I'm going to have some Wikipedia links, because Wikipedia backs things up with sources and provides a fairly good summary of topics.

Genes/DNA added: http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution9.htm
That's not a fact, and records don't prove it. I'm not sure where you're getting it from, but it's blatantly false.

Abiogenesis, a bunch of stuff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Agree/disagree:
The big bang theory does not indicate in any
way that there is a deity or require one
No valid scientific study has been done that indicates that the Earth is 6000 (or 10,000) years old, nor is there any that indicates
Evolution is goes against the belief that a deity created the world and the creatures as they are today

Creation "science" didn't even exist until the 1960s so that religious people down south could put it into school textbooks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science

Fossil:
http://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html
2 isn't even an argument. The trees and stuff has nothing to do with "evolutionists", that's geology, an entirely separate field.
3 is geology, again. A basic background in Earth Science (literally a high school level education in it) shows that this is false - the ground is constantly (albeit at a slow pace) shifting and things are moving around. There's a whole list of processes that occur.
4. Those were shone to be either mistakenly interpreted or hoaxes, I forget which.
5. Where did you hear that? Carbon dating can be pretty accurately used for more than 10,000 years, which is a LOT more than 6,000. Records from ancient civilizations go back pretty far, and there are ruins that quite old.

Creation scientists are not considered credible in the scientific community.
Permalink
| October 29, 2013, 7:09 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
Wait, what? There's a drastic difference. Science has no 'dogma' and such. ANYTHING can be overturned and modified. Granted, the laws of thermodynamics are probably set in stone up until the planck energy, at the very least, and the theory of evolution is so well established and supported by evidence and observation that it's unlikely to ever be overturned or modified significant, but there is no central theme to 'science'. Science is the study of the world around us. If you consider that to be religion, then economics is a religion. Medicine becomes religion, which doesn't make sense (not anymore, at least).

Sorry I didn't get back to you, I accidently exited the page. Now where we? Ah yes.
"Not anymore." That intrigues me, please explain. Now to medicine being a religion. It doesn't fit into the guidlines we "agreed" on. It doesn't have a higher power. It isn't trying to figure out how the world was made. It is a unified system though. Same with economics.
Quoting BobaFett 2
Many? Who are these many? Scientologists, right? Scientology isn't actually science.

What the heck is scientology? I was taking this from Jak the Mad's arguement.
Quoting BobaFett 2
But each demonination is basically it's own religion.

Not nessacarily. I agree that Mormans aren't Christians, even though they claim to be. Same with Jehovah'a witness. What defines a Christian (or any other religion for that matter) is it's creed. As long as a Christian demonination follows the Apostles Creed, then we consider them Christians.
Permalink
| October 29, 2013, 7:23 pm
Quoting Zach Lucia
Text

There's no scientific evidence that aliens brought us here. If you want to believe that, fine. But don't claim that it's science.

A unified system is not a religion. A unified system is just organized.

Scientology is a religion/cult created by L. Ron Hubbard, a science fiction writer. They're actually pretty creepy. A few high-profile celebrities, like Tom Cruise are members of the cult.

The last bit didn't argue against my point. I was saying that it's still a religion in itself - Catholicism is part of Christianity, but it can also be seen as a stand-alone religion. Mormonism both is and isn't Christianity, depending on who you ask, but it's still a religion.
Permalink
| October 29, 2013, 7:27 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
There's no scientific evidence that aliens brought us here. If you want to believe that, fine. But don't claim that it's science.

Exactly why I don't understand why people believe that.
Quoting BobaFett 2
A unified system is not a religion. A unified system is just organized.

Agreed. The senate is not a religion. However, as science fits under the two other guidlines, I consider it (when mixed with Atheism) a religion.
Quoting BobaFett 2
Scientology is a religion/cult created by L. Ron Hubbard, a science fiction writer. They're actually pretty creepy. A few high-profile celebrities, like Tom Cruise are members of the cult.

That is pretty creepy.
Quoting BobaFett 2
The last bit didn't argue against my point. I was saying that it's still a religion in itself - Catholicism is part of Christianity, but it can also be seen as a stand-alone religion. Mormonism both is and isn't Christianity, depending on who you ask, but it's still a religion.

I was just clarifying. If Mormans believe they are Christians, they are entitled to there own opionion's.
Permalink
| October 29, 2013, 7:34 pm
Quoting Zach Lucia
Agreed. The senate is not a religion. However, as science fits under the two other guidlines, I consider it (when mixed with Atheism) a religion.

I'll list those definitions:
* the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
* a particular system of faith and worship.
* a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

Neither science nor atheism fall under the first two categories - there is no worship in atheism, and there is no faith. Science is not a system of faith - in fact, it's a lack of faith - science works when people get stuff wrong or get it right enough times that we can accept it as true under those conditions - and are reproducible (and a lot of trials are required). No faith is involved in that. Atheism doesn't have any beliefs ascribed to it, but Atheists generally accept that science works, but again, there's no belief there.

The last is too vague and alone could describe almost anything - Egyptology is not a religion, but there are almost certainly people out there who dedicate their lives to it over all else. Mathematics? Definitely not a religion, but people dedicate their lives to it.
Permalink
| October 29, 2013, 7:40 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting BobaFett 2 Genes/DNA added:
This isn't adding new DNA it is modifying pre existing DNA, as we have discussed before.
"...modify a base pair in the DNA strand to create a mutation..."
You get something different from what you had, but you don't get more information. Dogs get dog DNA from dogs, they can never become anything other than a dog.
"People have not seen any increase in dog's DNA, but have simply selected different genes from the existing dog gene pool to create the different breeds."
And so the problem remains.
1- If creatures cannot gain more DNA and continues to lose DNA as they adapt, then how can it improve itself? And if this has been going on for the hundreds of millions of years as evolutionists propose, then all DNA should have been lost a million years ago!
2- If mutations almost always cause organisms to stop working in some way, then how can the billions of mutations required for evolution all work out perfectly to create the complex animals we have today?

Quoting BobaFett 2 Abiogenesis, a bunch of stuff
But does any of it mean anything?

Quoting BobaFett 2 The big bang theory does not indicate in any
way that there is a deity or require one… Evolution is goes against the belief that a deity created the world and the creatures as they are today
Of course, that's why they invented evolution and the big bang. If you believe in the big bang, you still need something to get the matter to start expanding in the first place. Why are you telling me this?

Quoting BobaFett 2 No valid scientific study has been done that indicates that the Earth is 6000 (or 10,000) years old, nor is there any that indicates
How do you know that's true? Who defines what is valid? Ideas must be validated or invalidated by facts, evidence, and reason, not the opinion a person or group. Anyone can say something isn’t valid, but where’s your proof?

Quoting BobaFett 2
Creation "science" didn't even exist until the 1960s so that religious people down south could put it into school textbooks.
This is completely false. Creation science was the only science until then, so it only had to be establish as a separate thing at that point. Before that time in history almost everyone was a theist.

Quoting BobaFett 2 Fossil:
Cool. So? It looks like a dinosaur.

Quoting BobaFett 2 2 isn't even an argument. The trees and stuff has nothing to do with "evolutionists", that's geology, an entirely separate field.

As you should know, evolutionists believe it took millions of years to lay down those layer of rock. Those trees and fossils prove them wrong.

Quoting BobaFett 2 4. Those were shone to be either mistakenly interpreted or hoaxes, I forget which.
How do you know that’s true? Anyone could say that about any of your fossils. This one has been around for a long time and evolutionists have no hard evidence against it. All they have is their word, and that is worthless in matters of science.

Quoting BobaFett 2
5. Where did you hear that? Carbon dating can be pretty accurately used for more than 10,000 years, which is a LOT more than 6,000. Records from ancient civilizations go back pretty far, and there are ruins that quite old.
Not older than 6,000 years. Notice how they say it's 'accurately used for more than 10,000 years'. How can they prove that? They can't, but it gives them the fake timeframe they want so they stick to it.
I see you ignored my list of reasons why the world can’t be as old evolution demands.

Quoting BobaFett 2 Creation scientists are not considered credible in the scientific community.
Among evolutionary scientists, and evolutionary scientists are not considered credible in the scientific community among creationists scientists. This is to be expected, they oppose each other.

Permalink
| October 30, 2013, 8:07 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoted text

I've told you this already, they can both gain and lose DNA. We see this happening in real life. It's a proven mechanism of adaptation.

Dog DNA is no different from human DNA - it's the same ACTG code, just in a different order. It didn't work out perfectly - every creature has various things about it which don't work as well as they could.

Also, it's called natural selection - mutations which result in the creature having a significant disadvantage in an environment have a tendency to kill the creature, whereas mutations that benefit the creature in said environment, no matter how rare, do not.

Yes, it means something. That's why I linked to it.

"Of course, that's why they invented evolution and the big bang. If you believe in the big bang, you still need something to get the matter to start expanding in the first place. Why are you telling me this?"
Uhm, no. Evolution was found by a freaking monk. The big bang theory was proposed by Georges Lemaître, a Roman Catholic. They weren't created to destroy religion. The big bang theory has a lot of evidence going for it, such as cosmic background radiation. Just because it "needs" to be started by something does not mean that you should insert some religion's deity in it. Scientists will eventually find out for sure what started it, given time, the same way that they found out the age of the Earth and so on.

Oh, and for the age of the universe - light travels at a set speed. We can use the speed of light to fairly accurately get the distance of far away objects...and from how far back that light was coming to us. We can see things that are WAY older than 6000 years old in the sky.

Who defines what is valid? Scientists who have been trained in the empirical method of study. Academies. Research institutions. Even the government of the US agrees with scientists, and the government is made up mostly of Christians. If the "science" behind it were valid, it wouldn't be contrary to just about everything else that's been found.

That's totally wrong. There have been many atheists throughout history, but genuine science started at various points in various fields.

Intelligent design and "creation science" were movements of the 1960s to put religious dogma into science textbooks in schools. That is history. Many Christians have believed in what today would be called creationist ideology, but it wasn't an actual movement until then.

Therefore everything is wrong? The fossil record is, by nature, incomplete. Sure, there are a lot of fossils, but creatures only fossilize under very specific conditions. We have tons of transitional fossils, we just don't have every single one because that would cost a lot of money and take a lot of time to find.

There is no such thing as an "evolutionist". They're called biologists. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html
Then how do you know that the bible is true? Anyone could say that about your bible. See, that argument doesn't work.

If by prove you mean "see with your own eyes", then no...but by your "logic", there is no way to prove that the bible is true, therefore there's no reason to believe in it. Nanotechnology is a thing, even though we can't see it with our own eyes. Diseases make us sick, but, by your logic, our microscopes might be lying to us and we can't prove that they aren't.

Uhm, no. Creationist "scientists" aren't considered credible in the scientific community at a whole. Geology, physics, and biology go directly against it. But nice try.
Permalink
| October 30, 2013, 9:05 am
 Group admin 
I don't know why you continue to say the more DNA can be created, it can't. It is altered, copied, transferred, and lost, but never gained. Your own sources confirm this.

Quoting BobaFett 2
The big bang theory has a lot of evidence going for it, such as cosmic background radiation. Just because it "needs" to be started by something does not mean that you should insert some religion's deity in it. Scientists will eventually find out for sure what started it, given time, the same way that they found out the age of the Earth and so on.
I'm not inserting 'some religion's deity', God didn't use the big bang.
Now you also have to believe in something to set off your big bang even though you claim everything came from the big bang! That's contradictory. The big band itself doesn't work, even if it could have started. How does expanding matter form anything? Stars, planet, etc. with entirely different compositions?

Quoting BobaFett 2
Oh, and for the age of the universe - light travels at a set speed. We can use the speed of light to fairly accurately get the distance of far away objects...and from how far back that light was coming to us. We can see things that are WAY older than 6000 years old in the sky.
God created a mature universe, that's common knowledge. Since you continue to ignore my points about this I will repost them here for your convenience.

1-All star clusters would have separated if the universe was as old as evolutionists believe.
2-The moon would have many times the meteor material it has.
3-There would be far more nickel present on earth.
4-Our atmosphere would have been overwhelmed by helium.
5-The moon would have spun off.
6-The earth's mantle would have separated from the core because of the higher rotational speed it would have had to have that many years ago.
7-All comets would have spun off or died.
8-The sun would would have torched the earth.
9-Life itself would be breaking down because of the lose of DNA.
…and on the list goes…


Quoting BobaFett 2 Scientists who have been trained in the empirical method of study. Academies. Research institutions.
Those things all have their own views and they twist truth in order to fit those views. The only way we can verified truth in with fact, evidence, and reason.

Quoting BobaFett 2 Even the government of the US agrees with scientists, and the government is made up mostly of Christians.
They call themselves Christians to get elected but only a handful actually are. Look at their policies!

Quoting BobaFett 2 There have been many atheists throughout history, but genuine science started at various points in various fields.
I said 'almost everyone'. Just look at the history of this nation, you can't deny that.

Quoting BobaFett 2
Intelligent design and "creation science" were movements of the 1960s to put religious dogma into science textbooks in schools.
Again that's not how it happened. Creation was being taught in schools and then evolution came along and there was a big controversy. In the end they started teaching evolution as well. Intelligent design started to keep creation in schools. That's how it happened.

Quoting BobaFett 2 The fossil record is, by nature, incomplete. Sure, there are a lot of fossils, but creatures only fossilize under very specific conditions. We have tons of transitional fossils, we just don't have every single one because that would cost a lot of money and take a lot of time to find.
Tons? How come the top evolutionary scientists and professors, like Richard Dawkins, don't point to those? Because 90% of them are found to be hoaxes, deformed animals, or reconstructions off of a single bone from a different animal!

Quoting BobaFett 2 There is no such thing as an "evolutionist". They're called biologists.
A biologist is scientist in the field of biology, they aren't all evolutionists.

Quoting BobaFett 2 Then how do you know that the bible is true? Anyone could say that about your bible.
Because archaeologists have found tons of places mentioned in the Bible, records of people talked about in the Bible, and proof of events like the Apostle Paul's shipwreck.
The Bible was written by about 40 different people who didn't even know of each other, over the course of many years, and yet they all speak of the same things without contradicting each other. This is impossible without the guidance of God. Every year, more Bibles are sold than any other written work in the world!

Quoting BobaFett 2 If by prove you mean "see with your own eyes"
That is not what I mean at all. It's not nice to twist peoples' words.

Quoting BobaFett 2 Uhm, no. Creationist "scientists" aren't considered credible in the scientific community at a whole. Geology, physics, and biology go directly against it.
That's not true. Where are you getting this false information? Creationist scientists do not consider evolutionist scientists credible, and evolutionist scientists do not consider creationist scientists credible. Many creationists have higher qualifications than the evolutionists, but there happens to be more evolutionists because they are indoctrinated through the public school system.
Permalink
| October 31, 2013, 8:45 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
I don't know why you continue to say the more DNA can be created, it can't. It is altered, copied, transferred, and lost, but never gained. Your own sources confirm this.
Copying and altering, when combined over long periods of time, leads to new information.
Quoting The Object of Legend
God created a mature universe, that's common knowledge.
I'm curious as to why the universe would not be mature if there were parts of it we couldn't see?
Quoting The Object of Legend
1-All star clusters would have separated if the universe was as old as evolutionists believe.
2-The moon would have many times the meteor material it has.
3-There would be far more nickel present on earth.
4-Our atmosphere would have been overwhelmed by helium.
5-The moon would have spun off.
6-The earth's mantle would have separated from the core because of the higher rotational speed it would have had to have that many years ago.
7-All comets would have spun off or died.
8-The sun would would have torched the earth.
9-Life itself would be breaking down because of the lose of DNA.
…and on the list goes…
I'd like to see the calculations behind most of those before I respond, could you provide links?


Quoting The Object of Legend Those things all have their own views and they twist truth in order to fit those views.
This sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.
Quoting The Object of Legend The only way we can verified truth in with fact, evidence, and reason.
Well said.

Quoting The Object of Legend Tons? How come the top evolutionary scientists and professors, like Richard Dawkins, don't point to those?
I agree, around ten examples is hardly tons.
Quoting The Object of Legend Because 90% of them are found to be hoaxes,
I can only think of two examples.
Quoting The Object of Legend deformed animals,
Which ones are those?
Quoting The Object of Legend or reconstructions off of a single bone from a different animal!

I believe you're talking about Hesperopithecus (the Nebraska Man). From my understanding, the media way over-hyped that find, and it was never generally accepted as a transitional fossil by the scientific community.

Permalink
| November 3, 2013, 12:31 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible I'm curious as to why the universe would not be mature if there were parts of it we couldn't see?
I'd like to the answer to that too, since I know there are many parts that we can't see.

Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible I'd like to see the calculations behind most of those before I respond, could you provide links?
Most of those came from my education or following the logical course of events. I try not to use websites, only reason itself. You could find websites if you need them.

Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible This sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.
Think about it. Could it be any other way?

Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible Which ones are those?
Evolutionists used to use a monkey they named "Lucy" as proof that man came from apes, but "Lucy" was proven to be a deformed chimp.
Permalink
| November 3, 2013, 5:59 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quote


I'm still a little uncertain as to what you mean when you say "DNA can't be created". I told you that over many generations, DNA changes, and changes can yield small differences in characteristics of a species, both physical and mental.

You ARE inserting "some religion's deity" - "God" is the deity of your religion. You can't logically argue "my religion says so, therefore it is". You have to have observational and/or mathematical evidence. There's a lot of evidence for the big bang. The big bang was the origin of what we call the universe. We don't know exactly how it happened/what caused it, but we're pretty sure that it did happen. People are currently trying to figure the how part. There are actually theories about that involving string theory known as M-Theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

Expanding matter is still affected by gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong forces.

Again, using your religion's doctrine doesn't qualify as an argument. If you have experimental and observational evidence, show it. I already explained the DNA - individual pieces of code can be added by the polymerase, so it's not always "losing" DNA. Where do the other points come from? I haven't heard you argue them before.

Quoting The Object of Legend
Those things all have their own views and they twist truth in order to fit those views. The only way we can verified truth in with fact, evidence, and reason.

Except that that is what they've been using for many years. Also, "reason" isn't a valid method of study - inferences and assumptions based on are known as hypotheses, and our ability to properly predict what would happen due to physics without any understanding and observation of demonstrations of it is actually quite flawed. We have a lot of misconceptions about how physics "works" that can easily be shown to be false through simple demonstrations. Likewise "facts" matter little for science, because science is about empirical evidence. You can't conclusively prove anything - you can only show that in every case tried, it works or that it doesn't work in some cases. When an experiment is repeated over and over and the same results are found, then it can be a considered the scientific equivalent of fact. However, it can still be changed if error is found and shown to be real. I haven't checked this so it might be a bit garbled.

I agree, they don't understand anything about compassion. The so-called Christians care nothing for the poor, care nothing about those less fortunate than themselves. All they want to do is allow the rich people to overrun our country. Where's the compassion that I've heard so much about?

Also, you can be religious without being a fundamentalist who believes every word of the religion's text.

Of course people were religious back then, but they believed many different things. Not everyone was a Christian, either. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist.

Quoting The Object of Legend
Again that's not how it happened. Creation was being taught in schools and then evolution came along and there was a big controversy. In the end they started teaching evolution as well. Intelligent design started to keep creation in schools. That's how it happened.

Basically what I was saying. Intelligent Design started in the 60's.

Someone who studies quantum physics isn't a quantumist - they're a quantum physicist. Someone who only studies evolution isn't an evolutionist - they're an evolutionary biologist.

According to the theory of evolution, everyone is a transitional species - there is no final result where a species is complete or done evolving. Therefore, every fossil is transitional.

Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting BobaFett2
If by prove you mean "see with your own eyes"

That is not what I mean at all. It's not nice to twist peoples' words.

Then what DO you mean? You keep arguing that what we've observed and found is untrue, and you're not making any valid points about it.


Quoting The Object of Legend
That's not true. Where are you getting this false information? Creationist scientists do not consider evolutionist scientists credible, and evolutionist scientists do not consider creationist scientists credible. Many creationists have higher qualifications than the evolutionists, but there happens to be more evolutionists because they are indoctrinated through the public school system.

Okay, I'm done. This is tiresome.

Arguments about indoctrination are invalid.

The goal of a scientific experiment is to test theories and hypotheses. Likewise, evidence can be used to show that a theory or hypothesis is false. Scientists as a whole aren't a rigid bunch - their very lives are dedicated to discovering things and overturning discoveries. It would be a great achievement for any scientist to overturn a well-known theory because it would open up many questions to explore. Scientists can be rigid (generally older ones), but the entire field is based on a willingness to change one's understanding and challenge one's presuppositions. Time and again, attempts have been made to disprove the theory of evolution. Time and again, it has been found that what they used was either false evidence, incorrect assumptions made from a lack of knowledge or an unwillingness to look at counter-evidence. Likewise, the same thing is true for tectonic plate motion, the age of the Earth, and even the big bang, a theory
that been around for a long time.

Quoting The Object of Legend
Most of those came from my education or following the logical course of events. I try not to use websites, only reason itself. You could find websites if you need them.

Using your presuppositions and assumptions ("reason") to prove something false is not a valid way to go about things. You have to have actual evidence and math.
Permalink
| November 3, 2013, 9:21 am
 Group admin 
Quoting BobaFett 2
Clearly we've miss understood each other tremendously. I'm quite sorry.

Quoting BobaFett 2
There's a lot of evidence for the big bang. The big bang was the origin of what we call the universe. We don't know exactly how it happened/what caused it, but we're pretty sure that it did happen.
It sounds like you have very little evidence, since you never point anything out, and that you can't get it to make sense. This is because you trying to make something work that never could. Why do we look to the one way the universe could be created, God?

Quoting BobaFett 2
Expanding matter is still affected by gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong forces.
Let's compare the big bang to all the Lego pieces in the world bunched together. If those piece suddenly started separating and expanding in all different directions, could any of them combine into Lego's new Dragon Castle? Of course not! How much less could an explosion of expanding matter form something as complex as our universe?

Quoting BobaFett 2 Also, you can be religious without being a fundamentalist who believes every word of the religion's text. Of course people were religious back then, but they believed many different things. Not everyone was a Christian, either. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist.
Precisely my point.

Quoting BobaFett 2
Again, using your religion's doctrine doesn't qualify as an argument. If you have experimental and observational evidence, show it. I already explained the DNA - individual pieces of code can be added by the polymerase, so it's not always "losing" DNA. Where do the other points come from? I haven't heard you argue them before.
It's not clear what you're talking about here.
As for the points, I've used them twice before. I guess you missed them, or ignored them. Most of them came from education, and rest from following the logical course of given events.

Quoting BobaFett 2
Except that that is what they've been using for many years. Also, "reason" isn't a valid method of study...Using your presuppositions and assumptions ("reason") to prove something false is not a valid way to go about things. You have to have actual evidence and math.
Let me see if I understand you. Are you saying that there is no way to know anything for sure in these matters?
Reason is the use of knowledge and calculation to make logical concussions. I try not to use websites, only known facts & reason itself. A website can tell you anything, but reason yields truth. If what I believe is true than reason should disprove everything else. This is the problem with this debate, you can go to all these websites and I could disprove everything they say but by that time there would be new lies. Find truth, don't try to fix a lie. We have to look at the big picture.

Let's make a simple comparison of what science, fact, and reason, have to say about Evolution and creation.

~Evolution~
Science says: No matter how many amino acids rained down from the sky they could never from a living cell with it's necessary cell membrane nucleus, and DNA. Let alone a survivable environment.
Fact says: A long list of things should have happened in the time-frame of evolution but none have, and there aren't enough bones for the world to be that old.
Reason says: The big bang could have never started and could never from anything with complexity required to sustain life. Much less the glory of our universe.

~Creation~
Science says: There is no scientifically observable proof that God exists or that He does not exist.
Fact says: Millions of people claim to have a relationship with God.
Reason says: No hard evidence disproves creation as it does with evolution. So creation is probable and evolution is wishful thinking.

Quoting BobaFett 2 Where's the compassion that I've heard so much about?
Like you said, these are so-called Christians. Christians still sin, that's part of being human, but they acknowledge that those sins have been paid for.
God created a perfect world for us but we rebelled against Him and ruined it. Instead of destroying us and starting over, God loved us so much that He sent His Son to live the perfect life and die in our place. That's compassion!
Those who have trusted in Jesus as their Savior, should follow that example. That's where the compassion is!



Permalink
| November 3, 2013, 11:21 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
It sounds like you have very little evidence, since you never point anything out, and that you can't get it to make sense. This is because you trying to make something work that never could. Why do we look to the one way the universe could be created, God?

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

A good summary. Also, if something doesn't make sense to you, that doesn't make sense. I don't understand some forms of math. That doesn't mean that they don't work.

Quoting The Object of Legend Let me see if I understand you. Are you saying that there is no way to know anything for sure in these matters?
Reason is the use of knowledge and calculation to make logical concussions. I try not to use websites, only known facts & reason itself. A website can tell you anything, but reason yields truth. If what I believe is true than reason should disprove everything else. This is the problem with this debate, you can go to all these websites and I could disprove everything they say but by that time there would be new lies. Find truth, don't try to fix a lie. We have to look at the big picture.

No, I'm saying that your preconceived notions of the world aren't accurate. Neither are mine. Your idea of what is reasonable is very different from the idea of someone who has been studying things for years and using established knowledge. What you are assuming to be facts are not, in fact, facts.
Quoting The Object of Legend Let
~Evolution~
Science says: No matter how many amino acids rained down from the sky they could never from a living cell with it's necessary cell membrane nucleus, and DNA. Let alone a survivable environment.
Fact says: A long list of things should have happened in the time-frame of evolution but none have, and there aren't enough bones for the world to be that old.
Reason says: The big bang could have never started and could never from anything with complexity required to sustain life. Much less the glory of our universe.


~Creation~
Science says: There is no scientifically observable proof that God exists or that He does not exist.
Fact says: Millions of people claim to have a relationship with God.
Reason says: No hard evidence disproves creation as it does with evolution. So creation is probable and evolution is wishful thinking.

The first is a blatantly false picture of things. We've observed amino acids form on their own.

Fact? What fact? Evolution is not about what SHOULD have - there is no goal, there are only results.

Reason? What reason? You're asserting that it could not have happened because you assume that everything works some way or another, when clearly it doesn't. Nor do you use any actual basis for it.

No, there's no scientific proof for "God", but if there's no actual evidence for it, then why believe it?

That doesn't prove existence. People are known for seeing and hearing things that don't exist. That doesn't prove the existence of something.

The last point is also blatantly false. I've given you plenty of actual evidence and you ignore it, assuming that only what you've been told is true.
Permalink
| November 3, 2013, 11:34 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
Let's compare the big bang to all the Lego pieces in the world bunched together. If those piece suddenly started separating and expanding in all different directions, could any of them combine into Lego's new Dragon Castle? Of course not! How much less could an explosion of expanding matter form something as complex as our universe?

Ahem.
I've stepped out of this argument since neither side is really winning, and the sad fact is that neither of you ever will, at least here and now. However...
Your metaphor involving all the parts of LEGO. Yes. They could form the LEGO Dragon Castle, and probably would. The key factor is time. The universe is infinite - so is time. Given an infinity, a one in a million chance will happen. Can we observe this? Yes and no. We are here, so obviously at least one one in a million chance happened. Were we created by God? Evolution and the Big Bang? A combination of the two? Or something completely different? Maybe the flying spaghetti monster? They're all just as feasible at the moment, given our current capabilities. The point is, given enough time, everything will happen. If you rule out one thing from ever being possible, then you're effectively ruling out an infinitely long chain of events.
So back to case and point - yes, it is entirely possible the Big Bang happened, just the same as it is possible there is a God (that whole thing's called "chaos theory" I believe, worth a read for sure). A lack of proof does not disprove something, it merely makes it less feasible at that given time. Given an infinite amount of time, an infinite amount of things will happen, and by that degree everything will be proved.

Chances are we ourselves won't see it happen (but in effect we would, because everything can happen, because if everything can happen there must therefore be alternate realities, but that's a whole different kettle of fish), but it will, or has done already. Count on it.

Phew, that was long. I'll just see myself out again...
Permalink
| November 3, 2013, 11:46 am
 Group admin 
Quoting BobaFett 2
No, I'm saying that your preconceived notions of the world aren't accurate. Neither are mine. Your idea of what is reasonable is very different from the idea of someone who has been studying things for years and using established knowledge. What you are assuming to be facts are not, in fact, facts.
That's assuming a lot. Most things in our world are understandable and concrete, these things are fact. Water is wet, rock are hard, enough fossils haven't been found to prove evolution... These are facts. You don't need to study fire all your life to realize that it's hot.

Quoting BobaFett 2
The first is a blatantly false picture of things. We've observed amino acids form on their own.
In a man-made environment. This isn't what I was talking about at all though. I talking about the formation of the cell membrane and nucleus.

Quoting BobaFett 2
Fact? What fact? Evolution is not about what SHOULD have - there is no goal, there are only results.
Again you ignored my points. If the world is as old as the theory of evolution states, then a long list of things would have happened. These did not yet, so we can be sure that the world isn't that old.

Quoting BobaFett 2
Reason? What reason? You're asserting that it could not have happened because you assume that everything works some way or another, when clearly it doesn't.
Everything has to work some way or another, or else they don't work at all. You know this. I have to assume the big bang does not work because no way has been found for it to work. To assume it did work without a way for it to work is wishful thinking at best.

Quoting BobaFett 2
That doesn't prove existence. People are known for seeing and hearing things that don't exist.
It doesn't provide evidence, but it makes you think. How could that many people all have the same testimony for 2,000 years, about something that doesn't exist?

Quoting BobaFett 2
I've given you plenty of actual evidence and you ignore it, assuming that only what you've been told is true.
I refuted your evidence, I have tried not to ignore it. Where do you get your 'evidence' anyway?
Permalink
| November 3, 2013, 2:40 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible I'm curious as to why the universe would not be mature if there were parts of it we couldn't see?
I'd like to the answer to that too, since I know there are many parts that we can't see.
If you don't know, then why do you say 'God created a mature universe' in response to the point that we can see things further than 6000 lightyears away?
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible I'd like to see the calculations behind most of those before I respond, could you provide links?
Most of those came from my education or following the logical course of events. I try not to use websites, only reason itself. You could find websites if you need them.
I just want to see calculations, or at least, a source. If your source is a book and not a website, there's nothing wrong with that. I have ways of finding books.
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible This sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.
Think about it. Could it be any other way?
It could be. Evolution could be a well-supported scientific theory.
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible Which ones are those?
Evolutionists used to use a monkey they named "Lucy" as proof that man came from apes, but "Lucy" was proven to be a deformed chimp.
Again, do you have a source? If not, then you should give an anatomical argument for this point.

Permalink
| November 3, 2013, 10:51 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
...enough fossils haven't been found to prove evolution...
How much have you actually studied paleontology?
Of course, there haven't been enough fossils to 'prove evolution' (proving that everything was not created in six days by God is not possible), but they provide convincing support.
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting BobaFett 2
The first is a blatantly false picture of things. We've observed amino acids form on their own.
In a man-made environment. This isn't what I was talking about at all though. I talking about the formation of the cell membrane and nucleus.
The origins of life is a relatively new field in science, you can't expect them to have solved everything yet.

Quoting The Object of Legend Everything has to work some way or another, or else they don't work at all. You know this. I have to assume the big bang does not work because no way has been found for it to work. To assume it did work without a way for it to work is wishful thinking at best.

Just because cosmologist have not yet determined the launching mechanism of the big bang does not refute the evidence that the big bang occurred. In science, you first observe something, then explain it. The fact that the 'explanation' phase is not complete does not invalidate the observation.
Permalink
| November 3, 2013, 11:02 pm
Other topics
The Middle East Updated Monday



LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop The International Fan of LEGO Debate ClubOther


You Your home page | LEGO creations | Favorite builders
Activity Activity | Comments | Creations
Explore Explore | Recent | Groups
MOCpages is an unofficial, fan-created website. LEGO® and the brick configuration are property of The LEGO Group, which does not sponsor, own, or endorse this site.
©2002-2014 Sean Kenney Design Inc | Privacy policy | Terms of use