Evolution and Theism

[~The_Chosen~]

First off read these 2 articles, there are a bit old, 1994

Stephen Hawking, The Big Bang, and God pt I

Stephen Hawking, The Big Bang, and God pt II

Now read this too Design Evidences for Life Support

Design Evidences for Life Support:
Dependency Factors Estimate: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.00

Longevity Requirements Estimate: 0.0000001

Probability for occurrence of all 123 parameters: approx. 10 -161

Maximum possible number of planets in universe: approx. 10 22

Thus, less than 1 chance in 10 139 ( ten thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such planet would occur anywhere in the universe.

IF this were true, that's a BIG GAMBLE to take. I think atheists are just too pessimistic, that's all.

Ever heard of Design Theory? How valid is it?

**********************************************

As for EVOLUTION, I don't completely believe in it.

OK let's consider evolution first. I buy evolution if it means "gradual change." But I don't buy it if it means "the origin of new biological forms."

The great French zoologist and evolutionist Pierre-Paul Grasse' said:

What is the use of their unceasing mutations if they do not change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final _evolutionary_ effect.

1) The unsubstantiation of a Darwinian mechanism of evolution.

Ok, where do butterflies and finches come from? Common examples of natural selection acting on present genetic variation do not tell us how we have come to have horses, wasps, and woodpeckers, and the enormous varieties of living animals. Evolutionists will tell you that this is where mutations enter the picture. But then refer to the quote from above. Mutation doesn't improve the scenario for evolutionists either.

2) The total failure of origin of life studies to produce a workable model.

We can conceieve of a mechanism whereby organic molecules can be manufactured in a primitive earth and organize themselves into a living, replicating cell. The Miller-Urey experiment of 1953 has given way to a paradigm (model) crisis of 1993 in origin of life research. The workable atmosphere of ammonia, hydrogen, methane, and water vapor is wishful and has been replaced by the atmosphere of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrogen cyanide which is more realistic. This type of atmosphere poses a much more difficult challenge and molecules pertinent for life would be much rarer. There is also the possibility of the presence of molecular oxygen in the atmosphere from the break-up of water vapor. Molecular oxygen would poison any reaction leading to biologically significant molecules. There is no central competing model, just many ego-driven scenarios. This is a paradigm crisis. So how do we account for DNA's informational code if intelligence was not part of the equation? Chemical experiments may be able to construct small sequences of nucleotides to form small molecules of DNA, but this doesn't make them mean anything. There is no source for the informational code in a strictly naturalistic origin of life.

3) The inability of evolutionary mechanism to explain the origin of complex adaptations

Some aspects of evolutionary theory describe accurately how existing organisms are well adapted to their environments, but do a very poor job of explaining just how the necessary adaptive structures came about in the first place. Evolutionary theory has failed to explain how certain structures (such as cytochrome c, the human eye, etc.) could arise by natural processes alone.

4) The bankruptcy of the blind watchmaker hypothesis

Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purposes in view. An assumpton is that bature can provide a whole chain of favorable mutations of the precise kind needed to change forelimbs into wings in a continuous line of development. What is the larger miracle, an instantaneous change or a whole series of thousands of tiny changes in the proper sequence? Another assumption is "all things being equal." These mutations must not have secondary harmful effects. If an animal is "developing" wings, it has a much harder time to survive and utilize it, since you know, it's developing. An assumption is the often used analogy to artificial selection. If artificial selection can do so much in only a few years, just think what natural selection can do in millions of years. But artificial selection works because it incorporates foresight and conscious purpose, the absence of which are the defining qualities of the blind watchmaker. In addition, artificial selection actually demonstrates the limits to change since an endpoint in the selection process is usually reached very quickly.

5) The biological evidence that the rule in nature is morphological stability over time and not constant change.

Rather than observing organisms gradually evolving into other forms, the fossil record speaks of sudden appearance and stasis. Darwin predicted that there should be innumerable transitional forms between species. But the reality of paleontology (the study of fossils) is that new forms appear suddenly with no hint of the gradual change predicted by evolution. Not only that, but once these new forms have appeared, they remain relatively unchanged until the present day or until they become extinct. Some animals and plants have remained unchanged for literally hundreds of millions of years. These living fossils can be more embarrassing for the evolutionist than they often care to admit.

If Darwin were alive today, he'd be disappointed. There is less evidence for his theory now than in his own day.

Source and Credit: The Five Crisis in Evolutionary Theory by Dr. Ray Bohlin. I summarized it. There are alot of other articles concerning how evolution theory is failing, but this ones sums it up the best.

Also look up the Cambrian Explosion, it's contradicts Darwinian evolution.

Evolution operates really slowly right? If evolution has occurred at a very slow rate, the fossil record ought to reveal virtually every subtle change, as one type of organism evolves into another – much like examining the individual frames of a movie film.

The links just aren't there!

I welcome any intellectual discussion, I just want to learn more

**************************************************

Now about God. Read this: The Twenty Arguments for God

It is more logical to take up Pascal's Wager and not be driven by pessimism. Most atheists disbelieve emotionally, not intellectually. Let's argue atheists!! hehe, it'll be fun, and please no assumptions about others, keep it low on assumptions.

As for religion, SCRATCH THAT IDEA OUT. Just think of a prospect of a God, a creator if you want to logically call Him that. I don't want to hear anything about how arrogant religious people are and how that lead to your disbelief. I want "good evidence" to why you don't believe, I want to know, that's all. You may use Biblical Scriptures to argue, but I'm not strong in that area.

Do not appeal to emotions, but rather intellect.

 

[Xev]

Comment on my thread. I don't believe anyone to be a "true atheist" which means believing no in possible creator and no meaning to life. Believing everything happens outta chance and luck. Correct me if I am wrong.

You're wrong. I doubt that there is a creator in the theistic sense and I doubt very much that there is a meaning to life.

IF this were true, that's a BIG GAMBLE to take. I think atheists are just too pessimistic, that's all.

It's not true, it's voodoo math. Utter crap.

And in any case, do you know what the weak anthropic principle is? Easily explained without reference to a creator.

Ok, where do butterflies and finches come from? Common examples of natural selection acting on present genetic variation do not tell us how we have come to have horses, wasps, and woodpeckers, and the enormous varieties of living animals. Evolutionists will tell you that this is where mutations enter the picture. But then refer to the quote from above. Mutation doesn't improve the scenario for evolutionists either.

Mutation and natural selection. I think you need to read a bit more about evolutionary theory. No offense. I suggest you start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html and feel free to send a private message to me if you have any questions.

2) The total failure of origin of life studies to produce a workable model.

A: This is a very difficult realm of paleontology,
B: Total failure? My intro to biology text has a model already.

3) The inability of evolutionary mechanism to explain the origin of complex adaptations

Umm, yes it has. Provide me an example of such an "unexplained adaptation" and I'll explain it.

Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purposes in view. An assumpton is that bature can provide a whole chain of favorable mutations of the precise kind needed to change forelimbs into wings in a continuous line of development. What is the larger miracle, an instantaneous change or a whole series of thousands of tiny changes in the proper sequence? Another assumption is "all things being equal." These mutations must not have secondary harmful effects. If an animal is "developing" wings, it has a much harder time to survive and utilize it, since you know, it's developing. An assumption is the often used analogy to artificial selection. If artificial selection can do so much in only a few years, just think what natural selection can do in millions of years. But artificial selection works because it incorporates foresight and conscious purpose, the absence of which are the defining qualities of the blind watchmaker. In addition, artificial selection actually demonstrates the limits to change since an endpoint in the selection process is usually reached very quickly.

What in the fuck? There is no "chain of favorable mutations" - they accumulate over time, not necessarily in a chain.

And there are many, many unfavorable mutations. Most mutations are unfavorable.

Rather than observing organisms gradually evolving into other forms, the fossil record speaks of sudden appearance and stasis. Darwin predicted that there should be innumerable transitional forms between species. But the reality of paleontology (the study of fossils) is that new forms appear suddenly with no hint of the gradual change predicted by evolution. Not only that, but once these new forms have appeared, they remain relatively unchanged until the present day or until they become extinct. Some animals and plants have remained unchanged for literally hundreds of millions of years. These living fossils can be more embarrassing for the evolutionist than they often care to admit.

Punctuated equilibrium.

Also look up the Cambrian Explosion, it's contradicts Darwinian evolution.

A: Bit of a misnomer - the Cambrian actually was more gradual than is thought. Or so a recent article in Nature has it.

B: Punctuated equilibrium.

Evolution operates really slowly right?

Wrong, sorry, punk e again.

If evolution has occurred at a very slow rate, the fossil record ought to reveal virtually every subtle change, as one type of organism evolves into another – much like examining the individual frames of a movie film.

Punk e!

Sorry dude, but you need to do a bit more research. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Now about God. Read this: The Twenty Arguments for God

Read and refuted. I've done this already. Sigh!

http://www.sciforums.com/t7539/s/thread.html

1. The Argument from Change

Oh holy Cthulhu, we don't need a God to explain change. It is the natural consequence of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

2. The Argument from Efficient Causality

A: Infinite regress is possible.
B: What caused God, then? The idea of an uncaused God, yet rejecting an uncaused universe, is downright silly.

I've debunked the rest, although I'll do it again if you ask.

It is more logical to take up Pascal's Wager and not be driven by pessimism. Most atheists disbelieve emotionally, not intellectually. Let's argue atheists!! hehe, it'll be fun, and please no assumptions about others, keep it low on assumptions.

I disbelieve on both levels, and am hardly driven by pessimism. Why assume that I am?

As for religion, SCRATCH THAT IDEA OUT. Just think of a prospect of a God, a creator if you want to logically call Him that. I don't want to hear anything about how arrogant religious people are and how that lead to your disbelief. I want "good evidence" to why you don't believe, I want to know, that's all. You may use Biblical Scriptures to argue, but I'm not strong in that area.

Good evidence for why I disbelieve in God or why I disbelieve in Christianity? I can supply either, or both.

For God, there are:
The argument from irrational belief.
The argument from suffering.

Christianity:
I find it morally abhorrent.

Well, any questions?

 

[Tyler]

Ahhh. Beginner debating theists all have one problem in common. Your ego (in the Nietzschean term) does not allow you to see the reality. You suggest evolution cannot be true because we haven't answered every question. An intelligent atheist will realize that not know all the answers doesn't disprove the theory. If we killed off every single person who knew the laws of thermodynamics and destroyed all evidence of our developement of it, would the laws cease to exist? No. The answer does not need to be already discovered to be true.

 

[James R]

The Chosen,

<i>Ever heard of Design Theory? How valid is it?</i>

Which design theory?

<i>OK let's consider evolution first. I buy evolution if it means "gradual change." But I don't buy it if it means "the origin of new biological forms."</i>

Interesting. Where do you draw the line? What is a "new biological form", according to you?

<i>What is the use of their unceasing mutations if they do not change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final _evolutionary_ effect.</i>

I suspect this is a quote out of context. Secondly, it appears to be specific to bacteria and viruses. Thirdly, where is the support for the idea that mutations are no more than some kind of fluctuation around a median position? I don't think this quote says much.

<i>Ok, where do butterflies and finches come from? Common examples of natural selection acting on present genetic variation do not tell us how we have come to have horses, wasps, and woodpeckers, and the enormous varieties of living animals.</i>

Yes they do.

<i>The workable atmosphere of ammonia, hydrogen, methane, and water vapor is wishful and has been replaced by the atmosphere of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrogen cyanide which is more realistic.</i>

I can't comment on this without doing some research so I'll leave it for now.

<i>There is no source for the informational code in a strictly naturalistic origin of life.</i>

That's an odd statement to make. Any discrete arrangement of parts carries information.

<i>Some aspects of evolutionary theory describe accurately how existing organisms are well adapted to their environments, but do a very poor job of explaining just how the necessary adaptive structures came about in the first place. Evolutionary theory has failed to explain how certain structures (such as cytochrome c, the human eye, etc.) could arise by natural processes alone.</i>

That is flat-out wrong. There are compelling evolutionary explanations for things like the human eye, which are very easy to find if you look for them. A brief search on the internet will turn them up.

<i>What is the larger miracle, an instantaneous change or a whole series of thousands of tiny changes in the proper sequence?</i>

There is no single sequence from "useless" to "useful" in the evolution of an adaptive trait. The actual process more often is a series of steps forwards, backwards and sideways, eventually converging on a useful solution. Evolution does not "aim" for anything.

<i>If an animal is "developing" wings, it has a much harder time to survive and utilize it, since you know, it's developing.</i>

It depends. For example, feathers were probably originally useful for keeping warm rather than for flying. Their purpose gradually changed over time, but at all stages they would have aided survival, not made it harder.

<i>Rather than observing organisms gradually evolving into other forms, the fossil record speaks of sudden appearance and stasis.</i>

That is debateable. The fossil record is sketchy at best. The chances of fossilation are slim.

<i>Darwin predicted that there should be innumerable transitional forms between species. But the reality of paleontology (the study of fossils) is that new forms appear suddenly with no hint of the gradual change predicted by evolution.</i>

There are many examples of "transitional" fossils.

<i>Some animals and plants have remained unchanged for literally hundreds of millions of years. These living fossils can be more embarrassing for the evolutionist than they often care to admit.</i>

Not at all. In all those cases, the life forms are superbly adapted to their environments. It is no wonder they have survived.

<i>If Darwin were alive today, he'd be disappointed. There is less evidence for his theory now than in his own day.</i>

Sorry, but this is wrong.

<i>Also look up the Cambrian Explosion, it's contradicts Darwinian evolution.</i>

How?

<i>Evolution operates really slowly right? If evolution has occurred at a very slow rate, the fossil record ought to reveal virtually every subtle change, as one type of organism evolves into another – much like examining the individual frames of a movie film.</i>

No. The chances of fossilation are tiny, as I said.

<u>God</u>

<i>It is more logical to take up Pascal's Wager and not be driven by pessimism.</i>

Are you aware of the arguments against Pascal's Wager?

 

[Adam]

If you wish to debate evolution, please first read through this thread.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

?

Originally posted by Tyler
Ahhh. Beginner debating theists all have one problem in common. Your ego (in the Nietzschean term) does not allow you to see the reality.

Thanks for such a "meticulous" assumption of me. Prove to me where my "ego does not allow me to see the reality."

You suggest evolution cannot be true because we haven't answered every question.

Uh, sorry no. I don't "suggest" it to be untrue, I don't completely believe in it as I have claimed, as of now I doubt it...but the nice people that didn't assume here like James and Xev have rather given me more insight to learn. Please don't assume, it shows little respect. Just because I'm a theist doesn't automatically imply, "I don't want to learn more about science, God is everything!!"

An intelligent atheist will realize that not know all the answers doesn't disprove the theory.

Good

If we killed off every single person who knew the laws of thermodynamics and destroyed all evidence of our developement of it, would the laws cease to exist? No. The answer does not need to be already discovered to be true.

And you...think...I don't know this? How lowly is your assumption of me??

Thank You.

And in the meantime, why don't you consider looking at your own ego.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Xev, James, and Adam - thanks for all that information. I will research and see what there is out there, research requires time though.

But anyway, athiests dwell on "chance" Randomness. Why are you so positive that there is not a "higher being" than humans?

What is the "chance" of all these theories about a creator true?
What is the "chance" of all these theories about a creator false?
What is the "chance" of all religions about God being false?
What is the "chance" of Design Evidence of Life Support false?
(if the earth were any farther, we'd freeze, etc. etc.)
What is the "chance" of witnesses of God and angels false?
Are they all just utter BS? You are willing to take up that chance?

I could list a thousand more "chances" and when you do the math just as how "Design Evidence for Life Support" has, there is no luck, and chance is not in your favor.

James what are the arguments against Pascal's Wager? Logically there is nothing to lose to believing in God. While if you don't there is a "chance" you could lose something, but this isn't guranteed that you lose something or everything in that matter - this is a "chance" of it.

Hawking a great scientist believed in a creator. Believing in a creator DOES NOT restrict logical thinking. Athiests are no more capable than theists. So don't assume.

Living on "chance" to me is viewed as pessimism. I don't mean this as an offense or anything. Take the Big Bang Theory for example. "Nothing comes from nothing." For something animate to come about it must come from something animate. Life begets life.

Also the rational argument. My intelligent friend said when he studied radiation physics, the perfection of the different interactions was TOO perfect. There was no chaos. He advised me to read The Fundamentals of Imaging Physics and Radiobiology : For the Radiologic Technologist
by Joseph Selman.

you may live on the prospect of "chance" but I won't

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Xev


You're wrong. I doubt that there is a creator in the theistic sense and I doubt very much that there is a meaning to life.

This doubt is a "chance" and you like to dwell on it, correct?

It's not true, it's voodoo math. Utter crap.

That's such a comical statement. Why don't you research more about Intelligent Design? You *just* dismiss it immediately as "voodoo math"? I would like to see exactly why you think it is "utter crap."

And in any case, do you know what the weak anthropic principle is? Easily explained without reference to a creator.

Nope, show me a reference, or you can explain it. I want to learn right? ~The_Chosen~ is not a close-minded theist.

Mutation and natural selection. I think you need to read a bit more about evolutionary theory. No offense. I suggest you start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html and feel free to send a private message to me if you have any questions.

I will research...

A: This is a very difficult realm of paleontology,
B: Total failure? My intro to biology text has a model already.

Please, show reference and elaborate yourself more. It's a theist-scientist's words against yours. I seek truth.

Umm, yes it has. Provide me an example of such an "unexplained adaptation" and I'll explain it.

I'm just skeptical about the amoeba turning into a human. I would like to think that there is a better theory than evolution to explain it. Once again I need to check that site you gave me out.

What in the fuck? There is no "chain of favorable mutations" - they accumulate over time, not necessarily in a chain.

And there are many, many unfavorable mutations. Most mutations are unfavorable.

No need to curse But anyway I'll look into this also. Judge a man by his questions...

Punctuated equilibrium.

Alright. Reference to this. Who "made" this up? I'm just wondering what evolutionists will do to secure their strong foot on it being so true. Punctuated equilibrium eh? I thought it was a constant changing? no? How can a certain species "perfectly adapt" to it's environment and not undergo evolution? There is always room for improvement, even with evolutionary theory.

Ever think about the Epicycle Theory? Earth was the center of the universe? Well they mathematically explained the movement of planets around the earth and so on using epicycles, and when the planets movements became more irregular they inserted the thought of an epicycle within another epicycle, they keep doing this in order to save the Epicycle Theory and explain the planets alignments. They should've just scratched that whole theory and make one more simplistic.

I wonder if evolution could *possible* be the same...what would be the Epicycle Theory of today and what would be the Copernican Theory of today? Can you answer me on this?

A: Bit of a misnomer - the Cambrian actually was more gradual than is thought. Or so a recent article in Nature has it.

B: Punctuated equilibrium.

Punctuated equilibrium, i just hope they didn't "insert" this thouhgt into evolution to "make" it all fit...

Wrong, sorry, punk e again.

Punk e!

uhhh, what does "punk e" mean? Something slang for relating to evolution?

Sorry dude, but you need to do a bit more research. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Researching soon, after school is over. I sure hope you can, and cite proof or reference if you can, it would greatly help me to absorb more knowledge.

Read and refuted. I've done this already. Sigh!

yea I checked it out already...answer the "chance" thing, why are you so firm in your belief? Aren't you basically taking a "gamble" or you "believe" that much in your claim and evidence?

http://www.sciforums.com/t7539/s/thread.html

Oh holy Cthulhu, we don't need a God to explain change. It is the natural consequence of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I'll admit to science being limited, logic is not flawless, so I don't tend to base so much on it as atheists do. I only use God for the explanation of the Beginning of the Universe, other than that, science can pretty much explain the rest.

A: Infinite regress is possible.
B: What caused God, then? The idea of an uncaused God, yet rejecting an uncaused universe, is downright silly.

God is eternal. Something eternal always did exist, without beginning and without end. This part makes alot of logic if you think about it. What other Gods did the other religions mention an "eternal" God?

Some biblical statements of cosmological significance

God existed before the universe. God exists totally apart from the universe, and yet can be everywhere within it. (Genesis 1:1, Colossians 1:16-17)
Time has a beginning. God's existence precedes time. (II Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2)
Jesus Christ created the universe. He has no beginning and was not created. (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17)
God created the universe from what cannot be detected with the five senses. (Hebrews 11:3)
After His resurrection Jesus could pass through walls in His physical body, an evidence of His extra-dimensionality. (Luke 24:36-43, John 20:26-28)
God is very near, yet we cannot see Him, a further evidence of His extra-dimensionality. (Exodus 33:20, Deuteronomy 30:11-14, John 6:46)
God designed the universe in such a way that it would support human beings. (Genesis 1 & 2, Nehemiah 9:6, Job 38, Psalm 8:3, Isaiah 45:18

IF God was invented what are the chances of such a mind back in the day thinking about God preceding time, time having a beginning (Big Bang), how?? Chances of such an intelligent person stating that back in those days? I'm not taking that gamble either.

It would be interesting to what you would say against this. Feel free to

I've debunked the rest, although I'll do it again if you ask.

No don't waste your time, thanks. I'll see what i have to say against what you say.

I disbelieve on both levels, and am hardly driven by pessimism. Why assume that I am?

Definition of pessimism: Tendency to stress the negative or unfavorable or to take the gloomiest possible view

*take the "negative" part out, since your belief isn't negative at all* Correct me if I am wrong. I'm not trying to assume at all. The thought of basing so much on "chances" seems gloomy. Life has no true meaning (just to yourself and what you can make of it)? You just live and you die? mankind had no real purpose, he was born from "chances"? What do you think?

You disbelieve more intellectually right?

Good evidence for why I disbelieve in God or why I disbelieve in Christianity? I can supply either, or both.

For God, there are:
The argument from irrational belief.
The argument from suffering.

Well, any questions?

Haha, alot in fact. I don't want to bother arguing against religion such as Christianity. Humans really flawed religions and they control it and they interpret whatever they want, it's easy to defeat them in an argument. But the argument for a designer, creator, superior being, is much harder to argue.

Could you elaborate on why you don't believe in God? So you are a "true atheist"? that hardcore? Not even having thoughts of existence of a higher being???

Thank you.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Explain these...

Originally posted by Don diego in the DJ Forum:
second darwin s theory:

1- first it was a "scientific" excuse against a creator, I see that as bad.
2- it was more of an ideological tool: it was based on an English economist Thomas Malthus's book An Essay on the Principle of Population. wich basically stated that that for some poeple to live others must die.
(even poeple from the same society -read class discrimination)
As a result of this cruel policy, the strong would defeat the weak in the struggle for survival, and in this way the rapidly increasing population would be balanced. In 19th century England this "crush the poor" programme was actually implemented. An industrial system was founded where children of eight or nine were made to work 16 hours a day in the coal mines and where thousands died from the bad conditions. The theoretical "struggle for survival" which Malthus's theory found necessary, condemned millions of poor people in England to a life full of suffering.
according to social darwinism the weak, poor, sick and backward must be eliminated.
3- it was racist, see "favoured races"
4- even his closest friends thought so. Darwin's close friend Professor Adam Sedgwick was one of the people who saw what dangers the theory of evolution would give rise to in the future. He remarked, after reading and digesting The Origin of Species, that "if this book were to find general public acceptance, it would bring with it a brutalisation of the human race such as it had never seen before."
5- doesn't point 2 make you think of hitler in a less innocent way than chairs. he in fact gave justification not only to hitlers stream of thoughts, but american racist such as The first president Roosevelt, the english establishment, fashist, communists and european rules during the first half of the century, who though that war was an inevitability.
6- the moral collapse of society, the survival of the fitest.

You guys can explain some of that? I want to know the history of evolution and how it all really started.

 

[James R]

I'll be back to respond in more detail later.

In the meantime, I suggest that The Chosen should look here:

<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~goodwin_2/law.html" target="_blank">Goodwin's Law</a>

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by James R
I'll be back to respond in more detail later.

In the meantime, I suggest that The Chosen should look here:

<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~goodwin_2/law.html" target="_blank">Goodwin's Law</a>

Hahaha, very *funny* yea right.

First of all, someone else from another forum posted that. I have no clue about how evolution originated (its history), but I do understand a good info of the theory, not about much as some people here, but I think that website Xev gave me will put me near the level of where you are once I research it

And that ain't a "law"

Haha but it would be great if you disprove what this guy says

 

[Xev]

Ty, Chosen:

Please don't assume, it shows little respect. Just because I'm a theist doesn't automatically imply, "I don't want to learn more about science, God is everything!!"

Sorry Chosen, but here it does imply that. Here's to hoping that it dosen't.

Sorry Ty, for defending you again. (What do you mean by "ego in the Neitzschean sense"? You know Freddy better than I do)

Chosen:

Logically there is nothing to lose to believing in God. While if you don't there is a "chance" you could lose something, but this isn't guranteed that you lose something or everything in that matter - this is a "chance" of it.

Yes there IS. Belief is illogical. When one surrenders logic, one takes a leap towards surrendering morality. (And yes Tiassa, if you're reading this, this does apply to love)

This doubt is a "chance" and you like to dwell on it, correct?

Yes, that doubt is a chance. There is of course a chance that God exists. But then, there's a chance that Harry Potter exists, right?

Dwell on it? Not really.

Why don't you research more about Intelligent Design? You *just* dismiss it immediately as "voodoo math"? I would like to see exactly why you think it is "utter crap."

Oh no, I'm sorry. I have researched ID - creationism. The argument you refer to is voodoo math. They are basically making up variables, and creating statistics out of them. I could create the same variables for the existance of the aforementioned Harry Potter.

*Grins*

Not that statisticians ever make up variables, noooo.

Nope, show me a reference, or you can explain it.

Basically, the weak anthropic principle states that: "Yes, if certain constants were different, we would not be here. But then, if those constants were different, we would not be asking the question".

Please, show reference and elaborate yourself more. It's a theist-scientist's words against yours. I seek truth.

What is truth? (Allright Xev, STOP THAT!)

Okay, here and here are some explanations of the current theories on the origen of life. They are working fairly well.

However, the earliest organisms are believed to be boneless. Such organisms do not fossilize well, which is one of the reasons why this realm of paleaontology is difficult.

Alright. Reference to this. Who "made" this up? I'm just wondering what evolutionists will do to secure their strong foot on it being so true. Punctuated equilibrium eh? I thought it was a constant changing? no? How can a certain species "perfectly adapt" to it's environment and not undergo evolution? There is always room for improvement, even with evolutionary theory.

Okay. Punctuated equilibrium (punk ee) was developed by the late Stephen Jay Gould and, umm, this other guy, Niles Eldridge.

Basically, up until Eldridge and Gould developed punctuated equilibrium, the classical Darwinian model of constant adaptation and speciation had held sway. But Eldridge and Gould pointed to certain "gaps" in the fossil record and the evidence of mass extinctions. These gaps had been explained by poor fossilization conditions. Eldridge and Gould proposed that this was due to "bursts" of speciation (speciation is the development of a new species) in between periods of stasis.

Here's more info:
http://www.skeptic.com/01.3.prothero-punc-eq.html

So it might not be a constant changing. And species may "perfectly adapt" to their enviornment - like the dodo did. And of course, the dodo is extinct now.

I wonder if evolution could *possible* be the same...what would be the Epicycle Theory of today and what would be the Copernican Theory of today? Can you answer me on this?

It could be. Relativity could be crap. If I tap the right series of bricks on a London building, I could end up in Harry Potter's "wizard world".

But I don't think so.

yea I checked it out already...answer the "chance" thing, why are you so firm in your belief? Aren't you basically taking a "gamble" or you "believe" that much in your claim and evidence?

Everything's a gamble. I'm gambling that I do not have to worry about the evil wizard Voldemort. I'm gambling that your God dosen't exist. I'm gambling that the thunder and dark clouds outside mean that it will soon rain.

Anyways, if your God exists, what have I to loose by not believing in him?

Either He has the balls to deal with my logical conclusion, or He ought to be disregarded.

God is eternal. Something eternal always did exist, without beginning and without end. This part makes alot of logic if you think about it. What other Gods did the other religions mention an "eternal" God?

The Hindus, Jews (from which Xtianity sprang), the Muslims (who borrowed liberally from Xtianity and Judaism).

IF God was invented what are the chances of such a mind back in the day thinking about God preceding time, time having a beginning (Big Bang), how?? Chances of such an intelligent person stating that back in those days?

Pretty good, actually. It's easy enough to think of time having a beginning. It's harder to think of time as beginning-less.

The thought of basing so much on "chances" seems gloomy. Life has no true meaning (just to yourself and what you can make of it)? You just live and you die? mankind had no real purpose, he was born from "chances"? What do you think?

Yes, that's about it. There's another thread where Tiassa is arguing reproduction and the survival of the species as a "meaning" of life, but Tiassa isn't an athiest.

So what's gloomy about it? It is what IT is.

Have you read Camus?

Could you elaborate on why you don't believe in God? So you are a "true atheist"? that hardcore? Not even having thoughts of existence of a higher being???

Like I said, I admit the possibility, just as I admit the possibility that the Great Cthulhu (a monster-God in the novels of H.P Lovecraft - a bit of an inside joke).

I think of many things. The possibility that God exists is not often on my mind.

I'm more a hardcore skeptic and rationalist than a hardcore athiest.

*Muses that "Hardcore athiestic sluts" would be a good name for a porno*


Oh yes, before I start musing about such things, here is a link rebutting Pascal's wager: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pascal.html

 

[Tyler]

"Thanks for such a "meticulous" assumption of me. Prove to me where my "ego does not allow me to see the reality.""

Pardon me, a long night argueing Nelson will leave one disrespectful of theists. I said ego in the Neitzschean way. What I meant by that is not to insinuate you have a large ego, just that the ego in you (as there is one in EVERY one of us, big or small) shades your view. Which stands true for all people. Just some more than others.

Your original post suggested you don't believe evolution could be real because there are too many holes. That's okay, it's just a poor reason not to consider it a possibility. Believe me, no insult was intended.



Thank the lord almighty!!!! A reasonable, logical, open-minded and polite theist!!!

You will fit in very well here man.


"Nope, show me a reference, or you can explain it. I want to learn right? ~The_Chosen~ is not a close-minded theist."

Keep up this attitude and you will have learnt tons in your stay at this site. People like Xev, JamesR and Tiassa will be a big help.



"I wonder if evolution could *possible* be the same...what would be the Epicycle Theory of today and what would be the Copernican Theory of today? Can you answer me on this?"

Of course. It's possible. It's possible there's a giant lizard underground who controls gravity. Anything is possible.


"Punctuated equilibrium, i just hope they didn't "insert" this thouhgt into evolution to "make" it all fit..."

The same way some religious folk fit things in to make their beliefs fit?



"yea I checked it out already...answer the "chance" thing, why are you so firm in your belief? Aren't you basically taking a "gamble" or you "believe" that much in your claim and evidence?"

Every theory is a belief if you lock yourself to it. I'm an atheist but I admitt there's a possibility I'm wrong. I'll get to this later.



"I'll admit to science being limited, logic is not flawless, so I don't tend to base so much on it as atheists do. I only use God for the explanation of the Beginning of the Universe, other than that, science can pretty much explain the rest"

Logic is flawless. Human logic, generally, is flawed. The idea of a perfectly logical being is flawless. We just aren't it!


"IF God was invented what are the chances of such a mind back in the day thinking about God preceding time, time having a beginning (Big Bang), how?? Chances of such an intelligent person stating that back in those days? I'm not taking that gamble either.

It would be interesting to what you would say against this. Feel free to"

Huge, if you ask me. Humans gain a concept of time. Then we make up the idea of God. Then we call God every possible greatness that we can. Existing forever seems to be a simple greatness to think up, no?



"The thought of basing so much on "chances" seems gloomy. Life has no true meaning (just to yourself and what you can make of it)? You just live and you die? mankind had no real purpose, he was born from "chances"? What do you think?"

I don't see it as gloomy or cheery at all. It just is.



"But the argument for a designer, creator, superior being, is much harder to argue"

As far as I'm concerned, at this moment in time it's impossible to disprove. Simply because everything can be refuted by 'God did it'. God is the easy answer. Admitting that we don't know yet is the hard one.



"Could you elaborate on why you don't believe in God? So you are a "true atheist"? that hardcore? Not even having thoughts of existence of a higher being???"

First off, I personally believe there is no God. I do believe I could be wrong. I doubt that if there is God he is any of the ones mentioned in today's religions. I also hope and pray he isn't the ones mentioned in any religion today.

Basically, most major religions have a hell. Would you consider a human being to be merciful if he something he created suffer torture all it's life? Hardly. I cannot respect a higher being that would do something like that. Also, religions like Christianity and Islam state that you need to accept a savior into your heart to be 'saved'. How many kids in Iran do you think have the chance to accept Jesus? How about those in African tribes? A God like in Christianity punishes those with no chance of savior. Very disturbing if you ask me.

Secondly, religion is an excuse to war.

As for why I don't believer there is a god; I see no reason to. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and I see none for a god. So far, evolution is the closest we have to a proved theory. We witness evolution every day. Bacteria evolve all the time.

My deepest apologies if I offended you with my first post. My mistake entirely!

 

[James R]

The Chosen,

<i>James what are the arguments against Pascal's Wager? Logically there is nothing to lose to believing in God.</i>

There are four possibilities:

(a) You believe in God and he exists.
(b) You believe in God and he doesn't exist.
(c) You don't believe in God, but he exists.
(d) You don't believe in God and he doesn't exist.

Pascal said you "win" his wager in cases (a), (b) and (d), but lose if (c) is true, so it's better to believe just in case. The contrary argument says that (b) should actually be counted as a loss, since you'd be wasting your life on something which doesn't exist. In that case, the wager is a 50-50 chance, so it doesn't tell us whether it is better to believe or not.

<i>Hawking a great scientist believed in a creator.</i>

I don't think so. Do you have a reference for that statement? In any case, it's beside the point. Sir Isaac Newton believed in alchemy.

<i>Living on "chance" to me is viewed as pessimism.</i>

Who says atheists live on chance? They have reasons for their actions as much as anybody does.

<i>"Nothing comes from nothing." For something animate to come about it must come from something animate. Life begets life.</i>

Sounds good, but how do you know it's true? Perhaps sometimes life can come from non-life.

<i>My intelligent friend said when he studied radiation physics, the perfection of the different interactions was TOO perfect.</i>

I've studied some radiation physics. Like a lot of physics, it can be neat, but it doesn't prove a creator.

Regarding your quotes on Darwin's theory:

<i>1. first it was a "scientific" excuse against a creator, I see that as bad.</i>

That's wrong. It was an attempt to explain the diversity of species we see around us from a scientific perspective.

<i>2- it was more of an ideological tool: it was based on an English economist Thomas Malthus's book An Essay on the Principle of Population...[snip]</i>

As far as I can remember, Malthus pointed out the perils of an exponentially increasing population, but he didn't advocate any kind of "dog eat dog" society.

<i>3- it was racist, see "favoured races"</i>

Where's the reference to that so I can take a look? I don't think Darwin was any more racist than was common to his society and era - probably less so. And regardless of Darwin's racism, his theory stands or falls on its merits. An argument from bad consequences is a logical fallacy.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Xev
Ty, Chosen:

Sorry Chosen, but here it does imply that. Here's to hoping that it dosen't.

Still, it's wrong to discriminate against all theists. That is being sterotypical, you think that is right?

Chosen:

Yes there IS. Belief is illogical. When one surrenders logic, one takes a leap towards surrendering morality. (And yes Tiassa, if you're reading this, this does apply to love)

Belief is not illogical, religious belief is . Science can never answer the question of the beginning of the Universe. It's logical to accept a superior power involved. And no I'm not surrendering logic, I'm admitting to human inferiority.

Do you believe in the "necessity of a beginning"?

Yes, that doubt is a chance. There is of course a chance that God exists. But then, there's a chance that Harry Potter exists, right?

Dwell on it? Not really.

Yes, you do dwell on it. There is also a chance we may possibly be united with matter in a wood table. This chance is so very unlikely it becomes IMPRACTICAL because it will never happen and therefore we may dismiss it.

Oh no, I'm sorry. I have researched ID - creationism. The argument you refer to is voodoo math. They are basically making up variables, and creating statistics out of them. I could create the same variables for the existance of the aforementioned Harry Potter.

*Grins*

Not that statisticians ever make up variables, noooo.

Amuse me and do so, I may logically prove you wrong if you try to prove Harry Potter's existence

From Intelligent Design:
Table 5: Evidence for design in the universe101 - 110

1. gravitational coupling constant

if larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short stellar lifespans
if smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production
2. strong nuclear force coupling constant

if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life are unstable
if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen
3. weak nuclear force coupling constant

if larger: all hydrogen is converted to helium in the big hang, hence too much heavy elements
if smaller: no helium produced from big bang, hence not enough heavy elements
4. electromagnetic coupling constant

if larger: no chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron are unstable to fission
if smaller: no chemical bonding
5. ratio of protons to electrons

if larger: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
6. ratio of electron to proton mass

if larger: no chemical bonding
if smaller: no chemical bonding
7. expansion rate of the universe

if larger: no galaxy formation
if smaller: universe collapses prior to star formation
8. entropy level of the universe

if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation
9. mass density of the universe

if larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars bum too rapidly
if smaller: no helium from big bang, hence not enough heavy elements
10. age of the universe

if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
11. initial uniformity of radiation

if smoother: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
12. average distance between stars

if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planet production
if smaller: planetary orbits become destabilized
13. solar luminosity

if increases too soon: runaway green house effect
if increases too late: frozen oceans
14. fine structure constant (a function of three other fundamental constants, Planck's constant, the velocity of light, and the electron charge each of which, therefore, must be fine-tuned)

if larger: no stars more than 0.7 solar masses
if smaller: no stars less than 1.8 solar masses
15. decay rate of the proton

if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life
16. 12C to 16O energy level ratio

if larger: insufficient oxygen
if smaller: insufficient carbon
17. decay rate of 8Be

if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element production beyond beryllium and, hence, no life chemistry possible
18. mass difference between the neutron and the proton

if greater: protons would decay before stable nuclei could form
if smaller: protons would decay before stable nuclei could form
18. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons

if greater: too much radiation for planets to form
if smaller: not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form

Table 6: Evidence for the design of the sun-earth-moon system121 -139

1. galaxy type

if too elliptical: star formation ceases before sufficient heavy element buildup for life chemistry
if too irregular: radiation exposure on occasion is too severe and/or heavy elements for life chemistry are not available.
2. parent star distance from center of galaxy

if farther: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient to make rocky planets.
if closer: stellar density and radiation would be too great.
3. number of stars in the planetary system

if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbits.
if less than one: heat produced would be insufficient for life.
4. parent star birth date

if more recent: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase.
if less recent: stellar system would not yet contain enough heavy elements.
5. parent star age

if older: luminosity of star would change too quickly.
if younger: luminosity of star would change too quickly.
6. parent star mass

if greater: luminosity of star would change too quickly; star would bum too rapidly.
if less: range of distances appropriate for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the rotational period for a planet of the right distance; uv radiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars and oxygen.
7. parent star color

if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient.
if bluer: photosynthetic response would be insufficient.
8. supernovae eruptions

if too close: life on the planet would be exterminated.
if too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets.
if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets.
if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated.
9. white dwarf binaries

if too few: insufficient fluorine produced for life chemistry to proceed
if too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated
10. surface gravity (escape velocity)
if stronger: atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane.
if weaker: planet's atmosphere would lose too much water.
11. distance from parent star

if farther: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle.
if closer: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle.
12. inclination of orbit

if too great: temperature differences on the planet would be too extreme.
13. orbital eccentricity

if too great: seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme.
14. axial tilt

if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great.
if less: surface temperature differences would be too great.
15. rotation period

if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great.
if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.
16. gravitational interaction with a moon

if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe.
if less: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities.
17. magnetic field

if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe.
if weaker: inadequate protection from hard stellar radiation.
18. thickness of crust

if thicker: too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust.
if thinner: volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great.
19. albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface)

if greater: runaway ice age would develop.
if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
20. oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere

if larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly.
if smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly.
21. carbon dioxide level in atmosphere

if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
if less: plants would not be able to maintain efficient photosynthesis.
22. water vapor level in atmosphere

if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced life on the land.
23. ozone level in atmosphere

if greater: surface temperatures would be too low.
if less: surface temperatures would be too high; there would be too much uv radiation at the surface.
24. atmospheric electric discharge rate

if greater: too much fire destruction would occur.
if less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere.
25. oxygen quantity in atmosphere

if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would bum up too easily.
if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe.
26. oceans to continents ratio
if greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
if smaller: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
27. soil mineralization

if too nutrient poor: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
if too nutrient rich: diversity and complexity of life-forms would he limited.
28. seismic activity

if greater: too many life-forms would be destroyed.
if less: nutrients on ocean floors (from river runoff) would not be recycled to the continents through tectonic uplift.

Xev, you disagree with this "voodoo math" as you like to claim it? In the solar system there is a certain "life zone" for possible support for life. If the earth is any closer - too much radiation, life isn't possible. If the earth were any farther - we'd freeze.

Basically, the weak anthropic principle states that: "Yes, if certain constants were different, we would not be here. But then, if those constants were different, we would not be asking the question".

By philosophers William Lane Craig and Richard Swinburne:

Suppose a hundred sharpshooters are sent to execute a prisoner by firing squad and the prisoner survives. The prisoner should not be surprised that he does not observe that he is dead. After all, if he were dead, he could not observe his death. Nonetheless, he should be surprised that he observes that he is alive.141

Suppose this did happen? What are the chances of them all missing? There is a chance they can but it is so slim it becomes IMPRACTICAL, and we can dismiss it. Other than that, the only reason he lived is because someone intentionally loaded blanks or they all intentionally missed. Chance was not behind it.

What is truth? (Allright Xev, STOP THAT!)

Okay, here and here are some explanations of the current theories on the origen of life. They are working fairly well.

However, the earliest organisms are believed to be boneless. Such organisms do not fossilize well, which is one of the reasons why this realm of paleaontology is difficult.

Wait, so do you disagree that life begets life? Animate things may arise from inanimate things?

And you say "What is truth?" that is hardly truth Xev.

Okay. Punctuated equilibrium (punk ee) was developed by the late Stephen Jay Gould and, umm, this other guy, Niles Eldridge.

Here's more info:
http://www.skeptic.com/01.3.prothero-punc-eq.html

So it might not be a constant changing. And species may "perfectly adapt" to their enviornment - like the dodo did. And of course, the dodo is extinct now.

I see, this is a separate theory from evolution. Evolution doesn't account for this.

Everything's a gamble. I'm gambling that I do not have to worry about the evil wizard Voldemort. I'm gambling that your God dosen't exist. I'm gambling that the thunder and dark clouds outside mean that it will soon rain.

Anyways, if your God exists, what have I to loose by not believing in him?

There's still that chance you can separate yourself from Him and so on. You "could" lose something, or maybe God might just accept your claims.

Either He has the balls to deal with my logical conclusion, or He ought to be disregarded.

Logic is not flawless. Maybe your logical conclusion is wrong, you base a disbelief on pure human logic. There is no way Humans may EVER disprove that a superior being is not involved with the universe (you should logically accept that). You take the chance not to believe, I take the chance to believe. But the path I choose is "heads I win, tails you lose" Your path "could" lose.

I don't rest everything in logic, I have faith also with doesn't rely on empirical proof.

The Hindus, Jews (from which Xtianity sprang), the Muslims (who borrowed liberally from Xtianity and Judaism).

Seriously? Interesting. Can you reference them?

So what's gloomy about it? It is what IT is.

Everything relying on chance? I'll dismiss that. What about the cause-effect principle.

Have you read Camus?

No but my ex-gf likes him alot for some reason.

Like I said, I admit the possibility, just as I admit the possibility that the Great Cthulhu (a monster-God in the novels of H.P Lovecraft - a bit of an inside joke).

I admit the possibility also and I embrace this possibilty Also no need to be derogatory and start comparing things to Santy and so on, it's absurd. Atheists love to do this to show "how gullible a theist is" - just implies disrespect.

You rule out the possibilty.

I think of many things. The possibility that God exists is not often on my mind.

I'm more a hardcore skeptic and rationalist than a hardcore athiest.

*Muses that "Hardcore athiestic sluts" would be a good name for a porno*

Oh yes, before I start musing about such things, here is a link rebutting Pascal's wager: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pascal.html

Yea James said (b) is a lost because we wasted our lives on it. That is rather subjective, believing in God could improve someone's life, so we rule that out as a lost for theists. I don't completely agree with Pascal's wager. You don't use Pascal's wager to believe in RELIGION.

Hell and all that, could have a "chance" of existing or not. So atheists don't completely lose, they have a possibility of losing. Theists don't lose at all.

Like I said, if chances become TOO GREAT, they essentially become so impractical it could never occur. Think about that.

There is a possibility that you and I could fuse together our matter and molecules through our monitors through the transfer of energy.

Is this a possibility? Yes.

Will it ever happen? No.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Tyler
Your original post suggested you don't believe evolution could be real because there are too many holes. That's okay, it's just a poor reason not to consider it a possibility. Believe me, no insult was intended.

No i did not "suggest" i didn't believe. Let's start off by naming what I am and what I believe in. I am a cre-evolutionist. Science is God's tool. I just don't completely buy evolution, since it couldn't account for stasis, so Puntuacted Equilibrium was theorized. I believe in Evolution though.

Thank the lord almighty!!!! A reasonable, logical, open-minded and polite theist!!!

Yes, very logical in fact.

Of course. It's possible. It's possible there's a giant lizard underground who controls gravity. Anything is possible.

Yes the lizard thing is possible, but you atheists confuse reality (actual possibility) and just plain possibility. There's a possibility that I could be God, I just don't know it But they are so impractical like your Lizard story that they can be dismissed.

The same way some religious folk fit things in to make their beliefs fit?

I don't want to talk about religious people, trust me, I will literally blow up about them...some are nice and understand though...

Every theory is a belief if you lock yourself to it. I'm an atheist but I admitt there's a possibility I'm wrong. I'll get to this later.

There's a possibilty anyone could be wrong Even newton about F=ma

Logic is flawless. Human logic, generally, is flawed. The idea of a perfectly logical being is flawless. We just aren't it!

Agreed that is why i don't base and use my logic to not believe in a God - logic is flawed

Huge, if you ask me. Humans gain a concept of time. Then we make up the idea of God. Then we call God every possible greatness that we can. Existing forever seems to be a simple greatness to think up, no?

True, but if time has a beginning, what caused it?

I don't see it as gloomy or cheery at all. It just is.

It is gloomy, well to me, the idea of coming out of chance...

As far as I'm concerned, at this moment in time it's impossible to disprove. Simply because everything can be refuted by 'God did it'. God is the easy answer. Admitting that we don't know yet is the hard one.

You'll never be able to disprove it. Science is limited (logically accept that).

First off, I personally believe there is no God. I do believe I could be wrong. I doubt that if there is God he is any of the ones mentioned in today's religions. I also hope and pray he isn't the ones mentioned in any religion today.

religions..........= human intervention

As for why I don't believer there is a god; I see no reason to. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and I see none for a god. So far, evolution is the closest we have to a proved theory. We witness evolution every day. Bacteria evolve all the time.

So every extraorinary claim is all false? Could you take this chance and assume this off no "ordinary proof" How can one claim "extraoridinary evidence"? It is related to the supernatural, and science cannot explain the supernatural. Why? because it rests OUTSIDE of the natural worlld, there could be a whole different set of laws for the supernatural world, if there is one.

No doubt the beginning of the universe was supernatural.

It could be an extraoridinary claim to claim there is no God

My deepest apologies if I offended you with my first post. My mistake entirely!

Yea, just when we do argue sometime in the future, trust me - don't assume. I've been to countless forums and you don't know how many people assume and prolong the argument.

Thanks though.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by James R
There are four possibilities:

(a) You believe in God and he exists.
(b) You believe in God and he doesn't exist.
(c) You don't believe in God, but he exists.
(d) You don't believe in God and he doesn't exist.

Pascal said you "win" his wager in cases (a), (b) and (d), but lose if (c) is true, so it's better to believe just in case. The contrary argument says that (b) should actually be counted as a loss, since you'd be wasting your life on something which doesn't exist. In that case, the wager is a 50-50 chance, so it doesn't tell us whether it is better to believe or not.

No, it is subjective to believe if one's life was a waste or not. Who is the sole judge of that? According to atheists, it would be oneself since oneself makes up their own meanings in life. So that should not be counted as a loss.

When we die, does it matter? There is no meaning to our existence if God did not exist, our existence is what we make of it.

I don't think so. Do you have a reference for that statement? In any case, it's beside the point. Sir Isaac Newton believed in alchemy.

Have you read a Brief History in Time by Hawking? It mentions God. All theists aren't idiots who believe a big man in the sky is God, some of us come to logical conclusions to why we believe, then these logical conclusions can't prove God's existence 100%, therefore the rests is on faith.

Who says atheists live on chance? They have reasons for their actions as much as anybody does.

What's the purpose of the Universe? Chance is its purpose. Therefore we lead to "What is the purpose of man's existence in the Universe?" Chance is its purpose.

These reasons for their actions are all in the mind, therefore your own mind gives you your own purpose(s) in life. Other than that, the reason to why you exist is because of chance.

Sounds good, but how do you know it's true? Perhaps sometimes life can come from non-life.

What about the principle of Biogenesis? Punctuated Equilibrium sounds good too, but how do you know it's true?

"Perhaps" - once again I'm not taking that chance.

I've studied some radiation physics. Like a lot of physics, it can be neat, but it doesn't prove a creator.

Why was there no chaos involved? If those different interactions was a millionth of a decimal place off, things wouldn't happen the way it would.

Thanks for the explanations to Darwin's theory.

A little information:

It is not just the universe that bears evidence for design. The sun and the earth also reveal such evidence. Frank Drake, Carl Sagan, and Iosef Shklovsky were among the first astronomers to make this point. They attempted to estimate the number of planets (in the universe) with environments favorable for life support. In the early 1960s they recognized that a certain kind of star with a planet just the right distance from that star would provide the necessary conditions for life. On this basis they made optimistic estimates for the probability of finding life elsewhere in the universe. Shklovsky and Sagan, for example, claimed that 0.001 percent of all stars could have a planet capable of supporting advanced life.

0.001 percent "chance" of any star having a planet capable of supporting advanced life. Add in all the other "chances" of substance ratio/propotion/amount etc. etc. and you'll see how much percent of a "chance" that any planet would be capable of life support.

 

[Xev]

Still, it's wrong to discriminate against all theists. That is being sterotypical, you think that is right?

Bah! We all stereotype. You've already stereotyped athiesm, no? "pessimistic" and all.

I shall refrain in the future from doing so. My apologies.

Science can never answer the question of the beginning of the Universe.

Why not?

Do you believe in the "necessity of a beginning"?

Nope.

There is also a chance we may possibly be united with matter in a wood table. This chance is so very unlikely it becomes IMPRACTICAL because it will never happen and therefore we may dismiss it.

Actually, we are, in a manner of speaking.

Amuse me and do so, I may logically prove you wrong if you try to prove Harry Potter's existence

First give me an argument for the existance of God.

Xev, you disagree with this "voodoo math" as you like to claim it? In the solar system there is a certain "life zone" for possible support for life. If the earth is any closer - too much radiation, life isn't possible. If the earth were any farther - we'd freeze.

And thus not be around to ask the question.

Suppose this did happen? What are the chances of them all missing? There is a chance they can but it is so slim it becomes IMPRACTICAL, and we can dismiss it. Other than that, the only reason he lived is because someone intentionally loaded blanks or they all intentionally missed. Chance was not behind it.

Bad anology, sorry. It would be unnatural for such a thing to happen, given what we know of physics. The evolution of the universe as is is perfectly natural.

Animate things may arise from inanimate things?

Yep.

And you say "What is truth?" that is hardly truth Xev.

Why not?

I see, this is a separate theory from evolution. Evolution doesn't account for this.

No, it's an alternative to the classical Darwinian theory of evolution.

There's still that chance you can separate yourself from Him and so on. You "could" lose something, or maybe God might just accept your claims.

Oh well, too bad then.

A being that needs worship and will torture those who do not worship it is not deserving of worship.

Seriously? Interesting. Can you reference them?

Sure. I'll get back to you on that.

No but my ex-gf likes him alot for some reason.

Reading "The Absurd Man" (I think it is the title) and "The Myth of Sisyphus" will more or less explain my outlook.

I admit the possibility also and I embrace this possibilty Also no need to be derogatory and start comparing things to Santy and so on, it's absurd. Atheists love to do this to show "how gullible a theist is" - just implies disrespect.

Cthulhu would be upset if you compared him to Santa.

Hell and all that, could have a "chance" of existing or not. So atheists don't completely lose, they have a possibility of losing. Theists don't lose at all.

No, you more or less have to be religious to believe in a hell. Deism works well with Pascal's wager, but that's about it.

Christian? Allah would not be pleased.....

Nor would Cthulhu be pleased if I stopped being his preistess. He'd probably cry....I hate it when alien monsters cry.

You see the problem here? You get into punishment and reward, you get into religion, thus you have the problem of "Which religion?"

 

[James R]

The Chosen,

<i>No, it is subjective to believe if one's life was a waste or not. Who is the sole judge of that? According to atheists, it would be oneself since oneself makes up their own meanings in life. So that should not be counted as a loss.</i>

Ok, I propose to you that you should accept JR's Wager, which is based on belief in my purple dragon Herbert who lives in my garage. Herbert has the power to grant you eternal life, but you have to believe in him. Now, suppose you believe in Herbert but he doesn't really exist. That wouldn't be a waste of time, according to you?

<i>Have you read a Brief History in Time by Hawking? It mentions God.</i>

Yes, but Hawking himself is an atheist. He goes to great lengths to try to come up with a cosmology which has no need for God (see his "imaginary time" idea).

<i>What's the purpose of the Universe? Chance is its purpose.</i>

Why does it need a purpose?

<i>What about the principle of Biogenesis?</i>

What's that?

<i>Punctuated Equilibrium sounds good too, but how do you know it's true?</i>

I don't. I'm not claiming it's necessarily true. You'll have to ask Xev about that.

<i>Why was there no chaos involved [in radiation physics]? If those different interactions was a millionth of a decimal place off, things wouldn't happen the way it would.</i>

You can say that about any number of things. You'll have to give me the details if you want an explanation of why there's no chaos in a particular instance.

<i>0.001 percent "chance" of any star having a planet capable of supporting advanced life. Add in all the other "chances" of substance ratio/propotion/amount etc. etc. and you'll see how much percent of a "chance" that any planet would be capable of life support.</i>

In our galaxy alone, there are about 100,000 stars (from memory). With a 0.001% chance of life for each one, that means we'd expect 1 planet with life in our galaxy purely by chance. And guess what? There is one - ours!

 

[Adam]

Punctuated Equilibrium

As far as I know, Punctuated Equilibrium is a refinement of general evolution theory which says that although gradual change occurs, the greater changes in species are due to sudden very noticable events, such as the possible Yukatan asteroid impact. So whil critters were changing gradually all the time, that one event would cause many drastic changes.