Evolution is wack;God is the only way that makes sense! - Part 2

garbonzo

Registered Senior Member
I wanted to create a new thread because my old thread seems to have gone into a debate in who knows what. Back on topic.

I can diffidently see what you guys are saying. I haven't really given it a whole lot of thought of trying to view it from other peoples angle before. It made me think of a conversation I had with someone on here that I had forgotten about. He was an atheist who believed evolution and he knew I believed in creation and god. We discussed what his beliefs were and why he believed them and also why I believed like I do. The conversation we had though was pleasant and respectful.

I will answer your question in two parts. Why am I a christian and why am I a JW.

I am a Christian because that is what I think is true. I have never been convinced that evolution could some how create life and them make it evolve into such complex things. I can see the flip side to it also with atheist thinking creation and a god is far fetched. So to prove it to my self I have to look at what facts there are, one of them is the building blocks of life, DNA, RNA and proteins. To me there is no chance that three of these thing could form by chance at the same time to form a living cell. Also, In order for proteins to form they need RNA and in order for RNA to form they need proteins, so these two would have to be formed by chance at the exact same time and in the exact same location. So to me it seems completely crazy to think that could happen. Also I look at the what proof there is of a god. To me the greatest proof is the bible and examining what it says. For example, the harmony of all the books of the bible and the numerous prophecies that have happened. A personal experience I had though was a few months ago. I was at one of are conventions and after it was over a this guy come up( he was an atheist) and starts asking all the question to a friend of mine. one of the scriptures that was brought up was Isaiah 40:22 in regard to the earth be a spherical shape even though this was many years before it was found out to be a sphere. The verse though says " the one who is dwelling above the circle of the earth". The guy dismisses the scripture as not proving anything though because a circle is a 2 dimensional shape. The conversation then moved past that but I wanted to know why it says circle. I found out that the original hebrew word used there was " chugh" and it can be translated at circle or sphere. The reason it is being translated as circle here is because it was talking about the one dwelling above it. A sphere is the only shape that no matter what angle you are looking at it from you are always seeing a circle because a sphere as no defining edges.
As for why I am a JW: Ever since the beginning of creation god as had one people/religion. for a long time it was the jews and even many people today, even some christians will tell you that the jews are still gods chosen people. The bible says though that the jews lost there place as gods chosen people when they had jesus killed. Later though the apostles established the christian religion. Today though there are countless religions and many christians religions with different beliefs. So for me,before I became a JW I had to look at what I was being thought and see if it was in harmony with what the bible teaches and with what jesus taught and it was.
You said you had a Brother who was a JW so you might know some of what we believe but just incase you don't I will give you a short comparison.

most religions teach hell fire were you go if you are bad and the devil lives down there and all that stuff. That isn't a teaching from the bible though. The bible teaches that hell is simple death, an unconscious state and ceasing to exist. That is was JWs teach.

Also if other christian religions were follows of jesus as they claim then they would be following his command to preach to people all over the world but they don't. It is something JWs are know for though.
But My more personal feelings on the matter though is the love that is shown among all JW's for example: I volunteer to help build kingdom halls and I remember I was at one and I was building the stage and I looked out into the auditorium and it was packed with people. There were people hanging the duct work, doing the electrical,framing walls and doing misc work but I remember seeing that no was was getting mad cause people were in there way and it kinda of amazed me for a minute. Also I remember my brother went with some friends to germany to visit a friend who moved there and the JWs there welcomed them like family and what was being thought there was exactly what was being taught here(USA).

With out to much detail that is just some of the reasons why I am a christian and a JW.

If you don't mind me asking, What are your personal beliefs? You also said you had a brother who WAS a JW, does that mean he isn't anymore? Why?
( sorry for any typos I missed)

Any help answering this person is much appreciated. He reminds me of myself very much. Just to see a glimpse of how I was when I was a JW (Jehovah's Witness) before I became atheist:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?106878-A-challenge-to-Atheists

You can definitely see the similarities in the reasoning! So I am going to try and help this guy with your help just as much as you guys helped me on here. At least try. Ultimately it is his choice to make, but I want to give him as much facts and perspective as I can for him to make his own decision.

Please help. Thank you guys so much!
 
So to prove it to my self I have to look at what facts there are, one of them is the building blocks of life, DNA, RNA and proteins. To me there is no chance that three of these thing could form by chance at the same time to form a living cell.
The common mistake here is the perception that random chance is involved and that complexity appears instantaneously. The size, shapes, and attractive natures of atoms and molecules form natural and inevitable reactions. Given billions of years these processes naturally and gradually form into ever increasing complexity within a conducive environment.

Try this very short youtube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU&feature=youtu.be
 
Also I look at the what proof there is of a god. To me the greatest proof is the bible and examining what it says.
The bible was written by people. It tells a story. An alternative would be to read the Star Trek saga, also written by people. It tells a story that is internally consistent and to many quite believable.

What's the difference between the two stories? None. They are both the result of human imagination. They are both fantasies. To show that the god fantasy is not a fantasy one would need to clearly show a cause and effect relationship. To date we know of nothing in our universe that requires a god to exist to explain anything. One was written deliberately as a fantasy while the other was developed by people who imagined what might be true, not what they knew as true. Which is which?

Try Hawking - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...od-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html
 
The bible was written by people. It tells a story. An alternative would be to read the Star Trek saga, also written by people. It tells a story that is internally consistent and to many quite believable.

What's the difference between the two stories? None. They are both the result of human imagination. They are both fantasies. To show that the god fantasy is not a fantasy one would need to clearly show a cause and effect relationship. To date we know of nothing in our universe that requires a god to exist to explain anything. One was written deliberately as a fantasy while the other was developed by people who imagined what might be true, not what they knew as true. Which is which?

Try Hawking - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...od-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html
feel free to indicate how you can explain a godless universe without also relying on an internally consistent collection of fables
:shrug:

IOw you are simply borrowing from the authority of science in an attempt to lend credibility to ideas about how you imagine the universe works
 
Yesterday, I wrote a lengthy reply to garbonzo. I also merged this thread with the previous one, and explained why I did that.

My reply disappeared following the database error, and I can't bring myself to rewrite it. Sorry, garbonzo.

I also can't be bothered re-merging the threads etc. So, we'll let this thread run...
 
Posting after database roll back

any way, how does science discovery counter the notion of God?
If you were a omni-clever God would you not create a fully automatic evolution and growth system?
I know I would.....
I think I would rather sit down on the beach sipping a whiskey smoking a cigar than try to micro manage every thing....[chuckle]
 
Posting after database roll back

any way, how does science discovery counter the notion of God?
If you were a omni-clever God would you not create a fully automatic evolution and growth system?
I know I would.....
I think I would rather sit down on the beach sipping a whiskey smoking a cigar than try to micro manage every thing....[chuckle]

So you're attempting to argue against the aimlessness of evolution as evidence against an intervening god by positing an anthropomorphic deity in a fantasy situation?
 
Yesterday, I wrote a lengthy reply to garbonzo. I also merged this thread with the previous one, and explained why I did that.

My reply disappeared following the database error, and I can't bring myself to rewrite it. Sorry, garbonzo.

I also can't be bothered re-merging the threads etc. So, we'll let this thread run...

No worries, it was saved when I opened my browser:

I wanted to create a new thread because my old thread seems to have gone into a debate in who knows what. Back on topic.

Sorry, but this is a clear continuation of the same topic, not a new topic. So it belongs in the same thread. I merged the threads. It's a pity that threads sometimes go off on tangents, but there's little that can be done about that. Conversations tend to take on a life of their own.

I am a Christian because that is what I think is true. I have never been convinced that evolution could some how create life and them make it evolve into such complex things. I can see the flip side to it also with atheist thinking creation and a god is far fetched. So to prove it to my self I have to look at what facts there are, one of them is the building blocks of life, DNA, RNA and proteins. To me there is no chance that three of these thing could form by chance at the same time to form a living cell. Also, In order for proteins to form they need RNA and in order for RNA to form they need proteins, so these two would have to be formed by chance at the exact same time and in the exact same location. So to me it seems completely crazy to think that could happen.
How much do you know about biology, genetics and the details of DNA/protein/RNA chemistry? Is the above objection based on your own expert knowledge of the science, or on something you read somewhere else? Just wondering. I'm not in a position to refute your claim that RNA and proteins require each other. I suspect they do not, but I could be wrong. I'm fairly sure that life could exist without DNA, though.

Also I look at the what proof there is of a god. To me the greatest proof is the bible and examining what it says. For example, the harmony of all the books of the bible and the numerous prophecies that have happened.
The books of the bible are very far from harmonious. A brief google search for "biblical contradictions" will turn up entire sites devoted to that subject. The bible was written by numerous authors at various times. It contradicts itself in many places and contains many factual errors. Also, the content of the bible as it exists today was selected by committee from many writings. Quite a few of those other writings were left out because they did not tow the party line. You can still read some of them, though - for example the various gospels that weren't included. Some of them give a different view on Jesus and God.

As for why I am a JW: Ever since the beginning of creation god as had one people/religion.
That's only according to the bible. You can't prove that the bible is true by first assuming that what it says is true. You need independent proof if that's what you're trying to establish.

The bible says though that the jews lost there place as gods chosen people when they had jesus killed.
Where does it say that?

The Romans killed Jesus, by the way. Pontius Pilate gave the order. And he wasn't the sort to be dictated to by a group of conquered subjects of the Roman empire.

most religions teach hell fire were you go if you are bad and the devil lives down there and all that stuff. That isn't a teaching from the bible though. The bible teaches that hell is simple death, an unconscious state and ceasing to exist. That is was JWs teach.

I'm fairly sure the bible talks about hell and fire and burning for eternity and all that. Have you read it cover to cover?

Also if other christian religions were follows of jesus as they claim then they would be following his command to preach to people all over the world but they don't. It is something JWs are know for though.
Do JWs follow all the biblical commandments? Do you refrain from mixing clothes of different materials, as the bible commands? Do you refrain from eating shellfish, which the bible says are an abomination? Do you refrain from working on the Sabbath, as the bible commands?

But My more personal feelings on the matter though is the love that is shown among all JW's for example: I volunteer to help build kingdom halls and I remember I was at one and I was building the stage and I looked out into the auditorium and it was packed with people. There were people hanging the duct work, doing the electrical,framing walls and doing misc work but I remember seeing that no was was getting mad cause people were in there way and it kinda of amazed me for a minute. Also I remember my brother went with some friends to germany to visit a friend who moved there and the JWs there welcomed them like family and what was being thought there was exactly what was being taught here(USA).

Feeling like you're part of a community is a common reason for joining a religious group. It gives people a sense of shared identity. But that feeling doesn't depend on believing in God. I've seen exactly the same kind of thing at an atheist convention.

I'm looking up the other things you said.

I'm fairly sure the bible talks about hell and fire and burning for eternity and all that. Have you read it cover to cover?

Yes I have. Where does it say that?

Do JWs follow all the biblical commandments? Do you refrain from mixing clothes of different materials, as the bible commands? Do you refrain from eating shellfish, which the bible says are an abomination? Do you refrain from working on the Sabbath, as the bible commands?

Jesus did away with the old testament laws and rules and replaced them with his own.
 
So you're attempting to argue against the aimlessness of evolution as evidence against an intervening god by positing an anthropomorphic deity in a fantasy situation?
not at all, just opening eyes to possibilities....well Balerion I put it to you... If you were God would you Micro manage your creation? Or is the question way too abstract for you to consider?
 
Back up from before rollback:

not at all, just opening eyes to possibilities....well Balerion I put it to you... If you were God would you Micro manage your creation? Or is the question way too abstract for you to consider?
@ Aqueous,
do you know what skepticism is?
do you know what agnotism is?
Do you know how important these two "things" are to doing good science?
There are plenty of objective measures to keep science in check. Science isn't wandering aimlessly, it isn't crashing and burning, or falling apart at the seams. It's flourishing like it has for a very long time.
Aqueous Id said:
If by skepticism you mean testing, then OK. I can't find a parallel to agnosticism since it implies a cynical critique of something unstated. There are differences of opinion, schools of thought, that kind of thing. The problem here is that this isn't a subject that needs something exotic to support it. The only reason it's been under scrutiny for the last 100 years, and especially in the last decade, is because of cynical religiosity that feels threatened by it. Otherwise this thread wouldn't exist, and you and I would be talking about how fascinating it is that the species (maybe plural) under stress split into 12 diverse phenotypes after finding both advantage and disadvantage in their new habitat, mutating and/or drifting genetically, and emerging from many kinds of natural selection as 12 distinct species.

In any case I entered into this discussion with the premise that evolution is sound and religion is wack. With a little retracing of the steps I was taking you through, you should now have a new way to process my statement.

Aqueous Id said:
@ Aqueus,
Do you have a problem with the word migrate?

mi·grate (mgrt)
intr.v. mi·grat·ed, mi·grat·ing, mi·grates
1. To move from one country or region and settle in another.
2. To change location periodically, especially by moving seasonally from one region to another.

We can not impose our beliefs on nature. It runs its course. In the case of birds, the migratory behavior has key elements. If you recall, I gave you the fact that migrating birds return to the breeding ground. They do not migrate as an entire species, much less as 12 species. This covers the problem that they exist nowhere else.

The hypothesis, that they migrated, must therefore be rejected. I was merely encouraging you to arrive at this crossroads, to see if you could stand in Darwin's shoes for a moment, to see the problem from his point of view. It's quite remarkable to me.

If so please explain...
also are you deliberately being dishonest or are you just merely confused?
Do you remember what you posted regarding the question or not?
If you are an example of evolutionist attitude and behaviour it is no wonder you are constantly at logger heads with creationist.
If evolutionary theory was correct and there appears to me to be no reason to think that it isn't why do you feel the need to defend it in such a deceptive therefore nasty fashion?
No deception, just fostering scientific dialogue.

The next thing you might have said after rejecting migration is that these are all descendants of one or several breeding pairs of some ancestral mainland species, mating pairs which somehow became stranded on Galapagos. Once placed in the stress of this new environment, they began to fail in their struggle for existence. Mutations that naturally occur prevented their assured extinction, by adding new traits to the gene pool. These new traits included adaptations in the beak, allowing them to rely on the actual food sources there. You can read more in Darwin's own account, or just about anywhere else, since they're part of the standard fare for a course in life science.

Incidentally, this is the overwhelming and conclusive proof you were referring to. A lot of people tend to forget this. The Creationists harp on all kinds of demands for particular forms of evidence, but I have not yet met a single Creationist that can process this information, arrive at that crossroads, and then have that eureka moment that Darwin had.

It's just plain ignorance. They refuse to use their "God given" noodle.

But you guys should make your own thread. It would have been nice if the mods could have kept the old one open for you to debate this.
 
not at all, just opening eyes to possibilities....well Balerion I put it to you... If you were God would you Micro manage your creation? Or is the question way too abstract for you to consider?

The question is absurd. You're asking me to envisage a scenario in which I'm God, yet appealing to my human nature for the answer. This is why I said you were positing an anthropomorphic god--that is, a god with human characteristics. I have no fucking clue how a god might run creation, and neither do you. Assuming that it would act as you would is ridiculous.
 
The question is absurd. You're asking me to envisage a scenario in which I'm God, yet appealing to my human nature for the answer. This is why I said you were positing an anthropomorphic god--that is, a god with human characteristics. I have no fucking clue how a god might run creation, and neither do you. Assuming that it would act as you would is ridiculous.
so in other words, you think having a personality renders yourself inferior
 
so in other words, you think having a personality renders yourself inferior

No, I think that it's absurd to anthropomorphize a being which would be by definition unknowable. To say that a deity would do something because "that's what I would do" is silly. QQ is assuming that "micro-managing" creation is akin to a job, and assumes that a god would automate the process so that he could sit on the beach all day.

Scenarios don't get any more ludicrous than that.
 
so in other words, you think having a personality renders yourself inferior
:confused:
Yet another illogical inference from what was typed, LG, seemingly setting up another strawman for you to blow over.
Have a shrug... :shrug:
 
:confused:
Yet another illogical inference from what was typed, LG, seemingly setting up another strawman for you to blow over.
Have a shrug... :shrug:

Meh. Sometimes knocking down strawmen is fun.

May I have a shrug as well?

:shrug:
 
No, I think that it's absurd to anthropomorphize a being which would be by definition unknowable.
huh?
Unknowable ?
... I guess it is too abstract for you then ...

To say that a deity would do something because "that's what I would do" is silly.
which is why i asked if you felt burdened by having a personality

QQ is assuming that "micro-managing" creation is akin to a job, and assumes that a god would automate the process so that he could sit on the beach all day.

Scenarios don't get any more ludicrous than that.
which again, is why i asked if you felt burdened by having a personality ... or is that the idea of being a personality and delegating is a concept too abstract for you?
:shrug:
 
which again, is why i asked if you felt burdened by having a personality ... or is that the idea of being a personality and delegating is a concept too abstract for you?
how astute of you LG....
 
The thing is most people when they tallk about God seem to consider him as being only pseudo intelligent, a sort of ego centricism that attempts to place humans on some sort of equal footing with "it"
Of course if one subscribes to the notion that God would indeed be omni smart and surperbly clever then why the hell wouldn't he create a fully automated system called "universe" and go sit on a beach somewhere and "bonk" as much as he wanted to...sheesh! half a brain and it is obvious.

"hmmm which planet to day...hmmm...which galaxy....hmmm oh never mind...I'll let the probability drive do it for me..."


what, do you think God would somehow be your slave or servant? [ chuckle]
 
I wanted to create a new thread because my old thread seems to have gone into a debate in who knows what. Back on topic.



Any help answering this person is much appreciated. He reminds me of myself very much. Just to see a glimpse of how I was when I was a JW (Jehovah's Witness) before I became atheist:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?106878-A-challenge-to-Atheists

You can definitely see the similarities in the reasoning! So I am going to try and help this guy with your help just as much as you guys helped me on here. At least try. Ultimately it is his choice to make, but I want to give him as much facts and perspective as I can for him to make his own decision.

Please help. Thank you guys so much!

OK. What this guy says is he believes in God. Fine, he is entitled to that.

Then he says that he cannot wrap his mind around evolution. Hold it right there!
His reasons, it seems is that he has not completely undestood the science. The question now is: Does he completely understand computers? Aeroplanes? Internal combustion engines? Women?

It will be 'no' to at least one of these. So, we can agree that even if there are things we fail to understand well, they may still exist.

Now, let us look at the alternative he offers: Biblical religion. Is that a thing we can understand? Understand. One can, obviously, believe it, but can one understand it? - Well, since it involves a spiritual being (for JWs, who also believe in angels, actually a whole lot of spiritual beings) performing magic, we humans can evidently not understand it.

So, it must follow that, since religion is at least as incomprehensible as evolution is (to some), the failure to comprehend evolution should not be what leads people to religion.

So now we need not to mix evolution into discussions about religion, and vice versa.

Hans
 
Back
Top