Has Creationism been disproven?

[Mighty NorCal]

Tell you what? Whether the Judeo-Christian God created the world by farting out the materials of his belly or not? I don't understand why you're asking this.



How the FUCK is that arrogant? I was sharing my beliefs about why I don't think there is a god, and you fucking call me arrogant?

No, I know he made them, or put them into creation. I was simply asking for the scientific explanation, so I could tell it to people.



You dont see how that is arrogant? That, in and of itself, its outrageously arrogant ....Who the fuck are YOU to question why God does as he does, and to sit here and say "ill deal with him when he gets his shit together"


Like, that is God, you are talking. God. You, J glass, telling him he needs to get his shit togehter. As if you have the first fucking clue. You dont see any way that is arrogant? Really?

 

[JGlass]

Thanks, thats as close to being funny as I'll ever be in this thread.

Calling GTA a nearly fully functioning society was pretty funny too.

I dont know, go ask him.

Can't, don't believe in him, or her, or it.

Theres no actual mention of a dinosaur in the Bible, at least not one that I know of. They could've easily drowned after the whole Noah's ark thing but thats something I really dont want to get into because it leads to a whole nother discussion. I dont see how dinosaurs or fossils test anyones faith though.

A whole nother, oh brother.

Dinosaur fossils are hundreds of millions years old, while most creationists place the world at no more than 6,000 or so years old. Now perhaps you are like NorCal and don't fall under the category of most creationists, but religious creationist theory puts the world at an extremely young age.

One again, I never said that. God gave us free will, to live the way we wish to live. Hes not going to see a guy trying to fuck another guy and build a forcefield around one of them. You're responsible for your own actions, I think that speaks volumes for a authority figure in a world where everybody is trying to control eachother's actions. Athletic ability can come from training or genetics, I dont think God looked at Bret Farve when he was a baby and said "I'm going to make you good at football so that poor people can watch you and feel jealous".

Are you insinuating there there's something wrong with gay sex?

And that's not what I'm getting at, at all. Most major religions say that God is benevolent and kind, yet millions of people die horrible deaths from starvation, disease, dehydration, etc. What gives God the right to let them die while he lets assholes like Dick Cheney live prosperously? Well, I guess what gives God the right to that is the fact that he's God, but that doesn't mean I agree with what he's doing.

...some which remain unanswered, right?

Yes, there are plenty of questions science has yet to answer. Same with religion.

Isnt it an even bleaker view of life to imagine that you dont serve purpose in this world other than to eat, sleep, make horrible mistakes, and eventually die?

It's called existentialism brother, I determine my own meaning in life. I find it quite fulfilling.

No, I know he made them, or put them into creation. I was simply asking for the scientific explanation, so I could tell it to people.

Well the scientific explanation is that there was a super dense state of energy and matter which became unstable and exploded causing our Universe to expand. How that super dense state got there is anyone's guess, but it's probably always been there.

You dont see how that is arrogant? That, in and of itself, its outrageously arrogant ....Who the fuck are YOU to question why God does as he does, and to sit here and say "ill deal with him when he gets his shit together"

I happen to know that you deviate from some of God's laws according to the Bible, NorCal. What gives you the right to interpret the Bible the way you do? The answer is the same thing that gives me the right to question what God does.

Like, that is God, you are talking. God. You, J glass, telling him he needs to get his shit togehter. As if you have the first fucking clue. You dont see any way that is arrogant? Really?

Are you saying that I don't have the right to believe that a destitute South East Asian village deserves the same rights as the people who live in the mansions in South Orange, NJ? Are you saying I don't have the right to believe that African women shouldn't accept being raped as part of everyday life in order to get water for their family to drink? Why should I praise a God that let's these awful... AWFUL things happen while he supposedly has it in his power to fix them?

Look at it this way, if God said, "Gay people are sinners and deserve to be outcast from society," would you worship him despite the fact that the things he demands seem immoral to you?

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Look, I'm taking the initiative and giving new members the benefit of the doubt when they come on here and start acting like jackasses, and that's what you've done. I don't think you're a jackass yet, so please, tone it down a notch, and let's discuss this maturely.

How are these anything like what I mentioned? Those are just natural occurences. They're necessary in order for people to die. Its not a matter of cause, its a matter of dealing with it. We can make certain diseases more manageable. The fact that kids in Africa die of AIDS is a testament to how greedy we are. People in the US with AIDS can have close to a normal life, we shouldnt have let it get to the point where theres such a large amount of people with AIDS in Africa and not enough medicine to go around. I'm pretty sure someone made the connection that everytime those sick people with lesions on their skins fucked, their partner and the children that were born contracted his condition. In the US we have buildings that can withstand earthquakes of a certain magnitude and manage to live in places where natural disasters are slim. Its as easy as moving people to a much more safe place to live and providing the essentials necessary to build a safe living environment.

So I don't understand what you're saying. Natural occurrences are acts of God, correct? Because it seems to be that these natural occurrences don't discriminate between criminals, leeches on society, people seen as "bad" by the Christian religion, and those who have led a good life, based on the teachings of the Bible. That sounds to me like something that would be in God's best interest.

Why would acts of God kill innocent people if they were acts of God?

I'm sorry, but I can't accept "God works in mysterious ways" as a legitimate answer.

How exactly am I supposed to answer this? Your attempt to call my bluff on a system of beliefs that makes no sense to you is pointless. I love when big science heads start calling everything about religion an inaccuracy. Every day when you read the news and theres a story about science there one group claiming to find evidence that completely contradicts another groups result. They just keep going back and fourth and it stays like that. Pluto was a planet for a long time, nobody knows how the dinosaurs died, and the missing link is still, what do you know, missing. Its theory upon theory of compiled nonsense that evidently adds up to nothing because I'm pretty sure if I asked you for definitive evidence that God doesnt exist you would have nothing to show me. So you can sit there and come up with theory after theory that will be accepted for a long time, then disputed by many and ultimately left up to individuals to decide whether it makes sense or not. Sounds a lot like an atheist portrayal of religion, doesnt it?

This is an example of your profound misunderstanding of how science works. Things don't magically become true based on how long they're accepted by society. Things are proven wrong because they're proven wrong. If someone has a theory as to how something works, and someone else comes up with a theory that proves the first one wrong, then we suddenly have a better perspective on how the world works. It's how we discovered gravity, electricity, the periodic table of elements, and microorganisms.

It may be generally accepted by the religious community that Jesus was resurrected three days after his death before ascending into heaven, but that doesn't make it more valid than a provable, testable, observable scientific theory. Nobody is ashamed that scientific theories keep changing. That's how we learn.

Finally, it's impossible to show definitive evidence that something doesn't exist. That's why "burden of proof" doesn't exist. It's not just a cop-out debate tactic. You just can't do it.

What if I asked you for definitive proof that unicorns or Santa Claus doesn't exist?

I'm not the one making the claim that God exists. You are. You prove it.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Well the scientific explanation is that there was a super dense state of energy and matter which became unstable and exploded causing our Universe to expand. How that super dense state got there is anyone's guess, but it's probably always been there.


I happen to know that you deviate from some of God's laws according to the Bible, NorCal. What gives you the right to interpret the Bible the way you do? The answer is the same thing that gives me the right to question what God does.



Are you saying that I don't have the right to believe that a destitute South East Asian village deserves the same rights as the people who live in the mansions in South Orange, NJ? Are you saying I don't have the right to believe that African women shouldn't accept being raped as part of everyday life in order to get water for their family to drink? Why should I praise a God that let's these awful... AWFUL things happen while he supposedly has it in his power to fix them?

Look at it this way, if God said, "Gay people are sinners and deserve to be outcast from society," would you worship him despite the fact that the things he demands seem immoral to you?

Ok, well there ya go. You can say it was there just because, and I can say it was God's creation. Obviously the people who wrote the Bible didnt have quite the scientific ability we do, so their explanations may be a bit less technically sound. Bottom line being, we both have the same amount of evidence to support or claim. Difference being, I accept yours as true, and your driving force in life is to prove mine wrong and fake.

What laws would those be, good sir, and under what interpretation? and who is to say the Bible is God's law? I do not question what God does, I question what normal, mortal men wrote down in a book. Bit of a difference there.

Of course you have the right to question why those things go on, and furthermore, why normal humans do not go do something the fuck about it. Do you think maybe THAT is an etho we share? I damn sure hope so. I do not question God's intervention of way of doing things because I understand it is nothing I could ever even begin to understand, or conceptualize in my own head. I know this because time and time again I would ask God "why is this happening to me? Why wont this just work out how I want it to?"...and things worked out ten times better than I expected, and I felt like a fucking idiot. How are we to know the things you are speaking of are not of the same fashion, just a much, much, much larger scale? We dont, because we are not God, and cannot comprehend his ways.

In the mean time, if you see something you dont feel is right, do something about it.


if God said that, I would trust in him, and ask what happened there. Then again if he did, then he would not be God, and we need not worry.

 

[H33LTurn]

So I don't understand what you're saying. Natural occurrences are acts of God, correct? Because it seems to be that these natural occurrences don't discriminate between criminals, leeches on society, people seen as "bad" by the Christian religion, and those who have led a good life, based on the teachings of the Bible. That sounds to me like something that would be in God's best interest.

Why would acts of God kill innocent people if they were acts of God?

I'm sorry, but I can't accept "God works in mysterious ways" as a legitimate answer.

I wasnt giving a "God works in mysterious ways" answer. The beauttiful thing about God is that he shows no discrimination towards people who do things that are noticeably wrong like steal. Thats why both good and bad people die in similar ways. People need to die so that the cycle of life can keep going on.

Finally, it's impossible to show definitive evidence that something doesn't exist. That's why "burden of proof" doesn't exist. It's not just a cop-out debate tactic. You just can't do it.

What if I asked you for definitive proof that unicorns or Santa Claus doesn't exist?

I'm not the one making the claim that God exists. You are. You prove it.

I have different explanations as to why God exists that you will probably reject with a scientific explanation that has no definitive core root. Like this, if the Earth had been a billionth of a degree higher or lower during its formation it would have collapsed into itself. Such precise measurements for a coincidental formation of a planet. Sure you could just say, well these things happen, but I think something so precise had to have been carefully done by something more powerful, by God. Explaining a personal relationship with God is like explaining a conscience. Can you show me one? No. But its a presence, an understanding of right or wrong and a balance in life, just like God. I cant show you God, and I dont see why I have to prove to you that he exists. Religion has been a dominating force in the world for many years. When you're in a position like that I think the atheists are the ones who are supposed to disprove the religious. Religion is a widely accepted idea, when you're part of the counter-argument you're the one whos supposed to present your case. So far no atheist has been able to prove to a major religion that it is wrong.

 

[Hazardous]

They just keep going back and fourth and it stays like that

When the man who came up with the big bang theory (A Catholic priest I might add) he was called a lunatic, and crazy. Even by Einstein. Yet now it's widely accepted as the true origin of the universe. When it was first said that the earth is not flat, and the sun does not orbit us, people killed them. Now it's common knowledge that even a 6yr old knows. So how is it all "going back and forth and staying like that"?

Pluto was a planet for a long time

That's because the definition of a "Planet" was refined, demoting Pluto to a "dwarf-planet" since they found 2 or 3 others like it. also it doesn't have the same orbit patterns as any other planet. this is science re-defining itself.

nobody knows how the dinosaurs died

Pretty sure I said 2 times now.. A meteor crashed into the gulf of Mexico, causing world wide havoc. Evidence of this CAN be seen all over the world. This has been public knowledge for some time now.

and the missing link is still, what do you know, missing

Which one? How many different ones do they need to find before the Christian population is happy?

Its theory upon theory of compiled nonsense that evidently adds up to nothing because I'm pretty sure if I asked you for definitive evidence that God doesn't exist you would have nothing to show me.

Which is the same thing YOU would have to show when someone asks for evidence that He/She/It does exist. "I know cuz I feel it" is not solid evidence.

 

[H33LTurn]

Calling GTA a nearly fully functioning society was pretty funny too.

I aim to please.

Can't, don't believe in him, or her, or it.

You dont say.

A whole nother, oh brother.

Dinosaur fossils are hundreds of millions years old, while most creationists place the world at no more than 6,000 or so years old. Now perhaps you are like NorCal and don't fall under the category of most creationists, but religious creationist theory puts the world at an extremely young age.

What does that have to do with me. You were right, I'm not a traditional creationist.

Are you insinuating there there's something wrong with gay sex?

And that's not what I'm getting at, at all. Most major religions say that God is benevolent and kind, yet millions of people die horrible deaths from starvation, disease, dehydration, etc. What gives God the right to let them die while he lets assholes like Dick Cheney live prosperously? Well, I guess what gives God the right to that is the fact that he's God, but that doesn't mean I agree with what he's doing.

No I'm not insinuating something is wrong with gay sex, but isnt that the popular idea, that all Christians hate gays? It was merely an example, dont overanalize it, no pun intended. God is a loving God in terms of salvation. He forgives you for your sins. It doesnt say in the Bible that you will live like a rich man because God loves you. That would make heaven obsolete, since you're already living heaven on earth. People have to die, if the factor around them support a horrible death then so be it.

Yes, there are plenty of questions science has yet to answer. Same with religion.

And when science solves the great mystery and disproves religion, give me a call. I'd give you my number, but I'm 100% certain you wont need it.

 

[JGlass]

Ok, well there ya go. You can say it was there just because, and I can say it was God's creation. Obviously the people who wrote the Bible didnt have quite the scientific ability we do, so their explanations may be a bit less technically sound. Bottom line being, we both have the same amount of evidence to support or claim. Difference being, I accept yours as true, and your driving force in life is to prove mine wrong and fake.

Yeah, all I live for is crushing the beliefs of theists.

What laws would those be, good sir, and under what interpretation? and who is to say the Bible is God's law? I do not question what God does, I question what normal, mortal men wrote down in a book. Bit of a difference there.

The one that says that men who lay with other men should be stoned to death, in just about any interpretation. And I agree with you that the Bible isn't God's law, but that doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe that their holy books are the word of God.

Of course you have the right to question why those things go on, and furthermore, why normal humans do not go do something the fuck about it. Do you think maybe THAT is an etho we share? I damn sure hope so. I do not question God's intervention of way of doing things because I understand it is nothing I could ever even begin to understand, or conceptualize in my own head. I know this because time and time again I would ask God "why is this happening to me? Why wont this just work out how I want it to?"...and things worked out ten times better than I expected, and I felt like a fucking idiot. How are we to know the things you are speaking of are not of the same fashion, just a much, much, much larger scale? We dont, because we are not God, and cannot comprehend his ways.

Well that raises an even bigger moral question of whether it's okay to kill a thousand people to make the lives of one million better.

As for sharing the etho of doing something about people in danger... well, I think Darfur, the malaria crisis, and the fact that billions of people live in destitute poverty prove that not nearly enough people are willing to do something for those in need.

In the mean time, if you see something you dont feel is right, do something about it.

I've done plenty of things to help causes I believe in, mostly through monetary donations, but I've tried to donate time as well.

if God said that, I would trust in him, and ask what happened there. Then again if he did, then he would not be God, and we need not worry.

He wouldn't be your definition of God, but there are millions and millions of people in America alone that believe God doesn't accept homosexuals.

Does that mean I think it's the only way to interpret God? Not at all, and, once again, I respect your right to interpret God however you want. I just don't, and you've sort of seen some of my reasons as to why.

 

[H33LTurn]

When the man who came up with the big bang theory (A Catholic priest I might add) he was called a lunatic, and crazy. Even by Einstein. Yet now it's widely accepted as the true origin of the universe. When it was first said that the earth is not flat, and the sun does not orbit us, people killed them. Now it's common knowledge that even a 6yr old knows. So how is it all "going back and forth and staying like that"?

Just because those ideas are widely accepted doesnt mean that every scientific idea is fully supported. Why didnt you pick a more controversial issue? Oh right, because it would've disproven you're entire statement.

That's because the definition of a "Planet" was refined, demoting Pluto to a "dwarf-planet" since they found 2 or 3 others like it. also it doesn't have the same orbit patterns as any other planet. this is science re-defining itself.

Yeah I get it, your "facts" are difinitive until you say otherwise.

Pretty sure I said 2 times now.. A meteor crashed into the gulf of Mexico, causing world wide havoc. Evidence of this CAN be seen all over the world. This has been public knowledge for some time now.

Some of your fellow scientists dont see eye to eye with you on that one.

Which one? How many different ones do they need to find before the Christian population is happy?

The one that proves without a doubt that humans come from monkeys. I've never understood why you guys push for that one so much, I would hate to find out that I come from an animal that throws feces for fun.

Which is the same thing YOU would have to show when someone asks for evidence that He/She/It does exist. "I know cuz I feel it" is not solid evidence.

But you're the one with the problem, why dont you show me evidence that God doesnt exists? Oh wait, you just said you cant. See this is what I meant about going back and forth on an issue that will never be resolved.

 

[Hazardous]

Just because those ideas are widely accepted doesnt mean that every scientific idea is fully supported. Why didnt you pick a more controversial issue? Oh right, because it would've disproven you're entire statement.

Actually, no. I picked the most relevant one to both groups. All 3 were opposed heavily be the christian community, and were proven wrong.

Yeah I get it, your "facts" are difinitive until you say otherwise.

Noo.. I don't recall saying that actually. I was against the demotion of Pluto actually. The Science community got together a a collective group and took a vote, Pluto was demoted as a result of the discovery of another Dwarf-Planet. Should look into these things.

Some of your fellow scientists dont see eye to eye with you on that one.

Really? Where are some people who say that they were not killed off this way? And I mean reputable ones.

The one that proves without a doubt that humans come from monkeys. I've never understood why you guys push for that one so much, I would hate to find out that I come from an animal that throws feces for fun.

You're aware some Humans do this too, right?

But you're the one with the problem, why dont you show me evidence that God doesnt exists? Oh wait, you just said you cant. See this is what I meant about going back and forth on an issue that will never be resolved.

Not at all. Im not showing you evidence that God doesn't exist, because that's not what I'm trying to prove here. I was merely trying to see if the Theory of creationism as it's taught throughout the world has been widely disproven thanks to scientific discoveries from the past 50 years. And yeah, Maybe I cant show that a God/Gods exist, but neither can you.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Yeah, all I live for is crushing the beliefs of theists.

When this discussion came up, and I made a simple, inocuous point, also respectfully requesting to not be engaged, you sure were quick to jump on it like a hobo on a ham sandwhich werent you? What else is one to be led to belive?

The one that says that men who lay with other men should be stoned to death, in just about any interpretation. And I agree with you that the Bible isn't God's law, but that doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe that their holy books are the word of God.

Interpretation, or just plain ol made up. Pretty sure when those books were written, not much was understood about homosexuality. A lot like much wasnt known about the big bang theory.

and hell yea they would, and would all look you right in the eye with the same passion (and blindness to the obvious) and say they were right. I dont think you quite understand why your last sentance proves MY point. Sure those people say that. When did I, the person who you are engaged in discussion with, say that?

Well that raises an even bigger moral question of whether it's okay to kill a thousand people to make the lives of one million better.

As for sharing the etho of doing something about people in danger... well, I think Darfur, the malaria crisis, and the fact that billions of people live in destitute poverty prove that not nearly enough people are willing to do something for those in need.

Er, how? You mean, if God did it?

Of course there arent enough people willing to do anything. Better get to work on that, no?

He wouldn't be your definition of God, but there are millions and millions of people in America alone that believe God doesn't accept homosexuals.

Which, in their own texts, and int he concept of common fucking sense, is shown to be immensely wrong. If you want to go down the homosexual road, we can.

 

[JGlass]

No I'm not insinuating something is wrong with gay sex, but isnt that the popular idea, that all Christians hate gays? It was merely an example, dont overanalize it, no pun intended. God is a loving God in terms of salvation. He forgives you for your sins. It doesnt say in the Bible that you will live like a rich man because God loves you. That would make heaven obsolete, since you're already living heaven on earth. People have to die, if the factor around them support a horrible death then so be it.

That's just your interpretation of God and heaven. There are lots of people who don't think that God lets everyone into heaven, so what makes you so sure you're correct? I don't see why you can't live a comfortable life on earth before you go to heaven.

And when science solves the great mystery and disproves religion, give me a call. I'd give you my number, but I'm 100% certain you wont need it.

So you'd rather believe that God created the world and everything in it because a book told you so rather than science which actually has been able to answer many of the questions that religion sets out to answer? That's your prerogative, and that's totally cool, but I'm going to go with the side that has concrete evidence to answer life's questions for me.

By the way, absolutely nobody has cared to comment on my comments about how we have actually witnessed evolution happening in front of our eyes, such as the lizards that have began giving live birth as well as bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics.

When this discussion came up, and I made a simple, inocuous point, also respectfully requesting to not be engaged, you sure were quick to jump on it like a hobo on a ham sandwhich werent you? What else is one to be led to belive?

Actually, in the beginning I sort of supported you by saying that there is evidence of a regional great flood. I just commented on how unlikely it was that the Noah scenario happened. In fact, are debate has evolved from like, short one or two line sentences to these long ass paragraphs. Believe me, I want it to go away as much as you do.

Interpretation, or just plain ol made up. Pretty sure when those books were written, not much was understood about homosexuality. A lot like much wasnt known about the big bang theory.

and hell yea they would, and would all look you right in the eye with the same passion (and blindness to the obvious) and say they were right. I dont think you quite understand why your last sentance proves MY point. Sure those people say that. When did I, the person who you are engaged in discussion with, say that?[/quote]

My point was that your interpretation of God is no more right or wrong than my interpretation of God (or lack thereof) or a bible thumping Christian's interpretation is.

Er, how? You mean, if God did it?

Of course there arent enough people willing to do anything. Better get to work on that, no?

I'm not that dedicated to any individual issue to dedicate my life to it. Does that make me a hypocrite? Probably a little, and definitely a little selfish, but I also know that I'd be happier pursuing my own goals in life. Perhaps God is just playing a cruel joke on all of us where we all want to make the world a better place, but few of us actually do anything about it.

Which, in their own texts, and int he concept of common fucking sense, is shown to be immensely wrong. If you want to go down the homosexual road, we can.

Just as I've managed to interpret science in an attempt to make my point and you've interpreted religion to prove yours, I'm sure hardcore bible followers would have no problem explaining to you in great detail why god hates homosexuals. While you and I can both disagree with the fact that they're wrong, that doesn't change that they probably have no trouble rationalizing it in the same way we've both rationalized our beliefs.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

My point was that your interpretation of God is no more right or wrong than my interpretation of God (or lack thereof) or a bible thumping Christian's interpretation is.




Just as I've managed to interpret science in an attempt to make my point and you've interpreted religion to prove yours, I'm sure hardcore bible followers would have no problem explaining to you in great detail why god hates homosexuals. While you and I can both disagree with the fact that they're wrong, that doesn't change that they probably have no trouble rationalizing it in the same way we've both rationalized our beliefs.

Sure it is. A person saying "my interpretation is the only correct one and if you dont do what I say you are going to hell" can most CERTAINLEY be wrong.

Well sure, and Nazis rationilzed killing and raping millions of innocent people. Just because something can be rationalized doesnt mean its right or ok. Just as it is not right or ok to manipulate what the bible says to justify hatred and discrimination.

 

[H33LTurn]

Not at all. Im not showing you evidence that God doesn't exist, because that's not what I'm trying to prove here. I was merely trying to see if the Theory of creationism as it's taught throughout the world has been widely disproven thanks to scientific discoveries from the past 50 years. And yeah, Maybe I cant show that a God/Gods exist, but neither can you.

So we could put this to a rest right, since neither one of us can disprove eachother. I mean RAW is on, and I'm pretty distracted.

 

[H33LTurn]

That's just your interpretation of God and heaven. There are lots of people who don't think that God lets everyone into heaven, so what makes you so sure you're correct? I don't see why you can't live a comfortable life on earth before you go to heaven.

Why do you believe your interpretation of life is much more correct than mines or anyone elses? Because you've seen the world around you and gone by what makes sense. Just like I did with my religion. I'm skeptical about Noah's Ark, but I fail to believe that this entire life is one big coincidence.

So you'd rather believe that God created the world and everything in it because a book told you so rather than science which actually has been able to answer many of the questions that religion sets out to answer? That's your prerogative, and that's totally cool, but I'm going to go with the side that has concrete evidence to answer life's questions for me.

Your attitude suggests that I completely ignore science and stick completely to religion. Science helps me with my factual problems, with homework, with medicine. Religion helps me with my personal convictions, my trials and tribulations, me as a human being. I dont think science can give you a definitive explanation of what a proper human being is, but religion can.

By the way, absolutely nobody has cared to comment on my comments about how we have actually witnessed evolution happening in front of our eyes, such as the lizards that have began giving live birth as well as bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics.

Because a comment isnt really necessary. I'm not against the idea that animals can evolve. I'm pretty sure human beings have changed a lot since the beginning of life, but adaptations are adaptations.

 

[JGlass]

Why do you believe your interpretation of life is much more correct than mines or anyone elses? Because you've seen the world around you and gone by what makes sense. Just like I did with my religion. I'm skeptical about Noah's Ark, but I fail to believe that this entire life is one big coincidence.

If you've been reading my posts you would have realized that I respect your right to believe what you do just as much as you do mine. I understand that what I believe isn't for everyone, but I believe it. And I have no trouble believing life is a coincidence. In fact, I think that's kind of cool.

Your attitude suggests that I completely ignore science and stick completely to religion. Science helps me with my factual problems, with homework, with medicine. Religion helps me with my personal convictions, my trials and tribulations, me as a human being. I dont think science can give you a definitive explanation of what a proper human being is, but religion can.

I don't use science to answer the big questions such as "Why am I here?" or "What happens when I die?" I use philosophy for that.

Because a comment isnt really necessary. I'm not against the idea that animals can evolve. I'm pretty sure human beings have changed a lot since the beginning of life, but adaptations are adaptations.

Adaptations that came through way of evolution. It's not like one generation or bacteria was born without the resistance to antibodies and suddenly the next one was, that took place over hundreds if not thousands of generations.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

I wasnt giving a "God works in mysterious ways" answer. The beauttiful thing about God is that he shows no discrimination towards people who do things that are noticeably wrong like steal. Thats why both good and bad people die in similar ways. People need to die so that the cycle of life can keep going on.

Fair enough. You see reason where I don't. Can't argue with that.

I have different explanations as to why God exists that you will probably reject with a scientific explanation that has no definitive core root. Like this, if the Earth had been a billionth of a degree higher or lower during its formation it would have collapsed into itself. Such precise measurements for a coincidental formation of a planet. Sure you could just say, well these things happen, but I think something so precise had to have been carefully done by something more powerful, by God.

This might be hard to digest because I generally have trouble articulating when I explain this same thing to people, so here goes:

The planet didn't form anywhere else because it couldn't have. If it would have collapsed onto itself, and this is the only place in the sun's gravitational field where it could have done so, then it did. You can say that this was the work of someone or a conscious some"thing", but I see it as, given that everything happens by chance (my belief) that the earth is here because this is only where it could possibly be.

Was that hard to understand? Sorry if it was.

Explaining a personal relationship with God is like explaining a conscience. Can you show me one? No. But its a presence, an understanding of right or wrong and a balance in life, just like God.

Where you see God, I see arbitrary social constructs coupled with the idea that people simply don't like to be treated like shit, so they don't treat others like shit.

I cant show you God, and I dont see why I have to prove to you that he exists.

If a religious person says, "hey, that scientific experiment you just did was wrong, because it contradicts the Bible's teachings," then you should be prepared to have proof of God's existence. And that's what centralized religion has done all throughout history, and I've yet to see proof of his existence.

Religion has been a dominating force in the world for many years. When you're in a position like that I think the atheists are the ones who are supposed to disprove the religious. Religion is a widely accepted idea, when you're part of the counter-argument you're the one whos supposed to present your case. So far no atheist has been able to prove to a major religion that it is wrong.

It just doesn't work that way, and I've already explained why. I can't disprove your God the same way you can't disprove the existence of Santa Claus. There's no such thing as evidence to the fact that something doesn't exist. If something doesn't exist, then it doesn't leave a trail of evidence.

This is a problem with your logic as well as it is with your understanding of the scientific method.

 

[H33LTurn]

This might be hard to digest because I generally have trouble articulating when I explain this same thing to people, so here goes:

The planet didn't form anywhere else because it couldn't have. If it would have collapsed onto itself, and this is the only place in the sun's gravitational field where it could have done so, then it did. You can say that this was the work of someone or a conscious some"thing", but I see it as, given that everything happens by chance (my belief) that the earth is here because this is only where it could possibly be.

Was that hard to understand? Sorry if it was.

No that was quite easy to understand. Its easy to look at it the way you're looking at it but I think its all to big to be just a coincidence. Earth formed in the exact place thats convenient for intelligent life to develop and construct societies that dominate over the animal kingdom, produce for their own needs, and have the resources disposal to them to live a comfortable life. It all sounds too good for me to accept that it just happened like that and theres no reason behind things.

Where you see God, I see arbitrary social constructs coupled with the idea that people simply don't like to be treated like shit, so they don't treat others like shit.

Its not as simple as that. If social structure is left to humans to develop then they will simply make excuses to do wrong. Lying often complicates things and is never fully effective, but its become ok to lie during certain situations. Humans make up their own rules to fit their needs, not the needs of the others around them.

If a religious person says, "hey, that scientific experiment you just did was wrong, because it contradicts the Bible's teachings," then you should be prepared to have proof of God's existence. And that's what centralized religion has done all throughout history, and I've yet to see proof of his existence.

Well I'm not saying that any experiments scientists have done are wrong.

It just doesn't work that way, and I've already explained why. I can't disprove your God the same way you can't disprove the existence of Santa Claus. There's no such thing as evidence to the fact that something doesn't exist. If something doesn't exist, then it doesn't leave a trail of evidence.

And what exactly is a trail of evidence? Maybe written records of its existence or perhaps a shroud used by its, ohh I dont know, son. The only way we have evidence that certain individuals like Jesus existed is that there is written record of their life. Various individuals acknowledging that someone existed and that they were the son of God seems like a good trail of evidence to me.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

No that was quite easy to understand. Its easy to look at it the way you're looking at it but I think its all to big to be just a coincidence. Earth formed in the exact place thats convenient for intelligent life to develop and construct societies that dominate over the animal kingdom, produce for their own needs, and have the resources disposal to them to live a comfortable life. It all sounds too good for me to accept that it just happened like that and theres no reason behind things.

It's not a big coincidence at all if I'm right, and the Earth being where it is is the only possibility. An example of a coincidence would be the Earth forming, and humans immediately being present.

I think you're looking at this backwards. You think it's too good that we're in a place that is perfectly suitable to our living conditions (and we're not; see Saraha desert, Antarctica), but in reality, the only reason we are here is BECAUSE of the perfect living conditions. Like, we just wouldn't be here if Earth weren't suitable, but it is, and we are, because whatever species came before us adapted to the environment, and evolved into us.

If we find a type of asexual bacteria that can survive on Mars efficiently, give it a few million years, and we'll begin to see life on mars. Animal life, at that.

Its not as simple as that. If social structure is left to humans to develop then they will simply make excuses to do wrong. Lying often complicates things and is never fully effective, but its become ok to lie during certain situations. Humans make up their own rules to fit their needs, not the needs of the others around them.

People DO make excuses to do wrong, but that's not the point. After millions of years of existing and observing society around them, humans have gotten to the point where, yes, they do make up their own rules to fit their needs, but in most situations, what they need to do to fit their own needs is being a good person to others, because in the long run, it makes life that much easier for you.

Let's say you live in one small community. If you're just a ******** for your entire life, that's how the community is going to see you, and nobody's going to like you or want to do favors for you. On the flip side, if you're an awesome person, chances are your life is going to be a lot easier. That's how it works on the grand scale. Human society works the way it works because that's what's efficient.

And what exactly is a trail of evidence? Maybe written records of its existence or perhaps a shroud used by its, ohh I dont know, son. The only way we have evidence that certain individuals like Jesus existed is that there is written record of their life. Various individuals acknowledging that someone existed and that they were the son of God seems like a good trail of evidence to me.

That's not evidence at all. You can't observe and test someone telling you that their leader is the son of God. Sure, Jesus existed, but that's not the argument. The argument is whether or not he was the son of God. There are other historical records that can prove he exists, but the only historical record of him turning water into wine, walking on water, multiplying food, and resurrecting from the dead, is the Bible, and it's just not a reliable source.

Quite frankly, people were stupid 2000 years ago. Pretty much everything around them went completely unobserved, and because of that, people just assumed everything was the work of a God, and I personally believe the stories in the Bible are a product of people not really knowing what they were seeing.

But I digress -- back to the trail of evidence thing. My point was, I can't prove the non-existence of something, which is why the only side that can come up with proof is you. Even if the existence of the Christian god spawned the establishment of a tens-of-thousands of years old religion. It just doesn't matter. The idea that God doesn't exist could have started yesterday and the burden of proof would still lie on the religious.