TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Polls - Everything Else...
-- Do You Think There is a God ?
Pages (7): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 »

quote:

Originally posted by USSR Junkie ...never believed in ANY ! I'd rather believe in existence of Santa Claus than a god

Same

quote:

Originally posted by Sarcoman He also stated something which made complete sense to me. You dont have to choose either Creation, or Evolution. You can believe them both, depending on how strict, or liberally you want to interpret the bible.

from what i understood, this is true. There is nothing i know of, which says that god is not the driving force behind evolution, or is there?

someone once said, and i hold that to be very true:

quote:

"At some point, there is an end to science, maybe you can go and look inside of atoms, have the "stings" theory, but at some point, you just stop and say 'I do not know _WHY_ it is this way, it just is'. At that point, as a religious person you say: 'Becuase god made it that way'. If you do not believe in god, you say 'because.. umm.. just because'"

I know this isn't much in terms of the fact discussion, but i think it brings in another aspect.

quote:

it was said that it wasnt until a few days after God created the universe, that he created night and day. So before that happened, there was no way to determine what a day was. So the first few 'Days' of creation,

[a little off topic]
isn't this very much like the heisenberg(?) uncertainty principle? Whenever you 'observe' something you change it.. therefore without an observer, the system behaved completely different?[/off topic]

quote:

Originally posted by D_G U prooved my point by flaming me !! But u have to admit... most wars are caused by or due to religions !! Oh, and my reason for not believing in god is because i believe the big bang stuff... and i believe everything just IS... if their wad a god, would earth really be the shit hole that it is ?

you havent studied religion or science very extensively have you..? think about what you believe..you believe that a big rock hit the earth and it made the world a suitable place for existance? the big bang theory is the lamest excuse to the creation of life ive ever heard next to evolution..
and also you dont know who God is and what God does for us...you think God makes this world all jolly and happy for everyone to live in which is not the case...sure he wants the best for us but we learn through experience. when it comes time for us to learn more and hard times pass our way and no matter what the outcome, if we fail or overcome it, were stronger and more confident than before...

It wasnt really a flame. Youd be writhing on the floor if I really went after you Not believeing in God because you believe in the "big bang stuff" doesnt mean anything either. Explain what it is and how it works and how believing in that cancels out the belief of a God. If you cant answer that question on your own thats messed up. That means you are risking an eternity in hell for nothing more than a kind-of idea that you have a vague notion of.

And I meant that in the way of "follow the topic" the thread has gotten really in depth on a lot of issues and its beyond the point of stating opinion now. The main reason is this. Evolution hasnt been proved far from it actually, the big bang hasnt been proved thats why its a theory, the existence of God hasnt been disproved. So now we have to say why we believe/not believe these things beyond the gross explanations of "because of this random theory or principle". If you cant explain in detailed terms WHY you dont believe...thats just weak

And in response to the question of divine evolution: No. It says God created the species immutable and distinct. Immutable means unchangeable and not in an adaptation sense but the sense that a bird wont turn into an airplane one day after enough mutations.

Also, in response to the idea that God wishes us to suffer: No. God is good, to say that we get hurt sometimes to teach us things means that God is the ultimate cause of evil in the end. He is pure good though, so that means its coming from another source: Satan. When Satan and his angels took the power God gave them to protect man and abused it they introduced to man all the evils of the world, wars, violence, sickness, and death. We were in paradise, and then Satan messed it all up. There is a spiritual war on this earth. If you want an awesome book to read to help understand this read "Satan and the problem of evil" by Gregory A. Boyd. Again, this isnt the only source of the idea or viewpoint, but a good one. God does however like it when we DO have hard times that we turn to him in our need instead of turning to Satan and doing the easy, cheap, dishonorable things that he would have us do.

oh and go read big bang posts on this thread bro hehe its pretty hard to swallow. The chances of the Big Bang making life is (get ready for this percentage) .00000000000000000...10^240 zeros...1 percent. Thats a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion something or other. The complexities of it are boggling. And then you get to earth which had an ammoniated sea, a sulfuric atmosphere, and a deadly sun. The chances of enzymes being created are ridiculous. The atheist scientists that created enzymes in a lab setting were at first ecstatic! THEY CREATED THE BEGINNINGOF LFIE!! The quote from them was something to this effect however "We now wish that we had never done the expirement because the sheer calculation of it points to a miracle". They said that you would have to have certain elements sitting on the edge of a volcano and then have a large body of water wash over the chemicals at the PRECISE right time and then so on and so on and so on...they said it was a huge blow because it gives creationist scientists so much ammo because there is pretty much no chance it would have started that way.

~~~Xxx{{{TrancEaddicT Haiku Alliance}}}xxX~~~

I believe wut i want to beleive so plz stop ranting

and I believe that your bring nothing to this discussion so stop posting.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax By the way...im hearing a lot of gross generalization... This has no proof attached to it. So far it is just opinion. Now, if you are stating evolution as your religion, your faith in it is admirable because I can tell you that I will never have that level of faith in anything. But if you are putting into scientific terms we need a little more in the way of facts and stuff. So if you are putting it in faith thats cool I guess, but dont lay faith in scienctific "facts" and then not show any of them

There is also no proof to the bible, and you also stated that you believe everything that the bible has to say. The essense of science is that it is written, and discussed so that people are able to disproove it. That is the reason why experiments are printed in scientific journals, why there are constant debates about scientific 'Theory', and why scientists will always say 'We have a long way to go'. To say that because macroevolution hasnt been proven yet because of the 'non-existense of transitional fossils' is forgetting that Darwins and Wallace (Alfred Russel Wallace, who was postulating Natural Selection around the same time as Darwin) was only proposed in 1858, less than 150 years ago. That is hardly enough time to prove everyting... It will likely take millenia.

Furthermore, regarding the absense of transitional fossils. The fossil record, the older you go, get more and more scarce. Because of geophysical changes in the earth, many fossils are completely destroyed. Also, many organisms may not have had a bone struture, and therefore, not left any fossils at all.

Also, there is a theory called Puntuated Equilibrium, which was postulated by Steven Jay Gould and N Eldredge (SJ Gould recently died, unfortunatly), which states that in evolution, there are often long period of stasis, and very short period of rapid evolution. Therefore, many speciation events occur over a short period. Transitional species may not exist over a long period of time, and therefore, there are less potential fossils for transitional species, which explains their absence.

To say that there are no transitional species is also false. There have been many fossils in Human evolution that are quite convincing when it comes to transition from Australopithecus Afarensis, Australopithecus Africanus to Homo Habilus, Homo Erectus and finaly Homo Sapiens Sapiens, and Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis (Sapiens and Neanderthals are considered by some to be subspecies of H. sapiens, I however beleive them to be completly separate species, as there is strong evidence to suggest a split in the lineage over 200K years ago).

quote:

This has no proof attached to it. So far it is just opinion. Now, if you are stating evolution as your religion, your faith in it is admirable because I can tell you that I will never have that level of faith in anything. But if you are putting into scientific terms we need a little more in the way of facts and stuff. So if you are putting it in faith thats cool I guess, but dont lay faith in scienctific "facts" and then not show any of them

As for scientific facts, as I mentioned earlier, science is written to be disproven. If it cannot be disproven through scientific means, it adds credibility to the Theory, but absolute proof is rare in science, you have to have faith in science, which I do (as you mentioned).

Some facts I will give you:

Although I forget the species name, there is a Newt, or lizard Genus that lives in California, strecting between San Fran and as far south as SD. They occupy this area because they started out in one location, and constantly migrated further southward and northward. Although newts that are relatively close to eachother geographically can mate successfully, newts from the extreme north of the range cannot mate with newts in the extreme south, hence they have evolved into different species. This is because there was a geographical barrier between them. All the organisms were subject to natural selection, but they were in different environments, had diffenerent environmental stresses, and there was no mixing of the gene pool. Through random genetic mutations, the eventually became different enought that they could no longer mate, and hence became different species. This was on a relatively short time scale. Multiply this by 3.5 billion years, and many changes in environment, stresses, fitness, competition (and other variables), and you have the making of a stage that leads to many different species, genuses, classes, families, orders, etc...

Also, after the nuclear bomb was dropped in Nagasaki, it was found that mutution rates amongst several species increase by as much as 1%. Over time, these mutations to the genetic information will cause genotype and phenotypically differences in organisms. Once you have a change in phenotype, you have a change in how the organism can respond to the environment, and you have natural selection (some survive better than others based on their phenotype/genotype).

I will think of more examples, and 'facts' later.

quote:

was only proposed in 1858, less than 150 years ago. That is hardly enough time to prove everyting

more than enough time to disprove it though. The only people defending it these days are people who have something against religion. Again, read some books of opposing views instead of just the ones that agree with you and then try to find answers to they questions they give rise to. I haven't heard anything remotely inconsistent with the Bible. And when I said I believe everything it said look at my earlier posts I have several pages worth explaining why.

quote:

To say that there are no transitional species is also false

Actually is isnt. Im not talking transitional intraspecies fossils. Im talking reptile to bird...and the archeopteryx is not one. I dont feel like typing but if you are truly interested research it.

All the lizard thing means is that a species genes have become incompatible. They are still lizards. They will always BE lizards. That is microevolution at its best with a flimsy link to macro evolution. Its the whole thing with the eyeball. Darwin said that things like star fish just have a photosensitive spot that barely senses movement, and that there are varying degrees of sophistication up until the camera like human eyeball. It looks like a good argument. Until you realize that to have a photosensitive spot you have to have some of the most complex chemical interchanges found in the body. Just to have a photosensitive spot you have to have light penetrating and breaking up rhodopsin and all these chemicals and having sodium gates open up and all this stuff. Its complicated. Evolution would have a VERY difficult time producing that. If not impossible. Because without all the parts at once it is a pointless mutation and would be gone. Darwin himself said that if ONE SINGLE thing can be found that could not be made by a progression of small mutations it would make his theory break down completely.

Theories come and go. The ancient greeks thought that there were only four elements wind, water, fire, and earth. It seemed right at the time because they didnt have the ability to probe deeper. Same thing. The molecular level looks like machines with a purpose and many are irreducibly complex. Darwins theory gets broken down badly at the molecular level.

and when i said "facts" I meant dont just say "The big bang happened" that is a "fact" to many people. But when asked how exactly the big bang progressed to life on earth and an antithesis to God, they dont know.

On the proof of the Bible... It isnt hard eveidence, it is merely a strong supporting of everything it says and things that are so odd that you cant help but think that there was something that science cant explain going on. Things like Tenochitlan "the city of Enoch" and Cain was banished to some unknown place and had a son named enoch. And all of Cains people were marked...only genetics get passed down...south americans are the only people in the world with no facial hair... that kind of stuff. A video called the search for the real MT. Sinai is incredible with a journey into Saudi Arabia with a forged signature of the king. They found "the caves of moses" (named by the locals who are muslim) and a mountain with a scorched top, not just a little circle burned, but the entire top 1/4 of a MOUNTAIN that is melted granite. The Bible speaks of God coming to earth there as a flame. Ball lightning wouldnt do it, and its a mountain of pure granite so no trees were there either. There are altars surrounding it which happen to be the exact number of the tribes of israel...the saudi government has signs everywhere that say they will behead you if you trespass, and they fenced off an entire mountain and patrol it.

the list goes on, with even after event falling perfectly within the scope of the Bible with many seemingly impossible things right there on this earth.

Here is my question I guess. Atheism/evolution are just as much of a religion (if not more so) as any creationist religion. What made you choose your religion the way you did. And be honest. The responses to this question can be a break from fact and argument and rely just on what you think and feel.

I chose Christianity because it is the most logical, well formed argument explaining how life came to be and how we are where we are to me. I have felt the Holy Spirit's work in my life, and I can honestly say that I can FEEL a difference in my life when I have my relationship with God straight. Its very odd. When I pray regularly, ask forgiveness, and forgive others, things just start working out for me. Relationships are formed and improved, I feel more full of energy, I dont get angry almost at all and it passes almost instantly. I have FELT things in my life that cannot be explained biologically. This is why I believe. Q: Do you see the wind? How can you prove it exists? A: I have seen and felt the effects.

All this other stuff im asking you guys to do is for debate purposes only. People make the choice of believing in God or not, and then fill the void in them with something else. If you have chosen evolution to replace God, you will cling to it no matter how many holes it has. I usually just hang out with people and discuss it, but a text forum makes it rather difficult. Im mainly trying to gather in a list of common arguments so I can answer them when people struggling with Christianity ask me, I can answer. My main main goal here is to make all of you think of why you believe what you believe. One of my main pet peeves in this world is when people have an opinion and no reason to back it up. And when it becomes a serious opinion that I feel could affect you seriously, I want you to understand your position even more greatly. So there you go.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax more than enough time to disprove it though. The only people defending it these days are people who have something against religion.

You will know by my previous posts in this forum that I have absolutely nothing against religion. You, however, have are passionately against evolution. I am not saying religions are wrong in their beleifs, what I am saying is that there is A LOT of evidence in favour of evolution. 150 year is very little time to prove evolution. It is a controversial topic (Still), and cannot be proven outright for thousands of years, until we can document true evidence of Macroevolution. Just because it will take that long, does not mean that we as human beings should give up, and say, because we dont have all the evidence now, we should give up.

quote:

Actually is isnt. Im not talking transitional intraspecies fossils. Im talking reptile to bird...and the archeopteryx is not one. I dont feel like typing but if you are truly interested research it.

Reptiles may not have evolved into birds. What if dinosaurs werent actually reptiles (many could have been, but many may not have been either, have you ever seen a dinosaur???).

quote:

All the lizard thing means is that a species genes have become incompatible. They are still lizards. They will always BE lizards

You have no way of proving that they will always be lizards... They could very possibly evolve into a new kingdom of life, that is not lizard like.

quote:

Its the whole thing with the eyeball. Darwin said that things like star fish just have a photosensitive spot that barely senses movement, and that there are varying degrees of sophistication up until the camera like human eyeball...

You have used this eyeball analogy before... Yes the eyeball is complex... but it is by no means the most complex thing in nature. But you have to consider, that evolution has been taking place for 3.5 Billion (3,500,000,000) years... That is impossible for anyone to comprehend (there is concreted astrophysical evidence that the earth is 5 billion years old.. im not going to get into it, you can research it and doubt it if you choose).

quote:

Theories come and go. The ancient greeks thought that there were only four elements wind, water, fire, and earth. It seemed right at the time because they didnt have the ability to probe deeper. Same thing. The molecular level looks like machines with a purpose and many are irreducibly complex. Darwins theory gets broken down badly at the molecular level.

I have made this very point.... The point of science is so that it can be analyzed.... Darwin just started the theory and the branch of science now known as Evolution (Many scientists study evolution, so to say that the only people defending evolution are those that have something against religion is a HUGE mistake).

quote:

and when i said "facts" I meant dont just say "The big bang happened" that is a "fact" to many people. But when asked how exactly the big bang progressed to life on earth and an antithesis to God, they dont know.

Many scientists have tried to explain this. The Big Bang theory is young, and the original theory likely has flaws in it, but give it time, and it MAY be proven. Im not too well versed in Astrophysics, so Im not going to argue it further.


[/QUOTE]On the proof of the Bible... It isnt hard eveidence, it is merely a strong supporting of everything it says and things that are so odd that you cant help but think that there was something that science cant explain going on. [/QUOTE]

No hard evidence, but merely strong supporting of everthing... BUT ITS NO HARD EVIDENCE... I smell a contradiction.

The bible itself is a good book... but does provide support of its claims. Religions are founded in faiths and beleifs, not in evidence. Yet you ask me to provide you with evidence to prove my point. You then take the evidence that I provide, and think of a possible reason why it may be wrong. I encourage you to do that, because that is the essence of the scientific process.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax Here is my question I guess. Atheism/evolution are just as much of a religion (if not more so) as any creationist religion. What made you choose your religion the way you did. And be honest. The responses to this question can be a break from fact and argument and rely just on what you think and feel.

Atheism and evolution do not go hand in hand. I do beleive in the possibility of God, but do not practice any religions.

quote:

I chose Christianity because it is the most logical, well formed argument explaining how life came to be and how we are where we are to me. I have felt the Holy Spirit's work in my life, and I can honestly say that I can FEEL a difference in my life when I have my relationship with God straight. Its very odd. When I pray regularly, ask forgiveness, and forgive others, things just start working out for me. Relationships are formed and improved, I feel more full of energy, I dont get angry almost at all and it passes almost instantly. I have FELT things in my life that cannot be explained biologically. This is why I believe. Q: Do you see the wind? How can you prove it exists? A: I have seen and felt the effects. All this other stuff im asking you guys to do is for debate purposes only. People make the choice of believing in God or not, and then fill the void in them with something else. If you have chosen evolution to replace God, you will cling to it no matter how many holes it has. I usually just hang out with people and discuss it, but a text forum makes it rather difficult. Im mainly trying to gather in a list of common arguments so I can answer them when people struggling with Christianity ask me, I can answer. My main main goal here is to make all of you think of why you believe what you believe. One of my main pet peeves in this world is when people have an opinion and no reason to back it up. And when it becomes a serious opinion that I feel could affect you seriously, I want you to understand your position even more greatly. So there you go.

I did not choose Evolution to replace God.. I have chosen to study evolution because I fundamentally beleive and appreciate the theories possibilities. Evolution is not a religion, it is a branch of science. I know why I believe what I believe, it is because the evidence that I have seen, both from religious arguments, and scientific arguments, lead me to conclude that Evolution is most plausible.

I suppose in a way, I am intentionally trying to provide a counter argument, so that when people read these forums, they have two sides (not both sides, cause there are likely many more) to the debate.

quote:

have you ever seen a dinosaur???

Yes. Pretty much every creature of the sea has fossil records that stretch back into the millenia. Alligators and stuff...Kind of odd that only things that live in water survived...must have been something pretty cataclysmic, like a flood or something.


on the eyeball ananlogy... it is the idea of irreducible complexity, the requirement of whole and complete systems that break away from neo-darwinistic thought. Puncuated euilibrium states that a whole bunch of almost-systems amass and then suddenly they all get the last piece of the puzzle and a new super mutant is out. This is a good argument in the sense of claiming emotional pain in court. Its very hard to disprove.

facts arent neccesarily hard mathematical equations. They can be logic contructs. The idea of reductio ad absurdum is the "fact and proof" behind many religous claims. The idea that if you ASSUME the conclusion (God exists) to be false, then you find contradictions and fallacies in the reasoning behind it. Implicational logic has a place in factual debates. The sun will rise tomorrow is not a fact, but an implied fact from "it has risen every day for the past million years"

And the new earth old earth debate isnt a big deal to me. Physics points to old earth, and I find no problem with that, it has no contradictions with anything I believe. For young earth...it says that God can make things with the appearance of age. So who knows. The age of the earth is hardly relevant to religious disputes and for the most part is an interneccine struggle of the church which I find to be pointless bickering.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax facts arent neccesarily hard mathematical equations. They can be logic contructs. The idea of reductio ad absurdum is the "fact and proof" behind many religous claims. The idea that if you ASSUME the conclusion (God exists) to be false, then you find contradictions and fallacies in the reasoning behind it. Implicational logic has a place in factual debates. The sun will rise tomorrow is not a fact, but an implied fact from "it has risen every day for the past million years"

not really, the reason the sun will rise tomorrow, is because the earth has a certain amount of angular momentum. Since momentum is conserved, unless the sun dies out, or the earth is able to transfer its angular momentum somewhere else, the sun will come up tomorrow.

There is very little chance that the sun will die out, since there is a self-sustaining fusion reaction going on and it still has plenty of fuel left to 'burn'.

There is very little chance that the earth will stop rotating, since it is not in direct contact with outer "objects" that could easily take the amount of angular mometum the earth has.

You do not know that an advanced species of life will come along and destroy the sun and/or earth. The possibility is small, but there are enough unknowns in this universe to make saying "The sun will rise tomorrow" merely a probability. Angular momentum works assuming there is a sun there in the morning You said it yourself

quote:

There is very little chance that the sun will die out...There is very little chance that the earth will stop rotating...

all we have to work with are chances and probabilities. We can make inferences out of the fact there there arent any large bodies around us at the moment and we havent detected an alien species, but that doesnt mean they arent there and/or will be here shortly. Nothing is certain.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax and I believe that your bring nothing to this discussion so stop posting.

Oh well im sorry o'mighty one...

*pats D_G on head* You are forgiven my son

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax Here is my question I guess. Atheism/evolution are just as much of a religion (if not more so) as any creationist religion. What made you choose your religion the way you did. And be honest. The responses to this question can be a break from fact and argument and rely just on what you think and feel.

Yeah...right...

First of all, Atheism and evolution are not hand-in-hand. Evolution is a theory, simply that.

And all "atheist" beliefs are not the same. If you want to be technical, I am "Athiest-Agnostic", which is a form of Agnostic that is more defined in the impossiblility of us knowing about a God, if one exists. (and like he would care about us, a speck upon a speck in the Universe.)

And about the "7 days is really 7 trillion years" or whatever argument... it's all saying the beginning of the Bible is one big symbolism. Well, why can't you say that the whole thing is just symbolism? What if "God" is a symbol, Jesus' miracles a symbol... that's the thing with the Bible. Without a literal translation, how can you have beliefs whatsoever?
Do you think the world will end in the Apocolypse? Maybe that's a symbol too. Well, it better hurry up, before we destroy ourselves or move from Earth. What if we did have a nuclear holocaust (which we were very close to having) and all humans were destroyed? No apocolypse like the Bible says.

Christianity is just like any other religion, it has no weight over anything, including Greek Mythology.

Picking holes at evolution does not prove Christianity. You need some EVIDENCE, and since the only thing the Bible is good for is interpretations, you can't use that.

The picture of creation and existance that Christianity paints is age old, and does not keep up with the times. Why would God worry about such specks? He wouldn't,

quote:

Originally posted by davinox First of all, Atheism and evolution are not hand-in-hand. Evolution is a theory, simply that.

#1 they do go hand in hand. The NUMBER ONE explanation of atheists is the darwinian evolution model. and ok fine they are separated. My question still stands. WHY DO YOU BELIEVE. you didnt answer the question.

quote:

And about the "7 days is really 7 trillion years" or whatever argument... it's all saying the beginning of the Bible is one big symbolism. Well, why can't you say that the whole thing is just symbolism? What if "God" is a symbol, Jesus' miracles a symbol... that's the thing with the Bible. Without a literal translation, how can you have beliefs whatsoever?

it isnt symbolism. Its translation. "DAY" is LITERALLY "A period of time" There is no symbolism what so ever. The ancients DID have a different language than we did with many intracies and new translations are being found all the time. Its a matter of lingual interpretation, not symbolic interpretation.

quote:

Do you think the world will end in the Apocolypse? Maybe that's a symbol too. Well, it better hurry up, before we destroy ourselves or move from Earth. What if we did have a nuclear holocaust (which we were very close to having) and all humans were destroyed? No apocolypse like the Bible says.

LOL that sounds like apocalypse to me

quote:

Picking holes at evolution does not prove Christianity. You need some EVIDENCE, and since the only thing the Bible is good for is interpretations, you can't use that.

Its called narrowing the options. If you get rid of the major contender to creatonistic beliefs you arent left with too many other possibilites are you. And Like I said there are things which TIE IN with the Bible. The fact that fish fossils were found on the tops of the Andes mountains indicate a flood, the fact that we still have prehistoric sea animals with OLD OLD fossil records implies that everything on land died. The fact that there is a large gap and an "explosion" of creatures that defy evolution imply creation. These are not interpretations at all. They are things that support and imply truths of the Bible and leave no explanations other than the working of a God.

quote:

The picture of creation and existance that Christianity paints is age old, and does not keep up with the times.

It applies very directly to us still. It speaks of basics. Right and wrong. Morality. Ill admit people are not as honorable and moral as they should be, but unless you believe in moral relativism where right and wrong are just the idea of the majority, then the universal moral priniciples of the Bible stand.

quote:

Why would God worry about such specks? He wouldn't

This is a hypothetical statement. The statement is IF there were a god why would he worry about a speck like us. The answer is this... IF he were a GOD then he would be ALL POWERFUL and ALL KNOWING. He could sit there and pay attention to every atom in the universe at once. Everything is a speck to such a being. He did however, take the time to create us so I would assume he would not consider us to be an inconsequential speck and at least check in from time to time.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax #1 they do go hand in hand. The NUMBER ONE explanation of atheists is the darwinian evolution model. and ok fine they are separated. My question still stands. WHY DO YOU BELIEVE. you didnt answer the question.

I must agree with Davinox, completely. While athiests may choose to use Evolution (which has not been proven wrong might I add) to explain their reasoning, Evolutionists (or scientists that study evolution) do not use atheism to explain their reasoning. So Athiesm and evolution DO NOT go hand in hand.

quote:

it isnt symbolism. Its translation. "DAY" is LITERALLY "A period of time" There is no symbolism what so ever. The ancients DID have a different language than we did with many intracies and new translations are being found all the time. Its a matter of lingual interpretation, not symbolic interpretation.

One day, by definintion, is 24 hours (give or take a few seconds). So using 'Day' in the bible is referring to time, but I dont think the original bible was meant to be taken literally (lets face it, the bible has been re-written a thousand times, and translated from its original form, to the integrity of the true original message, and the meaning that the original writer had in mind is in question. It could very well have been full of symbolism and metaphor.

quote:

The fact that fish fossils were found on the tops of the Andes mountains indicate a flood, the fact that we still have prehistoric sea animals with OLD OLD fossil records implies that everything on land died. The fact that there is a large gap and an "explosion" of creatures that defy evolution imply creation. These are not interpretations at all. They are things that support and imply truths of the Bible and leave no explanations other than the working of a God.

Fish fossils got to the top of mountains got there because of plate techtonics, and the folding over of the earths crust. Ie. the creation of the himalayas by the moving of the Indian subcontinent.

Creatures do not defy evolution at all. The theory of puncuated equilibrium just states that there were rapid bursts of speciation, it does not state that complex systems amassed suddenly to form ever more complex organisms.

The fact that and eyeball (or any organ) is complex does not provide credibility to creation. Picture this scenario, all the organisms on earth are very simple creatures, with little complexity. Random mutations in DNA and RNA may cause a multitude of different proteins, and therefore, different functions in the organism. Mutations that are negative to survival result in spontaneous abortion of fetuses, or the prevention of birth (only germline mutations are carried on in evolution, not somatic cell mutations). Mutations that provide a positive effect will provide a slight improvement in fitness. Over time, the organisms with the improved genes survive better. Multiply this over a few billion years, and you have cells that may contain photosensitive proteins (Starfish, your example) , progressing to cells that contain more and more specialized enzymes toward sight. Each mutation is only slight, so sight is poor for some organisms, but many of them still survive. With further mutations, further improvements to the cells, make the organism more fit to survive, and pass on their genes. Billions of years are a VERY LONG TIME for this to occur. Each step along the way are small events of microevolution, but over a long time, macroevolution takes place.

Fossils do not have a record of cells, so you cannot say outright that the species were created spontaneously at the whim of a deity. If you want to believe that, more power to you. If you want to tell everyone else that they are wrong because they disagree with your belief, you are WRONG.

quote:

Originally posted by Sarcoman I must agree with Davinox, completely. While athiests may choose to use Evolution (which has not been proven wrong might I add) to explain their reasoning, Evolutionists (or scientists that study evolution) do not use atheism to explain their reasoning. So Athiesm and evolution DO NOT go hand in hand.

Of course you agree with him hes on your side. And who cares about reverse usage. People with a belief use a theory to support it. Theories dont use beliefs. Evolutionists dont use atheism because what the hell is there to use. Technically its nothing. The belief in nothing cannot be used as it is nothing. But the belief of nothing can be justified by using a theory that states there is nothing out there... so yes they do go hand in hand.

quote:

One day, by definintion, is 24 hours (give or take a few seconds).

That is OUR definition. The greeks had a different calendar, so did the Romans, Aztecs, Mayans, Israelites, Sumerians, Mesopotiamians, etc. EVERYONE used a different calendar it wasnt until recently that a universal time schedule was created. And "day" is our word. that is english. The bible was written in Hebrew. So who gives a flying F what our word means, we are translating their word. And theie word meant "a period of time" that is it. That is the literal translation. We use the word "day" generically in the Bible becuase saying "A period of time" is a cumbersome way of putting it and the message of how long it took to create the earth is irrelevant to the majority of christians, because its God so he can take however long He wants to.

quote:

So using 'Day' in the bible is referring to time, but I dont think the original bible was meant to be taken literally (lets face it, the bible has been re-written a thousand times, and translated from its original form,

exactly. it isnt meant to be taken literally in OUR language. It is merely the bast translation we can find. Again, this is coming from someone who reads, writes and speaks hebrew and arabic.

quote:

Fish fossils got to the top of mountains got there because of plate techtonics, and the folding over of the earths crust. Ie. the creation of the himalayas by the moving of the Indian subcontinent.

You can determine the age of mountains. The mountains predated the fossils. So that theory is out.

quote:

Creatures do not defy evolution at all. The theory of puncuated equilibrium just states that there were rapid bursts of speciation, it does not state that complex systems amassed suddenly to form ever more complex organisms. The fact that and eyeball (or any organ) is complex does not provide credibility to creation. Picture this scenario, all the organisms on earth are very simple creatures, with little complexity. Random mutations in DNA and RNA may cause a multitude of different proteins, and therefore, different functions in the organism. Mutations that are negative to survival result in spontaneous abortion of fetuses, or the prevention of birth (only germline mutations are carried on in evolution, not somatic cell mutations). Mutations that provide a positive effect will provide a slight improvement in fitness. Over time, the organisms with the improved genes survive better. Multiply this over a few billion years, and you have cells that may contain photosensitive proteins (Starfish, your example) , progressing to cells that contain more and more specialized enzymes toward sight. Each mutation is only slight, so sight is poor for some organisms, but many of them still survive. With further mutations, further improvements to the cells, make the organism more fit to survive, and pass on their genes. Billions of years are a VERY LONG TIME for this to occur. Each step along the way are small events of microevolution, but over a long time, macroevolution takes place.

You said that one day the genes make a photosensitive spot?!! WOW! because thats impossible! Do you have any idea of what that means? Do you know how genes are BUILT? :WTF: and again read my posts. You obviously are skipping or ignoring the irreducibly complex system part of the eyeball. It all has to be there. all at once. or its bad. Your theory is very good if it was as simple as you state. But when you say "Then one day it had an eye, and then some cells had specialized enzymes.." You are talking about the most complex stuff on this planet. Things that even NOW we dont fully understand because of their complexity. And you are saying they just happened? And dont repeat the little mutations theory, it doesnt work with systems.

quote:

Fossils do not have a record of cells, so you cannot say outright that the species were created spontaneously at the whim of a deity. If you want to believe that, more power to you.

Im not speaking of cell records, Im speaking of mathematical impossibilites. DONT EVEN RESPOND TO THIS UNTIL YOU READ AND UNDERSTAND THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION. Then you get to come back and try to explain how that many species popped up from that few of species in that short of time.

quote:

If you want to tell everyone else that they are wrong because they disagree with your belief, you are WRONG.

hypocrite?

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax WHY DO YOU BELIEVE.

In what? I don't believe in anything. I'm not going to stake my life on anything, including evolution. If the scientific community disproves evolution, I won't shit my pants. Another theory will pop up.
I do believe that the possibility of us, (as human beings) of knowing the details of our maker, if the maker does have a will, is practically nothing. The only such prove of such details has come from humans. (there have been countless ammounts of belief, speculation, prophecies, prophets....much like UFO sightings.)
Therefore, I believe we should keep discovering, rather than just assuming our existance.
And if it turns out that our existance is a cruel purgatory and there is a Christian God; and I am sent to Hell, I'm going down with 4/5ths of the World.

Orbax, on a more positive note, I do respect you. You are not willingly ignorant, like most of the world. All people "casual" in religion or not in religion are ignorant, they need to go with something that's presented to them.
Our existance is everything to us, most people brush the question aside. At least you have taken a path, and have stayed mostly true to it. (although I think you are wrong... )

Michael Russo, a member of these boards, is Christian as well, and I respect him a great deal. he has probably the smartest view on Christianity I've seen. (although I think he's wrong.... )

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax Of course you agree with him hes on your side. And who cares about reverse usage. People with a belief use a theory to support it. Theories dont use beliefs. Evolutionists dont use atheism because what the hell is there to use. Technically its nothing. The belief in nothing cannot be used as it is nothing. But the belief of nothing can be justified by using a theory that states there is nothing out there... so yes they do go hand in hand.

Huh??? They do not go hand in hand. Evolutionists are not necessarily Athiests, and atheists are not necessarily evolutionists. Take me, for example, I am an evolutionist, but Not athiest.

quote:

That is OUR definition. The greeks had a different calendar, so did the Romans, Aztecs, Mayans, Israelites, Sumerians, Mesopotiamians, etc. EVERYONE used a different calendar it wasnt until recently that a universal time schedule was created.

Calendars are on a yearly scale, a day is sunrise to sunset, or some variation on that.

quote:

exactly. it isnt meant to be taken literally in OUR language. It is merely the bast translation we can find. Again, this is coming from someone who reads, writes and speaks hebrew and arabic.

The bible was not written in either language. Wasnt it written in Aramaic???

quote:

You can determine the age of mountains. The mountains predated the fossils. So that theory is out.

Fish dies on sea floor which is older than fish itself. Sea floor is risen over many years and plate techtonics to become a mountain. Theory is still in???

quote:

You said that one day the genes make a photosensitive spot?!! WOW! because thats impossible! Do you have any idea of what that means? Do you know how genes are BUILT

Do you even know what a gene is??? The complex system does not have to arise spontaneously. You said yourself that starfish have a photosenstive spot on them in which they can detect light. Imagine that photosensitive spot undergoing years of evolution and natural selection (oh, thats right you cant).

quote:

Im not speaking of cell records, Im speaking of mathematical impossibilites. DONT EVEN RESPOND TO THIS UNTIL YOU READ AND UNDERSTAND THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION. Then you get to come back and try to explain how that many species popped up from that few of species in that short of time.

Cambrian explosion: See info in blue below found on the web...


A hostile environment of tectonic activity causing earthquakes and volcanoes to erupt ensued. The continents of Gondwanaland were just waiting to break apart and come crashing back together. Huge mountains speared from the earth and the world experienced great climatic change. These extreme conditions helped pave the road to the Cambrian Explosion not only by mixing oxygen into the ocean, but forcing creatures to adapt quickly to the harsh surroundings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

History
The word �Cambrian� came from the Roman name for Wales where the first geological studies were conducted on the period�s strata or layers of soil where its fossils are found. It began 543 million years ago and ended 43 million years later. The Cambrian Period is also known as Biology�s Big Bang and the Cambrian Explosion because of its great diversity of life. Here was the first appearance of limbs and segmented bodies. The first organisms to be predators, and to develop shells, jaws, claws, and teeth appeared here as well. We see varied multicellular and complex life that spent most of the time on the muddy sea floor. No creatures traveled by land, all were aquatic. It was during this time that ancestors of all animals which fly, swim, and crawl evolved and appeared in less than 10 million years; few new structural models emerged from Cambrian bodies. But scientists estimate that evolution requires 75 million years to show change. �Explosion� seems a fitting word to describe the speed at which life evolved during the Cambrian.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Cambrian Period was strange and exciting, but it was also a time of confusion. A confusion that has lasted for 150 years with scientists baffled over the Cambrian�s sudden explosion. No widely accepted theory explaining the burst of life exists and thus, it is fitting that we end with these questions. Can you find an answer to the problems? What caused biology�s Big Bang to occur so rapidly? Why haven�t there been any repeats of successful evolution and diversity? Why are there no new phyla after Cambrian?


Hmmm. Although it is a mystery (which nobody is denying) doesnt mean that it will never be solved. It may take more that 150 years to discover what happened millions of years ago (some forensic scientists have trouble with things that happened last year). Give it time, you will see. Just because all the answers are not there, doesnt mean that it isnt possible.

Also, it is possible that the techtonic activity and volcanoes spewed mutagenic substances into the atmosphere, increasing the rate of mutation. A comet from space could also have contributed to mutagenic rates. (Could that also explain why seagoing animals survived, and land animals did not... Flood is not the only option now is it?)

quote:

hypocrite?

What I said was "If you want to tell everyone else that they are wrong because they disagree with your belief, you are WRONG." What I mean by this is: You would be wrong for condemning others beliefs.

I have never written that God doesnt exist, or that Creation theory is not possible. But you have written that evolution theory is wrong, just because you are not able to explain complex organs etc.... I am not saying you are wrong, and that I am absolutely correct.. I just want you to admit to the possibility that Evolution could be happening, and has been happening for millenia. Or are you too narrow minded to acknowledge a possibily that you cannot outright proove to be wrong??

pleas guys.. cool down. i know religions are a very 'senstive' issue to many people (including myself), but please keep the personal comments out..

i am impressed with the knowledge many people have brought into the discussion, and while i might not be contributing right now, i am still happy to see the dialogue...


just wanted to say:

Relax, take a breath and keep it civil..

this is not supposed to be attacking anyone, I just feel a little bit of hard feelings coming in and i want to cool it down, before the flames start

quote:

I am an evolutionist, but Not athiest.

So you think there is a God because anything other than atheist means some form of belief in a higher power. So where does you God come in.

quote:

Wasnt it written in Aramaic

Thats the root of Hebrew and arabic. If you know one you can learn the other in a matter of days. Aramaic hardly changed, its more a matter of dialect than language difference.

quote:

Theory is still in???

no, i mean literally how long it has been a mountain. Its hard to date dirt because it moves around quite a bit.

quote:

Imagine that photosensitive spot undergoing years of evolution and natural selection (oh, thats right you cant).

Yes I can, all i have to do is smoke some crack and it makes perfect sense. You are missing the point that the photosensitive spot had to come from somewhere. It wasnt the starting point. I can see a progression FROM the spot, but no TO it.

quote:

Give it time youll see

Im not going to risk going to hell on a maybe.

quote:

I have never written that God doesnt exist, or that Creation theory is not possible. But you have written that evolution theory is wrong, just because you are not able to explain complex organs etc.... I am not saying you are wrong, and that I am absolutely correct.. I just want you to admit to the possibility that Evolution could be happening, and has been happening for millenia. Or are you too narrow minded to acknowledge a possibily that you cannot outright proove to be wrong??

The fact you support evolution intrinsically denies my belief. And I can explain complex organs perfectly. You seem to be mixing two terms: Complex, and System. They have very different import in the realm of evolution, one being possible, and the other being impossible. I suggest re-reading what I spoke of.

Side note: I probably forget more each day about evolution than you will ever know. As something I have to face constantly, I have researched it as though I was someone trying to prove it. I could make most Christians acquiesce to the fact of evolution. I have had so many conversations about this its ridiculous. Nothing I have seen has ever made me question for one second. Evolution is a beautiful dream to some, and it looks like the right answer from afar, but the deeper you dig the more impossible it is to keep finding support. honestly I want everyone here to read Darwins Black Box: The Biochemical challenge to evolution. It isnt a Christian book, the scientist who wrote it merely is saying that evolution cant work. I like to read both sides, because there are some huge gambles you are taking if you dont understand what it is you are choosing, and what it is you ARENT choosing.

*********************************************************
Hehe thanks Dav, I hold respect for those of you who have made arguments more strongly than simply "I believe/Dont believe". I said this earlier, but im just here to make people think, and maybe look into some things they hadnt previously considered. I DO want you all to convert but that probably isnt going to happen hehe. Hey, just tryin to save your immortal soul and such. Remember this, I like to debate. I LOVE it. I do it all the time. I like arguing against evolution because, besides the fact that its anti-christian in the sense of opposite, people get into it and put forth the knowledge they have. Sometimes people will surprise you. People also get riled up to the point where they speak from anger instead of reason, and then you can really rip apart their arguments hehe. Its all for fun and games though. I say stuff to piss people off on purpose so they made the aforementioned mistakes. If you ever want to win an argument of logic, pat someone on the head condescendingly, smile, and say that was the cutest little argument i ever did hear. Anything they say after that is going to be so poorly thought out that you almost win by default. Just exploring tactics here with you guys. Not being able to talk and gesture makes this interesting on a certain level.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.