|
Do You Think There is a God ? (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| 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.
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. |
|
|
| Sarcoman |
| 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. |
|
|
| Sarcoman |
| 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. |
|
|
| Orbax |
| 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. |
|
|
| drizzt81 |
| 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. |
|
|
| Orbax |
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. |
|
|
| D_G |
| 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... |
|
|
| Orbax |
| *pats D_G on head* You are forgiven my son |
|
|
| davinox |
| 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, |
|
|
| Orbax |
| 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. |
|
|
| Sarcoman |
| 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. |
|
|
| Orbax |
| 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? |
|
|
|
|
