I would like to tell you a bit more about God

[freethefly 6]

Quote

If you look at hard cold logic it is a dumb choice to bet on.

Religion is not based on logic but, merely emotion and fear.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Hausse 0]

What I wonder most about is, how christians explain that according to the bible the earth is just about 7000 years old. I mean we have carbon dating (yes I know the hat example but nobody can say it is always wrong) we can see stars from the earth which are billions of light years away (meaning the light was already on the way a billion years ago and reaches us now) and a lot of other things. How can you still belive in the bible when there are so many things which are just obviously wrong?

[billvon 2,400]

> I mean we have carbon dating (yes I know the hat example but
>nobody can say it is always wrong)

Some creationists DO claim that all dating methods are wrong, either through arcane scientific processes that only they understand, or because god is intentionally meddling to 'test our faith.' Most creationists, though, simply do not understand carbon dating and thus are not swayed by such evidence.

Examples from answersingenesis.com:

"every single dating method (outside of Scripture) is based on fallible assumptions."

"Why would any Christian want to take man’s fallible dating methods and use them to impose an idea on the infallible Word of God?"

> we can see stars from the earth which are billions of light years away . . .

Some believe:

-it's a trick. From that site:

"God created light ‘on its way,’ so that Adam could see the stars immediately without having to wait years for the light from even the closest ones to reach the earth."

-the speed of light was once faster:

"In one sense, if observers on earth at that particular time could have looked out and ‘seen’ the speed with which light was moving toward them out in space, it would have appeared as if it were traveling many times faster than c."

Again, most creationists simply don't understand the connection between the speed of light and how long it takes for light to get to earth, so this inconsistency doesn't bother them.

>How can you still belive in the bible when there are so many things
>which are just obviously wrong?

Do not underestimate the very human ability to rationalize anything, no matter what the evidence.

[Hausse 0]

My question was more rethorical. I know (I have a christian host family here in the US and we discussed a LOT about it) that people who don't want to accept the unimportance of themselves (I already wrote that in post 789) are really good in making up weird (and mostly obviously wrong for anybody who understands the subject and didn't learn about it on jesus channel) answers by not knowing anything about science (like carbon dating).

[Coreece 190]

Quote

I think the idea that we fully understand everything behind the concept of God is as conceited as thinking we understand everything in the natural world.

I would agree it would be conceited. I have never said that I fully understand God and maintain that we cannot. I'm thankful that we only need minimal knowledge of God in order to have a relationship with him. Some may say that this relationship is conceited, but as I've said earlier in this post, if we are the only beings that can acknowledge God and His universe, I belive this relationship is essential and makes sense. I believe it was created for us as evidence of His exsistence and to marvel over and give glory and thanks to Him for it. I don't think the universe has a point if it can't be acknowledged, thus our exsistence.

Quote

So believe in God any way you choose to do so. But rest assured that your view of God is just one of thousands in the world today, and the odds of you being 100% right and all those thousands of others being wrong is - well, small.

I do not believe in God in any way I choose. In the past I did...I believed in a god that was more convenient, that supported my selfish and sinful desires, or did not believe in any god at all. One day I realised that I became futile in my speculations, things didn't make sense and with every answer came many more questions that did not and will not ever satisfy. the vanity was overwhelming, especially in the things that I've acomplished and in those I have failed. I simply asked God to to help me understand and He has allowed me to begin; and for that I'm very thankful. I can only share my beliefs in a loving and non-judgemental fashion, but it can be hard when dealing with the insults (especially towards God) and I'm learing to be more discipline. Ultimately, it is between that individual and God as to what they will believe, and I think we all believe in something.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Here's a game for you to play. Take a string of 100 ramdom letters. Next change 1 letter at random. Keep doing that and every time you see a recognisable word fragment in the string, keep that fragment and change one of the other letters. How many iterations does it take for you to get a usable word somewhere in that string? Does iteration #1 look the same as iteration #223462345782? If you compare iterations #236 and #237, and call that change microevolution what happens if you compare iteration #245 with iteration #284571457? Is that still microevolution?

It is still just a game that needed a force in order to be played.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Coreece 190]

In reply to Phil and Jack in regards to Human Evolution as fact.

Is it still not "The Theory of Evolution" How than is it fact. As I understand it, Scientists have said that the discoveries in regards to Habilis and Erectus suggest that they have lived at the same time. This is contrary to what was previously believed. Though this may not absolutely crush the theory, is it still not a theory?

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Hausse 0]

Just tell me how you can belive in a good god who banishes hundreds of millions of people from all different religions to hell by just not making them belive in him by lets say... just showing up?

[Coreece 190]

Quote

How does one asses the relaitve value of discovering the Higgs boson to discovering a cure for Aids ? What is the relative probability of achieivng fusion power compared to being able to grow any new tissue at will?

The examples you give are quite noble, however if a scientist studying evolution is not being true to science and passing off conjecture as fact, than perhaps it would be better for society if he or she spent their time on more practical things like "discovering a cure for Aids." This obviously does not describe all or most evolutionists and I do have a respect for those that are diligent in anything that they do, being that diligence seems to be a lost art, especially in the cultural youth of America.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[billvon 2,400]

>I don't think the universe has a point if it can't be acknowledged, thus our exsistence.

I don't think the universe requires any acknowledgment to exist. There are places in the universe we will never see (or even be aware of) - doesn't mean they don't exist, or are meaningless.

>I do not believe in God in any way I choose.

You believe in God exactly the way you choose. (If you didn't, you would choose another way to believe in him.) Your choice is simply different than that of a Hindu, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist. Nothing wrong with that.

>Is it still not "The Theory of Evolution" How than is it fact.

We have more understanding of the theory of evolution than the various theories of gravity. But I am sure you would consider gravity a "fact".

It is also a fact that new species have evolved as we've watched, and that several disparate branches of science - geology, paleontology, chemistry, molecular biology, genetics - all support the gradual progression of life from single cell organisms to what we have today.

>As I understand it, Scientists have said that the discoveries in regards to
>Habilis and Erectus suggest that they have lived at the same time.

Right. We speciated (became a new species) and became separate from our ancestors. This doesn't mean that all those ancestors died, just that the new species could no longer breed with the older species. Eventually the more 'fit' species won out.

This almost happened before civilization began. When you compare the genome of (say) a Zimbabwean and an Inuit, their genomes have drifted pretty far apart. Another few million years and they would have drifted further, and Zimbabweans would no longer be able to breed with Inuits; they would have become separate species.

Nothing would then force all the Inuits to die. They'd continue to live and evolve. If the two groups started sharing territory again, the most 'fit' species would survive and the other would die out.

This didn't happen because civilization brought technology, and technology brought mechanized travel - which brought crossbreeding back. This reduces genetic drift by trading DNA back and forth between the two races, bringing them closer together.

>Though this may not absolutely crush the theory, is it still not a theory?

Yes. So is number theory. And the theory of relativity. And the theory of universal gravitation. Yet you stake your life every day that those theories will continue to be as true as they were for the past five billion years.

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

Atheists, thanks for those who responded. Your answers have given me a little insight into your rationalizations. It appears we do have something in common. We both have a belief system, neither of which can be proven or disproven by our current state of technology, and we use the same information to support our contradictory views. Of course if you are right you will never get the chance to say I told you so. If you look at hard cold logic it is a dumb choice to bet on.

What utter utter crap….

I notice this a lot with religious people, to class Atheists as people that have “belief system. It’s almost as though they are trying to reduce Atheist to their level of accepting un-evidenced dogma.

Maadmax, where we differ is that you have a belief that “ignorance is superior to Empirical Knowledge.

Where I see no credible empirical or scientific evidence for god and therefore reject the notion. This is not a “belief system” at all.

There is absolutely no similarity between you and me; I only accept facts, whereas you find no need for them.

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[Hausse 0]

Quote

Atheists, thanks for those who responded. Your answers have given me a little insight into your rationalizations. It appears we do have something in common. We both have a belief system, neither of which can be proven or disproven by our current state of technology, and we use the same information to support our contradictory views. Of course if you are right you will never get the chance to say I told you so. If you look at hard cold logic it is a dumb choice to bet on.

Even though I think the poster before me didn't choose the right tone for a discussion, I also disagree.

The thing about atheists is that we just believe in what CAN be proven.

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Is there actually a creationist in this entire thread not from the US? There may be one or two exceptions but really it should highlight just how fucking indoctrinated your beliefs are

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

Here's a game for you to play. Take a string of 100 ramdom letters. Next change 1 letter at random. Keep doing that and every time you see a recognisable word fragment in the string, keep that fragment and change one of the other letters. How many iterations does it take for you to get a usable word somewhere in that string? Does iteration #1 look the same as iteration #223462345782? If you compare iterations #236 and #237, and call that change microevolution what happens if you compare iteration #245 with iteration #284571457? Is that still microevolution?

It is still just a game that needed a force in order to be played.

It doesn't matter how the letters change to get the point of the excercise but in this game you'll need to do it yourself, obviously. Now are you going to play or not? How many iterations do you need for microevolution to become macroevolution?

Is a straight answer too much to ask?

[philh 0]

"It appears we do have something in common. We both have a belief system, neither of which can be proven or disproven by our current state of technology, and we use the same information to support our contradictory views. Of course if you are right you will never get the chance to say I told you so. If you look at hard cold logic it is a dumb choice to bet on. "


No a= without , theism =belief in god. Atheism = without belief in god. Atheists individually may have beliefs, but atheism is not a belief system. One cannot prove something does not exist. One cant prove god does not exist, but one cant prove invisble unicorns do not exist. That doesnt mean their existene or non existence should be teated as equal propositions. As far as betting on god goes , I dont think throwing a way a large proprtion of my life on something with no evidence is a wise bet. Imagine there is a god and he punishes those that believe in the wrong god , rewards those that believe in him and is neutral on those that dont believe at all. In that scenario its wise to not believe in any god becuase the chances of you picking the correct god out of the myriad of gods that people believe in is small. of ocurse one can dream up a scenario where one imagines a high pay off and a high punishment for getting the bet wrong and so it might seem like the bet is wise. But if the scenario is not grounded in reality its a waste of time.

[philh 0]

"The examples you give are quite noble, however if a scientist studying evolution is not being true to science and passing off conjecture as fact, than perhaps it would be better for society if he or she spent their time on more practical things like "discovering a cure for Aids."

Evolution is accepted by nearly all people in related fields as fact becuase the evidence for it is overwehleming. I notice how you doge our questions on your micro /macro evolution, perhaps you could answer them next time?
As far as curing Aids goes, it appears to me you dont understand how scientific research progresses. One of the girls in my dance class has just finished her PHD, specialising in Aids research . One thing that makes her job so diffcult is that the virus evolves so quikly . An understanding of evolution is essential to understanding viruses. Moreover applied research usually grows as we make progress in pure research. Those that think we should end pure research in favour of only apllied research will be biting the hand that feeds them.

[philh 0]

"Is it still not "The Theory of Evolution" How than is it fact."

Evolution is fact, natural selection is a theory. perhaps if you studied a bit more of evolutionary biology you would know that. Evolution is fact because we an observe both directly and indirectly. Darwins theory of natural selection is a theory that explains evolution, this theory has survived numerous tests and so is considered the best explanation for the fact of evolution.



"As I understand it, Scientists have said that the discoveries in regards to Habilis and Erectus suggest that they have lived at the same time. This is contrary to what was previously believed. Though this may not absolutely crush the theory, is it still not a theory? "

Whether habilis and erectus lived at the same time affects our conclusion as to the path of our branching evolutionary tree, it does not affect our conclusion that there is a tree. Just as if you found your parents were not you genetic parents (if you were adopted) it wouldnt affect your conclusion that you had genetic parents, just change your view as to who they are.

[JackC 0]

Quote

Though this may not absolutely crush the theory, is it still not a theory?

I think half your problem is that you're confused as to the meaning of the word theory.

In science there are facts, like gravity, electricity and magnetism and yes even evolution. Then there are laws like Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation, Ohm's Law. A law simply describes the facts, like Ohm's law simply describes the relationship between resistance, current and voltage. Laws do not attempt to explain why things happen, merely the relationship that they adhere to. Then there are theories. Theories provide an explaination as to how and why certain things happen. For example quantum theory explains how fundamental particles interact with each other. Natural selection is the theory that explains how the fact of evolution leads to different species of animal. Theories cannot become laws and a law has never been a theory.

You said how you respect those that are diligent in anything that they do, perhaps you wouldn't be so confused if you applied some diligence to your learing about science?

[Coreece 190]

Quote

It doesn't matter how the letters change to get the point of the excercise but in this game you'll need to do it yourself, obviously. Now are you going to play or not? How many iterations do you need for microevolution to become macroevolution?

Is a straight answer too much to ask?

I do not feel at all compelled to play this game. I understand what you are trying to say. I understand that you believe that the only difference between micro and macro is time and scale. I also understand that we have seen some plants evolve into other species. However, some scientist also believe that their may be gaps in evolutionary processes that cannot be explained by gradual phenotypic change. I don't claim a position either way. I'm simply not convinced, but I will still read books like "Climbing Mount Improbable" and other litearture to help me understand what you believe, but that's all. I'm not going to preoccupy myself with it. There is too much effin stuff in this world to know, I can't understand it all in the time I have left.

At this point, I'm more interested in living life than figuring out how or why it came about. It's not my mandate and I don't really care. God obviously doesn't think it to be important either. He wrote exactly what we needed to know in order to have a relationship with him and I'm content with the Bible. It has everything we need to know about how we should live life and is accurate in it's claims about human nature and how to deal with it. There are personal evidences once one believes and applies the bible. It is also accurate in it's historical, geological, and sociological prophecies that can be verified. It is also scientifically accurate in several areas including The 1st and 2nd Law of Thermo Dynamics, hydrology, Astronomy, Isostasy, Meterology (wind circulation & air pressure), Physiology (The Circulatory System & Psychosomatic Illness) and geodesy (The Bible tells us that the earth spins on it's axis. This was written around 600 BC)

I believe a creation has a creator because it just makes sense to me, it is evident to me when I observe creation. It is evident to me just like it is evident to Bilvon that there are places that exist in the Universe even though we will never see them nor be aware of them. It just makes sense.

Quote

There are places in the universe we will never see (or even be aware of) - doesn't mean they don't exist

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Coreece 190]

Quote

You said how you respect those that are diligent in anything that they do, perhaps you wouldn't be so confused if you applied some diligence to your learing about science?

We all have our place were diligence is required. The same could be said for you in regards to the Bible.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[JackC 0]

Quote

At this point, I'm more interested in living life than figuring out how or why it came about. It's not my mandate and I don't really care. God obviously doesn't think it to be important either. He wrote exactly what we needed to know in order to have a relationship with him and I'm content with the Bible

It's really not worth discussing anything with you then is it?

[philh 0]

Coreece.
Im not going to try and critique your defenses of the bible here. In stead Im gong to find encouregment that you are willing to read some books about evolution.
May I suggest a few things:
1The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins, this gives a very good overview of evolutionary theory.
2 Evolution by Carl Zimmer, this gives a good overview of the history of evolutionary science.

The best web site on evolution is:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

and I especially reccomend readng this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

last I would reccomend this dvd:


http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Boxed-Liam-Neeson-narrator/dp/B00005RG6J

I dont expect you to change your views on religion, but trust me an education is a wonderful things.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

In reply to Phil and Jack in regards to Human Evolution as fact.

Is it still not "The Theory of Evolution" How than is it fact. As I understand it, Scientists have said that the discoveries in regards to Habilis and Erectus suggest that they have lived at the same time. This is contrary to what was previously believed. Though this may not absolutely crush the theory, is it still not a theory?

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Allow me to explain.

Theories do not 'become' facts when they have enough evidence to support them. Hypothesis to Theory to Fact is not a linear hierarchy.

Theories explain facts. In this case, the Theory of evolution (through random mutation and natural selection) explains the Fact that the natural world evolves.

In a similar way, the Theory of gravity explains the Fact that gravity keeps our feet on the floor, the Theory of electromagnetism explains the Fact that I can microwave my dinner.

So while we do not yet have complete and absolute knowledge of exactly how evolution works, the fact that evolution happens is indisputable.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Coreece 190]

Quote

At this point, I'm more interested in living life than figuring out how or why it came about. It's not my mandate and I don't really care.

...

[the Bible] has everything we need to know

Quote

It's really not worth discussing anything with you then is it?

I said that I don't really care...not that I don't care at all. I just don't preoccupy myself with this stuff. I'm interested in what you have to say, but have found how you say it to be more interesting. With the exception of Billvon and a few others, most everyone in this forum seems more interested in patronizing people and displaying there arrogance and smart ass remarks. They are not interested in discussion nor are their "discussions" interesting and this is just a pissing contest for them. The only thing interesting is how far they piss and I suppose that this has something to do with the equations of Bernoulli and continuity.

So actually, it's not worth discussing anything with them.

Since it is relevent I will post the rest of my statement that you conveintly left out.

Quote

It (the Bible) has everything we need to know about how we should live life and is accurate in it's claims about human nature and how to deal with it.

I'm confident in this statement eventhough it doesn't show me how to piss or wipe my ass, which is what I'll be doing with most of these posts if my printer will except toilet paper.

So, there we have it...It is not worth discussing anything. period

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[funkcanna 0]

Steve (and all other christians sharing his understanding of Genisus) can I just ask one question..

Why arent you a creationist? What was it about Genisus that says to you "wait there! This didnt happen it must be just a message"?

To know requires proof
To believe requires evidence
To have faith requires neither.
If you stick with that, we'll never be confused again