Religion – your views

[Hunchman801]

I was only talking about the remark about atheists, not the whole message.

[Tobbe]

A better way, however, would be to address each of his points with written argument.

I will, don't worry. Unfortunately I don't has any internets atm. I'm posting this from my mate's house.

[Joshua822]

20 's seem like a pile of fuck to me. At least everyone could of have written down there disappointment in words, instead of

[Hunchman801]

That's not disappointment, that's disapproval. And the boon smiley has become a meme at PC.

[Xenon]

It's a good demonstration I agree, but perhaps a little over-the-top to prove one minor point. It doesn't explain the disapproval, either.

[Cairnie]

As much as fundies piss me off to falcon punching degrees, that whole chain of the same message wasn't what I wanted to see while PC was going through SQL errors.

[MLII]

That's what caused the SQL errors? If I'd've known that I wouldn't have joined in.

[Cairnie]

Of course not, it just didn't help, neither did Michael Jackson's death.

[spiraldoor]

I think we should start posting the boon smiley on other forums.

[Xenon]

Yeah, parade like that when Kleaneasy makes one of her silly comments. That would be quite funny actually, even if rather pointless.
I wonder how she's managing with RZ, anyway...

[Hunchman801]

It's a good demonstration I agree, but perhaps a little over-the-top to prove one minor point. It doesn't explain the disapproval, either.

Sure, but I don't think the disapproval of a remark groundlessly accusing all atheists of being rude needs any further explanation.

That's what caused the SQL errors? If I'd've known that I wouldn't have joined in.

There's absolutely no connection, the SQL errors were caused by maintenance queries which unexpectedly blocked the whole MySQL server.

[iHeckler9]

You were right about the Michael Jackson thing. I can't get 'Thriller' out of my head.

[spiraldoor]

It seems that everyone on this forum is either a Christian or an atheist.

[VNKzero]

you wanna hear my views on religion? i say who gives a fuck what anybody belives in. let them belive in what they do, and stop making debate topics about the stupid subject.

[Beebop]

Some people would simply dismiss that as ignorance, my friend.

[Tobbe]

Okay, I will finally do what MD has been asking me to do all along, that is, to debunk his "proof" of god's existance. Okay, here we go:

Does God exist eh? I would like to propose my views:

As i see it, there are three ways the Universe came about...

1. Something came from nothing.
2. The Universe was around forever.
3. A First Cause.

False trichotomy, there may very well be more ways for a Universe to "come about", even though you (or I) can't think of any.

1 is impossible as it goes against science. "Something" from nothing? ridiculous.

Not at all. On quantum level (subatomary) purely spontanious events are quite regular. I quote an article by theoretical physicist Paul Davies (because real phyicists tend to be better at explaining scientific principles than amateur cosmologists. ):

On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual commonsense rules of cause and effect are suspended. The rule of law is replaced by a sort of anarchy or chaos, and things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason. Particles of matter may simply pop into existence without warning, and then equally abruptly disappear again. Or a particle in one place may suddenly materialize in another place, or reverse its direction of motion. Again, these are real effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally.

...

The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that "just happens" need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.
It is, of course, a big step from the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of a subatomic particle-something that is routinely observed in particle accelerators-to the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of the universe. But the loophole is there. If, as astronomers believe, the primeval universe was compressed to a very small size, then quantum effects must have once been important on a cosmic scale. Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. In short, it need not have been a supernatural event.

So, this might not be so unscientific after all. I strongly advice you to read the entire article, it's a great read, and it's written in a way that every layman can understand.

2 is also impossible. If the Universe were always here, then Time must logically go back eternally into the past. If this is the case, however, then, as each moment must logically have a preceding moment, we could never reach the present- that is, NOW.

This is correct. But we know that time does not extend eternally into the past, but that it started in the Big Bang. Again, read the article I linked to. Stating that the Universe has existed forever is meaningless, as time as we know it didn't exist before the Big Bang (it might have been a fourth dimension of space, though), and thus the phrase 'forever' is rendered without meaning. Paul Davies explains this better than me, so I strongly advice you to read the article if you want to present a counter-argument.

Admittedly, some observations indicate that there might have been time before the Big Bang, and this is one of the observations that supports the hypothesis that our Universe was born out of a parent Universe, or after the collapse of a parent Universe. This doesn't really affect the Big Bang theory, though.

3: a First Cause?
Atheists (no offence to anyone ) often say that the First Cause must also have a cause- however, this is basically like saying number 2 is possible: the whole point of the FIRST Cause is that it is the First. If the First Cause is something of Infinite power, then the First Cause can override the laws of time and dimension as we understand them. In other words, a Cause that brought Time and dimension into existence, capable of existing outside of, or without them.

Even if there is a 'first cause' for the Universe, what makes you jump to the conclusion that this 'first cause' is god? And not just god; the Judeo-Christian god who created the heavens and the earth, and then created humans in his image. Even if your reasoning was without fault, and a god was the only explanation for the existance of the Universe, why would you take that as evidence that Christianity is true? That just doesn't make sense (excuse me if you're not actually Christian, but I seem to recall that you commented that the Bible is historically accurate somewhere in this thread, which would kinda suggest that you are).

Then, Evolution. In the paragraph directly below this you give the impression that because Evolution 'can't be true', a god must be responsible for creating the Earth and everything on it. That's one of the reasons I wanted to debunk your rejection of the Theory of Evolution to begin with.

1: A: most or all evidence on evolution is based on similarities between fossils, cells, dna and so on. However, similarites do NOT prove that one creature EVOLVED into the other; these evidences can just as easily be used to evidence similarity in design. Positing similarites to evolution is what I call the "evolution of the gaps". I'm not talking here about a mere missing link here and there, but entire missing chains that would be needed before evolution could even be plausible.

When we study the fossile record and phylogenetics we see a twin nested hierarchy where different species branch off from a common ancestor with which they share most of their properties. For instance, you share the property of having a spinal cord with most complicated life forms. Every fossile we find supports common ancestry. The fossile record shows a progression from simple to complex, just like Darwin predicted. Common ancestry is also extremely easy to falsify. All you'd have to do would be to find an organism that wouldn't fit in anywhere in the phylogenetic tree and fossile record, like a fossile bunny in the cambrian era. And "evolution of the gaps", wtf does that even mean. It makes no sense gramatically or logically. The reason we accept that similarities in both extant and extinct species are due to evolution is not merely because of the similarities, but because all the species can be placed in a twin nested hierarchy which progresses from simple to complex through time. Creating a nested hierarchy where the various organisms adapt to the changing environment through 3.8 billion years would be a peculiar move from a god, especially if most of the environments these organisms lived in never existed anyway, as the Earth is only 6000 years old. If you want to believe that god guides evolution, or created all the fossiles and placed in the ground to fool humans into thinking evolution is true, you're welcome. However, such a claim is based on blind faith with absolutely no supporting evidence, and is not at all science.

And why do you demand a complete fossile record to consider evolution a valid theory? Such a thing is impossible! Anyways, we have a much more extensive fossile record than any paleontologist could have dreamed of 100 years ago, and every single one of the thousands of transitionary fossiles support common ancestry. What more do you want?
And if an extensive fossile record isn't enough for you, then perhaps the actual observation of speciation ("macro-evolution") is? One of the best examples is bacteria who evolve to digest nylon, a completely synthetic fabric that is indigestible to all other bacteria, and wasn't invented until the 20th century. Scientists have even identified the exact mutation needed for the bacteria to be able to digest nylon. Speciation has also been observed in other organisms, mainly plants and fruit flies, but none of these speciation events provide as good an example of evolution as the nylon digesting bacteria does.

B: Evolution is said to have taken billions of years, but the world is not nearly that old. For an example, recently some trees were found in the middle of Australia which were meant to be extinct for millions/billions of years. The main evidence posited for the age of the world is in the rocks based on the fossils therein. Eg. If there is a fish fossil, this creature obvioulsy came from the time before creatures evolved to walk on land, such and such billions years ago.However, this evidence is made with the assumption that evolution is true- in other words, one assumes evolution to *prove* evolution!

That's not how dating works at all. Rocks are not dated by the fossiles we find them in at all, but they are dated directly using radiometric dating, which is an extremely accurate process. The claim that dating of rocks is done with the assumption that evolution is true is simply bollocks. All scientific testing must be blind in order to produce unbiased results. Every dating method we have point to the age of the Earth being approximately 4.5 billion years. This is not even disputable, it is a well supported and documented fact. The claim that rocks are dated by the fossiles we find in them is one of the most bizarre Creationist claims that I've come across. Where did you get it? Kent Hovind?

C: There was even a series of books about evolution once, and whenever proper evidence was meant to be posited, there was a reference to another book in the series. "Unfortunately this piece of evidence won't be explained here: for evidence, here is the reference". The books the references led to also had references instead of evidence, so that the whole thing went around in an empty circle. This is what I mean when I say there is literally no evidence for evolution.

You're failure to track down the original reference does not disprove the Theory of Evolution. As I have already explained, there is overwhelming evidence that supports this theory.

2 A: Originally evolutionists stated that, since creatures evolved from each other over millions of years, there should be in the fossil record, a string of skeletons with very slight changes, such as a lizard gradually becoming a bird, or an ape gradually becoming a man. The Christians came along and said "well, where are they?" There weren't any.

Perhaps not in 1859, when Darwin published On The Origin..., but we've come a long way since then. Here is a phylogenetic tree showing the evolution of homo sapiens:



I haven't been able to find a neat graphic representation of the phylongeny of modern birds, but here is a specie that is considered to be the first bird, a diversification of an ancient reptile:


archaeopteryx

And btw, birds didn't evolve from lizards.

I hope you understand that birds haven't evolved from extant reptile species, but that they diversified from reptiles that existed millions of years ago. And another thing: Apes don't gradually become men. Humans are apes. So are gibbons, orangutangs, gorillas and chimpanzees.

Shortly afterwards there was an amazing "scientific breakathrough" in evolution called the "evolutionary jump", in which one creature suddenly becomes another. Eg. a bird hatches from the egg of a lizard!

Birds didn't evolve from lizards. And this evolutionary jump seems to be a phrase coined by Creationists to describe evolutionary steps they feel cannot have happened without divine intervention. As for the "birds from lizard egg"-thing: Lizards will always be hatched from the eggs of lizards. Even if birds did evolve from lizard, all birds would still be classified as lizards. That's the way taxonomy works. Even if the descendants of humans over time evolved into something resembling green little men from Mars, they would still be classified as humans.

As for apes and men, they didn't evolve from each other anymore, they now shared a "common anscestor". This phenomenon has been repeated throughout the history of the "theory of evolution"; it's had to "adapt" itself (excuse the pun) to suit the arguments of Christians.

The Theory of Evolution has always been about common ancestry, right from the start in 1859. Humans did evolve from apes, and we also share a common ancestor, a primate. Just like you are "evolved" from your father, and both you and your father share a common ancestor in your grandfather. Humans share a common ancestor with - at least - all eukaryotes. We share a relatively recent common ancestor with chimpanzees, a slighty earlier common ancestor with gorillas and orangutangs, and if you go back enough generations, we also share a common ancestor with animals like bats, snakes and fish. The Theory of Evolution has never had to adapt itself to anything but evidence.

B: There are two genuine pieces of evidence for evolution I came across. One was a snake with the beginnings of legs, (which actually proves the Bible)

As far as I'm aware, snakes have evolved away from legs, so there wouldn't be any snakes with the beginnings of legs, but rather pseudo-snakes with the remainders of legs. There is a fish with the legs, though, it's called tiktaalik:

and the other is natural adaption, or "micro-evolution" as some like to call it. Oh, adaption is true all right, an example of it is the whole white rabbits/black rabbits thing, but adaption is seen the changes tend to be rather sudden compared to the slow scheme of evolution which is meant to take millions of years, as though information data was stored in the dna of the creature in question for such a time as when it would be needed to emerge- as if by a Designer who knew what was to come, and designed a being capable of flexible adaption accordingly. However, no changes are seen to the extent that a creature becomes something else entirely, so this also proves the Bible: the creatures must follow "after their kind".

'Micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution' are terms no longer used by scientists, as they have long since come to the conclusion that there is no difference between the two.

It's not the adaptation part that takes millions of years to occur, it's the genetic variation part. The probability of a beneficial mutation is extremely low (the vast majority of mutations are completely neutral, btw), so it takes a long time for a mutation to occur that will help the individual to survive. We haven't seen a complex organism (like a mammal) evolve to something distinctly different because it takes a lot of time for this to occur. We do see this in the entire fossile record, though.

And wtf do you mean by 'the creatures must follow "after their kind"'? Can you please define kind? Are zebras and horses the same "kind"?

Despite all this, as I said, evolution is largely used in propaganda. Proof of this comes from the fact that there is no course in universities or schools that specificaly outlines evolution. Rather, in biology, chemistry and all the sciences in all the schools the students are taught that "evolution did it" without any evidence, because evolution is pparently "to broad a topic" to cover in one course. That is a very bad excuse.

Propaganda, eh? This is getting ridicolous. Evolution is the foundation upon which modern biology is built, so you would definately get taught a lot about the theory if you were to study biology. Hell, even in the basic biology class in Norwegian high schools students are taught a lot about evolution. If you want to handle evidence of evolution on a daily basis you can study palaeontology in uni. As for chemistry, physics and all other sciences: wtf have they got to do with evolution?

In reality, "studying science is studying the works of God", as the evangelical Charles Finney once said. Charles Finney, in his life, was a confident atheist with a degree in law. Due to this degree in law he had been taught to weigh evidence logically, since this, of course, is an important skill in that field. It was for this reason that he, a rational, educated young man, was able to see the logic and evidence in Christianity, weigh it against atheism, and was so converted. Since then he saw God, not evolution, in everything, such as in the design of the human body and the wonders of science. The same can be said for many other converted atheists.

What the hell has this got to do with anything we've previously discussed?

The complete evolution of humans from simple vertebrates is very well documented

You're welcome to show me if you like.

I'm gonna have to link you to another video, then. Make sure you actually watch it this time: The fossile lineage starts at about 7:00!

About the insults; that's the way I roll.

Typical atheist.

Well, if you don't like being critisised for it, I could say it's unfair of you to say that belief in God can only ever be based on blind faith. Basically my demand for disproof was because of that. It seems that as an atheist, you can't bring yourself to admit I have rational, scientific and valid reasons for believing in God, yet at the same time you can't disprove my reasoning. Of course you never tried to- because you can't deny it.

I have just shown that your reasoning is faulty, and that science allows other ways for the Universe to exist than through creation by a deity. I bet you're gonna deny it, though
You might see your religious beliefs as rational, but they sure as hell ain't scientific, as science requires observable evidence. Logical puzzles like yours (which I showed you was faulty) are not scientific evidence.
The very definition of religion is that at least some part of it must be assumed on faith without concrete evidence.

No matter how you think about it or go over it, unless you brush it aside then, logically, you're forced to meet God face to face.

And there it is: The threat of judgement and eternal damnation. Lovely. If your deity turns out to exist, and he really is as just and fair that you Christians claim, I won't have any trouble facing him.

Space is all around us, and time is merely the flow of things; they're not that hard to comprehend.

They are. It took centuries, and a genius like Albert Einstein, to figure out what time and space really are. They are a not separate, but one four-dimentional continuum where time and space affect each other, and both are affected by gravity. Take a physics course.


Tobbe

[Holy Crap]

I love reading Tobbe's posts in this topic.

[VNKzero]

i myself am a spartist, and i follow spartism.

[spiraldoor]

About the insults; that's the way I roll.

Typical atheist.

+1

I hope the self-styled Mister Dark attempts a comeback.

[Tobbe]

He will probably dig up some more bogus arguments from Kent Hovind videos, like the one that the 2nd law of thermodynamics disproves evolution, or that the law of conservation of angular momentum disproves the Big Bang Theory.

Or maybe he will take the easy way out, and simply declare "none of this proves anything!".