Religion – your views

[Hunchman801]

i myself am a spartist, and i follow spartism.

Please refrain yourself from posting such useless posts, especially after one of Tobbe's interesting and very well documented messages

As concerns the existence of God itself, I'm afraid there's absolutely no way to prove or disprove it. Some may say religious beliefs are not scientific, but scientific reasoning is based on causality, the belief that if a phenomenon (called the cause) occurs and produces another phenomenon (called the effect), then the effect cannot precede the cause. And yet causality, the very base of science, was never empirically proved to be wrong, it was never proved to be true either. Which means that from an ontological point of view, science isn't any better than religion.

The whole scientific reasoning is based on the assumption that our world follows the rules of causality, and since that's what we see, it seems more logical to think so. That's what I believe in, I personally am an atheist, but I don't pretend to be able to prove I'm right.

After all, atheism is somehow a question of faith too.

[Tobbe]

However, in science you can make observations and form hypothesees and theories, then have them re-tested and verified countless times, so that we can be almost 100% sure that we're correct (because 100% certainty is impossible to achieve). Religion doesn't allow that.

And not all sciences rely on causality. If that was the case then quantum physics wouldn't be science.

[Mister Dark]

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

And *that*, is possibly the most intelligent thing I've heard all day. As for the "typical atheist" thing, I find it strange that this should be subject to such strong universal disapproval when only a few posts earlier some of these same people were talking about how priests are more likely to be pedophiles and how religion should be banned from schools, and when the very person I made the remark to previously stated that I was "brainwashed by RELIGIOUS dogma". But if that's your stance then fine by me.

As concerns the existence of God itself, I'm afraid there's absolutely no way to prove or disprove it. Some may say religious beliefs are not scientific, but scientific reasoning is based on causality, the belief that if a phenomenon (called the cause) occurs and produces another phenomenon (called the effect), then the effect cannot precede the cause. And yet causality, the very base of science, was never empirically proved to be wrong, it was never proved to be true either. Which means that from an ontological point of view, science isn't any better than religion.

The whole scientific reasoning is based on the assumption that our world follows the rules of causality, and since that's what we see, it seems more logical to think so. That's what I believe in, I personally am an atheist, but I don't pretend to be able to prove I'm right.

After all, atheism is somehow a question of faith too.

I disagree about there being no way to prove God, but this is an intelligent post; I only appreciate more for its free from bias against religion. And most of it's true too: when it comes down to it, atheism and religion as concepts aren't either of them about science, though each can try and use science to back up their own views. The truth is it's really speculation we're talking about when we address the issue of First Cause.

Okay, I will finally do what MD has been asking me to do all along,

Thank God.

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.

Oh for the love of... *this* is what you call debunking? I've outlined all possible ways the Universe could have come about by classifying them into three main groups. I doubt anyone could think of some way it could have come about that doesn't come under one of these catagories- although if someone thinks they can they're more than welcome to. If no one can, we can only presume that these are the only possibilities, and one must proceed to follow this reasoning logically through.

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.

Something "popping into existence" is absurd. All effects must have logical causes- that's how science works. Random phenomena do not "pop into existence" and then disappear again. It's one of the most basic laws of science that no atom is ever newly created (and generally not destroyed, either). that means that ten thousand years from now there will *still* be the same amount of matter existing in the universe. Atheists (again, no offence to anyone) will often say that God is merely used to explain something we don't know. But from this it's revealed quite clearly that you don't actually have *anything* to explain "what we don't know", yet you still accuse the idea of First Cause, something that agrees with the principles of Cause and Effect seen EVERY DAY, as "stupid" and "sickening" as you put it.

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.

But the Big Bang itself is essentially "something from nothing", unless you're going to tell me once again that "the Big Bang Theory does NOT explain the origins of the Universe," which is what we're discussing. If so, then you're kind of missing the point of my argument rather than addressing it.

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.

Even if this were true, it still falls into the scheme of "something from nothing" or "something from God".

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).

I already answered that in my very first post, concluding by saying "well then, isn't this the very definition of God?" Your reply to this was "the Universe wasn't designed for humans, we were designed for it". After I stated that the two were much the same thing, you got angry and began raving about how you hated ignorant people (like me). I'm sure if look back a few pages from my first post onwards you'll find this all to be true.

But I digress. I'm sure the Christian God is the true God because of prayers answered, miracles done, witnesses testifying to these facts with no hint of unstable minds or deceit in their words, and then also because much of what the Bible says has come true today or been proven true before the people in Biblical times could have possibly had such scientific knowledge as to have known them. One very, very, very minor example of this is that in a verse regarding the Great Flood, God is found to have "opened the wells of the deep", but, of course, no-one in those ancient days could have possibly discovered through science that water was below the ground on a scale capable of flooding the world of man. Again, this only a very, very, very, very minor example in the sheme of a powerful flow of evidence constantly re-enforced and all supporting Christianity. But as I said, I never wanted to discuss evolution and I don't really feel like discussing the evidence of my religion either. Oh, I don't mind doing it later, after I've made my point that God is the only possible Cause, but for now it would only get us off topic.

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.

No it doesn't. It gives the impression that evolution can't be true.

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 many *have* been found, which boggled the minds of evolutionists time and time again. How could this be, when "evolution must be true"!?

And "evolution of the gaps", wtf does that even mean. It makes no sense gramatically or logically.

In my experience, most atheists have a prejudice against the religious; before any arguments or logical points have even been raised, the religious must automatically be irrational, illogical, turning a blind eye to so-called evidence, having no beliefs other than those based on a blind faith, and so on. (Also priests are of course evil pedophiles, despite the fact pedophilia is condemned by God and adult/child sex doesn't fit within the scheme of our intelligent design). So, when you said "I have no problem with you believing in religion SO LONG as you can admit that your beliefs are based on [blind] faith not logic" and spoke about a "god of the gaps", I basically replied by saying "take a look at the log in your own eye". That's what "evolution of the gaps" means. Moving on.

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.

I already addressed this belief with the way the assumption of evolution being used to prove evolution.

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?

Oh, I don't doubt fossils support anscestry "after their own kind" as the Bible itself said before evolution was ever dreamed up. I'm simply saying that a creature becoming something contradictory to its own kind throughout generations cannot be proven, (on the contrary it's been downright disproven) and is ridiculous.

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.

Evolution isn't adaption. Evolution isn't when the skin of a group of humans turns brown throughout generations as a result of heat, or becomes paler because of their habitat. The same for bacteria- evolution is when that bacteria grows legs and a brain a billion years later, which goes against logic, sound reasoning, and yes: science as well.

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.!

Exactly!

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.

Here you go: http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml

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...,

And none today.

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:

And btw, birds didn't evolve from lizards.

Yes. I know.

But have you noticed that what you're posting here are *illustrations*? An illustration is not evidence.

And another thing: Apes don't gradually become men. Humans are apes.

Here we have yet another example of evolutionary nonsense. Humans have minds capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, a thing which sets them apart from mere animals, who, although they can demonstrate degrees of intelligence according to their nature and design, do not have the knowledge of right and wrong, or good and evil. Can evolution demonstrate that an animal species, any animal species, is capable of developing a brain of such a nature as to learn the important difference between good and evil? Or can it explain away why trees were found in the middle of Australia that should have been extinct for billions of years beyond the excuse of "well, these trees obviously thrived in this place for all those billions of years" i.e. WITHOUT any notable expansion of their forestry? There are many other such discoveries that disrupt evolutionary theory, but are explained away by weak, timid excuses.

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.

"seems to be"? The evolutionary jump is one of many weak, timid, irrational excuses evolutionists have had to come up with to support a theory that had no grounds in science to begin with.
I'll continue this post another day.

[Tobbe]

Congratulations, you haven't been able to make a single valid point so far. You have descended to the "point and laugh" stage. I'm very disappointed.

By the way, here is one of the archaeopteryx fossiles the illustration is based on:



When are you gonna stop pretending all the fossiles don't exist?

Here are some hominid fossiles. Humans are a part of the family hominidae, great apes, there's no point in denying it.


australopithecus afarensis


australopithecus africanus


homo habilis


homo ergaster


homo heidelbergensis

There are now so many hominid fossils that the real problem for paleontologists these days is not to find out whether or not we are related to them, but rather to find out which are our direct ancestors and which are extinct evolutionary "cousins".

[Cairnie]

These fossils are fucking amazing

[Mister Dark]

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

And *that*, is possibly the most intelligent thing I've heard all day. As for the "typical atheist" thing, I find it strange that this should be subject to such strong universal disapproval when only a few posts earlier some of these same people were talking about how priests are more likely to be pedophiles and how religion should be banned from schools, and when the very person I made the remark to previously stated that I was "brainwashed by RELIGIOUS dogma". But if that's your stance then fine by me.

As concerns the existence of God itself, I'm afraid there's absolutely no way to prove or disprove it. Some may say religious beliefs are not scientific, but scientific reasoning is based on causality, the belief that if a phenomenon (called the cause) occurs and produces another phenomenon (called the effect), then the effect cannot precede the cause. And yet causality, the very base of science, was never empirically proved to be wrong, it was never proved to be true either. Which means that from an ontological point of view, science isn't any better than religion.

The whole scientific reasoning is based on the assumption that our world follows the rules of causality, and since that's what we see, it seems more logical to think so. That's what I believe in, I personally am an atheist, but I don't pretend to be able to prove I'm right.

After all, atheism is somehow a question of faith too.

I disagree about there being no way to prove God, but this is an intelligent post; I only appreciate it more for its free from bias against religion. And most of it's true too: when it comes down to it, atheism and religion as concepts aren't either of them about science, though each can try and use science to back up their own views. The truth is it's really speculation we're talking about when we address the issue of First Cause.

Okay, I will finally do what MD has been asking me to do all along,

Thank God.

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.

Oh for the love of... *this* is what you call debunking? I've outlined all possible ways the Universe could have come about by classifying them into three main groups. I doubt anyone could think of some way it could have come about that doesn't come under one of these catagories- although if someone thinks they can they're more than welcome to. If no one can, we can only presume that these are the only possibilities, and one must proceed to follow this reasoning logically through. So let's see: *are* you going to follow this reasoning through, or move on to something else?

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. ):

Something "popping into existence" is absurd. All effects must have logical causes- that's how science works. Random phenomena do not "pop into existence" and then disappear again. It's one of the most basic laws of science that no atom is ever newly created (and generally not destroyed, either). that means that ten thousand years from now there will *still* be the same amount of matter existing in the universe. Atheists (again, no offence to anyone) will often say that God is merely used to explain something we don't know. But from this it's revealed quite clearly that you don't actually have *anything* to explain "what we don't know", yet you still accuse the idea of First Cause, something that agrees with the principles of Cause and Effect seen EVERY DAY, as "stupid" and "sickening" as you so eloquently put it before.

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.

But the Big Bang itself is essentially "something from nothing", unless you're going to tell me once again that "the Big Bang Theory does NOT explain the origins of the Universe," which is what we're discussing. If so, then you're kind of missing the point of my argument rather than addressing it.

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.

Even if this were true, it still falls into the scheme of "something from nothing" or "something from God".

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).

I already answered that in my very first post, concluding by saying "well then, isn't this the very definition of God?" Your reply to this was "the Universe wasn't designed for humans, we were designed for it". After I stated that the two were much the same thing, you got angry and began raving about how you hated "ignorant morons" (like me). I'm sure if you look back a few pages from my first post onwards you'll find this all to be true.
But I digress. I'm sure the Christian God is the true God because of prayers answered, miracles done, witnesses testifying to these facts with no hint of unstable minds or deceit in their words, and then also because much of what the Bible says has come true today or been proven true before the people in Biblical times could have possibly had such scientific knowledge as to have known them. One very, very, very minor example of this is that in a verse regarding the Great Flood, God is found to have "opened the wells of the deep", but, of course, no-one in those ancient days could have possibly discovered through science that water was below the ground on a scale capable of flooding the world of man. Again, this only a very, very, very, very minor example in the sheme of a powerful flow of evidence constantly re-enforced and all supporting Christianity. But as I said, I never wanted to discuss evolution and I don't really feel like discussing this aspect of my religion either. Oh, I don't mind doing it later, after I've made my point that God is the only possible Cause, but for now it would only get us off topic.

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.

No it doesn't. It gives the impression that evolution can't be true.

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 many *have* been found, which boggled the minds of evolutionists time and time again. How could this be, when "evolution must be true"!?

And "evolution of the gaps", wtf does that even mean. It makes no sense gramatically or logically.

In my experience, most atheists have a prejudice against the religious; before any arguments or logical points have even been raised, the religious must automatically be irrational, illogical, turning a blind eye to so-called evidence, having no beliefs other than those based on a blind faith, and so on. (Also priests are of course evil pedophiles, despite the fact pedophilia is condemned by God and adult/child sex doesn't fit within the scheme of our intelligent design). So, when you said "I have no problem with you believing in religion SO LONG as you can admit that your beliefs are based on [blind] faith not logic" and spoke about a "god of the gaps", I basically replied by saying "take a look at the log in your own eye". That's what "evolution of the gaps" means. Then there's also the fact that it's true. Moving on.

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.

I already addressed this belief with the way the assumption of evolution being used to prove evolution.

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?

Oh, I don't doubt fossils support anscestry "after their own kind" as the Bible itself said before evolution was ever dreamed up. I'm simply saying that a creature becoming something contradictory to its own kind throughout generations cannot be proven, (on the contrary it's been downright disproven) and is ridiculous.

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.

Evolution isn't adaption. Evolution isn't when the skin of a group of humans turns brown throughout generations as a result of heat, or becomes paler because of their habitat. The same for bacteria- evolution is when that bacteria grows legs and a brain a billion years later, which goes against logic, sound reasoning, and yes: science as well.

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.!

Exactly!

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.

Here you go: http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml

Perhaps not in 1859, when Darwin published On The Origin...,

And none today.

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:
And btw, birds didn't evolve from lizards.

Yes. I know.
But have you noticed that what you're posting here are *illustrations*? An illustration is not evidence.

And another thing: Apes don't gradually become men. Humans are apes.

Here we have yet another example of evolutionary nonsense. Humans have minds capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, a thing which sets them apart from mere animals, who, although they can demonstrate degrees of intelligence according to their nature and design, do not have the knowledge of right and wrong, or good and evil. Can evolution demonstrate that an animal species, any animal species, is capable of developing a brain of such a nature as to learn the important difference between good and evil? Or can it explain away why trees were found in the middle of Australia that should have been extinct for billions of years beyond the excuse of "well, these trees obviously thrived in this place for all those billions of years" i.e. WITHOUT any notable expansion of their forestry? There are many other such discoveries that disrupt evolutionary theory, but are explained away by weak, timid excuses.

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.

"seems to be"? The evolutionary jump is one of many weak, timid, irrational excuses evolutionists have had to come up with to support a theory that had no grounds in science to begin with.

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.

But now all you’ve done is prove Christianity further, since snakes originally had legs.

'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.

How convenient.

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

It’s nigh on impossible.

(the vast majority of mutations are completely neutral, btw),

Actually the vast majority tend to be damaging oddities.

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

Of ocurse not.

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"?

What it means is that while species can change via adaption, there are limits to the vastness of the changes that may occur. There a “sphere” or “bounday”, so-to-speak, that one simply cannot leave simply through adaption or natural selection. An individual gene pool is not something of infinite potential, so that a man could one day grow wings and fly, for instance, or an ape could gain human-like intelligence, as evolution states.

Propaganda, eh? This is getting ridicolous.

Read the link I posted above.

Evolution is the foundation upon which modern biology is built,

The science of biology is far older than evolution, and it has always been a solid proof of an intelligent design. Yet, as I said, throughout all schools and universities that teach evolution, there is nothing that handles the subject directly, instead, evolution is an idea that plagues the sciences. “Do you see the wonders of the human body? It is the work of random mutations and *evolution*.” The so-called theory teaches, in a sense, that man somehow designed himself, and the heart of this belief is “I am my own god”. [/quote]

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

More than this:

Firstly, I don't dismiss evolution because of a lack of understanding regarding the so-called theory. I'm made to denote it for the reason that I've studied the promotional propaganda of evolution and found them illogical, empty, false.
Secondly, the earth being suited for humans and we being suited for it is much the same thing. This only validates my point: this world and human life were designed for each other. Although there is maybe a little truth in what you said, since the earth did come first.

You are so full of crap! Ignorant morons like you really piss me off.

I'm gonna have to link you to another video, then. Make sure you actually watch it this time:

This video is typical of all the other “evidence” posited for evolution. They make assumptions that “evolution is the cause of this fossil” based on nothing but a similarity to another fossil. For an example: If a Designer created some creatures to live on land, and some to live in the sea, it’s only natural that, as coastlands are essentially a type of ecosystem, He would create creatures that can mingle in a little of both, due to the coastlands being their habitat. Examples of this are crabs, crocodiles and so forth. Yet the platapus, something perfectly designed for its natural habitat, is taken as evidence for evolution because it has similarities in its design to other species.

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.

You sure did. It was a real eye-opener for me:

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

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.

I repeat:

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

The very definition of religion is that at least some part of it must be assumed on faith without concrete evidence.

Not necessarily.

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.

Not really. The truth is all you can do is brush my reasoning aside by saying

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

and

You are so full of crap! Ignorant morons like you really piss me off.

And why is that? Because you simply can’t face the truth; that your philosophy is grounded in things popping into existence out of nothing, on the vague hope that perhaps there are other ways the Universe could have come about that *don’t* point towards God

even though you (or I) can't think of any

and the assumption that

at least some part of it must be assumed on faith without concrete evidence.

And when this is pointed out to you, and you begin to realise that the instant you open your mind beyond these assumptions, there is God, all you can do is cry: “well you’re just threatening me with hell to impose your beliefs!” and then that’s that, and you’ve relieved yourself of the responsibility to think beyond the box of your own beliefs by adherring to the stereotype of the evil, condemning Christian. Well done.

[spiraldoor]

Okay, I will finally do what MD has been asking me to do all along,

Thank God.

[Tobbe]

And when this is pointed out to you, and you begin to realise that the instant you open your mind beyond these assumptions, there is God, all you can do is cry: “well you’re just threatening me with hell to impose your beliefs!” and then that’s that, and you’ve relieved yourself of the responsibility to think beyond the box of your own beliefs by adherring to the stereotype of the evil, condemning Christian. Well done.

No, you are completely wrong. Wtf do you mean by "your own beliefs". I don't have any religious beliefs, that is the very definition of being an atheist. Anyway, it's getting increasingly frustrating to respond to your bullshit because you're arguments become less and less filled with rationality and genuine and specific arguments against evolution and atheism (if they were true, that is), and more and more filled with plain denial. In addition to this, you also jump at every opportunity to quote-mine me! You cut my sentences in half at your own convenience, or quote me out of context in an attempt to ridicule me. I am personally offended by this and I find it despicable.

You have obviously drawn all of your conclusion in advance, and you react violently when anyone questions these conclusions. I don't think there is any way anyone could talk any sense into you, so I don't see much point in arguing anymore with you. I'll probably try to answer some of your most absurd statements, though, so that you won't have to suffer the delusion that you have somehow won the discussion.I'd be grateful if Hunch, spiral, HC, Xenon, or any of the other rationalists here would give me a hand in debating this guy, though.

My final statement (for now): You are a human, an ape, a primate, a mammal, a tetrapod, a vertebrate, a chordate, an animal and a eukaryote! Get over it!

[spiraldoor]

As for the "typical atheist" thing, I find it strange that this should be subject to such strong universal disapproval

I actually think it was a perfect way to express the global disapproval raised by this groundless, insulting and deeply stupid remark.

This ^

when only a few posts earlier some of these same people were talking about how priests are more likely to be pedophiles and how religion should be banned from schools

What's wrong with saying that priests are more likely to be paedophiles? It's true. Trying to stop us from mentioning certain facts which are inconvenient to your argument is...[insert your own word here]. You would have tried to suppress the Ryan Report if you were in a position of power to do so.

Anyways, I feel that the large number of paedophiles amongst the Church is more than enough reason to keep them out of schools and away from vulnerable children. Also, can you think of a reason why Christianity should be taught in schools, but other religions shouldn't?

and when the very person I made the remark to previously stated that I was "brainwashed by RELIGIOUS dogma". But if that's your stance then fine by me.

You most likely have been, effectively, brainwashed.

If, like a newborn baby, you had no memories, no personality and no knowledge of anything, whatsoever (and I believe that's the only way a human being can be truly unbiased), and you were suddenly asked to choose between religion and atheism, when presented with the evidence for both sides, do you actually think you'd choose religion? If your answer is "yes", then that could only be your current bias determining your response...

[Tobbe]

I'm beginning to understand why Professor Richard Dawkins doesn't debate with Creationists.

[Hunchman801]

And not all sciences rely on causality. If that was the case then quantum physics wouldn't be science.

I didn't want to get into that, but it's true. Quantum physics, however, are based on the notion of quantum state, which evolution follows the Schrödinger equation. The same problem remains.

I disagree about there being no way to prove God [...]

Then prove it.

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.

The blatant failure with that trichotomy is that you don't seem to understand that time did not always exist. Whether you believe it or not is your problem (as I said, there's absolutely no way to prove it), but you can't just ignore such a possibility. Did you even read Paul Davies' excellent article?

Something "popping into existence" is absurd. All effects must have logical causes- that's how science works. Random phenomena do not "pop into existence" and then disappear again. It's one of the most basic laws of science that no atom is ever newly created (and generally not destroyed, either). that means that ten thousand years from now there will *still* be the same amount of matter existing in the universe.

Saying that some events occur spontaneously does not mean they are not logical. It does just mean that you cannot predict when they will happen, but only the probability. And what you said about matter is totally false and contradicts the concept of mass–energy equivalence.

But the Big Bang itself is essentially "something from nothing", unless you're going to tell me once again that "the Big Bang Theory does NOT explain the origins of the Universe," which is what we're discussing. If so, then you're kind of missing the point of my argument rather than addressing it.

Once again, read Davies' article. What happened before the big bang? The answer is: Nothing. Time did not exist, so causality does not make sense here. The infinite distortion of space-time gave quantum phenomenons, and thus spontaneous events, a very important scale, which could explain the big bang.

And many *have* been found, which boggled the minds of evolutionists time and time again. How could this be, when "evolution must be true"!?

They have only led to better phylogenetic trees.

I already addressed this belief with the way the assumption of evolution being used to prove evolution.

Not at all. If you had clearly read Tobbe's post, you would know that the age of fossiles was not determined by pseudo-genetic considerations but radiometric dating.

I'm simply saying that a creature becoming something contradictory to its own kind throughout generations cannot be proven, (on the contrary it's been downright disproven) and is ridiculous.

Disprove it then. Mutations have been observed, that's what used to be called micro-evolution. A series of mutations can lead to another species, it's just a modification of the genetic code. And that's what used to be called macro-evolution. What creationists can't accept is the fact that random mutations have led to such perfect creatures, as they love referring to themselves. But natural selection explains it all. Here are a few paragraphs from Wikipedia, about natural selection and evolution:

Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution.

The natural genetic variation within a population of organisms means that some individuals will survive and reproduce more successfully than others in their current environment. For example, the peppered moth exists in both light and dark colors in the United Kingdom, but during the industrial revolution many of the trees on which the moths rested became blackened by soot, giving the dark-colored moths an advantage in hiding from predators. This gave dark-colored moths a better chance of surviving to produce dark-colored offspring, and in just a few generations the majority of the moths were dark. Factors which affect reproductive success are also important, an issue which Charles Darwin developed in his ideas on sexual selection.

In biology, evolution is the change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though the changes produced in any one generation are small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the organisms. This process can culminate in the emergence of new species.[1] Indeed, the similarities between organisms suggest that all known species are descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through this process of gradual divergence.

You have the right not to believe it, but saying it's impossible doesn't make sense.

Evolution isn't adaption. Evolution isn't when the skin of a group of humans turns brown throughout generations as a result of heat, or becomes paler because of their habitat. The same for bacteria- evolution is when that bacteria grows legs and a brain a billion years later, which goes against logic, sound reasoning, and yes: science as well.

It doesn't go against science, as I've said above. What you don't seem to understand is that the ability to digest nylon was a random mutation, and that the affected bacteria survived because of the existence of nylon. Legs and brain growing are just a series of random viable (see natural selection) mutations which have led to complex creatures.

Here we have yet another example of evolutionary nonsense. Humans have minds capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, a thing which sets them apart from mere animals, who, although they can demonstrate degrees of intelligence according to their nature and design, do not have the knowledge of right and wrong, or good and evil. Can evolution demonstrate that an animal species, any animal species, is capable of developing a brain of such a nature as to learn the important difference between good and evil? Or can it explain away why trees were found in the middle of Australia that should have been extinct for billions of years beyond the excuse of "well, these trees obviously thrived in this place for all those billions of years" i.e. WITHOUT any notable expansion of their forestry? There are many other such discoveries that disrupt evolutionary theory, but are explained away by weak, timid excuses.

The only nonsense I see here is the quote right above this sentence. Yes, a series a mutations can clearly lead to a human brain. No, the fact that endemic trees of Australia have survived and did not spread in the whole world is not in contradiction with the theory of evolution. Why wouldn't a species survive in a favourable environment?

What it means is that while species can change via adaption, there are limits to the vastness of the changes that may occur. There a “sphere” or “bounday”, so-to-speak, that one simply cannot leave simply through adaption or natural selection. An individual gene pool is not something of infinite potential, so that a man could one day grow wings and fly, for instance, or an ape could gain human-like intelligence, as evolution states.

Not at all. Any series of mutations can lead from any species to any species. I've already explained this above.

Please note that I have only quoted interesting remarks, and not off-topic or recurrent ideas that brought nothing to the debate.

If I may try to jump to a conclusion, because quoting each other's paragraphs somehow prevents us from getting a panoramic view of the subject, I would say that whatever you believe, there is absolutely no way to prove or disprove God's existence. However, this is the same with the theory of evolution: because you don't believe that a series of random but viable mutations can lead to complex life forms does not disprove the fact that a series of mutations can actually lead to such life forms, which is equivalent to a series of one-time changes leading to any combination of nucleobases in a DNA molecule. That's just trivial mathematics. And finally, the same thing applies to the big bang: because you cannot accept the fact that time did not always exist and that some events occur spontaneously at a quantum scale does not mean that the theory is false.

Maybe one day, we will be able to prove or disprove one of these propositions. But as of today, if there were enough elements to do so, some great thinkers would have done it long ago.

[infinityRAY]

my views on religion are as thus:

Basically, the world had to come from somewhere. So does the universe. Many people have made up ways(or theories) about how the universe was made, and almost all of them COULD be true. I think we shouldn't jump to conclusions yet, since all of the theories are possible... or most of them anyway.
The fact that god might exist could be either true of false, but we have absolutely no way of actually proving this, or any other religion's beliefs.
The big bang theory is perfectly plausible, but where did the big bang come from? there cant possible be an explosion of nothing that made the universe.

[Hunchman801]

The big bang theory is perfectly plausible, but where did the big bang come from? there cant possible be an explosion of nothing that made the universe.

The big bang was not an explosion. Read Davie's article.

[timoo]

My views on this debate are as thus: people with an IQ lower than their shoe size shouldn't be allowed to post here.

[Xenon]

Evolution isn't entirely incompatible with religion. Incorporating it into this firey discussion doesn't really prove/disprove anything biblical, so I see no point in arguing over its definition and its science.

On a non-related note, the Big Bang Theory, however well explained still holds unanswerable questions. Likewise the religious belief, needless to say, holds its scientific flaws. If people are going to discuss these two hypotheses they should understand that "lack of evidence" and "filling in gaps" features on both sides of the argument, no matter how well this point is camouflaged under deep explanation.

I'm not going to quote-for-quote MD's post and point out its pitfalls because to be honest with you, I have better things to do with my free time. But I'd like to point out that needlessly bashing either party is just unacceptable. This thread was designed to be subject to intelligent discussion, not mindless biblebashing or whatever. A global warning I'd like to set now: if you're going to participate in this debate then hold respect.

+ 1 timoo.

[spiraldoor]

Evolution isn't entirely incompatible with religion. Incorporating it into this firey discussion doesn't really prove/disprove anything biblical

It disproves the Book of Genesis fairly well.

[Xenon]

By biblical I didn't mean stories that featured in the Bible, I meant happenings during biblical times ie the existence of Jesus etc etc. The Bible is not (and cannot be) taken for gospel truth [no pun intended] and we've already established most religious people recognise this fact.

If the religious theory is true then the stories in the Bible would be already overwritten anyway.

[spiraldoor]

By biblical I didn't mean stories that featured in the Bible

Old Testament...?

I meant happenings during biblical times ie the existence of Jesus etc etc.

New Testament...?

[Xenon]

Eh?

I can't seem to extract the point from that message.

[spiraldoor]

I suffered from the same problem with regards to yours...