Story Comments
Posted by: RickyDawkins 1 year, 8 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is empirical fact that unnecessary suffering exists in the world.
An omniscient God would be aware of this unnecessary suffering.
An omnipotent God would have the power to eliminate or alleviate at least some of the unnecessary suffering.
An benevolent God would have the desire to eliminate or alleviate at least some of the unnecessary suffering.
It follows that a God with the attributes of the omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God does not exist.
----
The laws of physics look just as they can be expected to look if there is no God.
----
God does not deliberately hide from any human being who is open to finding evidence for his presence.
----
If God exists, then he is perfect.
If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect.
But the universe is not perfect.
Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe.
Hence, it is impossible for God to exist.
Reply-
Neutral
engineer1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I understand your argument but disagree. Two sexes with the complexities couldn't come naturally,
Birds with their method of flying and the complexity of the aerodynamics couldn't come naturally.
God helped in the design but allowed for flaws. It's a hard concept to believe, but there are so many things which could have not occurred with out help. A supreme being of some sort if you don't want to say God.
Reply-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't understand what you mean when you say "couldn't come naturally". Science tells us that the earth formed billions of years ago, from star dust. Mind-boggling complexity is readily achievable through evolution and selection (and time), this is a proven fact.
I find it impossible (as you do?) to believe that everything we see just came from "nothing".
I don't mind discussing the concept of God (obviously), however I just don't see any reason to buy into a random tale.
Did He just come from nowhere?
Isn't this something you need to at least consider?
I would love to hear your answer (dodge) to this question:
Who/What created your hypothetical Supreme Being?
Please explore this link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-bi...
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ricky: The incontrovertible empirical fact, which would hold up under honest court examination, is that Jesus Christ arose from the dead. He said that He was one with God the Father. He takes precedence to your false science.
Evolution starts with a false premise that evolutionists want to believe so strongly, that they "see" evidence that isn't there.
You postulate that the concept of God is "a random tale," but you know better. There is a long record, which you may reject it's truth, but you know it's not random.
Then your practice is to ask many crafted leading questions, but they have different answers than you would accept, unless you had your eyes opened to the truth:
" Did He just come from nowhere? Isn't this something you need to at least consider? I would love to hear your answer (dodge) to this question: Who/What created your hypothetical Supreme Being?
First you poison the well, expecting a "dodge." Cont'd>>
Reply-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user19 Replies
-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 8 months ago
-
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user3 Replies
-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO, maybe you missed it, you're posting on a PUBLIC board which makes anything you post open for anyone to comment on, especially when its way off base. Maybe you can indulge us all and explain how my comment was inappropriate to the tissue when it illustrated the point very clearly. But then again when all you can post are strawman arguments I wont expect too much.
Reply -
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No problem, but you came into a reply giving a contribution that didn't apply.
I have no problem interacting with others, but it helps to be on the same page. Not even those with whom we initially give reply are always on the same page. So, no big thing.
WMD's being in Iraq are not established history, but current events that are in controversy. So, not too good in making a point, but seems more like a political statement, that has missed the target. -Rev. S
Reply-
-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, although I think that the war was inevitable, since Saddam admitted to plans to develop WMD's, I consider GWB was a bit hasty in the conflict. We should have had better understanding of the age old conflicts of the area & had strategy to avoid the pitfalls in which we found.
BTW, a Commander of troops from our neighborhood has recently brief the Pentagon that we are kicking the insurgent's butts & great progress is being made in Iraq. The troops are ready to stand down as soon as they have notice.
HooRah! -Rev. S
Reply-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO, I believe the justification for the war was he HAD WMD and was planning on using them not he was thinking about making them. If that is the case we should turn our atttention alittle SouthEast and plan for the invaion of Israel since they seem to not only be planning but not fessing up to having them either.
"BTW, a Commander of troops from our neighborhood has recently brief the Pentagon that we are kicking the insurgent's butts & great progress is being made in Iraq. The troops are ready to stand down as soon as they have notice"
ROFLMAO, and pixie fairie dust has been found to cure cancer.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Rev. Silverghost, thank you for your input. (i apologize for poisoning the well, btw)
So, what of those billions of us who have never been informed of Christ's existence?
When i say random, i mean in other words... why is your idea of God any more real than my idea of God (a flying hamburger, since flying pasta may offend you)?
To me, its just a random fairy tale, like that of Mohammed, or Tom Thumb. Sure you can say its "true" all you like, but its still just ideas, nothing concrete.
Reply-
Neutral
Coatl1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"What else do you not believe about established history?"
The part when the sun stoped his movement arround the earth. =P
Come on, I know that you are Christian, but do you really thing that there is "incontrovertible empirical" evidence that Jesus indeed arose from the dead? I know that you believe is true, and I wouldn't want you to think otherwise. But as far as I know there is more evidence for the divine origin of the image of the virgin of Guadalupe than for the resurection of Jesus.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanx, Ricky, for that. I was a little slow getting my continuation before your reply.
"What of those billions of us who have never been informed of Christ's existence?" The answer is in my continuation below, given by King David. Also Paul gave answer to that in Romans 1. The testimony of God is in each individual, but we corrupt it, worshiping the creation, rather than the creator.
Maybe "random" is not an appropriate term. To you, it is an idle tale. But archaeological finds, coupled with historical discoveries, show that the record is true, not an idle or made up story.
It goes beyond "just ideas." -Rev. S
Reply-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey Rev:
Maybe "random" is not an appropriate term. To you, it is an idle tale. But archaeological finds, coupled with historical discoveries, show that the record is true, not an idle or made up story.....
Would the Bible be one of these proofs??I am serious here?
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Of course, HB, it is a part of history & archaeological data, just the same as hieroglyphic tablets, graphics on cave walls, etc.
Two British archaeologists, towards the beginning of the 20th C., set out separately in attempts to discover finds that would disprove the Bible. As they searched, they only discovered confirming material. When these colleagues met, they were astonished at the similar results of confirmation. One became a preacher.
Other finds have confirmed Biblical accuracy, but I know of no valid claims to disproof. -Rev. S
Reply
-
-
Neutral
aceofspades11 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But archaeological finds, coupled with historical discoveries, show that the record is true, not an idle or made up story.
archaeological finds?? I don't think so.
A Jesus story that has been verified by eyewitnesses & handed down through the centuries-
When Jesus walked on water John rushed up to him & said Lord tis a true miracle what you just did.
Jesus looked at him & replied " Miracle?? Step on the stones, John!"
Reply
-
-
Neutral
lvrofwolves1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
RickyDawkins-When i say random, i mean in other words... why is your idea of God any more real than my idea of God (a flying hamburger, since flying pasta may offend you)?
this is for you ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL7FcvEydqg
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cont'd>> Secondly, the answer to your only true question here, Biblically, is that God is Eternal, He wasn't created.
I know that doesn't fit under your "science" microscope, but you aren't able to fit many other questions there either. Yet there is sufficient evidence to believe in Jesus Christ as the one who paid for our sins.
You admit that there is imperfection in man & the universe, but you wish to set yourself up as judge to how that happened.
Your not that old to have been there! LOL
God did create a perfect world & you know enough Scripture to realize that He said that. Yet you purposely leave out the decision of man to disobey God, thus causing the degeneration that you see in the world & universe.
But King David said: "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament (atmospheric earth)." He goes on to say that God's creation declares this truth to all people on the earth. Evidence. -Rev. S
Reply-
-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ahh, good, Hannibal! I'm glad you know the story about Jacob.
My Question for you: Did you ever wrestle with your child or someone else's? Although you could completely overcome the child, did you smash it? It there was some purpose in the struggle to teach something, would that be necessarily strange?
Because there is an unexpected outcome, doesn't say the teacher was wrong. There were other factors with the incident with Jacob. -Rev. S
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"God did create a perfect world & you know enough Scripture to realize that He said that. Yet you purposely leave out the decision of man to disobey God..."
Yet in this perfect world roamed another of God creations, Lucifer, who tried to be as high as God himself and was cast down and became Satan, who was the one who convinced Eve to eat the fruit of the Tree of Life and on an on....
So my question is how was it a perfect world if this snake oil salesman was allow to roam free?
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I wasn't addressing you, saying, "you know enough Scripture," but Ricky.
However, you do know a little about Scripture it seems, but I don't have experience knowing how much you know.
God had created Lucifer, the Chief of the angels, as a perfect being, but he chose to rebel. The Scripture shows that God puts limits on Satan, but also uses his antics to effect his purposes in man.
There was a free choice for Adam, whether to obey God in Eden or not. Satan was an instrument that allowed the test, in which Adam failed.
But God provided the way to forgiveness & reconciliation, through Christ. -Rev. S
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Evolution starts with a false premise that evolutionists want to believe so strongly, that they "see" evidence that isn't there".
What is this "false premise" you speak of? You speak of leading questions than pose strawman arguments.
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
Coatl1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
God's Holy Word says that people would rather believe a lie than the truth which He has revealed.
A geologist, whom I personally know & who was a former archaeological museum curator, realized 1 day that he supported his calculations for ages of bones by circular reasoning, which is false science. In subsequent studies, He realized that all existing evidence demonstrates sudden appearance of life, which has been confirmed by many other credited scientists.
There is no extant evidence for gradual appearance of life, therefore the theory of evolution rests upon a false premise. -Rev. S
Reply-
Neutral
Coatl1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
OK, so lets say the evidence demonstrates sudden appearence of life(I think I know where you're going, but I really want to know more about this), so how many creations there were? Because the fosil record demonstrates species "appeared" at diferent times, doesn't it?
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No. There was only one creation. I appreciate your kind questioning, Coati.
There are sedimentary deposits that give evidence to floods or great movements of earth surface. Yet the lowest stratum obviously came first. On those lower strata, complex life forms exist.
God created different species that had capacity within their genetic code to develop different varieties of that same species, but not new species. -Rev. S
Reply-
Neutral
Coatl1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
OK, "complex" animals as trilobites can be found in the lower stratus, but still reptiles, are first found in superior strata, dinosaurs and birds in an even superior strata, and mammals in another superior one, and noticing that T-Rexes, Trilobites, and Dimetrodonts aren't found in the same layer so it's obvious that they didn't coexist between each other and with us.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bones do not appear in the fossil record of life until 500 or so million years ago, even though we have evidence of life existing 3.8 Billion years ago, that's at least 3 Billion years before bones evolved. My question is, how do you define "sudden"?
Evolution does not address the appearance of life, just that life is related and it has been changing and adapting ever since that appearance. Your misconception of evolution is the only false premise.
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A recent argument from evolutionists is that they are not addressing the appearance of life, but the history of the movement states otherwise.
If there were billions of years involved, there would have been a different experience for astronauts when they landed on the moon. They expected many feet of cosmic dust to have collected, but they only found less than an inch, indicating a young moon.
Scientists don't always follow scientific procedure in processing their theories. -Rev. S
Reply-
-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Darwin's famous book is called, "Origin of Species", not Origin of Life. What do you mean by 'recent'?
The moon dust argument? LOL Apparently you didn't get the memo that even the Christian website, "answers in genesis" has given up on that tired argument.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4...
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanx Smithi: I considered this, as did the author at AIG, "a common and apparently valid argument for a recent creation." Since both sides should go back to the drawing board for new data, I will relinquish the inaccuracy of the old claim & wait to see fresh data. But see that the culpability is on both sides:
"Interestingly, Snelling and Rush's research found that anti-creationist critics, in their haste to demolish the argument, had used figures which err greatly in the opposite direction...and arrive at a figure for moon-dust influx only about one-twentieth of that which should have been correctly concluded from the literature they consulted. 2"
"Creationists as well as evolutionists need to be prepared to re-examine arguments as new and better data emerges."
That's good to know. Thanx 4 the link. -Rev. S
Reply-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're welcome Silver. I rarely, if ever, agree with AIG but I had to share this link and I do agree with your last quote. We all must be prepared to re-examine arguments when presented with new and better data. That is the bedrock of both scientific inquiry and plain old common sense. My hat's off to both you and AIG for admiting to the inaccuracy and commiting to stop the spread of incorrect data and misinformation, on at least this one point.
The culpability isn't on "both sides", instead it belongs with anyone who would knowingly use incorrect data in an attempt to support their argument. It should be noted the 'anti-creationists' cited are Calvinist Theological Evolutionists.
Here's a link about how the original mismeasurements, made from material collected on Earth were made and how they were called "the best measurements", even though far more accurate data, collected from space, was widely known.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Smithi: Technically, I was concerned with using the term, "culpability," but it certainly does apply to those who willingly present false data to bolster their position. I try to distance myself from that attitude in myself or others.
Thanx 4 the new link. I'll have top check it out later...in a rush. -Rev. S
Reply-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think if you look into it you will find the evidence for a 'young Earth' is quite lacking and the evidence of an Earth with an age of 4.6 Billion years is very compelling. As is the evidence of evolution.
With that said, I don't see how evolution or a 4.6 Billion year old Earth should be a problem for a believer in an all powerful god. I am confident that with enough time religions that include dogma that runs contrary with evolution or an ancient Earth will go the same as those whose dogma includes a flat Earth or a Sun that orbits the Earth.
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Smithi: In my experience, the kind of Christians that believe in a young earth, also know enough to agree with Christopher Columbus, who defied the flat earth die hards. He saw that in Isaiah 40:22, it spake of the circle of the earth. When he look across "flat" waters, he could see the arch of the horizon, confirming in his mind that the Scriptures indicate a round earth. So, he dared to sail the Atlantic.
The kind of people with whom I associate, seriously study the Scriptures, not taking man's philosophies over what God said. God said that He created the Heaven and the earth, animals, plants & man in 6 days. The language has been studied for accuracy of meaning & the Hebrew for day in this case means a 24 hour period.
We seek to honor valid scientific discovery & processing of theories, but honor God 1st in what He says, believing that He doesn't make mistakes. We haven't seen Him proven wrong. Cont'd>>
Reply-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Silver- I know that I am not as familiar with your bible as you, but I do know there are a number of references to a flat Earth with an orbiting sun, not to mention that "circle of Earth" can still imply a flat Earth as it say's 'circle' not sphere.
Now, if you are moved by the word the circle into thinking your god was telling us of a round Earth all along, what do you make of these lines from Genesis? 1:11 And God said, Let the Earth bring forth grass... 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth...1:24 And God said, Let the Earth bring forth the living creature...
I have come across Christians who believe the above lines refer to evolution in much the same way you believe Isaiah 40:22 refers to a spherical Earth.
IMHO, the bible is long enough and vague enough, that lines can be found to support any position, but that's another matter.
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Smithi: There are no references to a flat earth in the Bible. The only "difficulty" is wording such as: "The sun rises...", being a problem of communication. This is the way we speak: The sun rises, sets...the stars come out, etc.
As far as Columbus was concerned, he believed that God was talking of a spherical earth, the Hebrew, "khoog," meaning circle or circumference. He saw the roundness of the horizon.
As you quoted Gen. 1:20: "And God said, Let the waters bring forth..." The next verse (context!): "And God created..." Again, v.24: "Let the earth bring forth..." Next verse! "And God made..."
The contention that the Bible is "vague" is dispelled by "Come now & let us reason together, saith the Lord..." Isaiah 1:18.
To "support any position" is a fallacy of proper interpretation, which can be also dispelled, but "that's another matter," I agree. -Rev. S
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cont'd>> That is not to say that we can't be wrong on certain issues. Yet when God says something plainly & someone comes along & defies that plain statement, we have a problem agreeing with that thinking.
The Bible speaks of the hidden things of God. Sometimes appearances are there to conceal the truth from those who don't wish to honor Him or haven't quite come that far to understand. The geologist of whom I spake earlier, had ultimately realized that he & his colleagues had used circular reasoning in dating earth's fossils & it's strata. This is after a Christian repeatedly asked him how he established the age of these items. He finally admitted to himself the false basis on which he relied.
There are a large group of highly credited scientists who do not agree that the earth is billions of yrs old. In my studies, looking at what both sides of this issue say, I agree with the young earth position. -Rev. S
Reply-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Yet when God says something plainly".
If any god were capable of such a thing, no bible would be needed. Even if you imagine your god wrote the original, you have to realize it has been subjected to a bit of human editing, to say the least.
The half life of radioactive elements is not based on circular reasoning.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-eart...
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Smithi: "If any god were capable of such a thing, no bible would be needed." This doesn't seem to bear logic. The Bible is communicating what God said. As it states, "Thus saith the Lord..."
"Even if you imagine your god wrote the original, you have to realize it has been subjected to a bit of human editing, to say the least." I don't rely on imagining (mysticism), but that the Bible claims God's authorship, as Peter, Paul, John & Jesus Christ maintained in the N.T., often referring to O.T. passages as well. The Bible speaks of God's preservation of the Scriptures, which has been accomplished.
Editing is only accomplished in unfaithful modern translations, but not in the KJV, for which we have the preserved original words in extant manuscripts to compare.
I appreciate the link. While Chris Stassen has a studied reasoning, he does indicate that other scientists disagree. -Rev. S
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
StillUnashamed1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I did some research earlier today on the origin of life, specifically spontaneous generation, where the first organic life form arose from inorganic chemicals. It took a while to find an article from an evolutionist that tackled the question of how that first single-cell life emerged. At the end of that rather lengthy and very detailed study, the author (I'm sorry, I'm now at a different computer and can't remember his name, I'll get it tomorrow) said most research papers end with conclusions. However, this one must end with assumptions. We can only ASSUME that first self-replication organic life form was the result of random acts of nature on inorganic chemicals, and so on. I'll provide the exact quote and link tomorrow.
Reply-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you notice, I said nothing of the origin of life, just that it has been evolving for at least 3.8 billion years, which is the age of the oldest known Earth rocks. Earlier evidence, including the evidence of how life originated are lost to the ages. In short we don't know how life originated on Earth and likely never will, however, I personally fail to see the reasoning that magic should be inserted when faced with an unknown.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The reason you won't find "evolutionist" scholarly papers about the origin of life is pretty simple. Evolution has nothing to do with it. It is a study of observable evidence of changes through natural selection. Evolution makes no claims whatsoever about the origin of the first single cell organism. A more appropriate area of research would be the creation of new life in the laboratory.
Craig Venter, the DNA researcher involved in the race to decipher the human genetic code, has built a synthetic chromosome out of laboratory chemicals, The implications of creating a new life form are staggering to say the least.
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/TenWays/story?i...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/06/g...
Allegedly what is holding up the official announcement is the "patenting" of the new life form. (Can a lifeform be patented? etc.)
Reply-
Neutral
StillUnashamed1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Evolution makes no claims whatsoever about the origin of the first single cell organism. ? ?
The whole concept of evolution begins with that first single cell organism. Without it, evolution would not be possible. Scientists just have no reasonable explaination of how that first organism came to be.
Reply-
Neutral
StillUnashamed1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The link I referred to and a quote: http://www.discovery.org/a/3209
"At the conclusion of a long essay, it is customary to summarize what has been learned. In the present case, I suspect it would be more prudent to recall how much has been assumed:
"First, that the pre-biotic atmosphere was chemically reductive; second, that nature found a way to synthesize cytosine; third, that nature also found a way to synthesize ribose; fourth, that nature found the means to assemble nucleotides into polynucleotides; fifth, that nature discovered a self-replicating molecule; and sixth, that having done all that, nature promoted a self-replicating molecule into a full system of coded chemistry.
"These assumptions are not only vexing but progressively so, ending in a serious impediment to thought."
David Berlinski, the author most recently of Infinite Ascent: A Short History of Mathematics (Modern Library), is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Coatl1 year, 8 months ago
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Macro-evolution is evolution at the 'speciation' level, i.e. the appearance of new species.
I suggest you investigate the 'Nylon Bug' which is a new species of bacteria that feeds on nylon waste. I'd also suggest you look into 'ring species'. Both are examples of macro-evolution.
The distinction between 'macro' and 'micro' as it applies to evolution is largely artificial. Micro-evolution naturally proceeds to macro-evolution after the amount of changes between populations of organisms is so great that individual members of the genetically distinct populations can no longer interbreed.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
SU: The distancing from the position of spontaneous origin of life is a recent phenomenon among the beleaguered evolutionists, because they have no credible answer to its veracity, aside from having been there, when it supposedly happened. -Rev. S
Reply -
-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The whole concept of evolution begins with the first KNOWN single celled organisms, evidence for which is found in the oldest known Earth rocks of 3.8 Billion years old. Only creationists think that life began as a fully formed cell as we know them today.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If this is true, at least there is a plausible basis for assumption of a first self-replicating life form.
There is no basis to assume magic, the supernatural, or any of the religious stories are more than folktales used to indoctrinate and pass on folklore.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Evolution is proven each flu season, with each new pesticide and herbicide that needs to be devolped, it is proven by the DNA in each and every one of your cells that tells us something of the history of billions of years of life and lifes relations.
You can pretend that a paternity test isn't proof of paternity but it won't keep you from having to pay child support. Why? Because genetics is hard evidence that has proven to be very accurate to the degree we trust it to decide matters of life and death. Tests similar to paternity tests show that all life is related, just as Darwin predicted before anything was known of the field of genetics.
Reply-
Neutral
Silverghost1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Smithi: That is microevolution, which is why some scientists call it a "new strain." Some may dare to say that it is a new species, but that is arbitrary.
The so-called "nylon bug" is still a bacterium, it has not developed into another organism.
"All life is related..." They have the same Creator. -Rev. S
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
BigBadJohn6661 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
God is supposed to be all powerfull and can do anything and every thing. He is supposed to know everything, past, present and future. When he made me, he knew if I would go to heaven or hell. If he knew I would go to hell then there would be no way I could make it to heaven (why continue to create me, why didn't he stop right there). To say otherwise would mean he doesn't know everything. We are supposed to be god's children and they say he loves us but if we don't do as he says, he will send us to a place called hell where we will suffer and burn forever. This would mean that god is a sadistic, perverted being. No parent could say they loved their children and then punish them like that.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You and I agree on nearly everything, but you are way off base on this.
The complexity of aerodynamics and the shape of a birds wing are both dictated by physics. If the laws of aerodynamics were anything other than what they are, a bird's wing would be shaped differently.
Many creatures on Earth don't have two sexes. Some switch sexes if there aren't enough of the other sex to go around.
You have the right to your opinion, of course.
Reply-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Natural selection has caused a trade off between attracting mates and getting preyed upon. If you assume something other than reproductive success is optimized, many things in biology would make little sense. Without the theory of evolution, life history strategies would be poorly understood.
The most persuasive creationist argument is a non-scientific one -- the appeal to fair play. "Shouldn't we present both sides of the argument?," they ask. The answer is no -- the fair thing to do is exclude scientific creationism from public school science courses. Scientists have studied and tested evolution for 150 years. Within the scientific community, there are no competing theories. Until creationists formulate a scientific theory, and submit it for testing, they have no right to demand equal time in science class to present their ideas. Evolution has earned a place in the science curriculum. Creationism has not.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-bi...
Reply-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Plants evolved from ancient green algae over 400 million years ago. Plants and fungi (in symbiosis) invaded the land about 400 million years ago. The first plants were moss-like and required moist environments to survive. Later, evolutionary developments such as a waxy cuticle allowed some plants to exploit more inland environments. Still mosses lack true vascular tissue to transport fluids and nutrients. This limits their size since these must diffuse through the plant. Vascular plants evolved from mosses. The first vascular land plant known is Cooksonia, a spiky, branching, leafless structure. At the same time, or shortly thereafter, arthropods followed plants onto the land. The first land animals known are myriapods -- centipedes and millipedes.
Vertebrates moved onto the land by the Devonian period, about 380 million years ago. Ichthyostega, an amphibian, is the among the first known land vertebrates.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-bi...
Reply-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
..cont
Dinosaurs evolved from archosaur reptiles, their closest living relatives are crocodiles. One modification that may have been a key to their success was the evolution of an upright stance. Amphibians and reptiles have a splayed stance and walk with an undulating pattern because their limbs are modified from fins. Their gait is modified from the swimming movement of fish. Thus, they must stop every few steps and breath before continuing on their way. Dinosaurs evolved an upright stance similar to the upright stance mammals independently evolved. This allowed for continual locomotion. In addition, dinosaurs evolved to be warm-blooded. Warmbloodedness allows an increase in the vigor of movements in erect organisms. Splay stanced organisms would probably not benefit from warm- bloodedness. Birds evolved from sauriscian dinosaurs. Cladistically, birds are dinosaurs. The transitional fossil Archaeopteryx has a mixture of reptilian and avian features.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Two sexes with the complexities couldn't come naturally, Birds with their method of flying and the complexity of the aerodynamics couldn't come naturally".
What is your evidence of supernatural intervention for wings or multiple sexes? Are male nipples one of those flaws that's 'allowed' for?
Reply -
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
-
Neutral
joey-evans1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I just say here is some mud make me a man because my god did."
Gee wiz!
That's a pretty tall order...."make you a man", well if your dad and mom couldn't do the job, maybe you should join the army? I heard that they will make a man out of you.
Just sayin'
JOEY EVANS
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is mostly correct, but not entirely correct. It assumes that a 'god' fits the definition of an intercessory, personal god. It is indeed possible that a being that would be indistinguishable from a 'god' may very well exist in the universe.
However, it is a true that the intercessory, personal God of the Bible can not be true, if we are assured that this God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent.
Reply -
Neutral
disraeli1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ricky
A least one counter argument I can think of is that these arguments against the existence of God all have in common a humanizing of God, in other words attributing to God the actions and reactions that one would expect or anticipate of a rationale human endowed with the same attributes. But God can not be described or understood in human terms, divinity by it's nature transcends human experience or understanding.
Now I recognize that is not overly satisfactory, because it basically trumps all manner of argument, however some real world parallels do exist.
Reply-
Neutral
disraeli1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Physics and physical reality on a quantum level is exceeding strange, particles popping in and out of existence, seemingly in two places and no places at the same time. Physical realities that can be altered by the mere act of observation. While these seeming impossibilities are true at a quantum scale, they are not true, or at least not observable at a human scale.
So does quantum physics exist? Did it exist before we had the tools to observe it, or it's effects. Perhaps all we lack are the tools with which to observe and measure God?
The best argument I can muster for the existence of God is purely empirical. Look into the eyes of an infant and realize that 9 months earlier she was two rather insignificant and independent cells. There is certainly something miraculous and divine there.
Reply-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, not miraculous.
No, not divine.
Amazingly complex and wonderful, yes.
http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2006/12/from_two_...
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/hagf...
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/07/the_...
Reply-
Neutral
disraeli1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ahh, but you haven't seen her eyes. As you might guess this is very recent personal experience.
Slightly more seriously I am aware of the actual biological mechanisms, at least in passing. However the dry science of cellular division, operating in a vacuum, leaves me somewhat cold when the facing the spark of life that shows in someone's eyes rather than a mass of protoplasmic blobs merrily swapping enzymes like some well ordered miniature petrochemical plant.
Reply-
-
Neutral
disraeli1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Snarky.
What sort of a rational argument is that.
First you trot out some drivel about virgins
Second you attempt to ascribe said belief to me
Third based on your manufactured premise, and the self evident (to you at any rate) foolishness of the premise, you wrongly generalize (in a passive aggressive voice) that all my positions are equally wrongheaded and can therefore be dismissed.
The arguments in the article all boil down to.
Postulate the existence of God, whose very existence and nature is beyond our comprehension.
Place God in a position where God has to make some sort of decision or take some sort of action.
Expect that decision or action to be human in nature.
Infer from the apparent lack of decision or action that God does not exist.
Why would you expect God to act in a human matter? That does not fit with the initial premise.
Despite your claims to the contrary there is no consistent logic connecting your arguments.
Reply-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But why can't you imagine a world without God? Why is that so difficult?
I don't think that our world is "cold" or that love is "just swapping enzymes". Life is wonderful.
Just pretend for a moment that God does not exist. Do you feel different? Of course not. Because it (Jesus/Mohammed/Zeus/Joseph Smith) was just an idea in your head.
(btw, i didn't mean to seem passive aggressive, i was short on time, so i may have been terse)
I have noticed that simply mentioning the concept of Atheism causes people to think I am attacking them. Perhaps I feel the similar effect, that I am being attacked when somebody mentions Faith/God.
Reply-
Neutral
disraeli1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't have a problem conceptualizing existence without God. I also don't have a problem with the co-existence of God and science or God and evolution. I don't see the two, the scientific and the spiritual, as mutually exclusive.
In at least one sense a belief in the existence of God is the same as a belief in the non-existence of God. Neither position can be proven or disproven with absolute certainty. Both positions rely on a belief or on faith.
I didn't think that you were attacking me personally, I just didn't think that the arguments presented were particularly compelling.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
eddie1071 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey Ricky, I have sort of noticed that your submissions do have a tendency to be in assault of religion. Why do you suppose that is?
For someone who can see the grand design of the universe, you seem to have a deep seated fear that you might be wrong. Is this true?
_If you can see the truth, then you certainly should be able to look at our fellow human, and see the traits of our ancestors so clearly in their features, and their actions.
_If this is obvious, then why would you deny the need for a greater being to give them comfort?
_Why does a dog that has been beaten by a cruel master stay? It is all they know.
Yet There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
What kinds of advances could be accomplished by beings that have been in this universe far longer than we?
Reply-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Science must finally be freed from the shackles of religion.
Did you hear about the tree with 8,000 rings?
http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUKL...
Wow, an 8,000 year old tree!!!
So how can the Earth be less than 6000 years old, as I was taught in Sunday School?
---
(crickets chirping)
Reply-
Neutral
crghss1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't remember being told the earth is "6000 years old" in Sunday school.
Your supposed argument it aimed only at Christianity. That doesn't mean there is no God. There are thousands of religions over the history of man not just Christianity.
How has religion shackled Science? We have airplanes, computers, discovered that universe is expanding and that it has an origin. How have we been shackled by religion?
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"How have we been shackled by religion?"
It hasn't been. Or at times it has been briefly.
However if you look at the influence even one Saint (such as St Ignatius, founder of the Jesuits) had on society and education in general it seems to make up quite a bit for those brief moments where science had been briefly "shackled."
Reply-
Neutral
ind061 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The comments on this very string claiming evolution to be "based on a false premise" (and thereby not just disagreeing with the theory, but saying that it is fundamentally WRONG, with no attendant proof)would be but one instance of the ongoing and never-ending battle between religious dogma and science.
Don't be so daft as to presume that such a struggle never existed!
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The number of people who believe in Creation over Evolution is thankfully a small minority and not representative of most Americans, much less a good majority of Christians. Even the Catholic Church, which most people who are anti-religious rail against has not only embraced evolution, but has embraced the need to care for our earth in the face of global warming.
The struggle exists, but the reality of the struggle today is that no one religious organization has enough power to overcome the scientists. Well. Excepting for BushCo's insane "evangelicals."
The problem is that Religion, especially Ignatius, in a lot of ways formed the educational basis by which scientists came into being. So one could easily argue that without the Church, science wouldn't exist or would be hundreds of years behind where we are now. You could also argue a little of the opposite, though. It's a quandry ;)
Reply-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The number of people who believe in Creation over Evolution is thankfully a small minority and not representative of most Americans, much less a good majority of Christians."
FALSE.
"60 percent of Americans who call themselves Evangelical Christians favor replacing evolution with creationism in schools altogether, as do 50 percent of those who attend religious services every week."
"Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved. But most would not substitute the teaching of creationism for the teaching of evolution in public schools.
Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who rarely attend religious services.
Overall, about two-thirds of Americans want creationism taught along with evolution."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opini...
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The number of people who believe in Creation over Evolution is thankfully a small minority and not representative of most Americans, much less a good majority of Christians."
FALSE.
"60 percent of Americans who call themselves Evangelical Christians favor replacing evolution with creationism in schools altogether, as do 50 percent of those who attend religious services every week."
Uhhh... false, by your own statements. Of the most hardcore of the hardcore Christians, 60% believe in creationism. Of weekly church going Christians (which is not a majority, only 55% of Christians even attend church once a month) its not even a technical majority though not a minority either. Now, show me a relevant statistic that refutes that point of Dionys, if you can.
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thank you for pointing out the hole in his logic, Mdiar. As I said, there will always be extremists denying this or that. Just like for the Holocaust or for Global Warming (or for God, or Evolution, et cetera).
They do not, and we really must remember this, represent the majority of Americans or even mainstream Christianity.
Reply-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"They do not, and we really must remember this, represent the majority of Americans or even mainstream Christianity."
But, you wouldn't want us to remember something which is likely FALSE, would you?
Most recently, in Gallup's February 19-21 poll, 45% of respondents chose "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so," the statement that most closely describes biblical creationism.
45 percent of Americans. Is that what we consider a "small minority"?
Ouch, i think the dogma just bit me!
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creat...
Reply
-
-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"45 Percent of Americans believe that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so".
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creat...
Which indeed contradicts this (blind?) assertion by Dionys:
"The number of people who believe in Creation over Evolution is thankfully a small minority and not representative of most Americans, much less a good majority of Christians."
Reply -
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Uhhh... not false. (Please click the link to read the ENTIRE poll.)
"Although most scientists subscribe to the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the origin of human beings, a recent Gallup poll shows that the American public is much more divided in its own beliefs. Americans choose "creationism" over "evolution" when asked which of these two terms best describes human origin..."
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creat...
Reply -
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Most recently, in Gallup's February 19-21 poll, 45% of respondents chose "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so," the statement that most closely describes biblical creationism.
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creat...
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sorry, was in a hurry as to a class so I really only had the opportunity to read what you said and type out a very fast reply. Firstly the poll you used originally is out of date. Its not most recently though, a similar poll was taken in 2007 of May by Gallup. Overall 52% believed in some form of evolution, be it God guided or not guided. The number of pure creationists had dropped to 43% as well:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Crea...
(the results are about halfway down the page for that particular question type that you posted)
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
RickyDawkins1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
okay, i didn't really go to sunday school except once or twice. However that doesn't change the fact that many, many people believe in young earth creationism.
"Your supposed argument it aimed only at Christianity."
Christianity is a big target. The various Fundamentalist Christians organizations are the main culprits pushing the Bible dogma into science and politics and human rights.
"How have we been shackled by religion?"
These atrocities are a bi-product of religion:
Anti Women's Rights (abortion clinic protests)
Anti Gay (legislation)
Anti Contraception (contributing to overpopulation, famine)
Anti Research (stem cell)
Anti Evolution (scopes monkey trial, dover)
Reply
-
-
Neutral
eddie1071 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
An 8000 yr. old tree, That makes me think that science will find a way to apply it to humanity.
But that said, I hope that it will be after we make a global conscious awakening about how the population must be regulated and kept in check.
It is very sad to say that the greatest multipliers are the ones with the lowest intelligence. It is strange, but in many ways their ignorance is causing a wave of rejection of those who are intelligent.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think we've pretty much defined our terms on this. The word "God" implies a male sentient being, which is omnipotent and omniscient (benevolent is questionable, IMO, based on ancient folklore). "God's" gender is specifically used by believers to exclude females, for example.
If you want to talk about another force of some type, without the personal and supernatural trappings, then that is not the protagonist "God," and that is a very different discussion.
Reply -
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The "question of evil" has been in theology for hundreds of years. Stenger's done nothing more than pour over old theological and philosophical texts and rehashed everything done to "disprove" God. If you don't believe in God, fine. No amount of "proof" will ever convince you. If you do believe in "God," fine.. It's unlikely any amount of disproof will convince you.
How about Quarks? You find any yourself yet?
Reply-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"If you do believe in "God," fine.. It's unlikely any amount of disproof will convince you."
I disagree. I think the cat is out of the bag, and that is why the overwhelming attack by creationists and other ancient religious groups is occurring.
It's becoming so obvious that even people without any scientific background are starting to wake up and question religious belief. And finally there are organizations where they can go and be with like-minded people and not be attacked for questioning the folklore, and they realize they can have fellowship, a sense of what religious people call "spirituality," and do good works together and not believe in fairy tales!
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A good deal of religions welcome the questioning of religious belief with open arms. Often people find that questioning their beliefs and understandings of the Divine strengthen rather than weaken their belief or faith tradition.
I'm all for people doing good works together, but honestly looking at most of the threads and attacks on Religion from those that have "found Science" or Atheism or the Flying Spaghetti Monster it seems like all those people want to do is rant and rave about the evils of religion rather than go out and do good in the world.
It seems to me that religion is doing a lot more good in the world in terms of serving the underserved, the marginalized, the poor, the starving than the non-religious world.
Reply-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If by "religious," you mean organized groups, that's one thing. But if you mean those who believe without evidence, that's quite another.
Unitarian-Universalists, and other groups that do not "worship a deity" have no dogmatic belief, and extensively serve the underserved, etc. just like other "churches" do.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ricky Dawkins is not a man-god. He's simply someone who took the time to look closely at nature and the living things in it, and not take things at face value. Of course, then again, that's what Jesus and Buddha did, too. But only Jesus claimed to "be" a god.
Reply -
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user3 Replies
-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
All your arguments are for naught, because they presuppose you know the nature of God.
I come back to the basic premise of this argument. It is equally preposterous to say that:
1 - In the beginning God created all that there is.
2 - In the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded.
Both make no earthly sense to human understanding.
So all that we really know is that how this all came to pass is currently beyond human understanding. Even Albert Einstein concluded this to be so.
Science or religion or both meeting on common ground may someday answer it. But the only honest answer today is, "I don't know."
Reply-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Seems like you may have never progressed beyond 6th grade reading level. What do you think "it exploded." means.
There is irrefutable evidence of there having been a big bang. But what we do not understand is WHY was there a big bang. Why would there be nothing, and then that nothing turn into a singularity of infinitely small size and infinitely high density and explode to make everything including all the laws of the physics by which it works. What laws control the explosion of nothingness?
Creation doesn't just cover "In the beginning." It goes back to "Before the beginning." Our understanding does not go to before the beginning. So be careful to actually think things through before you toss around the charge of willful ignorance. It often bounces back to stick to you.
Reply-
-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Popular dissemination of science usually follows quite a ways behind what the most creative scientists are actually thinking about and working on (takes time for the rest of the scientists to catch on and pass it along to public consciousness).
Fact is, the questions you pose ARE being thought about by scientists. I was intrigued to see that a recent international conference on string theory (not my field) included sessions on what came before the "big bang".
Reply
-
-
Neutral
quiescence1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
midleft - The Big Bang theory, irrefutable as it may be, does not extend to the moment of creation. The laws of physics break down at this point, which is why science does not, and cannot, describe the origin of the universe -- science only describes its evolution. The matter of creation is within the purview of religion, not science, and ET's opinion on the matter is therefore as valid as anyone else's.
BTW, the Big Bang theory has not existed for hundreds of years, much less been "irrefutable". The "irrefutable" evidence of the big bang was published in the 1960's. In the decades prior, it was a hotly debated subject among physicists.
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, quiescence, as noted above, scientists are already formulating theories about what came before the "big bang" and how the bang occured. If they succeed, then the religious responses will move back another layer. What is true about your statement is that science is in flux.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You statement, "2 - In the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded." is inaccurate. A supermassive singularity is hardly 'nothing', neither is a collision of 'branes'. The only philosophies that posit the universe cane from 'nothing' are religious ones.
Reply-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So where did the something come from.
Did it spontaneously generate. Had it existed infinitely. None of it fits our finite understanding. Sorry, but the simple truth is that the God explanation is just as logical as any other :Before the beginning" explanation, which is which is simply to say that none of them fit our finite understanding.
And for the record, nowhere here have I claimed that the only possible answer is God. All I have said is that NONE of us actually know how the Universe came to be. Whichever of the before-the-beginning postulates you choose, if you are intellectually honest with yourself, you must admit that you accept it on faith, not physical evidence.
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The difference between science and religion is that scientists have already formulated the problem of "what came before" and are working on its solution. (Some)religion already claims to know the answer - mostly those religions that tend to be authoritarian and dogmatic.
For a scientist, formulation of what is NOT known is not a defect, but an inspiring challenge.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
ppiittuu1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"...God would have the desire to eliminate ... some of the unnecessary suffering."
- you are conceding that god would allow, to some extent, suffering? if so,
"...benevolent God does not exist."
- so why does it follow?
"If a being is perfect ... whatever he creates must be perfect."
- why?
"But the universe is not perfect."
- what would be the attributes of a perfect universe?
"The laws of physics look just as they can be expected to look if there is no God."
- how do you know that. we'll never know - we don't have another universe to compare with since we live in a God filled universe."
if one asserts that only the natural can be described and proven, and since god is supernatural, then by definition trying to prove that god exists is not possible.
TA-DA!! how do you like that!? sometimes i amaze myself :-)
Reply -
Neutral
Muleskinner1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Of course this discussion is a fruitless intellectual circle jerk :o)
Man is the only animal who is aware of his own mortality. He devised religion to help him cope with that awareness.
The bible is/was mostly a collection of folk tales & legends around Mesopotamia. It has been deciphered & re-deciphered over the milenia by countless men with all their prejudices & personal interpretations. It went un-recorded for @ 400 yrs. Can you imagine what happened to the actual original meanings? The dead sea scrolls gave us an idea of this. Aside from all the translation barriers. The Bible, as we know it, was written by men.
Evolution is a demonstrable scientific phenomenon. But you will never demonstrate it to the satisfaction of creationists. Because, by (some) definition, faith is a belief in things that cannot necessarily be demonstrated, seen or proven.
Reply
-
loading ...
TGrass3001
Bkumm
NemoShiZniT
2sidestoeverything
quillyregnold
miklkit
sotiris-k
Coatl
Will1313
lvrofwolves
dunkirk
CRYMTYPHON
Dicax_Maximus
memestryker
smithichie
MereMortal
bluetexasvalley
Eagle_Eye
AlphaGnosis
Sklerotes
DropkickaLib
KvilleTX
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.