Any "evolution is false" creationists around here? (in Debates)


Sickone August 19 2012 12:00 PM EDT

Just curious if we have any around, and if we do, how exactly do they justify that position.

Unappreciated Misnomer August 19 2012 12:01 PM EDT

This should be moved to the debate section.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 19 2012 12:07 PM EDT

It's not a debate yet.

Sick, that's easy.

The position is justified becuase the Bible say so.

And the Bible can't be incorrect, or Christianity ceases to exist.

Kirsti August 19 2012 12:15 PM EDT

I'm not religious but if I was, I would say that I trust in God, not in man. If the Bible were false, that wouldn't keep me from believing if I did.

RavePunkRobo August 19 2012 12:18 PM EDT

I'm christian. Evolution exists because it has been scientifically proven. But that doesn't mean that god does not have the power to create things without adherence to our standards of time. For example, he created Adam in a day, in the form of a man; which probably means he was at least 18, and not an infant.the question is do we say he's one day old? If god truly has the power to create matter out of matter, he has created evolution as a process to justify the universe, but it may not be the only means of production.

RavePunkRobo August 19 2012 12:19 PM EDT

Matter out of nothing* sorry :3

Bounty Hunter August 19 2012 12:29 PM EDT

Why do we put God in a box and say "There now I understand"? Maybe he designed evolution as part of his plan? Maybe he waited millions of years before the Earth was ready for his plan? Maybe the only way he could explain it to us and have our simple minds comprehend was to establish time so we would "get it"? Just my thoughts not yours :-)

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 19 2012 12:34 PM EDT

Because each step of creation took a day. ;)

Or the Bible is incorrect.

(Queue discussions about how biblical days don't equal actual days, but might equal thousands of years)

Bounty Hunter August 19 2012 12:36 PM EDT

Maybe they did, maybe they did not?

/me looks over at the box.

Zenai August 19 2012 12:55 PM EDT

Because each step of creation took a day. ;)

Define a Day in the terms of God........

Perception my friend is not always meant to be by OUR standards.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 19 2012 1:06 PM EDT

Well, the Bible was written by God, through man. If God said Day, he meant Day.

Much like he called Bats birds, and not mammals.

But he's never wrong, right?

But definition, he can't ever be wrong.

So I guess each step of creation was a 'day' (as in 24 hours), and Bats are actually birds...

{cb2}Dinh August 19 2012 1:12 PM EDT

Evolution has many flaws, just as does religion.... I think the better word for Evolution is 'Adaptation'

Many species have emerged with no evolutionary trails, yet they sport some of the most amazing things in terms of senses and capabilities...

Zenai August 19 2012 1:19 PM EDT

Well, the Bible was written by God, through man. If God said Day, he meant Day.

Ok let's play Semantics then if that is the case. Man wrote the Bible INSPIRED by God. The only Direct writing of his own in the bible was the 10 Commandments which was destroyed by Moses on the Golden Idol of the masses going through the deset. Man of course cannot understand the mind of God therefore filled in the gaps by his INTERPRETATIONS. In short yes God is not fallible but man is and it shows by his interpretations of religion and spirituality.

RavePunkRobo August 19 2012 1:30 PM EDT

2 Timothy 3:16 states: "All scripture is god breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness."

I once doubted the accuracy of the Bible because, like mentioned, it was the written by man. However, as I started attending church more often and growing a personal relationship with God, I started to learn that the Bible is his word. In the end, it comes down to your personal testimony, but as for apologetics, the Gospel was written within 50 years of Jesus' death, canonically accounted for by four scholars, some of whom were apostles of Jesus himself (Mark, Matthew, John, Luke). There are no unfulfilled or false prophecies in the Bible, and even though it was written by a many different people, never contradicts itself.

Sickone August 19 2012 1:59 PM EDT

And the Bible can't be incorrect, or Christianity ceases to exist.

Only if you insist on taking the Bible literally (in which case, you have far bigger problems of internal inconsistencies, anybody taking it completely literally after having it read fully is a different kind of crazy).
If you take it as a parable, then there's no problem with saying something akin to "well, sure, evolution is correct, but that's how God actually works in our world" and "a day doesn't actually mean a full day, could be billions of years", which is at least borderline logical.

Sickone August 19 2012 2:10 PM EDT

There are no unfulfilled or false prophecies in the Bible

"And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her...and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water...And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou SHALT BE BUILT NO MORE: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD"
-- (Ezekiel 26:4,12,14)

"Tyre is a city in the South Governorate of Lebanon. There were approximately 117,000 inhabitants in 2003"
-- Wikipedia

Sickone August 19 2012 2:25 PM EDT

never contradicts itself

Can't get the name of the "adoptive grandfather" right

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Beasts created before man, but man created before beats.

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
[...]
GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Wisdom is good, no wait wisdom is bad.

PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
1CO 1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

Each should be punished for the sins of their fathers, no wait, punish everybody only for their own sins.

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Earth is hanged, no wait, it's built on foundations.

JOB 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
JOB 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

What to do with the righteous again ?

PSA 92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."
ISA 57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

Well, we all know that 3=7, right ?

II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?
I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee

and so on and so forth

Zenai August 19 2012 2:39 PM EDT

In short yes God is not fallible but man is and it shows by his interpretations of religion and spirituality.

Sickone has made my point for me. Man is indeed quite fallible, especially in his interpretations whether they be vocal or written. It's just more apparent when written.

Sickone August 19 2012 2:47 PM EDT

Additional false or unfulfilled Bible prophecies:

Isaiah 17:1 The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.

Pretty sure Damascus is also doing fine, just like Tyre.


Isaiah 19:4-5 And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts. And the waters shall fail from the sea, and the river shall be wasted and dried up.

They're talking about the Nile river, which is pretty much still a huge river.

Ezekiel 29:10-11 Behold, therefore I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from the tower of Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia. No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years.

Yeah, that never happened either.

Isaiah 52:1 Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.

Pretty sure there's a lot of uncircumcized people in Jerusalem right now.

Also, talking about the "end of times" being quite near...

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Yeah, sorry, there's been no second coming and end of the world before the end of that generation, nor the nearly 100 since then.

Sickone August 19 2012 2:56 PM EDT

TL;DR
You can't take the Bible as the LITERAL word of an infallible deity passed down exactly as is to whoever wrote it - it's full of inaccuracies, contradictions and unfulfilled prophecies, all obviously inserted by the personal interpretations of whoever wrote, rewrote or translated them.
At best, you can take it as a book of easily understandable vague parables with a possible shred of divinely-inspired insight, NOT meant to be taken literally at all, but merely as a rough guideline - and that's perfectly fine by me, if you only take it like that.

{cb2}Dinh August 19 2012 2:58 PM EDT

Finally you get to the point Sickone...The point where your "curiousity" turns into a copy and paste rampage on disproving God and whatnot... This story gets replayed every so often on here, glad you could keep it going...

Sad that people who don't believe in something higher have to relive certain moments where they seize the opportunity to put people down and feel better about their OWN views on such...

Whatever keeps you going bro

Sickone August 19 2012 3:24 PM EDT

Excuse me, I believe I just gave the perfect "out" for people that WANT to believe in God, by conceding that man is fallible hence the Bible in spite of inaccuracies could still be considered as divinely inspired.
The only thing I am proving is that the people saying that the Bible is spot-on and literally accurate are obviously wrong.
At no point did I say that I am even trying to prove God does not exist (which is by the just as difficult as proving that God does exist).

What you or any other people CHOOSE to believe if there's no evidence either way is of no concern of mine.
It's only when you choose to believe something IN SPITE of evidence that I have a problem.

There's no concrete evidence for or against the existence of some kind of God.
There might as well be a God somewhere for all I know, or there might be none, I can't know for sure, and neither can you, nor anybody else that's alive today.

But there is evidence that the Bible is NOT God's literal word, and therefore should not be taken as such.
There's absolutely no logical way to escape that fact unless you choose to ignore evidence.
You can still call the Bible a divinely-inspired book, and pick the main ideas out of it.

AdminTal Destra [Forge Of Norn] August 19 2012 3:28 PM EDT

Faith is trusting in God's Word rather than our human reasoning

Hebrews 11:1

Sickone August 19 2012 3:33 PM EDT

The problem is knowing what actually is "God's word", as opposed to the altered retelling of some man who claims what he remembers is the literal word of God, and picking the most likely original meaning out of it.

Sickone August 19 2012 3:39 PM EDT

To go back to the ORIGINAL point of this thread, barring the quoting of Bible passages and claiming them as proof that evolution is supposedly not happening (which raises the issue we spun off into whether the Bible actually is the literal word of God or not, an issue which I hope we can put behind soon), what OTHER AND ACTUAL PROOF that directly contradicts modern evolutionary theories can any creationist provide ?

For instance, if frog would start giving birth to cows or vice-versa (without human genetic tinkering to accomplish that), that would pretty much prove modern evolutionary theories wrong, or at least put them under extremely heavy pressure of having to reconcile that insanely improbable fact.
There's plenty of other ways the modern (and even not so modern) theories of evolution can be proven wrong, but so far, as far as I know, it hasn't happened yet.

So, if there's any "evolution is false" creationists around here, how exactly do they justify that position OTHER than quoting the Bible ?

Demigod August 19 2012 3:41 PM EDT

So... I'm not going to pretend that I read the wall of text above this post, but I feel safe assuming that it's going off-topic due to frustration.

These threads tend to draw overly-defensive reactions when people take it as an attack on God rather than a question of "why do you believe in fundamentalism over theistic evolution?" Even the Pope goes for the latter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

I live in the state of Georgia, right in the U.S. bible belt. I'll go ahead and say the obvious: Fundies are raised that way, and no one wants to be wrong. When evidence pops up that proves them wrong, it's hard to accept and change a core belief; it's much easier to scoff and deny.

Sickone August 19 2012 3:45 PM EDT

"Why do you believe in fundamentalism over theistic evolution?"

That's a much better phrasing, thank you.

Eliteofdelete [Battle Royale] August 19 2012 4:27 PM EDT

Well actually, I don't think it went off topic because of that. It more went off topic because Sickone started quoting "unfilled" prophecies or other random bible verses which seem to have no ties with the original topic of "evolution is false creationists."

As for the original topic of evolutionism, I was not aware this was scientifically proven. Micro-evolution, or as someone dubbed earlier as adaptation, you could say has been scientifically proven and is quite apparent through nature.

Now macro-evolution, one species evolving from one thing to a completely different thing, is not obvious in nature. For example, take the idea of monkeys evolving into man. What happened to all the in between stages from monkey to man? Why don't we have those species around still? Why did the evolution processes stop, I.e. no more monkeys are evolving into the in between stages?

That is just just one example. I could then question how symbiotic species come about or why we don't see crazy new attempts of making new species through macro-evolution.

So instead of bashing on Bible verses, why don't you post evidence on how evolution has been proven scientifically correct? Which that statement alone sounds like a miracle considering the idea of evolution has only been around for half a century or so and it has already had enough analysis to be proven correct? Especially considering it isn't something you can really test or "prove" unless you have a time machine or time accelerator hidden somewhere I don't know about.

Now, if you want to talk about literal vs symbolic vs whatever takes on the Bible then you should make a new post with that title and you could go back to quoting and bashing your verses :).

P.S.
Clearly creationists and evolutionism are both false since CB spell checker does not validate their existence.

Demigod August 19 2012 4:41 PM EDT

What happened to all the in between stages from monkey to man? Why don't we have those species around still? Why did the evolution processes stop, I.e. no more monkeys are evolving into the in between stages?

Wha? I don't want to derail the topic, but that's all wrong. We do still see the species... we're the species. And of course evolution doesn't "stop." You seem to think it's a linear path. What in-between stages do you expect to see?

TH3 C0113CT0R August 19 2012 4:43 PM EDT

Clearly creationists and evolutionism are both false since CB spell checker does not validate their existence.

LOL!!!!

Eliteofdelete [Battle Royale] August 19 2012 4:52 PM EDT

Er I am confused Demi, I am talking about the stages in between "man" and "beast". The half monkey-man stages. If they were evolutions of monkeys, there by being more "advanced" then monkeys why can't I go find them yet I can find monkeys?

I can find monkeys, I can find humans, but I can't find monkey-humans. See what I am saying?

Personally, I think it would be awesome to see the crazy in-between stages you always see in the books, yet they aren't around. It kinda makes me sad. I think it would be really interesting.

{cb2}Dinh August 19 2012 6:16 PM EDT

Evolution doesn't need to be proved WRONG...It still needs to be proved RIGHT, where it fails to do so any SO MANY different ways...One for example:

The Earthメs fossil record displays a detailed record of complex life appearing suddenly with the earliest fossils being complex organisms found in what is known as the Cambrian rock strata. Billions of fossils are to be found, all highly complex. There are no fossils of simpler life before this strata. Since most evolutionists maintain it took over a billion years for such complex life to evolve, the missing fossils leading up to these complex forms suggests something is amiss with the Theory of Evolution.


Charles Darwin himself was puzzled by the lack of missing links. Before his death he wrote, "As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate kinds, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great."


Fossil ants look like todayメs ants; fossil cockroaches look like todayメs cockroaches; etc., with no intermediate "ancestors" leading up to their appearance. Fossils that scientists claim are 50 million-year-old bats have the bone structure that is identical to todayメs bats. This pattern remains true with every major plant and animal line. All higher categories of living things, such as complex invertebrates, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, flying reptiles, birds, bats, primates and man, appear abruptly without any "missing links" preceding them.

There simply is NO PROOF of evolution, yet ask most people if evolution exists, and it's "of course, without a doubt"....

This is what happens when certain people with certain agenda's control what is going on...

It is an unfortunate truth that those who donメt take the time to follow the logic and lack of data to support the Theory of Evolution have embraced it without questioning it. One reason for this is that it gives more "ammunition" to those interested in undermining religion and morality. Because when one assumes that the various animals simply evolved one from another, you come to the realization that man is simply an animal.

And that the natural order of things is for the superior to make the inferior extinct. It isnメt surprising that Darwinメs theories have been part of the mental building blocks that led to Nazism, Communism, and even the New Age movements in the 20th Century. Too, the basic tenants make for some convenience in otherwise tough moral situations; in the past, euthanasia and abortion were tantamount to murder. Through the magic of the Theory of Evolution, killing an old duffer or aborting a baby is little different from swatting a fly; one is simply killing an unwanted "animal" in either case.

With evolution, mankind also becomes much older than the genealogies given in the Bible leading back to man. This means Adam wasnメt the first man; and a human-looking Adam and Eve are tossed out and an ape-like being embraced as our ancestor. That means he must just be symbolic, according to those embracing evolution. And since Jesus and the New Testament writers referred to Adam as a living person, then obviously they didnメt know what they were talking about. That makes them fallible and lays the groundwork for arguing that Christ was less than divine.

Little by little the Bible is soon full of holes if the Theory of Evolution becomes the measure of the accuracy in the Biblical account of things. And this is just what many anti-religious groups want. (Little wonder Time-Warner and other mainstream publishers interested in undermining Christianity regularly print their pictures of mankind "evolving" through a line of creatures that stretch from an ape on the left to modern man, dressed in suitable caveman attire, on the right.)

Why havenメt any scientists spoken up about the impossibility of evolution?

The reason is simple and similar to the situation with the mainline press: Those scientists that protest that the facts donメt support the Theory of Evolution are quickly branded "Creationists", thrown out of scientific circles, and blacklisted so they canメt obtain work with any major university or government science project.

Not many scientists are willing to risk their livelihood to point out the facts. They remain mute, mouthing the party line when necessary in order to keep their positions. Those illogical arguments mouthed by the scientists then fuel misunderstanding among those who are unable to double-check the truth and logic behind the Theory of Evolution.

Luckily in our day and age, speaking out again Evolution doesnt completely derail your career, and that is why we see more and more SCIENTISTS coming forward...Coming forward not only AGAINST EVOLUTION, but in many cases, STATING THAT THE EVIDENCE ACTUALLY POINTS TO INTELLIGENT DESIGN.....

Lots taken from "http://duncanlong.com/christian/evolut.html"
With my own words thrown in there...

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 19 2012 7:09 PM EDT

The Bible *has* to be the literal word of God.

Let's break it down.

God is perfect, and infalible, by design.

Man is flawed, and imperfect.

The Bible is written by man. Therefore it *must* be flawed, and imperfect. Therefore it can't be used as anything more than a fable. And Christianity is nothing more than a fantasy.

Or.

God wrote the Bible *through* man. This removes imperfection, as God is perfect. Man is just the tool God used.

If God wrote the Bible, and if the bible is perfect, then it must be taken literally.

Why?

Man is flawed. Mans reasoning is flawed an imperfect. Mans interpretation of the perfect word of God can only be flawed and imperfect.

Literal is the only way to get the perfect word of God form the Bible.

Like it or not.

And creation was built in 6 days. Literally.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 19 2012 7:11 PM EDT

Oh, and moved to debates now. ;)

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 19 2012 8:14 PM EDT

The only thing I am proving is that the people saying that the Bible is spot-on and literally accurate are obviously wrong.

Oh, we're not wrong. ;)

The Bible *has* to be literally accurate, if Christianity is to exist.

It isn't, therefore, the Christian God, as defined, can't exist.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 19 2012 8:32 PM EDT

Evolution doesn't need to be proved WRONG...It still needs to be proved RIGHT, where it fails to do so any SO MANY different ways...

What facet of evolution? The theory of Natural Selection? There are many other components of evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Is a good read, as is;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life

Some highlights;

Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science.

All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.[171][243] Current species are a stage in the process of evolution, with their diversity the product of a long series of speciation and extinction events.[244] The common descent of organisms was first deduced from four simple facts about organisms: First, they have geographic distributions that cannot be explained by local adaptation. Second, the diversity of life is not a set of completely unique organisms, but organisms that share morphological similarities. Third, vestigial traits with no clear purpose resemble functional ancestral traits and finally, that organisms can be classified using these similarities into a hierarchy of nested groups ヨ similar to a family tree.

Soon after the emergence of these first multicellular organisms, a remarkable amount of biological diversity appeared over approximately 10 million years, in an event called the Cambrian explosion. Here, the majority of types of modern animals appeared in the fossil record

As for missing links;

A major problem at that time was the lack of fossil intermediaries. Despite the 1891 discovery by Eugène Dubois of what is now called Homo erectus at Trinil, Java, it was only in the 1920s when such fossils were discovered in Africa, that intermediate species began to accumulate. In 1925 Raymond Dart described Australopithecus africanus. The type specimen was the Taung Child, an Australopithecine infant which was discovered in a cave. The child's remains were a remarkably well-preserved tiny skull and an endocranial cast of the brain. Although the brain was small (410 cmᄈ), its shape was rounded, unlike that of chimpanzees and gorillas, and more like a modern human brain. Also, the specimen showed short canine teeth, and the position of the foramen magnum was evidence of bipedal locomotion. All of these traits convinced Dart that the Taung baby was a bipedal human ancestor, a transitional form between apes and humans.

During the 1960s and 1970s hundreds of fossils were found, particularly in East Africa in the regions of the Olduvai gorge and Lake Turkana. The driving force in the east African researches was the Leakey family, with Louis Leakey and his wife Mary Leakey, and later their son Richard and daughter in-law Meave being among the most successful fossil hunters and palaeoanthropologists. From the fossil beds of Olduvai and Lake Turkana they amassed fossils of Asutralopithecines, early Homo, and even Homo erectus. These finds cemented Africa as the cradle of human kind. In the 1980s Ethiopia emerged as the new hot spot of palaeoanthropology as "Lucy", the most complete fossil member of the species Australopithecus afarensis, was found by Don Johanson in Hadar in the desertic Middle Awash region of northern Ethiopia. This area would be the location of many new hominin fossils particularly those uncovered by the teams of Tim White in the 1990s, such as Ardipithecus ramidus.

The genetic revolution in studies of human evolution started when Vincent Sarich and Allan Wilson measured the strength of immunological cross-reactions of blood serum albumin between pairs of creatures, including humans and African apes (chimpanzees and gorillas).[28] The strength of the reaction could be expressed numerically as an Immunological Distance, which was in turn proportional to the number of amino acid differences between homologous proteins in different species. By constructing a calibration curve of the ID of species' pairs with known divergence times in the fossil record, the data could be used as a molecular clock to estimate the times of divergence of pairs with poorer or unknown fossil records. In their seminal paper in 1967 in Science, Sarich and Wilson estimated the divergence time of humans and apes as four to five million years ago,[28] at a time when standard interpretations of the fossil record gave this divergence as at least 10 to as much as 30 million years. Subsequent fossil discoveries, notably Lucy, and reinterpretation of older fossil materials, notably Ramapithecus, showed the younger estimates to be correct and validated the albumin method. Application of the molecular clock principle revolutionized the study of molecular evolution.

In the 1990s several teams of paleoanthropologists were working throughout Africa looking for evidence of the earliest divergence of the Hominin lineage from the great apes. In 1994 Meave Leakey discovered Australopithecus anamensis, but the find was overshadowed by the news of Tim White's discovery of Ardipithecus ramidus, which pushed back the fossil record to 4.2 million years ago. In 2000 Martin Pickford and Brigitte Senut discovered a 6 million years old bipedal hominin in the Tugen Hills of Kenya, which they named Orrorin tugenensis. And in 2001 a team lead by Michel Brunet discovered the skull of Sahelanthropus tchadensis which was dated as 7.2 million years ago, and which Brunet argued was a bipedal, and therefore a hominin.

Now while it would be hubris to state we know everything, you'd have to be *very* hard pressed to discount and discredit all the finding we have on Evolution.

Including genetic research as well as the fossil record.

The evidence on which scientific accounts of human evolution is based comes from many fields of natural science. The main sources of knowledge about the evolutionary process has traditionally been the fossil record, but since the development of genetics beginning in the 1970s DNA analyses has come to occupy a place of comparable importance. The studies of ontogeny, phylogeny and especially evolutionary developmental biology of both vertebrates and invertebrates offer considerable insight into the evolution of all life, including how humans evolved.

The closest living relatives of humans are gorillas (genus Gorilla) and chimpanzees (Genus Pan).[52] With the sequencing of both the Human and Chimpanzee genome, current estimates of similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA sequences range between 95% and 99%.[52][53][54] By using the technique called the molecular clock which estimates the time required for the number of divergent mutations to accumulate between two lineages, the approximate date for the split between lineages can be calculated. The gibbons (hylobatidae) and orangutans ( genus Pongo) were the first groups to split from the line leading to the humans, then gorillas followed by the chimpanzees and bonobos. The splitting date between human and chimpanzee lineages is placed around 4-8 million years ago during the late Miocene epoch.[3][55][56] Genetic evidence has also been employed to resolve the question of whether there was any gene flow between early modern humans and Neanderthals, and to arrive enhance our understanding of the early human migration patterns and splitting dates. By comparing the parts of the genome that are not under natural selection and which therefore accumulate mutations at a fairly steady rate, it is possible to reconstruct a genetic tree incorporating the entire human species since the last shared ancestor. Each time a certain mutation (Single nucleotide polymorphism) appears in an individual and is passed on to his or her descendants a haplogroup is formed including all of the descendants of the individual who will also carry that mutation. By comparing mitochondrial DNA which is inherited only from the mother, geneticists have concluded that the last female common ancestor whose genetic marker is found in all modern humans, the so-called mitochondrial Eve, must have lived around 200,000 years ago.

I hope this is enough for now. ;) Those wiki pages are an interesting read, for any, well, interested. ;)

Demigod August 19 2012 8:51 PM EDT

I can find monkeys, I can find humans, but I can't find monkey-humans. See what I am saying?

Keep in mind that humans didn't evolve from monkeys, per se; humans and monkeys likely evolved from common ancestors. As for why we don't have planet-of-the-ape style creatures living with us, it's because that wouldn't work (we would have shared genes in mating and evolved together). Instead, we have a level of divergence that mimics horses to donkeys. And while "missing links" are a very rare treat, remember that we have a good bit of them in the form of Neanderthal fossils and other stages of development.

But I don't want to hijack the thread of come across as an expert, which I certainly am not.

Sickone August 19 2012 9:26 PM EDT

Micro-evolution, or as someone dubbed earlier as adaptation, you could say has been scientifically proven and is quite apparent through nature.

Well, good thing we cleared this one for now.

Now macro-evolution, one species evolving from one thing to a completely different thing, is not obvious in nature. For example, take the idea of monkeys evolving into man.

First off, monkeys, or better said, apes did NOT evolve into man. Something else, neither man NOR ape NOR something in between slowly adapted and eventually spawned BOTH apes and man. Just as a side-note.

Ok, how about already repeatedly observed adaptation in the not very distant past, on strands of Drosophila (a.k.a. "fruit flies"), adaptation that's so extreme that the result of the "adapted" strand is sometimes no longer able (let alone willing, which happens much sooner) to reproduce with the original "unadapted" strands ?
Scientists already call it speciation, because from a practical standpoint, they really did create a new species.
Granted, it's not very impressive since the new species looks almost the same as the original (then again, dog breeds look radically different yet most of them can and will still breed with eachother) and it's still a fly, but you're talking years of evolution, not millions of years of evolution.
The only real difference between microevolution and macroevolution is a matter of timescale.
Still not convinced ? Ok, let's proceed.

What happened to all the in between stages from monkey to man?

First off, again, it's not from monkey to man, it's from something else entirely to both ape and man. Same side-note as before.
Or, more precisely, from something else entirely to humans, bonobos and chimpanzees, most likely somewhere between 5 and 8 million years ago.

As to what those stages in between are and where can they be seen... how about trying a natural history museum ?
I know, a very radical concept, going to see bones where bones are usually displayed, who would have thought about that.
Or you can read about them on various sites if you can't go to such a place, and wikipedia has some of them listed too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus_tchadensis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrorin_tugenensis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus_kadabba

Why don't we have those species around still?

Because they turned into something else.
More precisely, bonobos, chimpanzees and humans.

Why did the evolution processes stop, I.e. no more monkeys are evolving into the in between stages?

First off, because, again, same side-note, monkeys did not evolve into man, something else that's extinct evolved into humans and chimps and bonobos.

The evolution process did not stop, is not stopping and will not stop, but continues to this day and will continue for as long as there's life.
It's just slow enough to not be all that noticeable on the scale of a human life, or of modern history - we're talking several millions of years for a significant differentiation between the ancestors of chimps and humans into chimps and humans, and we're talking hundreds of thousands of years for something almost exactly like modern man to turn into modern man.
The entirety of recorded human history is, metaphorically speaking, barely more than a few eye blinks.

I could then question how symbiotic species come about

What about symbiotic species ? How exactly is that supposed to create a problem for evolutionary theory ?

why we don't see crazy new attempts of making new species through macro-evolution

How about wolf and dogs ? How about different dog breeds ? We're talking recorded history here and ANIMALS, millions of years or plants, and still look at the results.

considering the idea of evolution has only been around for half a century

153 years since Darwin's "Origin of Species", and his big idea was actually just the natural selection mechanism (as opposed to artificial selection which is DONE BY HUMANS).
The idea of evolution of breeds from one another is much, much older than that, since before the dark ages.
And, by the way, evolution (or, if you prefer, microevolution), that's the whole point of breeding programs in agriculture and the domestication of animals, so humans have been practically employing evolution (alongside artificial selection) since even before we had writing.

why don't you post evidence on how evolution has been proven scientifically correct [...] it isn't something you can really test or "prove" unless you have a time machine or time accelerator hidden somewhere I don't know about.

You already accepted (or, I think you did) that the theory of evolution is quite allright as long as we're talking microevolution.
There's absolutely no difference between microevolution and macroevolution OTHER THAN NUMBERS OF GENERATIONS.
And you don't need a time machine nor time accelerator for that. That's what DNA sequencing, remains and fossils are for.

Every last bit of modern evolutionary theories have stood the test of scientific scrutiny, they've been proven correct hundreds of thousands of times AND NOT YET CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN COMPLETELY WRONG EVEN ONCE.
Sure, there's always some minor aspect that's up for debate and it's proven that neither one of those sub-aspects was sufficiently adequate, so a better understanding of that particular tiny bit of knowledge is still needed, but as a general concept, we're about as certain about it scientifically as if it's a fact.
Just because you personally choose to not bother to look at all the overwhelming scientific proof supporting the modern theories of evolution doesn't mean that evidence doesn't exist - it's right there for you to read if you just bother to look at it.

Sickone August 19 2012 9:43 PM EDT

The Earthメs fossil record displays a detailed record of complex life appearing suddenly with the earliest fossils being complex organisms found in what is known as the Cambrian rock strata. Billions of fossils are to be found, all highly complex. There are no fossils of simpler life before this strata.

That's either a flat out lie or a total lack of up-to-date data.
The oldest discovered fossils are of bacteria that are up to 3.4 billion years old ( that's 7 times older than the complex organisms in the Cambrian rocks ) : http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110821205241.htm
There are less plentiful fossils of ages in between those, but they do exist. Do you really want me to link them all to you ?

Charles Darwin himself was puzzled by the lack of missing links.

Except for the fact 153+ years ago we have barely scratched the surface as far as fossil discovery goes.
We have uncovered such an overwhelming amount of fossils since Darwin died, that if he would have access to all those we found, there would be absolutely nothing to be even mildly disconcerted about.

All higher categories of living things, such as complex invertebrates, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, flying reptiles, birds, bats, primates and man, appear abruptly without any "missing links" preceding them.

Except that this is also either a complete fabrication, or yet again a complete lack of up-to date data.
There are so many transitional fossils between so many species previously claimed to have no intermediate stages that it's mind-boggling how somebody in this day and age could still claim anything like that.

Yes, SOME animals remain relatively unchanged for millions of years. Others go extinct. Others turn into something else, or several something elses.

Here's a starting point with A FEW of the discovered transitional fossils, if you care to dig any deeper than that : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Additional transitional fossils are being continuously being discovered, their discovery has kept on accelerating in recent years compared to a few decades ago.


Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] August 19 2012 11:49 PM EDT

Dinh, you're my whipping boy for tonight.

Evolution is 'Adaptation'
Evo. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
Adapt. Biology. any alteration in the structure or function of an organism or any of its parts that results from natural selection and by which the organism becomes better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment.

Guess even the biosphere argues time differentials or it's not evolution that is flawed but the translations of man again. ;)

This story gets replayed every so often on here, glad you could keep it going...
Maybe 3 times in a CB decade.

Sad that people who don't believe in something higher have to relive certain moments blah blah blah
Doug Stanhope does a bit on AA and their 12 step program I'd love you to see.

Evolution doesn't need to be proved WRONG...It still needs to be proved RIGHT, where it fails to do so any SO MANY different ways
Think the point of this thread was Adapting to this enlightenment. :)
btw ID can't support itself under mild scrutiny

I've gone so far to argue that evolution is part of the divine plan, thus evolution is an observational christian science, and denying such progressive thinking will substain an endless, godless derp. We know how that goes with the common bible thumper. The four preachers I've pitched that short statement to were filled with glee for whatever reason told so I'm not railing the church in any way. But! If the defenders of faith as there are say it's more fact than theory, no matter how hard that was to swallow on their own, give the collar some respect please. btw there's a parallel in there ;p
Also been informed a Pope's say on the subject or the big bang means just as little as myself. Enjoy your visit to Texas.

Had a looooong in head parody this morning. About saying I'm a greater god, explaining the universe, then slowly morphing into the written God throwing as many jabs as possible at the view of me along the way. Mostly about how wrong they got pseudo-trinity-me. Went on forever and was hilarious! Mean nothing by this, just a cool same day cowinkydink.

For example, take the idea of monkeys evolving into man.
Seems we can't move beyond the dirt water 1800's. I'll spot you one word: Appendix. Have at it fellow fish-lizard.
Personally, I think it would be awesome to see the crazy in-between stages you always see in the books, yet they aren't around.
Bigfoot.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] August 20 2012 1:25 AM EDT

I don't have time to respond to this thread in depth, so I'll just repeat this interesting quote from Darwin regarding criticisms of his work:

In 1864 Benjamin Disraeli, later Britain's prime minister, famously decried the ideaラbarely mentioned in Originラthat human beings too had evolved from earlier species. "Is man an ape or an angel?" he asked rhetorically at a conference. "I, my lord, I am on the side of the angels. I repudiate with indignation and abhorrence those newfangled theories."

Darwin had anticipated such protests. "Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject my theory," he wrote in Origin. But, he also said, "I look with confidence to the future, to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality."

Quotation from : http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/What-Darwin-Didnt-Know.html?c=y&story=fullstory

We haven't quite reached the future. Unexplained difficulties are still being held up as more important and more impactful then factual explanations.

If you had 100 explanations for why someone died, and 2 unexplained difficulties, clearly medicine is wrong and we should abandon it.

Gohan [Ka-Tet of the Serene] August 20 2012 1:52 AM EDT

So, if the world is billions of years old, and proven by carbon dating. Not to mention there's skeletons of dinosaurs and whatever else that are never mentioned in the bible, how is the bible more then an ordained story book? If the bible is correct, what is the Qur'an? Thee Tipitaka?

My point is that no outside followings are mentioned in the catholic bible, so which is correct? Even so, the Romans and Greeks had numerous "gods" in their time, well before the bible was even "written". The world wasn't made in a week, its been billions of years of who knows what. Evolution, aliens, who cares. We're here now.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] August 20 2012 2:06 AM EDT

Religion is a means of placing an easily identifiable framework around the infinitely complicated world we live in so that it is easy for our human minds to cope with. Our brain is a pattern seeking machine, and when we cannot find the pattern (in such places such as "how the entire world works", or "why does it work", or any of those deeper philosophical questions) it is very frustrating for people. Religion is a means to adapt a pattern to the world at large.

Django August 20 2012 2:57 AM EDT

The biggest problem I have with saying "The bible proves god exists or doesn't exist" is the simple fact it is such an old book. Way back in the day, only few could even read. Who can honestly say the bible was not altered over time for a persons personal gain or personal belief? There has been so much war over the past few thousand years because of religion. I can not believe that the modern day versions of the bible are the same as the bible of say two thousand or so years ago. So to take quotes from the bible and use that to prove or disapprove the belief in god is not very convincing to me.

If someone wants to believe in god or a higher power, they will have to do it based on faith and personal experiences. For me, religion is hard to argue about. I can see both sides of the arguments. Just my opinion.



Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] August 20 2012 4:14 AM EDT

Way back in the day, only few could even read.
Usually rich folk.
There has been so much war over the past few thousand years because of religion.
A false assumption tarp any good history professor will refute. Aside from the partition of India. Religion is the cover story for land grabs, usurpations, and exclusions. Not the actual reason for past war and genocide.
I can not believe that the modern day versions of the bible are the same as the bible of say two thousand or so years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 20 2012 4:41 AM EDT

I see your authorised version of the Kings James Bible.

And raise you the 1631 edition of the King James Version of the Bible. Known as the 'wicked bible' due to leaving out a word from one of the 10 commandments, leading it to read;

Thou shall commit adultery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_errata

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible

"Wicked Bible", "Adulterous Bible" or "Sinner's Bible" 1631: Barker and Lucas: Omits an important "not" from Exodus 20:14, making the seventh commandment read "Thou shalt commit adultery." The printers were fined ᆪ300 and most of the copies were recalled immediately. Only 11 copies are known to exist today.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 20 2012 5:25 AM EDT

Just seen this today, and though it might be pertinent. ;)

'Fierce' US Spider found

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/spider-species-trogloraptor-found-caves-094215878.html

"The novel combination of evolutionary features in this spider, Trogloraptor, compelled them to recognise a new family."

The spider has been named cave robber because of its cave home and vicious looking claws. It hangs in rudimentary webs beneath cave ceilings, said the academy.

"It is a spider so evolutionarily special that it represents not only a new genus and species, but also a new family (Trogloraptoridae).

"Even for the species-rich insects and arachnids, to discover a new, previously unknown family is rare."

"Strong evidence suggests it is a close relative of goblin spiders (Oonopidae), but Trogloraptor possesses a mosaic of ancient, widespread features and evolutionary novelties."

BLT August 20 2012 12:05 PM EDT

Evolution is a scientific fact, the mechanism is still studied

"The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence."

"Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously."

"In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances."

"However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur."

"Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions."

National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. ᄅ 2008

Sickone August 20 2012 12:23 PM EDT

I'd really like for this to be moved back where I initially put it, in "off-topic", not in "debates".
The rules and scope of the "debates" subforum are not conducive to such discussions, because it turns the thread in a competition with alleged winners and losers (with less or even no interest in educating people), and has other restrictions which I consider undesirable for this thread (most importantly, the inability to "switch sides", so even if you become convince the "other side" is right, you are forced to keep your original view which you now believe inaccurate).
Please don't move controversial stuff to the debates forum, or if you insist on doing so, change the rules of the debates subforum first.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 20 2012 12:26 PM EDT

Sick, the 'debate' forum is for both debates (which are structured, with sides taken) and 'discussions'.

It was created exactly for threads like these, to hold religious & philosophical discussions.

For there to form sides in this thread, it would have to have been started as a debate, which is wasn't. Debates have rules they need to follow in CB.

Sickone August 20 2012 12:31 PM EDT

Hmm, I suppose you are correct, my interpretation of the rules might have been a bit stricter than it actually was supposed to be.
Well, then at least we'd need some better worded clarificative rules regarding the dual nature of the subforum with separate rulesets, because it's not immediately obvious which rules apply where (and some rules that are ok for debates are not very good for discussions, but apparently might still apply to them too).

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 20 2012 12:33 PM EDT

Additionally, the reason this sub forum is the correct place for this thread, is the more stirngent rules that are inforced here.

Like the rule to stay on topic, which doesn't exist in the off-topic forum.

Just like the restritions on ad homenien, and negative labelling, which, delicate, threads that expose being personal feelings have a greater chance of stiring up.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 20 2012 12:34 PM EDT

Ninja'd!

Bah, off topic post, I need to moderate myself. ;)

TH3 C0113CT0R August 20 2012 1:28 PM EDT

Anyone ever watched the ancient aliens series?

I honestly think it makes more sense then god or evolution...


basically it comes down to aliens come to earth and create us. There is more too it, and a lot of theories etc, but thats the gist of it. It derives from the akunami, spelling is wrong... its an ancient civilization, and they aren't the only ancient civilization that believes this.

Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] August 20 2012 2:45 PM EDT

"competition with alleged winners and losers"
Darwin approves!
"Anyone ever watched the ancient aliens series?"
He'll present you with an award someday.... Oh yes I've seen this show.

Sickone August 20 2012 4:32 PM EDT

ancient aliens series - I honestly think it makes more sense then god or evolution...

It still suffers from the "who created the creators" issue.
You can defer the issue of creation of life up a step or two, but eventually, you're still going to have to explain who created the "prime creator" in the first place, or how else did it come to be.
If the answer is allegedly "it always existed", then the question is, why couldn't you just skip a step and claim the level below it always existed instead, and decomplicate things.

Sickone August 20 2012 4:38 PM EDT

P.S.
Either way, evolution does NOT deal with the origin of life (that's abiogenesis), nor the origin of the universe (that's cosmology).
God or ancient aliens or any other stuff falls under cosmology plus abiogenesis (God) or abiogenesis on Earth (ancient aliens), not evolution.
Evolution deals with the continuous change of already existing life.
There's some overlap of abiogenesis and evolution, but they're mostly separate, and there's as good as no overlap between evolution and cosmology.

TH3 C0113CT0R August 20 2012 7:46 PM EDT

I'm more or less just referring to creation of 'us' I guess... Because I've had these debates with with friends and I love playing the devils advocate because really all I have to say is, "well who created the aliens?" and "well who created god?" you can always go the step up.

For instance, If in fact god is real and created the universe and us and animals, and so on and so forth. well who created him? did he just appear out of thin air? I doubt it? and if someone created him then who created them?

And as for ancient aliens I kinda like the older guy more, since he gives the ancient aliens the credit for creating us, but still believes in a more all knowing being that created them. but then who created it? lol you can go on and on and still never get a REAL answer :P

Gohan [Ka-Tet of the Serene] August 21 2012 12:08 AM EDT

I prefer to believe in the micro organism evolution theory. We were in the right place at the right time. They can prove ice on mars which doesn't have a climate system like ours, yet there is water. With everything we stand on having been around for so long, Evolution is the only logical idea. You can stick to your bible and etc all you want but like someone said earlier, its only a means to create a following. It's already been said that man needs someone to follow, we are terrible at creating ideas for ourselves for the most part, which is why the bible etc is in place. I just prefer to believe in _something_. dunno what it is, but I have to think that I'm different then everyone else for a reason. or it could just be those xx/yy diagrams.....

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 21 2012 4:53 AM EDT

well who created him?

No-one/nothing.

He always existed. He existed before he created time, or even the concept of time.

God doesn't need a creator.

Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] August 21 2012 5:14 AM EDT

really all I have to say is, "well who created the aliens?" and "well who created god?" you can always go the step up.
Prove either exists and for the love of thetans quit putting sexual organs on infinity. The church may be a frat house, but doesn't mean we have to draw one God's blank face. Also the personification of a breathing material creator making all matter locks you on the treadmill so the next step will always be in the same place.

Sickone August 21 2012 5:16 AM EDT

God doesn't need a creator.

Question 1 : Why DOESN'T "God" need a creator ?
Question 2 : Considering the answer from question 1, why DOES the universe need a creator ?
Questions 3-5 : Same as question 2, but with "this planet", "life" and "humans" instead of "universe".
:)

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 21 2012 6:48 AM EDT

Time. ;)

Time signifies a beginning (and an end).

God lies outside of time, unlike our universe and us.

God lies outside of beginnings and endings and needs neither.

Sickone August 21 2012 7:22 AM EDT

So, what, then just call the beginning of the universe outside of time too, why can God be out of time yet the stuff before the Big Bang not ? :p

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 21 2012 7:51 AM EDT

I'm not sure how's that's relevant Sick, or even a counter to the claim that God doesn't require a creator as he/it's outside time.

Having a creator signifies there being a period without the thing created. If the thing created isn't bound by time, and always exists, then there can't, by definition, have been a period *without* the thing created. Therefore, that thing can't have had a creator. ;)

As for the universe, it is bound by time, and there was a begging. Which therefore leads to a period *before* thuniverses, which opens up the posibility of a creator.

That doesn't mean the Universe had a creator, it could have have come into being by itself. It could have been its own creator. ;)

Sickone August 21 2012 10:57 AM EDT

I'm not sure how's that's relevant Sick, or even a counter to the claim that God doesn't require a creator as he/it's outside time.

It's a counter insofar as if that is considered an acceptable answer, it should also be applicable to the beginning of universe itself too, thus not requiring a deity to create the universe.

That doesn't mean the Universe had a creator, it could have have come into being by itself. It could have been its own creator. ;)

Precisely.
Applying the same logic one uses to justify the existence of God to the beginning of the universe instead only simplifies things, by removing the unnecessary hypothesis of a God.
;)

Sickone August 21 2012 11:00 AM EDT

P.S. Like they say, when several things look roughly equally plausible, chances are better for the explanation with the least assumptions to be the more accurate one.

TH3 C0113CT0R August 21 2012 12:08 PM EDT

yes, I sure can ask who created god, and yes he has to have been created. nothing just 'pops' into being.

So by your logic, "God" had no body, no universe, nothing, no creator, just a conscience of some sort in a universe of nothingness and decided to create everything, that's pretty far fetched to me.

TH3 C0113CT0R August 21 2012 12:12 PM EDT

nothing just exists. so if nothing existed, then how did this 'god' of yours come into being to create everything.

and it just did, isn't an answer.

TH3 C0113CT0R August 21 2012 12:27 PM EDT

lol forgot to add nice Occam's razor quote :P

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 21 2012 1:18 PM EDT

Again, time.

The universe is bound by time.

An inifinte creator, who exist outside of time, isn't.

If you're infinite and not subject to time, then you exist, have existed and will always exist. Without beginning, or end.

Without beginning.

The universe is deomstratably *not* the same. Not even in the same league, really.

Zenai August 21 2012 1:33 PM EDT

Aside from GLs explanation.

Applying the same logic one uses to justify the existence of God to the beginning of the universe instead only simplifies things, by removing the unnecessary hypothesis of a God.

Cannot the Universe(s) be God? In retrospect many verses in many different religions say God or the Higher Power is all around us all the time. Unseen yet seen, heard but unheard, corporeal and not, etc etc. Also that it is up to us to try and connect it/him/her in order to attain enlightenment.

I would like to ask one thing of the science heads: This might be nothing more than perspective but doesn't time only affect what is IN the Universe and NOT the Universe itself?

At any rate just a few of my own thoughts..........

TH3 C0113CT0R August 21 2012 1:51 PM EDT

I would like to ask one thing of the science heads: This might be nothing more than perspective but doesn't time only affect what is IN the Universe and NOT the Universe itself?

"Walter Sparrow: Of course time is just a counting system... numbers with meanings attached to them."

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 21 2012 2:11 PM EDT

Zen, space/time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_time

In relativistic contexts, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space, because the observed rate at which time passes for an object depends on the object's velocity relative to the observer and also on the strength of gravitational fields, which can slow the passage of time.

In cosmology, the concept of spacetime combines space and time to a single abstract universe.

Until the beginning of the 20th century, time was believed to be independent of motion, progressing at a fixed rate in all reference frames; however, later experiments revealed that time slowed down at higher speeds of the reference frame relative to another reference frame (with such slowing called "time dilation" explained in the theory of "special relativity"). Many experiments have confirmed time dilation, such as atomic clocks on board a Space Shuttle running slower than synchronized Earth-bound inertial clocks and the relativistic decay of muons from cosmic ray showers. The duration of time can therefore vary for various events and various reference frames.

TH3 C0113CT0R August 21 2012 2:14 PM EDT

yea I watched a Stephen hawking time travel show and he states that if we could circle back holes we could travel into the future, kinda, that circling it would slow down time, so we don't age, but on earth time would pass as normal... well bad explanation but you get the gist of it.

Zenai August 21 2012 2:42 PM EDT

Zen, space/time.

GL irrelevant as this pertains to time on or through an object and how gravitational fields affect it on both the Supergalactic and Subatomic levels. Note that ALL of this is INSIDE the Universe.

To Clarify: I am talking about the Universe itself not what is in it.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 21 2012 3:15 PM EDT

Er, irrellevant?

That is exactly what I posted.

In cosmology, the concept of spacetime combines space and time to a single abstract universe.

The universe is space *and* time. Not just what's in it, but it itself.

The universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists or is known to exist.[1] This includes all matter and energy

More customarily, the universe is defined as everything that exists, (has existed, and will exist)[citation needed]. According to our current understanding, the universe consists of three principles: spacetime, forms of energy, including momentum and matter, and the physical laws that relate them.

The Universe *is* time.

Sickone August 21 2012 3:36 PM EDT

If you're infinite and not subject to time, then you exist, have existed and will always exist. Without beginning, or end.

This sadly rules out EITHER free will OR complete omniscience.
You can't have omniscient clairvoyance without a deterministic universe in which everything can only happen in one single way, because if it could, the you can't know what will happen.
And on the flip side, if you know exactly what can happen, there can be no free will, only the illusion of free will, at best.

If you adhere to the many-worlds interpretation of the multiverse, you COULD reconcile omniscience with free will, but then it basically becomes a game of chance determining which universe you're actually in.
And anyway, if you DO adhere to the many-worlds interpretation, then any event, no matter how improbable, SHOULD have happened in at least one of the many universes, which means yet again, God is not a necessary hypothesis for anything, so, basically, we might as well not even bother with that.

So, what happens if there is no free will ? In that case, God is ultimately responsible for everything everybody does, and as such it would have no right to judge us, because he's basically just judging himself. That pretty much rules out omnibenevolence, at a minimum, to not dwell further into the implications of why this is messed up.
Let's ASSUME that free will actually exists.

That leaves us with a God that can't possibly be omniscient. If he can't be omniscient, none of his prophecies are guaranteed to actually ever happen without him interfering directly via omnipotence in order to guide them to whatever result he wishes. But in doing so, he would also mean he's not omnibenevolent. Alternatively, if he is omnibenevolent, he can't be omnipotent.

We could go on all night (and honourable mention to the story of Adam and Eve, which that alone invalidates the omni-triple-crown of God all by itself), but I'd rather not.
Simply put, the bottom line is this : free will, omnipotent God, omniscient God, omnibenevolent God - PICK TWO AND NO MORE.
:)

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 21 2012 3:38 PM EDT

This sadly rules out EITHER free will OR complete omniscience.

Exactly.

And is just one of the reasons that the Christian God, as defined, *cannot* exist.

Not in this universe.

Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] August 21 2012 5:18 PM EDT

nothing just 'pops' into being.
The universe did.
Cannot the Universe(s) be God?
Booya.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorne-Hawking-Preskill_bet
the DM can do w/e he wants with the 4th wall ;)

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 21 2012 5:38 PM EDT

Genius!

I paid the specified penalty, which was a one year subscription to Penthouse, to the outrage of Kip's liberated wife.

TH3 C0113CT0R August 21 2012 5:52 PM EDT

The universe did.

yea if you believe the big bang theory but come on really, in a place with NOTHING some crazy big bang happens to create the universe.. come on.. there is nothing.. so how can SOMETHING explode to create the universe..

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 21 2012 6:04 PM EDT

There's a theory that once the universe expands enough, it will start to contract, collapsing into a singularity.

And that singularity then explodes, birthing the universe.

Which expands. Until it expands so far it starts to collapse. Until it form a singularity that explodes, birthing the universe, which expands...

In essence, the Universe creates itself, and has done many times before, and will conitnue to do so for the rest of time.

There's also the idea that as the universe collapses, time will flow backwards. But that gets a little, wierd. And predetermined.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] August 21 2012 7:05 PM EDT

The universe plays by some set of rules or laws that we have yet to uncover. Our universe might only exist because the rules it follows allowed the universe to exist. I would be willing to believe that our universe exists in a kind of paradox, that we exist because the universe has rules that allow us to exist, and that we could not have existed at all if the rules of the universe didn't allow for us to exist.

Maybe everything exists because rules exist to govern how the universe works. Maybe extreme amounts of energy and mass existed in one place, and this extreme pile of mass and energy ripped holes in reality and created the rules of the universe.

Demigod August 21 2012 7:53 PM EDT

In essence, the Universe creates itself, and has done many times before, and will conitnue to do so for the rest of time.

... rest of time? You mean until the next cycle, again and again throughout non-time-based infinity? I say that with the understanding that time is tied to the Universe itself.

Sickone August 21 2012 8:07 PM EDT

yea if you believe the big bang theory but come on really, in a place with NOTHING some crazy big bang happens to create the universe.. come on.. there is nothing.. so how can SOMETHING explode to create the universe..

Well, first off, it's inappropriately named "the big bang", and the name was actually given derisively but it stuck.
For instance, it is not absolutely necessary to assume that "there was nothing and then that nothing exploded", there could have been an indefinitely long time (or, some might even argue, before time actually started existing, or at least possibly back when the laws of physics were actually different from those we experience today) of what you could call a "highly energetic state", which at some point started expanding space itself.

Side-note, "STUFF" is actually suspected to be continuously created and destroyed "out of nothing" on a regular, constant and staggeringly wide basis - it's just that it's destroyed almost as fast as it is created (or better said, vacuum is actually not a vacuum, but full of energy we can't tap yet, continuously generating pairs of particle-antiparticle which end up annihilating each-other and releasing that energy back into the vacuum that spawned them).
The best argument of that outlandishly-sounding claim is actually the observed Casimir Effect (where two electrically neutral metal plates in very close proximity in a vacuum either attract or repulse each-other depending on their arrangement, in spite of this being seemingly impossible.
It's actually a concern whether vacuum itself could actually start collapsing to a lower energy state, in which case, if that happens on a non-negligible scale for a non-negligible amount of time, it could spread at light-speed across the entire universe (and thus be completely unobservable until it actually hits us), changing the rules of physics and destroying all matter as we know it now in the process, replacing it with something else we can even barely begin to conceive.

It is not completely impossible that what we now end up calling "big bang" was just another full-blown universe with a HIGHER vacuum energy which started decaying thus starting up our CURRENT version of the universe.
It's also not completely impossible that a very high number of possible "vacuum energy" states can exist, and it also could be that not all of them pass from one to another in a linear fashion. Alternatively, some values of vacuum energy could lead to a "big rip" scenario, while others to a "big crunch", which could in turn re-generate an arbitrarily higher vacuum energy level universe.
For all we know, the universe keeps recreating, redestroying and recreating itself on a more or less periodic basis, and has actually ALWAYS existed.

But that's just one of the several "far out" hypotheses out there, which frankly put, are still less tenuous than the idea an eternal, unchanging, infallible, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God that just happens to look like us in spite of a lack of physical body, a God that has always existed outside of time and space and never needed to be created in the first place, but can still interact with us somehow and also takes an active interest in us in spite of our mind-blowing insignificance on a cosmic scale has created everything on a whim just so he can play with us.

TH3 C0113CT0R August 21 2012 8:39 PM EDT

But that's just one of the several "far out" hypotheses out there, which frankly put, are still less tenuous than the idea an eternal, unchanging, infallible, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God that just happens to look like us in spite of a lack of physical body, a God that has always existed outside of time and space and never needed to be created in the first place, but can still interact with us somehow and also takes an active interest in us in spite of our mind-blowing insignificance on a cosmic scale has created everything on a whim just so he can play with us.

agreed!

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] August 21 2012 11:08 PM EDT

Just curious if we have any around, and if we do, how exactly do they justify that position.

i think faith is the likely answer. this then begs the question of why we try to pit the two against one another, faith and knowledge, and why this battle is never resolved.

it is about as useful as saying which is better beer or sex? the obvious is answer is to find a partner who allows both...simultaneously! ; )

TH3 C0113CT0R August 21 2012 11:54 PM EDT

lol

Demigod August 22 2012 12:03 AM EDT

it is about as useful as saying which is better beer or sex? the obvious is answer is to find a partner who allows both...simultaneously! ; )

Someone doesn't know how hard it is to sip a smoked porter while performing a helicopter. >:|

Zenai August 22 2012 12:41 AM EDT


In cosmology, the concept of spacetime combines space and time to a single abstract universe.


That is a school of thought that was used to make Theories and equations easier to understand. This however does not necessarily make it an ultimate truth.

The universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists or is known to exist.[1] This includes all matter and energy

Most commonly referred to....again not necessarily true. This is once again a school of thought and is widely used until something better comes along.

More customarily, the universe is defined as everything that exists, (has existed, and will exist)[citation needed]. According to our current understanding, the universe consists of three principles: spacetime, forms of energy, including momentum and matter, and the physical laws that relate them.

Again More customarily....ie its not absolute but a school of thought.......you understand what I am getting at here.

Now often ppl refer to the Big Bang, Explosion everything comes into being and after time the reverse as well. More easily understood is a Super Nova on a Total Cosmic scale. Still even though everything in the universe will, by some schools of thought, contract and become a singularity what happens to the area into which everything was before?

Some think the Universe is completely separate from what is in it. There MUST be space for the Big Bang to happen or it would instantly collapse and nothing would come into being. So with this in mind is there a difference between the universe and what is in it? If there is could this Container, for lack of a better explanation, be sentient?

Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] August 22 2012 1:02 AM EDT

why this battle is never resolved.
Your answer is in these tweets.
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/stupidity

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 22 2012 3:27 AM EDT

you understand what I am getting at here.

No, I really don't.

Read Sick's post. It's awesome. ;)

Sickone August 22 2012 8:32 AM EDT

about as useful as saying which is better beer or sex?

Well, of course, because the answer is chocolate ;)

Fishead August 22 2012 11:20 AM EDT

it is about as useful as saying which is better beer or sex? the obvious is answer is to find a partner who allows both...simultaneously! ; )

My link to the "sexy Guinness commercial" is non-PG so you will have to find it on you tube. I'm sure one could work some chocolate into the scenario.

TH3 C0113CT0R August 22 2012 11:48 AM EDT

LOL that's hilarious!!!

Zenai August 22 2012 1:10 PM EDT

No, I really don't. Read Sick's post. It's awesome. ;)

But that's just one of the several "far out" hypotheses out there.....

Soooo just another school of thought....gotcha ;-) Still though even in a "Big Crunch"/"Big Rip" event all of it must have something to be "IN" to begin with. Even if you used "The Universe is like a Balloon or Loaf of Raisin Bread" Theory it STILL has to have area to expand in otherwise it would implode. I understand it is a school of though just like any others out there......

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 22 2012 1:46 PM EDT

No, it doesn't. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

The universe is not expanding "into" anything outside of itself.

Over time, the space that makes up the universe is expanding. The words 'space' and 'universe', sometimes used interchangeably, have distinct meanings in this context. Here 'space' is a mathematical concept and 'universe' refers to all the matter and energy that exist. The expansion of space is in reference to internal dimensions only; that is, the description involves no structures such as extra dimensions or an exterior universe.

The 'balloon' and 'raisen bread' examples aren't great ones due to;

All of these models have the conceptual problem of requiring an outside force acting on the "space" at all times to make it expand.

Zenai August 22 2012 2:03 PM EDT

GL: Throw all of the Theories you want out there bottom line they are nothing more than a school of thought that is relied upon until proven wrong or a better one comes along. This is the core nature of science neither you nor anyone else can change that one unequivocal fact.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 22 2012 2:59 PM EDT

Yup. But Scientific Theory is;

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

So it has a little more weight to it than "some guy told me how we were created". ;)

Zenai August 22 2012 3:09 PM EDT

So it has a little more weight to it than "some guy told me how we were created". ;)

This is STILL as school of thought albeit more agreed upon by many who believe themselves to be in the know. This is no different than any other widely accepted school of thought. Everything in and of itself is fallible and while can be right at present, in some way, will at some point in the future be proven wrong and either amended or replaced.

Point is that both standpoints of science and faith (and any number of other things) are in fact fallible and subject to change in some way.

Sickone August 22 2012 3:22 PM EDT

So far, the only theoretical model that can begin to explain the spectrum spread and local fluctuations of the cosmic microwave background radiation is "the big bang model", which should actually be called "the dense hot plasma model" instead.

Well, you see, there's one thing most of these guesses, hypotheses and theories leave out, because there's simply no data at all about it, is EXACTLY HOW LARGE is the universe.
We know how large the OBSERVABLE universe is, namely whatever we can now see happened shortly after our universe began around 13.7 billion years ago (give or take a hundred million years) and it's a sphere around us at about 46 billion light-years away (we can see those due to the expansion of space itself)... anything BEYOND that is just cosmic microwave background radiation, which is the OPTICAL REMAINS of a time when the entire universe was a dense hot plasma.

For all we know, the universe could actually be EITHER infinite (which would not require ANYTHING "outside" of the universe) OR even cyclical (think the 2D expanding surface of a 3D balloon, but now imagine our entire universe as the 3D surface of a 4D balloon instead).

The only thing we know for certain is what happened after the opaque hot plasma expanded enough and cooled off sufficiently to become transparent, no longer scattering all photons, allowing us to observe most of the stuff that happened since then, but nothing that happened before.
We know how dense the observable area of the universe was, how hot it was, and a lot of other things, but we have no clue how large everything actually is, nor what actually happens now at the edge of our observable universe... everything we see happening there now has become something else entirely by now, all stars either exploded, imploded or turned into orphan planets.

Again, we have absolutely no idea how large the universe actually is.
And we can only make an educated guess about how long ago the current laws of physics started applying, or, in other words, how old our universe is.
There's nothing saying there could not have been a much older (or a series of much older) universes with an entirely different set of rules of physics, and there's nothing saying our current rules of physics have to keep being valid indefinitely either (thus ending our current universe, at least as we know it).

Zenai August 22 2012 3:29 PM EDT

So Sick in other words we have to have "Faith" that our science is as right as possible for what we currently know and are able to understand and explain within reason and without doubt.....sounds a LOT like religion of a a different name to me. ;-)

Sickone August 22 2012 3:33 PM EDT

Point is that both standpoints of science and faith (and any number of other things) are in fact fallible and subject to change in some way.

The crucial difference being that while science admits its own limits and constantly strives to expand and build upon them, allowing and even welcoming clear new evidence to change currently held beliefs, religion proclaims its infallibility and claims to be the truth even if faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

If somebody could actually prove any given scientifically theory incorrect BY COMING UP WITH A BETTER ONE that explains everything already observed more accurately, he'll probably receive a Nobel Prize in his field and be remembered as a great scientific mind for many years to come.

If somebody even tries to claim any religious dogma could stand some improvement, he can consider himself lucky if he can create a splinter religion, because otherwise he'd probably end up excommunicated for heresy, and (until not so long ago in a lot of places, and still today in certain areas of the world), his other most likely "reward" would be a rather violent death.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 22 2012 3:41 PM EDT

Zen, you must see the difference between Faith and;

based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment

Surely.

Can you show me the body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment abut the Christian Faith?

So, body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment versus hearsay (and not the band!).

Zenai August 22 2012 3:43 PM EDT

The crucial difference being that while science admits its own limits and constantly strives to expand and build upon them.....

Until you try to push some of your theories or try to improve on existing ones. Science is no different than any kind of religious Dogma in the fact that it is incredibly hard to get anything changed. In fact takes many a life time to create a new line of accepted thought. In other words a splinter faction as you so accurately and aptly called it.

Final point is simple, Science is the New Religion as of right now. The aim of any religion is to say I AM RIGHT believe what I believe or YOU ARE WRONG. Which is what is being presented by you and a few others right now. Enjoy the Dogma ;-)

Sickone August 22 2012 3:48 PM EDT

So Sick in other words we have to have "Faith" that our science is as right as possible for what we currently know and are able to understand and explain within reason and without doubt.....sounds a LOT like religion of a a different name to me. ;-)

Only insofar as claiming my observation that I exist is pretty much a religion too.

Science is based on observations and theories that explain the observations made, with theories built on, changed or abandoned to accommodate new observations (after measurement errors can be ruled out on observations contradicting existing theories).
Most importantly, science is FALSIFIABLE, as in, it CAN be proven wrong - to elevate a hypothesis to the status of accepted theory, you almost always have to devise an experiment that can be made, which if your theoretical predictions are inaccurate, the experiment fails, PROVING your hypothesis inaccurate.
If you prefer, science is the belief in what we think we understand from what we can actually see happening.
Or, the belief in evidence.

Religion is based on dogma. It fiercely resists any changes whatsoever, and denies contradicting observations, trying to rationalize them away.
Most important, religion is NOT FALSIFIABLE. There is no experiment that can be done in which, if the experiment fails, religion can be proven wrong.
If you prefer, religion is the belief that what we were told as children is true is actually true, regardless of total lack of evidence.
Or, the belief in lack of evidence.


If belief equals religion, then yes, science is a religion... the religion of belief in actual evidence.

Zenai August 22 2012 3:54 PM EDT

If belief equals religion, then yes, science is a religion... the religion of belief in actual evidence.

Yet even you have said that there is no true explanation in so far as the fact of science in and of itself is ever changing and amalgamating. Fact is Fact until Proven wrong. We can only understand what are are able to observe. So if you cannot observe something you do not know about it and have to have faith that it is real or not. Point is that with all of the answers that science says it has it STILL has just as many unanswered questions as many other schools of thought.

Sickone August 22 2012 4:08 PM EDT

Science is no different than any kind of religious Dogma in the fact that it is incredibly hard to get anything changed. In fact takes many a life time to create a new line of accepted thought.

Science has this "inconvenient" requirement of theories actually having to conform to reality, and prove it via observations.
So, yes, it may be very difficult to get anything changed in the current scientific world, but only because WE ALREADY HAVE A PRETTY DAMN GOOD IDEA OF HOW THE WORLD ACTUALLY WORKS, so new scientific theory has to fill in the gaps in our understanding (which get smaller and smaller all the time) or first prove another theory wrong first through experimentation (which almost always happens when we get access to more precise measurement devices which can make more accurate observations).
You don't get the luxury of being able to impose a new scientific theory on anybody without some proof AND LACK OF COUNTER-PROOF.

The aim of any religion is to say I AM RIGHT believe what I believe or YOU ARE WRONG. Which is what is being presented by you and a few others right now.

The first part is correct.
Religion does say that.
But you know what science says ?

"I AM FAIRLY CERTAIN THAT I AM RIGHT, believe what I believe or YOU MAY BE WRONG. This is the long list of observations that support my beliefs. If you can prove that my beliefs are less accurate than yours, I will believe what you believe."

See the ever so "subtle" difference ?

Point is that with all of the answers that science says it has it STILL has just as many unanswered questions as many other schools of thought.

Point is, science has a constantly growing number of increasingly accurate approximate answers to an ever-expanding number of questions.

Religion doesn't have any real answers to current questions, only a pre-recorded message to questions that have ceased being relevant a long time ago.

Sickone August 22 2012 4:10 PM EDT

P.S. A broken clock is also accurate twice a day. Much like religion.
:)

Kirsti August 22 2012 6:06 PM EDT

I can't help but think that we as human beings have to be one of the most arrogant beings to ever exist. Who is to say that space is 3-dimensional and time is moving forward in a linear fashion? Granted, we seem to function quite well within these parameters, but to say that the vast universe must fit under these laws seems incredibly naive. We're limited to the senses our bodies give us, limited in comprehension and capacity to understand things. We live an apparent 3D world but can only see in 2D. It is my belief that there is much more out there that we will ever know or grasp... but hey, it's fun TRYING to know the unknowable (at least for us humans). I guess there may come a time where we will build machines MUCH smarter than us (I mean we've somewhat done that already).

However, I do have to side with science simply because it is open to criticism and change, and it does humor the possibilities and ideas I have mentioned. I do not follow one thing completely, whether it be religion or science. I like to come to my own conclusions. The only system that believes that there is no real existence or meaning or belief in the world is nihilism, and I think it's funny because it completely contradicts itself within its definition.

Zenai August 22 2012 6:08 PM EDT

P.S. A broken clock is also accurate twice a day.

Much like Science too. Again and again Science has to prove itself right or wrong in order to see what is actually there. A good goal to be sure but accuracy only goes as far as we can observe but also understand. In short it's no less fallible that those that attempt to use and perpetuate it. To be human is to err......ohhhh that human factor.


Also I have to point out that both Science and Religion(not just Christianity) has not only contradicted each other but has also proven each other right........

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 22 2012 6:17 PM EDT

Zen, would it be better if I just said;

Science is right, because I say so.

Or do I need to write it in a book? ;)

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 22 2012 6:17 PM EDT

Also I have to point out that both Science and Religion(not just Christianity) has not only contradicted each other but has also proven each other right........

How has Religion every proved anything?

Isn't proof the antithesis of religion?

Zenai August 22 2012 6:24 PM EDT

No GL but nice attempt. Religion has it's own version of proof and in some cases science has backed it up. In other cases science was also backed by religion. There is a seesaw effect under certain premises. just because you choose to either not see or believe does not mean it is not there. But hey I tell ya what since you like to do all this research I have now given you reason to go on a information scavenger hunt. go find when religion and science are in agreement! Go Go Go!!!!!!!

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 22 2012 6:40 PM EDT

No.

I've provided enough evidence in this thread. You have provided nothing so far.

Onus on you Zen to back up your statements.

First;

Religion has it's own version of proof

Show us some.

Or conceed the point.

Zenai August 22 2012 6:48 PM EDT

Why when you are so apt to prove mine for me oh omniscient GL? Onus on you mighty all knowing GL otherwise concede the point......

Yeah I can do the same thing nice try GL ;-)

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 22 2012 6:59 PM EDT

What is this I don't even...

Zenai August 22 2012 7:08 PM EDT

Of course you do GL you are just not wanting to be wrong, which is fine who does like to be in the first place? Whether you like it or not GL you DO NOT know all neither does science nor religion and half a million other things. They all have valid points in certain areas, some more so than others but this does not nor should it ever preclude them completely. Honestly I do not side with any one thing more than another for the simple fact that there is much to be learned from many different standpoints.

Oh and to make a very straightforward point the only proof that you have given me or anyone else beyond a doubt is your ability to post a wikipedia thread/link. Good on ya for being able to do so though. ;-)

Sickone August 22 2012 8:20 PM EDT

Just double-checking something.

You guys do know that even if this is in the "debates" forum now, it hasn't started as a debate, and it's not actually a debate at all (i.e. a competition), it's a discussion (just for the sake of talking about it), which is the lesser used form of a thread in this subforum.
You don't have to take any side at all, you are allowed to change your position as much as you want, and there's no "winner" (since it's not a contest).

Kirsti August 22 2012 11:09 PM EDT

I'm not taking sides, this is how I honestly feel until otherwise. :P

Kirsti August 22 2012 11:09 PM EDT

I mean I side with science, but I'm not doing it just to side with something*

Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] August 22 2012 11:41 PM EDT

Science is no different than any kind of religious Dogma
So this is why Andromeda will bonk us.
Final point is simple, Science is the New Religion as of right now.
Yeah and penicillin is our cult's way of injecting the weak with satan's lint. If you aren't trolling a new brainwash pill shall be prescribed. Can't take the God vs. Atheist "We both believe in something so let's call it a push?", trade in for science, then expect the evolution party to take you seriously. If you are going to say religion(any) has it's own version of proof then link. If you say there is a man behind the curtain then you have to find the curtain. Those wiki links are launching you off the see-saw because though both sides are saying,"You might be wrong!" these facts thingies change the weight ratio considerably.
Though every wikipedia page linked is something rational monsignors have to agree with on some level, we're already poisoned your well. The big bang was in fact proposed by our catholic priest sleeper cell. Beware Belgiums.
human beings have to be one of the most arrogant beings to ever exist.
Get around much? ;)
We were made in the image of some mystical outer limits pervert who loves planets filled with GTA hookers. Think about what we do during God Mode and you'll know there's going to be another boom. My top line is but one assurance of DM lightning for his cash back.
Or do I need to write it in a book? ;)
The other 47 billion textbooks have yet to justify our religion, but worth a try.

Zenai August 23 2012 12:55 AM EDT

Wow Gun that was......awesome? Dunno what you are truly attempting to do but yeah ok sure you are of course right in......meh never mind it doesn't matter since we all know what your true aim is any way. In case it is unclear that is the fact that you truly have nothing to contribute to anything you post in to begin with. Well other than to attempt to rile ppl up with your suppositions and odd style of insults. I guess I should give you a golden globe.......or was it a half chewed foot with teeth marks in it as you said to someone else? Meh............

Django August 23 2012 1:55 AM EDT

Lol, couldn't have said it any better myself Zen! :)

Sickone August 23 2012 2:12 AM EDT

Religion has it's own version of proof and in some cases science has backed it up. In other cases science was also backed by religion [...] find when religion and science are in agreement

Let's say that I'm not even trying to disagree with that.
So, what is that supposed to prove anyway ? Or at least illustrate, if not prove ?

Say it was hot yesterday and I saw a very funny clip.
Does that mean if it's hot today I'll see a very funny clip again ?
Or that I can't see a a funny clip unless it's hot outside ?
Or that the temperature outside caused the clip to be funny ?
Or the funny clip somehow caused the heat ?

Correlation and causation are not the same thing.
The former does not necessarily imply the latter.

Zenai August 23 2012 3:09 AM EDT

So, what is that supposed to prove anyway ? Or at least illustrate, if not prove ?

Other than to say that Religion and Science are not always at odds not much more. Both have proven to be right, in certain circumstances as a result of one alluding to and supporting the other.

Here is a decent argument made: http://www.experiment-resources.com/religion-vs-science.html

And another one: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=instances%20where%20science%20and%20religion%20working%20together&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CFIQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fserendip.brynmawr.edu%2Fexchange%2Fnode%2F1747&ei=29A1UN_UAYrK2AWiloG4DA&usg=AFQjCNFq1yhWGXHMYzNS-_j53TiyYzHR9Q

An interesting mix: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-r-friberg/science-religion-and-the-bahai-faith_b_1598473.html

Oh Wiki you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science

I very good viewpoint: http://www.iep.utm.edu/s-rel/

Science bolstered by religion?: http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2011/05/18/science-owes-much-to-both-christianity-and-the-middle-ages


Of course I am sure that as many threads or links I can post to there will be many more that can be posted that reflect the opposite. However, I will say this I have always been of the mind that if I close a door to something that is a possible truth, whether I can prove it or not, then I have closed my mind to the fundamental thing that enhances my ability to understand more which in turn means I will never grow. Age without growth is a waste just like knowledge unsought for due to ignorance or prejudice is an injustice to the promotion of understanding. In short I will take the pearls of wisdom scattered throughout everything we know, or think we know, and make as educated a decision I can from what I can grasp or understand. Never will I attempt to suppose that I know everything just as I will say the same to others who have the same disposition or train of thought. Bottom line we just do not know enough to make rigid hard lined decisions on everything because it is subject to change. In some cases I agree with science, in others I agree with religion(or Spirituality take your pic) all in all this is my Philosophy. I expect no one else to adopt what I believe in. However, I will defend the right of both science and religion to have their own space which in some cases do indeed overlap. Again this is my disposition nothing more.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 23 2012 3:47 AM EDT

Of course you do GL you are just not wanting to be wrong, which is fine who does like to be in the first place? Whether you like it or not GL you DO NOT know all neither does science nor religion and half a million other things. They all have valid points in certain areas, some more so than others but this does not nor should it ever preclude them completely. Honestly I do not side with any one thing more than another for the simple fact that there is much to be learned from many different standpoints.

You'll have to *show* me where in this discussion I've claimed to be omniscient. I can assure you I've said no such thing.

Neither have I claimed that Science 'knows all'.

While I have claimed that the Christian God, as defined, cannot exist, I have never claimed that Gods/A God *cannot* or *do not* exist. That's hubris.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 23 2012 3:48 AM EDT

Both have proven to be right

This is false and utterly incorrect. I've asked for some evidence of this already Zen.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 23 2012 3:57 AM EDT

critics argue that religious faith is irrational and see faith as ignorance of reality: a strong belief in something with no evidence and sometimes a strong belief in something even with evidence against it. Bertrand Russell noted, "Where there is evidence, no one speaks of 'faith'. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."[35] In the rationalist view, belief should be restricted to direct observation in the past and present[citation needed].

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins criticizes all faith by generalizing from specific faith in propositions that conflict directly with scientific evidence[citation needed]. He describes faith as mere belief without evidence; a process of active non-thinking. He states that it is a practice that only degrades our understanding of the natural world by allowing anyone to make a claim about nature that is based solely on their personal thoughts, and possibly distorted perceptions, that does not require testing against nature, has no ability to make reliable and consistent predictions, and is not subject to peer review.[36]

Faith and evidence/proof seem to be mutually exclusive.

Would you care to 'prove' otherwise?

Zenai August 23 2012 4:10 AM EDT

Ahh master of the Except GL. Look if you are going to pull the excerpt at the very least post the counter argument as well. Oh right that may prove you wrong....sorry to even mention it bar the thought altogether. As far as my alluding to your Omniscience well you seem to have all the answers to prove Religion wrong and Science right at every turn. What do you suppose this means ahh yes that you know everything and so too does science. GL I apologize to your obviously superior ability to be unable to accept that you just might be wrong.

Since of course you will be right at the edge of your seat just waiting to make yourself right yet again I shall leave this obvious battle of right and wrong rather than debate/discussion with one thing. Until you can accept that there is a middle grounds to many things you might as well not discuss, and I do use that term with extreme lightheartedness in your case, anything since only your viewpoint has a right to be.(a fallacy or proportions that I cannot begin to describe but I digress in any case.) Have the "Discussion" to yourself since obviously this is what you want.

Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] August 23 2012 8:47 AM EDT

In case it is unclear that is the fact that you truly have nothing to contribute to anything you post in to begin with.
Maybe. Maybe I was holding back the logic rage against your emotionally regulated bias, pointing out a few faults in the essence of your own spiritually motivated charade that wasn't adding anything that wasn't farted out by some pothead(stoner wouldn't work here;) in 376 BC, and threw in the first big bang guy cause you asked. Then waited to see how black your bliders are? Maybe. Which must be mini black holes because that wasn't OG style at all! About to be. ;)
Becoming clear you aren't here to discuss rather to enforce your belief system. Long stands of provoking, ignoring arguments, claiming the higher ground, and subtly stating the opponents are close minded to grey zones serve as evidence to my claim. Hmm maybe you and I are doing the same thing. Maybe we both are openly simple hypocrites who never bite so we look at bigger dogs as metaphorical chew toys to reinforce the lies we need to live by. Perhaps.
The globes go to GL and sickone for being too kind in this matter. Zen if you can't propose anything with a foundation why should I? Hmm? Either way, got you linking now didn't I. *unintended trollface* Ok I've had my fun and will clean it up so others can absorb my power. Maybe.

Let me short list what's wrong in your so recent theory so you can have your foot back.
) Only I claimed some form of omniscience thus far.
) Though you think this right or wrong probing offers favor towards religion, which you are not rescuing as the big ones are a system of interconnected beliefs which feel they don't need to subsequently prove themselves, the extra dimensional space being you ask us to take great consideration as probable fact is mostly a personal makeshift ideal skewed in real time from ideas within the faith in god context. Which won't be upheld by written church doctrines as most were literally written in stone or gold and not subject to change without reprisal. So, you are actually arguing for your somewhat isolated perspective, not broad based religious schools of thought on the 4th wall.
) We asked you questions which have yet to be answered after we answered a few to a basic degree. This debate has not been equal as you persistently poke and run. Not to be confused with advance and retreat.
) Religion as we have come to label is made up of many different religions. Within it's many hardlines and voices your idea is a speck that cannot and will not represent them. While it seems I'm drifting back to line two you must take note the vicious infighting within "religion" can be prompted by lack of evidence to sustain any divine truth. Science creates truth with proof. It's inherently necessary. Education and understanding must first be present in order to create, observe, cite, and progress so these truths can possibly be sustained and accept within the "dogma" or the claim will be cast out until further development. Faith is not a constituting element within the scientific belief creation process and is why science cannot be taken as a religion.
eg.Science requires God's thunder voice be heard by more than one person for 10 commandments, justified infanticide, or claims of a supernatural father to be acceptable. Even then they'll still get baptised in questions. Mind you these were not personal insults to the bible or the DM of DMs because if you kept up you'll know I've not said the good book is toilet paper or denied the possibility of a god either. Thinking in broad terms of yes and no is so restricting don't you think?
) We ;GL,sickone,&I; are not closing the door on your yet-to-be truth as we don't see the walls let alone a door. Take that how you will as there are many ways.
Oh look I evolved pokemon style. *bifocal trollface*

Zenai August 23 2012 9:44 AM EDT

TL;DR that Wall-O-Text but obviously I got you as you were attempting to get me or anyone else you could Gun. *Unintended TrollFace* Did you actually contribute something this time or did you rage oh master troll? I bet in all that mush you wrote the only thing you actually wrote was a simple principle: You are wrong and we are right. Typical.

Sickone August 23 2012 9:59 AM EDT

However, I will say this I have always been of the mind that if I close a door to something that is a possible truth, whether I can prove it or not, then I have closed my mind to the fundamental thing that enhances my ability to understand more which in turn means I will never grow.

There's a huge difference between, on one hand, things we proved right or haven't proven right or wrong yet but will soon (that's quite ok), and on the other hand, things we're unlikely to be able to prove right or wrong any time soon but have an idea of how to do it much later on (less useful but at least theoretically ok), but on the gripping hand, things we are almost certain we have no way of ever reliably testing whether they're are actually right or wrong (which basically is nothing more than wishful thinking).

It's the differences between, say, for instance, claiming that there are super-massive stars in the universe, claiming that there is a super-massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, and claiming that the super-massive black hole in the center of our galaxy is a self-contained universe which absorbs people's souls whenever they die allowing them to live what feels like eternity due to time dilation in company of every other soul they want in perfect happiness.


The first one is almost totally sure to be correct due to all the data we have observed so far (plus no contradictory data), so we usually call it either fact or scientific theory.
It contributes to our understanding of the universe in several ways.

The second one is very likely to be correct but we're not yet sufficiently certain to call it fact nor scientific theory, but we're slowly and surely piling up observations... until we either get sufficiently sure that's the way things are, or we observe something that contradicts our previously held beliefs, in which case, the beliefs will need to be re-examined, either dropped altogether if they can't be reconciled with reality, or altered to accommodate the new data if at all possible.
This also contributes to our understanding of the universe greatly, that's how we learn, through trial and error. Even hypotheses that are PROVEN wrong further our understanding.

The last one however, we have no way of testing whether it's right or wrong (or, at least, we yet can't think of a way to test it), and there are many other increasingly complicated but emotionally pleasing mental constructs of nice-sounding ideas that have some non-zero but progressively more negligible chance to actually be true.
That's called wishful thinking, not knowledge. At best, it can offer a morale boost for people that believe it to be true.
It does NOT contribute to our understanding of the universe, because there's no way to prove them right nor prove them wrong, and as such, offer no additional actual information.
Due to the low probability of either of those idea being right, and no way of testing them, from a practical standpoint, you may as well consider them all incorrect, UNLESS you think you might have a chance to invent a method for PROVING them either right or wrong.

Zenai August 23 2012 10:47 AM EDT

All very good points Sickone, however I must say that all in all this debate is truthfully about Philosophical backing of one side or another. Each attempting to prove one or the other right or wrong from their standpoints of proof. One will say the data is irrefutable while the other will say my faith is irrefutable. I choose neither, because of this I feel that I will have a more open mind. Philosophically thinking about each in turn can allow me to do one thing and this is open my mind to more Critical thinking down the road (educated guessing is the best term I can think of). Again as before this is my perspective so I am not trying to push it on anyone but I will defend it if necessary. Which I have just not in the guidelines that others prefer/dictate to their chagrin of course. (I do what I want :-P)

In fact I have seen many of the greatest contributors in the medical and scientific fields be religious rather than not.(There are a few listed in my previous links.) Note I said religious not necessarily christian so please do not construe it as such since this seems to be the default fall back in the discussion.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 23 2012 10:53 AM EDT

Look if you are going to pull the excerpt at the very least post the counter argument as well. Oh right that may prove you wrong....sorry to even mention it bar the thought altogether.

I'm not going to argue your side of the discussion for you. Do your own work, if you are able to.

As far as my alluding to your Omniscience well you seem to have all the answers to prove Religion wrong and Science right at every turn. What do you suppose this means ahh yes that you know everything and so too does science. GL I apologize to your obviously superior ability to be unable to accept that you just might be wrong.

Adhomenien logical fallacy. Something that isn't allowed in this sub forum Zen.

I'm knoweldgable, as I understand the topic, enjoy it, and have debated it *many* times before.

Plus I'm able to form logical and coherent arguements on the topic.

Since of course you will be right at the edge of your seat just waiting to make yourself right yet again I shall leave this obvious battle of right and wrong rather than debate/discussion with one thing. Until you can accept that there is a middle grounds to many things you might as well not discuss

I do accept that.

You however have not been able to get anyhwere close to it, or to challenge my points. In any way, shape or form.

and I do use that term with extreme lightheartedness in your case, anything since only your viewpoint has a right to be.(a fallacy or proportions that I cannot begin to describe but I digress in any case.) Have the "Discussion" to yourself since obviously this is what you want.

Another adhomenien.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 23 2012 10:58 AM EDT

It's the differences between, say, for instance, claiming that there are super-massive stars in the universe, claiming that there is a super-massive black hole at the center of our galaxy

I watched a lovely program on that just the other night. ;)

And how an attempt to see the shadow of the black hole at the centre of the universe (to prove or disprove the existing theory) was stimed by needing a telescope with a dish the size of America. And how an astronomer is trying to get around that by creating a 'virtual' telescope by linking up as many observatories as he can.

The size of the data storage he requires is immense.

It was very interesting.

Sickone August 23 2012 11:33 AM EDT

all in all this debate is truthfully about Philosophical backing of one side or another.

Just wanting to re-stress that this is not a debate, it's a discussion, and does not follow the debates subforum stricter rules for debates, but the more relaxed rules for discussions.


Each attempting to prove one or the other right or wrong from their standpoints of proof. One will say the data is irrefutable while the other will say my faith is irrefutable. I choose neither, because of this I feel that I will have a more open mind.

There's a difference between having an open mind (i.e. being able to accept new ideas and new evidence, as opposed to rejecting everything unfamiliar for no reason other than being different) and having a gullible mind (taking everything as mostly equally valuable regardless of amount of evidence supporting either side).
The former is a good thing to have, the latter is a catastrophic thing to have.

Philosophically thinking about each in turn can allow me to do one thing and this is open my mind to more Critical thinking down the road (educated guessing is the best term I can think of).

So, in the context of this thread, when by default faith implies lack of proof, and without proof you can't construct a logical argument... how exactly is critical thinking going to be used with any religion again ?


In fact I have seen many of the greatest contributors in the medical and scientific fields be religious rather than not.(There are a few listed in my previous links.) Note I said religious not necessarily christian so please do not construe it as such since this seems to be the default fall back in the discussion.

People who were religious or spiritual themselves that ended up discovering something does NOT mean religion itself is actually contributing anything to science.
Do you have any actual contribution that was based on RELIGIOUS ideas first, foremost, and almost exclusively, as opposed to merely discovered by religious people acting as bona fide scientists from the word go ?

If there's a concrete passage in one of your links pointing THAT out, please quote the relevant section in it.

Sickone August 23 2012 11:42 AM EDT

Now, don't get me wrong, there's nothing objectionable in ONLY personally believing in something in spite of lack of any evidence, everybody can do that as much as they want and nobody would be bothered by it very much.

BUT, when evidence that contradicts some of your beliefs pops up, if you continue to hold on to and keep spreading all your beliefs, instead of dropping those proven wrong, you are misrepresenting reality, which is objectionable, but not immediately hugely problematic, more of a nuisance, at least at first.

HOWEVER, when those beliefs you hold in spite of evidence to the contrary end up dictating MY actions in direct opposition to MY concrete proof backed beliefs, then we start having a big problem.

Zenai August 23 2012 11:44 AM EDT

Plus I'm able to form logical and coherent arguements on the topic.

I LOL'ed so hard!

> Again as before this is my perspective so I am not trying to push it on anyone but I will defend it if necessary. Which I have just not in the guidelines that others prefer/dictate to their chagrin of course. (I do what I want :-P)

Should I LOL some more?

Did you even peruse the links I posted GL or did you TL;DR? I read your Wiki links to be open minded and not a hypocrite, I even read links inside of the links you posted just to be sure I understood what I was trying to take in. I have to ask though GL have you at any point ever been a scientist/mathematician/doctor/astrophysicist or anything of that sort? If so what field? Are you specialized in more than that field? If so what? If not then might I ask are you not taking others words as truth? I mean if you are unable to actually test the truth of the data yourself are you not having faith that others are telling the truth? This is the same type of hard lined loaded questions I have been asked about faith in religion or philosophy. Coherent enough for you or am I still ephemeral?

Zenai August 23 2012 11:48 AM EDT

Same post as above applies to you too Sickone.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 23 2012 12:01 PM EDT

I read them Zen.

I'm a mathematicican, a programmer, and an Agnostic. But again, bringing my personal life into this is yet another adhomenien logical fallacy.

And totally highlights how you can't actually form anything coherent about this discussion at all.

You've also still yet to show any sort of 'proof' of, or from, Religion.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 23 2012 12:02 PM EDT

I mean if you are unable to actually test the truth of the data yourself are you not having faith that others are telling the truth? This is the same type of hard lined loaded questions I have been asked about faith in religion or philosophy.

There's a difference between 'faith' and 'trust'.

I trust the results, the emperical evidence, and the testing of other scientists.

I have no 'faith' in thier work, I don't need it.

Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] August 23 2012 12:05 PM EDT

This is why I should stick to sarcasm and tightly packed talking points. Seems in your trolling of GL you did read the wall.
Got his next wiki link right here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
this debate is truthfully about Philosophical backing of one side or another.
The writing is on the wall. ;)
I choose neither, because of this I feel that I will have a more open mind.
If you truly choose neither then we wouldn't have posted this far just to see you Cartman and if you did have an open mind you wouldn't be shutting any of us out.
I am not trying to push it on anyone but I will defend it if necessary.
You knew you'd be on the defensive as Space Wizard was a no-win platform from the word Go! Rather then skimming back to see when you pushed your faith over our faith I'll just say you did. Prove ME wrong at least.
In fact I have seen many of the greatest contributors in the medical and scientific fields be religious rather than not.
Ninja'd via penicillin.
I watched a lovely program on that just the other night. ;)
Shows like The Universe draw the info out so slowly to me...needs more flare. ;)
Played around after le wallo texto with double-slit, ghost particles, and some dark entity for future use but you beat me to the punch & puns, sickone.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 23 2012 12:09 PM EDT

Shows like The Universe draw the info out so slowly to me...needs more flare. ;)

Well, this was titled "Who's afraid of the big black hole!". ;)

Sickone August 23 2012 12:10 PM EDT

Same post as above applies to you too Sickone.

I would certainly hope that it does not, and that YOU also put more effort into answering what I said than that.

I HAVE read your links.
I HAVE NOT seen evidence of religion directly contributing to science.
I only saw examples of religious people acting like any other scientists contributing to science.
I asked you to highlight some of the passages YOU believe can support a claim that RELIGION contributed to science, as opposed to religious people, when acting like scientists (regardless of their religion, spirituality, or lack thereof).

I do not deny that for some people, the "wonders of science" only strengthen their personal religious or spiritual beliefs, but I have absolutely zero problem with that.
Again, what I have problems with is people who reject scientific evidence solely on the grounds of being incompatible with their antiquated religious beliefs.

More concretely, as it has been pointed out before, even the Vatican agrees that evolution is a fact and should be accepted as such, but instead of claiming selection is solely natural, they ascribe the selection stage of the evolutionary process to the will of God itself, thus ALTERING their religious belief so they can reconcile with reality.

Religion CAN be compatible with science.
Religion and science DO NOT have to be at odds.
But that requires religion to change alongside scientific progress.
A few religious people (i.e. "fundamentalists") are unable or unwilling to even subtly alter their beliefs in order to achieve that, instead choosing to reject reality altogether and live in an imaginary world where their beliefs are the incontrovertible and absolute truth.

So, again, the question was, why should anybody choose to reject reality and overwhelming evidence just to be able to hold on to fundamentalist beliefs that God created everything in 7 days, when you could very easily switch to the actual Vatican-sanctioned concept of theistic evolution (a.k.a. evolutionary creation) instead, requiring only a negligible adjustment of your beliefs ?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 23 2012 12:12 PM EDT

So, again, the question was, why should anybody choose to reject reality and overwhelming evidence just to be able to hold on to fundamentalist beliefs that God created everything in 7 days, when you could very easily switch to the actual Vatican-sanctioned concept of theistic evolution (a.k.a. evolutionary creation) instead, requiring only a negligible adjustment of your beliefs ?

And we're back to flawed, imperfect human reasoning trying to interpret the perfect word of God.

And by defining, being *wrong*.

Zenai August 23 2012 12:40 PM EDT

GL: It's Philosophical Ideology of Faith vs. Science what else do you expect? And as far as any fallacy that you continue to perceive, are you sure you are not projecting or in a "Pot calling the Kettle Black" circumstance here?

Gun: All I have seen you actually contribute to this thread is a troll attempt. *bravo* It was expected of you anyway.........

Sickone: You expect evidence from me and when I give you things to read as you have given me you refute it. Then attempt to repudiate me because I am leaning towards religion yet have said I believe in both. You claim that I should believe a way that I already do yet you have not seen it.....interesting. Are you trying to argue with me or yourself?

Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] August 23 2012 12:57 PM EDT

I've proved my posts aren't trolling within those very posts if you'd only look. ;) Heck went so far as linking King James. My asking for proof while pointing out the falsities in the asking might be trolling on some quantum level, but you sir can't prove you aren't trolling at this very moment.

Zenai August 23 2012 1:20 PM EDT

Ehhhh no but nice try Gun. Still though you make a point if you cannot refute or prove it then.....sounds like Religion, Science cannot truthfully refute the invisible man in the sky doesn't exist just like Religion cannot truthfully prove he does. So with this in mind what does it matter how much evidence either side provides? Links and Threads and Books and Hypothesis etc etc only shows what ppl think they know which is subject to change on both sides of the fence. At times Religion and Science agrees at other times they are the worst of enemies in their disagreements. What's new about the situation, only a bit more understanding in each school of thought since the last discussion/argument/debate/give it whatever name you like.

Aside from this my dear science heads I have seen the irrefutable evidence say certain terminal people will die yet they lived through their strong belief in faith. Also my religious heads I have seen terminal people who had a strong belief in faith still pass away. What does it prove? Nothing yet since we simply do not know enough about the human body and mind or spirit. It is something some are trying figure out right now and there is a million and one questions being asked and answered by both Science through testing Hypothesis and by Religion by explaining Faith in new ways.

As before I believe that both have something to offer and I will be open to both and make my decisions concerning them both by taking in all of the information I can understand so I can make an educated guess. Some things are irrefutable, as of right now you never know when we will surpass them or it. Like gravity or the sun rising in the morning I am not so foolish as to not recognize the truth when I see it or feel it but I believe their is more than just that to what we are able to guage with our perceptions augmented by technology or not.

Nehemiah August 23 2012 2:04 PM EDT


Hi, i have some real proof, that we are created by God ( the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - Matthew 28 : 19 ) :

this was about 7 years ago, my vision was poor, i couldnt see well, me and my Mother were in out kitchen talking about Jesus Christ, when she laid her hand on my shoulder, at that moment i felt the Holy Spirit descend upon me ( i felt it tangibly ).

Instantly, in less than a second both my eyes were healed by Jesus Christ, i have Perfect 20/20 Vision now, have had it ever since, nearly 7 years now, i have been on earth over 30 years now :D

check it out for yourself, if you need a healing of some kind, its there for us all through Jesus Christ :

Mark 16 : 17 - 18, Matthew 10 : 7 - 8, John 14 : 14.

some verses that will really help you get on the correct path :

Romans 3 : 23, Romans 6 : 23, Romans 10 : 9, Acts 2 : 38, Acts 3 : 1 - 16, John 3 : 16 :D

King James Version of the Bible is what i suggest, google it!

God Bless you all!

May Jesus Christ be Charitable unto you :D

Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] August 23 2012 2:35 PM EDT

Ha-ha trolled you.
Anne-who...Evidence matters in any case. If you accuse a man of murder you must at least try proving he was there. You would need fingerprints, genetics, and motive right? Which will replace links, threads, and books for this trial. Now, not saying this is the case, but what if you had none of those what so ever. You may have jumped to two sides duking it out in the court hearing already but the truth in this science is the police. Which has nothing to gain from the legal battle. Their job is only to supply evidence. Basically uninvolved with the court proceedings. What you are unknowingly doing is finding a man guilty without evidence, ignoring the police statements, then turning on them because they aren't yelling what you yell. Then coming to false conclusion about the men and women protecting you from the evils of man being in league with the defendant. Find this to be a pretty good representation of what has past and is predominately why you are getting so much aggro.
This court has come to deadlock because preconceived notions can ruin just about any argument. Bang, bang. Next case..... Nehemiah's tazer assault. Sorry my dear but if your sight did get better you'd notice we've been all over King James.
Now....your irrefutable evidence, two words that fecal season any plate, is not even placebo rank as your claim is wafer thin here-say to supplement a point that isn't being made. You'd make an awful detective if the defacto answer to what you can't explain is God. Religion is NOT explaining faith in new ways. Science is! To be fair I'd finally take you on faith if you're full on boil water with my toes shaolin. The churches of the world had 6 thousand plus years and billions of lives on record. Figured they have something over science at a tenth of the age and smerts. Nope. Science has to explain what is happening during these magical moments instead. Any triumph of the human spirit just cited is not God's kiss but will/mind. You know this, we know this, so don't make up an yet another alternative memory structure, as if witch doctors should be accepting Medicare, to suit this stubborn need to keep your higher power fantasy sacred and expect me to buy in and drop. Unless the price tag says free bonk.

Rubberduck[T] [Hell Blenders] August 23 2012 2:41 PM EDT

this thread is futility playing hide and seek with itself ;)

QBJohnnywas August 23 2012 2:57 PM EDT

Somebody tell me when this thread is finished. I'm staying in lurk-mode until then. Unless somebody can prove to me how God or Evolution brought us to chocolate body-paint.

Sickone August 23 2012 3:02 PM EDT

You expect evidence from me and when I give you things to read as you have given me you refute it.

No, I have not refuted anything.
Look again closer at exactly what I actually said.

I merely said it is irrelevant what a person believes as long as they behave like a scientist instead of a fundamentalist whenever trying to contribute to science... you know, a somewhat religious person doing regular scientific work regardless of their religious convictions (and altering them as needed if science proves them inaccurate).
I challenged you to find me an example of a fundamentalist advancing science on the basis of his religious beliefs primarily.

Science cannot truthfully refute the invisible man in the sky doesn't exist just like Religion cannot truthfully prove he does.

The same way religion #1 can't prove THEIR God is the only one nor can they prove any of the gods of religions #2 through #4567 don't exist.

Skepticism is the default rational setting - you believe what you see, or you believe if you have reason to trust the person telling you something, but you continuously seek proof to validate OR INVALIDATE your beliefs, and alter or renounce the beliefs that have been proven inaccurate by later observations.

When you have thousands of conflicting UNSUBSTANTIATED AND UNTESTABLE hypotheses, the logical course of action is to disregard them all AND LOOK FOR A BETTER EXPLANATION, not pick one at random and stick with it no matter what.

Aside from this my dear science heads I have seen the irrefutable evidence say certain terminal people will die yet they lived through their strong belief in faith. Also my religious heads I have seen terminal people who had a strong belief in faith still pass away. What does it prove? Nothing yet since we simply do not know enough about the human body and mind or spirit.

When a doctor says "you will die" he actually means "our previous experience indicates that this condition you're in is about 9x.yz% fatal, so there's a very good chance you will die".
People with absolutely no faith whatsoever manage to survive nearly impossible odds, and most people with strong faith in that position just flat out die anyway, and neither of them are significantly more or less likely to survive... but that's completely EXPECTED from a scientific viewpoint, yet flies in the face of religious beliefs.
There's absolutely nothing mystical about it, we're talking not yet well understood but statistically predictable human body mechanics, and no amount of faith or lack of faith will help nor hinder your recovery in a relevant fashion.
At best, religious belief is about as good as the placebo effect from a statistically relevant viewpoint.
On the other hand, science gets better and better at determining WHY some people die and why others survive (hint: it's not faith), so as time goes on, the odds of survival for any specific type of injury or disease KEEP GOING UP alongside advancements in medical SCIENCE and higher standards for patient care, yet religion does pretty much jack squat.

Like gravity or the sun rising in the morning I am not so foolish as to not recognize the truth when I see it or feel it but I believe their is more than just that to what we are able to guage with our perceptions augmented by technology or not.

It's funny you should say that, because we ACTUALLY KNOW MORE ABOUT EVOLUTION THAN WE KNOW ABOUT GRAVITY.
Yes, you read that correctly - we are way more certain about how and why evolution works than about how or why gravity works.
We do know both work just fine, and we have theories that describe how they WORK, but we don't understand WHY gravitation works the way it does, whereas we DO understand both how and why evolution works.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 23 2012 3:24 PM EDT

Natural selection baby! ;)

My wife loves chocolate. Religiously. Smearing myself in chocolate makes me more desitrable to her. Which increases my, chances, of intimate moments. Which lead to ofspring, which carry my line on.

Natural selection FTW!

Now, I'd theorise that;

1: All women love chocolate
2: Smearing myself in chocolate would make me more desirable to all women
3: I would then 'get more'

But alas, I have yet to put this theory to the test, and have no empirical evidence to support it.

I am too attached to monogamy, and my 'fruits', to attempt this perilous experiment.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 23 2012 3:31 PM EDT

Science cannot truthfully refute the invisible man in the sky doesn't exist just like Religion cannot truthfully prove he does.

Well, logic and reaosning can refute hat a specific invisible man in the sky doesn't exist.

So with this in mind what does it matter how much evidence either side provides?

Tonnes. There's many important questions, and evidence, observation and repition are key.

Aside from this my dear science heads I have seen the irrefutable evidence say certain terminal people will die yet they lived through their strong belief in faith.

I've seen science cure a man of both cancer and HIV. Clear of both.

Science. Stem cell transfer of a doner who is immune to the HIV virus.

Some things are irrefutable, as of right now you never know when we will surpass them or it. Like gravity or the sun rising in the morning I am not so foolish as to not recognize the truth when I see it or feel it

Becuase of observation and repitition. You observe the sun rising, and it does so day after day, for as long as you have observed it.

What observation or reptition can you site for any Religous belief?

None.

Is that because 'faith' is the antithesis of 'proof', as I have stated earlier.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 23 2012 3:33 PM EDT

And as far as any fallacy that you continue to perceive, are you sure you are not projecting or in a "Pot calling the Kettle Black" circumstance here?

For that to be true, you'd have to show me evidence of any ad homenien remark I've made to you.

I don't beleive I've debated 'you' instead of your arguement. But you're more than welcome to show me where.

But again, you'd shown little to no support or evidence for any of the statements you've made in this thread yet.

Zenai August 23 2012 3:46 PM EDT

Ha-ha trolled you.

Umm duh you troll everyone as if this was new to CBland.....*sighs* I sure wish some ADMIN would pull out the ban hammer on you......

Sickone: Reread what I posted before you additional unnecessary rebuttal. I rested in what I believed in which in truth has no true way of being proved either way by science or religion. In short your constant whining about irrefutable proof is nothing more than a built in mechanism to attempt to continue the conversation in order to find you a way to make you right.

Bottom line there is a TON of things we just cannot explain.

So stop freaking asking me for something that doesn't exist and may actually never be able to be proven. Even YOU have said this care to take your own advice?

GL: For some reason every since the ExBow thread you have managed to be on the opposite side of me in everything no matter what and have strove to discredit me and or any subject that I support in any way. Got a freaking problem with me? Care to take it to CMs instead of Forums?

Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] August 23 2012 3:46 PM EDT

Natural Selection would be an awesome gourmet chocolate brand.

Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] August 23 2012 3:54 PM EDT

The Cult of Beaker three are echoing each other. The ban hammer will have to wait for another thread. This is the student spray face thread rehashed. Sorry I went off in that last wall of text. I'll try and let this thread fizzle.

Zenai August 23 2012 4:07 PM EDT

Sorry I went off in that last wall of text. I'll try and let this thread fizzle.

No you are not nor will you ever be. The Troll in you is too strong for you to simply not do it in the first place. Lack of self control for a troll is a self defeating trait...........

Sickone August 23 2012 4:25 PM EDT

Sickone: Reread what I posted before you additional unnecessary rebuttal. I rested in what I believed in which in truth has no true way of being proved either way by science or religion. In short your constant whining about irrefutable proof is nothing more than a built in mechanism to attempt to continue the conversation in order to find you a way to make you right.

You said, and I quote:

"In fact I have seen many of the greatest contributors in the medical and scientific fields be religious rather than not.(There are a few listed in my previous links.)"

To which I replied:

"People who were religious or spiritual themselves that ended up discovering something does NOT mean religion itself is actually contributing anything to science.
Do you have any actual contribution that was based on RELIGIOUS ideas first, foremost, and almost exclusively, as opposed to merely discovered by religious people acting as bona fide scientists from the word go ?
If there's a concrete passage in one of your links pointing THAT out, please quote the relevant section in it."

Then you side-stepped the request:

"You expect evidence from me and when I give you things to read as you have given me you refute it. "

To which I further restated and clarified

"I have not refuted anything. Look again closer at exactly what I actually said. I merely said it is irrelevant what a person believes as long as they behave like a scientist instead of a fundamentalist whenever trying to contribute to science [...] I challenged you to find me an example of a fundamentalist advancing science on the basis of his religious beliefs primarily."


And you're still evading the important questions.

How exactly has RELIGION (as opposed to religious people) contributed to the advancement of science ? You don't even have to conclusively prove it, JUST GIVE A FEW EXAMPLES. If you want, I have plenty of examples to give you about how religion has impeded scientific progress, and continues to do so even this day and age.

Religion and science may not have a proof for the existence or nonexistence of a deity, but WE HAVE OVERWHELMING PROOF for the validity of modern theories of evolution, to the point where even the Vatican agrees that evolution is a factual scientific theory, not a haphazard hypothesis.
How can any rational person still claim evolution is wrong and the story of Genesis from the bible is the literal truth (as opposed to a metaphor) ?

AGAIN, I am not denying that religious people have made contributions to science, but they did so IN SPITE of their religious beliefs, not BECAUSE of their religious beliefs.

Sickone August 24 2012 3:08 AM EDT

To even further clarify and restate the issue :
* this is not a debate, I am not interested in "winning" the argument over an unconvinced opponent ; it is a discussion, and I am trying to get to the bottom of why some people still believe things even when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary
* I am not trying to prove nor disprove the existence of God, I am not even trying to get you to stop believing in God if you do, heck, I am not even trying to say everything about religions is wrong either ; I am merely saying that it is unreasonable to hold on to the LETTER of some section of a religious text (as opposed to the spirit of it) when the letter of that section of the text was proven wrong
* this is NOT a discussion about scientific evolution, abiogenesis, cosmology and science in general vs fundamentalist creationism ; this is a discussion about ANY type of evolution (including THEISTIC evolution) vs fundamentalist creationism

Sickone August 25 2012 3:10 AM EDT

Oh, well, I guess we either have no actual fundamentalist creationists around, or they got too upset.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] August 26 2012 12:18 PM EDT

Actual Fundamentalist Creationists don't believe in the interwebs. But they make great quilts.

Lochnivar August 26 2012 12:31 PM EDT

Actual Fundamentalist Creationists don't believe in the interwebs.

That surprises me. If there is one thing that screams 'intelligent design' it is the content of the interwebs.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 26 2012 3:27 PM EDT

But, the internet is for <un-pg reference to Avenue Q>.

Sickone August 26 2012 4:39 PM EDT

But they make great quilts.

I'm going to interpret that in the most perverse way possible and go "eww, who would want a quilt made out of a fundamentalist?"
:)

Zenai August 26 2012 7:23 PM EDT

Disclaimer: I am only making a statement on what I believe. I do not expect to nor will I have another back and forth with anyone in this so called "Discussion".

I am trying to get to the bottom of why some people still believe things even when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The basic tenant of Religion, of any type, is Faith. Now take this thought and look at it from a believer's standpoint. Your overwhelming evidence can actually bolster belief in the religious. Thinking critically(from a Deity believer's standpoint): What is time to God? How do you suggest you explain with science that you can definitely say that a day to God = "X" amount of time to us humans or vice versa? Is the reason God does not strike you down when you blaspheme because he works at his leisure/schedule and not yours?

Don't get me wrong I do not propose that I am a Fundamentalist. Although before you used "Creationist" which is different from a "Fundamentalist". This does not mean they are automatically a Creationist or vice versa when you mention one label or the other. They do not have to be connected in any way in order to function. At any rate I do think more often than not they do have one thing right by an old military cliche: K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid). Sometimes with all of the information that we have available we tend to become disconnected with the world rather than the opposite.

I understand there are things we need as a species in order to survive like advancements in technology and medicine. However I believe there needs to be a balance of Science and Religion. As many questions science ask of religion so too can religion ask of science. I feel both have a place and shouldn't impede on the other.

Finally I have to say this: Your want for PROOF does not fall in line with an actual want for understanding. Religion has a PROOF of its own, and has always had it, in the form of faith and prayer being answered. Which can be taken at face value or dismissed due to saying they are simply stubborn. You might say Scientifically it does not compute. All critically thinking people KNOW this so stop saying it, it really does not apply anyway.(Other than to be irritating) We are talking about Faith in a certain Theologistic Mindset. The most you can truly hope is to apply Philosophy to see if you can gain an understanding of what you are looking for in that section of the religious community.

PS:

Sickone: The reason that some just refuse to answer you is that you tear any answers apart, discredit the poster and change the standpoint to reflect your own.
Alternate Translation: On certain subjects you simply don't play well with others.
GL: We talked in CMs and have cleared most things up as far as how I think and believe. If you want to share I have no problems with it.
Gun: ............

Sickone August 26 2012 10:01 PM EDT

Religion has a PROOF of its own, and has always had it, in the form of faith and prayer being answered.

Has faith and prayer ever grown back a lost limb, even one single time, in the entire history of mankind ? Why not ? Why would faith and prayer be able to help with other sickness and injury, just not that ? What does God have against devout and faithful amputees ?
Or why does AA and other similar "anonymous" faith-based anti-addiction programs have a success rate that's pretty much on par with just deciding to quit in absence of any faith in a higher power whatsoever ?
Do faithful people get divorced at a different rate than non-religious ones ? No, they don't. They get divorced just as often, in spite of the claims that God has blessed their union, and that what God has put together no man should tear asunder.

Faith and prayer is answered at about the same rate as any unbeliever's wishful thinking, so we're talking no noticeable distinction from just pure chance happening.
So, what kind of proof is that again ? It's no proof at all.
It's about the same amount of proof as me telling myself I can see the future if I happen to think about what will happen next (while ignoring the thousand times I was thinking of something but it hasn't happened).

Sure, religion helps you cope, and religious people have a slightly better chance of reintegrating into society after a traumatic event, but that's about it. But that's not faith and prayer either, that's the love and support given by the community, which CAN be given even without faith and prayer.

However I believe there needs to be a balance of Science and Religion. As many questions science ask of religion so too can religion ask of science. I feel both have a place and shouldn't impede on the other.

But here's the rub, we're not ACTUALLY talking about religion in that specific case, we're talking about morality.
Religion (well, any abrahmic religion) asserts that morality is not an innate human quality, but that it is a teaching of a divinely inspired nature passed down through its holy books, and it makes that assertion as usual without any actual proof.
Religion claims morality is absolute and timeless, while at the same time providing proof of the exact opposite in its very holy texts, by presenting a morality which is different from the one we accept today in some key points.
Come to think of it, is the Bible NOT full of people who defy the will of God ? And is it not full of people who act out of their own accord without divine prompting, even breaking their society's laws ? And are their actions NOT COMMENDED instead of blamed ? Does not God himself rename Jacob as Israel as a recognition for him prevailing in an argument against God (and other things, but that one too) ?
So, is morality REALLY a divinely-inspired teaching, or is morality actually something innately human ? I think it is pretty clear it is innate, even if only partially.
There CAN be morality without religion. There can be morality based solely on reason and logic. And that morality can temper science just as well, and actually probably much better than religion, because religion is very slow to adapt, whereas reason and logic can be very fast.

Yes, science and religion can coexist, but science doesn't need religion, it needs morality, and you don't need religion for morality.

Zenai August 26 2012 10:10 PM EDT

Disclaimer: I am only making a statement on what I believe. I do not expect to nor will I have another back and forth with anyone in this so called "Discussion".

Was this part NOT read and understood?

Sickone August 26 2012 10:13 PM EDT

I merely expressed my opinions too, and I don't mind a back and forth, but if you don't want to, I'm not forcing you to answer.

Sickone August 26 2012 10:16 PM EDT

Well, in a roundabout way, I suppose I got my answer to that question of why people keep believing something even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
And the answer seems to be a combination of comfort given by their own self-delusions and the difficulty of creating a different mechanism of coping with a harsh reality.

Zenai August 26 2012 10:56 PM EDT

Sickone: The reason that some just refuse to answer you is that you tear any answers apart, discredit the poster and change the standpoint to reflect your own.

Case in point.

Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] August 26 2012 11:20 PM EDT

Know what you need?

Zenai August 26 2012 11:43 PM EDT

Gun: ............

Sickone August 27 2012 1:47 AM EDT

Sickone: The reason that some just refuse to answer you is that you tear any answers apart, discredit the poster and change the standpoint to reflect your own.

So, should I just leave answers that do not reflect reality as we know it alone, instead of tearing them apart logically ? Receiving such answers and leaving them alone is really not noticeably better than receiving no answers at all in the first place, if you ask me.
And other than arguing about the deficiencies of the answer itself, I usually try to keep any other discreditation to a minimum as much as possible. I might slip up every now and then, I guess.
Not completely sure what you mean by that last one though, or why is it necessarily a bad thing at all.

Zenai August 27 2012 2:09 AM EDT

Disclaimer: I am only making a statement on what I believe. I do not expect to nor will I have another back and forth with anyone in this so called "Discussion".

Really you did NOT get it the first two times? Maybe.....just maybe you will get it the third time. Maybe it will be the charm.

Sickone August 27 2012 2:47 AM EDT

The trick to not having a discussion when you don't want to have one is to not answer and not ask questions.
The trick to having a discussion when you want to have one is to answer and ask questions.
;)

Zenai August 27 2012 3:21 AM EDT

Unless it is rhetorical?

Sickone August 27 2012 3:56 AM EDT

Regardless of whether it's rhetorical or not ;)

Zenai August 27 2012 4:36 AM EDT

*Shakes head and sighs while walking away*

TheHatchetman August 27 2012 11:12 AM EDT

I believe that a "God" or "Gods" of some sort created the universe. Proof of this is in that it exists. Much like CB serves as proof that Jonathan exists...

However, Jon has not logged in in at least a twenty-third of CB's existence... Earth has been around 4.54 billion or so years (I will counter anyone's argument to this with the word "fossil."). One twenty-third of that is roughly 197.4 million years. Humans have been around about a half a million years. This means God "logged off" for the last time roughly 196.9 million years before we came along.

Eat science!

Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] August 27 2012 12:50 PM EDT

That was tasty. +1.21 TH
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003JTC">Any "evolution is false" creationists around here?</a>