View Full Version : Do You Believe in a God?
redeyedtreefrog
07-Nov-09, 22:54
By God, I mean conscious or at one point conscious higher power who created life on this planet and has any interest in the human race, and that can punish or reward humans based on their moral choices.
Dont ask for a Dont Know option, if you are unsure as to the existence of a God then you have no belief in it, therefore no.
No i don't believe in god.
ShelleyCowie
07-Nov-09, 23:01
Its a big no from me! But i dont judge people who do. My mum is christian and 2 of her sisters are Ministers. My OH's family are religous too but he isn't.
If people do believe in God then thats ok, but i just dont.
Its a big no from me! But i dont judge people who do. My mum is christian and 2 of her sisters are Ministers. My OH's family are religous too but he isn't.
If people do believe in God then thats ok, but i just dont.
I am the same each to their own. As long as i am not preached to.
The thing that really gets on my nerves is when you get people knocking at your door preaching.
redeyedtreefrog
07-Nov-09, 23:13
Its a big no from me! But i dont judge people who do. My mum is christian and 2 of her sisters are Ministers. My OH's family are religous too but he isn't.
If people do believe in God then thats ok, but i just dont.
I agree with you, but i cant stand it when people dont get their facts right. i got a leaflet from the Jehovas Witnesses saying evolution was "chance" and "an accident". Shame I wasnt there at the time they delivered it.
ShelleyCowie
07-Nov-09, 23:16
I agree with you, but i cant stand it when people dont get their facts right. i got a leaflet from the Jehovas Witnesses saying evolution was "chance" and "an accident". Shame I wasnt there at the time they delivered it.
They came to my door earlier this year. I told them i wasnt interested, they still didnt leave. I went to close the door as i was in the middle of changing my sons nappy and they put their foot in the door. They soon ran off when my OH came down the stairs! [evil]
I also dont like when people try to "force" their beliefs on me. If i wanted to believe something i would do it on my own free will!
My religion is legally actually classed as "Jedi" ;)
[quote=ShelleyBain;617641]They came to my door earlier this year. I told them i wasnt interested, they still didnt leave. I went to close the door as i was in the middle of changing my sons nappy and they put their foot in the door. They soon ran off when my OH came down the stairs! [evil]
I also dont like when people try to "force" their beliefs on me. If i wanted to believe something i would do it on my own free will!
My religion is legally actually classed as "Jedi" ;)[/quote
]My religion is legally actually classed as "Jedi"
You have been watching question time haven't you.:lol:
__________________
I have The Lord Jesus Christ in my life for now and forever and, for that, I'm grateful.
I know of a few people on here, who know my real name (so obviously know me as a person) and I could well imagine their reaction to my post. :roll::roll: ! ! ! ! I think it may give them something to talk about come Monday morning at work ............ eh ??
As previously said though, on this thread, everyone to themselves, and everyone is more than entitled to an opinion of their own.....
If you do or if you don't have a Faith (of any kind ??) - I've no bother with either - cos I ain't gonna start preaching; so dinna worry :D !!!
I treat people the way I find them, and how they treat me and mine back in return is what counts, not what their religion may or may not be - kindness, in my book, is what we should base others on.
God Bless X
I agree with you, but i cant stand it when people dont get their facts right. i got a leaflet from the Jehovas Witnesses saying evolution was "chance" and "an accident". Shame I wasnt there at the time they delivered it.
Yes, I believe in God.
Perhaps you could quote some of the facts from the JW leaflet that you think are wrong? Along these lines, there was a creation v evolution talk in Wick Baptist Church last winter which covered a lot of this material.
Invisible
07-Nov-09, 23:32
I'm a believer
redeyedtreefrog
07-Nov-09, 23:33
Perhaps you could quote some of the facts from the JW leaflet that you think are wrong?
Binned the leaflet a while ago, but the general jist of it was that evolution is a chance process, which is untrue. Quite clearly, an animal will adapt it's body to it's surroundings to make itself actually survive. Not chance at all.
Oh, by the way, I'm not, a Jehovvah's Witness !! (Good greif, I canna spell hid anyway, even if I were one !!!! ) :lol::lol:
I'm a Protestant, of the Christian variety, and proud o' it too !!!!
Binned the leaflet a while ago, but the general jist of it was that evolution is a chance process, which is untrue. Quite clearly, an animal will adapt it's body to it's surroundings to make itself actually survive. Not chance at all.
That's just adapting, not a new species. I think you may find that the chance they are referring to in their leaflet is that concerned with getting a protein molecule, say, from a bunch of amino acids. That kind of thing.
Where is the option for "sometimes"?
God is not the problem... it's the religon's all based around control...
Angel
changilass
07-Nov-09, 23:45
I believe in something but it most certainly doesn't come within your definition.
I would believe in a god if I could see a point in it.
yes, i believe. I love God, and I know God loves me. sometimes I get a little lost and loose hope, and when it looks really bleak my faith is what picks me up again. I dont have a problem with others faith, I hope that other dont have a problem with mine.
one of my fav. verse is this:
But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
i really do try to live by this, and its amazing how hard it is at times. im not perfect, but its a good rule of thumb, and a great guide line.
but saying that my fav. verse in the bible is.........
6:11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
6:13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
those three verses mean a lot to me and have done since i first read them at age 17.
it may be because im from the bible belt and have been brought up with God as a part of my everyday life.
But, I am happier for it. I am content. and at the end of the day im still standing.
and I wish that for everyone, even if it is hard at times.
Don't believe in god. i went to sunday school and know the christain stories but i choose not to believe in it and take it as gospel.
Too much of life is to chance and opportiunitys. The biggest factor of being a non-believer is that how would a god let someone suffer the way my dad did.
I had a interesting discussion with a friend that believes that we are the way we are through genes. i think we are the way we are through genes, the environment we grow up in and life experiences. i've had a few expereinces that have changed me.
I don't think god and religion have much place in how we live our lives now. It's how we live our life that counts not what religion we follow. ;)
But then again thats not what you were asking! ;)
No, it's an utterly ridiculous concept
Scorpio12thNov
08-Nov-09, 00:36
I believe God is the Sun. With it's energy, we are who we are today. Without it's energy, we're nothing...
Bobinovich
08-Nov-09, 01:17
I don't think god and religion have much place in how we live our lives now. It's how we live our life that counts not what religion we follow.
Have to agree. Like many here I'm not a believer myself but have no problem with others if they choose to believe, so long as they don't try and preach their beliefs to me.
I'm also against religion being 'forced' upon todays youngsters - school services (no real choice but to attend), Cub Scouts (part & parcel if they want to enjoy the rest on offer) etc. IMO most are too young to understand what religion is about. My two have questioned why I don't believe, yet when I ask them if they do they are undecided. It's a similar situation to Santa and the Tooth Fairy - they choose to believe because otherwise they may lose out on extra Christmas presents and tooth money!
Yes I am a believer, but have had problems with family members who are christians of the born again type and feel the need to thrust their beliefs down everyones throats, like it or lump it. I tell them in order to be born again one must have lost their faith, and I never have, although it has been tried to distraction many times in my life.
"attending church doesn`t make one a Christian, any more than standing in a garage would make one a car".
i love your post poppet! going to church does not make you a Christian..in fact some of the most unchristian people i have ever met were the most upstanding of church goers! *G*
faith is simply that.. faith.
although, i have been baptised and saved, ive never lost my faith either.
however, i am raising my children to believe in God, and as they grow older if they decided dif. while i will be upset, what can you do?
anyway, getting off subject... personally, ive stood in many garages.. even slept in one once in my youth.. but nope never turned into a car!
I do not believe in a god. Such a belief is completely illogical.
Religion. Giving people hope in a world torn apart by religion. :(
Religion. Giving people hope in a world torn apart by religion. :(
People can delude themselves with the illusion of hope, but at the end of the day it's still an illusion.
ShelleyCowie
08-Nov-09, 11:51
It's a similar situation to Santa and the Tooth Fairy - they choose to believe because otherwise they may lose out on extra Christmas presents and tooth money!
Santa and the Tooth Fairy are real though!!! Santa is a nice guy. I still get presents from him, fair enough his writing is very similar to my mums but im 21 years old and i still believe! ;)
Great posts brandy,just a straight forward yes for me though.:)
i dont believe although i would really like to think there is something more i certainly dont believe in the christian view of God. I dont mind if people are religious or not but what really gets on my nerves is religious people who gurn because people have a go at them for believing in God and then turn round and have a go at me because i dont believe i mean hypocryts or what.
By God, I mean conscious or at one point conscious higher power who created life on this planet and has any interest in the human race, and that can punish or reward humans based on their moral choices.
Dont ask for a Dont Know option, if you are unsure as to the existence of a God then you have no belief in it, therefore no.
You've offered an interesting definition of God. Following what you have said I have to vote 'no', I don't believe in that kind of god. As a Christian for me God in not a punisher or rewarder of adherence to a moral code.
I agree with you, but i cant stand it when people dont get their facts right. i got a leaflet from the Jehovas Witnesses saying evolution was "chance" and "an accident". Shame I wasnt there at the time they delivered it.
I think that you must have mis-understood something. Evolution is just that: 'chance' and 'accident'. It is by chance or by accident that genes don't replicate properly and end up producing a new form of organizism in the offspring. If this subsequent generation survives better than the parent then the species keeps going.
I believe in Nature.
Oh Crayola......have you just admitted you are really a Cabbage Patch Doll[lol]
redeyedtreefrog
08-Nov-09, 17:26
I think that you must have mis-understood something. Evolution is just that: 'chance' and 'accident'. It is by chance or by accident that genes don't replicate properly and end up producing a new form of organizism in the offspring. If this subsequent generation survives better than the parent then the species keeps going.
Sorry should've said that it said in the leaflet that there was a slim chance, highly unlikely. The truth is that it happens frequently, not rarely.
Religion. Giving people hope in a world torn apart by religion. :(
The question was about God, not religion. Religion is a man-made method of dividing people.
I think that you must have mis-understood something. Evolution is just that: 'chance' and 'accident'. It is by chance or by accident that genes don't replicate properly and end up producing a new form of organizism in the offspring. If this subsequent generation survives better than the parent then the species keeps going.
That isn't entirely true. There is "chance" and "accident" involved in evolution, but precisely what you said in your last sentence shows that it isn't simply "chance" and "accident". Survival of the fittest. That isn't "chance".
weeboyagee
08-Nov-09, 18:06
No i don't believe in god.
The question was do you believe in A GOD? I voted no. Not a god. I believe in God, capital G and the one and only. The question didn't address that belief.
WBG :cool:
The question was weighted, but I think that you should have voted yes all the same.
It's a similar situation to Santa and the Tooth Fairy - they choose to believe because otherwise they may lose out on extra Christmas presents and tooth money!
Different carrot and stick with religion, them being everlasting life or eternal damnation, what a mind job! [lol]
The question was do you believe in A GOD? I voted no. Not a god. I believe in God, capital G and the one and only. The question didn't address that belief.
WBG :cool:
Ok then.
I do not believe in a god or god does that clear things up for you.:roll:;)
NickInTheNorth
08-Nov-09, 18:20
That isn't entirely true. There is "chance" and "accident" involved in evolution, but precisely what you said in your last sentence shows that it isn't simply "chance" and "accident". Survival of the fittest. That isn't "chance".
The survival of the fittest is all about chance.
The chance of a particular mutation occurring in the right location at the right time to enable the owner of that changed characteristic the chance to survive. There are so many imponderables that all survival of any living organism is a totally random chance.
Far more organisms die without reproducing than ever survive to pass on their unique genes.
The survival of the fittest is all about chance.
The chance of a particular mutation occurring in the right location at the right time to enable the owner of that changed characteristic the chance to survive. There are so many imponderables that all survival of any living organism is a totally random chance.
Far more organisms die without reproducing than ever survive to pass on their unique genes.
There is nothing about natural selection that involves chance. If the mutation (that occurs randomly) contributes to the survival of the species then the mutation will be passed on, it is as simple as that.
weeboyagee
08-Nov-09, 18:25
Ok then.
I do not believe in a god or god does that clear things up for you.
Nah - you missed out the capital G. :eyes
WBG :cool:
Lavenderblue2
08-Nov-09, 18:39
Yes, I believe in God.
Nah - you missed out the capital G. :eyes
WBG :cool:
Seen as i do not believe in either it does not warrant a capital G[smirk]
God and religion go together. I'm not a religious person but the only one that comes close is humainism. Even that i do not fully agree with as i do believe that there is life after death as i have sensed spirits and know that some people when they die become stuck/tied to the earth. But that is a diferent topic ;)
Yes I am a believer, but have had problems with family members who are christians of the born again type and feel the need to thrust their beliefs down everyones throats, like it or lump it. I tell them in order to be born again one must have lost their faith, and I never have, although it has been tried to distraction many times in my life.
"attending church doesn`t make one a Christian, any more than standing in a garage would make one a car".
Agree with u ,poppet...well said.;)
The question was do you believe in A GOD? I voted no. Not a god. I believe in God, capital G and the one and only. The question didn't address that belief.
WBG :cool:
Well it seems your god did not grant you the ability to answer questions properly. The question was "Do you believe in a god?" (note no capitalization is necessary their) and you have clearly said that you do. Whether you consider your god to be greater than that of the Hindi/Islamic/Jewish faith, doesn't matter: the answer is still yes. Do you believe in a god? Yes, you believe in the Christian god.
Nah - you missed out the capital G. :eyes
WBG :cool:
Not needed. Grammar is an amazing thing. Capital "g" required their.
The survival of the fittest is all about chance.
The chance of a particular mutation occurring in the right location at the right time to enable the owner of that changed characteristic the chance to survive. There are so many imponderables that all survival of any living organism is a totally random chance.
Far more organisms die without reproducing than ever survive to pass on their unique genes.
Rheghead gave a very good reply, so I'm just going to simply say: no, you're wrong there.
Seen as i do not believe in either it does not warrant a capital G[smirk]
It's really not about belief, it's more a matter of grammatical correctness.
Cedric Farthsbottom III
08-Nov-09, 20:19
No I don't believe in God.My mothers family were close and loving.My Dads family were church goers,I was baptised outwith my mothers wishes.My Dad left us,he's dead and not remembered.His God has got him now so he will be alright.I won't criticise peoples faith for that is for the individual.For me I have a close and loving family,I'm happy.:)
Well it seems your god did not grant you the ability to answer questions properly. The question was "Do you believe in a god?" (note no capitalization is necessary their) and you have clearly said that you do. Whether you consider your god to be greater than that of the Hindi/Islamic/Jewish faith, doesn't matter: the answer is still yes. Do you believe in a god? Yes, you believe in the Christian god.
What, O first year student of Physics, made you think WBG believes in a Christian God?......[lol]
It's really about belief, it's more a matter of grammatical correctness.
If i dot not recognise a god, then whether it is grammatically correct or not does not matter to me. :D
I do know that all names begin with a capital letter.:roll:
There are far too many people on the Org who are too quick to pick others up on there ability to spell. There are a lot of people out there who cannot, as they are either dyslexic or just cannot read or spell at all, or not very well.
Sorry for going off subject, but this type of thing has been getting on my nerves for quite some time now.[mad]
NickInTheNorth
08-Nov-09, 20:22
There is nothing about natural selection that involves chance. If the mutation (that occurs randomly) contributes to the survival of the species then the mutation will be passed on, it is as simple as that.
I'm not disputing that a mutation that contributes to the survival of the species will be passed - if the organism lives to reproduce.
I am simply stating that many more potentially beneficial mutations die out without being passed on to future generations because the individual organism with the mutation dies before reproducing. That is down to random chance, struck be lightning, eaten by a predator, die of disease, take your pick. I don't have a copy of The Origin of Species to hand, but I do remember that Darwin makes just that point.
So the statement that evolution is down to chance is equally as true as the statement that it is not. It simply depends upon the scale of the picture you choose to look at.
There is nothing about natural selection that involves chance. If the mutation (that occurs randomly) contributes to the survival of the species then the mutation will be passed on, it is as simple as that.
Natural selection is about survival.
But the chance production of a new organism and its unfolding to see if it is viable is what evolution is really about. Survival of a new fittest is only possible because of the chance mutation of a gene.
What, O first year student of Physics, made you think WBG believes in a Christian God?......
Well the chances are he is referring to the Christian god. He wasn't talking about Hinduism as Hinduism has many gods; he probably isn't Muslim as most Muslims I know don't refer to "God", they refer to "Allah"; and living in Caithness as I think he does, he is probably not Jewish.
If i dot not recognise a god, then whether it is grammatically correct or not does not matter to me.
I do know that all names begin with a capital letter.
There are far too many people on the Org who are too quick to pick others up on there ability to spell. There are a lot of people out there who cannot, as they are either dyslexic or just cannot read or spell at all, or not very well.
Sorry for going off subject, but this type of thing has been getting on my nerves for quite some time now.
I don't know if that was aimed at me or not, but I was not intending to mock you or be an arse about your grammar, I was merely pointing out that WBG's insistence that god have a capital "g" is grammatically incorrect.
Natural selection is about survival.
But the chance production of a new organism and its unfolding to see if it is viable is what evolution is really about. Survival of a new fittest is only possible because of the chance mutation of a gene.
There is no 'chance' production of new organisms, mutations do occur, that is a certainty. Where and when they are occur in DNA is a random event.
I am simply stating that many more potentially beneficial mutations die out without being passed on to future generations because the individual organism with the mutation dies before reproducing.
Nature cares not for what is potentially benefical. If it is beneficial then it is beneficial, if it's not then then it's not. There is nothing left to chance there. :)
If I'll only make you a cup of tea if you can throw a double 6 with some dice and you can have as many throws as you want. I think you'll find that it is a certainty that you will get your cuppa.
NickInTheNorth
08-Nov-09, 20:44
If the god being referred to is God then capital G is required to be grammatically correct. At least according to the OED which has always been fairly authoritative.
Proper nouns and all that :)
Other gods don't require the capital as in other cases it is not a proper noun.
NickInTheNorth
08-Nov-09, 20:47
Nature cares not for what is potentially benefical. If it is beneficial then it is beneficial, if it's not then then it's not. There is nothing left to chance there. :)
But a mutation can be of demonstrable benefit to the individual organism, and yet not be passed on as an evolutionary change simply because the individual organism fails to reproduce.:confused
Well the chances are he is referring to the Christian god. He wasn't talking about Hinduism as Hinduism has many gods; he probably isn't Muslim as most Muslims I know don't refer to "God", they refer to "Allah"; and living in Caithness as I think he does, he is probably not Jewish.
I don't know if that was aimed at me or not, but I was not intending to mock you or be an arse about your grammar, I was merely pointing out that WBG's insistence that god have a capital "g" is grammatically incorrect.
No it was not aimed at you.
This just brought on a rant about certain people on here, who find great pleasure in pulling others down less fortunate than themselves in the brains department.
But a mutation can be of demonstrable benefit to the individual organism, and yet not be passed on as an evolutionary change simply because the individual organism fails to reproduce.:confused
Your point falls down when you mentioned individual.:)
Yes I believe in God and have been a Christian for many years but respect those who don't really want to know and feel some sadness that they will never know the true meaning of peace!
If the god being referred to is God then capital G is required to be grammatically correct. At least according to the OED which has always been fairly authoritative.
Proper nouns and all that :)
Other gods don't require the capital as in other cases it is not a proper noun.
A god is a thing. A concept. When referring to the Christian god I do not need to capitalize "god" because I am talking about an object - it's the same as if I am talking about the Christian teacup. I don't need to capitalize teacup. If, however, I say "Therefore God created man" the capitalization is necessary because I am using the word as a proper noun - I am talking about a person/being called "God". You're right, the OED is authoritative, but you still need to read it properly.
Yes I believe in God and have been a Christian for many years but respect those who don't really want to know and feel some sadness that they will never know the true meaning of peace!
And this is why I hate a lot of Christians. Do you not comprehend how insulting you sound?
And this is why I hate a lot of Christians. Do you not comprehend how insulting you sound?
You hate a lot of Christians do you? What does that make you? Do you actually comprehend how idiotic you sound. You IMHO need to grow up[disgust]
And this is why I hate a lot of Christians. Do you not comprehend how insulting you sound?
Quite a strong use of the word 'hate' Alan. :eek:
Instead of hating them, learn to love them-it'll annoy the hell out of them. [lol]
Yes I believe in God and have been a Christian for many years but respect those who don't really want to know and feel some sadness that they will never know the true meaning of peace!
And what do you base this statement on please.
And this is why I hate a lot of Christians. Do you not comprehend how insulting you sound?
I'm never insulted by christians but I know that some christians are insulted by the progress towards secularism and evidence based rationality. Speaking for myself, I need good firm evidence for my beliefs. Nothing more basic than that. It is the difference between keeping your eyes wide openand walking around freely and that of looking through a prism with blinkers and wearing your chains for Christ.
NickInTheNorth
08-Nov-09, 21:35
Your point falls down when you mentioned individual.:)
Any mutation that is of benefit to a species must be of benefit to the individual too.
Any mutation that is of benefit to a species must be of benefit to the individual too.
So if an individual organism that carries a beneficial mutation is killed before it has the chance to reproduce means that the mutation is lost? What about the others that carry it that do survive and pass it on?
NickInTheNorth
08-Nov-09, 21:39
The question was do you believe in A GOD? I voted no. Not a god. I believe in God, capital G and the one and only. The question didn't address that belief.
WBG :cool:
Alan16
The above is the direct quote that you state does not require the capital G.
Res ipsa loquitur
weeboyagee
08-Nov-09, 21:46
Well it seems your god did not grant you the ability to answer questions properly. The question was "Do you believe in a god?" (note no capitalization is necessary their) and you have clearly said that you do. Whether you consider your god to be greater than that of the Hindi/Islamic/Jewish faith, doesn't matter: the answer is still yes. Do you believe in a god? Yes, you believe in the Christian god. (Ref capital G) ... Not needed. Grammar is an amazing thing. Capital "g" required their.
Exodus 20:1 Thou shalt have no other gods before me
God is the only one true God.
Definition of a proper noun: nouns name people, places, and things. Every noun can further be classified as common or proper. A proper noun has two distinctive features: 1) it will name a specific, usually a one-of-a-kind, item, and 2) it will begin with a capital letter no matter where it occurs in a sentence.
Since God is the only one true God, the reference begins with a capital. Since the question considers other gods, the question in the same way references that they exist in order to believe in them. Since I believe in one true God, not any indiscriminant god, the question is therefore not relevant and I can't vote yes. Maybe one day your eyes will be opened to that.
Reference the term "grammar" - a wee lesson, "There" indicates a place as in, "I live here not there." It is the opposite of "here." "Their" is the possessive of "they", as in "They live there but it isn't their house."
WBG :cool:
NickInTheNorth
08-Nov-09, 21:49
So if an individual organism that carries a beneficial mutation is killed before it has the chance to reproduce means that the mutation is lost? What about the others that carry it that do survive and pass it on?
If the mutation is unique to the individual, yes, so for example a mutation in say an elephant calf (almost unheard of to experience multiple births) then if the individual dies without reproducing then that potential benefit to the species will be lost.
If the mutation is in an organism in which the reproduction is on a larger scale - say a cod which is capable of producing millions of eggs in a single spawning then the odds of that mutation being lost are smaller, but not impossible.
weeboyagee
08-Nov-09, 21:54
And this is why I hate a lot of Christians. Do you not comprehend how insulting you sound?
Do you comprehend how insulting you sound when you a) fail to understand through your own lack of comprehension and b) teach me a lesson in grammar and fail to realise your own inabilities with the same subject matter?
People like you Alan16 fed people to the lions centuries ago. But you know what - here is the wonderful 11th commandment which, despite your hatred towards Christians, allows them to see past that - John 13:34
WBG :cool:
If the mutation is unique to the individual, yes, so for example a mutation in say an elephant calf (almost unheard of to experience multiple births) then if the individual dies without reproducing then that potential benefit to the species will be lost.
And that mutation is lost because it wasn't causal to its survival. It just gets binned with all the rest, it wasn't beneficial. Like I said before, there is no potentially beneficial mutations there are only survivors and failures, winners and losers.
weeboyagee
08-Nov-09, 22:10
It is the difference between keeping your eyes wide open and walking around freely and that of looking through a prism with blinkers and wearing your chains for Christ.
Sorry Rheggers, had to laugh at that one - wondered why I was slowing down in old age - chains getting heavier and all that ! :lol:
WBG :cool:
redeyedtreefrog
08-Nov-09, 22:11
Well it seems your god did not grant you the ability to answer questions properly. The question was "Do you believe in a god?" (note no capitalization is necessary their) and you have clearly said that you do. Whether you consider your god to be greater than that of the Hindi/Islamic/Jewish faith, doesn't matter: the answer is still yes. Do you believe in a god? Yes, you believe in the Christian god.
Not needed. Grammar is an amazing thing. Capital "g" required their.
Rheghead gave a very good reply, so I'm just going to simply say: no, you're wrong there.
Anyone else noticing the irony in the grammar lesson?
Sorry Rheggers, had to laugh at that one - wondered why I was slowing down in old age - chains getting heavier and all that !
WBG :cool:
Probably answers the observation of why the age of the typical cross section of congregation is of the older type. Last throes of doubt and desperation? :confused :lol:
Sorry Rheggers, had to laugh at that one - wondered why I was slowing down in old age - chains getting heavier and all that ! :lol:
WBG :cool:
Sorry but your post brought this image to mind.
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd225/pinklipspinkkisses/images.jpg
weeboyagee
08-Nov-09, 22:34
Sorry but your post brought this image to mind.
Aye - and there's (or is that "theirs"??? :rolleyes:) many a time I feel like that :lol:
WBG :cool:
Oh dear, I answered yes, but maybe I should've answered no! Grammar is such a tricky subject! ;)
Quite a strong use of the word 'hate' Alan.
Instead of hating them, learn to love them-it'll annoy the hell out of them.
Hate is just a word. The strength you choose to assign to it is up to you. If people want to say that they have sympathy for me, then I will say that I hate them, because I find it very very insulting.
You hate a lot of Christians do you? What does that make you? Do you actually comprehend how idiotic you sound. You IMHO need to grow up.
I hate Christians that feel sympathy for me because I am an atheist. What that makes me does not bother me in the slightest.
The question was do you believe in A GOD? I voted no. Not a god. I believe in God, capital G and the one and only. The question didn't address that belief.
WBG
Alan16
The above is the direct quote that you state does not require the capital G.
Res ipsa loquitur
Read the quote again, then read my answer: Well it seems your god did not grant you the ability to answer questions properly. The question was "Do you believe in a god?" (note no capitalization is necessary their) and you have clearly said that you do. Whether you consider your god to be greater than that of the Hindi/Islamic/Jewish faith, doesn't matter: the answer is still yes. Do you believe in a god? Yes, you believe in the Christian god.
He tried to say that he voted no because the question referred to "a god", and he believed in "God". What my answer pointed out was that the question does address his belief. The question is I assume deliberately vague so as to allow all faiths to answer. He believes in a god, God (as he calls the being). What I said on capitalization stands.
Exodus 20:1 Thou shalt have no other gods before me
God is the only one true God.
Definition of a proper noun: nouns name people, places, and things. Every noun can further be classified as common or proper. A proper noun has two distinctive features: 1) it will name a specific, usually a one-of-a-kind, item, and 2) it will begin with a capital letter no matter where it occurs in a sentence.
Since God is the only one true God, the reference begins with a capital. Since the question considers other gods, the question in the same way references that they exist in order to believe in them. Since I believe in one true God, not any indiscriminant god, the question is therefore not relevant and I can't vote yes. Maybe one day your eyes will be opened to that.
Reference the term "grammar" - a wee lesson, "There" indicates a place as in, "I live here not there." It is the opposite of "here." "Their" is the possessive of "they", as in "They live there but it isn't their house."
WBG
The question asked if you believed in a god. The question makes no proclamations about how many gods there are, or even if there is one, it is merely looking for your opinion. You believe in a god, the Christian god. So the answer to the question "Do you believe in a god?" is yes. You do. You believe in the god talked about in The Bible. The question does not consider other gods. The question considers other people's opinions on other gods. So you should have answered yes.
Oh, and if we want to be annoying about grammar mistakes, "indiscriminant"... Not a word. And anyway, I wasn't trying to be annoying in talking about the grammatical correctness of "god" and "God" - it was relevant to the debate.
Anyone else noticing the irony in the grammar lesson?
Well done, I made a typo. Ten points for observation. Also, "noticing"? That seems like a grammatical error to me.
I must say, I admire the faith of the atheists here who believe in the religion of organic evolution.
It has no scientific foundation and requires blind faith in many, many aspects. :D
No proof of god anywhere. Bible doesnt like science and yet people still use this. Mind you i dont "religously celebrate" christmas. Its becoming more and more of a bank holiday. Also in regards to that you see no mention on Santa in the bible but yet hes more popular than jesus and in the eyes of kids, god.
I must say, I admire the faith of the atheists here who believe in the religion of organic evolution.
It has no scientific foundation and requires blind faith in many, many aspects. :D
The theory of evolution is scientifically logical and sound. And I'll quote the man I'm listening to right now, as he sums up my opinion here very nicely: Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.
i thought this was about DO YOU YOU BELIEVE IN A GOD?not a grammar lesson:roll:
The theory of evolution is scientifically logical and sound. And I'll quote the man I'm listening to right now, as he sums up my opinion here very nicely: Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.
How about -
"The chance of life evolving anywhere in the [15,000,000,000 l-y radius] universe is equivalent to believing that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard would assemble a Boeing 747." :lol:
How about -
"The chance of life evolving anywhere in the [15,000,000,000 l-y radius] universe is equivalent to believing that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard would assemble a Boeing 747." :lol:
You can through out these numbers if you want, but as a science student, I can tell you that there is evidence of evolution, and that most of the numbers brandished by the intelligent design bunch are extremely misleading.
How about -
"The chance of life evolving anywhere in the [15,000,000,000 l-y radius] universe is equivalent to believing that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard would assemble a Boeing 747." :lol:
Can you name a form of air transport that is simpler than a Boeing 747? :confused
Can you name a form of air transport that is simpler than a Boeing 747? :confused
Yes, I can, but I do not understand your point.
You can through out these numbers if you want, but as a science student, I can tell you that there is evidence of evolution, and that most of the numbers brandished by the intelligent design bunch are extremely misleading.
You mean "throw" out, but the quotation is not mine, it is from Prof. Sir Fred Hoyle and Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe, both atheists when they investigated this problem. Their conclusion? "There MUST be a God."
arana negra
09-Nov-09, 10:08
I do not and never have believed in any god whatever. The idea that something/one has any influence on the good bad and devasting events in anyones life is something I could/would never understand. Now as I deal with the loss of new (just over 2 years) husband whom I only knew for 5 years any belief in any god is further from being at all feasible in my head.
I do not and never have believed in any god whatever. The idea that something/one has any influence on the good bad and devasting events in anyones life is something I could/would never understand. Now as I deal with the loss of new (just over 2 years) husband whom I only knew for 5 years any belief in any god is further from being at all feasible in my head.
I have for as long as i can remember never believed in a god.
I used to get sent out of religious education classes because i refused to have anything to do with them. When i lost my son i explained to the pastor or what ever you call them that before i went ahead with the funeral that he must know that i didn't believe and that my son had not been christened. I thought it was up to each of my children to decide when old enough what if any faith they wanted to be part of. My son did not get to decide this as he was only 12yrs when he died.Some might call me a hypocrite for having a church service for my son, but like i said he did not get the opportunity to choose for himself. I kept any prayers etc to a minimum and would not take part in them. So i can and do understand where you are coming from.
So, is *god* a Boeing 747 with bad grammar then?
I don't really do religion but I love these kinds of religious "debates".
There's a couple of good spin-off polls from this:
Which is the Right religion.
Which is the Best religion.
(think about it)
(*insert your choice of name/phrase here)
Anyway, a smart tornado just picks the right junk yard:
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/7/0/4/0985407.jpg
:Razz
Yes, I can, but I do not understand your point.
I thought as much. The point is that you accept that there are intermediaries even with things that are designed.
Why should I believe in any form of god?
I have no interest what so ever of following any deity even if they did exist.
Oh dear, I answered yes, but maybe I should've answered no! Grammar is such a tricky subject! ;)
Ooops! I think I fell into that trap too.......:roll:
I thought as much. The point is that you accept that there are intermediaries even with things that are designed.
Well, instead of "thinking as much," it would have been nice for you to comprehend the quote, which, by the way, was not from me, but from two world-class, atheistic scientists.
The analogy with the 747 has nothing to do with missing links or evolution of design on an engineer's drawing board, it was actually about the possibility of simple molecules forming from inorganic material anywhere in the universe in 15,000,000,000 years.
You see, you cannot have the chicken without the egg, for when the chicken dies there will be no more chickens. It must have been complete from the outset.
So you cannot have the tornado first assembling a tail fin or a light housing and then waiting for the next tornado to come along. The point was that it has to be assembled at once - all bits working - as they were designed to do.
So, is *god* a Boeing 747 with bad grammar then?
Does that question have any intelligent design to it?
I don't really do religion but I love these kinds of religious "debates".
There's a couple of good spin-off polls from this:
Which is the Right religion.
Which is the Best religion.
(think about it)
(*insert your choice of name/phrase here)
As I said earlier, we must not confuse God with religion.
Anyway, a smart tornado just picks the right junk yard::Razz
A smart tornado? :roll:
Of course there is no such thing as a god!
And I don't hate people who do believe in god. But I think they are being somewhat naive and idiotic.
If you want something to think about with relation to god then buy George Carlin's "Bad For ya" dvd.
Yes he's a comedian but he questions a lot of relevant subjects and makes you think something serious.
One points he makes is that you have to take your hat off when you go into church because you're in the presence of god..... Then when you ask religious people "Where is god?" they say "Everywhere." He responds with "why would you buy a hat?"
I think "god" was an excuse for the unexplainable back in the day when science wasnt around....
http://importreason.wordpress.com/2007/01/25/13-reasons-not-to-believe-in-god/
Pretty Much Sorts This Discussion Out.....
One points he makes is that you have to take your hat off when you go into church because you're in the presence of god..... ....
Strange I cannot remember any time I ever went to church wearing a hat, so thats one theory shot down, I have seen lots of wifies wearing hats in the kirk, do they get special dispensation [lol]
Invisible
09-Nov-09, 17:18
Of course there is no such thing as a god!
And I don't hate people who do believe in god. But I think they are being somewhat naive and idiotic.
I think "god" was an excuse for the unexplainable back in the day when science wasnt around....
Doesn't everyone need something to believe in. It's the people who believe that World peace will happen are naive, in my opinion. Children aren't taught about Jesus and God in school for no reason. The nativity play isn't acted out every year with parents and child putting so much effort it. No God = No Christmas.
However, you might be onto something about using god as an excuse. Personally made the earth in 7 days is a little far-fetched even for Chuck Norris.
Doesn't everyone need something to believe in. It's the people who believe that World peace will happen are naive, in my opinion. Children aren't taught about Jesus and God in school for no reason. The nativity play isn't acted out every year with parents and child putting so much effort it. No God = No Christmas.
However, you might be onto something about using god as an excuse. Personally made the earth in 7 days is a little far-fetched even for Chuck Norris.
What absolute rubbish you talk, Chuck Norris would have had the job done in 4 :)
redeyedtreefrog
09-Nov-09, 19:49
This poll is turning out a lot more evenly than I expected it would, pretty much half and half. I was expecting a strong religious victory, dont ask why.
You mean "throw" out, but the quotation is not mine, it is from Prof. Sir Fred Hoyle and Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe, both atheists when they investigated this problem. Their conclusion? "There MUST be a God."
Although the ideas they express are interesting, I do not agree with them, or their conclusion. Also, for the number of scientists that you can find who reach that conclusion, I can find hundreds more which disagree with it. Their opinion, is not proof of a god of any sort.
The analogy with the 747 has nothing to do with missing links or evolution of design on an engineer's drawing board, it was actually about the possibility of simple molecules forming from inorganic material anywhere in the universe in 15,000,000,000 years.
You see, you cannot have the chicken without the egg, for when the chicken dies there will be no more chickens. It must have been complete from the outset.
So you cannot have the tornado first assembling a tail fin or a light housing and then waiting for the next tornado to come along. The point was that it has to be assembled at once - all bits working - as they were designed to do.
Although that is a nice analogy, it is meaningless. A human being is not a plane. For example, we share 97% (I think, check before quoting that, but it is fairly high anyway) of our genes with mice. So it's not as if a human being was made in one go like a plane. It took lots of small evolutionary steps, and this took time, something there was a lot of.
Does that question have any intelligent design to it?
That makes little sense, but if you really want an answer, then yes. The question was written by somebody, whether they are geniuses or not, they are more intelligent than the inanimate sentence, so it was designed intelligently (relative to the sentence) by somebody.
As I said earlier, we must not confuse God with religion.
Because that would be ludicrous...
A smart tornado? :roll:
You can believe in an omniscient, omnipresent, (and a few other omnis) being, yet the idea of wind having intelligence so perplexes you? Perhaps it's because there is no book about this smart tornado that you don't believe in it... I see a best seller!
And I don't hate people who do believe in god.
Probably aimed at me, so I'll answer. I do not hate religious people, I hate religious people who either pity me or shove it down my throat.
Invisible
09-Nov-09, 20:20
Doesn't god say to treat others as you would yourself. In that case we should go to all JW's houses and come in and drink their tea n biscuits and no take no for an answer.:lol:
redeyedtreefrog
09-Nov-09, 20:49
http://theframeproblem.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/break-the-cycle.jpg
hehe...
Although the ideas they express are interesting, I do not agree with them, or their conclusion.
That's fine, I have no problem with that.
Nor do I have a problem with redeyedtreefrog's diagram, because the Bible is not the word of God, it is mainly man-made lies and deception. Hence, I do not believe in God because the Bible tells me to. :D
Well, instead of "thinking as much," it would have been nice for you to comprehend the quote, which, by the way, was not from me, but from two world-class, atheistic scientists.
The analogy with the 747 has nothing to do with missing links or evolution of design on an engineer's drawing board, it was actually about the possibility of simple molecules forming from inorganic material anywhere in the universe in 15,000,000,000 years.
You see, you cannot have the chicken without the egg, for when the chicken dies there will be no more chickens. It must have been complete from the outset.
So you cannot have the tornado first assembling a tail fin or a light housing and then waiting for the next tornado to come along. The point was that it has to be assembled at once - all bits working - as they were designed to do.
I agree with the tornado striking through a scrapyard and creating a Boeing 747 analogy, the odds are immensely against it happening, but that is what the creationists are proposing what happened and anything that can create such a odd-defying feat has to be even more odd-defying, there is no way out of that one if you want to explain it.
We always have something before the egg, the chicken is only an exercise in taxonomy for our benefit rather than to describe something fully in reality.
Take for instance crystal growth, when you get down to it, crystals aren't alive in the sense that we classically describe something as alive. But they do grow using the same inter-molecular interactions that exist in the higher mammals. Similarly, there are other biological agents such as prions and viruses which give scientists a certain difficulty as to whether to describe them as alive or not. Higher up the biological chain we have similar dilemmas of classification. So what I am getting at is that the odds aren't against it of happening in the past as we can already see examples of intermediary-like organisms in the world today. We just need to open our eyes and hearts to the idea that every living creature on theis planet has been proven to be originated from a common ancestor. That is fact from analysis of our DNA.
I agree with the tornado striking through a scrapyard and creating a Boeing 747 analogy, the odds are immensely against it happening, but that is what the creationists are proposing what happened and anything that can create such a odd-defying feat has to be even more odd-defying, there is no way out of that one if you want to explain it.
I do not know of any creationist who would say that such a thing happened. Creationists point out that such a thing is impossible ... by chance.
A believer in God can go so far back and then has to say, "God did it." A believer in the idea of organic evolution can never stop with, "God did it," but has to keep going backwards. However, there is no way to get even "simple" molecules by chance.
Take, for instance, the necessity to get oxygen to our cells. There is one protein molecule which is used to place oxygen in the blood stream and another protein molecule for taking it out. Neither is of any use without the other, which means that cells needing oxygen can not survive unless they themselves, together with these two protein molecules, came into existence at the same time.
Crystal growth has nothing really to do with it. As for whether a virus is "alive" or not, I don't know, but I do know that something as complex as a reproductive system, even in a bacterium, did not just spring into existence.
Take, for instance, the necessity to get oxygen to our cells. There is one protein molecule which is used to place oxygen in the blood stream and another protein molecule for taking it out. Neither is of any use without the other, which means that cells needing oxygen can not survive unless they themselves, together with these two protein molecules, came into existence at the same time.
I don't think that is the case.
I never thought I'd be a victim of my words being used as soundbites!!!
That makes little sense, but if you really want an answer, then yes. The question was written by somebody, whether they are geniuses or not, they are more intelligent than the inanimate sentence, so it was designed intelligently (relative to the sentence) by somebody.
I'm not sure if how to take this, is this a compliment. Somewhat confused as to if I am/are geniuses, but then are we focusing on my mentality or grammar, and I understand little of both.
Anyway, the sentence wasn't supposed to make sense and was written by an ijeet.
yet the idea of wind having intelligence so perplexes you? Perhaps it's because there is no book about this smart tornado that you don't believe in it... I see a best seller!The smart tornado is my idea, go figure your own best seller.
Anyhow, Gizmo. I'll raise you.....the A team, 3 days!
:cool:
o yes big God. little men
everyone keeps on saying that God isnt scientific, yet would God not be the greatest scienteist ever? God created everything, everything can be explained.. (well one day maybe?) it all links up together. just because we dont have the answers now does not mean we ever wont.
why does people think that to Love God you have to think inside the box?
why can people be free thinkers, intelegent people who think out side the pre-consived notions of peoples long gone?
lets see.. i believe in God, i believe in aliens, I belive in ghosts and a spirit world.. is it relevant? i say yes. individually, we are a people that use onloy about 10-15 percent of our brain, in a universe so huge its beyound comprehension. who are we to say what is fact or fiction in a thing that we know nothing about.
its a big world people, keep your minds open.
Anyhow, Gizmo. I'll raise you.....the A team, 3 days!
:cool:
How about, Chuck Norris joins The A Team, 2 days! ;)
weeboyagee
09-Nov-09, 23:18
...I do not agree with them, or their conclusion....I can find hundreds more which disagree with it...that makes little sense...the question was written by somebody (singular), whether they are geniuses (plural) or not, they are more intelligent than the inanimate sentence, so it was designed intelligently by somebody (or should that be somebodies?).......Because that would be ludicrous...You can believe in an omniscient, omnipresent, (and a few other omnis) being, yet the idea of wind having intelligence so perplexes you? Perhaps it's because there is no book about this smart tornado that you don't believe in it...Probably aimed at me, so I'll answer. I do not hate religious people, I hate religious people who either pity me or shove it down my throat.
What an ignorant, annoying, immature and unbelievably condescending manner in your postings and not just on this thread. I have no pretence in the fact that I am no professor of grammar - but you were the one that started it and yet you couldn't take it when it was pointed out to you. You strike me as being the spoiled little boy that has always got his own way, that has always thought that he can do no wrong and that whatever he says or does is always right. I hate to tell you, but from what I can make out, you try to prove to yourself that you are someone you are not - that you know what you talk about but yet you still have a lot to learn. I bet you're quite annoyed with yourself that you couldn't get "there" and "their" right, since it's so simple it makes a mockery of your ability to talk like Einstein in such a way as you are trying to on such a subject matter as this.
You contribute so much yet the actual substance of your contributions mean so little that they make me laugh. You have no ability to self examine and no ability to consider that you maybe, just ever so slightly, wrong - because you can't stand the thought of that word applying in a descriptive sense to you.
Some time in life, you are going to find that you are quite insignificant and that your contributions given your attitude in your delivery, are even less so. That's such a shame because you're probably a nice person really, if your ego just didn't get so much in the way.
God bless you. Whether you believe in God or not.
WBG :cool:
i believe in god, but in the mother nature sense....the great goddess.
i da believe there was ever a man called jesus christ, i da believe he was crucified and i da believe he was resurrected....i da believe mary wis a virgin an i da believe in 'e 3 kings...
i believe in many things but 'iss image o' man, our holy father, which art in heaven....i do not.
What an ignorant, annoying, immature and unbelievably condescending manner in your postings and not just on this thread.
I think you missed some...
I have no pretence in the fact that I am no professor of grammar - but you were the one that started it and yet you couldn't take it when it was pointed out to you.
As I've explained before, when I pointed out the grammatical error in using the capital "g" where it shouldn't be it was of some relevance to the debate. Whoever it was who was using it the whole time, was doing it wrong, probably deliberately. I make mistakes in grammar the whole time, including many mistakes in this response probably. If people want to pick me up on tiny mistakes (ones not relevant to the debate) that's fine, but please at least proof read your own damn post criticising my grammar.
You strike me as being the spoiled little boy that has always got his own way, that has always thought that he can do no wrong and that whatever he says or does is always right.
You may feel that way, but it is not the case. I know I'm not always right - and in fact I'm probably wrong more often than not.
I hate to tell you, but from what I can make out, you try to prove to yourself that you are someone you are not - that you know what you talk about but yet you still have a lot to learn.
I know the limits to my knowledge. But on this topic I can only say that I do know what I'm talking about. I've studied the theory of evolution, I've read Origin of the Species, I've read The Bible. Sometimes, on those rare occasions, I know what I'm talking about. Sometimes, on rarer occasions, I'm right.
I bet you're quite annoyed with yourself that you couldn't get "there" and "their" right, since it's so simple it makes a mockery of your ability to talk like Einstein in such a way as you are trying to on such a subject matter as this.
Yeah, I'm annoyed. Damn annoyed. Today I attended lectures on special relativity, yet I got primary school grammar wrong. Of course I'm annoyed.
You contribute so much yet the actual substance of your contributions mean so little
I contribute on average one post a day. Let's be honest, this significantly lowers the chances of me saying anything remotely interesting. And sorry if I'm bursting a bubble, but the same probably holds for you.
that they make me laugh.
If my posts do nothing more, I'll be happy.
You have no ability to self examine and no ability to consider that you maybe, just ever so slightly, wrong - because you can't stand the thought of that word applying in a descriptive sense to you.
I can and quite often am wrong. It's to be expected is it not?
Some time in life, you are going to find that you are quite insignificant and that your contributions given your attitude in your delivery, are even less so.
I think that happened quite a while ago sadly...
That's such a shame because you're probably a nice person really,
Me in a nut shell.
if your ego just didn't get so much in the way.
Sometimes I struggle to get out of bed, it's just so big!
God bless you. Whether you believe in God or not.
WBG :cool:
Sentiment appreciated.
everyone keeps on saying that God isnt scientific, yet would God not be the greatest scienteist ever? God created everything, everything can be explained.. (well one day maybe?) it all links up together. just because we dont have the answers now does not mean we ever wont.
why does people think that to Love God you have to think inside the box?
why can people be free thinkers, intelegent people who think out side the pre-consived notions of peoples long gone?
lets see.. i believe in God, i believe in aliens, I belive in ghosts and a spirit world.. is it relevant? i say yes. individually, we are a people that use onloy about 10-15 percent of our brain, in a universe so huge its beyound comprehension. who are we to say what is fact or fiction in a thing that we know nothing about.
its a big world people, keep your minds open.
Good points. I am reminded of a famous Polish professor of genetics who said something along the lines that, "the evidence leads to the inescapable conclusion that there exists an intelligence so very, very far above our own."
I have no problem with the fact that many people do not believe in God, only with those, like Prof. Richard Dawkins, who claim that organic evolution is a fact. If people want to believe in organic evolution and in what Prof. Dawkins preaches, that is their right, but it is a belief system, a faith, not a fact by any stretch of the imagination.
I don't believe in god, gods or anything supernatural. I have no problem with people believing in such things, if they harm no one. I do have a problem when people proslytise, preach and attempt to undermine science and reason.
Just because one or two scientists, have invoked or implied god, gods or supernatural forces in the past that does not translate as a belief. Many are probably referring to a deist god or simply making a stylistic choice so that a statement has better prose.
There are a few true believers out there. but they are rare. As for the Polish geneticist hes one man from a different time, theres a large body of evidence supporting evolution by natural selection.
Um, okay... wow. I've been reading previous posts since my initial reply, and though I have no desire to start a flame war. I feel there are a few things I should say, and so in no particular:
My definition of harm includes forcing it on children, ever your own.
I notice Christianity is discussed most; which is to be expected. Its entirely possible that a belief in almighty Thor is the correct one however.
Any children reading this, or even people who can remember back to then - remember what your parents told you about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy? and then told you they were making in up... They told you about $Deity also didn't they?
Christmas really isn't Christian, it was co-opted by them. Also thats your argument, if you don't believe in a Christian god no presents or turkey for you.
Kevin Milkins
10-Nov-09, 04:29
if you don't believe in a Christian god no presents or turkey for you.
There must be a god, (turkey, yuck) ;)
Lolabelle
10-Nov-09, 05:17
You've just gotta love the org, if there is a way to either stir the possum or get a debate going! Someone will post it here! ROFL [lol]
And some of you know, that I definately do believe there is a God! And I think most do, in one way or another, so I will clarify my statement, I believe in God of the Bible! :)
Any children reading this, or even people who can remember back to then - remember what your parents told you about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy?
I, as a Christian, don't tell my children lies - hence they have never been brought up to believe in imaginary people.
Christmas really isn't Christian, it was co-opted by them. Also thats your argument, if you don't believe in a Christian god no presents or turkey for you.
Agree with you there - Christmas is nothing to do with Christianity. Jesus never asked us to celebrate his birth - the true date isn't even known! Which is why I also don't celebrate Christmas or any other so-called Christian festival! :)
Santa Claus isn't real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:eek:
Invisible
10-Nov-09, 12:37
Santa Claus isn't real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:eek:
whaaaaaaaaaaaat!
Just wondering whether to introduce bairn to teachings of father xmas and Jesus or Darwin and Dawkins.:confused :confused
Scorpio12thNov
10-Nov-09, 13:07
Santa Claus isn't real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:eek:
Ach stop 'ed min!!![lol]
Although I may not agree with some of the vocabulary presented here by young Alan I would like to support his efforts in making himself understood. Reading between the lines I get the gist of his bumph and almost agree with most of it. Stick in there Alan. Your opposers are displaying more about their own natures than they are saying about yours, and for anyone with an interest in human behaviour, that's quite a lot. Some of it from grown men and directed towards a youngster is just awful.
As for a God. Nope. Mind you I could be deluded and would do better to listen to the unconscious longings of my deepest personality although from experience I find that can be a minefield of conflicting emotions. All it needs is a holy book thats revered by people I respect and hey presto, before I iknow it I'll be coming onto the org with biblical quotes to back up those unconscious longings I refer to. God forbid! :eek:
[/LIST]I, as a Christian, don't tell my children lies - hence they have never been brought up to believe in imaginary people.
I hope you understand the irony of that statement :eek:
My definition of harm includes forcing it on children, ever your own.
Do you mean in the way that the idea of organic evolution is forced upon children in schools?
I notice Christianity is discussed most; which is to be expected. Its entirely possible that a belief in almighty Thor is the correct one however.
I am interested in the basis for this opinion. It may be right or wrong, but why do you consider it when you have made clear that you do not believe in God anyway?
Any children reading this, or even people who can remember back to then - remember what your parents told you about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy? and then told you they were making in up... They told you about $Deity also didn't they?
Not all Christians tell their children about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance, do not. Nor do Muslims, nor Sikhs, nor Jews, ...
Christmas really isn't Christian, it was co-opted by them.
Yes, this is perfectly true.
whaligoechiel
10-Nov-09, 16:07
believing if their is a god
me definitely no
you only have to look at the loss of life by wars etc all based on religion
you don't have far to look remember the conflict in Ireland
just see what the Muslims are doing at the moment
the number of people killed and wars through religion is unbelievable
simple if you don't believe in the same god as I do I will kill you
and to the ones who say religion preaches peace and harmony look at the real word and possibly have a we read of the bible
there is more killing, incest, rapes and fairy stories in it than in a modern paper back
Welcomefamily
10-Nov-09, 19:02
I agree with you, but i cant stand it when people dont get their facts right. i got a leaflet from the Jehovas Witnesses saying evolution was "chance" and "an accident". Shame I wasnt there at the time they delivered it.
I am curious what part of evolution was not a chance and an accident, you not going to surely suggest it was a planned process?
It is also a very one sided abusive of scientific knowledge to suggest that the research does anything to suggest the JW version has any validity either. I am very busy so it might be a day or two for a response.
Okay:
I hope you understand the irony of that statement :eek:
Yeah I was going to make that point but just left it.
Do you mean in the way that the idea of organic evolution is forced upon children in schools?
Creation myths can not be taught in a science classroom, none conform to sciences principles. That being said what makes one creation myth more valid that the others - In addition to religious views, should the Raelian opinion also be taught.
I am interested in the basis for this opinion. It may be right or wrong, but why do you consider it when you have made clear that you do not believe in God anyway?
I never said I believed in Thor, was just stating a point.
Not all Christians tell their children about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance, do not. Nor do Muslims, nor Sikhs, nor Jews,
Yes, this is perfectly true.
Yeah it isn't the best point but I was replying to an argument where the original was flawed, as it just annoyed me. Also FYI Muslims, Sikhs, nor Jews are Christian so I wouldn't expect them to.
I am curious what part of evolution was not a chance and an accident, you not going to surely suggest it was a planned process?
It is also a very one sided abusive of scientific knowledge to suggest that the research does anything to suggest the JW version has any validity either. I am very busy so it might be a day or two for a response.
This is a fundamental Creationist/post-modern relativist misunderstanding, its not evolution via random chance but via natural selection.
Creation myths can not be taught in a science classroom, none conform to sciences principles.
Who was talking about Creation myths? There is plenty of real science done by real scientists supporting the concept of supernatural creation - as there is in support of a worldwide Flood, by the way. The idea of organic evolution is taught to schoolchildren as being a fact, whereas it is nothing of the sort. In this circumstance it is evolution that is the myth, taught as being science. You have only to consider the fact that evolutionists will not engage in open debate with creationists, because their case is inferior scientifically to that of creation.
So when I asked you if the idea of organic evolution should be taught in the schools, you have no answer. If evolution is taught as a myth, then creation can be taught as a myth. If evolution can be taught as science, then creation can be taught as science. What's good for one is good for the other - there is plenty of material.
Also FYI Muslims, Sikhs, nor Jews are Christian so I wouldn't expect them to.
Thanks for that deep revelation, but they do profess a belief in a God (which is what this thread is about, isn't it?).
This is a fundamental Creationist/post-modern relativist misunderstanding, its not evolution via random chance but via natural selection.
Ah, natural selection, the survival of the fittest. Let's see what that means again: The fittest survive, so the survival is of the fittest, and the survival of the fittest means that the fittest survive. All there is to it really. Stephen Hawking isn't overly fit though, is he? :roll:
I never said I believed in Thor, was just stating a point.
So there was no substance to your statement. Okay.
I am curious what part of evolution was not a chance and an accident, you not going to surely suggest it was a planned process?
It is also a very one sided abusive of scientific knowledge to suggest that the research does anything to suggest the JW version has any validity either. I am very busy so it might be a day or two for a response.
The Jehovah's Witnesses used to produce a book on evolution as opposed to creation. Next time they knock on your door, maybe you could request a copy, if they still do it? Had a considerable list of references if I remember rightly and was quite good on this topic.
They did not used to charge for these books - you just made a small donation if you wanted to. :)
redeyedtreefrog
10-Nov-09, 20:54
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html is good for anyone who cares Some people should do their research on REPUTABLE sites before being idiots.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html is good for anyone who cares Some people should do their research on REPUTABLE sites before being idiots.
Well, redeyedtreefrog, either Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, Lord Kelvin, Max Planck, Albert Einstein and many more did not do their research before "being idiots," or ... you are an idiot.
Hmm, difficult choice that one! :lol:
I believe that I will see all my loved ones who have passed in heaven, I personally need to believe that, it keeps me happy. So in short if I hope to see them again in heaven then I have to believe in god.
redeyedtreefrog
10-Nov-09, 23:07
Well, redeyedtreefrog, either Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, Lord Kelvin, Max Planck, Albert Einstein and many more did not do their research before "being idiots," or ... you are an idiot.
Hmm, difficult choice that one! :lol:
What have the discoveries of those highly intelligent humans got to do with you not looking up established evidence and checking it before posting?
I personally need to believe that, it keeps me happy...
In the same way, a drunk man is much happier than a sober one.
Well, redeyedtreefrog, either Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, Lord Kelvin, Max Planck, Albert Einstein and many more did not do their research before "being idiots," or ... you are an idiot.
Hmm, difficult choice that one! :lol:
Who was their broadband ISP? :confused
I believe that I will see all my loved ones who have passed in heaven, I personally need to believe that, it keeps me happy. So in short if I hope to see them again in heaven then I have to believe in god.
That is the most honest admission I've read so far.
Can't really add anything to what redeyedtreefrog said.
Stavro: Was the JW book Life - How did it get here? By evolution or by creation? (1997) or Science, Evolution, and Creationism (2008)? I'm familiar with the former (http://www.dimaggio.org/Heretic/critical.htm) but not the latter. The former uses the evolution is random chance argument.
I'd argue the veracity of the pro-creationist science, and I mean there is a large body of evidence in support of evolution by natural selection. Survival of the fittest is not what evolution states.
I was under the impression that evolutionists were more than happy to debate, provided the venue and moderators are neutral (or balance out at the very least) and if the debate does not turn into a protest or personal attack.
I've always understood science to be a quest for the truth. If you believe evolution by natural selection to be wrong, do you ascribe a motive to so many scientists believing it over creationism?
Who was their broadband ISP? :confused
They did not have one, but do you think that they had not come across the idea of organic evolution when this idea has been traced back at least as far as the ancient Greeks? :roll:
Perhaps you think that evolution came about through Charles Darwin (whom Max Planck and Albert Einstein certainly would have heard of, of course).
Stavro: Was the JW book Life - How did it get here? By evolution or by creation? (1997) or Science, Evolution, and Creationism (2008)? I'm familiar with the former (http://www.dimaggio.org/Heretic/critical.htm) but not the latter. The former uses the evolution is random chance argument.
The former. It's random chance agrument is still perfectly valid, particularly with regard to abiogenesis.
I've always understood science to be a quest for the truth. If you believe evolution by natural selection to be wrong, do you ascribe a motive to so many scientists believing it over creationism?
Yes, I agree with you.
Not so much a motive, as per a conspiracy, but more a motivating force. I.e., the desire, for whatever reason, to deny the possibility of God's existence. Someone like Richard Dawkins seems to have a distinct passion for this, perhaps influenced by his financial gains.
They did not have one, but do you think that they had not come across the idea of organic evolution when this idea has been traced back at least as far as the ancient Greeks? :roll:
Perhaps you think that evolution came about through Charles Darwin (whom Max Planck and Albert Einstein certainly would have heard of, of course).
Ancient Greeks thought of evolution by natural selection and the above knew about it? Go on impress me. I doubt it, I know this because Darwin is widely published across the Globe in modern media today yet children are still faced with a misrepresentation of his ideas or a complete blackout. The Greeks thought of atoms but they'd hardly were experts on atom structure etc. I've heard of Lamarkian evolution, are you meaning that?
As for Max Plank and Einstein, I don't care if they had heard of it. They were good at their own fields of study, that's about it and they weren't all right about that. Einstein has been grossly been misquoted. So has Darwin for that matter, and he was wrong about certain stuff, we have moved on since then, biochemical mechanics of inheritence were largely unknown to Darwin. It is a pity that the wider public won't do their research. Education is the key.
When you get down to the nitty gritty, creations don't just dispute the evidence for evolution, they deny it even exists despite puttting it under their noses. Can we explain that mentality?
I totally agree with unicorn in the early days of loss It certainly kept me sane I lost my mum at age 42 and my son 18 months later I felt I was going mad and got the comfort that we will meet again
Having said that about about 10yrs earlier I overheard or was probably ear lugging to my parents argument my mum had just lost her dad my grandad and said to dad that was a lovely service etc dad replied agreeing about the content then he started to question in "my house there are many mansions "etc must be a big place that heaven he said anyhow the argument went on but it stuck with me for years and I questioned it
that same Dad is now a church Elder past Session clerk etc for many years and his belief has kept him going well into his mid 80s and through his loss of my stepmum
Comfort is what we all want in loss be it through cards chatting ,poetry ,family or the church
Just because one or two scientists, have invoked or implied god, gods or supernatural forces in the past that does not translate as a belief. Many are probably referring to a deist god or simply making a stylistic choice so that a statement has better prose.
Well, redeyedtreefrog, either Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, Lord Kelvin, Max Planck, Albert Einstein and many more did not do their research before "being idiots," or ... you are an idiot.
Hmm, difficult choice that one! :lol:
Can't speak on the true beliefs of them all but:
I'll give you Kelvin and Faraday as true believers for lack of a better word.
Mendel was a monk, but that was basically the equivalent of a research grant back then.
Einstein was definitely a deist if even that I'd say agnostic if not outright atheist, also saying things like "god does not play dice", just sounds better. He was criticised by many in the USA for his atheism.
Many scientists have also professed a belief because they had to for their own safety.
Trotting out famous atheists and believers is counter productive so lets not get caught up in that. The finest minds of a given period in history have believed and rationalised many things that have turned out to wrong. A claim made by Aristotle about a fly having eight legs comes to mind; numerous other claims by famous scientists and thinkers also.
Whitewater
11-Nov-09, 01:39
Over the years I have read many books, and been involved in many debates regarding the 'God' question, whether one exists or not. Many people have very positive views on the existance of a God and I guess equally as many do not beleive. Many of the theories on which much of our modern thought regarding the way the universe works are now being challenged. Stephen Hawking who wrote 'A brief history of time' and many other articles/books regarding black holes, quantum gravity etc, has been unable to find the complete answer to what he has been looking for, he is now beginning to incorporate the work of Prof. Juan Maldacena who is an expert on the 'string theory' into his thinking in an attempt to find his answer, I think Hawking will come up with something which will turn conventional thinking on its head.
However, I have been digressing, but what I am getting at is simply that as yet nobody has proved the God theory one way or the other, and as modern gravitational theories become more complicated who knows what the conclusions are going to be.
Perhaps, because I have been brought up in a christian home where I attended sunday school and at one time (in my younger days) was a member of the Salvation Army band, I struggle to understand the thought that this world just happened. In the beginning was the big bang, what caused the big bang, we have built a particle accelerator to repricate it, and it worked. Or did it? Where did the original particles which created the big bang come from?
I find it very hard to believe that the our solar system, and our planet, with it's perfect climate and atmosphere, revolving round our Sun, which gives life to our complicated bodies with its wonderful control centre (our brain) just happened. ''Order out of Chaos'' to quote Dan Brown. I guess I am a God believer, then you have to think what God is. The bible says God is in us. Does that mean we are all Gods?
I'm very interested in this 'string theory' with its 10 dimensoinal space time and how it can be linked with our 4 dimensional world. In the 1920-30s there were many yarns written about the fifth dimension, what was the thinking then? where did they get it from?. Think of what the other 6 dimensions have to offer, can it open the doors to our 'Heaven'? Will the past and future be happening all around us as in Dr Who? are we just temporary residents in this dimension?, when we die is our soul transferred to another dimension? are we just temporary residents in a dimension we call earth?
It seem to go on and on, with the extra dimensions of the string theory anything is possible, we do not know, we will never be allowed to know.
Trotting out famous atheists and believers is counter productive so lets not get caught up in that.
Okay, RecQuery, I'll give you that one. To get back on the (off-)topic evolution v creation discussion, I think that the biggest obstacle for the evolution camp is abiogenesis.
Whitewater - fascinating post, especially at this time of night ! :) Would only suggest that the Bible says it is the kingdom of God that is within us, not God (him/her)-self.
Okay, RecQuery, I'll give you that one. To get back on the (off-)topic evolution v creation discussion, I think that the biggest obstacle for the evolution camp is abiogenesis.
Okay, its just as off-topic but it gives me a sinking feeling; its probably okay to go down that avenue of discussion, but I'm wary it'll degenerate.
Anyway abiogenesis - for anyone who's just reading casually and is unsure what some people have been talking about, lets give some context - is essentially chemical evolution, the step before biological evolution, how the building blocks of life formed and how they combined to forw true life, think primordial soup.
Now the Miller–Urey experiment proved that amino acids can be formed in the conditions present on the early Earth. The sticking point is how these amino acids formed proteins, which requires nucleic acids. The problem for a long time (for atheists and evolutionists anyway) was could these nucleic acids develop naturally.
I thought the forming of Ribonucleotides had been settled and tested a lot of which has been published in the journal Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html), see here (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/) for one of the experiments.
Whitewater: A lot of what your saying sounds similar to deism, the belief that someone or something, lets called it god defined and set the laws and constants of the universe, started the big bang and that was it. Such a god would not answer prayers or be directly involved with anything in the universe.
Now the Miller–Urey experiment proved that amino acids can be formed in the conditions present on the early Earth. The sticking point is how these amino acids formed proteins, which requires nucleic acids. The problem for a long time (for atheists and evolutionists anyway) was could these nucleic acids develop naturally.
Now we are getting somewhere.
I have singled out this section of your post, because this is the key area, in my opinion, and I therefore want to focus on it.
We first of all have a problem with what you refer to as the "early Earth," because geology has demonstrated that throughout history the Earth has had an atmosphere very similar in composition to the present day. The formation of amino acids would not be possible in such an atmosphere, due to the high oxygen content.
Secondly, amino acids would be just as likely to form in a right-handed configuration as they would in a left-handed configuration, yet all protein molecules are exclusively left-handed. You are alluding to this yourself, I believe, amongst other things.
The amino acids formed in Stanley Miller's experiment had to be isolated in a trap, since otherwise they would be destroyed by the electrical discharge. However, the "early Earth" did not possess such a natural trap.
Then there is the dissolving, destruction and dissipation of amino acids in the oceans.
So we have many unresolved problems here, before we start going on to nucleic acids.
Now the Miller–Urey experiment proved that amino acids can be formed in the conditions present on the early Earth. The sticking point is how these amino acids formed proteins, which requires nucleic acids. The problem for a long time (for atheists and evolutionists anyway) was could these nucleic acids develop naturally.
I think it is possible, think of catalysts, whereby molecules are brought together sterically by electrostatic interaction with a naturally occurring mineral. In this way, nature will have provided an environment that lowers the threshold energy for such a chemical reaction to proceed without destroying the long chain of the protein. Just like in the organism that came from it.
We first of all have a problem with what you refer to as the "early Earth," because geology has demonstrated that throughout history the Earth has had an atmosphere very similar in composition to the present day. The formation of amino acids would not be possible in such an atmosphere, due to the high oxygen content.
Do you make it up as you go along?:confused
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Earliest_atmosphere
Whitewater
11-Nov-09, 10:50
In my post I said I was a believer in the God theory, but I find the bible as written in the 4th century by the Roman Emperor Constantine, particularly the new testiment, as nothing more than a control document, and it worked, the Roman Church dominated the world for many centuries. They destroyed Jesus the man, and produced Jesus the myth. I have no allegience to any church but I find all religions interesting. Unfortunately over the years the misinterpretation of the ancient languages as well as the Constantine corruption of the bible and gospels has ruined and lost us much of the ancient writings, which I believe had a lot to offer had they not been hijacked. The God of the bible has been limited by the greed of man.
My God is not as depicted in the bible, it/he/she is bigger than that.
Also in my previous post I have noticed on a reread that I mentioned another 6 dimensions, it should have been 10, the four we are aware of, plus another 10 from the 'string theory'. The mind boggles. I have great confidence in the thinking of Stephen Hawking, I hope he lives long enough to get closure on his theories.
I think humans find great comfort in a belief in the afterlife with loved ones for ever. It is a consequence of sentience. Evolution by natural selection has produced a human brain that is hard-wired into making those beliefs real. As comfort usually comes at a premium in our prehistory, anything that gives an individual member of a small group who is in grief some comfort will be an advantage for survival.
Do you make it up as you go along?:confused
Nope.
"There is a problem if you consider the ozone (O3) layer which protects the earth from ultraviolet rays. Without this layer, organic molecules would be broken down and life would soon be eliminated. But if you have oxygen, it prevents life from starting. A "catch-22" situation (Denton 1985, 261-262):
Atmosphere with oxygen => No amino acids => No life possible!
Atmosphere without oxygen => No ozone => No life possible! "In must be noted at this point that the existence of a reducing atmosphere is theoretical and does not rely on physical evidence. To the contrary, there are geological evidences for the existence of an oxidizing atmosphere as far back as can be determined. Among these are: the precipitation of limestone (calcium carbonate) in great quantities, the oxidation of ferrous iron in early rocks (Gish 1972, 8) and the distribution of minerals in early sedimentary rocks (Gish 1984T). "References:
Denton 1985 (http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/books.htm#denton%201985)
Gish 1972 (http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/refbooks.htm#gish%201972)
Gish 1984T" (http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/refbooks.htm#gish%201984T)
(Source: http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ol1.htm )
Ooops.... thought this thread was about the atheist,dyslexic trawlerman.
Nope.
"There is a problem if you consider the ozone (O3) layer which protects the earth from ultraviolet rays. Without this layer, organic molecules would be broken down and life would soon be eliminated. But if you have oxygen, it prevents life from starting. A "catch-22" situation (Denton 1985, 261-262):
Atmosphere with oxygen => No amino acids => No life possible!
Atmosphere without oxygen => No ozone => No life possible! "In must be noted at this point that the existence of a reducing atmosphere is theoretical and does not rely on physical evidence. To the contrary, there are geological evidences for the existence of an oxidizing atmosphere as far back as can be determined. Among these are: the precipitation of limestone (calcium carbonate) in great quantities, the oxidation of ferrous iron in early rocks (Gish 1972, 8) and the distribution of minerals in early sedimentary rocks (Gish 1984T). "References:
Denton 1985 (http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/books.htm#denton%201985)
Gish 1972 (http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/refbooks.htm#gish%201972)
Gish 1984T" (http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/refbooks.htm#gish%201984T)
(Source: http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ol1.htm )
Hardly impartial source being a creationist source.:roll:
I see a problem with this anyway, ozone is formed from oxygen then who am I? lol
Have it your own way, if you think the wikipedia is balderdash then join it and change it. I'll see how long it stays until vandalism accusations are being made.
Hardly impartial source being a creationist source.:roll:
I see a problem with this anyway, ozone is formed from oxygen then who am I? lol
Have it your own way, if you think the wikipedia is balderdash then join it and change it. I'll see how long it stays until vandalism accusations are being made.
When I answer your questions, you do not seem to want to know the answer. You just laugh about things like, "ozone is formed from oxygen then who am I?"
Anyway, while I try and fathom what it is that you are talking about, here is a small question for you:
Given that the "simple" ribonuclease protein molecule has 124 amino acids in it and that these amino acids all have to be left-handed and all have to be in precisely the right sequence, and given that in real mathematics any odds of less than 1 chance in 10^50 is considered to be nil, then what is the chance of one single ribonuclease protein molecule forming without deliberate intervention by an intelligent designer?
(There are a lot more than 20 amino acids, but for this exercise, just assume that there are only 20.)
Tom Cornwall
11-Nov-09, 23:16
I have The Lord Jesus Christ in my life for now and forever and, for that, I'm grateful.
As previously said though, on this thread, everyone to themselves, and everyone is more than entitled to an opinion of their own.....
If you do or if you don't have a Faith (of any kind ??) - I've no bother with either - cos I ain't gonna start preaching; so dinna worry :D !!!
I treat people the way I find them, and how they treat me and mine back in return is what counts, not what their religion may or may not be - kindness, in my book, is what we should base others on.
God Bless X
perhaps Jesus was the John Lennon or Bob Dylan of his day...a bit of a Hippie
Anyway, while I try and fathom what it is that you are talking about, here is a small question for you:
Given that the "simple" ribonuclease protein molecule has 124 amino acids in it and that these amino acids all have to be left-handed and all have to be in precisely the right sequence, and given that in real mathematics any odds of less than 1 chance in 10^50 is considered to be nil, then what is the chance of one single ribonuclease protein molecule forming without deliberate intervention by an intelligent designer?
(There are a lot more than 20 amino acids, but for this exercise, just assume that there are only 20.)
Intelligent? baloney.
There is no chance involved, it was all done by natural selection but the chance of them been made by an intelligent designer must be astronomically against since whatever made the DNA must be more flawed and more complex.
perhaps Jesus was the John Lennon or Bob Dylan of his day...a bit of a Hippie
Right place, right time so yes just like Lennon and Dylan.
When I answer your questions, you do not seem to want to know the answer. You just laugh about things like, "ozone is formed from oxygen then who am I?"
Anyway, while I try and fathom what it is that you are talking about, here is a small question for you:
Given that the "simple" ribonuclease protein molecule has 124 amino acids in it and that these amino acids all have to be left-handed and all have to be in precisely the right sequence, and given that in real mathematics any odds of less than 1 chance in 10^50 is considered to be nil, then what is the chance of one single ribonuclease protein molecule forming without deliberate intervention by an intelligent designer?
(There are a lot more than 20 amino acids, but for this exercise, just assume that there are only 20.)
So if an intelligent designer does this, surely they would do it right from the start? Or if they needed a while to get it perfected, surely then all copies should be perfect? How do you account for deleterious genes in the world? If an intelligent designer made these then they have a sick sense of humour...
The world has been about for a long long time (a lot longer than the bible says). If one collision occurred every second there would be plenty of time for the reactions to occur. Also due to the hydrophilic and hydrophobic elements to amino acids, the long chain is able to assemble itself.
Intelligent? baloney.
There is no chance involved, it was all done by natural selection but the chance of them been made by an intelligent designer must be astronomically against since whatever made the DNA must be more flawed and more complex.
Like I said, we believers can ultimately say, "God did it." This is perfectly rational and logical within the belief system. You evolutionists, on the other hand, have to explain how "simple" things came to be, since you refuse to allow intelligent design, you must explain it by chance. Abiogenesis is all about chance.
I take it that you are not going to attempt the simple probability exercise? If not, then don't waste any more of your time on the "evolution is a fact" rubbish.
So if an intelligent designer does this, surely they would do it right from the start?
God did do it "right" from the start. Why do you think the protein molecule works? Since you are a lab assistant, then please tell us all how many of the 124 amino acids in the ribonuclease protein molecule can be in another place, or right-handed rather than left-handed, and still allow the molecule to function. How many?
The world has been about for a long long time (a lot longer than the bible says). If one collision occurred every second there would be plenty of time for the reactions to occur.
Attempt the calculation and you will see that you are wrong in your assertion.
Also due to the hydrophilic and hydrophobic elements to amino acids, the long chain is able to assemble itself.
So just answer the question. Everyone knows that you are claiming that the chain assembles itself - this is what abiogenesis is all about - but what is the probability involved?
I take it that you are not going to attempt the simple probability exercise? If not, then don't waste any more of your time on the "evolution is a fact" rubbish.
Evolution is a fact, we see it happening in real time and we can see the evidence in our genetic code.
We are nothin more than bacteria in a ever evolving soup...who knows mabey in 1000 million years we will grow wings and fly....and no i for one dont belive in a god if they was such a creation why let so many people ..kids...animals suffer say in day out even worse die.......just 1 opinion they is no need to reply to this either as i wont be reading anymore of this forum now i have had my say :)
Getting back on to the original question do you believe in A god? Well I am not sure what I believe in, I belive in something, not sure what to call it, Fate, Kismet, or whatever, what ever it is that takes care of me and see's me through life, has been kind to me most of my life and I have never questioned (Its) power/decisions, but lately my life changed dramatically, not for the better, but who should I blame...God? I dont know, but I do want to blame someone.
Okay lets see
Amino Acids:
I've seen that argument a few times its misguided to begin with:
While L-amino acids represent the vast majority of amino acids found in proteins, D-amino acids are found in some proteins produced by exotic sea-dwelling organisms, such as cone snails
There are a few things to consider:
The main reason all life shares left-handed amino acids is that they go back to a common ancestor. If an organism was to exchange one amino acids handedness, a lot of proteins which use that acid would become nonfunctional. Selection thus generally keeps this from happening (there are a few groups where this has been altered; they lucked out in having a protein benefiting so much from a switch that the dis-functionality of others did not stop this, Its very rare and would of happened in the common ancestor of the group. IIRC in all of history this has happened 4 times).
To borrow from what Stavro said:
Lets imagine life picked the 20 amino acids with their chirality. There were about 200 naturally occurring amino acids around almost all chiralic (so 400), so picking 20 out of 400 gives you a probability of 1 in 1033. The odds of our current mix were low before it arose. But once you figure that selection keeps organisms from changing that mix, you realize that no matter what combination was picked, we would see it almost universally, with at best a handful of minor alterations. And thats exactly what we do see. Creationists on the other hand have to explain, why their designer would use only 20 out of 400 parts for every engineering problem. Those other 380 amino acids could make a whole of of functional proteins far more efficient than the ones made out of the 20 used
Some other things to consider are:
The Amino Acid Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which select other amino acids of like handedness by substituting them for serine.
Calcite tends to adsorb just a single handedness in an environment of right and left handed amino acids.
Ultraviolet Circularly Polarized Light may have contributed to homochirality as well. (Meteorites often have more left handed amino acids because of U.C.P. Light)
Check here (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327243.700-trick-of-the-light-made-lifes-molecules-lefthanded.html)
If belief in your God cannot be compromised and that is reciprocated with persons of different faiths then it is clear to me that religion will continue to be a constant source of conflict throughout a world which is getting closer together. It is best to know what you see and can test to be true, that is a system which is truly universal and liberating from the chains of dogma.
If belief in your God cannot be compromised and that is reciprocated with persons of different faiths then it is clear to me that religion will continue to be a constant source of conflict throughout a world which is getting closer together. It is best to know what you see and can test to be true, that is a system which is truly universal and liberating from the chains of dogma.
no one can test any belief to be true as for conflict in religion I agree it has had a profound effect on peoples lives and changes people forever
I personally spoke from experience my life my sorrow my belief my anger I suppose but I found comfort
all of the junior members of my family are humanists thats okay thats what they believe each to there own
everyone needs someone or something to believe in or else we would never dream !!!
ah George Michael ,Will Young, FREDDIE
Getting back on to the original question do you believe in A god? Well I am not sure what I believe in, I belive in something, not sure what to call it, Fate, Kismet, or whatever, what ever it is that takes care of me and see's me through life, has been kind to me most of my life and I have never questioned (Its) power/decisions, but lately my life changed dramatically, not for the better, but who should I blame...God? I dont know, but I do want to blame someone.
Wasn't Fate Kismet in Titanic with Leonardo DiCaprio? ;)
The main reason all life shares left-handed amino acids is that they go back to a common ancestor.
Yes, this is the evolutionists' belief system and that it why I brought the topic up.
To borrow from what Stavro said:
Lets imagine life picked the 20 amino acids with their chirality at random. There were about 200 naturally occurring amino acids around almost all chiralic, so picking 20 out of 400 gives you a probability of 1 in 1033. The odds of our current mix were low before it arose. But once you figure that selection keeps organisms from changing that mix, you realize that no matter what combination was picked, we would see it almost universally, with at best a handful of minor alterations. And thats exactly what we do see. Creationists on the other hand have to explain, why their designer would use only 20 out of 400 parts for every engineering problem. Those other 380 amino acids could make a whole of of functional proteins far more efficient than the ones made out of the 20 used
You have completely skirted the question. My question allowed for 20 amino acids. I believe that the simplest is neither right- nor left-handed, but I said we would assume them all to be available in both forms. The total number of amino acids being between 200 and 300, depending upon what you classify as being an amino acid (incidentally, it is the Creationist who should go for the 200 figure, since the Evolutionist relies upon laboratory synthesis - Miller et al.), has nothing to do with the question after the assumption of 20 had been supplied.
The chance of the first amino acid being in the right place and of the right type is thus 1 in 40. The first two being in the right sequence and of the right type is thus 1 in 1,600 and so on.
Some other things to consider are:
The Amino Acid Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which select other amino acids of like handedness by substituting them for serine.
Calcite tends to adsorb just a single handedness in an environment of right and left handed amino acids.
Ultraviolet Circularly Polarized Light may have contributed to homochirality as well. (Meteorites often have more left handed amino acids because of U.C.P. Light)
Check here (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327243.700-trick-of-the-light-made-lifes-molecules-lefthanded.html)
Your's is a quality post, as I expected it would be, but you are evading the question. You and I both know why you are evading it - because the probability of this protein molecule forming by chance is mathematically zero. You also should know that this is just the tip of the iceberg.
And this is just a "simple" molecule. There are loads of more complicated ones than this. This is light-years away from anything as complicated as a cell wall or simple binary fission.
You have chosen to evade the question, rather than honestly answer it, as I said before, because you already know that the probability of getting this one "simple" protein molecule by chance in 4,600,000,000 years is nil.
You have chosen to evade the question, rather than honestly answer it, as I said before, because you already know that the probability of getting this one "simple" protein molecule by chance in 4,600,000,000 years is nil.
Where's your proof of that? :confused
Where's your proof of that? :confused
Yet another ill-founded question, Rheghead? Do the calculation and find out for yourself.
Do the calculation and find out for yourself.
OK, give me the numbers and the equation to punch into my calculator and I will.
Aaldtimer
12-Nov-09, 03:43
If all else fails, baffle them with science and statistics![disgust]
OK, give me the numbers and the equation to punch into my calculator and I will.
There are always 40 amino acids for each position (20 x 2) and there are 124 positions. So the odds of us getting a ribonuclease protein molecule are
1 chance in 40^124 = 4^124 x 10^124 <<<< 1 chance in 10^50
Hence the probability of obtaining this molecule by chance is zero.
On your calculator:
Probability = 1 / (40 ^ 124) = ...
Goodnight.
So tackling the probability head on:
The math is correct if Abiogenesis were random and a single step process, but evolutionists don't make that claim. The evolutionist equivalent calculations with examples are discussed and expanded here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html)
-----------------------------------------------
What the the creationist argument states:
building blocks--->bacteria
What the evolutionist argument states:
building blocks--->polymers--->replicating polymers--->hypercycle--->protobiont--->bacteria
So the creationist argument from the evolutionist perspective is like someone asking "Could a new born baby father or give birth to a child?" evolutionists aren't making that argument; there are many other steps inbetween.
-----------------------------------------------
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life.
Chemical reactions aren't random processes, they obey well defined and testable laws that chemists have known about for a long time. Which attacks the creationist premise. If chemical reactions are not random processes, then probability calculations don't apply from the outset.
The calculation of odds assumes that a molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
The argument is also based upon the one true sequence claim, in which creationists state the gene coding for a particular protein can only have one sequence, which is incorrect
The numerous insulin genes in vertebrates, several of which are not even the same length as human insulin, yet all produce a working insulin molecule would be one example of this.
What is selected for is any sequence that produces a working protein, and there are thousands of combinations of these for many proteins, including proteins that are critical to life such as insulin. The moment any one of these sequences arises and produces a working product, it will be selected for.
The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
The creationist argument mandates looking at the genes of a modern organism, which has had 3.5 billion years of evolution behind it, and trying to use that as a means of determining the likelihood of a much simpler organism in the past arising. Life started with simple protocells requiring very few components in order to function, and complexity was added to these protocells over long periods of time.
Applying calculations of a prior probability to an event that has already happened is a misuse of probability. If a something alread exists, then the probability of it having been produced by some process in the past is by definition 1. All that remains to be determined, once we know a given molecule exists, is what processes are capable of producing it.
The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.
It relies upon the Serial Trials Fallacy. To expand creationistis assume that you only have one molecule to work with, or one organism in the case of genes in an existing lineage. On the pre-biotic Earth, there existed a large expanse of ocean within which billions of molecules were engaging in the requisite chemistry. Once life truly came into existence, populations of organisms quickly reached millions, even billions (there are several billion bacteria living in an average stomach, which contains a lot less volume than the world's oceans), this means that even an event with a small prior probability has a lot of trials to work with.
A basic rule of probability is that if you have an event whose prior probability is 1/X, where X is some integer, then after X trials, you are guaranteed to see that event occurring at least once. So even if you have an event with a prior probability of 10^-9, the moment you have 10^9 trials conducted, you should see that event occurring once.
This creationist probability calculations also make the assumption that if any given desired molecule doesn't appear first time, you have to start all over again from scratch. All that is needed is for some molecule that provides useful function to appear, which can then be used as the basis for developing more useful molecules. Which on a side note is how the pharmaceutical industry works.
Okay well I think thats enough for this post
There are always 40 amino acids for each position (20 x 2) and there are 124 positions. So the odds of us getting a ribonuclease protein molecule are
1 chance in 40^124 = 4^124 x 10^124 <<<< 1 chance in 10^50
Hence the probability of obtaining this molecule by chance is zero.
On your calculator:
Probability = 1 / (40 ^ 124) = ...
Goodnight.
But there is a mechanism which creates the DNA in such a way, it's not like you chuck a load of protein molecules on a table and they magically spring together! [lol]
Again, RecQuery, you have demonstrated an understanding of the problem with your quality post, and you have accepted that the probability of obtaining even a "simple" ribonuclease molecule is zero if abiogenesis is random. We now move on slightly as to whether it is random.
For the benefit of others, we are still leaving aside the necessity of a trap on the "primitive Earth," the composition of the "primitive atmosphere" and the like.
So tackling the probability head on:
The math is correct if Abiogenesis were random and a single step process, but evolutionists don't make that claim.
This is the essence of the whole issue. It is perfectly acceptable for the Creationist to say that the process is not random, because the Creationist/believer acknowledges that "God did it." And that God's intelligence is infinitely above our own.
When the Evolutionist states that a process is not random, they just move the problem of randomness somewhere else. It HAS to come in somewhere. What is it that places the selective choice of a Designer onto a mix of chemical elements and a source of energy?
What the the creationist argument states:
building blocks--->bacteria
What the evolutionist argument states:
building blocks--->polymers--->replicating polymers--->hypercycle--->protobiont--->bacteria
These are by chance or they are by design, there is no way around it.
So the creationist argument from the evolutionist perspective is like someone asking "Could a new born baby father or give birth to a child?" evolutionists aren't making that argument; there are many other steps inbetween.
And here, with all due respect, you fall down. If the newborn baby has not the potential within it to father a child, then that's the end of the line. The child lives for a while, dies, and that's it. This is why, many posts earlier, I think I stated that everything has to be right and in place from the beginning. What use is your eye without a lens? What use is the lens without the muscles? What use is focusing the lens without the retina? What use is the retina without the rods and cones? What use are the rods and cones without the optic nerve? What use is the optic nerve without the brain? What use is the brain without the ability to reproduce?
What use is a brain if you don't use it?
What use is a brain if you don't use it?
What use is yer bike if you don't get on it?
What use is your eye without a lens? What use is the lens without the muscles? What use is focusing the lens without the retina? What use is the retina without the rods and cones? What use are the rods and cones without the optic nerve? What use is the optic nerve without the brain? What use is the brain without the ability to reproduce?
Some species have eyes but they don't function, what is the use in that? Intelligent design?
What use is yer bike if you don't get on it?
But I do get on it!:lol:
Stavro, I think you may be skirting round the issue now, what about the link and the paragraphs below the baby example?
------------------------------------------------
I really don't want to have many issues up in the air, with lots or arguments being discussed at once. I'll ignore discussing the eye unless you want to move onto it, however some quick thoughts and points on the atmosphere issues.
Since the original experiment, Miller and others have experimented with different compositions. Complex organic molecules have formed in each, under a wide range of prebiotic conditions.
Its possible that life arose away from the atmosphere one example being, deep-sea hydrothermal vents. This would make the atmospheric content largely irrelevant.
The early atmosphere, even if it was oxidising, was nowhere near as oxidising as it is today. It was likely high in hydrogen, which facilitates the formation of organic molecules
Theres arguments and proof regarding free oxygen, reducing gases and that an atmosphere consisting only of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor does produce amino acids also but again I'd rather not get side tracked unless you want to.
To anyone reading this thread and wondering why its been turned into an evolution vs creation argument, or to anyone wondering why people keep coming back. First debate is important, even if the issue isn't resolved it allows people to construct arguments, refine and test them etc. I'm also slightly hopeful I may be able to convince someone who would of otherwise not believed in evolution.
Heh yeah in many ways its like arguing:
Vi vs Emacs
Ninjas vs Pirates
etc
I don't expect either of us harbours any delusions about convincing the other.
ASDA anyone? ;)
They're not Gods, are they????[evil]
Stavro, I think you may be skirting round the issue now, what about the link and the paragraphs below the baby example?
Okay, let's review those.
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways.
Chemical reactions aren't random processes, they obey well defined and testable laws that chemists have known about for a long time. Which attacks the creationist premise. If chemical reactions are not random processes, then probability calculations don't apply from the outset.
So you are claiming that amino acids just arrange themselves into molecules to perform extremely specific functions? Where did this take place? In the ocean? In the presence of sugars? In the presence of the energy source that allowed them to form in the first place? Did they form in the atmosphere? How long do they take to reach the ocean?
The calculation of odds assumes that a molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
The argument is also based upon the one true sequence claim, in which creationists state the gene coding for a particular protein can only have one sequence, which is incorrect
The numerous insulin genes in vertebrates, several of which are not even the same length as human insulin, yet all produce a working insulin molecule would be one example of this.
What is selected for is any sequence that produces a working protein, and there are thousands of combinations of these for many proteins, including proteins that are critical to life such as insulin. The moment any one of these sequences arises and produces a working product, it will be selected for.
Here you are making use of the fundamental law of biology: that life only comes from life. Protein molecules in general are completely specific - change the sequence around and they do not work and in fact can be harmful. Since the probabilities that you are alluding to must take into account this detrimental mess, you have to admit that the Evolutionist needs oceans full of amino acids in order to arrive at a chance of getting a working protein molecule which is still zero.
The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
Yes, that is correct. To the Evolutionist, first life had to be very much simpler. This is an essential conjecture.
The creationist argument mandates looking at the genes of a modern organism, which has had 3.5 billion years of evolution behind it, and trying to use that as a means of determining the likelihood of a much simpler organism in the past arising. Life started with simple protocells requiring very few components in order to function, and complexity was added to these protocells over long periods of time.
Applying calculations of a prior probability to an event that has already happened is a misuse of probability. If a something alread exists, then the probability of it having been produced by some process in the past is by definition 1. All that remains to be determined, once we know a given molecule exists, is what processes are capable of producing it.
The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.
It relies upon the Serial Trials Fallacy. To expand creationistis assume that you only have one molecule to work with, or one organism in the case of genes in an existing lineage. On the pre-biotic Earth, there existed a large expanse of ocean within which billions of molecules were engaging in the requisite chemistry.
You are here replying to my questions above. You need an ocean full of all relevant molecules all at the same time, isn't that right?
Once life truly came into existence, ...
Meaning?
A basic rule of probability is that if you have an event whose prior probability is 1/X, where X is some integer, then after X trials, you are guaranteed to see that event occurring at least once. So even if you have an event with a prior probability of 10^-9, the moment you have 10^9 trials conducted, you should see that event occurring once.
This creationist probability calculations also make the assumption that if any given desired molecule doesn't appear first time, you have to start all over again from scratch. All that is needed is for some molecule that provides useful function to appear, which can then be used as the basis for developing more useful molecules. Which on a side note is how the pharmaceutical industry works.
Okay well I think thats enough for this post
You can take the length of time as 4,600,000,000 years (the evolutionary age of the Earth) or 12,000,000,000 years (the "Big Bang" age of the universe) and have only the right type of amino acids floating about in the ocean and rearranging themselves billions of times per second for that whole period and still end up with a probability of zero that they will align themselves into one single ribonuclease protein molecule.
They're not Gods, are they????[evil]
Evolution or Creation, Gleber2, what do you reckon?
Faith may be in your genes anyway, yer canna help it...
http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/Feature_Stories/Religious_faith_may_be_genetic.html
Faith may be in your genes anyway, yer canna help it...
"No matter how much knowledge and wisdom you acquire during your life, not one jot will be passed on to your children by genetic means." - Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 1989, p.23.
"No matter how much knowledge and wisdom you acquire during your life, not one jot will be passed on to your children by genetic means." - Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 1989, p.23.
Thank goodness, you are starting to learn something.;)
Since you're a fan
"The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry."
Richard Dawkins
Evolution or Creation, Gleber2, what do you reckon?
Could argue from both sides but don't believe in either. It's not as simple as this choice. Firstly you have to believe that this shared reality is, in fact, real. I become more and more convinced that we live in a virtual reality which has no real existence. The Maya state for the Indian philosophers or the Matrix for the science faction brigade.
In the end, it matters not to me where we came from but I am fascinated by where we might end up.
I'd go for Asda every time.
whaligoechiel
12-Nov-09, 20:14
Me thinks that Rheghead wants to become God
Since you are a lab assistant
Ha ha - that what you think?
So you are claiming that amino acids just arrange themselves into molecules to perform extremely specific functions?
This is where your argument is fundamentally flawed. The molecules don't do anything with purpose - incidental occurences either fail (and the organism/molecule dies out) or they have an evolutionary benefit and they are passed on. That is where the chance happens...
As Terry Pratchet says - million to one chances happen 9 times out of ten. Some people have such a small view on the world that they just can't visualise such large odds. The odds are not 0 - over billions of years (and even more billions of seconds) there is every possibility that favourable occurances happen. And that evolution is skewed as they are favourable.
At the end of the day what does it matter if there is a god or not? If someone takes comfort in it because they can't explain the world then good for them! Sometimes I would like to believe - I just find more holes in faith than in science. I like science because you can question flaws - with religion it is always just "because that's how it is". Even as a 3 year old in Sunday school that wasn't a good enough answer for me :(
Okay so for a large part of this thread I've been only responding, this is partly by design if you'll pardon the pun. To see where the argument went and avoid some insults generally thrown at aggressive atheists. I'll go on the attack at the end.
Okay so a good chunk of your post was probability, I'vo said it a few times but probability estimates that ignore the non-random elements predetermined by physics and chemistry are meaningless. Also again you come at it from the chance angle and not the selection angle I'll link (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html) (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html) this referenced discussion again which goes in-depth with examples. Heres (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html) (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html) a refutation of Borel's so called law, should you reply with that.
As for how evolutionists prove simpler life I'll go into that later, when I pose some questions of my own.
I wasn't replying to your question merely stating that there was a massive sampling should that be needed, which incidentally is far more than needed.
Okay now moving onto my questions and linked to the statement about simpler life.
Theres a lot of evidence for evolution and modern life existing and evolving form earlier forms, many books could be wrote any of these, so I'll try not to go overboard:
Fossil Record:
Shows very simple organisms at the bottom with depth evolving as time passes in to fewer but more complex organisms, with temporal stratification as evolution says it should be.
One doesn't see an equal distribution; human and dinosaur fossils are not found on the same layer as creation says they should be. You never see a Poodle in the permian era. How does creationism explain that?
Organic Structure:
If all life was designed - then to take just two out of many examples - why do chickens have the genes and introns for making teeth? why do humans have the genes and introns for making fully functionas tails with vertebra and under skeletal muscle control?
These are vestiges left over from previous organisms, as evolution says there should be. How does creationism account for that?
Thats just two out of many arguments and bodies of evidence.
Fossil Record:
Shows very simple organisms at the bottom with depth evolving as time passes in to fewer but more complex organisms, with temporal stratification as evolution says it should be.
One doesn't see an equal distribution; human and dinosaur fossils are not found on the same layer as creation says they should be. You never see a Poodle in the permian era. How does creationism explain that?
My RE teacher at school had a very simple answer to that. The bible doesn't claim that dinosaurs even existed - they were put on earth to test our faith. My reply got me banned from RE ;)
Fossil Record:
Shows very simple organisms at the bottom with depth evolving as time passes in to fewer but more complex organisms, with temporal stratification as evolution says it should be.
One doesn't see an equal distribution; human and dinosaur fossils are not found on the same layer as creation says they should be. You never see a Poodle in the permian era. How does creationism explain that?
Creation explains this by having all these creatures buried in sediment at about the same time and very rapidly. I.e., it accepts the worldwide Flood as stated in Genesis. Various creatures will be found at different depths, but could all have been buried in the same wave of sedimentary material. (Bertault, G.)
In my opinion, some "dinosaur fossils" are very suspect, as you would no doubt agree that dinosaur and (giant) human footprints found in the same dried up riverbed are suspect.
Organic Structure:
If all life was designed - then to take just two out of many examples - why do chickens have the genes and introns for making teeth? why do humans have the genes and introns for making fully functionas tails with vertebra and under skeletal muscle control?
These are vestiges left over from previous organisms, as evolution says there should be. How does creationism account for that?
Creation explains this via the spitual aspect of the universe. How any particular gene works may not be simply a matter of where it is, the whole DNA structure may be constrained by some field, which I refer to as a spiritual field. As regards embryo development in the womb, for example, what determines how the original cell division is allowed/constrained to proceed? Some have called this a "morphic field."
To a believer in God, this whole influence is a mystery which does not lend itself to an explanation within our current level of scientific awareness and understanding.
As Terry Pratchet says - million to one chances happen 9 times out of ten.
Wow, that's impressive maths. I'd better try the lottery then. :lol:
The odds are not 0 - over billions of years (and even more billions of seconds) there is every possibility that favourable occurances happen.
There are 4,600,000,000 x 365.24 x 24 x 60 x 60 seconds to play with, so do the calculation yourself as regards the "simple" ribonuclease molecule.
I like science because you can question flaws - with religion it is always just "because that's how it is". Even as a 3 year old in Sunday school that wasn't a good enough answer for me :(
We are not talking about religion, we are talking about whether God exists. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion.
Me thinks that Rheghead wants to become God
:D It's certainly a pity that he's not on his bike more. :D
:D It's certainly a pity that he's not on his bike more. :D
miaow! :lol:
redeyedtreefrog
12-Nov-09, 22:33
Surprised this hasn't been brought up:
If creation is true, who created the creator?
Surprised this hasn't been brought up:
If creation is true, who created the creator?
Now now Froggie you think your being smart. Stavros way ahead of your game. He said;
"To a believer in God, this whole influence is a mystery which does not lend itself to an explanation within our current level of scientific awareness and understanding."
redeyedtreefrog
12-Nov-09, 22:50
Now now Froggie you think your being smart. Stavros way ahead of your game. He said;
"To a believer in God, this whole influence is a mystery which does not lend itself to an explanation within our current level of scientific awareness and understanding."
Thats just a clever way of worming out of an unanswerable question ;)
northener
12-Nov-09, 22:55
Thats just a clever way of worming out of an unanswerable question ;)
Nah, it's not that clever. More like predictable, I'd say.......
Surprised this hasn't been brought up:
If creation is true, who created the creator?
not only that but if there is a god...is it one god or many, and which religion has the right god...if each religion states that their god is the one true god, then there are several gods, and if thats the case we are all going to hell anyway, because each religion recons that if you dont believe in their religion then your going to hell...so on that bases and by default...we are all going to hell :lol: and before ou all ask...no i am not religious...but i do believe that religious or not....everyone has a belief of sorts :wink: :lol:
George Brims
12-Nov-09, 23:35
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.- Albert Einstein
I'm with Albert.
I was avoiding the deeper question; who created the creator as I usually get the same answer. I mean I generally respond with a deism argument speculating on the creator but I've generally found it to be an unproductive avenue.
I'm actually pleasantly surprised my, well that should be atheist/evolutionist morality hasn't been questioned or been insulted in general. The last time I took part in a similar debate at Uni a multi-faith cadre was ready to lynch me.
I see that the 'Nos' have it, at least for the moment, but it has been an enjoyable discussion.
As for the question, "who created God," perhaps to answer that would require a different way of thinking. Who knows? :eek:
northener
13-Nov-09, 11:06
I see that the 'Nos' have it, at least for the moment, but it has been an enjoyable discussion.
As for the question, "who created God," perhaps to answer that would require a different way of thinking. Who knows? :eek:
Hear, hear to that. Nice to see this topic discussed in an intelligent manner as opposed to the usual entrenched foaming at the mouth fist-waving that takes place.
"within our current level of scientific awareness and understanding."
I was lost after the Yes / No bit, never mind the organic thingymebobs and molecular structures formed from amino acids. What 'av moles got to do with it?
And all those silly calku, kalcul, calcali...those big long sums n' stuff.
And the Bible, isn't it just a bit too wordy?
Don't get me started on the Qur'an, you gotta read it t'other way round. What's all that about?
:Razz
Now now Phill. I can get into enough trouble with my own quotes without being held responsable for someone elses quotes especially one as damning to God belief as that one.
As for the question, "who created God," perhaps to answer that would require a different way of thinking. Who knows? :eek:That's an easy question to answer.....
An omnipotent God could create himself. Honestly, there's a distinct lack of lateral thinking going on around here. :roll:
northener
13-Nov-09, 23:01
Can anyone explain how in the beginning, there was nothing...which then exploded......?:eek:
Am I missing something?
I voted yes at the beginning of all this although I don't agree with the definition of a God that was posed. The God I believe in is unconditional Love for all. His principal commandments are love God and love your neighbour - even if you don't believe in God, surely most people would agree that the second commandment would solve all the problems of the world at a stroke.
I am a Christian, I'm not a creationist and I don't believe the Bible was dictated by God. The church I belong to says it is "God-breathed" but even that goes too far for me with much of it and the OT doesn't even pretend to be Christian. We believe that interpretation changes with time. Although I belong to a church, I'm afraid organised religion of any kind is too often a complete disaster and totally contrary to the true message but that's what happens when people want power and will twist anything to get it.
I can't pretend to understand how the universe came to be, what God is and many other things but take comfort from something my father used to say - if you could understand God you would be God. The older I get the less I understand. Faith doesn't need explanation - you either have it or you don't. You can find it and lose it, sometimes it's weak and sometimes it's strong. Jesus came to put a face on God - I only know that if I put out my hand, He is always there. I certainly don't believe I am better than anyone else but that's one of the nice things about Christianity - it's a religion for sinners :) . We just have to keep trying.
northener
13-Nov-09, 23:33
This will settle all arguments about evolution versus creation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P591Yt6dIHY&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=8DF8CC5D7E2A5011
youoldduffer
13-Nov-09, 23:42
This will settle all arguments about evolution versus creation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P591Yt6dIHY&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=8DF8CC5D7E2A5011
Superb find :D
I love Christianty for its broad church. You get the fundamentalists like Stavro on one side and the liberals (well, relatively) like badger on the other side. Badger's post uses a lot of words to say such a lot about nothing, or is it nothing about such a lot? I'm not sure.
I believe in Nature. I don't know where Nature comes from or why we are here, but She is beautiful and I try to understand Her and take care of Her as best I can.
Heres an evolutionist YouTube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2 might be a bit easier than relatively dry technical discussions.
I believe in Nature. I don't know where Nature comes from or why we are here, but She is beautiful and I try to understand Her and take care of Her as best I can.
I believe in nature as well, my family are Quakers they believe in nature, I just think I am a Quaker who doesn't think God is worthwhile thinking about. :D
That's an easy question to answer.....
An omnipotent God could create himself. Honestly, there's a distinct lack of lateral thinking going on around here. :roll:
Argh come on, I was happy the thread had died gracefully. BTW thats circular reasoning but even if it wasn't its not lateral thinking. If we can conclusively prove a god then we ask that question.
Belief in nature is another example of deism also.
EDIT: Also omnipotence and omniscience actually cancel each other out.
I believe in nature as well, my family are Quakers they believe in nature, I just think I am a Quaker who doesn't think God is worthwhile thinking about. :DI went to a Quaker meeting once. Nothing happened. :confused
Argh come on, I was happy the thread had died gracefully. BTW thats circular reasoning but even if it wasn't its not lateral thinking. If we can conclusively prove a god then we ask that question.
Belief in nature is another example of deism also.Ha, that's a typical scientist's lack of imagination and even worse a total inability to think outside the box of classical Greek causality. :roll:
I went to a Quaker meeting once. Nothing happened. :confused
Maybe we are are as one but don't realise? :lol:
EDIT: Also omnipotence and omniscience actually cancel each other out.Good grief man, I was almost impressed by your posts until you wrote that. :roll:
Argh come on, I was happy the thread had died gracefully.....
Very little dies gracefully on the Caithness dot Org forums. The polls are usually skewed too. :)
Good grief man, I was almost impressed by your posts until you wrote that. :roll:
Its more a just for fun thing, but I suppose its more correct to say he can't be both:
Can God create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?
If a hypothetical god knows everything about the universe that will ever happen, then he also knows ahead of time when he will change that universe in some way to make something else happen. After all, he knows everything that will ever happen in that universe. But if he knows ahead of time (which is the definition of omniscient) everything that will happen in that universe, then he is really powerless to do anything new since, by definition, something new is something he didn't know ahead of time. Therefore, he isn't omnipotent, i.e., he can't do anything new. If he did, he wouldn't be omniscient.
He can't be both omnipotent and omniscient with respect to the universe he is controlling. He can be one or the other, but not both. He can change the universe but if he does, he introduces an outcome he can't know about until after it happens.
A truly omnipotent God can temporarily suspend his omniscience. The converse must also be true. A true God can do both at once and at the same time create a logic system which avoids all paradoxes that mere Orgers deem problematic.
northener
14-Nov-09, 01:38
.... I just think I am a Quaker who doesn't think God is worthwhile thinking about. :D
More in the Humanist camp then, Rheggers?
If a hypothetical god knows everything about the universe that will ever happen, ...
God does not know everything that will ever happen, otherwise there would be no free will and there would be no point to anything. This silly idea just makes God into some kind of scapegoat. To rightfully claim that God knows the ultimate outcome of the universe is not the same as your assumption. Your salvation is down to you, not to some blueprint that was laid down before Creation began.
This thread has certainly deteriorated during my brief absence. :D
northener
14-Nov-09, 10:08
God does not know everything that will ever happen, otherwise there would be no free will and there would be no point to anything. This silly idea just makes God into some kind of scapegoat. To rightfully claim that God knows the ultimate outcome of the universe is not the same as your assumption. Your salvation is down to you, not to some blueprint that was laid down before Creation began.
. :D
So you are saying that God (taken that he exists as a single entity) is not omniscient?
Regarding salvation and pre-determinism (and I know this is drifting into religion as opposed to the existance of God):
Who is to say that the Islamic premise that all things are already known to God, or that the belief of the C16th and C17th Calvinistic Christian Elect in a predetermined path for the Chosen, is incorrect?
God does not know everything that will ever happen, otherwise there would be no free will and there would be no point to anything. This silly idea just makes God into some kind of scapegoat. To rightfully claim that God knows the ultimate outcome of the universe is not the same as your assumption. Your salvation is down to you, not to some blueprint that was laid down before Creation began.
This thread has certainly deteriorated during my brief absence. :D
Why do you think free will and a deterministic universe are mutually incompatible? God ultimately determines which path we take.
oldmarine
14-Nov-09, 13:42
This will settle all arguments about evolution versus creation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P591Yt6dIHY&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=8DF8CC5D7E2A5011
This has become a controversial question. This video presents a good arguement for believing in a Creator, but it will not satisfy everyone. I am 84 years of age and I have watched a believing world change into an unbelieving world. I was raised as a Christian and even though I slipped away from my Christian beliefs during WW2, an event that nearly took my life during a battle caused me to have a vision and brought me back to the fact that I am a sinner and needed my salvation. I will not apologise to unbelievers, but I believe there will be a time when we will have to face up to the Creator who created me and the world in which I live. I wish to be prepared for that time.
God does not know everything that will ever happen, otherwise there would be no free will and there would be no point to anything. This silly idea just makes God into some kind of scapegoat. To rightfully claim that God knows the ultimate outcome of the universe is not the same as your assumption. Your salvation is down to you, not to some blueprint that was laid down before Creation began.
This thread has certainly deteriorated during my brief absence. :DOn the contrary, it has moved on from old and mostly misunderstood arguments for and against religious didacticism towards broader philosophical issues of the true nature of gods.
This video presents a good arguement for believing in a Creator, but it will not satisfy everyone.Oops.
Both are valid and worthy of consideration, but I'd argue the philosophical and metaphysical arguments are old compared to the others, a few of my sources were from recent studies proving, confirming and expanding stuff we didn't know before.
Yes it wasn't accessible and the general public wouldn't understand it but thats part of the problem.
I suppose I should of began this argument by asking those that believe and especially the creationists.
Is there anything I can say, any proof I can provide, any experiment I can run, anything at all I can provide you with that would making you stop believing in god or start believing in evolution?
Both are valid and worthy of consideration, but I'd argue the philosophical and metaphysical arguments are old compared to the others, a few of my sources were from recent studies proving, confirming and expanding stuff we didn't know before.Yes they are old but so are the didactic Gods of the the Old and New Testament. Isn't it about time we in the West broadened our concept of Gods with powers to create? Classifying all possible such gods, examining their powers and properties and searching for evidence for their deeds would be the scientific way to proceed.
You alluded to the Raelians some pages ago. They may be mad but they may be on the right track.
So you are saying that God (taken that he exists as a single entity) is not omniscient?
My opinion is that God is omniscient inasmuch as the general outcome of the good v evil struggle is foreknown, and that the answer to every question could be provided by God, but not as to which spirits are going to survive their testing.
Regarding salvation and pre-determinism (and I know this is drifting into religion as opposed to the existance of God):
Who is to say that the Islamic premise that all things are already known to God, or that the belief of the C16th and C17th Calvinistic Christian Elect in a predetermined path for the Chosen, is incorrect?
The problem with predetermination, as I see it, is twofold. Firstly, it means that God is made a scapegoat for all of the man-made, but supposedly predetermined, suffering going on in the world. Secondly, it means that there is no free will, which is contrary to our own life experiences.
In my opinion God is just another name for hope. We need hope when we are in trouble, i.e. if you come around the next morning in the police cells. Then you start praying to someone, i.e. God. But once the trouble passes we become atheist again, no need for a God and so on.
As on person told me there are three stages in life.
1/ Youth. Mum is God.
2/ Teens to Middle Age. No need for a God.
3/ Middle Age to Old Age. Need for a God.
In the last stage we realise we are getting closer to death, so some hope is needed and religion (God) is a small but slender hope, so we decide to get a bit religious, just in case there is really a God. It would not do to die and then find yourself standing in front of St Peter and the Pearly Gate, only to read the sign, NO ATHIESTS ALLOWED.
As the saying goes, “there is no such thing as an atheist on the battlefield.” When the number two’s are hitting the fan, who do we turn to? It’s not the Ghost Busters.
In my opinion God is just another name for hope. We need hope when we are in trouble, i.e. if you come around the next morning in the police cells. Then you start praying to someone, i.e. God. But once the trouble passes we become atheist again, no need for a God and so on.
As on person told me there are three stages in life.
1/ Youth. Mum is God.
2/ Teens to Middle Age. No need for a God.
3/ Middle Age to Old Age. Need for a God.
In the last stage we realise we are getting closer to death, so some hope is needed and religion (God) is a small but slender hope, so we decide to get a bit religious, just in case there is really a God. It would not do to die and then find yourself standing in front of St Peter and the Pearly Gate, only to read the sign, NO ATHIESTS ALLOWED.
As the saying goes, “there is no such thing as an atheist on the battlefield.” When the number two’s are hitting the fan, who do we turn to? It’s not the Ghost Busters.
Thats called Pascal's wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager) I find it distasteful:
A play on words is nothing to base your entire belief system from.
It represents an arms race amongst religions for who can come up with the most terrible eternal damnation. Why should religion X get all the converts just because they thought of something so bad you shouldn't risk.
Isn't believing "just to be safe" an insult to the potential creator
There is no way to meet the terms of the wager: one cannot force oneself to believe, even if it would be beneficial for one to do so. You either believe or not, you can't fake it before an all-knowing entity.
There are thousands of gods for me to be potentially wrong about. And that goes for you too: if The Flying Spaghetti Monster is real, I would say we're both screwed
northener
14-Nov-09, 21:49
........ if The Flying Spaghetti Monster is real, I would say we're both screwed
All hail His Noodly Appendages!
northener
14-Nov-09, 21:51
As the saying goes, “there is no such thing as an atheist on the battlefield.”......
I can say, with my hand on my heart, that this statement is incorrect.
Isn't believing "just to be safe" an insult to the potential creator
Yes.
(That would have been the entire post, but for the 10-character requirement.)
redeyedtreefrog
14-Nov-09, 23:17
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urlTBBKTO68&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=8DF8CC5D7E2A5011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urlTBBKTO68&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=8DF8CC5D7E2A5011This dude is a peach.
Here's another one from him (http://www.youtube.com/user/EdwardCurrent#p/a/8DF8CC5D7E2A5011/1/bkhQLt1vbWU).
I have just watched the clip on Utube. I reckon that just about sums up what I believe.
You do not have to believe in God to live by good moral standards, as the majority of people do.
However, I will not fall out with anybody over their beliefs, providing they do not thrust them on to me.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.