Comments by Phil
1. I Don't Believe in Atheists
Comment #44484 by Phil on May 25, 2007 at 12:47 am
What a wonderful example of "semantic sidestepping." Mr. Hedges: "God is that mysterious force—and you can give it many names as other religions do—which works upon us and through us to seek and achieve truth, beauty and goodness. God is perhaps best understood as our ultimate concern, that in which we should place our highest hopes, confidence and trust. In Exodus God says, by way of identification, 'I am that I am.'" The rest of the world: "Religion is belief in god or gods and all that goes with it: the popes, the prophets, the propaganda, the proselytizing, the power, the prayer, the people, the pedophiles, the pageantry, the pogroms, and the pilgrims." Hedges's giving to common words one's own little pet definitions is ridiculous. Where else in life is this ok?
Just imagine if somebody tried to do such a thing with the color red: "My definition of red doesn't merely include all varieties of electromagnetic radiation of a wavelength of 625-740 nm. Oh no. That kind of rigid, unenlightened view of what it means to be a color is just one of a long line of rational, earthly 'meanings' that we humans give the color red due to our mania for conclusions from our most useless and sterile drives. For me, red takes on a much broader and deeper meaning. Red isn't simply the color of blood, the color of roses, of passion. Red is black, red is green, blue, yellow, silver – in fact all colors. Red is also not really an adjective, but rather a mysterious, indefinable part of speech. So, when you, Mr. Smith, attacked me for calling the noon day sky and the Hope Diamond red, you were apparently unaware of red as blue or red as all colors as it is best understood."
Clearly, this kind of playing around with words is at best a case of genuine ignorance and at worst blatant trickery. How many times must Mr. Harris and others say that they are not attacking "compassion", "our highest hopes", mystery, "trust", "ultimate concern", or any other vague meaning of religion or god? If that were all that we had to worry about as far a religion goes, then we would be in quite good shape. But that is not all that religion means for most people. I would also like to know what your everyday churchgoer would think of Hedges's favorable quoting of a man who called the church "inherently demonic." Mr. Hedges needs to get back in touch, if he ever were in touch, with what John Doe churchgoer really believes.
As for the rest of the article, I was rather pleased. His version of religion seems to be quite benign and positive – a bit nebulous, but at least harmless. There was one other spot, however, that showed that maybe his beliefs are not so innocent. I am talking about his patent anti-intellectual statements: "Faith allows us to transcend what Flaubert said was our "mania for conclusions," a mania he described as "one of humanity's most useless and sterile drives." Reason allows us to worship at the idol of our intrinsic moral superiority. It is a dangerous form of idolatry, a form of faith, certainly, but one the biblical writers knew led to evil and eventually self-immolation." - A call for the end of inquiry. In other words: "Don't look for answers or attempt to reach conclusions. Transcend all that nonsense and rise into the cloudy land of the semantic sidestep and the god of mystery." What garbage!
(edited slightly)
2. Atheist offers to send letters post-Rapture
Comment #39072 by Phil on May 9, 2007 at 11:31 pm
40. Comment #39001 by MelM on May 9, 2007 at 5:55 pm
"Need sample letters? Just check these out.
http://www.raptureready.com/leftbehind/rr-left-behind.html
The site is priceless:
http://www.raptureready.com/index.php"
That's going into the humor section of my bookmarked websites. Normally, I get angry at the stupidity of religious sites, but this one is so far gone that it could almost be mistaken for a work of satire. The rapture ready wallpaper is especially priceless.
3. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?
Comment #33491 by Phil on April 20, 2007 at 11:20 am
The fool's at it again:
http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/19/dawkins-message-to-mourners-get-over-it/
Comment #30261 by Phil on April 7, 2007 at 11:03 am
Comment #30223 by serrano on April 7, 2007 at 8:28 am
Oh, "dummy" is "pacifier" in American-talk. I did not know that. I was thinking dummy was used in the sense of "ventriloquist's dummy," which confused me thoroughly.
Ok, that sure does make a great deal more sense. I thought that I knew most all of the differences between our two Englishes. Forgive me of my ignorance(:. Though the other kind of dummy analogy would not be far off the mark.
5. The Most Hated Family in America
Comment #29641 by Phil on April 3, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Here's their site:
http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html
Believe it or not, it actually contains useful information. When any Christian tries to tell you that the god of the bible loves everyone, direct them to this section of their site:
http://www.godhatesfags.com/writings/20060331_god-loves-everyone-lie.pdf
This .pdf has a fantastic list chronicling all the people the bible's god killed and a list of verses showing god's contempt for the majority of mankind.
Not surprisingly, that's about all it's good for - well other than ridicule.
(edited for spelling and style changes)
6. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village
Comment #26491 by Phil on March 19, 2007 at 5:19 pm
"No doubt, for some minds this is all too mystical, and its underlying philosophy a bit too sophisticated, especially to those of literal and purely empirical tastes."
A bit too sophisticated wasn't quite what I had in mind.
Other than that, I am speechless.
Comment #19172 by Phil on January 25, 2007 at 11:14 am
66. Comment #19141 by padster1976 on January 25, 2007 at 6:33 am
i must confess i liked 'brights' because it flattered my opinion that religious people are stupid.
however, 'Godfrey' is sumblimly subtle.
Who's heard of that ridiculous 'dare to be a daniel' crapola?
I too have heard of that Dare to be a Daniel stuff. Have you been to their website? I wonder if they would be willing to jump into a real lion's den for their God?
Comment #19089 by Phil on January 24, 2007 at 6:58 pm
31. Comment #19060 by Shuggy on January 24, 2007 at 3:06 pm
"Why the cute spelling? "godfree" works for me."
You are aware the Godfrey is a name, right?
Ironically, it appears to mean "God's peace".
On the subject of "Bright", I think that the term is extremely condescending. Perhaps it's not as bad as "The Geniuses" or some similar name, but it could turn off a great many people. Then again, our name is probably the least of our problems.
9. Sam Harris at Idea City '05
Comment #18170 by Phil on January 18, 2007 at 6:48 pm
(Edited several times to get the link to work)
6. Comment #17927 by sparkie_t on January 17, 2007 at 3:08 pm
He really is a very good public speaker. He should do more, or maybe just tape the ones he is doing.
Does anyone have any links to other talks he gives? All I can find on youtube is the beyond belief stuff!
Below is a link to a lengthy talk that he gave in New York.
This is the best speech of his that I have found. It's a lot of the same stuff but more in depth.
10. Creationism Song
Comment #17587 by Phil on January 15, 2007 at 2:43 am
Luthien Said: One little girl in the front row looked a little embarassed to be singing it, so perhaps the sheer "cheeseyness" of the song might put some of them off it (wishful thinking I know).
Perhaps it is not entirely wishful thinking. It was those very kinds of shitty songs that made me stray away from the church in the first place. Whatever! It's wishful thinking.
11. Beliefwatch: Blasphemy (Challenge)
Comment #15652 by Phil on January 1, 2007 at 10:04 pm
scottishgeologist said:
good point. It reminds me of that comment that "the invisible and the non-existent look remarkably similar" Anyone know who first said that?
Something very similar to this was said by Anthony Flew in his parable of the gardener:
"Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?"
The full text can be found here:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/flew_falsification.html
Comment #11360 by Phil on December 4, 2006 at 9:45 am
Seriously are you joking? I cant contain myself Lauren.
I have said over and over I can admit mine is a religion but you cant, not just evolution but your atheist belief in general.
And if you dont rely on faith then explain "everything" back up with hard scientific facts and evidence! I cant because if have faith in m belief so please being a person without faith ... be my guest! Explain.
Comment #11358 by Phil on December 4, 2006 at 9:38 am
Quickly because one is v.busy.
Lauren this is the only time il will respond to you becuae I think your A an idiot or B your ignorant. (I hope its the latter)
Carbon dating when used to prove evolution is a lie and has been for years. The method is fine to calculate any thing within 30000 years but has he imput of c14 always been the same through out all history? We dont know.
Get you facts right before making claims. You would of understood this if you had read the earlier arguments.
May check in again in a few days.
14. Reading of The God Delusion in Lynchburg, VA
Comment #11196 by Phil on December 3, 2006 at 4:30 pm
I was a lapsed atheist. I thoroughly threw God out the window when I was a teenager but a few years of desperation since then rebuilt my ignorance and a vague and irrational cloud of muddled belief gathered as mere comforts.
Your book has brought back to me the clarity I had when I sat in biology class - taught by a Catholic priest no less - and listened as an argument was squirmed together which adapted the story of creation to the subject of evolution.
I was seething that I was expected to simultaneously hold in one hand the awesome monolith of Darwin's theory and in the other hand the theological putty the priest had shaped around it.
Comment #11009 by Phil on December 2, 2006 at 3:37 pm
You would have me believe all the compounds and elements formed by themselves from an unknown creative or non creative force are yet both philosophical because it opens the question do we decide our innate knowledge of right and wrong from nature (a non intelligent creative force) or an intelligent designer (a creative intelligential force).
I would assume you're an atheist but this is not down to evidence or logical thinking but your belief and criticisms for a God/designer and religion in general. I must stress that it is just a belief and it sways from logical thinking were we to insert evidence where it doesn't belong. How can we avoid this? Open our minds. Not to majority opinion, even if it sways in favour of a six day creation but to the evidence presented. The experiment you demonstrated is obvious but to say it's an occurrence of random chance is dubious and way lazier in logic than a creator or intellectual input.
When I started watching debates between the 2 views I was confused at how the creationists seemed to present a stronger argument. Was it their style or technique? Where they consistently telling lies to a gullible audience? Were they better trained in debates? Well the answer is no. Both Jack and Douglas (and a few others) presented great arguments that to me were logical and provided answers. The reasons their opponents couldnt see the same logic is simple. Their belief is different.
I have refused to present my case of God because I have tried to bring the attention of the gaps to the forum of reason (where I have found little) for the purpose being … men professing themselves wise shall make fools of them selves … proud … boastful etc, I have been sworn at cursed and belittled (well attempted). Reason I ask?!
I think the human race would have been further scientifically where it not for the fact evolution has been mixed into our science like a poison spread on the belief of a Godless universe and developed with lies (carbon dating, Piltdown man) and twisted truths (beneficial mutations that change into different kinds of animals back then but cant now) so I regret it being taught as fact (some of the evidence proved wrong over a 100 years ago such as the dog foetus and human foetus being similar is still being taught as evidence!).
I'm not stirring to cause an argument but trying to get a grasp of what I logically think is nonsense as you do with creation. Its fare enough to call me an idiot or to say I haven't studied it enough but it certainly wont change the fact that no matter "how much", "how long" and "how loud" you shout it, the fact states the truth says otherwise and I wish you could see that. First you need to come to terms that atheism is a belief (it might hit you hard, but it is!) and opening your mind involves "you" getting your very own self to study the other case without the common view of attacking it or showing aggression.
If you, being an atheist: it is hard to look at an alternative idea because it's not down to the little bits of evidence but your belief in general. Logic does not suggest there is no God yet the idea there is no God blinds you from seeing the logic of the other view as our beliefs are deeply rooted to our emotions and we want them to be right. For example I can look at the Grand Canyon and say "look what a lot of water has done in a small period of time" yet you can look at the same site and say "look what a little bit of water can do in a long period of time". This is rooted to our beliefs and would make us believe we are right but both views are polar opposite and one is wrong. I like to show them who it is.
The main weakness I have encountered in this argument is, while I can admit mine is faith you guys can't and that is why you look really silly (when presented with gaps for example) after proclaiming you don't rely on faith and base your assumptions on fact. This desire to promote it as reason and fact undermines the fact it's not FACT (You still with me lol) but assumptions and religious in tone.
I suggest that you look at the evidence to support creation, its there and it's compelling but you need to decide to check it out, or even, read the bible again! Remove your atheist belief (god doesn't believe in atheists) and you may notice the bible reads you as you read it. But remove your atheist belief from the equation. I can only applaud you if you do. If you don't then that is your decision and I won't argue.
Comment #10904 by Phil on December 1, 2006 at 9:32 am
Regards to sex ... what??? Whoever said a woman who enjoys sleeping with a man is evil?
You made a statement and then commented on it like a fact. If you make anymore statements like that then I will refuse to answer on them as we would be here all day or I could make false statements about you and keep you occupied. Keep to reason.
Did you think "Lets also through in a sexual innuendo as well, that'll get readers laughing and make me right". I hope that previous sentence is wrong in what is called the forum of reason Joad.
Sex is clearly a part of marriage and I personally object to it demonstrating women as throwaway trash to gain merit. The porn industry rikks of this and makes money on it. This in turn leads to another argument as to whether T.V can influence. This is too big and the evidence is too vast to cover so Ill stay on topic.
Here is a detailed link explaining the related porn topic in a nutshell and there is a lot of great material in here about relationships and guidance to sexual queries but shock horror! It's a Christian website!!! Please do have a read though.
http://www.everystudent.com/wires/toxic.html
Comment #10902 by Phil on December 1, 2006 at 9:02 am
I understand where your coming from now, so please understand me, STOP ALL ABORTIONS! To bring up this entire argument because I mentioned clinics for example is meaningless.
Abortion is made systematically acceptable because of the belief in the theory of evolution. Any one caught performing abortion should be given a lengthy prison sentence. Obviously we can't reach into the heads of naive girls and tell them what to do. But it is up to us to ensure moral understanding; self dignity and respect are learned because not enough is being done to protect them. Who can deny many young men full of bravado prefer a bed notch over having a long term relationship with a girl friend. Its useless calling this the "current generation", it needs to be targeted before more so called legal mass murders are carried at the hands of abortion (rich, poor, mafia, clinics, so called necessary and unnecessary etc).
I think if you imply that the only argument relating to abortion is where it should be done (mafia or clinic) is awful, off target and blatantly WRONG. Don't snip off branches, root it out, it's a problem and its murder. Your logic would imply to stop murderers (gang or serial) do we "gas them" or "electrocute them"?! That's not how to resolve it.
You need find out the cause and root it out. Look at the homicidal gun crime rates for example on both sides of the Mississippi river, Americas being ever often higher than Canada's. Ever decreasing as it is now it's because the root cause is more understood and the problem is being adhered to. How we should kill babies is not the argument to abortion because that is ruthless or idiotic.
Any more jokes you want to share? What about the Aborigine men, women and children who shot dead for the purpose of boiling and collecting their skulls which were then sent to museums across the world in a bid to collect evidence for evolution? Why does this feel wrong? Aren't we just a collection of atoms from more atoms?
Toad, please don't get me wrong, I am not a robot running around proclaiming my argument with humourless grace (that is another case of stereotyping). I'm just here to have my say and if you can agree (even on some points) then I'm glad you have the ability to open your mind but if you restate, I'm an idiot who knows nothing then I really am wasting my time.
So have a nice existence and please continue denying the "fact" that in a world like this "your existence is special" because your "ignorance" of the previous billions, current billions and probably post billions, isn't so special.
Ignorance over fact is plain wrong.
Comment #10649 by Phil on November 28, 2006 at 6:18 pm
If that plan was full proof I know Joad would not be too busy doing something to be talking here. What confused me the most is where Joad stood as if the point was against abortion then why did it sound sarcastic in tone to me so I give a little on how I felt about the subject.
Street corner abortion point was also laughable, young people are sold sex in the form of advertisements, music videos and sitcoms etc at all times of the day but it seems to be called "the current generation" rather than a ploy to arose in the name of making money through model delusion.
Any sexually related programmes (mainly porn) would show women as meaningless throw a ways and its impressionable, this creates influence and demonstrates the bravado mainly shown in young males. Its destructive nature leaves young women as either single parents or convinced to destroy an unborn child justified by an unproven idea. Sex outside marriage is like fire in front of the fire place, rather than in it.
asdf
The general misconception is that miracles especially in the bible are seen as magic. I would disagree, for a few examples, remember God didn't finish his creation in one second by the click of his fingers, it took 6 days. Sodom and Gomorrah may have been destroyed by a volcano, the flood was caused by rain and the fountains of the deep breaking open and the plagues in Egypt could have been caused one after the other (exception of the last being the death of the first born).
What I'm trying to point out is that God went to all this trouble creating a natural self sustaining universe and uses natural elements to impact on it when it was necessary in the past unless it was necessary (like the resurrection, walk on water etc) so amputee regeneration after prayer if witnessed by you would make you automatically a righteous robot and doesn't fit the purpose of an honest personal judgement in the end (kind of the same reason God doesn't appear in front of us).
Pray does have an impact and is certainly no placebo but that is another discussion. If you have never found Jesus in life then I can't explain the feeling as that is a personal connection between you and Christ. Fare enough if you don't believe in such but few have argued with the words of Christ and no man has made such an impact on the world in the name of righteousness as Jesus Christ has before or after.
What created time space and matter? If you exempt a creator then where did they come from? They had to arrive at the same time, if you had space and matter then when would you place them? If you had time and matter where would you put them?
Time beginning to end and if the creator is part of these then he is limited to his creation so I would say outside time, space and matter exists eternity with no time space or matter but that is an assumption best suited for a dimensional discussion. I you would please read through the earlier posts as this I think has been commented on 3 times already.
The common misunderstanding that atheism is not a belief is apparent only because it is promoted that way by atheists! Atheist means there is no God/creator/intelligent designer and as I have pointed out earlier this assumption is also promoted as fact. I being a man of faith have no problem admitting mine is based on faith and assumption due to the complexity and amazement of an intelligent, compelling universe.
Atheists however do not admit the same claim. Scoffing at the idea of God (as fore told) they wonder through life in that "belief", in confidence and boastfulness yet unknowing that it's just as much as an assumption as "God does exist". STOP PROMOTING THIS NONSENSE AS FACT AND ADMIT ITS FAITH, A BELIEF, MERLY AN ASSUMTION. If you can prove there is no God with out faith of assumption but hard scientific facts and hard evidence that will convince me then show it. You can't because this assumption is as much faith as mine and remains a belief. The same intellect that created time, space and matter is the same intelligence that created life with in it, non living matter making itself from nothing and creating life through chance is impossible and remains part of the atheist formula. Atheism is a religious belief and nothing more, it doesn't decide who is free thinking, the individual mind does that.
Natural laws exist yes and I believe in them (I never stated I didn't) but continually arguing their current existence will not direct me from asking how they came about by themselves from a non creative force from nothing with or without chance.
Arguing again about the current existence of things to strengthen the belief they got here by themselves from nothing is diverting the argument into black is white. They exist YES but where did they come from? It's the same ridiculous answers I get all the time from atheists, (without fact) it must have happened because here we are! If that is not religious to you then I can't help you.
Does majority opinion count? I think the scientific communities' percentage in favour of theism would out number atheism but would this matter? Can't you make up your own mind? In 150 years hardly any hard scientific evidence to support evolution has arrived. Lots of frauds, hoaxes and misinterpreted evidence yet but none in favour of support. Not one beneficial mutation that differs from its kind (dog kind to ???). Someone had mentioned spontaneous equilibrium where change may happen fast i.e. a croc can produce a chick but when I spoke about not having seen one super hero or giant lizard after the Chernobyl incident (just evidence of scrambled mutations) I was told it isn't possible in a few generations. These contradictions in a field of apparently faithless fact are not convincing and excuses such as "at least we are honest" come thick and fast as does a "rational explanation from an expert (his point of view or assumption)".
I feel sick when religion (particularly evolution) is imposed on me via law or public policy.
Does the greed for land not fit into this violence you speak of? I'm born and raised in east Belfast N.Ireland and know from personal experience that Catholics and Protestants can socialise just fine or are Catholics and Protestants blowing up and shooting each other in England? Irish republicans desire the ownership of the northern part of Ireland from British rule. Many people outside see the troubles as religious.
I met many people from mainland Britain who were convinced Northern Ireland didn't use sterling for goodness sake. They were so tied up in the belief it was all Ireland, and the war for 30 years was religious. I still imagine the majority of mainland Britain think this and request the exchange rate before visits (do come over though). Ignorance is bliss because the amount of times I have argued my note is actually sterling to the faces of stern cashiers in shops and banks at mainland Britain is unreal. Anyway the violence is mainly caused by ownership of land with a religious mask for supporters. Blame religion on violence? Then blame money for Al Capone being rich.
Trauma or theistic parents do not make people believe in God, Richard Dawkins for example
Comment #10413 by Phil on November 28, 2006 at 4:13 am
Lastly I think those in favor of abortion should be granted there choice and be aborted! You first Joad, Im sure your supporters will follow and this discussion would be meaningless.
Comment #10412 by Phil on November 28, 2006 at 4:11 am
What concerns me the most Toad is that you have clearly thought about this and even more worringly you have applied prices. SHUT DOWN ALL ABORTION!!!
Comment #10411 by Phil on November 28, 2006 at 4:03 am
Hi Joad
Such disregard for human life makes a clear example of my point. I believe that many atheists are not so cold and this argument has extended out of general logic to the sexes and the individual rights backed up by the bigggest fairytail for adults "evolution" to justify it.
The pro chice argument ended up in making $500milllion in the first year! Thanx for showing me the best evidence in justifing it ... make money. Joad I wont reply to your statements any more as you are acting immature to a serious part of this discussion.
Have to go but I might check in later
Comment #10259 by Phil on November 27, 2006 at 3:24 pm
I wasn't going to comment any more with you but you hit a nerve when you said "what is wrong with abortion?".
Its murder! However I think the pro choice argument holds: a woman should have a right to abort her body but please wait until the child is born.
There is a hefty fine for breaking eagle eggs but hey, sure the embryo isn't an eagle yet, so why the fine? You lack the logic to understand a human child is human the moment it's conceived. Fish, amphibian, reptile, mammal has been proved wrong and ties with the belief in macro evolution. If you can look at a child who survived a botched abortion and think what the poor mother must have felt when her child didn't die then your sick. Abortion is profound evil but those who perform it use evolution unwittingly to justify it and that is through no fault of their own.
The number of people who have died at the hands of abortion is scary. It's the humanist rape of child birth and you are sick to laugh in the face of God and support this. What if Dawkins was aborted (yes im against that)? Or Einstien? Or Professor Hawkings? People are being murdered and they have no say. I think pro lifers should increase pressure (but not use violence or kill, Jesus lived in the times of the Romans and he didn't go around murdering them) on abortionist.
Im against children getting murdered by this belief but what do I get called? Pro-life? NO! Anti abortion! and how negative is that. The worst examples are the best abortionists (they are known as pro Choice!?) have in justifying it with inclusions mainly rape (which is one of the sickest degrading crimes imaginable, hey, abort the rapist!) but abort over adoption agencies? No one has to die in this at all and there are plenty of good couples who would love to raise a child.
I have a few heart breaking cases if you want to read them but if your belief carries you into justifying abortion then you are cold. I think strongly that abortion clinics should be shut down immediately without second thoughts. I would stand in your defence Lauren where it your own mother rallying pro-choice arguments while your fathers blood, your body and conscience grew in her (hypothetical example). Communist rule is derived from Marxism and strongly supports total naturalistic atheistic evolution as do you. "A man in his own home is a slave, worse than a niggro" quoted from a book that inspired Karl Marx's ideas.
Comment #10143 by Phil on November 27, 2006 at 7:08 am
To asdf
Many wouldn't call them Christians but yeah they are theist in belief. Were your parent's atheist? Homosexual? Theist? Pagen? Racist? I bet you have enough sense to see what is clear to you and not to what your parents believe and any rightful parent should be happy of who their children are.
I can't bring myself to throwing away the holy Trinity to bad examples and an unknown alternative explanation. Going by your last post your the first person to show a bit of courtesy in my direction in your initial statement to me but I think this is only to reason with your belief (which isn't wrong by any means) but not to understand a very clear point I trying to address.
The expansion of knowledge has never excluded the existence of God in any means it pains to see a silly belief forced into science to demonstrate atheism over theology. I stress to conclude science it a wonderful thing and what has been achieved is mind blowing but accepting God is part of that logical reasoning over blind faith in what we don't know.
I say time, space and matter can not and will never create themselves, if you believe this then atheism has blinded you from logic and common sense. It's clear to me that many who embrace belief such as atheism is only to set themselves from the creators authority using bad examples that are mainly human. Laws like gravity that are essential for our existence only heighten the assumption of a creator as does the existence of the moon for tidal shift and light many a night, Jupiter being there not to mention not going nuclear and our distance from the sun … I could go on all-day about the mathematical improbabilities that atheists can only call coincidence or acts of random chance … these have showed us we are meant to live here for a while in a right and wrong world.
No one has seen God create a universe and no one has seen a universe essentially make itself but there is witness testament to Christ and further to genesis yet there is none for the alternative. Belief from these accounts were here longer than big bang or evolution but no onus was required for either and they replaced creation.
I would be happier to look further into why people want to follow an atheist opinion (even though they state they are not part of a religion "which they are") where it not for the fact I've met so much hostility and demeaning conversations. I very normal and rational but naturally feel upset when I read or hear negative comments relating to Christ or the Christian fellowship (or any religion in general) by those who don't study it or rely on the opinions of other atheists (some who claim to have been Christians). The door swings 2 ways however and I think to get a clearer definition of where the alternative view to your own stands then ask atheists who become Christian. Visit
http://www.ex-atheist.com/from-skepticism-to-worship.html for example. PS I posted this earlier aswell.
Comment #10124 by Phil on November 27, 2006 at 6:02 am
The reference is in Comment 202, Billy sorry if thats not what you meant but its the ways its written.
Hope your feeling better bud.
Regards.
Phil
Comment #10077 by Phil on November 27, 2006 at 3:04 am
Lauren I recognise now I'm wasting my time talking to you. I have tried my best not to have a pop on personal bases but in a forum of reason I am getting no reasonable answers other than God is a silly reason. You hit every source given to you with the assumption it has to be 100% right. Any slight gaps and you demand an answer. This would be absolutely fine where it not for the fact you refuse to apply the same logic to your own atheist view and that makes you arrogant. The site I recommended has some interesting material but you showed to slate it because of a few areas that I would agree with you on. I have many links but to demonstrate their material would fall on deaf ears. You have even asked about the designer of God again. I'm sorry Lauren but I cant keep answering your silly statements that have no idea of theology. This will be the last.
Your Greek Gods comparison is far from a good example because the God of the bible today is as much alive now as he was then and before. You show no example of any macro changing organism and I assume call yourself bright. You have continually diverted answers relating to the origin subject to have a pop at God. You do this because your own belief doesn't have the answers or the answers given make no common sense and you then attack the alternative. Why is God included into the answer as a joke? If this is a forum or reason with out faith then give me hard scientific facts and not assumptions as to the origin of the universe whether it made itself from nothing or something always existed without its own God like origin/beginning, remeber no faith aloud! What was it and where did it come from? (I have uncounted amounts of questions relating to origin subject alone). If you can't answer this scientifically with factual answers then why are you so arrogant as to not include a designer?
I dont look at the current existence of organisms to conclude their origins. You need to use logic to work, test and demonstrate a conclusion. Your logic tells you to taste an apple to conclude its origin.
You clearly have hatered for religion in general and I assume its down to the absurd reason of blind faith prevents logic. This is just atheist propaganda promoted by individuals who have let the bad examples of religion bother them personally and is nothing to do with science.
Another example of your poor argument shows "as Richard Dawkins has also pointed out wouldn't an entity need a designer". This is the "who made God?" discussion all over again and it has already been covered more than once. You also seem to think if you believe in a creator then it makes one arrogant of Archaeology, Astronomy, Homology etc but I assure you it doesn't as these have been derived from people with faith and studied by people with faith.
If you don't know a dog, wolf and a coyote are the same kind of animal then ask a 3 year old to assist you. They bring forth after their kind, clean and unclean etc. What defines a species? Say the goldfish and the carp or in extinct examples Albertosaurus and Tyrannosaurus Rex, what makes them clearly a different species? Speciation and kinds have their own individual areas that could be worth researching but I will say I can't define a kind the way I can't define a species in some of the more unique examples.
Gravity and various laws inverse square, inertia etc are examples of a creation and benifit us in existing. I have never witnessed or heard eye witness testimony to conclude this universal order can derive from the biggest bang we can imagine. The exclusion of (the lazy) random chance in some areas makes no sense as life is no simple bases to construct after any explosion no matter how big from nothing. Self forcing belief in such nonsense is irrational and curious to say in the least if you are convinced it's not down to being an atheist alone but freethinking. I disagree and reckon on an emotional level your belief is a religiously apparent as mine but the difference is I can admit mine.
Another example of the arrogance shown is the way you displayed (the watches need watchmakers again, this time with buildings) and give an answer that poked fun at God. If you think that's a reasonable answer then I applaud your help in winning this discussion in my favour. I imagine you would be thinking of a different answer now but if you are then why didn't you show it in the first place? This apparently a forum of reason with out faith. Il tell you why I think you give that answer (an answer that has been demonstrated over and over when a question is uncomfortable), it must be confidence; confident in the knowledge that your belief is right, the need to be right and that is taken to an emotional level. If you don't know the answer then it's hardly based on scientific reason to joke at God.
I think a creator created them, not poofed them and I think this assumption fits the definition of logical. Poof is the demonstration of a small explosion. Poofed is a sarcastic tone to undermine a creator when discussion the origin subject but what is unknowingly humorous to point out to you is the fact "you actually do believe the universe was poofed into existence, not by intelligent designer but BY ITSELF FROM ABSOLUTLY NOTHING OR SOMETHING (YOU DONT KNOW WHAT) THAT HAD NO BEGINNING."
If a creator created time, space and matter (again) then to include him into the probable cause he had a beginning is limiting the factor of God. If God had a beginning but created time then he would be part of his creation and that is absurd circular reasoning to say in the least. Logically God would not be limited to his creation because "he created it". The definition of a line in geometry shows the line goes forever in 2 directions. You can't really comprehend the fact that a line is not limited in any given space. I read in various scientific studies and journals that "rocks do date the fossils but fossils date the rocks more accurately" because it is becoming more apparent that carbon dating is a fraudulent lie as it decays immeasurably within 30000 years. The rocks/fossils example is not scientific reason but pure circular reasoning and fits the definition of an atheist argument to remove God.
If universal explosion and implosion is the cause and effect as to the creation and destruction of everything over and over then this is circular reasoning beyond epic preportions.
I can't help you Lauren so I wish you well. I don't know your profession but you are nicely educated in what you know relating to biology and chemistry. I am still bewildered as to how you can include big bang, evolution and a general atheist view into these but even if you hold onto big bang and macro evolution you still don't have to be an atheist. It's not linked to science but remains no more than a human belief. I favour God in terms of logic and have no mental deficiencies I know of (your gonna joke about that!) but Im sorry I cant carry this discussion further because we are both locked up in our belief and all that is left is the material provided in previous posts. If you are a scientist I wish you well and can only conclude this is all a search for truth, its best we exclude arrogance in "our" own beliefs for its discovery.
On a final note I understand the reason why Dawkins give up deating creationists ...
http://tccsa.tc/articles/dawkins_pause.html
"(Religion) With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion"
Steven Weinberg
And humanism dosnt? Abortion or Stalin anyone?
"If you are in possession of this revolutionary secret of science, why not prove it and be hailed as the new Newton? Of course, we know the answer. You can't do it. You are a fake."
Richard Dawkins
Just like you and your belief.
"For the first half of geological time our ancestors were bacteria. Most creatures still are bacteria, and each one of our trillions of cells is a colony of bacteria."
Richard Dawkins
Billy Sands disagrees that we came from bacteria somewhere in the earlier posts and as do I.
"Aquarius is a miscellaneous set of stars all at different distances from us, which have no connection with each other except that they constitute a (meaningless) pattern when seen from a certain (not particularly special) place in the galaxy (here)."
Richard Dawkins
"Let them be for signs and seasons". Ships in the course of history have navigated just fine by them as one example.
"Scientific truth is too beautiful to be sacrificed for the sake of light entertainment or money. Astrology is an aesthetic affront. It cheapens astronomy, like using Beethoven for commercial jingles."
Richard Dawkins
I agree with this comment as science is possibly the most wonderful thing to happen since Jesus died for us on calvarias tree.
Comment #9803 by Phil on November 26, 2006 at 3:56 am
Lauren this is based on creationist material but please have a look http://www.s8int.com/page34.html as it relates to studies to biblical history and its critics ref the Nebuchadnezzar point I raised.
Ignorance is apparently bliss and even back in the early stages when developing the idea behind evolution, atheists where desperate to discredit the biblical account that included not only its prophecy but its history to.
I have still seen no evidence to support bacteria changing asexually to generate 2 distinctive sexes just evidence of existing organisms mating habits. That is a design to help that organism to reproduce but because its similar to what you call more developed reproduction you conclude "the less developed will match the latter with millions of years of time". Using the unseen evidence of time to conclude your example is religious, imaginary and you didn't even see it.
Do you agree that admitted religious beliefs is certinaly no barrier for logic? Fields of science don't need atheism and it's not logical to conclude being atheist fits the definition of free thinking science; it's just another unknown belief. In the nature of Gods I can distinguish myth from reality through logic and Greek Gods are, I wouldn't argue, myth. The God of the bible is as real today as he was back then and before so with reason. Atheist intellects like Dawkins (using greatly achieved education as a witness) fear this and independently crusade to attack its logic without questioning their own.
I will admit I can't explain the definitions of a kind just as much as we can't define speciation without barriers. Was the dog, coyote and the fox created independently or have been produced from each other through 6000 years of micro changes from an original created kind. If I were to use it as a term it would be simply to tell the difference between i.e. a dog and a cat, not a dog and a wolf as it's the same kind of animal. The bible relates in general to animals and their kinds (mainly in genesis). I would agree there are some unique areas between species and kinds which should be researched.
With the current existence of gravity or any universal laws this does not work, test or demonstrate and conclude as to what created a big bang, the origin of time space and matter and allow life, conscience and definitions of right and wrong arise from non living matter through natural selection and random chance. This conjecture is absurd and I object to it being taught as fact Lauren please if you feels its necessary to put in brackets "half baked understanding of the universe" in an attempt to belittle me if you must but this is evidence of over confidence in your belief making you arrogant of its own factual misunderstandings. The existence of gravity or various universal laws and how they operates with surrounding matter is amazing but improbable and ridiculously convenient should you exclude a creative intelligence.
I didn't come to this discussion to prove my belief, please, please understand both are religious and can't be proven scientifically but we are taught to embrace faith. When I say this however I don't mean this includes being ignorant of scientific study and its findings, jumping gaps or believing miracles created things. There is a lot of evidence to suggest the heavens are created and it correlates with the God of the bible but that is different from this topic involving the God meme.
If you were to walk through a building site and enter a building. You see no builders and no evidence of builders i.e. footprints you will still conclude there is builders. The universe is amazing in visual splendour i.e. light and colour. Looking at the pictures from Hubble is almost emotional but we can't explain why we feel it. Supernovas (as dangerous as they are) exploding into a vast array of beauty Columns of gas stretching light years across and it is hard to conclude a painting without a painter. We can certinaly imagine paintings making themselves but that doesn't make it fact and is clearly illogical.
These 2 beliefs are at constant war and TV is a great tool exploited by one side. When I watch a documentary on TV involving this topic, bad examples of religion are used, shaking wailing Americans, religious fundies, zealots and such like. Programmes like songs of praise through no fault of its own are boring to those with atheistic views interested in finding out more.
I would like to see Hovind v Shermer debate televised. On the subject I don't admire Hovind but think he has a majority of excellent material collected by independent equerry. Ratings for a debate like the aforementioned I reckon would go through the roof but this would only be followed up by commentaries from atheists like Attenborough or Dawkins to twist the truths on why the creation side seemed stronger.
Anyhow TV is a far cry from reality and documentaries that I enjoy watching are not honest enough when it comes to admitting assumptions. Curiously Dr Iain Stewart did admit "it would ignorant of us to think we have cracked geology as planet earth is still a mystery" about a year ago in one of his documentaries, I respect that line of thinking as open and honest.
Comment #9649 by Phil on November 25, 2006 at 11:13 am
Reading through your comments, you seem to base the idea of theology on negative tones and it concerns me you relate to theology in such a way. Are you so close minded in your own atheist belief you recon it's the only way to openly think free? Ill nominate myself to take part however, Ill be truely honest.
example or pressure from parents, professors, or any authority figure
*My parents are chain smokers and drink a lot but they are not bad people and are certainly not depressed in any sense but they have never forced me into believing God. I and my bothers and sisters all have a wonderful relationship with them and each other.
desire for fellowship with some religious person or social group
*This may or may not offend some fellow Christians but I have not attended church since I was a child (and that was a children's meeting) although I'm thinking about going to the local church.
desire to rebel against parents, professors, or any authority figure;
*None. I enjoy showing them who is right lol but seriously I have no objection to the views of others unless they appear as a threat.
negative personal experience with anti-religious people or institutions.
*One of my best friends is an atheist (although we do tend to share comments) as is many colleges I work with who happily accept my belief.
distaste for the historical or distant actions of anti-religious people or institutions;
*None I can think of. We have had atrocities in the name of Christianity and also in the name of humanism but I wouldn't use the bad examples of either to spearhead the other. However I think its good evidence to comment on if a question relating to it or counter argument arises to condemn only one side or view. This is a far cry from belittling the other belief though or stereotyping its supporters.
distaste for the evils that might be mitigated by belief in god(s)
I have a strong distaste for mans inhumanity to man and to pass it of with an idea explaining its part of our animal heritage is absurdly lame to say in the least.
emotional dissatisfaction with the logical implications of atheism;
*Logical implications of atheism? This is a wind up, right? There is no scientific or philosophical evidence for that matter to suggest atheism is a logical course of thinking. No half baked assumption can proclaim hard factual scientific knowledge to the origin topic and that it favoured by an atheism idea. Atheism is a belief that only serves to get rid of the idea of God or I.D. to express the wrong freedoms such as sex (mainly porn), violence and war without divine authority. It's beliefs and philosophy are at war with each other not only in America or New Zealand but world wide.
Will I support Bush? His successor? Blair? Bin Laden? The Pope? Hitlers rule of authority? Stalin rule? Sadame? Kim Jung Il? Dawkins (I know a few atheists who object to the Dawkins crusade)? Billy? Lauren? Paul? King James? Longshanks? Joe Blogg? Marixism?
Atheism is promoted as freethinking because knowing intelligence created this universe is outstandingly more compelling than it created itself after a bang from nothing using either lies, assumptions or twisted truths shows characteristics akin to an act of rebellion as children to their parents. We can't see God but can freely imagine explosions and there in lies nothing but vain imaginations with little facts to support the claim. Evidence to support any form of the meaningless atheism is less compelling and skips logic over a creation event where by an immeasurably complex universe was built to last. The important thing to remember is assumptions should be clarified and not promoted as fact.
personal injustice or victimhood;
*No injustice! None! (unless you count the time I got 7 crisps in a full bag I paid 55p for!) I assure you, I can hold my own.
personal misfortune such as disability, injury, illness, or the misfortune of a loved one
*My mum has MS but she is still the same cheery annoying parent that we all love. It doesn't hold her back and is more inspirational than misfortunate. Im curious to ask though, does the misfortune of disability, injury, illness or the misfortune of a loved one help make you a Christian as its commonly argued ref a loving God (its sin)?
personal failure or crisis related to substance abuse, gambling, guilty conscience, imprisonment, etc.;
*Ive smoked L&B for a few years but drug abuse or gambling? Never. Guilty conscience or imprisonment? Never.
personal dissatisfaction with one's social, romantic, or vocational circumstances;
*Jealousy? Hating people? Are you serious? Is this why you think people become theists?
desire to reform (or excuse) one's morality or behavior;
I excuse no ones morality if I deem it's wrong (i.e. thrill kill criminals arrested last week) but that's the beauty. You can choose and you are not restrained to a dictatorship rule but you will be judged aswell.
desire for hope in divine reward.
I would look forward to divine rewards but I'm not perfect and don't think we should judge each other in a religious sense (you are going to heaven/hell). I do this because I think populations are going to hell not for stealing bead to feed a family but for rejecting God and living life without being honest and admitting born in sin. For not accepting the fathers sacrifice for mankind. If you choose to live a meaningless life switching truth with arrogance religiously happily living in the knowledge your inspiring educator was right to your grave then Im fine but I tried. I wont see you as an enemy for your belief but don't threaten me, my opinion or my entire view with an unknown meaningless alternative idea that sways in no way to science.
When people are emotionally and mentally vunerable e.g. during a spell of depression or after a break up or injury etc. rational thought is more difficult, so doctrine can more easily take hold.
Is that why you believe nothing made everything. I get often asked
"where did god come from?"
and I answer with to me what seems a logical answer (twice in earlier posts) but I want to know if you exclude God and reject nothing exploded saying there was never nothing but something everywhere then I ask
"where did something come from (including the bases and origins all minerals, compounds, gases etc ... everything)?"
Comment #8700 by Phil on November 22, 2006 at 2:56 am
I hope you aren't a scientist as many of my questions are answered with diversions and you have shown little examples of the point I make by cutting the statement to a sentence and answering a sentence.
"There is no refuting Dawkins's arguments through religion, of course. It all comes down to observation vs. faith. Or, to be blunt about it, science vs. ignorance."
Phil: I absolutely agree: the big bang and evolution being both unproven scientifically are based on faith ...
Me: Demonstrably false, unless you've redefined "science" so that you can win arguments.
P2) You don't have to redefine science, just remove the rubbish like evolution shown as a proven fact when there is no hardcore proof.
Phil: So far the strongest evidence for evolution is "I just know its there!" ...
Me: Pure projection.
P2) Then show it. If this a forum of reason without faith then show the hard evidence that proves without questionable doubt evolution is a solid known fact!
Phil: Big bang was another assumption due to the expansion of the universe ...
Me: So the Universe had bounced when it was not much smaller than it is today?
P2) "he stretched forth the heavens" I wonder where I read that. So where is the evidence for a big bang and its origin and how big is the universe? Is it too big to support the dying big bang theory? Can we see the edge? I need solid hard factual evidence to support your claims.
Phil Rebuttal: It has been programmed into our humanity to find our father as well as our own spirits and this extends all over the world to different continents.
Me: Our father? Why don't we have a mother also?
Phil: Oh, a bit of chauvinism thrown in for good measure eh? ...
Me: Got you, didn't I?
P2) Yeah you should be a stand up. I bet people where rolling around the floor after that one.
(a half-misunderstood short history of the Universe snipped)
Phil: When has anyone ever seen random chance create a natural universe?
Me: That's like saying that eclipses are caused by monsters eating the Sun and the Moon because it's not possible to produce one in a lab.
P2) No it's not. We can clearly see a solar eclipse as the moon passes in front of the sun from the surface of the earth. Your example is too insulting to comment on but you have shifted the burden of proof through illogical demonstration and poor humour. Is that how you scientifically answer a question regarding the origin of the universe?
Phil: If I appear as a fundie because I share my opinion then you need to re-educate yourself as that is concerning.
Me: Phil, you have not told us where you think that fundamentalism goes wrong.
P2) Yes I did. Go back and read it.
Me: Are you serious about your god-or-chance dichotomy? That's a false dilemma.
Phil: Is it? Then explain everything coming to existence without using god did it or random chance did it.
Me: We can point to LOTS of details as to how something happened.
P2) Ill ask for 1 example out of many. Excluding God and random chance, how did the universe start?
Me: In what way was Archaeopteryx a "bird"? Compare it to modern birds and you'll find some VERY important differences. Archaeopteryx had teeth, a long tail, and no beak. Present-day birds have no teeth, short tails, and beaks.
P) Interesting reading at http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=5&itemid=2094 A brief history of intermediates and kinds.
Me: Which does not explain why Archaeopteryx so strongly resembles small theropod dinosaurs like Compsognathus.
P2) And a chicken with teeth does not? If homology shows it can work for small dinosaurs then an intelligent designer would apply it to small birds but both are different kinds (reptiles and birds). Archaeopteryx is still hotly debated and has surprisingly (to you) not yet proven to be an intermediate since it discovery, however you are entitled to share your opinion on the subject as it is as important as mine.
P) See above link. Take a knife, spoon, spork, 3 pronged fork 4 pronged fork. I could make up a small mock statement explaining how they evolved from each other over millions and millions of years.
Me: But they don't grow or reproduce. And they don't have a treelike hierarchy of similarity.
P2) The point here being is that you are preaching the treelike hierarchy of similarity which is pure conjecture. You say whales and bananas are at some point related to each other. Reptiles to birds and such like. Yet NO animal today has produced a different kind of animal from its parent, a beneficial mutation so to speak.
Yet we are lead to believe that living animals which are now fossils have done that. How come animals back then can do something animals now can't do? If you dig up a bit of skull or toe how does that prove intermediary without the inclusion of a lot of imagination.
Coelacanth was used as an intermediate for years on the geologic column but no one could prove the subject was a beneficial mutation or that it had kids let alone suggesting they were beneficial mutations. And if that wasn't enough evidence to remove the rubbish idea of intermediates as an example, a live specimen was caught! Did it question the previous thoughts regarding evolution? No, it changed the conclusion from "extinct long ago" to "it hasn't evolved much over millions and millions of years since the Triassic!!!"
Phil: Not a different species like a Horse to Zebra (they are the same kind) but a different kind of animal from the parental kind.
Me; Tell us how you can tell what organisms are in what kinds.
Phil: If you can't tell the difference between birds and reptiles then you are mislead.
Me: I can, just as I can tell the difference between horses and zebras.
P2) Yet you cant tell if Archaeopteryx is a bird or a dinosaur (neither can the scientific community because evolutionists push this intermediate nonsense where it doesn't belong).
Me: But you were the one claiming that all the chemical elements were individually designed.
P) And you claim they made themselves from nothing!
Me: I never claimed that. Why don't you study some real science some time instead of creationist merde de taureau?
Protons and neutrons condensed from a quark-gluon plasma about 10^-6 seconds into the Big Bang, and they combined into the nuclei of light elements from 1 second to 3 minutes. At about 400,000 years ago, the Universe reached a temperature of 3000 K, allowing electrons to go into orbit around these nuclei.
Stars formed from this (mostly) hydrogen and helium gas, and are continuing to form; their interiors make the hydrogen fuse to helium, and some of them fuse helium to make carbon, oxygen, and lots of other elements. Many of the more massive stars spew much of their material out into interstellar space, by stellar winds or by explosions.
P2) Well then give me hard scientific evidence to show where they (including stars themselves) came from. The study of them is important but we can study them because they exist yet you never stated they came from nothing so where did they come from? This was the original question so stop diverting; this is a forum of reason without faith isn't it? If you don't know stop laughing at creation and admit you don't know. If a theory or piece of evidence you support is proven wrong then you wont be able to use the "Im honest" excuse most scientist do when they hope the band wagon.
If this is off tone I apologise but I keep getting the same silly answers over and over by different people who have obviously not read earlier posts. Origin, not current existence because I know they exist through proper scientific workable testable demonstrations.
Phil: Ill simplify it, where did ALL the compounds come from? An explosion from nothing. How? An explosion from something. What and how?
Me: Why not study some chemistry some time? When iron rusts, does God do a "Hey, flower, open!" act to make the iron combine with oxygen from the air to make rust?
P2) I'm glad you are wining this argument in my favour. Read the question then read then read the answer above.
Me: The first organisms emerged in an environment free of oxygen gas; oxygen-releasing photosynthesis got started over a billion years later.
P) What environment? Did the earth not have oxygen at this time? Did oxygen and its gases evolve from nothing like matter, light and universal laws? No one has created life in a lab. And if they did it would prove it takes intelligence to create life!
Me: Oxygen gas is produced by oxygen-releasing photosynthesis, and that emerged something like 2.3 billion years ago, judging from changes in geochemistry about then.
Oxygen-releasing photosynthesis is approximately electrolysis of water powered by a photovoltaic cell.
And there was some people who recently assembled a virus. Does that count?
P2) Some people lol. If some people assembled a virus together then I would conclude they have done so with current existing minerals and not from nothing. If they did it from nothing then intelligence created life! Your demonstration of emerging oxygen has not been proven using geochemistry but is an idea squeezed in to support evolution with long periods of time.
Ozone is a form of oxygen. The ozone layer filters out damaging ultraviolet (UV) rays from the Sun. Without oxygen (UV) rays from the sun would destroy developing life and with oxygen the life would get oxidised and be destroyed (the Urey-Miller experiment excluded oxygen for that reason). The problem is you see theories as fact not to disprove the existence of God but to make you belief valid to you.
P) So a dog coming from a dirty rock billions of years ago (that came from nothing by itself as a different material) is scientific fact rather than intelligence creating it?
The dog does NOT come from that "dirty rock" in one big jump. There were LOTS of intermediates along the way.
P2) You know what I mean, the dog is a life form that came from a dirty rock a long, long, long, long, long time ago (and probably far away like this fairy tail taught as science).
Me: A large brain can do more things than a small one -- it's the same with computers; the higher-performance they get, the more that they can do, as I have directly experienced over my life.
P) True, that's why elephants wont let us on the moon or Sperm Whales wont let us in on the origins of life.
However, they have much bigger bodies, which cancels that out. There's a brain-body curve that many species fall on and we are well above it.
P2) Very convient of you ask me but since my random chance hypothesises is invalid and false then the creative side of evolution has decided to do this for our benefit. That is your God.
Me: Evolution *can* be creative. Gene duplication is a very clear sort of creativity.
P) It would be nice to assume this but evolution not a creative force and works only with a big dollop of random chance and lots and lots and lots and lots of time (and a frog in this case can turn into a prince over millions of years).
Me: Phil, I don't think that you understand what gene duplication is or what it can do.
P2) Yes I do. It can create frogs and turn them into princes over millions of years (apparently). You want this idea of evolution to fit with gene replication but it can't work as no new material is added to the existing host's genes through replication. Would you be so shocked to discover a reptile with teeth if all the reptiles in the world had none as you do with birds? Its scrambled information and nothing new is added. Certainly a far cry from whales and bananas being related.
P) ... Symmetry allows us to observe objects in 3 dimensions in a 3 dimensional universe. ...
What gives you that idea? We don't need symmetry to observe anything.
P2) Eyes on both sides indicate symmetry works to view objects in a 3D space but I have already stated this is one of many reasons as some animals use them to suit their environment (micro) or no vision at all. Through a non creative force would be impossible for vision to arise from nothing let alone the ability to view it in 3 dimensions.
Me: Except that the first sexually-reproducing organisms were one-celled organisms -- and one-celled organisms don't have fancy genitalia.
P) Did you read the answer? How did the single celled organisms develop 2 sexes at the same time to reproduce as this has become the more efficient reproduction method throughout nature? God made them male and female not random chance.
Me: Many one-celled organisms have lookalike sexes, a state called "isogamy". In fact, some have numerous lookalike sexes or "mating types". This likely emerged as a way of avoiding inbreeding; different sexes likely have different versions of some surface receptor molecule.
This suggests that the original sexual reproducer had only one "sex" -- any haploid-phase organism could fuse with any other one.
P2) To avoid inbreeding with a non creative force. How convenient but since we can't include chance or God then Ill leave you to discover an alternative force behind it. Yet genitalia evolved at the same time from asexual reproduction for slot A to fit into slot B. This is nonsense. This has been covered before and remains unanswered as I still don't know why the original self reproducing organism changed to grow a …. at the same time as the other to grow a …… then for both of them to meet and change the world of reproduction to the new favoured version. Suggestions wont do, I want proof that 2 sexes can come from 1 sex and make male and female sexes more successful than the much better self reproducing system through a non creative force. "Skip it because it happened, ok" just wont do.
P) Feathers from scales, genitals from self reproducing organisms, senses from bacteria I hope you are slowly catching on that there is a lot of fantasy and lies mixed with science as there is countless examples of nothing poofing into existence. My favourite of all "the universe".
Me: Genitals only emerged when multicelled organisms did -- most one-celled organisms are rather short on that. And bacteria also have senses -- chemical and mechanical ones.
P2) I meant touch, taste, smell, hear and see. Your using the simplest explanation to explain a complex un-evolving system . Its obvious to assume that genitalia arose when multi celled organisms evolved from single celled organisms through tonnes of imagination but I cant leave the realms of science like that to conclude single celled organisms appeared by themselves and started reproducing and forming multiple cells as well as eventually 2 sexes with or chance or God. Even with chance it's a lazier explanation than God did it.
P) Ohh a homology discussion, did wheels from a car evolve from a skate board millions of years ago? No, the design works perfectly on various forms of transport as does the design in biology. Common designer.
Me: Skateboards don't grow and reproduce.
Furthermore, cars and skateboards don't have identical designers.
P2) But the design fits. Round wheels actually are essential for the various forms of transport to move. You telling me one manufacturer cant make bikes and cars and one manufacturer cant use the same logic behind the wheel, gears or exhaust of various transports? You assert the fact there is many manufacturers but negate to mention (like the watch maker) they are based on the principle design or original. There is a trinity in one God but billions of humans so you can't use the same example to compare hundreds of manufacturer's designs to one universal design.
Did Lucy (the obvious tree dwelling monkey) have any children? Where they different kinds? Were its parents different animals? Fossils tell you the creature died so the assertion showing skateboards don't grow and reproduce is not the point I am making but I am trying to emphasize that design like the forelimb in a bat, whale or human works! As do the wheels on a skate board, motor bike or car.
P) No because natural evolution is a non creative force and has no scientific hard evidence to back it up. Throwing the dice with chance is not a scientific explanation for the existence of the universe.
Me: Natural selection is a NON-random effect.
P2) Its random through chance as we can clearly see so many things working together, the laws of gravity with matter, the earths rotation at the correct distance from the sun, life and conscience itself with COUNTLESS other possibilities that should of occurred to stop you arriving here having this discussion with me. To say its non random is like telling me to ignore every other improbability because we are here and that proves you right.
Im not even sure you understood the small statement I made. I said natural evolution (without god) not natural selection. Natural selection is evidence for intelligent design because it helps the animal adapt to its surroundings but in a fallen creation, add death and it becomes survival of the fit (not fittest).
P) Peter Henleins watch has been made over and over but not one of them has a variation of numbers in hours or minutes under the original design.
Me: But are batteries and digital displays part of Peter Henlein's design?
P2) Battery origins (not current existence) http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blbattery.htm
Digital displays? whatever … there goes arrogance over fact again and poor examples as demonstrations that divert the point.
Remove Peter Henlein's design and all the watches would not be watches. Stop comparing current existence to origins it doesn't work. Kind of like tasting nuts to find out where they come from.
(me on the inhospitability of the Universe...)
P) (Bible-thumping snipped...)
If you drown is nature being bad? No but sin entered the world and brought death as it is written. I think had the divine curse sin not entered the word we would be far more advanced and probably be exploring space itself. We are bound to a fallen creation that is going to be destroyed by the creator and unless saved through faith in Jesus we and our small existence will remain small and insignificant.
So if not for original sin, we would have been indestructible?
As hard as it sounds it ties with love. A perfect sinless loving God created mankind in his image with love. It's hard to assume why so much can hurt us and kill us in a creation from a loving creator but sin plays a big factor in this understanding. The bible isn't always clear on answers to things like "sin" but if I put my faith in an "obvious" creator and follow righteousness then It merits happiness that I cant describe through a connection with Christ. I'm not strapping bombs to myself here because I disagree with a government or other religions because I feel at peace.
The greatest act of love for humanity was shown when Jesus Christ son of God divine in the flesh was beaten, tortured, humiliated and sacrificed on the cross, for our sins. No one has left a greater impact on humanity and it separates him from obvious myths like Hercules. As bad as it may sound, because of this act of sacrifice that has shown our fathers undeniable love for mankind that the universe may have been created with the intention to support a fallen creation, explaining its hospitality.
It's a good question and the answer in based on assumption but there are many different ones that are just as good. I have found little answers admitted to be assumptions in this forum and I strongly suggest if you wish to exclude faith from apparent reason then revision of all you know regarding because scientifically there is little truth to behold.
Comment #8627 by phil on November 21, 2006 at 9:13 pm
GoodWithWood
"Wow! 15 hours. This should be good. I better get started."
Wow indeed! I was really hoping that we'd get to see video from this conference. I'm anxious to see all of it.
Comment #8375 by Phil on November 21, 2006 at 3:55 am
I took the morning off work to do that but I cant waste any more time. Billy if I can Ill comment on your post when I get the chance.
The temporal distrobution shows Archaeoptrex above the region of varous ordinary birds. Its on the net. Have to go as I dont live beside this computer but have enjoyed the comments and it was nice to discuss the subject with you all.
Phil
Comment #8372 by Phil on November 21, 2006 at 3:50 am
Phil Rebuttal: Is this based on fact that all the matter can be cancelled out and erased? I get from your comment that since all of the universes matter energy content and gravitational potential energy can cancel out, giving it a total of zero energy then it is possible that it can spring into existence by its self from zero. To me this is leaving the realms of science and to laugh at people with the God Meme is very patronising to say in the least. …
Me: It's only its initial state, when it was almost Planck sized, that had had such an origin. "Goddidit!" is a poor argument, because one then has to ask what accounts for God's existence.
P) If (sorry, since) God created time, space and matter then that would mean he exists out of time, space and matter our level of science would be puny to describe Gods existence that since we exist in the creation. We can comprehend eternity i.e. numbers never end but its hard for us to grasp no beginning as we unlike a creator indeed began.
Phil Rebuttal: If you are referring that Tiktaalik is to tetrapods what Archaeoteryx is to birds then I must conclude that a bat is in transitional form to a bird. Anyway Archaeoteryx was just a bird (some today have claws on their wings
Me: In what way was Archaeopteryx a "bird"? Compare it to modern birds and you'll find some VERY important differences. Archaeopteryx had teeth, a long tail, and no beak. Present-day birds have no teeth, short tails, and beaks.
P) Interesting reading at http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=5&itemid=2094 A brief history of intermediates and kinds.
Phil rebuttal: but I must point out that you have once again left the realm of science when you said evolution can happen in bursts in small offshoot populations, making species-to-species transitions hard to see. You believe this proposal religiously but can't admit it and refer to it as science.
Me: Using "religion" as a dirty word again? Stephen Jay Gould and his colleagues *have* found occasional species-to-species transitional fossils.
P) See above link. Take a knife, spoon, spork, 3 pronged fork 4 pronged fork. I could make up a small mock statement explaining how they evolved from each other over millions and millions of years. But because things look alike it is wrong to fit it together like they are related yet there so much desperation to find hard evidence to support evolution in macro form that the evidence is squeezed uncomfortable into a spot (like carbon dating) without analysis but a predetermined answer. I have asked over and over for the evidence to support just 1 animal today that has produced a different kind of offspring from itself. Not a different species like a Horse to Zebra (they are the same kind) but a different kind of animal from the parental kind.
If you can't tell the difference between birds and reptiles then you are mislead.
Phil Rebuttal: So the lighter elements made all the matter and stars with fusion making energy within them and the heavier elements evolved from the lighter ones? Is this scientific fact or another assumption?
Me: That's about as well-established as anything of that nature *can* be. Why don't you study some of the professional literature on nucleosynthesis some time?
P) Ok but where did it come from. Study it because it exists and that proves there is no God. If you question creation then keep to origin subject using hard evidence not faith (I've been told I'm not aloud to use faith in science) to support your claims and don't divert to the current existence of things without showing there true origin (remember it's apparent that no faith is aloud!). I can admit mine is faith based on "creation", can you admit its faith based on "nothing-BANG!".
Phil: (4) How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?
Me: Carl Sagan once noted that there are those who used to believe that God has to come by each morning glory flower and say "Hey, flower, open!" I'm seeing this sort of absurdity here, because the structure of atoms is well accounted for by quantum mechanics.
Rebuttal: Sounds to me like the usual stereotype to humiliate the logic and reason of creationists. ... (assertion of Goddidit! snipped)
Me: But you were the one claiming that all the chemical elements were individually designed.
P) And you claim they made themselves from nothing!
Phil Rebuttal: God is stupid for my answer? Quantum chemistry exists? There is a field of science studying it? You cant conclude its origin but laugh at the God meme? ...
Me: You don't believe that there is such a thing as quantum chemistry?
P) I don't think you're an idiot, I think you've miss read the point I made. The question you didn't post is
"Phil: (5) Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from?"
and the answer I got was
"Me: There's a whole field of quantum chemistry dedicated to working out the properties of chemical bonds and the like. And as to the compounds' actual formation, it happens all the time on its own, unless you believe in the "Hey, flower, open!" theory of divine microintervention. I suggest studying some chemistry, however boring it might seem."
I wasn't suggesting Quantum chemistry doesn't exist but frustrated by an answer that showed it exists when the question asked for its origin. Ill simplify it, where did ALL the compounds come from? An explosion from nothing. How? An explosion from something. What and how?
Phil Rebuttal: so if I get a container and mix water, methane, ammonia (where did they come from?) and the like and I should get a foundation for life and a base for conscience? You cant add oxygen though because you would oxidise the life and destroy it.
Me: The first organisms emerged in an environment free of oxygen gas; oxygen-releasing photosynthesis got started over a billion years later.
P) What environment? Did the earth not have oxygen at this time? Did oxygen and its gases evolve from nothing like matter, light and universal laws? No one has created life in a lab. And if they did it would prove it takes intelligence to create life!
Phil Rebuttal: (accusations that evolution is somehow my "religion"...)
Me: Again, using "religion" as a dirty word.
P) A dirty word? I've been called many dirty words in this forum but if someone called me religious I wouldn't consider the term a dirty word. What makes it so dirty to you however is the fact you believe something so much it has become you philosophy but like creation you can't prove it. You believe it religiously, only yours makes less sense and you can't admit it so religion to you becomes a dirty word.
Phil Rebuttal: ... we can see a dog kind change size and temperament but that concludes it came from a dirty rock long ago and far away. ...
Me: While God creating Adam by breathing on some dirt is a glorious scientific insight, right?
P) So a dog coming from a dirty rock billions of years ago (that came from nothing by itself as a different material) is scientific fact rather than intelligence creating it? Keep to science and stop wondering into philosophical fantasy. If you don't know other than intelligence was responsible then say it. Mock it and you're a fool because you have nothing. It's like being blind but arguing red from blue.
(stuff on human emotions...)
Me: A large brain can do more things than a small one -- it's the same with computers; the higher-performance they get, the more that they can do, as I have directly experienced over my life.
P) True, that's why elephants wont let us on the moon or Sperm Whales wont let us in on the origins of life.
(evolution as uncreative...)
Me: Evolution *can* be creative. Gene duplication is a very clear sort of creativity.
P) It would be nice to assume this but evolution not a creative force and works only with a big dollop of random chance and lots and lots and lots and lots of time (and a frog in this case can turn into a prince over millions of years).
Phil Rebuttal: Symmetry (although not the main reason) plays an important factor for an observer to view objects in 3 dimensions in a 3 dimensional universe and looks like an intelligent creative input.
Me: So you are claiming that symmetry is convenient to look at and not some convenient shortcut?
P) Um? I'm sorry, I'm not clear on the meaning of your sentence. Ill say again. Symmetry allows us to observe objects in 3 dimensions in a 3 dimensional universe. For this to evolve naturally through a non creative force is in itself ludicrous. I never stated that looking at it is convenient. Though I'm sorry if I've missed the point you're trying to make.
Phil: (11) If the first generation of mating species didn't have parents, how did the mating pair get to that point anyhow?
Me: Someone here seems to have never heard of asexual reproduction. ...
Phil Rebuttal: This does not answer the question as you make an assumption that asexual reproduction for some reason has created to sexes. If both asexual organisms mated then how did the genitals for each newly evolved sex arrive at the same time for the Mr to tell the Misses "bend over honey were ready to mate" and is there evidence to support this process?
Me: Except that the first sexually-reproducing organisms were one-celled organisms -- and one-celled organisms don't have fancy genitalia.
P) Did you read the answer? How did the single celled organisms develop 2 sexes at the same time to reproduce as this has become the more efficient reproduction method throughout nature? God made them male and female not random chance.
Phil Rebuttal: Arthropods have an open-loop one with a main blood vessel extending through their bodies we have tonnes more but all our organs inter work with one another and to remove either the heart, lungs, liver or stomach is fatal and to suggest the developed by themselves as we progressed through different animals is amazing considering you call it scientific fact.
Me: Evolution does NOT work by making things pop out of nowhere, by poofing them into existence. Structures are derived from predecessor structures.
P) Feathers from scales, genitals from self reproducing organisms, senses from bacteria I hope you are slowly catching on that there is a lot of fantasy and lies mixed with science as there is countless examples of nothing poofing into existence. My favourite of all "the universe".
Phil Rebuttal: Throat pouches are still used as evidence to support evolution in a foetus! Those bags of skin are still called gill slits!
Me: Haven't you ever heard of "homology" before?
P) Ohh a homology discussion, did wheels from a car evolve from a skate board millions of years ago? No, the design works perfectly on various forms of transport as does the design in biology. Common designer.
Phil Rebuttal: The example here is the 2 inter working intelligently as a creative argument. You used different animals as your answer and ignored how the eyes and brain can evolve simultaneously to correlate information to one another. ...
Me: Eyes and brains coevolve; it's not one then the other. And there are LOTS of animals with very simple eyes and very simple brains.
P) Common designer, to think sight can evolve from nothing the way you do is ludicrous as even a simple eye is wired up like a city to make it work. Chance or God?
(why half-half sex ratios...)
Phil Rebuttal: Yet science offers no reasonable answer for this process to occur and label it "random chance" again.
Me: Why are you unwilling to accept that it can be the result of natural evolution?
P) No because natural evolution is a non creative force and has no scientific hard evidence to back it up. Throwing the dice with chance is not a scientific explanation for the existence of the universe.
Phil Rebuttal: Was the original design of the watch created by many creators? To suggest one person made all the watches and cloaks in the world today is I admit absurd but they all came from one designer (Peter Henlein I think). Now apply that same logic to the only universe we know and you have one beautiful complex universe and one great designer.
Me: So this Peter Henlein had designed every sort of watch that we see from his time onward -- analog watches, digital watches, wind-up watches, motion-wound watches, battery-powered watches, plain-looking watches, fancy-looking watches, colorful-looking watches, designer watches, ... ?
P) Peter Henleins watch has been made over and over but not one of them has a variation of numbers in hours or minutes under the original design. This is nonsense and is like me asking you did the watches evolve over millions of years through non creative chance taking or do we have variations because of creative input?
(lame "astrophysics" snipped)
(analogy: if we had been cyberspace inhabitants...)
Me: But in that case, if we discovered that we were designed, we would not necessarily conclude that it was some single perfect super designer that did the designing. And if there is no direct evidence of any designers involved and evidence of some process that can give the appearance of designer, then we ought to consider alternatives to designers.
P) I would say if there was a designer then we would have a record inspired by his words. We do. If he is a super designer with unknown levels of intelligence then we would be perplexed at his design. We are. In our own freedoms we can choose to follow the law he has laid down or not. Choice and innate knowledge of right and wrong exist and there is no delusion but what you choose to do in your short existence must have an impact on the creative force that made you.
Not your atoms but you and your distinctive existence which to you must be the biggest mystery of all.
Billions have come and gone.
Countless are being born and countless continue dying and here YOU are, living, thinking, reasoning your own thoughts, existing until your time is up. You can disregard this however to your grave but that is foolish.
(evolution of life, origin of life, and origin of the Universe)
Phil Rebuttal: (admiration of Kent Hovind...) ... I was not expecting to hear "they are separate from each other" followed by a refusal to answer the question.
Me: Evolution by natural selection can still happen even if the ancestral organism had been miraculously created or if the Big Bang had been miraculously created.
P) If this is a forum of reason with out faith then prove it. Its nice and easy to imagine it but it didn't happen or I couldn't argue with it. Other than it happens is there hard evidence. Kind changing kind. A video or picture or even an eye witness account.
Phil: ... creationism is a far more reasonable and logical explanation of the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life.
Me: If you believe in "Goddidit!" and "Hey, flower, open!" I suppose.
Rebuttal: You did it again! Any other answer to this question boils down to "RANDOM CHANCE DID IT".
Me: There you go again, with your false dichotomy of god vs. chance.
P) Only it's not false. You stated evolution can be creative sometimes. When does a non creative force like evolution for example get creative and why does it get creative with out the inclusion of random chance? Is there intelligence involved?
Phil: Look around and you must agree that sin or something wrong is everywhere in the world.
Me: Did you expect the Universe to be made for our business?
Rebuttal: The universe is beautiful but mans inhumanity to man is not. (a lot of irrelevant stuff about "sin"...)
Me: I'll expand. Most of the Universe is just plain inhospitable to us, and even the Earth's surface is not exactly perfect. We can drown in water, die of thirst in deserts, freeze to death in cold parts, get buried by landslides, and get roasted by lava. And numerous animals and plants and fungi produce poisons. We can fall out of trees, get bitten or mauled or otherwise attacked by various animals, etc.
The rest of the Universe is much, much worse. Much of the Earth's interior is solid rock, though with a part-liquid core of iron-nickle. And more than a few kilometers up we would die of asphyxiation in a few minutes. In fact, we would die of that in nearly ALL the Universe.
Most of the Solar System is inhospitable to humanity, and we'd be vaporized if we reached the Sun's "surface". And the same is likely true of planetary systems elsewhere in the Universe.
If there is a god, then that entity must absolutely *adore* interplanetary and interstellar and intergalactic space.
P) The Heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the end of the world. Psalms 19:1-4
If you drown is nature being bad? No but sin entered the world and brought death as it is written. I think had the divine curse sin not entered the word we would be far more advanced and probably be exploring space itself. We are bound to a fallen creation that is going to be destroyed by the creator and unless saved through faith in Jesus we and our small existence will remain small and insignificant.
Mainly religious I know but having this little understanding with studies to back up its claims and witness accounts I can feel at ease through this faith that has reason and purpose.
Questioned moralities of the bible is right but if the answers come from those who directed you from Christ then you will learn nothing but sarcasm over truth and humiliating alternatives over philosophical views. Get the answers you need from those who study that particular area or field to excel in understanding the related question, from there you can decide if its right or wrong. I don't know how many have had professors shaken their beliefs with humiliating tactics applied or have been verbally abused in the way I have but this is human ignorance and hardly truth. Id, rather follow Jesus than someone who curses me any day. I assure you there is no greater freedom (sorry to sound preachy Billy). But read the bible without attacking it and you'll see the point.
(...)
Phil: I think you don't know the gaps as much as myself and you are fine to assert this evolutionary belief as an answer to fill them but you have no regard for any other view (creation was the original)
Me: The numerous creation stories of the various old-time "pagan" religions, which I'm sure that you believe to be absolutely false. Do you believe that the Universe was created as a result of the first god masturbating?
Also original was belief that:
The Earth is flat
The sky is a bowl overhead
The Sun, Moon, and stars move around the Earth
Lamarckian inheritance can easily be induced (Genesis 30)
Diseases are often caused by demonic possession
P) Did Columbus believe in evolution or Big bang? Atheists are quick to assert that religion is to blame for nonsense ideas and atrocities but forget to mention its (sin) buried within us to do these things regardless of what we believe. Stalin anyone? One professor (can't remember his name but its on the internet somewhere) though all the dinosaurs where extinct because of too much farting that caused a global warming effect. Didn't we believe for certain one time that everything created itself from nothing by itself! Life arose from non life … so on so forth.
Stupid human ideas make for stupid assumptions but until proven wrong are hard to get rid of but it's a fact of life from both world wide perspectives and remains remarkably human.
...
Phil: This evolution and big bang idea however replaced it without onus or burden of proof.
Me: Why don't you study the history of science some time? Like how evolution and the Big Bang were discovered. And try to have at least a *tiny* bit of dignity; being a self-pitying crybaby is not exactly dignified.
P) The problem is I have and found as a scientific, faithless assumption, factually answer to life and everything incompetent and non creditable. It has no logic or reason. Incoherent and flawed. Discoveries are forced to fit with a predetermined answer to get rid of God in a war of philosophies. You cant prove the big bang any more that I can prove God of the scriptures. But you can admit that and that is arrogance to no fault of your own as you have been taught its fact.
Phil: I severely object to Dawkins using his education in science to spearhead an attack on philosophical views that people hold near and dear in their hearts because of his own opinion of religion little realising he is a fundamentalist himself.
Me: Saying how much you cherish some pet belief is no argument.
P) Neither is declaring the use of lies to support a dying faith/religion that has no meaning other to an alternative to God and is useless to humanity. The difference is I can admit my pet belief is faith, you can't. I can freely look at any evidence to see where it fits logically, you can't. Without faith or belief then your science would have you squeeze answers in where they don't fit and that is not science. That is idealism and when corrected makes you look silly. As escape goat you can only conclude that for example if your defence on this matter was proven wrong entirely then you could say you didn't know then but you know now so at least you where only being honest. Have a bit of faith and open up.
Comment #7969 by Phil on November 20, 2006 at 2:52 am
Phil Rebuttal: It has been programmed into our humanity to find our father as well as our own spirits and this extends all over the world to different continents.
Me: Our father? Why don't we have a mother also?
Oh, a bit of chauvinism thrown in for good measure eh? Darwin "a man in his own home is a slave, worse than a niggro". We have a trinity who made woman just as intelligent as men, the problem being woman will never rule because they don't like each other! (Joke lol anybody).
Women are just as capable as men regardless zealot teachings.
Phil Rebuttal: The bad argument here is driving lies into science books and calling it science as a means to get rid of God.
Me: Lies? Who are you calling liars?
Billions of years ago there was a big bang. It formed the bases of all matter, compounds, material and universal laws from nothing. Energy made the stars but the fusion in stars made the energy. A ball of elements and compounds swirled together and made a bases for earth which was exactly the right distance from the sun for temperature and had Jupiter's (which conveniently didn't erupt into a star) mighty gravitational protection from deadly asteroids. Another ball 1 third the size of the earth collided with the molten earth and made the moon. It took millions of years for the earth to cool and it rained on the rocks of the earth for millions of years when a pool of primordial soup appeared containing the first compounds to create life. Single celled organisms appeared from the soup and preferred 2 sexes.
Through millions and millions of years they became complex and changed into dinosaurs. Then a 7 mile wide asteroid collided with the earth and killed them off. Mammals and small reptiles survived this and mammals grew almost as big as the dinosaurs before slowly evolving into smaller organisms that by killing each other over and over and over became monkeys. Monkeys all around the world that evolved into the races we all see today while their decedents remain "monkey".
This small example shows frogs can turn into princes if you add millions of years and planet of the apes may happen! "God did it?" No. We need to use logic not laziness so "random chance did it". If you believe that or something like it then your belief is based on lies if it is called "science".
Phil Rebuttal: Creation is magnificent and full of slender. The big bang is lazy and overdue but both are unproven scientifically and yet for some reason only one needs "burden of proof" while the replacement does not!
Me: The big bang is well-established, which is more than can be said of "Goddidit!" When is the last time anyone has ever seen God make something poof into existence? As in *Poof!* something new comes into existence and a booming voice coming out of the sky takes credit for creating it.
The universe was created in 6 days using knowledge. When has anyone ever seen random chance create a natural universe? The big bang is certainly not well established and is sinking incredibly fast as we learn just how big this place is. Why does creation need onus when this idea did not prove the non existence of creation?
Phil: Dawkins is a religious, fundamentalist and downright offensive preacher whose main weapon to destroy his opponent (religion in general) is humour and controversy, he is becoming the very character he is trying to destroy
Me: It's fun to see a fundie religious person use "religion" and "fundamentalism" as dirty words
Phil Rebuttal: I can take name calling but to imply that I am "personally" a fundamentalist I do take offence as fundamentalism is the main reason we have been destroying each other from Bin Laden to Stalin. ...
Me: In what way are you *not* a fundamentalism? Where do you believe that fundamentalism goes wrong?
When a belief is spear headed by another in a hostile manor by an individual who credits himself as enforcer of truth in ways akin to right and wrong. Im here to share my view not to preach it or ram it into people's heads like it's a proven fact, like Dawkins and his crusade. Aggressive in nature the individual fundie creates barriers and divisions using either education or position in power to corruption ideas and promote them to groups who disregard reason or logic in favour of the particular idealist. Using tactics such as humiliation (not in jokes) to create separation within groups that can only lead to hostility.
(588. Comment #7100 by Anonymous on November 17, 2006 at 6:47 am
"this is so fucking dumb and retarted fuckk ya'll")
If I appear as a fundie because I share my opinion then you need to re-educate yourself as that is concerning.
Phil Rebuttal: Again I am reading the same answer we don't know but God stupid. Talk about gaps how about "random chance did it". This is far lazier than intelligence built it.
Me: Are you serious about your god-or-chance dichotomy? That's a false dilemma.
Is it? Then explain everything coming to existence without using god did it or random chance did it. Balances for so called developed life to exist on earth etc (there countless examples).
(some Bible-thumping snipped...)
Phil, do you have any better arguments than quoting how the Bible's writers felt so terribly wronged by people not listening to them?
Right please listen, in a forum of reason if I ask a question to an atheist "why is God mentioned in the answer?" Can I not get a simple "we don't know" or "its assumed its like this". Arrogance is apparent here because you keep bringing God into the answer as part of the answer. What if I was a curious atheist?
How would "How did life develop from non-life? Me: That's still not very well understood, but are you suggesting that some "god of the gaps" poofed the first organism into existence?" be answered without the inclusion to revert to the "poofed" humiliate god answer?
Comment #7947 by Phil on November 20, 2006 at 1:50 am
"You say that sin is inherent. I say that breathing is inherent. Are you teaching your children not to breathe?
If you are successful with that, perhaps you can begin removing the inherent roundness from circles."
Phil: Joad why do you continue to use bad arguments? I can observe children lie, cheat and steal from a young age and see sin is apparent and yet you compare it to breathing which helps the body maintain its life? And I thought the creation of fire to creation of nature itself was a silly comparison.
"Sin is incompatiable with notions of right and wrong. You would prevent me from doing the right thing because it is sinful. Yet you would allow me to do the wrong thing because it is not sinful.
The problem is that you are trying to have two completely different standards of behavior at the same time. A great many things are illegal, but not immoral, just as many immoral acts are not illegal. One of the major reasons for Seperation of Church and state was not religious freedom. It was that we could not live under two conflicting sets of laws. If we obeyed the King, then the Church executed us. If we obeyed the Church, then the King executed us."
Phil: Then who should dictate right and wrong? Should we follow Stalin or Hitler's rule of authority? What about Blair or Bushes rule or authority? Bin Laden? Pollpox? Mussolini? The Pope? Where does right and wrong stand?
From your statement above I can only conclude you have little value of true absolutes between right and wrong and therefore you can't be absolutely right in this argument. I'm don't have (or trying to have) 2 different standards of behaviour, this is an assumption. I would say it makes more sense logically that it takes a painter to create a painting and a watch maker to make a watch. I would further say the fathers have not fell asleep on the job and have inspired teachings as to moral values because right and wrong can not arise through a non creative process. Can we scientifically comprehend right and wrong? No. It's based on a matter of opinion and on a naturalistic view is a mystery.
"Science does tell us why 'bad' things happen. If a child dies, science tells us why. We refer to tha