Lets back up.......

[Values]

Since there appears to be a lot of evolutionist/agnostics/athiests on this board, I would like to hear your theories on how the universe got here.
I think starting at the beginning would be the place to begin learning.

[Meriweather]

:razz:

In fact, you may want to back up from the Religion Forum back to the Discussion Topics Menu and select General Interest. It was determined last summer that discussions that center on science and evolution are a better fit to the General Interest Forum not the Religion Forum.

Good luck. ;)

[Koushi Shinigami]

+1

[RayMan]

Yup.

[Values]

:razz:

In fact, you may want to back up from the Religion Forum back to the Discussion Topics Menu and select General Interest. It was determined last summer that discussions that center on science and evolution are a better fit to the General Interest Forum not the Religion Forum.

Good luck. ;)

If in a religion forum the discussion of the beginning of all that we know should not be discussed then it isn't a religion forum.

If in fact an athiest can ask all comers to question his non religious stance then a simple question to that same athiest should be allowed in that same religious forum.

The mods have a right to move me and you have a right to disagree that religion concerns history and or the origins of the universe, but in fact the very beginning of the Bible that most of us profess to follow discusses just this very thing in the very first paragraph of the very first book.
It IS a religious topic, regardless of what you want it to be.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Slow your roll.

Meri is just letting you know what we were told by a moderater of this forum earlier last year. At that time it was decided that since creation thread always devolve into discussions of a decidedly scientific nature, that topic was better suited to another forum on this board.

[Dipperdap]

Since there appears to be a lot of evolutionist/agnostics/athiests on this board, I would like to hear your theories on how the universe got here.
I think starting at the beginning would be the place to begin learning.

This is where their Logic fails them. They (agnostics and such) can't seem to explain the absolute beginning without things and stuff just randomly being here. Whereas the religious accept that something divine is involved.

What agnostics seem to forget is the fact that humans are very limited in their own capability to even understand the universe let alone its very beginnings. We are limited in our own understanding so how on earth would we have an idea of the beginnings of everything.

The rest of us defer to God as the ultimate beginning of it all.

[Koushi Shinigami]

This is where their Logic fails them. They (agnostics and such) can't seem to explain the absolute beginning without things and stuff just randomly being here. Whereas the religious accept that something divine is involved.

What agnostics seem to forget is the fact that humans are very limited in their own capability to even understand the universe let alone its very beginnings. We are limited in our own understanding so how on earth would we have an idea of the beginnings of everything.

The rest of us defer to God as the ultimate beginning of it all.


There's money to be made on both sides of the issue. Scientists and preachers alike seem to be able to feed their families.

[Values]

This is where their Logic fails them. They (agnostics and such) can't seem to explain the absolute beginning without things and stuff just randomly being here. Whereas the religious accept that something divine is involved.

What agnostics seem to forget is the fact that humans are very limited in their own capability to even understand the universe let alone its very beginnings. We are limited in our own understanding so how on earth would we have an idea of the beginnings of everything.

The rest of us defer to God as the ultimate beginning of it all.

I have found that when talking about the origins of the universe there is a great faith needed for an athiest/non-IDer.
To conceptualize that there was nothing and from that there came all that we now know, is a big stretch. It is exactly why I started this thread, science tells us that something cannot come from nothing so where did all this come from? How does an athiest/agnostic rectify this simple, truth with their beliefs?

[Dipperdap]

I have found that when talking about the origins of the universe there is a great faith needed for an athiest/non-IDer.
To conceptualize that there was nothing and from that there came all that we now know, is a big stretch. It is exactly why I started this thread, science tells us that something cannot come from nothing so where did all this come from? How does an athiest/agnostic rectify this simple, truth with their beliefs?

Can't help you with that one as I'm a believer.

[merryAtheist]

since creation thread always devolve into discussions of a decidedly scientific nature...

I prefer to characterize it thusly: "Creation threads tend to evolve into discussions of science".

[Values]

I prefer to characterize it thusly: "Creation threads tend to evolve into discussions of science".

You seem to be an athiest, by your handle at least, what do you understand to be the beginning of the universe?
What is your belief?

[merryAtheist]

I think it's incorrect on the part of the OP to assume that atheists must have answers to questions pertaining to the origin of the universe.

Believers obtain answers to these questions by means of faith (by this I mean to say "faith in divine revelation"). This gives believers a level of assurance and certainty that an atheist considers unwarranted.

Atheists must obtain answers/knowledge without resort to divine revelation. Thus far, the most reliable way of gaining knowledge is by means of scientific methodology, which has stringent demands for evidence, among other things. Currently, there is no way of peering back beyond the first few milliseconds of the universe to determine what existed (if anything) prior. So for the atheist, there is no "certain" answer to these questions.

For this atheist, when asked to explain the origin of the universe, "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

[gpd®]

Koush, any of that perpetual popcorn available? I am off to watch the rest of the NASCAR race?

[Values]

I think it's incorrect on the part of the OP to assume that atheists must have answers to questions pertaining to the origin of the universe.

Believers obtain answers to these questions by means of faith (by this I mean to say "faith in divine revelation"). This gives believers a level of assurance and certainty that an atheist considers unwarranted.

Atheists must obtain answers/knowledge without resort to divine revelation. Thus far, the most reliable way of gaining knowledge is by means of scientific methodology, which has stringent demands for evidence, among other things. Currently, there is no way of peering back beyond the first few milliseconds of the universe to determine what existed (if anything) prior. So for the atheist, there is no "certain" answer to these questions.

For this atheist, when asked to explain the origin of the universe, "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

Because it is acceptable to you or because the conundrum of something from nothing gets you into the realm of Diety inspired creation?
You see, the question is not only valid, but to really believe the theory of evolution this question must be answered, even if only to your own satisfation.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Koush, any of that perpetual popcorn available? I am off to watch the rest of the NASCAR race?

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo240/koushishinigami/popcorn.jpg

Good race so far. Lot's of action.

[merryAtheist]

Because it is acceptable to you or because the conundrum of something from nothing gets you into the realm of Diety inspired creation?
Because, as stated in my previous post: "Currently, there is no way of peering back beyond the first few milliseconds of the universe to determine what existed (if anything) prior." Anything beyond is conjecture and hypotheses.
You see, the question is not only valid, but to really believe the theory of evolution this question must be answered, even if only to your own satisfation.
This makes no sense to me.

[graatz]

An atheist doesn't need to know how it all began any more than a Christian needs to understand how God created light and darkness from nothingness...

[Values]

Because, as stated in my previous post: "Currently, there is no way of peering back beyond the first few milliseconds of the universe to determine what existed (if anything) prior." Anything beyond is conjecture and hypotheses.

This makes no sense to me.

Evolution is only a theory.
One that has been losing credance with almost every discovery into the depths of molecular biology or the findings of our universe.
evolutionists used to adamantly say that their theory gave us the beginnings of life itself (primordial ooze comes to mind) now you profess you do not know how we got here but you are still certain that evolution was the way.

[Values]

An atheist doesn't need to know how it all began any more than a Christian needs to understand how God created light and darkness from nothingness...

Without a belief in why there is no God you are relegated to simply being contrarian and have no basis to your belief. If you cannot explain your views then you really have no views to discuss.
I think a true athiest believes what they say and back it up with a belief system they can articulate, agnostics tend to find themselves in that grey area of not knowing much more often and often flounder with larger ideas and concepts.

[TaylorW65]

Evolution is only a theory.
One that has been losing credance with almost every discovery into the depths of molecular biology or the findings of our universe.
evolutionists used to adamantly say that their theory gave us the beginnings of life itself (primordial ooze comes to mind) now you profess you do not know how we got here but you are still certain that evolution was the way.

Evolution losing credence? I think you better notify the scientific community because they don't know this yet! :rolleyes:

[biggles53]

Evolution is only a theory.
One that has been losing credance with almost every discovery into the depths of molecular biology or the findings of our universe.
evolutionists used to adamantly say that their theory gave us the beginnings of life itself (primordial ooze comes to mind) now you profess you do not know how we got here but you are still certain that evolution was the way.

You've got to be kidding.....!:rolleyes:

[Koushi Shinigami]

Evolution is only a theory.
One that has been losing credance with almost every discovery into the depths of molecular biology or the findings of our universe.
evolutionists used to adamantly say that their theory gave us the beginnings of life itself (primordial ooze comes to mind) now you profess you do not know how we got here but you are still certain that evolution was the way.

Let's see.....

Gen2: 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,

Hmmm.....

Water + Dust..... sounds like 'ooze' to me. :shrug:

[merryAtheist]

Evolution is only a theory.

This is the point in which I realize there is no point in further discussion.

See ya later...

[Values]

This is the point in which I realize there is no point in further discussion.

See ya later...

Can you point to where evolution has been proven factual?
Wouldn't a factual theory be a law anyway, and I am sure you would have a hard time finding any scientist willing to state that this evolutionary theory should gain the same status as laws of gravity et al.
run away if you must, but it does not prove your beliefs in the slightest.

[Values]

Let's see.....

Gen2: 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,

Hmmm.....

Water + Dust..... sounds like 'ooze' to me. :shrug:

Tell you what, you go get some dust and water and make a man.
Waiting..............

[Values]

Looking for real athiests willing to speak about their beliefs on how the universe began............gotta be some of you out there.

[biggles53]

Looking for real athiests willing to speak about their beliefs on how the universe began............gotta be some of you out there.


And this, of course, is the point.

No "belief" is required.

Atheists suspend "belief" in unproven entities, until such time that evidence is presented to support their existence (got any for yours?)

Likewise, because we tend to rely upon evidence, we are equally comfortable in answering "We don't know....yet" to questions about the formation of the universe.

Now, this does not negate ANYONE from speculating as to the means by which the universe was formed...as long as we are honest with ourselves in knowing that we are merely canvassing possibilities...

[biggles53]

Can you point to where evolution has been proven factual?
Wouldn't a factual theory be a law anyway, and I am sure you would have a hard time finding any scientist willing to state that this evolutionary theory should gain the same status as laws of gravity et al.
run away if you must, but it does not prove your beliefs in the slightest.

Sir/Madam, your lack of understanding of how science works is embarassing....

[Values]

Sir/Madam, your lack of understanding of how science works is embarassing....

Ok, set me straight, you are the second person to insinuate I am wrong without backing up their statement.
Prove me wrong!
Otherwise take a seat and let the grownups discuss evolutionary merit.

[Values]

And this, of course, is the point.

No "belief" is required.

Atheists suspend "belief" in unproven entities, until such time that evidence is presented to support their existence (got any for yours?)

Likewise, because we tend to rely upon evidence, we are equally comfortable in answering "We don't know....yet" to questions about the formation of the universe.

Now, this does not negate ANYONE from speculating as to the means by which the universe was formed...as long as we are honest with ourselves in knowing that we are merely canvassing possibilities...


What if the evidence leads you to a Diety?

[TaylorW65]

Tell you what, you go get some dust and water and make a man.
Waiting..............


If I remember my health class correctly I don't think that's the way to create a human being.

[biggles53]

What if the evidence leads you to a Diety?


Ummm...did you read what I said?

I said that atheists suspend belief in deities (please, if you're going to be a 'believer' at least get the spelling right....:rolleyes:), until the evidence supports their existence.

Again, do you have any for yours.....?

[Dipperdap]

Again, do you have any for yours.....?

Conversely, do you have evidence that God does not exist??

[biggles53]

Ok, set me straight, you are the second person to insinuate I am wrong without backing up their statement.
Prove me wrong!
Otherwise take a seat and let the grownups discuss evolutionary merit.

OK, be happy to....but it's my experience that such explanations are often ignored in the next round of "But it's only a theory!" protestations.

Two major flaws in your understanding:

1. Scientific theories, due largely to the inductive reasoning upon which they are based, are never "proven". Evidence is collected to support the theory in question. The more evidence collected, the stronger the confidence in the theory. Evidence which is contrary to the theory may mean that the theory is subsequently revised, edited or jettisoned.

Whether you like it or not, whether you accept it or not, it is nevertheless the truth that the theory of evolution is one of the most tested, researched and consequently one of the most robust theories in all of scientific endeavour....

2. Theories don't get 'promoted' into laws! Each has its own function within science. One is not more 'proven' than the other! For example, we have a 'law of gravity', by which we are able to calculate the force involved in the attraction of bodies. We also have a theory of gravitational attraction, which gives us an explanation for how and why those bodies are attracted.

Please do yourself a favour. Google up a few of these terms and learn some of the basics....

OK, this child will now regain its seat and let the sagacious elders reply......

[biggles53]

Conversely, do you have evidence that God does not exist??

No, your question is flawed. Mine is NOT the converse of your position. I do NOT make a declarative statement that "there is/are no god/s".

I say that there is no evidence present to support the existence of god/s. If such evidence were presented, my position would obviously change. I cannot, therefore, logically state that there are no gods.

Now, the burden of proof is upon the claimant. YOU say there IS a god. Show me the evidence..........

[graatz]

Without a belief in why there is no God you are relegated to simply being contrarian and have no basis to your belief. If you cannot explain your views then you really have no views to discuss.

Oh, I have basis for my belief, but it has nothing to do with thinking I know everything there is to know about the Big Bang, abiogenesis, evolution, etc.

By what mechanism do you believe that God creating something from nothingness? If you don't have a good answer for this, how can you really say you are a Christian? :eh:

[Koushi Shinigami]

If I remember my health class correctly I don't think that's the way to create a human being.

:)):)):)):)):)):)):))


The method they taught in health class is more fun than the method the bible says God used.

[Tim]

:)):)):)):)):)):)):))


The method they taught in health class is more fun than the method the bible says God used.

I sure am glad to see you and Ray back... this place got a little too uptight (IMO) while you were away.

[graatz]

Evolution is only a theory.

Next flu season, ask for last year's inoculations, k?

[Koushi Shinigami]

I sure am glad to see you and Ray back... this place got a little too uptight (IMO) while you were away.

Just here for the comic relief. :cool:

[Dipperdap]

No, your question is flawed. Mine is NOT the converse of your position. I do NOT make a declarative statement that "there is/are no god/s".

I say that there is no evidence present to support the existence of god/s. If such evidence were presented, my position would obviously change. I cannot, therefore, logically state that there are no gods.

Now, the burden of proof is upon the claimant. YOU say there IS a god. Show me the evidence..........

Nice dodge but you are deflecting the question posed to you and turning around and demanding we provide you with proof that God exists. Why don't you show evidence that God does not exist?? This is your quest for knowledge not mine.

[Values]

Oh, I have basis for my belief, but it has nothing to do with thinking I know everything there is to know about the Big Bang, abiogenesis, evolution, etc.

By what mechanism do you believe that God creating something from nothingness? If you don't have a good answer for this, how can you really say you are a Christian? :eh:

Not sure where you are coming from.
If your God needs a mechanism to create is He really the God?

[Values]

Next flu season, ask for last year's inoculations, k?

I see, you are one of the theory means fact people.
Back it up.
Where's your proof, where's the scientific papers on this stance?

[graatz]

Not sure where you are coming from.

If you believe that some kind of god created the Universe, then it had to have done it somehow, right? How? And if you don't know how, how can you really call yourself a Christian? :eh:

[RayMan]

If you believe that some kind of god created the Universe, then it had to have done it somehow, right? How? And if you don't know how, how can you really call yourself a Christian? :eh:

"What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," eh? :mrgreen:

[graatz]

I see, you are one of the theory means fact people.

So are the people who believe that we need a new flu vaccine every year. You can choose not to believe them, or maybe (just maybe) you can realize that evolution happens and it's not open for discussion. It's just like gravity. What goes up must come down. That's indisputable. Now whether it's because of some natural attraction that all bodies of mass have towards one another? Or whether it's because of the properties of space-time and how mass puts "dents" in it. Or maybe even something else entirely, those are theories. The theory of evolution, and whether it's the true mechanism or whether there's some other mechanism by which it can be explained, doesn't change the fact that evolution demonstratively happens. (repeatable tests).

But for you to understand this, you'll want to take this conversation out of a religious discussion and into a general topic discussion, if you really are interested in the science. If you are interested in exploring if an atheist really needs a sound theory of evolution to be an atheist, let's continue our discussion above.

[Gem]

I have found that when talking about the origins of the universe there is a great faith needed for an athiest/non-IDer.
To conceptualize that there was nothing and from that there came all that we now know, is a big stretch. It is exactly why I started this thread, science tells us that something cannot come from nothing so where did all this come from? How does an athiest/agnostic rectify this simple, truth with their beliefs?


Science did not create the earth or the universe.
I do not believe science will ever learn how God created the universe and the earth. I take God's word over science any day.

[Dipperdap]

So are the people who believe that we need a new flu vaccine every year. You can choose not to believe them, or maybe (just maybe) you can realize that evolution happens and it's not open for discussion. It's just like gravity. What goes up must come down. That's indisputable. Now whether it's because of some natural attraction that all bodies of mass have towards one another? Or whether it's because of the properties of space-time and how mass puts "dents" in it. Or maybe even something else entirely, those are theories. The theory of evolution, and whether it's the true mechanism or whether there's some other mechanism by which it can be explained, doesn't change the fact that evolution demonstratively happens. (repeatable tests).

But for you to understand this, you'll want to take this conversation out of a religious discussion and into a general topic discussion, if you really are interested in the science. If you are interested in exploring if an atheist really needs a sound theory of evolution to be an atheist, let's continue our discussion above.

That's interesting but evolution is only part of the picture. This is the limits of science. Evolution depends upon creation. Without life there would be no evolution. The limits of the human condition are staggering. An example, Can I borrow a cup of gravity? We can describe it. We can analyze its affects and properties. It has existed since the beginning of the universe. We deal with it everyday, but we still don't know what it is.
The limits of science are met by the beginnings of faith in God and in his absolute superiority over us mere humans, his creations. Ours is not to understand God because we are so limited. I find it very entertaining to listen to the "great" minds of our time try to explain the beginnings of the universe. Only to be completely dumbfounded by the simple question of who put all the stuff there for the big bang in the first place. Our limited minds cannot come up with an answer. We only have God to turn to.....

[Values]

Science did not create the earth or the universe.
I do not believe science will ever learn how God created the universe and the earth. I take God's word over science any day.

I wonder why a lot of people who witness the magnificence of nature and the intricacy of life on this planet still deny that it was started with a plan.

[Values]

So are the people who believe that we need a new flu vaccine every year. You can choose not to believe them, or maybe (just maybe) you can realize that evolution happens and it's not open for discussion. It's just like gravity. What goes up must come down. That's indisputable. Now whether it's because of some natural attraction that all bodies of mass have towards one another? Or whether it's because of the properties of space-time and how mass puts "dents" in it. Or maybe even something else entirely, those are theories. The theory of evolution, and whether it's the true mechanism or whether there's some other mechanism by which it can be explained, doesn't change the fact that evolution demonstratively happens. (repeatable tests).

But for you to understand this, you'll want to take this conversation out of a religious discussion and into a general topic discussion, if you really are interested in the science. If you are interested in exploring if an atheist really needs a sound theory of evolution to be an atheist, let's continue our discussion above.

Athiests need a sound theory of how life/universe began for their belief to have substance. If they want to just say they do not believe in God but have no other explanation, then they are just contrarian and have no value to a discussion on the origins of the universe.
As far as evolution being demonstrated, wher?
Adaptation ....yes, but where has it been demonstrated with proof that one species evolved to another?

[Values]

So far "athiests" have presented only "I don't know" as their answer to how the universe began. This seems to be more of a close your eyes and ears mentality to the truth than actually debating the merits of athiesm vs ID.
There have been some agnostics running around thinking their athiest but still no answer to the OP.
Is there an athiest out there? One who actually believes there is no God and can articulate why they believe so with an educated answer to the beginning of the universe?

[graatz]

Athiests need a sound theory of how life/universe began for their belief to have substance.

And what is your "sound theory of how life/universe began"? By your logic, don't Christians also need one? :eh:

[graatz]

Is there an athiest out there? One who actually believes there is no God and can articulate why they believe so with an educated answer to the beginning of the universe?

Is there a Christian out there? One who actually believes there is a God and can articulate why they believe so with an educated answer to the beginning of the universe?

[Dipperdap]

Is there a Christian out there? One who actually believes there is a God and can articulate why they believe so with an educated answer to the beginning of the universe?

Well that sounds innocent enough but you will not understand until you accept that God exists and he is OUR creator and creator of all things.
And since this ability to create is his alone and we are the result of his creation we are not privy to the knowledge and methods of our own creation. It is called faith. Our own study of science and our surroundings is limited by our own ability. In other words, it is not for us to know but to believe that God has created us.

[Gem]

I wonder why a lot of people who witness the magnificence of nature and the intricacy of life on this planet still deny that it was started with a plan.


I don't know , I believe God had the right plan, myself.

Moses was taught evolution to.
He grew up in Pharaoh's kingdom,they taught that you came from a worm out of the Nile , but Moses didn't believe in it either.

And Joseph was sold to the Egypt as well.
Joseph spent the biggest part of his life in Egypt and raised his family there till his death.
They didn't believe in evolution either.

[Koushi Shinigami]

It's just like gravity. What goes up must come down. That's indisputable.


Actually, I can dispute that. :cool:

Nice post overall, though. :clap:

[Koushi Shinigami]

I don't know , I believe God had the right plan, myself.


He did fine right up till he created mankind. Then, Meh. Must've been hung over from the night before.

[graatz]

Well that sounds innocent enough but you will not understand until you accept that God exists and he is OUR creator and creator of all things.

Okay, so for a Christian, we can't know is a valid answer. But for an atheist, we don't know yet is an invalid answer? :eh: Perhaps what you will not understand until you accept that God does not exist is that we have no creator, and if we want to know about how it all began, we can only hope that scientific inquiry will result in some interesting conclusions, but we are ultimately limited by the inability to turn back the Hands of Time and witness it first-hand.

[Values]

Is there a Christian out there? One who actually believes there is a God and can articulate why they believe so with an educated answer to the beginning of the universe?

great idea for a new thread.
Now, do you know why athiests don't like to talk about the beginning of the universe?
I do!

[Dipperdap]

Okay, so for a Christian, we can't know is a valid answer. But for an atheist, we don't know yet is an invalid answer? :eh:
No That is an absolutely valid answer. I don't however think you will find your answer in science. Not to poke and prod but what if science and religion merge and we do discover that God has had a direct hand in our very existence and that he really does exist and we can prove it scientifically?? Kind of blows your mind.

Perhaps what you will not understand until you accept that God does not exist is that we have no creator, and if we want to know about how it all began, we can only hope that scientific inquiry will result in some interesting conclusions, but we are ultimately limited by the inability to turn back the Hands of Time and witness it first-hand.
Maybe, but I'm willing to bet on my belief in God and that I am his Creation and he has created all of us and our place in his universe.

[Gem]

He did fine right up till he created mankind. Then, Meh. Must've been hung over from the night before.


You think so ?

I think it would have been very interesting if we could use all our
5 -6- sense's or ever how many we are supposed to have.
Some people can use them .

[Gem]

great idea for a new thread.
Now, do you know why athiests don't like to talk about the beginning of the universe?
I do!



No, I don't. tell me why.

[graatz]

what if science and religion merge and we do discover that God has had a direct hand in our very existence and that he really does exist and we can prove it scientifically?? Kind of blows your mind.

You mean like when science tried to determine the mass of the soul? :eh: I remain doubtful. If there was a creator-type god, it didn't seem to leave any evidence of itself within its creation...

[Koushi Shinigami]

You think so ?


Yup. For God to lay claim to the creation of mankind, brings His perfection into question.

[graatz]

Now, do you know why athiests don't like to talk about the beginning of the universe?

Probably because most atheists don't have PhDs in theoretical physics and can barely keep up with that field of inquiry as it progresses into the 21st Century (I only have so much time to devote to the Wiki entries on String Theory, after all).

But whether you do have a theory on how God was able to create something from nothing, or whether you agree with Dipperdap that humans aren't allowed to know of such things, I think you are missing the point. An atheist doesn't need to know how the Universe began in order to be an atheist. All an atheist needs is lack in belief in any of the posited god.

Maybe I need to put this another way: do you believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns? If not, why not? :eh:

[Gem]

Yup. For God to lay claim to the creation of mankind, brings His perfection into question.


I don't agree with that.
You were a perfect, beautiful, sweet, innocent, little new born baby when you first came into this world.

And I hate to say this, buuut, what you learn to do or say when you are in the learning stage which is between birth and 6 yr's old, and in the rest of your life , is not Gods fault.

[Thor]

Nice dodge but you are deflecting the question posed to you and turning around and demanding we provide you with proof that God exists. Why don't you show evidence that God does not exist?? This is your quest for knowledge not mine.

You don't get it, do you? YOU are making a claim (god exists!). It is not contingent upon me to DISPROVE your claim. It is contingent upon you to provide evidence that your claim is true.

I'll make a claim now.

I have invisible fairies dancing on my front lawn.

Now, prove I DON'T have invisible fairies dancing on my front lawn.

[Dipperdap]

You mean like when science tried to determine the mass of the soul? :eh: I remain doubtful. If there was a creator-type god, it didn't seem to leave any evidence of itself within its creation...

Interesting.... Maybe we just haven't found it yet. You know we are pretty limited with only our 5 senses. And they can be tricked.

I think this is where Faith and religion pick up, where our study of science finds its limits. As science advances and our ability to understand our place in this universe, we may one day be able to point at something and say "See, that is God". When or if that ever happens, who knows.
Man has been in search of these "truths" since the beginning of our very existence. I don't think its knowledge we will ever have, but it makes for a very interesting discussion. Man is a very good machine builder and who knows.....

[RayMan]

You don't get it, do you? YOU are making a claim (god exists!). It is not contingent upon me to DISPROVE your claim. It is contingent upon you to provide evidence that your claim is true.

I'll make a claim now.

I have invisible fairies dancing on my front lawn.

Now, prove I DON'T have invisible fairies dancing on my front lawn.

Hi Thor,
I agree with your argument about the burden of proof but I don't think that "contingent" is the word you are after here.

[Dipperdap]

You don't get it, do you? YOU are making a claim (god exists!). It is not contingent upon me to DISPROVE your claim. It is contingent upon you to provide evidence that your claim is true.

I'll make a claim now.

I have invisible fairies dancing on my front lawn.

Now, prove I DON'T have invisible fairies dancing on my front lawn.

Actually I do get it. I accept that I have creator. I don't limit myself as you seem to. I believe science only goes so far and then we get into Gods realm and we, as humans, don't have the capacity to comprehend his realm. Can you prove he does not exist? I freely admit I can't prove he exists. I can only observe what I believe to be his existence. The everyday miracles I see helps me to observe his existence. If you are willing to open your mind you'll see them too. Don't limit yourself to just the analytical mindset of science.

[graatz]

I think this is where Faith and religion pick up, where our study of science finds its limits. As science advances and our ability to understand our place in this universe, we may one day be able to point at something and say "See, that is God".

This kinda sounds like a God of the Gaps argument. If you want to know something, but science doesn't seem equipped to get there (yet, ever, who knows?) then maybe it's something divine... I'm much more comfortable having a gap than trying to posit a god to occupy it. It seems more intellectually honest to say: "I don't know, and the answer really doesn't concern me much."

It also seems like the wrong approach to keep assuming that there is a God and trying to back it up by whatever new science is out there. I know of neopagans who keep pointing to new science and saying things like "but couldn't that explain how Tarot works, or why astrology could be accurate?" It really just invites an unnecessary confirmation bias to the table.

[Dipperdap]

This kinda sounds like a God of the Gaps argument. If you want to know something, but science doesn't seem equipped to get there (yet, ever, who knows?) then maybe it's something divine... I'm much more comfortable having a gap than trying to posit a god to occupy it. It seems more intellectually honest to say: "I don't know, and the answer really doesn't concern me much."

It also seems like the wrong approach to keep assuming that there is a God and trying to back it up by whatever new science is out there. I know of neopagans who keep pointing to new science and saying things like "but couldn't that explain how Tarot works, or why astrology could be accurate?" It really just invites an unnecessary confirmation bias to the table.

Well as a believer I accept that all things are not mine to know. Tarot and astrology are created by man. I'm not concerned with those types of things. But as for the beginnings of our universe, that's not ours to know.

[graatz]

But as for the beginnings of our universe, that's not ours to know.

If nothing else, this is certainly a lot easier than teaching yourself the finer points of string theory :razz:

[Values]

Probably because most atheists don't have PhDs in theoretical physics and can barely keep up with that field of inquiry as it progresses into the 21st Century (I only have so much time to devote to the Wiki entries on String Theory, after all).

But whether you do have a theory on how God was able to create something from nothing, or whether you agree with Dipperdap that humans aren't allowed to know of such things, I think you are missing the point. An atheist doesn't need to know how the Universe began in order to be an atheist. All an atheist needs is lack in belief in any of the posited god.

Maybe I need to put this another way: do you believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns? If not, why not? :eh:

They don't HAVE to know nor do they need to verbalize their opinions, but to come to a religious thread and post on an OP asking for their ideas and to state that they do not have one seems kind of lame don't you think?
It is actually dis-ingenuous and the attempt to state that you have a belief system, but are unwilling to or can't back up your statements just comes across as ignorant and contrarian.

[grhayes]

I think the point is 80% of the US populace is Christian is some way shape or form the feel God was involved in creation.

General Principles of Science demands a party with an Opposing view to the current general consensus provide proof of their view point.

This means agnostics in this case are left with the burden of proof God does not exist.

Given that the general big bang theory of science has had to under go a lot of changes over the years and the biggest blow being that the universe is accelerating in expansion and not slowing down as previously predicted has set science back to a point were they have no information to what existed or didn't before the big bang.

Since a large portion of sciences theory also stems on time being tied to matter and energy it is also left with a possible conclusion time also did not exist prior to the big bang.

Science before the realization that the universes expansion is accelerating; there was the assumption that the universe expanded the contracted as a cycle and there was no beginning.

But there is a lot of theories being applied to try and come up with an explanation.

Sometimes science has nothing to do with why a person may choose to be agnotic or atheist. As several people have told me through out life they don't need to know. Something else doesn't sit with them with religion. My ex wife can't understand why God allows bad people to do what they do. She doesn't understand God gave man the freedom of choice. It is people who are choosing to miss use it. Would we even be considered alive if we do not have a choice in how we behave? Probably not we don't consider robots or programs alive. We would be little more than that. If you look a the human body we are getting close by the day to being able to engineer it. So our bodies are little more than biological machines very complex ones compared to our current standards. What makes us more than a machine is our ability to think and make decision which are not always the right one the ability to learn from those mistakes.

One of the places I think hurts science more than anything is the concept that you can not go faster than the speed of light. Sure it works good when you are trying to calculate the power of a nuclear reactions and so on. But I think that they need to expand the concept to something simpler that allows for other stuff that isn't explained.

What maybe science and religion should be doing instead of trying to poke holes in each others theories is find the things they agree on.

A thought for both sides. Say you were living back in 1 AD and you wanted to explain the concept of the universe being made to the peolple alive then what issues would you have had. I'll start you off on the right path I hope.
First, think of the average persons education when most of the stuff was being recorded about the bible. Talking a long time before most people could read or write and bibles were coppied by hand and word of mouth. In the Christian bible it was mostly a composition of letters and other stuff collected together. Lets just think of a religion in general try and explain it to the people back then. By the way think about how many people then understood math and how many people could visualize 1 billion.

That is just the beginning of your problems. Imagine how hard it would be back at the time of the exodus moses was born around 1391 BC. What number would they try and use that people could understand and comprehend in place of the 1 billion?

[graatz]

They don't HAVE to know nor do they need to verbalize their opinions, but to come to a religious thread and post on an OP asking for their ideas and to state that they do not have one seems kind of lame don't you think?

:wall: Why do I insist on feeding the trolls? If you want to discuss the science of the Big Bang, why do it in a religion forum? What I'm trying to get you to understand is that your premise (that atheists need to have good theories about it in order to be atheists) is invalid.

It is actually dis-ingenuous and the attempt to state that you have a belief system, but are unwilling to or can't back up your statements just comes across as ignorant and contrarian.

I can back up my belief system. My belief system doesn't have anything to do with the origins of existence. Atheism isn't a belief system. It's simply the lack of belief in any posited gods. Atheists might or might not have beliefs about the origin of everything. If they have strong beliefs about it, they probably have their reasons. Chances are, most atheists accept the most contemporary scientific view, and accept that science can't ever be a de facto answer. We can only take what we have now as evidence to what occurred before. Most atheists accept that the pursuit of science is the most accurate way to piece together truths about the natural world.

[Herradura]

By what mechanism do you believe that God creating something from nothingness?

If you are going to engage into the discussion about God (a being of unlimited power) you must assign all the attributes that are due to such a being.

God spoke (the mechanism) the universe into existence:

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” Genesis 1:1

If you don't have a good answer for this, how can you really say you are a Christian? :eh:

A Christian must follow the writings in the Bible:

“For since the creations of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood though what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” Romans 1:20

[graatz]

God spoke (the mechanism) the universe into existence:

How can one speak before there is a Universe (what does speech mean if there doesn't yet exist a way to transmit sound?) Was He speaking to someone? How exactly does speech create a Universe?

[grhayes]

:wall: Why do I insist on feeding the trolls? If you want to discuss the science of the Big Bang, why do it in a religion forum? What I'm trying to get you to understand is that your premise (that atheists need to have good theories about it in order to be atheists) is invalid.

I can back up my belief system. My belief system doesn't have anything to do with the origins of existence. Atheism isn't a belief system. It's simply the lack of belief in any posited gods. Atheists might or might not have beliefs about the origin of everything. If they have strong beliefs about it, they probably have their reasons. Chances are, most atheists accept the most contemporary scientific view, and accept that science can't ever be a de facto answer. We can only take what we have now as evidence to what occurred before. Most atheists accept that the pursuit of science is the most accurate way to piece together truths about the natural world.

I agree with you and disagree with you.
I agree atheist and agnostics do not have to believe any origin of existence. You know you are hear and may not believe either side or care what the answer is.

What I will disagree with you on is it being a belief system. Because it is still about faith and belief. It is about either the lack of faith or belief you have in any of the other ones or your belief or faith they are wrong.

So if you just have no faith or belief in any system science or religion that would still be a anti faith meaning you assume they are all wrong.

If you are uncertain it still is a faith or belief issue what ever the reason or cause that has you not certain any are correct or which is correct.

If you are a person who claims they just don't care it is again an anti faith. The reason is because the person is fairly certain that it will not catch up to them one way or another. Meaning if religion is correct regardless which one they won't suffer for it and if science is correct they won't suffer for it. Even if it is a combination of them that is right they feel they won't suffer for it. Other wise they would care.

The person who chooses no religion or belief system with an intent to be punished is different. Because he has a belief in something that he will be punished for his choice. There are people who feel they deserve to go to hell so they may say that God doesn't exist in their effort to go to hell. (Yes, they are nuts)

[Herradura]

:wall: Why do I insist on feeding the trolls?

Trolls? Where?

If you want to discuss the science of the Big Bang, why do it in a religion forum?.

He wants to know your opinion. If the answer is "i don' know" then that is acceptable. However, that would mean you have no basis for your beliefs. Is your answer to his question "i have no basis for my beliefs"?

What I'm trying to get you to understand is that your premise (that atheists need to have good theories about it in order to be atheists) is invalid.

All beliefs must have a basis. You keep sidestepping because?

I can back up my belief system. My belief system doesn't have anything to do with the origins of existence

Yea? Hmmm, your an atheist, please don't tell me that atheism isn't a belief system

Atheism isn't a belief system..

Say what?

It's simply the lack of belief in any posited gods..

Did you say belief?

Atheists might or might not have beliefs about the origin of everything. .

Then atheists cannot comment on anything.

If they have strong beliefs about it, they probably have their reasons. .

Did you say beliefs again?

Chances are, most atheists accept the most contemporary scientific view, and accept that science can't ever be a de facto answer. .

So they do believe something?

We can only take what we have now as evidence to what occurred before. Most atheists accept that the pursuit of science is the most accurate way to piece together truths about the natural world.

So atheists do have a basis for their beliefs?

[graatz]

So if you just have no faith or belief in any system science or religion that would still be a anti faith meaning you assume they are all wrong.

I have my particular reasons to believe that particular religions are wrong. They may not be the same as other atheists. Atheism is a statement about belief, but I don't know that I'd go as far as to say that it's a belief system, if only because the only thing that binds atheists is that they don't have a belief in any gods. Not having belief isn't exactly a belief system. Of course, each atheist (just like each non-atheist) has their own belief system...

[Herradura]

How can one speak before there is a Universe (what does speech mean if there doesn't yet exist a way to transmit sound?) Was He speaking to someone? How exactly does speech create a Universe?

"If you are going to engage into the discussion about God (a being of unlimited power) you must assign all the attributes that are due to such a being."

Did you miss this quote?

[graatz]

However, that would mean you have no basis for your beliefs. Is your answer to his question "i have no basis for my beliefs"?

:confused: It goes without saying that if I don't hold a belief, then I have no basis for it. I don't know if we're getting confused on semantics. Do I have a basis for my personal belief system? Yes. Do I have basis for my personal beliefs on the origin of everything? Not really, I don't have very strong beliefs in that category... My strongest belief is that it wasn't by means of a creator god, which is really just an application of Occam's Razor.

Yea? Hmmm, your an atheist, please don't tell me that atheism isn't a belief system

I have beliefs. Atheism isn't a "belief system." Atheism is lack of belief in a certain category. I'm really beginning to think we are about to have a semantics tango here...

[graatz]

Did you miss this quote?

Okay, God spoke. That doesn't really answer my question... That's really no better than me saying that the Universe came into being because it did.

[Herradura]

:confused: It goes without saying that if I don't hold a belief, then I have no basis for it. I don't know if we're getting confused on semantics. Do I have a basis for my personal belief system? Yes. Do I have basis for my personal beliefs on the origin of everything? Not really, I don't have very strong beliefs in that category... My strongest belief is that it wasn't by means of a creator god, which is really just an application of Occam's Razor.



I have beliefs. Atheism isn't a "belief system." Atheism is lack of belief in a certain category. I'm really beginning to think we are about to have a semantics tango here...

Understood.


The point the OP is trying to make is that atheism is based off of alot of "I don't know" and "we'll see".

[Herradura]

Okay, God spoke. That doesn't really answer my question...

You asked for the mechanism. God was the mechanism.

That's really no better than me saying that the Universe came into being because it did.

That would imply that all matter came from nothing. Your real question is; where did God come from? And my answer is "i don't know" :rolleyes:

[graatz]

That would imply that all matter came from nothing. Your real question is; where did God come from? And my answer is "i don't know" :rolleyes:

That's another good question, but it's not the question I'm asking. You say that God spoke things into existence. The only thing you or I can speak into existence is noise. How did God's speech create the things that it created? Nevermind how such a powerhouse came into being before the nothingness was turned into something-ness by Him.

[Tim]

:confused: It goes without saying that if I don't hold a belief, then I have no basis for it. I don't know if we're getting confused on semantics. Do I have a basis for my personal belief system? Yes. Do I have basis for my personal beliefs on the origin of everything? Not really, I don't have very strong beliefs in that category... My strongest belief is that it wasn't by means of a creator god, which is really just an application of Occam's Razor.



I have beliefs. Atheism isn't a "belief system." Atheism is lack of belief in a certain category. I'm really beginning to think we are about to have a semantics tango here...

I have been trying to follow this whole conversation and will admit that it has been difficult to do. There really does seem to be a semantics problem that is hindering productive communication.

This whole "belief system" regarding a lack of belief in a deity just doesn't click for me. I don't believe in faeries or unicorns AND I certainly don't have a belief system based on that unbelief. Why anyone would think that a lack of belief in deities is any different is a mystery to me.

Also, I don't quite understand the insistence on having some sort of belief system regarding the origins of the universe. Anything regarding the origins of the universe can only be speculation based upon the best available evidence. That the unbeliever doesn't automatically assign credit for the origins to a deity is to be expected...

Why is it that "I don't know" is an unacceptable answer for something that we all (believers and unbelievers) agree happened before any man was around to record the event. For those things that happened prior to recorded history we turn to the scientific method of experimentation to seek the best available answers based on the evidence presented. As the evidence grows and/or methods for examining that evidence grows then the "answers" will most assuredly change. This happens all the time in all fields of scientific study... that's what science is about.

[Herradura]

That's another good question, but it's not the question I'm asking. You say that God spoke things into existence. The only thing you or I can speak into existence is noise. How did God's speech create the things that it created? Nevermind how such a powerhouse came into being before the nothingness was turned into something-ness by Him.

"If you are going to engage into the discussion about God (a being of unlimited power) you must assign all the attributes that are due to such a being."

Did you miss this quote?
http://forums.hannity.com/firestorm/misc/progress.gif

[Herradura]

Why is it that "I don't know" is an unacceptable answer for something that we all (believers and unbelievers) agree happened before any man was around to record the event.

It is acceptable. What is not acceptable is for anyone to pretend they have all the answers.

[Yuppers]

I've been lurking for a while, and I'm only registering to post this comment:

I'm not an atheist because I was overwhelmed with scientific study. I'm an atheist because I don't have faith that there is a God.

Every member of my family is Christian. I've been to church many, many times. My mom knows that I don't believe, but she still asks me to go to church with her occasionally. And because I love my mother, and I know how much it means to her, I'll go. I clap my hands, I sing, but it does nothing for me.

This isn't some "rebellion" thing, either. You know how in church, you see people completely taken in the joy of God? That has never happened to me.

Reading the comments on this forum, sometimes it feels as if certain members feel that non-believers are out to get you and I'm just not. I love that the members in my family have something in their lives that means that much to them. Christ makes them happy, and them being happy makes me happy.

Hell, life is hard all over... It would be nice to suspend my disbelief and trust that there was one perfect being in the world that was gonna make everything alright. But despite the hardships of everyday living, I lead a very fulfilled life.

In my heart and in my mind, I know that there isn't... Just as in your heart and in your mind you know that there is.

Anyways, rant over. Thanks for reading, if you got that far.

[graatz]

Did you miss this quote?

Look, I'm not trying to say that God didn't speak existence into being. If that's your position, fine. But I am asking you to explain what that means, how it's done, etc. Is it fair for me to say Big Bang and be done with it? It seems to me that when someone answers Big Bang, the next question is: "well where did the singularity come from?" or: "what caused it to go off?" I am asking you a question analogous to the second question. Like you said, the analogous first question ("where did God come from?") is a pretty good one, too.

[Tim]

It is acceptable. What is not acceptable is for anyone to pretend they have all the answers.

I missed that... who claimed to have all the answers? I'd like to have a better understanding of women... perhaps he can help me. :whistle: (Koushi used to be my go-to guy for women questions but I think I've exhausted his bank of knowledge.)

Seriously though, who claimed to have all the answers? That's quite a claim to make!:confused:

[Tim]

I've been lurking for a while, and I'm only registering to post this comment:

I'm not an atheist because I was overwhelmed with scientific study. I'm an atheist because I don't have faith that there is a God.

Every member of my family is Christian. I've been to church many, many times. My mom knows that I don't believe, but she still asks me to go to church with her occasionally. And because I love my mother, and I know how much it means to her, I'll go. I clap my hands, I sing, but it does nothing for me.

This isn't some "rebellion" thing, either. You know how in church, you see people completely taken in the joy of God? That has never happened to me.

Reading the comments on this forum, sometimes it feels as if certain members feel that non-believers are out to get you and I'm just not. I love that the members in my family have something in their lives that means that much to them. Christ makes them happy, and them being happy makes me happy.

Hell, life is hard all over... It would be nice to suspend my disbelief and trust that there was one perfect being in the world that was gonna make everything alright. But despite the hardships of everyday living, I lead a very fulfilled life.

In my heart and in my mind, I know that there isn't... Just as in your heart and in your mind you know that there is.

Anyways, rant over. Thanks for reading, if you got that far.

Hi Yuppers... WELCOME to the RF!

You are far from being alone... there are many of us that share your feelings in varying degrees.

[Values]

I've been lurking for a while, and I'm only registering to post this comment:

I'm not an atheist because I was overwhelmed with scientific study. I'm an atheist because I don't have faith that there is a God.

Every member of my family is Christian. I've been to church many, many times. My mom knows that I don't believe, but she still asks me to go to church with her occasionally. And because I love my mother, and I know how much it means to her, I'll go. I clap my hands, I sing, but it does nothing for me.

This isn't some "rebellion" thing, either. You know how in church, you see people completely taken in the joy of God? That has never happened to me.

Reading the comments on this forum, sometimes it feels as if certain members feel that non-believers are out to get you and I'm just not. I love that the members in my family have something in their lives that means that much to them. Christ makes them happy, and them being happy makes me happy.

Hell, life is hard all over... It would be nice to suspend my disbelief and trust that there was one perfect being in the world that was gonna make everything alright. But despite the hardships of everyday living, I lead a very fulfilled life.

In my heart and in my mind, I know that there isn't... Just as in your heart and in your mind you know that there is.

Anyways, rant over. Thanks for reading, if you got that far.

Thank you for your candor.
Since you decided to opine on this particular OP may I ask you how you as an athiest believe th universe started?
You see, I truly want to understand how people get to the idea that there cannot be a God. I decided to start at the beginning to further dialog but not one soul has taken me up on it.
I want to understand but it appears that they do not understand themselves so I feel that athiesm is rooted more in closing one's eyes than actually delving into science and facts.
Please help me out.

[Thor]

Actually I do get it.

I don't think you do, as I'll point out shortly...

I accept that I have creator. I don't limit myself as you seem to.

How is basing my conclusions on scientifically observable evidence "limiting" myself?

I believe science only goes so far and then we get into Gods realm and we, as humans, don't have the capacity to comprehend his realm.

Science can't answer all questions, and probably never will. Sticking "God" into these gaps in scientific knowledge is something man has done for centuries.

Can you prove he does not exist?

And here's where you demonstrate that you don't get it. (Sigh)

No, I can't prove a god doesn't exist. I also can't prove Santa Claus doesn't exist. Nor can I prove the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. I also can't prove the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist. Can we move on from this nonsensical argument you continue to make?

The everyday miracles I see helps me to observe his existence.

And what "everyday miracles" are you talking about? I see nothing in day-to-day living that suggests the existence of an omnipotent being.

If you are willing to open your mind you'll see them too.

My mind is quite open. What evidence are you referring to?

[Thor]

Hi Thor,
I agree with your argument about the burden of proof but I don't think that "contingent" is the word you are after here.

Hi Ray,

According to Merriam-Webster, one of the definitions for "contingent" is "not logically necessary ".

Do you have a suggestion for a better word I could have used? Always looking to expand my vocabulary! :)

[Dipperdap]

I missed that... who claimed to have all the answers? I'd like to have a better understanding of women... perhaps he can help me. :whistle: (Koushi used to be my go-to guy for women questions but I think I've exhausted his bank of knowledge.)

Seriously though, who claimed to have all the answers? That's quite a claim to make!:confused:

Yes! the other topic in the universe that man has little to no understanding of: Woman.....I believe we will
discover the true beginnings of the universe before we figure women out....

[Yuppers]

Thank you for your candor.
Since you decided to opine on this particular OP may I ask you how you as an athiest believe th universe started?
You see, I truly want to understand how people get to the idea that there cannot be a God. I decided to start at the beginning to further dialog but not one soul has taken me up on it.
I want to understand but it appears that they do not understand themselves so I feel that athiesm is rooted more in closing one's eyes than actually delving into science and facts.
Please help me out.

Let me preface this by saying that I don't speak for all non-believers. That's kinda the kicker about atheism not being a belief system. There is no line to tow. In fact, the only thing that most non-believers have in common is that we don't subscribe to any religious belief.

That being said... I don't know how the universe started. I refuse to subscribe to any notion of how it all began without facts to back it up.

Why? Because what I do know is that once upon a time, using the tools at their disposal, people KNEW that the Earth was flat, and the center of the universe (Holy run-on sentence, Batman!). We don't yet have the tools to know what the correct answer is. That's kinda the wonderful thing about our universe... always new things to discover.

I'm nowhere near arrogant enough to think I have all of the answers. And I sleep well every night knowing that there are new things to be discovered.

[Tim]

Thank you for your candor.
Since you decided to opine on this particular OP may I ask you how you as an athiest believe th universe started?
You see, I truly want to understand how people get to the idea that there cannot be a God. I decided to start at the beginning to further dialog but not one soul has taken me up on it.
I want to understand but it appears that they do not understand themselves so I feel that athiesm is rooted more in closing one's eyes than actually delving into science and facts.
Please help me out.

Having read through this entire thread once again I see that several of us responded to your OP. The fact is that noone KNOWS how the universe started. Religions have their mythology that describes "beginnings" but even they do not go into great detail.

Atheists are not the only people to say that they don't know how it started... many theists and deists admit that they don't know either.

Some theists choose to accept the God did it explanation provided in their mythologies while others think that those mythologies aren't meant to be taken literally.

To suggest that anyone is "closing their eyes" simply because they don't buy into the explanation that your given religious text provides seems to do more to end discussion than to foster it.

[Tim]

Yes! the other topic in the universe that man has little to no understanding of: Woman.....I believe we will
discover the true beginnings of the universe before we figure women out....

And if we ever do get lucky enough to discover the true beginnings of the universe and IF a man states what it is.... a woman will be there to tell him he is wrong and we'll have to start all over from scratch! :wall::))

[Herradura]

I missed that... who claimed to have all the answers? I'd like to have a better understanding of women... perhaps he can help me. :whistle: (Koushi used to be my go-to guy for women questions but I think I've exhausted his bank of knowledge.)

Seriously though, who claimed to have all the answers? That's quite a claim to make!:confused:

Did i say "you" had all the answers? Don't panic and jump off the boat so fast...

I said "anyone", relax...

[RayMan]

Hi Ray,

According to Merriam-Webster, one of the definitions for "contingent" is "not logically necessary ".

Do you have a suggestion for a better word I could have used? Always looking to expand my vocabulary! :)


Originally Posted by Thor http://forums.hannity.com/firestorm/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=50085951#post50085951)
You don't get it, do you? YOU are making a claim (god exists!). It is not contingent upon me to DISPROVE your claim. It is contingent upon you to provide evidence that your claim is true.


Using contingent as defined your remarks would be "it is not not logically necessary upon me to disprove" AND "It is not logically necessary upon you..."

I think your point would be better made by use of the word "incumbent' in the sense of:


incumbent
1. Imposed as an obligation or duty; obligatory: felt it was incumbent on us all to help.

Then you would have "it is not my obligation to disprove" AND "It is your obligation to prove," which I believe better states your point.

[Thor]

Using contingent as defined your remarks would be "it is not not logically necessary upon me to disprove" AND "It is not logically necessary upon you..."

I think your point would be better made by use of the word "incumbent' in the sense of:


incumbent
1. Imposed as an obligation or duty; obligatory: felt it was incumbent on us all to help.

Then you would have "it is not my obligation to disprove" AND "It is your obligation to prove," which I believe better states your point.

I agree! I'll keep that in mind for next time.

Thanks!

[Herradura]

I've been lurking for a while, and I'm only registering to post this comment:

I'm not an atheist because I was overwhelmed with scientific study. I'm an atheist because I don't have faith that there is a God.

Every member of my family is Christian. I've been to church many, many times. My mom knows that I don't believe, but she still asks me to go to church with her occasionally. And because I love my mother, and I know how much it means to her, I'll go. I clap my hands, I sing, but it does nothing for me.

This isn't some "rebellion" thing, either. You know how in church, you see people completely taken in the joy of God? That has never happened to me.

Reading the comments on this forum, sometimes it feels as if certain members feel that non-believers are out to get you and I'm just not. I love that the members in my family have something in their lives that means that much to them. Christ makes them happy, and them being happy makes me happy.

Hell, life is hard all over... It would be nice to suspend my disbelief and trust that there was one perfect being in the world that was gonna make everything alright. But despite the hardships of everyday living, I lead a very fulfilled life.

In my heart and in my mind, I know that there isn't... Just as in your heart and in your mind you know that there is.

Anyways, rant over. Thanks for reading, if you got that far.

Good honest post...

[Tim]

Did i say "you" had all the answers? Don't panic and jump off the boat so fast...

I said "anyone", relax...

I wasn't personally reacting since I know you didn't mean me. I'm really curious as to who said that. I tried to find it and didn't but then I tend to skim when looking back over threads so I'm sure I just missed it.

If noone said it then I would wonder why you said that someone did, though.

[RayMan]

I agree! I'll keep that in mind for next time.

Thanks!

Of course it is also fun to get uppity and state:

"the onus is on you..."

onus
2 [New Latin onus (probandi), literally, burden of proving] : burden of proof (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/burden+of+proof)

[Values]

Having read through this entire thread once again I see that several of us responded to your OP. The fact is that noone KNOWS how the universe started. Religions have their mythology that describes "beginnings" but even they do not go into great detail.

Atheists are not the only people to say that they don't know how it started... many theists and deists admit that they don't know either.

Some theists choose to accept the God did it explanation provided in their mythologies while others think that those mythologies aren't meant to be taken literally.

To suggest that anyone is "closing their eyes" simply because they don't buy into the explanation that your given religious text provides seems to do more to end discussion than to foster it.

What does an athiest do when the evidence points toward intelligent design? Do you cling to the theory anyway as Darwin did?

[Dipperdap]

And if we ever do get lucky enough to discover the true beginnings of the universe and IF a man states what it is.... a woman will be there to tell him he is wrong and we'll have to start all over from scratch! :wall::))

I was think along those very lines....The other thing is...."In the Beginning,........It was quiet!!!!"

But seriously, the op is looking for answers that nobody has. No one knows how we all came to be here and how our universe has arrived at this point. Some, like myself, have accepted that a higher power we refer to as God was responsible. Others have different ideas.

[Yuppers]

Good honest post...

Well, I try :)

Thanks!

[Tim]

What does an athiest do when the evidence points toward intelligent design? Do you cling to the theory anyway as Darwin did?

First let me say that I have never said that I cling to Darwin's theory... I don't.

If there were scientifically verifiable evidence that point to ID then absolutely I would be interested in it.

BTW, it is a false assumption to think that all who do not believe in god(s) believe in evolutionary theory. Personally, I don't know nearly enough about ET to give an opinion about it and I don't have any interest in trying to find out how the universe came to be. My lack of belief in god(s) isn't related to either.

[Tim]

I was think along those very lines....The other thing is...."In the Beginning,........It was quiet!!!!"

But seriously, the op is looking for answers that nobody has. No one knows how we all came to be here and how our universe has arrived at this point. Some, like myself, have accepted that a higher power we refer to as God was responsible. Others have different ideas.

:clap::clap::clap:

[Herradura]

I wasn't personally reacting since I know you didn't mean me. I'm really curious as to who said that. I tried to find it and didn't but then I tend to skim when looking back over threads so I'm sure I just missed it.

If noone said it then I would wonder why you said that someone did, though.

This is what I said: "What is not acceptable is for anyone to pretend they have all the answers"

I never accused anyone of anything, so back off.

[Dipperdap]

What does an athiest do when the evidence points toward intelligent design? Do you cling to the theory anyway as Darwin did?

I don't think that Darwin is the answer. There are many holes in the theory. It explains a great deal but doesn't address the very beginning or some of the transitions between periods. I'm definitely not an expert on Darwinism but form what I have read there are some shortcomings to it. Of course species evolve, we have historical evidence of it. Why wouldn't they?? It seems a bit preposterous to not understand that things adapt and evolve and also go extinct. Who knows, maybe one day man will be extinct.

[Tim]

This is what I said: "What is not acceptable is for anyone to pretend they have all the answers"

I never accused anyone of anything, so back off.

:whistle:

[RayMan]

This is what I said: "What is not acceptable is for anyone to pretend they have all the answers"

I never accused anyone of anything, so back off.


:naughty:

[Herradura]

:whistle:

:wall:

[Tim]

:naughty:

I think someone missed their nap this afternoon. :doh:

Things have been a little weird in the RF lately... is there a full moon or somethin'?

[Herradura]

:naughty:

Got a question?

[Values]

I don't think that Darwin is the answer. There are many holes in the theory. It explains a great deal but doesn't address the very beginning or some of the transitions between periods. I'm definitely not an expert on Darwinism but form what I have read there are some shortcomings to it. Of course species evolve, we have historical evidence of it. Why wouldn't they?? It seems a bit preposterous to not understand that things adapt and evolve and also go extinct. Who knows, maybe one day man will be extinct.

Adaptation and evolution are completely different things.
Evolution precludes that creatures, plants etc. are always changing and moving from one species to the next step on the evolutionary chain. It can't go back or stop due to it's very nature. Even you admit that there are problems with it as a science but then you went on to dismiss those problems by stating that of course species evolve. Which species do you know that evolved and where is the proof?
It is evident that extinction happens because we have seen it in our history...Dodo bird is an example. This has nothing to do with proof on evolution.
Also, if evolution is always happening why have crocodiles been here the way they are for millions of years?

[Dipperdap]

Adaptation and evolution are completely different things.
Evolution precludes that creatures, plants etc. are always changing and moving from one species to the next step on the evolutionary chain. It can't go back or stop due to it's very nature. Even you admit that there are problems with it as a science but then you went on to dismiss those problems by stating that of course species evolve. Which species do you know that evolved and where is the proof?
It is evident that extinction happens because we have seen it in our history...Dodo bird is an example. This has nothing to do with proof on evolution.
Also, if evolution is always happening why have crocodiles been here the way they are for millions of years?

Like I said, I'm not an expert on the subject. Why would you say that evolution and adaptation has not taken place?? I didn't say that species evolve into new species.
As for the crocodiles, who says they are the same as they were millions of years ago? Is there fossil proof?? Did the mammoths not evolve into present day elephants?? Doesn't the flu virus evolve into different strains year over year?? This isn't really my topic, I'm strictly a layman as far as this stuff goes. I will defer to more expert posters.

[Values]

Like I said, I'm not an expert on the subject. Why would you say that evolution and adaptation has not taken place?? I didn't say that species evolve into new species.
As for the crocodiles, who says they are the same as they were millions of years ago? Is there fossil proof?? Did the mammoths not evolve into present day elephants?? Doesn't the flu virus evolve into different strains year over year?? This isn't really my topic, I'm strictly a layman as far as this stuff goes. I will defer to more expert posters.

adaptation happens.
Evolution does not.
Yes there is fossil proof, which is much more than you find for any evidence FOR evolution
No, mamoths died out as a species, elephants were another species all together. Same for mastadons.
The flu is still the flu, it adapts.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I don't agree with that.
You were a perfect, beautiful, sweet, innocent, little new born baby when you first came into this world.

And I hate to say this, buuut, what you learn to do or say when you are in the learning stage which is between birth and 6 yr's old, and in the rest of your life , is not Gods fault.

According to some here, we are all born depraved, wicked, imperfect, aborrent, weak, sinners. Depraved, wicked, imperfect, aborrent, weak, sinners created in the image of God.... :think:

What does that say about God?

[biggles53]

Nice dodge but you are deflecting the question posed to you and turning around and demanding we provide you with proof that God exists. Why don't you show evidence that God does not exist?? This is your quest for knowledge not mine.

No "dodge" at all!

YOU and people like you, make the claim that there is a god.

I make NO claim whatsoever.

The burden of 'proof' is therefore upon YOU to back up your claim.

This might surprise you, but I don't believe in fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, Easter Bunnies or Santa Claus either. I guess you want me to provide evidence of their non-existence too....??:rolleyes:

[Values]

No "dodge" at all!

YOU and people like you, make the claim that there is a god.

I make NO claim whatsoever.

The burden of 'proof' is therefore upon YOU to back up your claim.

This might surprise you, but I don't believe in fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, Easter Bunnies or Santa Claus either. I guess you want me to provide evidence of their non-existence too....??:rolleyes:

How about, there is a God you just don't know Him like I do.
feel better?

[biggles53]

How about, there is a God you just don't know Him like I do.
feel better?

I always feel pretty well thanks.

And your superficial answer doesn't address my response to Dipperdap's original challenge - which was that atheists should be able to present evidence for the non-existance of something!

[Values]

I always feel pretty well thanks.

And your superficial answer doesn't address my response to Dipperdap's original challenge - which was that atheists should be able to present evidence for the non-existance of something!

Athiests don't need to present anything, unless they want to be believed.

[biggles53]

Athiests don't need to present anything, unless they want to be believed.

Huh??

Would you mind reading that back to yourself, and then explaining to me what it's supposed to mean......?

[Chuangtzu]

Since there appears to be a lot of evolutionist/agnostics/athiests on this board, I would like to hear your theories on how the universe got here.
I think starting at the beginning would be the place to begin learning.


I would suggest you not lump evolutionist, agnostic and atheist together, for starters.

[RayMan]

Got a question?

No. I just thought the "back off" to Tim was uncalled for.

[RayMan]

[quote=Tim;50105801]I think someone missed their nap this afternoon. :doh:

Things have been a little weird in the RF lately... is there a full moon or something?


Solar flares.

[Values]

I would suggest you not lump evolutionist, agnostic and atheist together, for starters.

It was a question to all of them individually.
If you consider yourself one, why don't you give it a try.

[Values]

Huh??

Would you mind reading that back to yourself, and then explaining to me what it's supposed to mean......?

I have a hard time believing athiests are actually athiests, most turn out to be agnostic when questioned. It's a good thing actually, athiesm is a hard row to hoe. They seem to not know much if you go by these threads. the favorite answer tends to be "i don't know" when asked a question of meaning.

[Chuangtzu]

It was a question to all of them individually.

Then why did you lump them together, and address them in the singular?


If you consider yourself one, why don't you give it a try.

I've not experienced you as particularly faithful to the text reply offered to you.

[Values]

Then why did you lump them together, and address them in the singular?




I've not experienced you as particularly faithful to the text reply offered to you.

Wow, first YOU don't answer the op, now YOU tell me how I should formulate the op, then you tell ME that I don't answer YOUR questions.
Your "king of the hannity religion forum" complex is in overdrive .

[graatz]

I have a hard time believing athiests are actually athiests

If I'm not an atheist, which gods do I believe in? :eh:

[Tim]

i would suggest you not lump evolutionist, agnostic and atheist together, for starters.

+10

[Chuangtzu]

Wow, first YOU don't answer the op, now YOU tell me how I should formulate the op, then you tell ME that I don't answer YOUR questions.
Your "king of the hannity religion forum" complex is in overdrive .

Bwuh?

I suggested that you not lump atheist, agnostic and evolutionist. An atheist is not an agnostic. And "evolutionist" surely overlaps with "believer," in many cases.

When you lump unrelated categories, you skew the data.

I didn't tell you how to scribe your OP. I suggested you not confuse categories.

If that makes me "king," so be it - your hyperbole notwithstanding.

[Thor]

What does an athiest do when the evidence points toward intelligent design? Do you cling to the theory anyway as Darwin did?

What do you mean "WHEN the evidence points toward intelligent design"?

Where has the evidence EVER pointed toward intelligent design?

[Values]

What do you mean "WHEN the evidence points toward intelligent design"?

Where has the evidence EVER pointed toward intelligent design?

It always has, you just refuse to aknowledge it.
The more we learn through scientific discovery, the more order and methodology is seen in the universe and our world. The more we understand about how things work the further from evolution we go.
You, I am sure have witnessed in your on lifetime how evolutionists who used to swear we came from an ooze spiked with electricity are now saying that they do not know how life started but still want to say that evolution still is valid they just don't know how it could have happened anymore.
Scientific revelations are changing almost daily. We have the size and age of the, universe as per scientists, changing every year or so whenever they find the next greatest thing that gives them a bit more information.
the truth is that we know next to nothing but want to say we know it all, until we find out we were wrong once again.

[pictor]

This is where their Logic fails them. They (agnostics and such) can't seem to explain the absolute beginning without things and stuff just randomly being here. Whereas the religious accept that something divine is involved.

and where did that something divine begin? If you answer "God has always been" or something similar, that is just just as much a dodge of the question as someone saying the building blocks of the universe have always been.

The rest of us defer to God as the ultimate beginning of it all.
Well, that is a simple answer isn't it? In one simple statement, you have absolved yourself of the need to wonder what other answers there may be.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Well, that is a simple answer isn't it? In one simple statement, you have absolved yourself of the need to wonder what other answers there may be.

Some prefer to take the easy way out.

[Values]

and where did that something divine begin? If you answer "God has always been" or something similar, that is just just as much a dodge of the question as someone saying the building blocks of the universe have always been.

Well, that is a simple answer isn't it? In one simple statement, you have absolved yourself of the need to wonder what other answers there may be.

Finally someone who actiually gives an answer to how the universe began from an athiestic perspective.
THANK YOU!
Next question would be, if the universe has always been there ineternity why are we only where we are right now? Why do scientists claim to know the age of said universe and the actual size of it and at what speed it is expanding?

[Thor]

It always has, you just refuse to aknowledge it.

It ALWAYS has? And your evidence for this is....?????

The more we learn through scientific discovery, the more order and methodology is seen in the universe and our world.

There is also much DISORDER in the universe and our world. Exploding stars, black holes that suck up everything, meteorites and comets crashing into planets, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc....

The more we understand about how things work the further from evolution we go.


Please cite a legitimate scientific source that backs up this statement.

You, I am sure have witnessed in your on lifetime how evolutionists who used to swear we came from an ooze spiked with electricity are now saying that they do not know how life started but still want to say that evolution still is valid they just don't know how it could have happened anymore.


And again, we have someone who is mixing up evolution with abiogenesis. Evolution does not try to explain how life came about. It only describes how life evolved. And there is a mountain of evidence for it.

Scientific revelations are changing almost daily. We have the size and age of the, universe as per scientists, changing every year or so whenever they find the next greatest thing that gives them a bit more information.

Yes, science will change as new information becomes available. If new evidence were to be revealed that demonstrated evolution is incorrect, science would abandon the theory in favor of a new one. This is quite unlike religion which adheres to rigid dogma no matter what. You can present evidence indicating that some aspect of a religion is incorrect and the faithful will not budge in their belief. They will even go so far as to dismiss the evidence with some made up excuse describing how "God" could have done it.

[dbs944]

Since few seem to want to take a real stab at this question, I thought I’d throw my 2 cents in.

My personal theory (not the scientific definition of theory) on the origin of the universe is that the matter came ‘oozing out’ from another dimension.

Probably best visualized by imagining a two dimensional Gumby on the face of the earth. He has east-west and north-south but no up-down. A three dimensional volcanic eruption would cause matter to suddenly appear in his plane, seemingly out of nowhere spreading out two dimensionally from some center. It could also be seen as a stream of water coming from the (to Gumby) non-existent sky. Just picture this but add our third dimension. The original matter coming out from ‘no where’ spreading throughout the three dimensions we are familiar with.

I don’t know how this could be proved – or even tested but it does seem to fit the observable universe. That is unless there were another opening from the other dimension that could be observed first hand.

To me, this makes more sense than a god who has ‘always existed’ and created the universe out of nothing after sitting around idly for an infinite amount of time until He got so bored that He created everything from nothing. (Either that or we are the infinite iteration of life He’s created).

You wanted an athiest view - here's one.

[grhayes]

I have my particular reasons to believe that particular religions are wrong. They may not be the same as other atheists. Atheism is a statement about belief, but I don't know that I'd go as far as to say that it's a belief system, if only because the only thing that binds atheists is that they don't have a belief in any gods. Not having belief isn't exactly a belief system. Of course, each atheist (just like each non-atheist) has their own belief system...

Some people believe in science - because they have faith that science is either correct being done right or that it will eventually lead to an answer.

People believe in religions because - they think they are right to an extent, or it fills in the gap for them...

My ex wife is atheist - she isn't sure because she can't understand why God stands by and lets people commit evil acts. Not everyone is like her. The reasons for being atheist and agnostic and so on are a lot. But there is always a reason.

The reason has two primary angles either they believe something else or there was something they couldn't understand or put faith in or stand behind.

If you think the religion is wrong - that is a belief it can be rewritten as you believe the religion is wrong in hole or in part doesn't matter.

If you think a religion is right - that is a belief - again the person believes the religion is correct

if you think something else is right - that is a belief -

if you are not sure that also is a belief - because - you are feeling that things are not 100% - again something on all of them doesn't sit right with you so again belief.

The point is the core value regardless of what you choose any, all or none is based on what you believe.

[graatz]

if the universe has always been there ineternity

Is this going somewhere? :eh:

Personally, I don't know what you mean with this talk of eternity. I believe that the Universe existed at the beginning of time, and won't be around at the end of time...

[graatz]

The point is the core value regardless of what you choose any, all or none is based on what you believe.

Well, yeah, seeing as I haven't heard of an atheist who hasn't heard any religious claims, it's not as if atheists are so just by lack of ever hearing about possible gods. If an atheist hears about a god-concept, they have to disbelieve in the veracity of the claim. But the same is true if I tell you that a guy named Phil lives in an observatory on Neptune. Now that you'd heard me posit it, you either believe it to be true, or seriously doubt it. But is your belief or doubt in Phil a "belief system"? I suppose it depends on your semantic beliefs......

[Values]

Is this going somewhere? :eh:

Personally, I don't know what you mean with this talk of eternity. I believe that the Universe existed at the beginning of time, and won't be around at the end of time...

think of eternity backwards as in , before now.

[agoodfoundation]

Finally someone who actiually gives an answer to how the universe began from an athiestic perspective.
THANK YOU!
Next question would be, if the universe has always been there ineternity why are we only where we are right now? Why do scientists claim to know the age of said universe and the actual size of it and at what speed it is expanding?


were you looking for someone to give you an answer that matches your viewpoint so can feel confident about what you believe? or were you just looking for a different viewpoint?

[Values]

It ALWAYS has? And your evidence for this is....?????



There is also much DISORDER in the universe and our world. Exploding stars, black holes that suck up everything, meteorites and comets crashing into planets, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc....



Please cite a legitimate scientific source that backs up this statement.



And again, we have someone who is mixing up evolution with abiogenesis. Evolution does not try to explain how life came about. It only describes how life evolved. And there is a mountain of evidence for it.



Yes, science will change as new information becomes available. If new evidence were to be revealed that demonstrated evolution is incorrect, science would abandon the theory in favor of a new one. This is quite unlike religion which adheres to rigid dogma no matter what. You can present evidence indicating that some aspect of a religion is incorrect and the faithful will not budge in their belief. They will even go so far as to dismiss the evidence with some made up excuse describing how "God" could have done it.

You make my point for me, 25 years ago, the prevailing belief amongst evolutionists was that we came from primordial ooze and crept out from there.
Now, because that doesn't make sense anymore, you all want to stay on the evolution bandwagon so you had to change what you
said you believe. Your answers now are, we don't know how it all started, etc, etc.
You goalposts are always moving.

Please cite the credible evidence on evolution.

[graatz]

think of eternity backwards as in , before now.

So wait, by making your substitution are you asking me how the Universe could possibly be around now even though it was around before now? :eh: I'm not seeing the contradiction...

[Values]

were you looking for someone to give you an answer that matches your viewpoint so can feel confident about what you believe? or were you just looking for a different viewpoint?

Looking for an athiests viewpoint. Agnostic works too, although they really don't believe in anything.

[graatz]

because that doesn't make sense anymore

Regardless of the context (I haven't been following your discussions on evolution very carefully), I think you've just demonstrated what you don't understand about the pursuit of science. Gather all of the available data and try to determine a working model that would explain the existence of the data. If at any point you find data that doesn't fit your model, you modify the model to accommodate the new data. Science is a description of data. It's supposed to change its models if there is new evidence to suggest that the model is flawed.

[graatz]

Looking for an athiests viewpoint. Agnostic works too, although they really don't believe in anything.

I'm an agnostic with plenty of beliefs. I'm also an atheist. Please be respectful of us and try to learn the distinction. Thanks :)

[Values]

So wait, by making your substitution are you asking me how the Universe could possibly be around now even though it was around before now? :eh: I'm not seeing the contradiction...

Time is an evolutionist's reason for evolving to even happen. without time we couldn't have evolved.
If the universe has always been, then time is taken out of the equation since all evolving would have been done in the past.
Even by evolutionary standards we could not possibly be the end of an eternity of evolving.
Look at it this way, if as was suggested by an athiest in a previous post, the universe was always here then what we know of the universe would not be here, that is if you believe the scientific thought of today that we are expanding out, that the sun is burning out, that stars are moving away from each other etc.
So, one must conclude that there was a beginning to the universe, whatever that beginning may look like.
And that begs the question, what was before the universe and how did we get all this stuff from the nothing that was here first?

[agoodfoundation]

Looking for an athiests viewpoint. Agnostic works too, although they really don't believe in anything.


okay, well not Athiest or Agnostic, so won't answer your question :)

[agoodfoundation]

Time is an evolutionist's reason for evolving to even happen. without time we couldn't have evolved.
If the universe has always been, then time is taken out of the equation since all evolving would have been done in the past.
Even by evolutionary standards we could not possibly be the end of an eternity of evolving.
Look at it this way, if as was suggested by an athiest in a previous post, the universe was always here then what we know of the universe would not be here, that is if you believe the scientific thought of today that we are expanding out, that the sun is burning out, that stars are moving away from each other etc.
So, one must conclude that there was a beginning to the universe, whatever that beginning may look like.
And that begs the question, what was before the universe and how did we get all this stuff from the nothing that was here first?


Another question. If the earth evolved is it still evolving? or is man where they are supposed to be in life and presto no more evolving?

[Values]

I'm an agnostic with plenty of beliefs. I'm also an atheist. Please be respectful of us and try to learn the distinction. Thanks :)

You interpretation and mine differ.
Agnostic says they can't determine if the is a God/ID or not.
Athiest says there is absolutely no God/ID
You may call yourself what you like, but those are usually how people see the two.
I am not being disrespectfiul at all, but if you say there may be a God you are not an athiest.

[Values]

Another question. If the earth evolved is it still evolving? or is man where they are supposed to be in life and presto no more evolving?

Evolution would never stop.

[agoodfoundation]

Evolution would never stop.

then what will humans evolve into? and why havent we heard of in the last few centuries any human evolving into something more intelligent than a human?

[Values]

Regardless of the context (I haven't been following your discussions on evolution very carefully), I think you've just demonstrated what you don't understand about the pursuit of science. Gather all of the available data and try to determine a working model that would explain the existence of the data. If at any point you find data that doesn't fit your model, you modify the model to accommodate the new data. Science is a description of data. It's supposed to change its models if there is new evidence to suggest that the model is flawed.

Of course you are supposed to throw out you model/hypothesis/theory but it hasn't happened to darwinian evolution, you just changed the beginning to better fit an unknown.
Don't take it too hard even Einstein fudged his math to make things appear to be true.

[graatz]

Time is an evolutionist's reason for evolving to even happen.

I don't follow this... Evolution doesn't happen instantaneously, if that's what you mean. But I don't know that time is a "reason" for much anything. It's just a dimension of space-time.

If the universe has always been, then time is taken out of the equation since all evolving would have been done in the past.

Evolution doesn't stop. This doesn't really make a lot of sense, either. How could a new strain of flu evolve before we vaccinated against an old strain? :eh: You've completely lost me, or you're completely lost.

So, one must conclude that there was a beginning to the universe, whatever that beginning may look like.
And that begs the question, what was before the universe and how did we get all this stuff from the nothing that was here first?

That's not really begging the question, technically. Nevertheless, I don't understand what you mean by asking what was there before time? What is before time? What do you mean that "nothing" was here first? At first there was a whole lot, in fact. Read about the Big Bang. It's all still here, actually, but in less complicated forms of energy.

[Values]

then what will humans evolve into? and why havent we heard of in the last few centuries any human evolving into something more intelligent than a human?

I am not the person to ask as I do not believe that evolution has benn prooven.

[Koushi Shinigami]

then what will humans evolve into? and why havent we heard of in the last few centuries any human evolving into something more intelligent than a human?

Who says the direction for human evolution is a more intelligent human?

BTW, there is no finish line in evolution.

And your time frame of 'a few centuries' is too short to observe evolutional changes.

[Values]

I don't follow this... Evolution doesn't happen instantaneously, if that's what you mean. But I don't know that time is a "reason" for much anything. It's just a dimension of space-time.



Evolution doesn't stop. This doesn't really make a lot of sense, either. How could a new strain of flu evolve before we vaccinated against an old strain? :eh: You've completely lost me, or you're completely lost.



That's not really begging the question, technically. Nevertheless, I don't understand what you mean by asking what was there before time? What is before time? What do you mean that "nothing" was here first? At first there was a whole lot, in fact. Read about the Big Bang. It's all still here, actually, but in less complicated forms of energy.

Do you believe the sun has a finite time left before it burns out?

[graatz]

you just changed the beginning to better fit an unknown.

Did Darwin have a theory on abiogenesis? Forgive me, I haven't read all of his work. And from what I understand, Darwin's basic "survival of the fittest" was a rather un-matured explanation of the origin of species. It's been modified, but no data has come up to suggest that random mutation doesn't propagate because of it's tendency to survive over its rivals...

[graatz]

Do you believe the sun has a finite time left before it burns out?

That is what the data suggests, yes.

[Values]

That is what the data suggests, yes.

If the universe has always been and the things in it have a finite time in and energy reduces with each reuse why are we not completely used up already?

[pictor]

then what will humans evolve into? and why havent we heard of in the last few centuries any human evolving into something more intelligent than a human?
What we will evolve into? Who knows...I am curious as well.
Why haven't we heard about it in the last few centuries? Because evolution takes longer than that for most of its really noticeable changes.

Evolution is encountering a unique scenario with humanity however. We are reaching technological levels that let us defy the basis of evolution. Traits that would normally be a hindrance to survival, are no longer. We can overcome what would be deficiencies, and essentially the "weak" can still stand as great a chance of survival and procreation as anyone else. This will over time probably have an effect on how we evolve as a species, though I can't say what kind of effect.

[Koushi Shinigami]

If the universe has always been and the things in it have a finite time in and energy reduces with each reuse why are we not completely used up already?

If the car has always been, and the tank has a finite size, why haven't we run out of gas yet? Answer: we haven't driven that far yet.

[dbs944]

then what will humans evolve into? and why havent we heard of in the last few centuries any human evolving into something more intelligent than a human?We have evolved into what we are. The changes in the past few centries are too small to notice and since we don't have a control group we can't measure these small changes. Were it not for evolution, we would be different, we just can't tell in what ways. With intercontential movement and interbreeding, I doubt there would ever be another species branching off from what we are - unless a group of humans blasted off into space and were thus isolated for a very long period of time.

[graatz]

If the universe has always been and the things in it have a finite time in and energy reduces with each reuse why are we not completely used up already?

Just because the Universe has always been doesn't mean it's infinitely old. Infinity doesn't actually exist, even though we can imagine it, and mathematically describe limits as things approach it. The Universe has always been in that time is a property of the Universe. The Universe has been around just as long as time has been, or perhaps more accurately, time is as old as the Universe...

[Koushi Shinigami]

This will over time probably have an effect on how we evolve as a species, though I can't say what kind of effect.


See my response to that post.

[James Juno]

If there is a god, I imagine he/she/it's doing a facepalm over some of the posts in this thread. This god might even consider it "blasphemous" to waste the power of the brain it gave you to understand the wonders of the Universe. Those who mock science fail to see they are mocking their god and natural law. Doesn't really matter, though, as such mockery has no effect whatsoever on reality. We all live and die according to nature's laws whether we "believe" in them, like them or deny them.

[pictor]

Finally someone who actiually gives an answer to how the universe began from an athiestic perspective.
THANK YOU!
erm....before I am mistaken, I am not saying I believe the building blocks of the universe "have always been". I am unrepentently ignorant of the answer to this question. What very little scientists suspect about the origins of the universe, I am even less informed than that. I was just saying "It has always been" is an escape explanation that satisfies the question, however neither you nor I really have enough to go on to suggest whether it's a good explanation.
Next question would be, if the universe has always been there ineternity why are we only where we are right now? Why do scientists claim to know the age of said universe and the actual size of it and at what speed it is expanding?
Scientists do not claim to know. They have some theories, they are making their best attempt to try and validate, or disprove those theories.

[Values]

Just because the Universe has always been doesn't mean it's infinitely old. Infinity doesn't actually exist, even though we can imagine it, and mathematically describe limits as things approach it. The Universe has always been in that time is a property of the Universe. The Universe has been around just as long as time has been, or perhaps more accurately, time is as old as the Universe...

Interesting construct.
So what you are saying is that you have found that time isn't really a limiting factor and that time itself had a beginning which then allows your belief to continue in the face of known science.
If all this were true, what was before time?

[graatz]

If all this were true, what was before time?

What does it mean for something to be before time? :eh:

[Koushi Shinigami]

What does it mean for something to be before time? :eh:

I think. Therefore "I Am". ;)

[Values]

erm....before I am mistaken, I am not saying I believe the building blocks of the universe "have always been". I am unrepentently ignorant of the answer to this question. What very little scientists suspect about the origins of the universe, I am even less informed than that. I was just saying "It has always been" is an escape explanation that satisfies the question, however neither you nor I really have enough to go on to suggest whether it's a good explanation.
Scientists do not claim to know. They have some theories, they are making their best attempt to try and validate, or disprove those theories.

Sorry, I thought you had a conviction to back up your belief.
Please don't misunderstand that sentence, I mean only that your beliefs aren't founded in a concrete conviction. You seem to be willing to let further science help explain your beliefs as our understanding of it unfolds, right?
Let me ask you this, if science reveals intelligent design to the universe are you open to that possibility?

[Values]

What does it mean for something to be before time? :eh:

I don't know, it was your cinstruct.
Are you now implying that the universe didn't have a beginning?

[graatz]

I don't know, it was your cinstruct.

I never said that the word "before" makes sense if time doesn't exist. Where I think you are getting confused is that you perceive time in a way that makes you think of it as a well-ordered list of events. A time line. The way you see it, the time line, just like the number line, proceeds out in both directions into infinity. This is a quaint way of looking at it, but you're only choosing to believe that your perception of time and the conclusions you draw because of your perceptions lead to some valid truth about time. If quantum physics teaches us anything, it's that our ability to perceive things is a hindrance on our ability to know things.

So you are choosing to believe that the Universe beginning is just another point on the time line... as if time is something that exists outside of the Universe. And because you envision a time line upon which the beginning of the Universe is just another point on the line, it makes sense to you for there to be something earlier on that line. But just because you choose to see it that way doesn't mean it's a valid way of describing time and space.

[Greyclouds]

then what will humans evolve into? and why havent we heard of in the last few centuries any human evolving into something more intelligent than a human?

It all depends on the mating preference of the human female as decided by psychological conceptions of the "perfect mate." Of course, this is all barring some catastrophic epidemic (which would provide selective pressures resulting in more alleles that provide resistance to the agent of disease) or a man-made purge (which would indiscriminately kill off an entire population).

For example, our height is an excellent example of the selection of alleles that resulted from female preference. Women like taller guys. Therefore, genes that result in taller men post-puberty have become predominant in our populations. Average heights in ancient times have been recorded around 162 cm between the AD BC switch and 175 cm in modern times. Some argue that this is more due to diet than genetic selection, though I'd argue that the two are MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE.

http://ww.plasticsoldierreview.com/Features/Size.html

Prior to the advent of medical technology, you had to have a set of alleles that literally allowed you to never be sick a day in your life. If height is a sign of physical health, then, obviously, genes that contributed to your physical well-being would have greatly contributed to your height over other males. Therefore you would be more desirable to mate with.


So, human evolution will primarily conform to social desires for mates, with a couple of exceptions. Despite this vague prophecy, noone really knows what we will look like in the future.

[Values]

I never said that the word "before" makes sense if time doesn't exist. Where I think you are getting confused is that you perceive time in a way that makes you think of it as a well-ordered list of events. A time line. The way you see it, the time line, just like the number line, proceeds out in both directions into infinity. This is a quaint way of looking at it, but you're only choosing to believe that your perception of time and the conclusions you draw because of your perceptions lead to some valid truth about time. If quantum physics teaches us anything, it's that our ability to perceive things is a hindrance on our ability to know things.

So you are choosing to believe that the Universe beginning is just another point on the time line... as if time is something that exists outside of the Universe. And because you envision a time line upon which the beginning of the Universe is just another point on the line, it makes sense to you for there to be something earlier on that line. But just because you choose to see it that way doesn't mean it's a valid way of describing time and space.

I take it you have thrown out the theory of relativity?
I now understand your position a little better, I don't dispute your assumptions, as the theories you ascribe to haven't been proven nor disproven. I also do not agree with them. If there is one constant in the annals of human scientific study, if you don't like what it ascribes to right now, just wait a while, it will change!

[pictor]

Let me ask you this, if science reveals intelligent design to the universe are you open to that possibility?
If it's good science (important point), then yes, I am open to that possibility. I am an atheist not because I want there to be no god, but because I find the presence of a god an illogical and unlikely explanation for the universe.

If good scientific research really did uncover evidence of a planned design, I would have to rethink my conclusion that such planning did not exist. Concluding it was a god (as opposed to aliens perhaps, I don't know) is still a stretch, but it starts becoming more plausible.

It would have to be evidence however, for which that is truly the most plausible explanation, and then, it is only the start of a change in understanding, it has to be backed up by additional research.

[agoodfoundation]

We have evolved into what we are. The changes in the past few centries are too small to notice and since we don't have a control group we can't measure these small changes. Were it not for evolution, we would be different, we just can't tell in what ways. With intercontential movement and interbreeding, I doubt there would ever be another species branching off from what we are - unless a group of humans blasted off into space and were thus isolated for a very long period of time.



I for one am glad my ancestors didnt evolve from monkeys :)

[Koushi Shinigami]

I for one am glad my ancestors didnt evolve from monkeys :)

You're right.

We evolved from apes.


And we still are apes.

[agoodfoundation]

You're right.

We evolved from apes.


And we still are apes.


then where did the monkeys come from? the cat perhaps? LOL!

[Koushi Shinigami]

then where did the monkeys come from? the cat perhaps? LOL!

I'm sure there's a common ancestor between monkeys an apes somewhere up the evolutionary tree.

[graatz]

I take it you have thrown out the theory of relativity?

I don't practice science, and I've already admitted that I hardly have the wherewithal to keep up on the newest findings. So I don't know how to answer this question. Regardless, as you didn't really respond to anything I wrote I assume you don't really have an answer to what it means to be before time, and further that I've sufficiently answered the question in your OP with a perfectly valid belief that an atheist can hold.

[agoodfoundation]

You're right.

We evolved from apes.


And we still are apes.


do you actually, with all your heart and without a doubt believe in evolution? or are you trying to keep God out of every aspect of your life?

and if you don't absolutly, without a doubt ,believe fully in evolution wouldnt you rather be safe than sorry believing in God?

[Koushi Shinigami]

do you actually, with all your heart and without a doubt believe in evolution? or are you trying to keep God out of every aspect of your life?


1. In your assumption about my relationship with God, you are making a leap to judgement that I have not given you enough information to make.



and if you don't absolutly, without a doubt ,believe fully in evolution wouldnt you rather be safe than sorry believing in God?

2. Living by Pascal's wager and trying to 'play it safe' will get one despised by God.

[Values]

I don't practice science, and I've already admitted that I hardly have the wherewithal to keep up on the newest findings. So I don't know how to answer this question. Regardless, as you didn't really respond to anything I wrote I assume you don't really have an answer to what it means to be before time, and further that I've sufficiently answered the question in your OP with a perfectly valid belief that an atheist can hold.

Sure, you have stated your own theories and believe you have made a point. It isn't really a valid point that is better or worse than many others.

[Values]

I'm sure there's a common ancestor between monkeys an apes somewhere up the evolutionary tree.

Why are you sure of this?
Is there any evidence to back up your claim?
Speaking of tree, are you sure that monkeys and trees have a common ancestor?
Because through evolution there would have to be, would there not?
Unless, there was a Creator first of course.

[Values]

You're right.

We evolved from apes.


And we still are apes.

You may be, but I learned to pull my knuckles up last week. :lol:

[graatz]

It isn't really a valid point

At least you don't seem to have a counter-argument. I hope the other atheists in this thread can also help your soul-search as well :mrgreen: Feel free to PM me if you want to know more about my cosmological beliefs.

[dbs944]

Why are you sure of this?
Is there any evidence to back up your claim?
Speaking of tree, are you sure that monkeys and trees have a common ancestor?
Because through evolution there would have to be, would there not?
Unless, there was a Creator first of course.

There is plenty of evidence in the fossil record - animals that are too human to be apes and too apish to be human and every new find further fills the gaps and knowledge between. Find a modern human bone among those of our evolutionary ancestors, and you can tumble the whole theory.

I personally think it is possible that life started several times at varing places. Some could have become the plant lifeforms and other animals. That said, I can also imagine two strains of a very prehistoric life forming into two distinctly different lifeforms, one evolving into plants, another into animals. So perhaps monkeys and trees have a common ancestor.

[Greyclouds]

Why are you sure of this?
Is there any evidence to back up your claim?
Speaking of tree, are you sure that monkeys and trees have a common ancestor?
Because through evolution there would have to be, would there not?
Unless, there was a Creator first of course.

You're basing your comparisons on phenotypes (outward signs of genetic variation). Why not take GENES into account instead?

Trees and Monkeys SHARE an important gene family: the ribosomal subunit genes.

Genetically? Trees and monkeys have similarities and differences. If we were running under the assumption that all things were created ex nihilo by an intelligent creator who favored humans above all, we'd expect to find vast genetic differences between humans and everything else. We don't. Humans have similar ribosomal subunity genes to monkeys and trees.

[Greyclouds]

There is plenty of evidence in the fossil record - animals that are too human to be apes and too apish to be human and every new find further fills the gaps and knowledge between. Find a modern human bone among those of our evolutionary ancestors, and you can tumble the whole theory.

I personally think it is possible that life started several times at varing places. Some could have become the plant lifeforms and other animals. That said, I can also imagine two strains of a very prehistoric life forming into two distinctly different lifeforms, one evolving into plants, another into animals. So perhaps monkeys and trees have a common ancestor.

Monkeys and trees share these important factors:

1. Same codon table.
2. Same mechanism of gene expression (DNA to RNA to Protein for the creation of protein products).
3. Similar genes.
4. Organelle based cellular structure.

Monkeys and trees have differences as well:

1. Different gene families (depending on the monkey and the tree)
2. Trees have chloroplasts (which have their own circular genomes); monkeys do not.
3. Tree cells produce rigid structural proteins/carbohydrates and have a meri-stem based development; Monkey cells terminally differentiate based on a placenta stimulated, hox-gene fueled fashion.


The similarities suggest that they both had a common ancestor (as those similarities are preserved among all Eukaryotic life forms), yet that they've diverged from that common ancestor in different ways.

[Thor]

I wonder why a lot of people who witness the magnificence of nature and the intricacy of life on this planet still deny that it was started with a plan.

Because there is no evidence of a "plan".

[Values]

At least you don't seem to have a counter-argument. I hope the other atheists in this thread can also help your soul-search as well :mrgreen: Feel free to PM me if you want to know more about my cosmological beliefs.

Why do you think I can't counter your theories?
My original Op was to open discussion about the beginning of the universe not give you my theories.

[agoodfoundation]

Because there is no evidence of a "plan".

beep.beep. wrong answer.

have you read the Bible lately?

[Thor]

You make my point for me, 25 years ago, the prevailing belief amongst evolutionists was that we came from primordial ooze and crept out from there.

What is your source for this statement?

Now, because that doesn't make sense anymore, you all want to stay on the evolution bandwagon so you had to change what you
said you believe.

This statement only proves my point. Science will adapt or throw out a theory if new evidence emerges.

Your answers now are, we don't know how it all started, etc, etc.


I don't believe science has ever said "we know how it started".

You goalposts are always moving.


Science does not have "goalposts". Science only provides the best answer for natural phenomena based upon the available evidence.

Please cite the credible evidence on evolution.


You obviously have nothing but contempt for evolutionary theory and I have no doubt that whatever evidence I provide will be pooh-poohed and dismissed.

That being said, look up Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx.

[Values]

Because there is no evidence of a "plan".

I would not want to have my eyes so solidly shut.

[Thor]

beep.beep. wrong answer.

have you read the Bible lately?

And what does the Bible prove?

[Thor]

I would not want to have my eyes so solidly shut.

How foolish of me not to realize that our mere existence is proof of some deity's "plan".:rolleyes:

[Thor]

Don't take it too hard even Einstein fudged his math to make things appear to be true.

WHOA! WHOA! WHOA!

Where did Einstein "fudge" his math to "make things appear to be true"?

[Values]

What is your source for this statement?



This statement only proves my point. Science will adapt or throw out a theory if new evidence emerges.



I don't believe science has ever said "we know how it started".



Science does not have "goalposts". Science only provides the best answer for natural phenomena based upon the available evidence.



You obviously have nothing but contempt for evolutionary theory and I have no doubt that whatever evidence I provide will be pooh-poohed and dismissed.

That being said, look up Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx.

You must be young if you were not taught about primordial ooze.
You have yet to provide ANY evidence, to poo poo or not.
Bring out your evidence, cite your sources, get Darwin online whatever you need to do to prove evolution, by all means bring it!
Btw... a lizard with wings? I trump that with a mouse with wings ( you might know it as a bat) so what does that mean? that mammals are turning into birds too? Also, which is it, mammals came from fish or as evolutionists also like to say, marine mammals went back to the water from being a land animal. What would cause this?
How about the crocodile which has been essentially the same since late Triassic period, why didn't they transform while everything else did?

[Values]

WHOA! WHOA! WHOA!

Where did Einstein "fudge" his math to "make things appear to be true"?

Look up his use of the integer 0.
Besides with quantum physics does Einstein really matter any more?

[graatz]

Why do you think I can't counter your theories?
My original Op was to open discussion

Um, because I gave you my theory and you didn't seem open to discussion on it. I only assume that means that you appreciate my intellectual response and will seriously consider the merits of it.

[Thor]

You have yet to provide ANY evidence, to poo poo or not.

Not true. I gave you specific examples that demonstrate a transition from one type of creature to another (Archaeopteryx: dinosaurs to birds; Tiktaalik: fish to tetrapods). And, as I predicted, you poo-poo'd and dismissed it.

Bring out your evidence, cite your sources, get Darwin online whatever you need to do to prove evolution, by all means bring it!


You want more evidence? Explain goose bumps. We get goose bumps because of a small muscle that makes body hair stand on end. To our distant ancestors, this was beneficial as goose bumps would cause their much hairier bodies to trap air and warm them up. It also made them appear larger than they were. This could make a predator think twice before attacking. Of course, to us, goosebumps are useless. So why would we have them if they weren't a vestige of our long ago past?

Btw... a lizard with wings? I trump that with a mouse with wings ( you might know it as a bat) so what does that mean?

I explained this in my first paragraph. By the way, I don't think bats descended from mice.

that mammals are turning into birds too?

No, a mammal will not turn into a bird.

Also, which is it, mammals came from fish or as evolutionists also like to say, marine mammals went back to the water from being a land animal.

Land creatures did develop from sea creatures, but mammals did not evolve directly from sea creatures. And yes, whales, dolphins, seals, walruses, etc. developed as land creatures but evolved into sea creatures.

What would cause this?

Any number of factors. To escape predators, to search for food, necessity due to a dwindling land mass. Take your pick.

How about the crocodile which has been essentially the same since late Triassic period, why didn't they transform while everything else did?


Perhaps the same reason that the Coelacanth has remained unchanged for millions of years.

[Herradura]

(Archaeopteryx: dinosaurs to birds; Tiktaalik: fish to tetrapods)

Hold on there…… These examples are nothing more than proof that that particular species once existed. There is no proof there of ancestry.

[Herradura]

We evolved from apes.

Oh, you mean Piltdown man?

[Thor]

Hold on there…… These examples are nothing more than proof that that particular species once existed. There is no proof there of ancestry.

Oh, boy...

A common argument from Creationists is that "there are no transitional fossils'. You show them a transitional fossil and then they want to say, "There is no proof of ancestry."

You just can't win...

OK, you want proof of ancestry, take a look here http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060501_tiktaalik

By the way, I find it highly ironic that Creationists demand absolute proof for a scientific theory, yet they accept incredible things as fact with no proof whatsoever.

[Tim]

Oh, boy...

(snipped)
By the way, I find it highly ironic that Creationists demand absolute proof for a scientific theory, yet they accept incredible things as fact with no proof whatsoever. (Bold text applied by Tim)

Like talking snakes and donkeys? Iron axe heads that float? People walking on water?

Those kinds of incredible things?

[RayMan]

Like talking snakes and donkeys? Iron axe heads that float? People walking on water?

Those kinds of incredible things?

You boys got a point in there somewhere? :mrgreen:

[Herradura]

Oh, boy...

A common argument from Creationists is that "there are no transitional fossils'. You show them a transitional fossil and then they want to say, "There is no proof of ancestry."

You just can't win...

OK, you want proof of ancestry, take a look here http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060501_tiktaalik.

Those examples are like taking a car tire and a life saver, then putting a donut (Archaeopteryz/tiktaalik)in the middle and calling it transitional.

By the way, I find it highly ironic that Creationists demand absolute proof for a scientific theory.

Evolution is taught as fact in schools, “fact” demands absolute proof.


yet they accept incredible things as fact with no proof whatsoever.

Christians live by faith and never claimed to have proof.

[Chuangtzu]

A fact does not "demand absolute proof." A fact is a fact because it is demonstrable, not because every possible mathematical, logical and grammatical proof has been brought to bear...

[Herradura]

A fact does not "demand absolute proof." A fact is a fact because it is demonstrable, not because every possible mathematical, logical and grammatical proof has been brought to bear...

Point taken, and in consideration of that thought; scientific fact must be “objective” (never assuming or concluding anything) and verifiable through a series of observations (watching it happen). The problem with a transitional fossil is that it falls outside of real observation, so one cannot be objective.

Species adaption is an excellent case of real observation and demonstration without assumptions, because data was readily available before, during and after observation. However, to claim a fossil is connected to a species long dead is impossible without data and observation in parallel unison.

[graatz]

it falls outside of real observation

:confused: It sounds like you are dictating what it means to be science in a way that specifically precludes the possibility of ever knowing anything that isn't currently happening. That's a little intellectually dishonest...

[Herradura]

:confused: It sounds like you are dictating what it means to be science in a way that specifically precludes the possibility of ever knowing anything that isn't currently happening. That's a little intellectually dishonest...

No, just pointing out real scientific method.

[Tim]

You boys got a point in there somewhere? :mrgreen:

Only that there seems to be a bit of disconnect in the amount of "proof" required of other's as compared to the amount we require for ourselves.

I'm not an "evolutionist" (I don't really know/understand enough to have an opinion one way or the other on the discipline) but there seems to be a lot more 'study' involved in determining the veracity of evolutionary theory than in determining the veracity of, say... a talking donkey or snake.

It's the whole goose and gander thingy... that's all. ;)

[graatz]

No, just pointing out real scientific method.

So in the world according to you, if scientists wanted to prove the theory of evolution, how would they go about doing it? :eh:

[agoodfoundation]

And what does the Bible prove?



That God created this world in 6 days and on the 7th he rested.

Man was formed from the dust of the ground, God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living SOUL.

Can you give me any explanation in evolution as to why man returns to dust when he dies?

[agoodfoundation]

Oh, boy...

A common argument from Creationists is that "there are no transitional fossils'. You show them a transitional fossil and then they want to say, "There is no proof of ancestry."

You just can't win...

OK, you want proof of ancestry, take a look here http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060501_tiktaalik

By the way, I find it highly ironic that Creationists demand absolute proof for a scientific theory, yet they accept incredible things as fact with no proof whatsoever.


and yet evolution scientists are still looking for the one missing link which would make evolution credible, and they have searched for it ever since Darwin but they haven't found it.

[Tim]

That God created this world in 6 days and on the 7th he rested.

Man was formed from the dust of the ground, God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living SOUL.

Can you give me any explanation in evolution as to why man returns to dust when he dies?

Thor asked what the Bible "proved". You provided what the Bible "says".

Evolution doesn't address dust to dust. That is covered within another field of science.

[agoodfoundation]

Thor asked what the Bible "proved". You provided what the Bible "says".

Evolution doesn't address dust to dust. That is covered within another field of science.


well, then do you have any idea?

the Bible speaks about it plainly. And we actually see it happen today.

[Tim]

well, then do you have any idea?

the Bible speaks about it plainly. And we actually see it happen today.

"Any idea" about which part? ...Not sure what you're asking.

The fact that the Bible speaks to a subject (plainly or not... that is debatable as evidenced by the many different denominations that use the Bible to support their teachings) would not be considered proof of anything. That's all I was pointing out...

[Mikko]

Since there appears to be a lot of evolutionist/agnostics/athiests on this board, I would like to hear your theories on how the universe got here.
I think starting at the beginning would be the place to begin learning.
Let's back up a little further and root out the equation of evolutionists with agnostics and atheists. Not all evolutionists are agnostics or atheists. Not by a long shot. The theory of evolution in no way, shape or form conflicts with the belief in the existence of God.:)

[Koushi Shinigami]

well, then do you have any idea?

the Bible speaks about it plainly. And we actually see it happen today.

Depends on how you define dust. House dust is mostly sluffed off skin cells. So if that's what we are returning to, then in acutality, we never really left it. If you are talking about the dust of the ground outside, that is mostly silica, and we do not turn into that when we die. We just mix with it.


Other than that, bacteriological action in decomposition is a well known process and science has volumes of observed information on that process.

[Greyclouds]

That God created this world in 6 days and on the 7th he rested.

No, the Bible does not prove this. In fact, the actual time period of an Earth "Day" could not have been conceptualized until the fourth day, when God creates the Sun.

Sure, God creates "light" on the first day and divides it so that there is "day" and "night;" however, this should only showcase the Ancient misconception of what actually CAUSED light!


Man was formed from the dust of the ground, God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living SOUL.

Can you give me any explanation in evolution as to why man returns to dust when he dies?

Man doesn't return to "dust" when he dies; unless of course you are challenging the entire field of Chemistry here! The majority of organic dust found in our homes is composed of shed human skin cells, whereas the dust commonly found outdoors can be comprised heavily of silica particles.

http://www.allergynursing.com/questions2/dust.php

http://www.workershealth.com.au/facts060.html

Silica dust causes cellular death in human beings; if God created us out of this sort of dust... well...

To add insult to injury to your speculation, we do NOT become silica dust after we die.


Instead many of our cellular components are broken down by microorganisms into highly oxidized chemical compounds after we die. Not silica dust, but rather an accumulation of carbon, nitrogen and water all consumed by microorganisms.


As to why we die, that is predicted by evolution as well. Nucleic acids (like DNA) are highly malleable; they take ALOT of damage over time from the environment.

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

The accumulation of damage ultimately results in the death of the organism, but hopefully after it has a chance to reproduce! Organisms that are able to reproduce rapidly (fitness, in a Darwinian sense) preserve their DNA by making multiple copies of it! If one of those copies were to be damaged by the environment... no worries! There are tons of other copies out there!

Death is an evolutionary way of making sure that only the good copies of DNA molecules are out there in the wild.

[Greyclouds]

Depends on how you define dust. House dust is mostly sluffed off skin cells. So if that's what we are returning to, then in acutality, we never really left it. If you are talking about the dust of the ground outside, that is mostly silica, and we do not turn into that when we die. We just mix with it.


Other than that, bacteriological action in decomposition is a well known process and science has volumes of observed information on that process.

Excellent post :clap:

[Thor]

That God created this world in 6 days and on the 7th he rested.

Man was formed from the dust of the ground, God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living SOUL.

I asked what the Bible proves. You respond by telling me what is written in the Bible. Sorry, but the Bible does not prove the Bible. This is what we call "circular logic".

Can you give me any explanation in evolution as to why man returns to dust when he dies?


Greyclouds provides a much better response to this question than I could give you (and I thank him for it). But I must point out that EVERYTHING turns to "dust" when it dies. How this has anything to do with the Bible or evolution escapes me.

[Thor]

(Bold text applied by Tim)

Like talking snakes and donkeys? Iron axe heads that float? People walking on water?

Those kinds of incredible things?

Not to mention a river turning into blood, a man losing his strength because his hair was cut, people turning into pillars of salt, a flood that covered the entire planet in water, etc....

[Thor]

Those examples are like taking a car tire and a life saver, then putting a donut (Archaeopteryz/tiktaalik)in the middle and calling it transitional.


No, it is not the same thing at all. A life saver, a tire and a doughnut are not living things. They don't reproduce. Creationists have this bad habit of trying to compare manmade objects (buildings, cars, etc..) to living things in their arguments against evolution. It doesn't work. A doughnut cannot "transition" into anything.

[QUOTE]Evolution is taught as fact in schools, “fact” demands absolute proof.


You demonstrate quite clearly here that you do not understand what a "scientific theory" is. Theories do not provide "absolute proof". By your logic, the schools should not teach wave theory, germ theory or gravitational theory because none of them have "absolute proof".

Christians live by faith and never claimed to have proof.

But you demand "absolute proof" for evolution? I'm just pointing out your inconsistency. You accept without question the most fantastical things as fact. Things for which there is no proof whatsoever. But you set an impossible standard for science.

[agoodfoundation]

I asked what the Bible proves. You respond by telling me what is written in the Bible. Sorry, but the Bible does not prove the Bible. This is what we call "circular logic".



Greyclouds provides a much better response to this question than I could give you (and I thank him for it). But I must point out that EVERYTHING turns to "dust" when it dies. How this has anything to do with the Bible or evolution escapes me.


Gen 3:

16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. 20And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

[Greyclouds]

Gen 3:

16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. 20And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

That doesn't really answer Thor's question, and instead, it actually proves his point: you're using the Bible to prove the Bible.

[dbs944]

and yet evolution scientists are still looking for the one missing link which would make evolution credible, and they have searched for it ever since Darwin but they haven't found it.

Millions of 'missing links' have been found in plant and animal (including man) evolution. In fact, every fossil is a missing link between two different animals. Transitional would be a better term. You are a transitional animal between your parents and your offspring.

As for fossils, unless you found parent/child bones, every 'missing link' found would create two more gaps so according to your beliefs, scientists will never completely fill out the puzzle. There is not 'the one missing link'.

And don't think that scientists are hiding stuff for their collective agenda. Every single geologist and rock hound would love nothing more to find the item that would disprove evolution. It would make the famous and probably quite rich. To use your quote - They've been searching for this ever since Darwin but they haven't found it.

[Mikko]

and yet evolution scientists are still looking for the one missing link which would make evolution credible, and they have searched for it ever since Darwin but they haven't found it.
What they have found, however, is a body of evidence in support of evolution that is so vast as to remove any doubt from the mind of anyone who understands science as to the accuracy of Evolutionary Theory as an explanation for the observed diversity of species populating the planet Earth today.:)

[Herradura]

No, it is not the same thing at all. A life saver, a tire and a doughnut are not living things. They don't reproduce. Creationists have this bad habit of trying to compare manmade objects (buildings, cars, etc..) to living things in their arguments against evolution. It doesn't work. A doughnut cannot "transition" into anything..

This was an analogy, and you know it. Where are you going with this?

You demonstrate quite clearly here that you do not understand what a "scientific theory" is..

Excuse me? Is this an attempt at rudeness? I was using analogy, please don’t be brash.


Theories do not provide "absolute proof". By your logic, the schools should not teach wave theory, germ theory or gravitational theory because none of them have "absolute proof".

Wrong, schools can teach theory as theory, no problem. However, evolution is taught on the premise that it is absolute fact, no exceptions. For students to think otherwise puts them into the ridicule category.



But you demand "absolute proof" for evolution?.

As long as evolutionists ridicule, yes I demand absolute proof.

I'm just pointing out your inconsistency. You accept without question the most fantastical things as fact.

What inconsistency? Read my past posts, I claim to live by faith and never clamed fact.

Things for which there is no proof whatsoever..

You interpret all known evidence for your theories in a bias manner. I take that same evidence and interpret it to mine. i.e. If I were an evolutionist I would use the fact that diamonds can be created in a lab in less than a year as proof the earth could be younger.

But you set an impossible standard for science.

No, I only ask that evolution and spontaneous theorists are objective about the potential for divine influence. They currently are not, and they are cramming all new data into an old shoe.

[Herradura]

So in the world according to you, if scientists wanted to prove the theory of evolution, how would they go about doing it? :eh:

Well, just for starters.

If Miller’s work had been continued for the last 56 years and evolutionary biologists were able to show how all the compounds for amino acids were formed from nothing, followed by showing how amino acids formed into proteins in the presence of oxygen, and then most importantly show how DNA and RNA formed from nothing, we might really have basis from some current conclusions.

You know, experiment and observe again and again until you can provide proof of the basis. There is no proof a cell popped out of nowhere from inorganic matter. Evolutionary scientists have never even come within a dream of such a thing. They are so far away from it that it could be likened to a religion that requires faith to fill in the gaps.

[graatz]

[COLOR=orange]If Miller’s work had been continued for the last 56 years and evolutionary biologists were able to show how all the compounds for amino acids were formed from nothing, followed by showing how amino acids formed into proteins in the presence of oxygen, and then most importantly show how DNA and RNA formed from nothing, we might really have basis from some current conclusions.

:confused: You mean abiogenesis? How exactly do you propose for scientists to turn back time to create the exact atmospheric conditions that existed pre-life on Earth? According to your definition, how can scientists even come to a conclusion on what those atmospheric conditions might have been if they can't observe it contemporary to their studies? You proposed a definition for doing science that says that if it's not happening right now, you can't prove it happened. They can't prove that dinosaurs roamed the Earth, for example.

[Greyclouds]

This was an analogy, and you know it. Where are you going with this?

Excuse me? Is this an attempt at rudeness? I was using analogy, please don’t be brash.

Wrong, schools can teach theory as theory, no problem. However, evolution is taught on the premise that it is absolute fact, no exceptions. For students to think otherwise puts them into the ridicule category.

What schools do this? Are you equating the teaching of the fundamentals of a science theory as being taught as "fact?" The big disclaimer for ALL of the fields of science is nearly everything is only the most likely probability based on interpretation of the data.

I mean, will you attack the atomic orbital theory of chemistry based on the fact that my chemistry professor in College did not start out by restating this disclaimer (even though he thought it was assumed)?


As long as evolutionists ridicule, yes I demand absolute proof.

Ridicule? Perhaps skepticism is a better term. Oh, and all scientific theories are subjected to high levels of skepticism. Evolutionary theory just happens to have survived the skepticism for a very very long time.



What inconsistency? Read my past posts, I claim to live by faith and never clamed fact.


You interpret all known evidence for your theories in a bias manner. I take that same evidence and interpret it to mine. i.e. If I were an evolutionist I would use the fact that diamonds can be created in a lab in less than a year as proof the earth could be younger.

Then let us present a hypothesis. Hypothesis: the fact that we can create polymeric compounds in a laboratory (this is often termed, in vitro) such as nylon should mean that we can find it in nature.

The data on nylon in nature? We have never discovered nylon occurring naturally.

Ergo, our data does not support our hypothesis, and therefore, in vitro synthesis of carbon compounds in the laboratory probably does not match the rates of reaction expected in nature. The synthesis of diamonds in the laboratory at a faster rate does not imply that such conditions are present in nature; only that the rate of diamond formation CAN occur faster.



No, I only ask that evolution and spontaneous theorists are objective about the potential for divine influence. They currently are not, and they are cramming all new data into an old shoe.

How often do you incorporate divine influence as a distinctive possibility for the physical occurrences of your life? And no, I'm not talking about petitions for your favorite sports team to win, or petitions for something good to happen to someone else. I'm talking PHYSICAL MECHANISMS that are detailed by the fields of science.

Do you drink a soda confident that the inside liquid won't suddenly turn into bread, making the soda undrinkable? If you do not cautiously approach your soda from such a perspective, you are not allowing for divine influence.

Do you drive your car down the road confident that it will not suddenly turn into a pillar of salt at high speeds? I'd be far more careful; divine influence could easily do such a thing, no?

Do you fear that the basketball that you are dribbling down the court will suddenly morph into a hunk of cheese and splatter all across the court? Again, what's stopping divine influence from doing it? Why are you not scared of this occurrence.


If you allow for divine suspension of physical rules in the sciences, you are actually destroying the concept of science. You cannot study physical mechanisms if you must constantly be wary of their suspension without any means of predicting them.

[Mikko]

[QUOTE=Herradura;50196181]Those examples are like taking a car tire and a life saver, then putting a donut (Archaeopteryz/tiktaalik)in the middle and calling it transitional.

From the great Steven Novella:
"...science is about making predictions, and the better any theory makes predictions the more confirmed it becomes. If all life on earth evolved, from a common ancestor, then all life shares a common descent. Therefore if you take any two branches on the “tree of life,” sometime in the past there must have been a common ancestor. Or, there must be a transition between any child group and its parent group.

Whales evolved from terrestrial mammals. Evolution predicts we should find specimens from a time when whale ancestors were part way between their terrestrial ancestors and modern aquatic whales. This prediction was validated by Ambulocetus and other specimens.

Birds as a group are most closely related to reptiles, which are a more ancient group. Therefore it is likely that we will find specimens from a group of reptiles that were bird-like but had not yet evolved all the characteristic of modern birds. This is exactly what we find.

We should find walking-fish who were ancestors to modern tetrapods - done.

And we should find turtle-like reptiles with only part of a modern turtle shell. Now we can check off that box as well.

Creation does not require that such species should exist at an appropriate time in the past. It does not predict them (actually, it predicts nothing, because it’s not a scientific theory). Common descent through evolution requires, and therefore predicts, and such specimens exist - and we are finding them at a steady rate, each one further validation of evolution."

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=431#more-431

So evolution predicts and the evidence delivers, time after time. Evolution has been challenged heavily and has always come through. This makes it a scientific theory and fact. Scientists don't just pick a fossil and stick it in a convenient hole - think of it like a jigsaw puzzle, you can't stick any piece anywhere.

You need to understand before you criticise.
Very lucid explanation.:clap:

[Greyclouds]

Well, just for starters.

If Miller’s work had been continued for the last 56 years and evolutionary biologists were able to show how all the compounds for amino acids were formed from nothing, followed by showing how amino acids formed into proteins in the presence of oxygen, and then most importantly show how DNA and RNA formed from nothing, we might really have basis from some current conclusions.

You know, experiment and observe again and again until you can provide proof of the basis. There is no proof a cell popped out of nowhere from inorganic matter. Evolutionary scientists have never even come within a dream of such a thing. They are so far away from it that it could be likened to a religion that requires faith to fill in the gaps.


Scientific journals have detailed many of these experiments. Here are some to review:

Transition metal sulfide minerals actually act as analogs to modern biosynthetic pathways, and provide biochemical compounds at fast rates of reaction:

http://elements.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/full/1/3/139

Ribozymes (RNA molecules that act as catalysts for chemical reactions) are modular, adaptable enzymes that can be used in different metabolic pathways, yet are less efficient than their modern protein counterparts:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19243011?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum


Lipids form micelles without directed force when placed in water; this is a common knowledge fact:

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


Generation of peptides and nucleic acids from constituent molecules has been documented on silicate clays and transition metal compounds:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17897696?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

[Chuangtzu]

It amuses me to see the rift between "chemical" and "adaptationist" evolutionary theorists exploited by...

...religious textualists.

[Thor]

This was an analogy, and you know it. Where are you going with this?


Of course I realize it's an analogy. I was pointing out that it's a bad analogy.

Excuse me? Is this an attempt at rudeness? I was using analogy, please don’t be brash.


Not trying to be rude, just making an observation based upon your post. If you insist that a scientific theory must show "absolute proof", then you don't understand what a scientific theory is.

Wrong, schools can teach theory as theory, no problem. However, evolution is taught on the premise that it is absolute fact, no exceptions. For students to think otherwise puts them into the ridicule category.


There is enough evidence for evolution that, as far as science is concerned, it IS fact. Unless, of course, you have evidence that indicates evolution is false....

As long as evolutionists ridicule, yes I demand absolute proof.


And you will never get "absolute proof".

What inconsistency? Read my past posts, I claim to live by faith and never clamed fact.


You live by faith, (which by definition means you accept things as true with no evidence to support that belief), but you demand "absolute proof" for evolution. And you don't see an inconsistency here?

You interpret all known evidence for your theories in a bias manner. I take that same evidence and interpret it to mine. i.e. If I were an evolutionist I would use the fact that diamonds can be created in a lab in less than a year as proof the earth could be younger.


Science does not "interpret evidence in a biased manner". Science looks at evidence and draws conclusions from that evidence. Bias does not enter into the equation because science is PEER REVIEWED. You could postulate your theory that the Earth could be younger because diamonds can be created in a lab in under a year, and other scientists will test your theory. Write a paper on this and submit it to a scientific journal. See what happens.

I only ask that evolution and spontaneous theorists are objective about the potential for divine influence

And how would scientists go about testing for "divine influence"?

[Herradura]

:confused: You mean abiogenesis? How exactly do you propose for scientists to turn back time to create the exact atmospheric conditions that existed pre-life on Earth? According to your definition, how can scientists even come to a conclusion on what those atmospheric conditions might have been if they can't observe it contemporary to their studies? You proposed a definition for doing science that says that if it's not happening right now, you can't prove it happened. They can't prove that dinosaurs roamed the Earth, for example.

Science has had 50+ years to work the problem out. Isn’t that what science is about?

[Chuangtzu]

Science has had 50+ years to work the problem out. Isn’t that what science is about?

Science is not a person, to have or hold anything.