Is there a God??
thrasher
04-28-2004, 12:14 PM
we do not, in fact, know that our universe is infinite. thats just the current theory
Where have you heard this? The universe is not infinite, is is simply ever expanding, supposedly to a certain point, where it will begin to compress again.
I fail to see how an infinite being created our universe. In order for there to be existence, there has to be existence, right? So before the universe began, how did god exist? And how did he create existence from non existence? It stands to reason that existence never really ceased to be, except possibly at the point of singularity. I think that the universe runs in a cycle of expansion and compression, wherein matter doesn't cease to exist, but it is more like a loop of sorts, where the end is the beginning and the beginning is the end.
Where have you heard this? The universe is not infinite, is is simply ever expanding, supposedly to a certain point, where it will begin to compress again.
I fail to see how an infinite being created our universe. In order for there to be existence, there has to be existence, right? So before the universe began, how did god exist? And how did he create existence from non existence? It stands to reason that existence never really ceased to be, except possibly at the point of singularity. I think that the universe runs in a cycle of expansion and compression, wherein matter doesn't cease to exist, but it is more like a loop of sorts, where the end is the beginning and the beginning is the end.
DGB454
04-28-2004, 01:03 PM
But the loop began sometime. When did it begin?
Joseph1082
04-28-2004, 01:19 PM
God does not exist on this level of existence, he is totally outside, he created this enitre continuum.
Prelewd
04-28-2004, 02:18 PM
But the loop began sometime. When did it begin?
Loops have no beginning, or end. You can say that god is infinite, but you can't say that the universe is? hmm..
Loops have no beginning, or end. You can say that god is infinite, but you can't say that the universe is? hmm..
thrasher
04-28-2004, 03:56 PM
God does not exist on this level of existence, he is totally outside, he created this enitre continuum.
This assumes that god has always been in existence, on some level or another. But that leads us right back to the problem of "how did God come to be"? Kind of a chicken or the egg question. That is why I think time and space exist in a loop, it takes the whole problem of "God's existence" out of the equation. If time and space run continuously in a cycle, then there does not have to be a "god" before, or outside of existence.
This assumes that god has always been in existence, on some level or another. But that leads us right back to the problem of "how did God come to be"? Kind of a chicken or the egg question. That is why I think time and space exist in a loop, it takes the whole problem of "God's existence" out of the equation. If time and space run continuously in a cycle, then there does not have to be a "god" before, or outside of existence.
Joseph1082
04-28-2004, 04:22 PM
Saying God has "always" been in existence, is again applying limited forth dimentional boundaries to him. As I was trying to explain before, he is a singularity, so it's not a matter of always, he is static. See, he is infinite, an infinite being cannot change. Time is change, no change=no time... if the whole entire universe froze for 5 minuets, and nothing, no clocks any where, changed, no time would have passed. This is how God exists. So it's not a matter of having always existed, he is outside of time.
As for the loop, loop or not, the universe itself has to have a source, does it not?
As for the loop, loop or not, the universe itself has to have a source, does it not?
DGB454
04-28-2004, 07:20 PM
I see your point Joseph.
Prelewd
04-28-2004, 07:34 PM
Saying God has "always" been in existence, is again applying limited forth dimentional boundaries to him. As I was trying to explain before, he is a singularity, so it's not a matter of always, he is static. See, he is infinite, an infinite being cannot change. Time is change, no change=no time... if the whole entire universe froze for 5 minuets, and nothing, no clocks any where, changed, no time would have passed. This is how God exists. So it's not a matter of having always existed, he is outside of time.
As for the loop, loop or not, the universe itself has to have a source, does it not?
He almost... doesn't exist anywhere?
As for the loop, loop or not, the universe itself has to have a source, does it not?
He almost... doesn't exist anywhere?
lazysmurff
04-28-2004, 07:39 PM
joseph, your digging yourself into to proving that God is totally removed from his own creation and doesnt exist in it, but rather, apart from it. thats fine and dandy really, but it doesnt lead to any sort of christian god, or any god that takes part in their creation.
Joseph1082
04-28-2004, 07:42 PM
Ah, but read carefully, I am tryin to tell what state he exists in, I nevr said he is removed from his creation... further back I said how he is at every point on our timeline at once, now I am just trying to explain that phenomenon.
See, it's a matter of perspective, to US he is at every point everywhere... to HIM, he only occupies on single point, along with everything else, understand.
See, it's a matter of perspective, to US he is at every point everywhere... to HIM, he only occupies on single point, along with everything else, understand.
loismustdie
04-28-2004, 09:24 PM
its easy, just choose:
everything from nothing(big bang, secular humanism)
or
everything from something(intelligent design)
as long as we have established that there is a god, c'mon someone creating something from nothing or nothing creating something from nothing.
evolution doesn't really make a whole lot of sense when u start looking at it closer, for example, the earthworm is totally dependant on creatures that supposedly evolved millions of years after it did.......what logic is in that?
everything from nothing(big bang, secular humanism)
or
everything from something(intelligent design)
as long as we have established that there is a god, c'mon someone creating something from nothing or nothing creating something from nothing.
evolution doesn't really make a whole lot of sense when u start looking at it closer, for example, the earthworm is totally dependant on creatures that supposedly evolved millions of years after it did.......what logic is in that?
thrasher
04-29-2004, 09:28 AM
evolution doesn't really make a whole lot of sense when u start looking at it closer, for example, the earthworm is totally dependant on creatures that supposedly evolved millions of years after it did.......what logic is in that?
What are you talking about? This makes not a bit of sense. Evolution does not act on the ecological level, it acts on the level of the individual...ecosystems do not evolve simultaneously. The earthworm has survived because it is very succesful at exploiting its ecological role. The organisms it interacts with may have changed, but that doesn't necessarily imply that the earthworm needs to change. See earlier examples of Great White Shark, Alligators, and Ceolocanths, who have all been around for hundreds of millions of years.
Saying God has "always" been in existence, is again applying limited forth dimentional boundaries to him. As I was trying to explain before, he is a singularity, so it's not a matter of always, he is static. See, he is infinite, an infinite being cannot change. Time is change, no change=no time... if the whole entire universe froze for 5 minuets, and nothing, no clocks any where, changed, no time would have passed. This is how God exists. So it's not a matter of having always existed, he is outside of time.
As for the loop, loop or not, the universe itself has to have a source, does it not?
If he is outside of time, how does his existence transcend dimensions to create a world with a dimension of time, without existing in that dimension?
The universe does not necessarily have a source...matter, space and time all exist in the loop. The universe compresses and expands in a loop, so I guess you could say the point of singularity could ultimately be the source in a sense.
What are you talking about? This makes not a bit of sense. Evolution does not act on the ecological level, it acts on the level of the individual...ecosystems do not evolve simultaneously. The earthworm has survived because it is very succesful at exploiting its ecological role. The organisms it interacts with may have changed, but that doesn't necessarily imply that the earthworm needs to change. See earlier examples of Great White Shark, Alligators, and Ceolocanths, who have all been around for hundreds of millions of years.
Saying God has "always" been in existence, is again applying limited forth dimentional boundaries to him. As I was trying to explain before, he is a singularity, so it's not a matter of always, he is static. See, he is infinite, an infinite being cannot change. Time is change, no change=no time... if the whole entire universe froze for 5 minuets, and nothing, no clocks any where, changed, no time would have passed. This is how God exists. So it's not a matter of having always existed, he is outside of time.
As for the loop, loop or not, the universe itself has to have a source, does it not?
If he is outside of time, how does his existence transcend dimensions to create a world with a dimension of time, without existing in that dimension?
The universe does not necessarily have a source...matter, space and time all exist in the loop. The universe compresses and expands in a loop, so I guess you could say the point of singularity could ultimately be the source in a sense.
Joseph1082
04-29-2004, 11:47 AM
He is infinite, that's how... you cannot apply our simple limitions to the notion of God, by definition he is God, God can do anything. I'm saying, God is unchanging, even the bible says this, so God @1200B.C. is the same as God today. Ok, so if he doesn't change, then at 1200BC and 2004AD it's the same moment for him, cause if it wasn't, he would have changed, thus negating his nature... so therefore God is timeless. He existes everywhere in the space-time continuum he is God and infinite, yet this isn't his existence, 3, 4 dimentions, he existence in a much more advanced, infinite form of reality.
Prelewd
04-29-2004, 12:43 PM
evolution doesn't really make a whole lot of sense when u start looking at it closer, for example, the earthworm is totally dependant on creatures that supposedly evolved millions of years after it did.......what logic is in that?
neither does religion when you start looking at it closer. for example, adam and eve were said to be the ones that populated the earth.. yet, in the bible, it bans "laying down" with your brother/father/mother/daughter/etc.. What logic is in that?
neither does religion when you start looking at it closer. for example, adam and eve were said to be the ones that populated the earth.. yet, in the bible, it bans "laying down" with your brother/father/mother/daughter/etc.. What logic is in that?
lazysmurff
04-29-2004, 03:11 PM
did adam and eve have belly buttons?
and for a better look at what joseph is trying to convey, read slaughterhouse 5 by kurt vonnegut, and pay close attention to the tralfamadorians part
and for a better look at what joseph is trying to convey, read slaughterhouse 5 by kurt vonnegut, and pay close attention to the tralfamadorians part
loismustdie
04-29-2004, 03:14 PM
well, just because the bible "bans" reproducing with siblings, etc... doesn't make it impossible, it also bans stealing i could easily walk into eckerds and steal a lighter...
spacetime a loop, how? this is strange because time is a continuum and by its laws, things have a beggining and an end. how did this loop get started?
spacetime a loop, how? this is strange because time is a continuum and by its laws, things have a beggining and an end. how did this loop get started?
DGB454
04-29-2004, 03:21 PM
Why would Adam and Eve need belly buttons? To hold all the lint?
Prelewd
04-29-2004, 04:01 PM
well, just because the bible "bans" reproducing with siblings, etc... doesn't make it impossible, it also bans stealing i could easily walk into eckerds and steal a lighter...
spacetime a loop, how? this is strange because time is a continuum and by its laws, things have a beggining and an end. how did this loop get started?
yes, but why does a religion contradict itself right out of the gate?
i am reading slaughterhouse 5 right now, and while it's a neat concept, there's no necessary proof for validity.
spacetime a loop, how? this is strange because time is a continuum and by its laws, things have a beggining and an end. how did this loop get started?
yes, but why does a religion contradict itself right out of the gate?
i am reading slaughterhouse 5 right now, and while it's a neat concept, there's no necessary proof for validity.
thrasher
04-29-2004, 04:59 PM
well, just because the bible "bans" reproducing with siblings, etc... doesn't make it impossible, it also bans stealing i could easily walk into eckerds and steal a lighter...
spacetime a loop, how? this is strange because time is a continuum and by its laws, things have a beggining and an end. how did this loop get started?
Reproducing is possible, yes, but the chances of creating a succesful species from 2 beings is nearly 0. And harmful mutation that arises is going to spread the population at a very high rate, and the recessive mutated alleles will not be masked very well at all. Harmful mutations would accumulate very quickly, and there would not be enough diversity in the gene pool to mask the expression of any harmful mutations that did arise. Simple population genetics.
The whole idea of a loop, as I keep explaining, is that it does not have a beggining or an end. The beginning is the end and the end is the beginning. Massive expansion is followed by massive compression, which causes a singularity once again, and the process repeats itself. It's an abstract concept that is very difficult to grasp given our human experience of time.
spacetime a loop, how? this is strange because time is a continuum and by its laws, things have a beggining and an end. how did this loop get started?
Reproducing is possible, yes, but the chances of creating a succesful species from 2 beings is nearly 0. And harmful mutation that arises is going to spread the population at a very high rate, and the recessive mutated alleles will not be masked very well at all. Harmful mutations would accumulate very quickly, and there would not be enough diversity in the gene pool to mask the expression of any harmful mutations that did arise. Simple population genetics.
The whole idea of a loop, as I keep explaining, is that it does not have a beggining or an end. The beginning is the end and the end is the beginning. Massive expansion is followed by massive compression, which causes a singularity once again, and the process repeats itself. It's an abstract concept that is very difficult to grasp given our human experience of time.
loismustdie
04-29-2004, 05:22 PM
so your theory is that time goes in a loop that results from the expansion and compresion of all the matter in the universe? and that time is affected because of the singularity formed by the compresion?
well, it still makes no sense that it has always been like this, it had to have a begining, you can't just cop out and say that it has always been like this, that would be what i like to call a perpetual motion device, if it has always been like this, then it would have to have perpetual motion, which in case you didn't know, is impossible to achieve, no matter what you believe.
well, it still makes no sense that it has always been like this, it had to have a begining, you can't just cop out and say that it has always been like this, that would be what i like to call a perpetual motion device, if it has always been like this, then it would have to have perpetual motion, which in case you didn't know, is impossible to achieve, no matter what you believe.
Prelewd
04-29-2004, 05:48 PM
well, it still makes no sense that it has always been like this, it had to have a begining, you can't just cop out and say that it has always been like this, that would be what i like to call a perpetual motion device, if it has always been like this, then it would have to have perpetual motion, which in case you didn't know, is impossible to achieve, no matter what you believe.
why is that a cop-out, when saying god created everything is not?
why is that a cop-out, when saying god created everything is not?
loismustdie
04-29-2004, 09:03 PM
its a cop out because it would otherwise be impossible for your theory to be valid(which i don't think is anyway) because it would fly in the laws of science (spontaneous generation), but your theory is still flawed because nothing can go on forever, especially a "loop" like is explained.
god isn't a cop out because it makes much more sense, and noone has come remotely close to disproving the existense of god, like i have with your theories.....
god isn't a cop out because it makes much more sense, and noone has come remotely close to disproving the existense of god, like i have with your theories.....
lazysmurff
04-29-2004, 11:07 PM
noone has eh? read a little hume, sarte, nietszche, or russel and come back and tell me noone has gotten close to disproving god.
and frankly you havent disproved a thing, you just keep repeating that everything must have a beginning. prey tell, what, then, is the beginning of God?
and frankly you havent disproved a thing, you just keep repeating that everything must have a beginning. prey tell, what, then, is the beginning of God?
Joseph1082
04-29-2004, 11:21 PM
I never read that, does in concur with what I've bben saying? What does it say?
lazysmurff
04-30-2004, 12:53 AM
ill assume your talking of slaughterhouse 5?
in it, the main character encounters tralfamadorians(sp?) which is a race of aliens that sees time as a landscape rather that in a sequence. the best example they give is that that time exists like a mountain range, and humans go bye on a track, looking through a tube at singular points in the range, unable to slow down, speed up, or reverse.
where as these little alien dudes see the whole range, and can simply choose which points to concentrate on, and interact in.
make sense?
in it, the main character encounters tralfamadorians(sp?) which is a race of aliens that sees time as a landscape rather that in a sequence. the best example they give is that that time exists like a mountain range, and humans go bye on a track, looking through a tube at singular points in the range, unable to slow down, speed up, or reverse.
where as these little alien dudes see the whole range, and can simply choose which points to concentrate on, and interact in.
make sense?
Joseph1082
04-30-2004, 01:23 AM
see, that's kinda how it is
Joseph1082
04-30-2004, 01:25 AM
Oh, and as far as Adam and Eve, if you take the story very Literally, well, Y would you assume that the laws of today regarding siblings mating etc would apply back then.
Prelewd
04-30-2004, 01:27 AM
ill assume your talking of slaughterhouse 5?
in it, the main character encounters tralfamadorians(sp?) which is a race of aliens that sees time as a landscape rather that in a sequence. the best example they give is that that time exists like a mountain range, and humans go bye on a track, looking through a tube at singular points in the range, unable to slow down, speed up, or reverse.
where as these little alien dudes see the whole range, and can simply choose which points to concentrate on, and interact in.
make sense?
Kind of like:
http://palbum.sourceforge.net/example_album/stuff/3d_graph.gif
Instead of:
http://www.eridlc.com/onlinetextbook/images/graphs/regression%20graph.GIF
lois: I see you saying that you are proving our theories wrong by saying that EVERYTHING has to have a beginning, but god is somehow immune to that theory? How do you know things can't happen in a loop?
I also don't see you giving any substantial proof that god actually does exist.. just that he "lives outside of our realm" or whatever Joseph said. <--To me that is no more valid than what we are saying. How do you know where god lives?
in it, the main character encounters tralfamadorians(sp?) which is a race of aliens that sees time as a landscape rather that in a sequence. the best example they give is that that time exists like a mountain range, and humans go bye on a track, looking through a tube at singular points in the range, unable to slow down, speed up, or reverse.
where as these little alien dudes see the whole range, and can simply choose which points to concentrate on, and interact in.
make sense?
Kind of like:
http://palbum.sourceforge.net/example_album/stuff/3d_graph.gif
Instead of:
http://www.eridlc.com/onlinetextbook/images/graphs/regression%20graph.GIF
lois: I see you saying that you are proving our theories wrong by saying that EVERYTHING has to have a beginning, but god is somehow immune to that theory? How do you know things can't happen in a loop?
I also don't see you giving any substantial proof that god actually does exist.. just that he "lives outside of our realm" or whatever Joseph said. <--To me that is no more valid than what we are saying. How do you know where god lives?
Oz
04-30-2004, 01:31 AM
No, God doesn't exist. Prove otherwise.
Prelewd
04-30-2004, 01:43 AM
Oh, and as far as Adam and Eve, if you take the story very Literally, well, Y would you assume that the laws of today regarding siblings mating etc would apply back then.
Because it's in the bible... :uhoh:
No, God doesn't exist. Prove otherwise.
Would you mind enlightening us as to the reasons you think he doesn't exist?
Because it's in the bible... :uhoh:
No, God doesn't exist. Prove otherwise.
Would you mind enlightening us as to the reasons you think he doesn't exist?
Oz
04-30-2004, 02:42 AM
Because it's in the bible... :uhoh:
Would you mind enlightening us as to the reasons you think he doesn't exist?
Because no one has ever conclusively proven that he does. Similar to Santa Claus.
Would you mind enlightening us as to the reasons you think he doesn't exist?
Because no one has ever conclusively proven that he does. Similar to Santa Claus.
Prelewd
04-30-2004, 03:00 AM
Because no one has ever conclusively proven that he does. Similar to Santa Claus.
Amen to that.
Amen to that.
DGB454
04-30-2004, 06:26 AM
Like I said before. Words will not convince someone who doesn't want to believe.
Prove to me that the universe came to being without him. You can't. There is no proof. There are only theories and guesses. So because there is no proof then it never happened without Him. Like Santa.
Prove to me that the universe came to being without him. You can't. There is no proof. There are only theories and guesses. So because there is no proof then it never happened without Him. Like Santa.
Prelewd
04-30-2004, 04:30 PM
Like I said before. Words will not convince someone who doesn't want to believe.
Prove to me that the universe came to being without him. You can't. There is no proof. There are only theories and guesses. So because there is no proof then it never happened without Him. Like Santa.
So, by your logic, being that there is no proof for god, he doesn't exist.. Prove to me that the universe came to being with him.
Personally, I don't believe whole heartedly in anything, so I am open to believe anything.. anything that makes sense that is.
Prove to me that the universe came to being without him. You can't. There is no proof. There are only theories and guesses. So because there is no proof then it never happened without Him. Like Santa.
So, by your logic, being that there is no proof for god, he doesn't exist.. Prove to me that the universe came to being with him.
Personally, I don't believe whole heartedly in anything, so I am open to believe anything.. anything that makes sense that is.
DGB454
04-30-2004, 05:14 PM
I was actually making an anology based on what Oz stated. "Because no one has ever conclusively proven that he does. Similar to Santa Claus." So using that analogy then because no one has ever proven the universe created itself then it didn't happen.
Joseph1082
04-30-2004, 05:59 PM
God's existence is evident in the logic and order of the universe, do you think it is possible to have that by random chance, come on that's naivity.
RedLightning
04-30-2004, 10:39 PM
Like I said before. Words will not convince someone who doesn't want to believe.
Prove to me that the universe came to being without him. You can't. There is no proof. There are only theories and guesses. So because there is no proof then it never happened without Him. Like Santa.
:iagree:
Prove to me that the universe came to being without him. You can't. There is no proof. There are only theories and guesses. So because there is no proof then it never happened without Him. Like Santa.
:iagree:
RedLightning
04-30-2004, 10:45 PM
to me comparing evolution and creation theorys, God creating the world makes more sense to me, why? b/c i dont see how these complex beings we call animals humans and plants came about from a big bang. You have all shown great arguments and i believe that this is a waste of our time, first off we got totally off topic, into an argument about evolution and creation theorys, but all u guys such as prelewd, have not proven anything, you just say that pro-God ppl have not proven anything.
YogsVR4
05-01-2004, 08:04 PM
Guys - its been a very good thread so far (probably the best of its kind ever). However, its turning into a "you haven't proved this" and "you haven't proved that either" kind of posts.
If you guys want to continue on with the debate before that came to the forefront, then I'm happy to stay out of the way. Otherwise I'll close the thread in admiration at the tact and respect shown by all for the bulk of the posts.
If you guys want to continue on with the debate before that came to the forefront, then I'm happy to stay out of the way. Otherwise I'll close the thread in admiration at the tact and respect shown by all for the bulk of the posts.
Soyo
05-02-2004, 02:14 AM
first off I'll just say I believe in God, but I'm not really posting anything about it because I don't wanna read all these pages... I'm just gonna post up something I thought was pretty cool, and some quite humorous :)
New billboards are getting attention in Arizona. Here's a list of all variations of the "God Speaks" billboards. The billboards are a simple black background with white text. No fine print or sponsoring organization is included.
Tell the kids I love them. -God
Let's meet at my house Sunday before the game. -God
C'mon over and bring the kids. -God
What part of "Thou Shalt Not..." didn't you understand? -God
We need to talk. -God
Loved the wedding, invite me to the marriage. -God
That "Love Thy Neighbor" thing... I meant it -God
I love you and you and you and you and... -God
Will the road you're on get you to my place? -God
Follow me. -God
My way is the highway. -God
Need directions? -God
You think it's hot here? -God
Have you read my #1 best seller? There will be a test. -God
Do you have any idea where you're going? -God
and my 3 personal favorites...
Keep using my name in vain, I'll make rush hour longer. -God
Big bang theory, you've got to be kidding. -God
Don't make me come down there. -God
I hope you enjoi them :)
New billboards are getting attention in Arizona. Here's a list of all variations of the "God Speaks" billboards. The billboards are a simple black background with white text. No fine print or sponsoring organization is included.
Tell the kids I love them. -God
Let's meet at my house Sunday before the game. -God
C'mon over and bring the kids. -God
What part of "Thou Shalt Not..." didn't you understand? -God
We need to talk. -God
Loved the wedding, invite me to the marriage. -God
That "Love Thy Neighbor" thing... I meant it -God
I love you and you and you and you and... -God
Will the road you're on get you to my place? -God
Follow me. -God
My way is the highway. -God
Need directions? -God
You think it's hot here? -God
Have you read my #1 best seller? There will be a test. -God
Do you have any idea where you're going? -God
and my 3 personal favorites...
Keep using my name in vain, I'll make rush hour longer. -God
Big bang theory, you've got to be kidding. -God
Don't make me come down there. -God
I hope you enjoi them :)
FastGuy000
05-02-2004, 02:39 AM
I dont know why people argue over endless unproven unknown topics such as these, no one knows, no one will ever know until maybey death, theres no need to argue, no one can say there opinion is greater than others...........
Soyo
05-02-2004, 02:57 AM
ok so I decided to read a little bit of this after all...
how carbon dating acctually helps prove the Bible, and how scientists manipulate the results so they come to be what they want http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html
so you want a little proof that the Bible is true... thats understandle, so here ya go:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1021_021021_christianrelicbox.html
some info on why the bible is credible(sp?)
http://askelm.com/doctrine/d740101.htm
if your curious about hell this is an excellent link: http://av1611.org/hell.html this is a really long page so leave some time to read it if you decide to
I can always add more later... you can also PM me or AIM me anytime with any questions you may have, or just post them here if you prefer.
how carbon dating acctually helps prove the Bible, and how scientists manipulate the results so they come to be what they want http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html
so you want a little proof that the Bible is true... thats understandle, so here ya go:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1021_021021_christianrelicbox.html
some info on why the bible is credible(sp?)
http://askelm.com/doctrine/d740101.htm
if your curious about hell this is an excellent link: http://av1611.org/hell.html this is a really long page so leave some time to read it if you decide to
I can always add more later... you can also PM me or AIM me anytime with any questions you may have, or just post them here if you prefer.
Prelewd
05-02-2004, 03:33 PM
You have all shown great arguments and i believe that this is a waste of our time, first off we got totally off topic, into an argument about evolution and creation theorys, but all u guys such as prelewd, have not proven anything, you just say that pro-God ppl have not proven anything.
First off.. This might be a waste of time, but I have come to realize that debating like this really teaches you many interesting things. ex: I now have more of a background on carbon dating, tralfamadorian time scales, and the bible itself.
Secondly.. I'm not trying to prove anything. I am publicly debating theories that I personally do not see as accurate. So yes, you are correct. And yes, the pro-god people have not proven anything.
ok so I decided to read a little bit of this after all...
how carbon dating acctually helps prove the Bible, and how scientists manipulate the results so they come to be what they want http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html
so you want a little proof that the Bible is true... thats understandle, so here ya go:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1021_021021_christianrelicbox.html
some info on why the bible is credible(sp?)
http://askelm.com/doctrine/d740101.htm
if your curious about hell this is an excellent link: http://av1611.org/hell.html this is a really long page so leave some time to read it if you decide to
None of that prooves God's existence or the validity of the bible.
The first link just shows that carbon dating is unreliable, and doesn't relate to god that much at all..
To it's defense, you can't radiocarbon date rock. Rock is not organic. Also, it said they dated a live mollusk.. Carbon dating has been proven not to be accurate in marine life as they are not in equilibrium with the atmosphere. Marine life collects much of their carbon from limestone which contains "fossil carbon". There are also ways that carbon 14 dating has been proven. Lake varves, tree rings, etc.. I'll save it for another thread.
The second link didn't work for me..
The third just said that there were witnesses to Jesus' crucifixion and the so-called 'miracles' he produced. Sure, there could have been a guy named jesus that was crucified. Big deal. I could make up thousands of small stories and pass them off as a religion, even having witnesses. If psychology has taught me anything, it's that memory is hardly accurate after so many years of retelling the story, exaggerating a little, retelling the story, etc.. One actually comes to believe the exaggerations of the story he tells. I've been guilty of it, and I'm sure you all have as well.
First off.. This might be a waste of time, but I have come to realize that debating like this really teaches you many interesting things. ex: I now have more of a background on carbon dating, tralfamadorian time scales, and the bible itself.
Secondly.. I'm not trying to prove anything. I am publicly debating theories that I personally do not see as accurate. So yes, you are correct. And yes, the pro-god people have not proven anything.
ok so I decided to read a little bit of this after all...
how carbon dating acctually helps prove the Bible, and how scientists manipulate the results so they come to be what they want http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html
so you want a little proof that the Bible is true... thats understandle, so here ya go:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1021_021021_christianrelicbox.html
some info on why the bible is credible(sp?)
http://askelm.com/doctrine/d740101.htm
if your curious about hell this is an excellent link: http://av1611.org/hell.html this is a really long page so leave some time to read it if you decide to
None of that prooves God's existence or the validity of the bible.
The first link just shows that carbon dating is unreliable, and doesn't relate to god that much at all..
To it's defense, you can't radiocarbon date rock. Rock is not organic. Also, it said they dated a live mollusk.. Carbon dating has been proven not to be accurate in marine life as they are not in equilibrium with the atmosphere. Marine life collects much of their carbon from limestone which contains "fossil carbon". There are also ways that carbon 14 dating has been proven. Lake varves, tree rings, etc.. I'll save it for another thread.
The second link didn't work for me..
The third just said that there were witnesses to Jesus' crucifixion and the so-called 'miracles' he produced. Sure, there could have been a guy named jesus that was crucified. Big deal. I could make up thousands of small stories and pass them off as a religion, even having witnesses. If psychology has taught me anything, it's that memory is hardly accurate after so many years of retelling the story, exaggerating a little, retelling the story, etc.. One actually comes to believe the exaggerations of the story he tells. I've been guilty of it, and I'm sure you all have as well.
thrasher
05-02-2004, 04:43 PM
ok so I decided to read a little bit of this after all...
how carbon dating acctually helps prove the Bible, and how scientists manipulate the results so they come to be what they want http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html
so you want a little proof that the Bible is true... thats understandle, so here ya go:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1021_021021_christianrelicbox.html
some info on why the bible is credible(sp?)
http://askelm.com/doctrine/d740101.htm
if your curious about hell this is an excellent link: http://av1611.org/hell.html this is a really long page so leave some time to read it if you decide to
I can always add more later... you can also PM me or AIM me anytime with any questions you may have, or just post them here if you prefer.
Those articles really don't say much about the existence of god. We know that Carbon 14 dating isn't that accurate past 40 kya. But that's wher K-Ar dating comes in, which has a half life of 1.25 billion years, making the dating of creatures to a VERY VERY long time ago possible. Granted, it is not perfect, but there are other dating methods to verify K-Ar dating, such as Ar-Ar dating, paleomagnetism, and explosive Uranium dating.
how carbon dating acctually helps prove the Bible, and how scientists manipulate the results so they come to be what they want http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html
so you want a little proof that the Bible is true... thats understandle, so here ya go:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1021_021021_christianrelicbox.html
some info on why the bible is credible(sp?)
http://askelm.com/doctrine/d740101.htm
if your curious about hell this is an excellent link: http://av1611.org/hell.html this is a really long page so leave some time to read it if you decide to
I can always add more later... you can also PM me or AIM me anytime with any questions you may have, or just post them here if you prefer.
Those articles really don't say much about the existence of god. We know that Carbon 14 dating isn't that accurate past 40 kya. But that's wher K-Ar dating comes in, which has a half life of 1.25 billion years, making the dating of creatures to a VERY VERY long time ago possible. Granted, it is not perfect, but there are other dating methods to verify K-Ar dating, such as Ar-Ar dating, paleomagnetism, and explosive Uranium dating.
Soyo
05-02-2004, 11:37 PM
this post will not be directed at "proving there is a God" because you can't prove something to someone that doesn't want to believe, I'll just focus on the false information given by science and why many things that we just seem to accept have no evidence or supporting facts, yet people believe it anyways...
well I have no faith in any type of dating methods because they have dated upper layers of the grand canyon at 1.3 million years old and then dated a bottom layer at 1 million years old.... obviously the top laye can't be older than the bottom layer. second is that scientists have dated bones at millions of years old, then when they are tested without the scientist knowing what its a bone from or where it was or how old it is they come up with it only being a few thousand years old. I don't see how anyone could believe the dating methods that are used because they have all proven inconsistent time and time again.
for the people that say "I want proof" or "I want to see it with my own eyes" or whatever... I'm sure most of us, if not all of us took highschool science classes such as biology and chemistry. well when they teacher told you about atoms did you believe him/her? have you ever seen an atom? can you touch or feel an atom? do you have proof that atoms are real, other than what is written in books and studies and what other people say about it? hopefully my point there is clear...
now, for evolution... ok so evolution is:(websters dictionary definition)
"gradual process of development or change"
ok, so if evolution is one thing changing to another thing slowly over time then why are there no, lets say, cat-fish(and no not the acctual fish), ape-men, lizard-horses? or whatever type of thing... the specific type doesn't really matter... the point is that if it changed gradually and developed and "evolved" over millions of years you would obviously expect to find fossils that showed transition from one thing to another... but not one of these things has EVER been found, those are the facts. now some people may be like "well what about the way things adapt to their surroundings so that they can survive? thats proven!" well this true, things do ADAPT, but they don't evolve. adapt means: "to adjust to new conditions" (again from webster) and this happens all the time... but adapting and evolving are MUCH different... evolving is going from one species to another or from one thing to something completely different... adaptation is when a certain animal or being has characteristic changes but stays the same animal or being... yes things adapt, no things don't evolve.
feel free to give me your side of this but believe me, I know my stuff on the subject of evolution so you'd better read up before you try to tell me I'm wrong...
I'll probably post more about the God/Bible side of things later. if anyone is interested in knowing more about anything involving God, the Bible, evolution, etc. you can PM or AIM me, I will answer any questions to the best of my knowledge and I will research anything that I may come up that I haven't previously studied
well I have no faith in any type of dating methods because they have dated upper layers of the grand canyon at 1.3 million years old and then dated a bottom layer at 1 million years old.... obviously the top laye can't be older than the bottom layer. second is that scientists have dated bones at millions of years old, then when they are tested without the scientist knowing what its a bone from or where it was or how old it is they come up with it only being a few thousand years old. I don't see how anyone could believe the dating methods that are used because they have all proven inconsistent time and time again.
for the people that say "I want proof" or "I want to see it with my own eyes" or whatever... I'm sure most of us, if not all of us took highschool science classes such as biology and chemistry. well when they teacher told you about atoms did you believe him/her? have you ever seen an atom? can you touch or feel an atom? do you have proof that atoms are real, other than what is written in books and studies and what other people say about it? hopefully my point there is clear...
now, for evolution... ok so evolution is:(websters dictionary definition)
"gradual process of development or change"
ok, so if evolution is one thing changing to another thing slowly over time then why are there no, lets say, cat-fish(and no not the acctual fish), ape-men, lizard-horses? or whatever type of thing... the specific type doesn't really matter... the point is that if it changed gradually and developed and "evolved" over millions of years you would obviously expect to find fossils that showed transition from one thing to another... but not one of these things has EVER been found, those are the facts. now some people may be like "well what about the way things adapt to their surroundings so that they can survive? thats proven!" well this true, things do ADAPT, but they don't evolve. adapt means: "to adjust to new conditions" (again from webster) and this happens all the time... but adapting and evolving are MUCH different... evolving is going from one species to another or from one thing to something completely different... adaptation is when a certain animal or being has characteristic changes but stays the same animal or being... yes things adapt, no things don't evolve.
feel free to give me your side of this but believe me, I know my stuff on the subject of evolution so you'd better read up before you try to tell me I'm wrong...
I'll probably post more about the God/Bible side of things later. if anyone is interested in knowing more about anything involving God, the Bible, evolution, etc. you can PM or AIM me, I will answer any questions to the best of my knowledge and I will research anything that I may come up that I haven't previously studied
Joseph1082
05-03-2004, 12:24 AM
Exactly, no fossils of missing links, I said this before no one cared to let me know where they are?
lazysmurff
05-03-2004, 12:51 AM
but there are. not in the "cross species" sense that soyo is wanting to see, but there are.
take Lucy for example. pretty much an intellegent, upright, ape. pretty middle link.
then what about the documented changes in finches on the galapogos islands, even after Darwin.
and yea carbon dating is unreliable. what does that have to do with the existence of god? i mean really, disproving corbon datings exactness will not prove god.
and the arguemtn from design argument is great. its really is. "look at all the logic in the world, it cant just fit together so nicely by chance."
well, its actually not chance, its trial and error. giraffes without long necks couldnt reach the food and died off. polar bears without enough fur froze to death. homiosapiens who couldnt adapt to changing environmental problems (neandertals) died off.
sure, we havent found all their skeletons, we cant yet piece together a complete timeline of evolution for every species. but we havent really spent a whole lot of time trying to do so.
but this is a philosphical discussion. not and evolution discussion. the effort to disprove God does not bear the weight of having to prove evolution.
i still maintain a why? question. if god is complete, infinite, timeless, etc. why are we here? what purpose did our creation serve to the all mighty? from the standpoint of the Gods, our existence is unecessary, and lacks total sense.
so far in the discussion, the weight of proof has been on the side of those seeking to disprove God. i think its time we turned the burden of proof over to those seeking to prove god.
take Lucy for example. pretty much an intellegent, upright, ape. pretty middle link.
then what about the documented changes in finches on the galapogos islands, even after Darwin.
and yea carbon dating is unreliable. what does that have to do with the existence of god? i mean really, disproving corbon datings exactness will not prove god.
and the arguemtn from design argument is great. its really is. "look at all the logic in the world, it cant just fit together so nicely by chance."
well, its actually not chance, its trial and error. giraffes without long necks couldnt reach the food and died off. polar bears without enough fur froze to death. homiosapiens who couldnt adapt to changing environmental problems (neandertals) died off.
sure, we havent found all their skeletons, we cant yet piece together a complete timeline of evolution for every species. but we havent really spent a whole lot of time trying to do so.
but this is a philosphical discussion. not and evolution discussion. the effort to disprove God does not bear the weight of having to prove evolution.
i still maintain a why? question. if god is complete, infinite, timeless, etc. why are we here? what purpose did our creation serve to the all mighty? from the standpoint of the Gods, our existence is unecessary, and lacks total sense.
so far in the discussion, the weight of proof has been on the side of those seeking to disprove God. i think its time we turned the burden of proof over to those seeking to prove god.
Prelewd
05-03-2004, 01:17 AM
Exactly, no fossils of missing links, I said this before no one cared to let me know where they are?
They are missing... hence the name.
They are missing... hence the name.
DGB454
05-03-2004, 04:59 AM
i still maintain a why? question. if god is complete, infinite, timeless, etc. why are we here? what purpose did our creation serve to the all mighty? from the standpoint of the Gods, our existence is unecessary, and lacks total sense.
so far in the discussion, the weight of proof has been on the side of those seeking to disprove God. i think its time we turned the burden of proof over to those seeking to prove god.
Those who wish to prove God need no proof outside themselves. All the proof they need lies within. If more proof is needed by them then all they have to do is look around and see things the way God intended them to be seen. We look around and see a magnificent order. We see a delicate balance that is held together by his grace and wisdom. Why create? Why not create? Why does an artist paint? Why does a musician make music? Is it only to make a living? Would they still do what they do if no one listened or admired there work? I beleive so. They do it because they love too. :2cents:
so far in the discussion, the weight of proof has been on the side of those seeking to disprove God. i think its time we turned the burden of proof over to those seeking to prove god.
Those who wish to prove God need no proof outside themselves. All the proof they need lies within. If more proof is needed by them then all they have to do is look around and see things the way God intended them to be seen. We look around and see a magnificent order. We see a delicate balance that is held together by his grace and wisdom. Why create? Why not create? Why does an artist paint? Why does a musician make music? Is it only to make a living? Would they still do what they do if no one listened or admired there work? I beleive so. They do it because they love too. :2cents:
thrasher
05-03-2004, 10:56 AM
now, for evolution... ok so evolution is:(websters dictionary definition)
"gradual process of development or change"
ok, so if evolution is one thing changing to another thing slowly over time then why are there no, lets say, cat-fish(and no not the acctual fish), ape-men, lizard-horses? or whatever type of thing... the specific type doesn't really matter... the point is that if it changed gradually and developed and "evolved" over millions of years you would obviously expect to find fossils that showed transition from one thing to another... but not one of these things has EVER been found, those are the facts. now some people may be like "well what about the way things adapt to their surroundings so that they can survive? thats proven!" well this true, things do ADAPT, but they don't evolve. adapt means: "to adjust to new conditions" (again from webster) and this happens all the time... but adapting and evolving are MUCH different... evolving is going from one species to another or from one thing to something completely different... adaptation is when a certain animal or being has characteristic changes but stays the same animal or being... yes things adapt, no things don't evolve.
feel free to give me your side of this but believe me, I know my stuff on the subject of evolution so you'd better read up before you try to tell me I'm wrong...
Well, you are wrong. That is a very generalized definition of evolution, that doesn't specifically apply to biology. Evolution, in a biological sense, is a change in allele frequencies in a population between generations. So when beings "adapt" to environmental pressures as you put it, they are indeed evolving because the allele frequencies in the population has changed. Evolution is NOT simply going from one species to another, that is a huge misconcepion. Microevolutionary changes, when extended over a very long period of time, can lead to the formation of new species(macroevolution).
There are in fact many transitional fossils, but you have to remember that fossilization requires very exacting conditions and thus the further back we go in time the less likely we are to find fossils, especially a complete record of transition that would be required to convince you of evolution. There are literally thousands of bones representing hominid evolution from the last 7-6 million years ago. The earliest ones suggest a largely arboreal (tree living) biped, who was capable of walking on the ground, yet spent most of the time in the trees. Chimps and bonobos are just this way. Coincidence? As time went on, the fossil record shows a gradual change towards committed terrestriasl bipedalism. This means that the hominids were slowly changing to accomodate a more bipedal lifestyle on the ground, which also, coincidentally, correlates with the changin climate at the time. Dentition became more moderns, height increased, as did brain size, and we begin to see that hominids GRADUALLY changed from an ape-like form to our current state. How is that not gradual transition over time? Like I said, there are thousands of fossils showing the earliest, intermediate, and later forms. Makes sense to me, I don't understand how it wouldn't make sense.
"gradual process of development or change"
ok, so if evolution is one thing changing to another thing slowly over time then why are there no, lets say, cat-fish(and no not the acctual fish), ape-men, lizard-horses? or whatever type of thing... the specific type doesn't really matter... the point is that if it changed gradually and developed and "evolved" over millions of years you would obviously expect to find fossils that showed transition from one thing to another... but not one of these things has EVER been found, those are the facts. now some people may be like "well what about the way things adapt to their surroundings so that they can survive? thats proven!" well this true, things do ADAPT, but they don't evolve. adapt means: "to adjust to new conditions" (again from webster) and this happens all the time... but adapting and evolving are MUCH different... evolving is going from one species to another or from one thing to something completely different... adaptation is when a certain animal or being has characteristic changes but stays the same animal or being... yes things adapt, no things don't evolve.
feel free to give me your side of this but believe me, I know my stuff on the subject of evolution so you'd better read up before you try to tell me I'm wrong...
Well, you are wrong. That is a very generalized definition of evolution, that doesn't specifically apply to biology. Evolution, in a biological sense, is a change in allele frequencies in a population between generations. So when beings "adapt" to environmental pressures as you put it, they are indeed evolving because the allele frequencies in the population has changed. Evolution is NOT simply going from one species to another, that is a huge misconcepion. Microevolutionary changes, when extended over a very long period of time, can lead to the formation of new species(macroevolution).
There are in fact many transitional fossils, but you have to remember that fossilization requires very exacting conditions and thus the further back we go in time the less likely we are to find fossils, especially a complete record of transition that would be required to convince you of evolution. There are literally thousands of bones representing hominid evolution from the last 7-6 million years ago. The earliest ones suggest a largely arboreal (tree living) biped, who was capable of walking on the ground, yet spent most of the time in the trees. Chimps and bonobos are just this way. Coincidence? As time went on, the fossil record shows a gradual change towards committed terrestriasl bipedalism. This means that the hominids were slowly changing to accomodate a more bipedal lifestyle on the ground, which also, coincidentally, correlates with the changin climate at the time. Dentition became more moderns, height increased, as did brain size, and we begin to see that hominids GRADUALLY changed from an ape-like form to our current state. How is that not gradual transition over time? Like I said, there are thousands of fossils showing the earliest, intermediate, and later forms. Makes sense to me, I don't understand how it wouldn't make sense.
Joseph1082
05-03-2004, 03:29 PM
I think I said this before... the logic and order of the universe is itself proof that the force behind it is not random... how can all the laws and mathematics etc all line up perfectly in a "Random" universe. Also, diety worship has been on this earth A LOT longer than any of you guy's theories... Y should the burden be on us, what we preach has beeb accepted for millinea, only to be revolutioned in the contemporary period.
Missing Links: ok, let's say we start with species A, then ten subspecies later arrives species B. The population numbers of just one of the intermittent species would be enormous, yet no fossils exist... this leads me to believe THEY don't exist. And for my second argument, Y did none of the intermittent species between A and B survive til present day??? If this is a "Random" universe it is WAY too much a coincidence that only distinct species exist today and no link species!!!
Missing Links: ok, let's say we start with species A, then ten subspecies later arrives species B. The population numbers of just one of the intermittent species would be enormous, yet no fossils exist... this leads me to believe THEY don't exist. And for my second argument, Y did none of the intermittent species between A and B survive til present day??? If this is a "Random" universe it is WAY too much a coincidence that only distinct species exist today and no link species!!!
lazysmurff
05-03-2004, 05:40 PM
some of the cross species have survived, im sure...look at the platypus. definitly looks like a weird animal to me. what about amphibians, seems like the perfect evolutionay device.
still, it could be a completely random universe. you mention math, we'll a theory endorse by stephen hawking is that the universe has existed forever and is constantly in a state of expansion (big bangs) and collapse and its only a matter of enough bangs and collapses that we eventually reach the world we have today. mathematical probability. surely we can accept a universe that expands and collapses an infinite number times if we can accept an infinite being.
id like to add a relevant quote. "something human beings have always believed in is that the universe adds up. God, for all intents and purposes is an equal sign"
and DBG, an artist or a musician creates to appreciate, to fill a void, to express emotion, or to feel the power of creation. and for some, a living is certainly a nice addition to that. but any of those reasons in god would express a lacking on god's part (not to mention comparing the infinite, all powerful creator to humans kinda diminishes his holy-ness doesnt it) even then, he created the seraphin (higher angels...that word right?) first, why us?
still, it could be a completely random universe. you mention math, we'll a theory endorse by stephen hawking is that the universe has existed forever and is constantly in a state of expansion (big bangs) and collapse and its only a matter of enough bangs and collapses that we eventually reach the world we have today. mathematical probability. surely we can accept a universe that expands and collapses an infinite number times if we can accept an infinite being.
id like to add a relevant quote. "something human beings have always believed in is that the universe adds up. God, for all intents and purposes is an equal sign"
and DBG, an artist or a musician creates to appreciate, to fill a void, to express emotion, or to feel the power of creation. and for some, a living is certainly a nice addition to that. but any of those reasons in god would express a lacking on god's part (not to mention comparing the infinite, all powerful creator to humans kinda diminishes his holy-ness doesnt it) even then, he created the seraphin (higher angels...that word right?) first, why us?
RedLightning
05-03-2004, 06:23 PM
some of the cross species have survived, im sure...look at the platypus. definitly looks like a weird animal to me. what about amphibians, seems like the perfect evolutionay device.
Are u saying that the platypus is a cross between a duck and some other animal? What the heck is it a cross between? Its just an animal with a duck like bill.
id like to add a relevant quote. "something human beings have always believed in is that the universe adds up. God, for all intents and purposes is an equal sign"
and DBG, an artist or a musician creates to appreciate, to fill a void, to express emotion, or to feel the power of creation. and for some, a living is certainly a nice addition to that. but any of those reasons in god would express a lacking on god's part (not to mention comparing the infinite, all powerful creator to humans kinda diminishes his holy-ness doesnt it) even then, he created the seraphin (higher angels...that word right?) first, why us?
No that does not diminish his holyness. For a person who does not believe in him how would u know anything about his holyness? JUst a ? dont get offended. About the rest well i dunno, i guess because the Devil was an angel, and he "fell" God wanted to make other beings, he made us in His image according to the Bible. So he was lacking, he lost a freind perhaps?
Are u saying that the platypus is a cross between a duck and some other animal? What the heck is it a cross between? Its just an animal with a duck like bill.
id like to add a relevant quote. "something human beings have always believed in is that the universe adds up. God, for all intents and purposes is an equal sign"
and DBG, an artist or a musician creates to appreciate, to fill a void, to express emotion, or to feel the power of creation. and for some, a living is certainly a nice addition to that. but any of those reasons in god would express a lacking on god's part (not to mention comparing the infinite, all powerful creator to humans kinda diminishes his holy-ness doesnt it) even then, he created the seraphin (higher angels...that word right?) first, why us?
No that does not diminish his holyness. For a person who does not believe in him how would u know anything about his holyness? JUst a ? dont get offended. About the rest well i dunno, i guess because the Devil was an angel, and he "fell" God wanted to make other beings, he made us in His image according to the Bible. So he was lacking, he lost a freind perhaps?
Boss San
05-03-2004, 06:32 PM
This whole thread is based on whether or not there is a God. Let's break this down a bit. This god is the judeo/christian based creator of the universe. What makes you think you're the only (or the only real) religion? You are ignorant and can't think for yourselves. There are hundreds of religions in the current world. There have been thousands in the past. What makes you so damn sure you're right.
RedLightning
05-03-2004, 06:38 PM
This whole thread is based on whether or not there is a God. Let's break this down a bit. This god is the judeo/christian based creator of the universe. What makes you think you're the only (or the only real) religion? You are ignorant and can't think for yourselves. There are hundreds of religions in the current world. There have been thousands in the past. What makes you so damn sure you're right.
umm...shut up :flipa: , i think we all know that there a lot of different religions. but according to u those other ppl who believe in other religions are also ignorant. :twak: I dont think you can think for yourselve, come on you really have to believe something, weather ur and anthiest, Christian, Jew, or Muslim! I know i dont belong to the only religion never fukin said i did, of course according to me i belong to the only real one, but ur entitaled to ur religion and allowed to think that thats the only real one. What makes you think that you are- "I am the Nightrider. I'm a fuel injected suicide machine. I am the rocker, I am the roller, I am the out-of-controller!" ---Take A Guess---? What makes you so damn sure? So again shut up.
umm...shut up :flipa: , i think we all know that there a lot of different religions. but according to u those other ppl who believe in other religions are also ignorant. :twak: I dont think you can think for yourselve, come on you really have to believe something, weather ur and anthiest, Christian, Jew, or Muslim! I know i dont belong to the only religion never fukin said i did, of course according to me i belong to the only real one, but ur entitaled to ur religion and allowed to think that thats the only real one. What makes you think that you are- "I am the Nightrider. I'm a fuel injected suicide machine. I am the rocker, I am the roller, I am the out-of-controller!" ---Take A Guess---? What makes you so damn sure? So again shut up.
Joseph1082
05-03-2004, 07:09 PM
I never said what religion I was... you comment was unneccessary, this isn't a religion thread, it is if God exists or not... simply monothesim, not evem, becaus God can be whatever you believe him/it to be. And God created everything because he can, and he did.
Soyo
05-03-2004, 09:30 PM
take Lucy for example. pretty much an intellegent, upright, ape. pretty middle link.
then what about the documented changes in finches on the galapogos islands, even after Darwin.
Lucy was disproved long ago so that is a null arguement.
and the finches have nothing to do with evolution... like I said, a change within a species is adaptation, a change from one species to another is evolution... the finches were still finches, they just grew bigger wings or beaks or whatever... that is a fact, but its not evolution. so that has nothing to do with it.
and NO adaptation is not the same as evolution... I don't care what you say because I know your wrong, I've done coutnless research and I know the difference between adaptation and evolution
then what about the documented changes in finches on the galapogos islands, even after Darwin.
Lucy was disproved long ago so that is a null arguement.
and the finches have nothing to do with evolution... like I said, a change within a species is adaptation, a change from one species to another is evolution... the finches were still finches, they just grew bigger wings or beaks or whatever... that is a fact, but its not evolution. so that has nothing to do with it.
and NO adaptation is not the same as evolution... I don't care what you say because I know your wrong, I've done coutnless research and I know the difference between adaptation and evolution
Soyo
05-03-2004, 09:42 PM
some of the cross species have survived, im sure...look at the platypus. definitly looks like a weird animal to me. what about amphibians, seems like the perfect evolutionay device.
still, it could be a completely random universe. you mention math, we'll a theory endorse by stephen hawking is that the universe has existed forever and is constantly in a state of expansion (big bangs) and collapse and its only a matter of enough bangs and collapses that we eventually reach the world we have today. mathematical probability. surely we can accept a universe that expands and collapses an infinite number times if we can accept an infinite being.
id like to add a relevant quote. "something human beings have always believed in is that the universe adds up. God, for all intents and purposes is an equal sign"
and DBG, an artist or a musician creates to appreciate, to fill a void, to express emotion, or to feel the power of creation. and for some, a living is certainly a nice addition to that. but any of those reasons in god would express a lacking on god's part (not to mention comparing the infinite, all powerful creator to humans kinda diminishes his holy-ness doesnt it) even then, he created the seraphin (higher angels...that word right?) first, why us?
you can't just say well the platypus looks funny so it must be a cross species, and you can't say amphibians are cross species or examples of evolution because there is no fossil history to prove it... and I don't wanna hear people say that when you go back so far its hard to find bones yada yada... if you say dinosaurs were before men and you can find dinosaur bones that you say are "millions of years old" then why can't you find "missing links"? exactly it makes no sense, it totally contradicts each other
DARWIN HIMESELF SAID "evolution will be either proven or disproven by the fossil records" well he was right, it was disproven by the fossil record long ago, because there is no fossil record of everthing inbetween, hence missing link like someone said... THEY AREN'T THERE, how can you say oh well the missing links proves this... its freaking missing! theres no proof! seriously think about it!
and how can you believe that a bunch of "big bangs" made the earth? it just happened to bang out a bunch of round planets and a sun and then a moon(s) for all of them... yea stuff blew up and earth was formed and people and animales grew out of non-living organisms... seriously that has got to be the dumbest thing ever... I can't believe people believe in this stuff...
still, it could be a completely random universe. you mention math, we'll a theory endorse by stephen hawking is that the universe has existed forever and is constantly in a state of expansion (big bangs) and collapse and its only a matter of enough bangs and collapses that we eventually reach the world we have today. mathematical probability. surely we can accept a universe that expands and collapses an infinite number times if we can accept an infinite being.
id like to add a relevant quote. "something human beings have always believed in is that the universe adds up. God, for all intents and purposes is an equal sign"
and DBG, an artist or a musician creates to appreciate, to fill a void, to express emotion, or to feel the power of creation. and for some, a living is certainly a nice addition to that. but any of those reasons in god would express a lacking on god's part (not to mention comparing the infinite, all powerful creator to humans kinda diminishes his holy-ness doesnt it) even then, he created the seraphin (higher angels...that word right?) first, why us?
you can't just say well the platypus looks funny so it must be a cross species, and you can't say amphibians are cross species or examples of evolution because there is no fossil history to prove it... and I don't wanna hear people say that when you go back so far its hard to find bones yada yada... if you say dinosaurs were before men and you can find dinosaur bones that you say are "millions of years old" then why can't you find "missing links"? exactly it makes no sense, it totally contradicts each other
DARWIN HIMESELF SAID "evolution will be either proven or disproven by the fossil records" well he was right, it was disproven by the fossil record long ago, because there is no fossil record of everthing inbetween, hence missing link like someone said... THEY AREN'T THERE, how can you say oh well the missing links proves this... its freaking missing! theres no proof! seriously think about it!
and how can you believe that a bunch of "big bangs" made the earth? it just happened to bang out a bunch of round planets and a sun and then a moon(s) for all of them... yea stuff blew up and earth was formed and people and animales grew out of non-living organisms... seriously that has got to be the dumbest thing ever... I can't believe people believe in this stuff...
Joseph1082
05-03-2004, 11:28 PM
How could a "Big-bang" an explosion, which by definition is a chaotic and random event, produce such an orderly universe???
Philosophy states you need MORE to create LESS!!!
to create a universe on this scale you'd need an infinite (God) source. How could a chaotic, lesser explosion create an ordered universe?
Philosophy states you need MORE to create LESS!!!
to create a universe on this scale you'd need an infinite (God) source. How could a chaotic, lesser explosion create an ordered universe?
Prelewd
05-04-2004, 02:16 AM
how does the bible explain dinosaurs?
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2026