How can you honestly believe in God.

it is not an intellignet design, but merely a coincidence, do the math billions maybe trillions of potential life supporting areas, and we've foudn waht only one other then earht that might support life, believing in god is completly ilogical, and the reason that it seems intellignet and everythign is useful is because everything either adpated to be useful, or died. thats the way the world works make yourself unigue and required you stay, if you dont then you have no purpose nad you end up slowing down the human race. Do the math only one in maybe a billion planets would have the faintest chance of sustaining life, and we have more then one billion in our universe.

oh yeah that made perfect sense. you have all these billions of planets and yet, only one other apart from earth may be able to support life. looks like thats evidence for creation to me.

yeah we may have more than one billion, but we still only have one in a billion, no more.

i would liek to say that the plasebo effect is proabably the leading cause of all faith, someone says god is goign to help me, BOOM! somethign good happens and you happen to notice it and say "god did taht for me " whne it proably would have happend anyway.

oh yeah that sounds awesome... take credit away from God when things go right, but dont hesitate to blame him over and over again when things dont go your way, or when thy go wrong.

The lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord.

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Here let me ask you ,, HOW LONG WOULD PLANTS HAVE SURVIVED WITHOUT PHOTOSYNTHESIS INTACT FROM THE START OF PLANT LIFES EVOLUTION? HOW LONG? Answer that and will see where we are on this. If you answer what I think you will we will have made some progress here.

Why are you shouting?

Plants very likely acquired photosynthesis through a process of endosymbiosis. As I said, just read some stuff on this, maybe try Lynn Margulis' book. It's quite interesting, essentially a prokaryotic cell took up a photosynthetic bacterium, which survived, and they lived happily ever after.

That's why organelles (e.g., chloroplasts and mitochondria) have their own supply of DNA.

[edit on 27-8-2007 by melatonin]

reply to post by Dave-Enock


Guy YOU DO THE MATH here it easy

First and foremost POTNETIAL = NOTHING

It is speculation then billion to trillion is getting logarithmic quite a disparity there so HERE IS THE MATH

What are the odds this was a coincidence is the basis for your argument

OK you have earth with all its ecosystems life in all its complex forms in a environment unlike any other planet YOU KNOW OF. Now you say that it happened by cosmic accident

I say you have better odds of repeating such a thing if it was by intelligent design.

The odds earth could happen easier and not to mention infinitely more times then cosmic accident is simple to deduce

It is real academic,, ok you ready?

INTELLIGENT DESIGN WOULD ALREADY KNOW HOW TO DO IT

Thus it is easier to assume it was done by intelligent design by

1 if patterns for design ie we need air to breathe a complex array of plants and gases makes it available

2 Intelligent design employs design and design tools like templates as an example would make this more likely coincedence doesn't even know what a template is let alone one to make it happen again. perhaps that is why it is only POTENTIAL LIFE EH?? BECAUSE NO INTELLIGENT DESINGER HAS ASSEMBLED IT YET?? UHHH YEAH YOGI??

MATTER IS NOT SELF CREATING 2nd RULE of the law of themodynamics LIFE MUST COME FROM LIFE . if you can prove otherwise then and only then would anyone consider coincedence .

IT IS ABSURD



Jeeez man you make the argument that atheists are intelligent absolutely hilarious.

[edit on 27-8-2007 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Conspiriology



I noticed you ignored my thread that included the bible quotes lol.

I don't believe in "god almighty".some of you may have noticed but,to reply to those who have recently talked about the big bang etc,i have this to say.

those who do not believe that a god or gods didn't create the universe take a step back and look at what you say.before there was creation there was nothing! d'you realise how fanciful that sounds? how can something come from nothing? i've heard scientists say they've recorded sounds in space that are left over from the big bang.er wtf! how can someone possibly know where these sounds come from or what they are!?! we know so little about space and most of what we do know is based on theories,not fact! if you look into ancient myths and legends,most have stories about something being there before creation.for example,in egyption myth there was a "primeval soup"of course it wasn't called that as that phrase wasn't created til the 1920's.but that is the imagery you get.and before anyone says myths aren't true let me just point out that over time the meaning of that word has changed.nowadays it means a story,a fairytale that is false.it used to mean a story that was based firmly in fact....


anyways.my point being is that both beliefs are greatly flawed,and obviously both are hard to prove! though i am not religious i don't think ppl who believe in god are stupid.i just get frustrated when i try and get them to see something more than whats in the bible! also,just because evidence can not be found to prove that there was a big bang or something else that caused life,does not automatically mean that it must be god who created everything.because then you get the endless unanswerable questions.who created god? if god existed in something other than the present universe,does that mean this place still exists beyond the boundries of deep space? then you have the thological questions,and my fave,if god created a universe so vast that our human minds can't comprehend its sheer size,why the hell would he only put life on one tiny little planet!?!





[edit on 27-8-2007 by jakyll]

reply to post by jakyll


Ha ha nice post and the sig about satan and the day being neccessary craked me up LOL

Oh ?? what quote did I ignore?

I apologise if I did it wasn't intentional I have just been kinda busy here LOL

[edit on 27-8-2007 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Thus it is easier to assume it was done by intelligent design by

Intelligent design can answer absolutely everything. It is a non-answer. Of course it is easier.

How does those sparky light things in the sky happen - intelligent design.

How does the moon move - intelligent design.

How is water wet - intelligent design.

How do red socks find their way into white washing - intelligent design.

It really is a non-answer. I understand that some people need answers now, cool, but don't suggest that shoving intelligent design into a gap is the only or final answer. History tells us otherwise.

MATTER IS NOT SELF CREATING 2nd RULE of the law of themodynamics LIFE MUST COME FROM LIFE . if you can prove otherwise then and only then would anyone consider coincedence .

Are you trying to say we are violating SLOT (second law)?

[edit on 27-8-2007 by melatonin]

Are you trying to say we are violating SLOT (second law)?

facts are facts, and yes... you most definitely are!

and if you think you are not... show me how you are not.

[edit on 27-8-2007 by Methuselah]

Originally posted by Methuselah
facts are facts, and yes... you most definitely are!

and if you think you are not... show me how you are not.

OK, are you happy that this is the second law:

The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

So, entropy increases over time in an isolated (i.e. closed system).

Entropy can be related to disorder within a system, but it is a push.

First, explain what you mean by we are violating SLOT.

Do you mean that complexity cannot form from simplicity? That order cannot come from disorder?

[edit on 27-8-2007 by melatonin]

reply to post by Conspiriology


I noticed you've been busy,lol.
Its easy to get carried away on here! I do it all the time,so no worries mate!

I just rambled off a lot of quotes for ya,bout the bibles attitude to women.some of the quotes came from paul and his view of women was very different than jesus' though it still doesn't excuse some of the other messages in the bible.and i agree alot of it is down to man's interpretation of what he reads,but you have to admit,the bible hasn't been that great for women.you mentioned about women being payed a lower wage etc.well,that was because they were and,in some cases still are,seen as being inferior to men.lots of stuff about that in the bible.
they way i look at it,there is only one difference between man and woman.and thats body strength.men are built to have upper body strength,for women its lower body.but in the mind and in the capacity for learning,understanding etc.we are the same.that is how we were designed....

OK, are you happy that this is the second law:

The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

So, entropy increases over time in an isolated (i.e. closed system).

Entropy can be related to disorder within a system, but it is a push.

First, explain what you mean by we are violating SLOT.

Do you mean that complexity cannot form from simplicity? That order cannot come from disorder?

[edit on 27-8-2007 by melatonin]

precisely... you cant get complexity from raw energy unless it has a way of organizing itself, which there wasnt. natural processes you might say... but processes have to get started somehow. a process needs a way of getting started, you cant get this with a theory based on chance.

reply to post by Conspiriology


Not really directed at you this,but here's some Einstein quotes.


A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive.

The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.


The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.


Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.


I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.


I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God.

If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.

The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously.


Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.


But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.


most of these quotes come from various books and letters wrote by Einstein.some are from his biography.

Just a heads up to Conspiriology:

You may want to review this post by kinglizard, one of the moderators, about your use of all caps, or largely caps when you're angry. It's not good board etiquette.

I'm not even going to continue to discuss this point with you, as it is clear you are not (yet) capable of having an objective rational discussion without resorting to name calling and "shouting."

When you've calmed down and are willing to have a discussion without these activities, I'll be glad to carry on where we left off.

Originally posted by Methuselah
precisely... you cant get complexity from raw energy unless it has a way of organizing itself, which there wasnt. natural processes you might say... but processes have to get started somehow. a process needs a way of getting started, you cant get this with a theory based on chance.

How do snowflakes form?

They start from a less ordered state of water molecules to form into an ordered state of crystals. In fact, how does crystallisation occur at all?

Does crystallisation violate SLOT?

I can tell you exactly how it works if you want to know. Essentially, to form the lower state of entropy, crystallisation takes energy from elsewhere. This leads to an overall increase in entropy of the system, but a local decrease in entropy.

Thus, local decreases in entropy are not restricted by SLOT, as long as overall entropy increases. We have a big hot warm thing pumping energy into the earth all the time, local decreases in entropy are readily supported thermodynamically.

You need a better argument. We see more complex stuff developing all the time from simpler constituents.

Stars do it, supernovae do it, even educated chemists do it...

Originally posted by DaRAGE

Originally posted by 3_Libras

Rightttttttt, but how is existence linked with a man up in the clouds?

My throughts of GOd aren't a Human existing inthe clods, or in heaven, or anything like that. That representation is man-made - aka the bible - "jesus will sit at teh right hand side fo the father, ie god., in the kingdom of heaven". the words" The heavens" has also been used to mean such as the sky.ie. "Look up into the heavens and tell me what you see?"

So heaven they represent god in human form as "god made us in his image", greeting us at teh pearly gates, lol.

Rightttttttt, but how is existence linked with a man up in the clouds?

My throughts of GOd aren't a Human existing inthe clods, or in heaven, or anything like that. That representation is man-made - aka the bible - "jesus will sit at teh right hand side fo the father, ie god., in the kingdom of heaven". the words" The heavens" has also been used to mean such as the sky.ie. "Look up into the heavens and tell me what you see?"

So heaven they represent god in human form as "god made us in his image", greeting us at teh pearly gates, lol.



So tell us your thoughts of GOD? Tell us your thoughts of the GOD that isn't man made? Ya know,, the one YOU made, the one in YOUR image
the one that isn't,,, man made. can it take human form in the flesh so it can better understand the temptations of the flesh or just to present itself in a manner we identify as us? The fact that GOD says he made us in his image is one of the reasons we do so many things GOD does. The reason you seem to have thoughts about your own.

One of the problems that exist with your question "look into the heavens or sky and ask us what we see is that like most of things unseen, we have a problem believing it or believing IN it. We know the concept of things we can see for example;

Can you picture a wheel barrel in your mind?

If you are like most of us the answer without skipping a beat is yes.
Now lets take it up a notch.
Can you picture a tricycle in the wheel barrel?

Most again would say yes.
another notch,
Can you picture a Pig on top of the tricycle inside the wheel barrel?
again as strange as it would seem,, we can picture the concept of those items stacked on top of each other in the wheel barrel.

Now here is where we test the resolve of our faith and our interpretation of scripture.

Can you picture TRUTH in the the wheel barrel?

NO? How about faith?

GOD?

Can you see GOD in the wheel barrel?

Now I'm not talking about those images of Jesus we have seen painted on velvet or any other kind. I am talking about GOD or LOVE,, how about that one can you see it in the wheel barrel.

tell me whats it look like? Can it even be articulated? How would one then show us love? God did it by sending his only begotten son in the flesh form as a man to make the ultimate expression of love which is to die for another. In this case that "other" would be

YOU.

I tried in another thread to illustrate the idea of how some people transliterate rather then translate it. ie you transliterating Jesus ascension into the heaven as the blue sky. Heaven isn't a Physical place. If it was, we could find it. The story of the tower of Babel illustrates mans finite concept of such ideas where GOD changes everyone language. This was done to show man that he can't explain what he can't understand.

in the same illustration what may or may not be a poor attempt at jocularity, there were several that got the point. I use the various arguments I have seen between truthers and debunkers in my illustration to show that truth, isn't always what can be seen in a video OR report. It's isn't always interpreted as the one encoding it's message would have wanted it understood or interpreted. ie "what they "really want" is understood in the illustration in a more literal sense by a truther then it is debunker. BOTH believe what they perceive as the truth yet call each other liars.

Like GOD, Truth isn't always something tangible in physical form evidence It isn't always as obvious as it seems.


It can't always be proven in an evidentiary way

Nor is it always what WE think it is.

Ill refer you

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Here let me ask you ,, HOW LONG WOULD PLANTS HAVE SURVIVED WITHOUT PHOTOSYNTHESIS INTACT FROM THE START OF PLANT LIFES EVOLUTION? HOW LONG? Answer that and will see where we are on this. If you answer what I think you will we will have made some progress here.

Why are you shouting?

Plants very likely acquired photosynthesis through a process of endosymbiosis. As I said, just read some stuff on this, maybe try Lynn Margulis' book. It's quite interesting, essentially a prokaryotic cell took up a photosynthetic bacterium, which survived, and they lived happily ever after.

That's why organelles (e.g., chloroplasts and mitochondria) have their own supply of DNA.

[edit on 27-8-2007 by melatonin]

I"m shouting? do tell,, at what decibel are my capital letters registering? Are they hurting your ears or are you just being a smart ass?

Are they High pitched? Low? or are they just adding impact to the message as intended. You intention to portray me shouting is cute even if old as forum flame warriors go.

The phrase "very likely" again makes my point. Not only does symbiotic relationships require they be (cover your ears) INTACT and FULLY FUNCTIONING, secondly, the words "very likely" indicate as much proof as "potentially" or could have been, maybe, etc

Give me more then speculation if science is your premise then use the same critical thinking protocols to back up your bravado

Again you got JOHNSON

- -=[conspiriology]=-

Originally posted by Conspiriology
I"m shouting? do tell,, at what decibel are my capital letters registering? Are they hurting your ears or are you just being a smart ass?

Nope, just a way of saying there is no need for the caps. Use italics, more refined you know...

The phrase "very likely" again makes my point. Not only does symbiotic relationships require they be (cover your ears) INTACT and FULLY FUNCTIONING, secondly, the words "very likely" indicate as much proof as "potentially" or could have been, maybe, etc

Does it? That's science, always tentative, lacking in 100% certainty and hubris. Do you think that's a bad thing? I guess you prefer dogmatic absolute truth...

I think I've already told you that plants didn't originally evolve photosynthesis, which is what you suggested. They acquired it from a symbiotic bacteria. You're not doing well so far.

But, yeah, it evolved in another species, early forms of bacteria. Why do you think it had to appear all perfect and in working order, like a microwave from god's kitchen?

Like most biochemical systems, it likely evolved from more simple biochemical systems. Lots of papers on the evolution of photosynthesis if you that interested, sure you're not though.

Annual Review of Plant Biology
Vol. 53: 503-521 (Volume publication date June 2002)
(doi:10.1146/annurev.arplant.53.100301.135212)

COMPLEX EVOLUTION OF PHOTOSYNTHESIS

Jin Xiong ­
Carl E. Bauer ­

ABSTRACT

The origin of photosynthesis is a fundamental biological question that has eluded researchers for decades. The complexity of the origin and evolution of photosynthesis is a result of multiple photosynthetic components having independent evolutionary pathways. Indeed, evolutionary scenarios have been established for only a few photosynthetic components. Phylogenetic analysis of Mg-tetrapyrrole biosynthesis genes indicates that most anoxygenic photosynthetic organisms are ancestral to oxygen-evolving cyanobacteria and that the purple bacterial lineage may contain the most ancestral form of this pigment biosynthesis pathway. The evolutionary path of type I and type II reaction center apoproteins is still unresolved owing to the fact that a unified evolutionary tree cannot be generated for these divergent reaction center subunits. However, evidence for a cytochrome b origin for the type II reaction center apoproteins is emerging. Based on the combined information for both photopigments and reaction centers, a unified theory for the evolution of reaction center holoproteins is provided. Further insight into the evolution of photosynthesis will have to rely on additional broader sampling of photosynthesis genes from divergent photosynthetic bacteria.

So, in a more simplistic manner, it's really complicated because it happened 3 billion years ago, bacteria can exchange DNA so very easily, you see. Some headway has been made on particular pathways, but until we have a real thorough understanding of the evolutionary relationships between these early bacteria, we'll find it difficult to move on and gain further insights into more biochemical pathways underpinning photosynthesis.

Alternatively, we could say 'bugger it' and just resort to 'goddidit' like a group of iron-age goatherders, heh.


[edit on 27-8-2007 by melatonin]

www.cosmicfingerprints.com...

here is a good link so look at. read it with an open mind, you might actually learn something new no matter what side you are on.

Originally posted by Methuselah
here is a good link so look at. read it with an open mind, you might actually learn something new no matter what side you are on.

Perry Marshall's the guy with the retarded random mutation generator - his version of an evolutionary algorithm.

Problem is, it doesn't contain the important non-random aspect of evolution - natural selection.

How can you test evolution if you leave out the most important part?

You did a similar thing earlier when you said:

Originally posted by Methuselah
you cant get this with a theory based on chance.

You see, evolutionary biology is not chance. It is non-directed in the god making little creatures sense, but it's far from random. It is a non-random process acting on random variations.

Same goes with cosmic evolution. Stars producing heavier elements isn't chance either. That's what we call physics. Producing more complex elements, including basic organic chemicals, also isn't chance. In this case, we call it chemistry.

It's all non-directed though. Well, I s'pose you could ram a god in if you want, he could be like a kid with a new chemistry set.

[edit on 27-8-2007 by melatonin]

It is a non-random process

if the process is not so random, it had to be designed. you cant get a process out of randomness. you get patterns, but you dont get a process. just like moving water sorting particles into layers... it that a process? no its simply a pattern we see in the flow of water with particles.

Stars producing heavier elements isn't chance either. That's what we call physics. Producing more complex elements, including basic organic chemicals, also isn't chance. In this case, we call it chemistry.

yep and that process had to come together somehow, they produce organic chemicals??? ok, but I dont think you get an organism in a star... its a little too hot for that.
oh and btw, you can only get so many chemicals from stars... not all of them.

Problem is, it doesn't contain the important non-random aspect of evolution - natural selection.

natural selection only works if you have things to select from... natural selection does nothing more than selects. it does change anything. it will not change a animal from the past into a human or a monkey over millions of years. natural selection is not organized either. natural selection/survival of the fittest... wow, talk about very random...
adaptations... just change in habits, or maybe becoming tolerant to one thing or another... these processes will never change a animal of the past into a human or a monkey over millions of years... it wont change a whale to a cow, and it wont change a dog to a horse... it wont change any kind of animal to a different kind of animal no matter how much time you give...
and if you want to believe it will happen... thats fine, but quit telling people that it happened when it hasnt, there is no proof.

millions of years ago.... translates to... long ago and far away... it means im about to tell you a fairytale.
3 billion years ago plants evolved photosynthesis??? if that is fact... tell me why it happened. and tell me why animals didnt evolve the same process within skin cells. tell me why its only plants.

tell me why the plants depend on birds to chirp in the morning.
tell me why plants depend on bees for cross pollination.
tell me why plate tectonic activity is a requirement for life to exist on thie earth.
tell me why the giraffe has special blood vessels in its neck to keep it from passing out or even dying whenever it bends over to drink water.
tell me why the human body doesnt have all that is included in other animals if we are so far ahead of the rest in this process of evolution.
tell me how salmon know to swim back upstream to give birth to their young.
tell me how baby turtles know where to swim after being born.
tell me how a most birds born alone know everything they need to know without being taught by a parent.
tell me how the woodpecker can open its eyes between pecks for accurate strikes.
tell my why there are symbiotic relationships in nature that have to exist in order for life processes to continue strong.

you cant and you wont because there is no scientific explanation.

there is way too much on this earth that is unexplainable by science and will never be explained.
and indoctrinating people who dont know any better is not true science... its wrong.

The ignorance in this thread has gone way over the top. To put an end to that, I'm going to start debunking these creationist claims in this thread.

To start off with, Methuselah. Watch this video to understand evolution.
www.youtube.com...