It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Harder To Believe In - God or Aliens?

page: 50
6
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarkSide

Originally posted by Kitsunegari
I think aliens are harder to believe in, and thats why so many people refuse to believe, and so much more people believe in god than in aliens.
they'd much rather believe in god, because god, pretty much cant hurt you, when aliens are very real and can.
we are all in denial.


There is evidence for alien life. It's a fact, it exists wether you believe in it or not.

There is no evidence for God, people believe in him because of fear or ignorance.


In the Quran there is many evidence of God here is the website
www.jalyat.net...

They maybe Aliens but not like those seen it TV maybe bacteria or some sore of but not as advance as us




posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by eazy_mas
In the Quran there is many evidence of God here is the website
www.jalyat.net...


There's no evidence on your site except quotes from the Qu'ran,and there are the same sites for the Bible that say the same things.


They maybe Aliens but not like those seen it TV maybe bacteria or some sore of but not as advance as us


How do you know? You explored the hole universe? There is even evidence for alien visits on our planet...



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by eazy_mas
There is another thing , one of the islamic scientist prove some disbeliver

the disbelivers said that the earth was created my consicional so he told them to meet him in an island.
When those people where waiting for a long time till the islamic scientist came to them so they asking him why was he late so he answer
" when i was at the port there was not boat so by consicience wood ,nails and hammer was on the water , they started to move and the hammer build the boat and then i came to you"
You would guessed those people reaction to say it impossible so he answered back that the world is not been created by consicience but God created it.


You don't honestly expect anyone to believe this story do you?



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   
God is hardest to believe.

God is a figment of our imagination, people need something or someone to believe in, people don't want to think that if they die nothing happens after that, so they believe in heaven and hell. Basicaly people are afraid of the truth.

Aliens? We are the aliens.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by nappyhead
Science has been unable to show how DNA or RNA could have formed from a more primitive substance.


Agreed, these have not been shown. However, all the principles necessary have been demonstrated. The argument you're making is akin to "we can only know gravity operates when we directly observe it. At any moment, we might go floating off into space because it has not been proven that gravity will continue to work. Therefor it's the beating of angel wings that pushes us down onto the earth."

The bottom line is, even if you managed to prove evolution were false, that does not give any credit to your creation myth. You would have to eliminate all possible natural explanations before it would be reasonable to conclude "supernatural".

The Bible speaks of the earth having four corners. Why do you accept this as figurative language, but insist on the six days of creation as literal?


Originally posted by nappyhead
Though if evolution is true, and there is extraterrestrial life, your argument that those life-forms might use base substances other than DNA or RNA doesn't invalidate my argument. The complexity of a sentient life-form would require some type of base substance that, though possibly different from nucleic acid, is generally equivelant to the complexity of the two we have on earth: DNA and RNA.


OK, so now you define life as "having DNA or being sentient"? What about nonsentient life forms on the planet the aliens came from? Are those considered life?

Do you consider viruses to be "life"? What about prions?


Originally posted by nappyhead
Even if the odds of a DNA or RNA strand forming on its own was dramatically more realistic than the odds i've presented, it must be created spontaneously by something less complex, whatever that might be, which still leaves you with the "spontaneous formation" problem.


But it need not form spontaneously from dramatically less similar substances. Like I said before (a couple of times already), self replicating molecules have been observed to evolve. Read that again. Then read it again. Then go do some research and verify what I just told you is true. We have observational evidence of amino acid chains evolving into more complex chains. There's no fundamental reason that process couldn't continue. Do a bit of research on the theories you're trying to discredit. Your argument from ignorance is not the least bit impressive.


Originally posted by nappyhead
It hasn't happened -- don't act as if it has; if it does happen then I will join you ranks, but until then don't use that as an argument.


If current abiogenesis theory is the explanation of the spark of life, then the experiment has already happened, and you and I are it's result.


Originally posted by nappyhead
Actually I take both sides of the issue and compare the probabilities. Which-ever side is more logical after I compare the two is what I choose. The existence of my God is either a 'yes' or a 'no,' it is a 2:1 chance.


Ugh. You have no understanding of probability whatsoever yet you claim your using it in your decision process. When you flip a coin, there are three possibilities. It could land heads up, heads down, or on its edge. By your argument, the odds it will land on its edge is 1 in 3.

God either exists or doesn't. Probability is meaningless in that context.


Originally posted by nappyhead
Evolution on the other hand has thousands of contradictions, millions of improbabilities (the least of which being the equations I stated),


The equation I stated, from your reference is a straw man. It as no validity whatsoever, and adds nothing to any argument as a result. It is an attempt at deception.

I don't know why I've wasted this much time with someone who refuses to recognize that an invalid argument is evidence only of the willingness of the person makeig it to lie. You are taking your "evidence" from people who I have already proven are willing to lie.

Now that you know they are liars, your propogation of that same argument makes you a liar as well. You realize that don't you? Are you a liar or do you still not undersand that abiogenesis theory has nothing to do with the spontaneous formation of DNA from base chemicals?


Originally posted by nappyhead
You state that creationists have already 'rejected' the self-replicating molecules as if you were stating a fact, but I have read dozens of articles written by creationists on the issue.


As have I. They don't reject the result, they reject the process as being artificial, which it is of course, but don't you see that creation of a sentient life form in the lab would also be artificial?


Originally posted by nappyhead
Your 'snippets of RNA' replicated, but didn't remain stable for an extended period of time as one would in the cellular environment.


Stability is not the issue, self replication outside a cellular environment is the point.



Originally posted by nappyhead
An equation has already shown that the original dense ball couldn't have overcome the gravitational forces.


Is this another equation akin to the 1 in 10^40,000 equation? Even so, if we can show that it is not possible for a static "ball" containing the universe to have overcome its own gravity, then that isn't how it happened. That isn't the same as proving god did it. But even if you conclude "god did it", you're back to theistic evolution again. If your can accept that god created a bunch of stuff in succession, why is it then invalid to accept that god caused the universe to explode? Neither premise has a greater explanatory power. The first one is consistent with the Bible, but the second one is consistent with observation at this point.


Originally posted by nappyhead
Current theory suggests that the energy that is already in the physical universe can remain at a net constant, but where did it originally come from? That question doesn't change.


If everthing we can observe shows energy is forever constant, then the logical conclusion is that it has always existed and didn't come from anything. This conclusion is consistent with our knowledge of spacetime.

Your premise, that the universe was created, is inconsistent with both conservation of energy, as well as being meaningless, since you must presume the existence of time before the universe. But I don't expect you to actually use the logic you claim you're using.


Originally posted by nappyhead
It all boils down to one thing: things exist. Things must have a source. Things must be explained somehow. God explains that source.


Things do exist. And "things", i.e., particular arrangements of energy within the context of the universe, must have a source. That does not imply that the framework itself must have a source. But even so, god as the source explains nothing, since it begs the question, "what is the source of god"?

If you simply repeat that the universe must have been created, we're done.


Originally posted by nappyhead
Ahhhh... so now you are taking an eternal matter and energy approach even though matter cannot be eternal... well... ok.


We observe that energy is eternal. Why wouldn't I take that position? You keep repeating ad nauseum that energy can not be eternal, even though all observational evidence suggests that it is.


Originally posted by nappyhead

First thing, you are using human physical terms to explain way something you can't comprehend -- the paraphysical, the spiritual.

Secondly, it is still a theory that time is directly tied to matter and energy.


It's true I can't comprehend it, but neither can you. You are trying to prove the existence of something that can't even be comprehended. You can't, because proofs require comprehension of the components.

Relativity has been observed, it's not just conjecture.


Originally posted by nappyhead

And even if time is tied to matter and energy, i've already explained that I believe in an omnipotent Creator who can do anything... even what you, a human, cannot comprehend.


Finally a bit of honesty. You formed your beliefs before examining the evidence, and will maintain them no matter what. You are simply looking for ad hoc arguments to sustain those belefs, rather than looking for evidnece to falsify them, which is what science does.


Originally posted by nappyhead
Evidence 1: A human footprint and an allosaurus footprint have been found in the same layer of rock, in several instances, in and around Glen Rose, Texas.


I asked you to present your best single argument, because I'm only going to adress one. I assume that since this is at the top of your list, it's the best one you have.

I have personally been to Glen Rose and walked in the tracks of the "human footprint". There's no way those are human. They're long and skinny and don't even look like human feet. The stride is huge, suggesting maybe a 10 or 12 foot "human".



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Original Post:

Why? If God is an alien, then who created him? If there is no God, why do some choose to beleive that the human race was placed on earth by a bunch of reptiles from another galaxy? Who created the reptiles and their galaxy? there is certainly less "evidence" to support that notion than simply believing in God. At least there's the Bible to support that traditional belief.



If God is an alien, then who created him?

First question I look in to like this - If god is god who created him?


If there is no God, why do some choose to beleive that the human race was placed on earth by a bunch of reptiles from another galaxy?

Probably cause some of them have seen reptiles but not god or jesus. And when facing something "unreal" I think some people get real worked up and then make their own story about the reptiles, or as the monks and the other people that wrote the bible did about Jesus and all the other storys you can find in the bible.


Who created the reptiles and their galaxy?

Who knows really? I don´t think there are answers on every question in this world. And I even think that it is probably best for all of us to not know everything, we have been trained to look at this world as we have been learned from scratch. I think alot of people would go crazy to be honest, if they knew absolutly everything.


there is certainly less "evidence" to support that notion than simply believing in God. At least there's the Bible to support that traditional belief.

I don´t know, the bible is only a book with many writers, and as far as I know a story that walks from one man to another is as folklore. Take one mans story and move it through several centurys and I think you don´t get the right story to begin with. And not only that, certain parts of the holy book has been taken away or in other forms got a new makeup to fit in to our modern society. I think that the bible is as much of evidence as the UFO phenomenon to be honest.

Only thing is that I have not seen Jesus or God but I have seen a strange photo IRL and it was no one of them. So In my humble opinion I find the UFO and Reptilians more likely to be the reality, while it hardly seems probable that the Bible today is anything of evidence and that goes for all religions I`m afraid. But I am married and I am considered to be a protestant even if I`m not religious in that way that is.

These are my answers, and I hope you get something out of them.


Best Regards:
Necros





[edit on 4-6-2005 by Necros]

[edit on 4-6-2005 by Necros]

[edit on 4-6-2005 by Necros]



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 10:13 PM
link   
I appreciate a good debate and I appreciate this debate using valid arguments unlike the guy who is touting the Qur'an. You don't have to reply to all of this, but at least read it.


Agreed, these have not been shown. However, all the principles necessary have been demonstrated. The argument you're making is akin to "we can only know gravity operates when we directly observe it. At any moment, we might go floating off into space because it has not been proven that gravity will continue to work. Therefor it's the beating of angel wings that pushes us down onto the earth."

The bottom line is, even if you managed to prove evolution were false, that does not give any credit to your creation myth. You would have to eliminate all possible natural explanations before it would be reasonable to conclude "supernatural".

The Bible speaks of the earth having four corners. Why do you accept this as figurative language, but insist on the six days of creation as literal?


"We can only know God operates when we directly observe him." You cannot see gravity or God, but logic puts the two in place. There HAS to be a force that pulls things together and holds things in place in the universe -- therefore 'gravity' exists. There has to be some kind of non-physical force that is not bounded by the rules of decay and physics and the like, and exhibits unlimited power and intellect -- therefore 'God' exists.

Figurative language is usually easy to pick out in the Bible. I accept the "6 days of creation" story as literal because (1) it is written in a literal sense, (2) much science points to the conclusion that the earth is only 6-10,000 years old, (3) the Bible directly places Adam and Eve in the creation myth and later tells about Adam's children, how old he was when he died, and how his lineage proceeds, and (4) in one sermon Christ talks of the creation story as if it should be accepted truth and taken literally.


OK, so now you define life as "having DNA or being sentient"? What about nonsentient life forms on the planet the aliens came from? Are those considered life?

Do you consider viruses to be "life"? What about prions?.


I don't understand what you are trying to convey in your first statement. I didn't ever say a sentient life form had to have DNA, I just said that any extraterrestrial life (sentient or non-sentient) had to have a base substance that is basically as complex as DNA or RNA.

In my opinion viruses are not life and neither are prions. Viruses could not have been ancestors of unicellular or multicellular organisms and cannot reproduce on their own.


But it need not form spontaneously from dramatically less similar substances. Like I said before (a couple of times already), self replicating molecules have been observed to evolve. Read that again. Then read it again. Then go do some research and verify what I just told you is true. We have observational evidence of amino acid chains evolving into more complex chains. There's no fundamental reason that process couldn't continue. Do a bit of research on the theories you're trying to discredit. Your argument from ignorance is not the least bit impressive.


Before we continue on about molecules 'evolving' into more molecules, let me ask you a question, which perhaps you can answer: where has it ever been observed that one organism evolves into another that is more complex? (Excluding viruses and bacterial diseases; because this is not real evolution)


If current abiogenesis theory is the explanation of the spark of life, then the experiment has already happened, and you and I are it's result.


But you cannot prove that this 'experiment' has even taken place. There is know observable evidence that your theory is true.


Ugh. You have no understanding of probability whatsoever yet you claim your using it in your decision process. When you flip a coin, there are three possibilities. It could land heads up, heads down, or on its edge. By your argument, the odds it will land on its edge is 1 in 3.

God either exists or doesn't. Probability is meaningless in that context.


That is a slightly humorous point, but I knew that from the beginning. My point is that my theory doesn't have to overcome any mathematical improbabilities unlike the man-made theory of evolution. Maybe I shouldn't have said '2:1,' that wasn't what I was trying to convey.


The equation I stated, from your reference is a straw man. It as no validity whatsoever, and adds nothing to any argument as a result. It is an attempt at deception.

I don't know why I've wasted this much time with someone who refuses to recognize that an invalid argument is evidence only of the willingness of the person makeig it to lie. You are taking your "evidence" from people who I have already proven are willing to lie.

Now that you know they are liars, your propogation of that same argument makes you a liar as well. You realize that don't you? Are you a liar or do you still not undersand that abiogenesis theory has nothing to do with the spontaneous formation of DNA from base chemicals?


Even if that one equation is useless that doesn't change the fact that there are still thousands of others...

Why would DNA form in the first place? What purpose would it have? Answer that.


As have I. They don't reject the result, they reject the process as being artificial, which it is of course, but don't you see that creation of a sentient life form in the lab would also be artificial?


I'm talking about explanations that take into consideration natural creation of self-replicating molecules.


Stability is not the issue, self replication outside a cellular environment is the point.


Without extended stability what purpose would the RNA snippets serve??
Why would nature ever create RNA in the first place? As a lone molecule it is pointless.



Is this another equation akin to the 1 in 10^40,000 equation? Even so, if we can show that it is not possible for a static "ball" containing the universe to have overcome its own gravity, then that isn't how it happened. That isn't the same as proving god did it. But even if you conclude "god did it", you're back to theistic evolution again. If your can accept that god created a bunch of stuff in succession, why is it then invalid to accept that god caused the universe to explode? Neither premise has a greater explanatory power. The first one is consistent with the Bible, but the second one is consistent with observation at this point.


I've said this twice before: I don't believe God started the "Big Bang." I was simply suggesting that even if the "Big Bang" were true it would still take a deity to start it.


If everthing we can observe shows energy is forever constant, then the logical conclusion is that it has always existed and didn't come from anything. This conclusion is consistent with our knowledge of spacetime.

Your premise, that the universe was created, is inconsistent with both conservation of energy, as well as being meaningless, since you must presume the existence of time before the universe. But I don't expect you to actually use the logic you claim you're using.


Energy is constant, but not unlimited. As you well know, my belief is in a God who is omnipotent... "And let there be a net constant of energy," said God, and so there was. He is omnipotent. He can make energy constant in the physical universe if he wants to. That argument doesn't prove anything against my God.

He created Adam and Eve as adults. He created the earth and the universe fully mature. He created energy constant.


Things do exist. And "things", i.e., particular arrangements of energy within the context of the universe, must have a source. That does not imply that the framework itself must have a source. But even so, god as the source explains nothing, since it begs the question, "what is the source of god"?

If you simply repeat that the universe must have been created, we're done.


You constantly criticize me as illogical and idiotic, but I haven't returned the same remarks despite you using some illogical arguments yourself.

"What is the source of God?" I have said this several times already. It has been observed that physical things must have sources. Physical things become disorderly. Matter decays. Time elapses. And on and on... but God is not physical and does not become disorderly or decay. 'He is who He is.' He is spiritual, metaphysical, paraphysical, whatever you'd like to coin it, but not physical...

I guess the debate is over then. Unless you have more to say, which is welcome.


We observe that energy is eternal. Why wouldn't I take that position? You keep repeating ad nauseum that energy can not be eternal, even though all observational evidence suggests that it is.


I get your point about energy being 'eternal,' but it is still physical and doesn't contain the characteristics of power or intellect and is observably not unlimited, so it couldn't have been there forever. I believe it 'appears' eternal because God made it that way. He can do that because he can do anything.


It's true I can't comprehend it, but neither can you. You are trying to prove the existence of something that can't even be comprehended. You can't, because proofs require comprehension of the components.

Relativity has been observed, it's not just conjecture.


I haven't tried to explain how spiritual things work, or how they don't. One of my arguments from the beginning has been that physical things must have a source and it would take something that is above and beyond what is physical to fill in the gaps. My argument has been based on observation in the physical realm and theory in the spiritual realm; not observation in both.


Finally a bit of honesty. You formed your beliefs before examining the evidence, and will maintain them no matter what. You are simply looking for ad hoc arguments to sustain those belefs, rather than looking for evidnece to falsify them, which is what science does.


The creation model can use experiment and science just as can evolution.


I asked you to present your best single argument, because I'm only going to adress one. I assume that since this is at the top of your list, it's the best one you have.

I have personally been to Glen Rose and walked in the tracks of the "human footprint". There's no way those are human. They're long and skinny and don't even look like human feet. The stride is huge, suggesting maybe a 10 or 12 foot "human".


Did you forget that I said I DIDN'T HAVE A FAVORITE PIECE OF EVIDENCE?
Funny you didn't even bother to read or comment on the rest of the things I presented. Did you not know that the creation model assumes that humans were 10 or 12 feet tall???? Go to this site and look at the "New Mexico" tracks near the bottom.

Just an interesting side-note about the expansion of the universe:

"Even the rate of expansion points to God. The rate is so perfectly fine-tuned that if it was changed at the beginning by one part in 10 to the 60th power—that's a one with 60 zeros after it—the universe would either be in chaos today or it wouldn't exist. If it was expanding that tiny fraction faster, matter couldn't hold together and we'd have no stars and galaxies. If it was expanding that tiny bit slower, it would have collapsed long ago."

[edit on 5-6-2005 by nappyhead]



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by nappyhead
There has to be some kind of non-physical force that is not bounded by the rules of decay and physics and the like, and exhibits unlimited power and intellect -- therefore 'God' exists.


You keep referring to rules of decay, but have not addressed the point I made a couple of times already, which is that all observations indicate that energy is eternal and is not itself subject to the "rules of decay". But even if you could prove that one day the universe will cease to exist, there is still no basis for the assumption of the existence of something of unlimited power, and if there is something metaphysical, there is no basis for assuming it is even intelligent, let alone infinitely intelligent.

I have a question. If actual infinites are not possible, and god is said to actually have infinite power and intellect, why are these premises not contradictory?


Originally posted by nappyhead
In my opinion viruses are not life and neither are prions. Viruses could not have been ancestors of unicellular or multicellular organisms and cannot reproduce on their own.


It seems your definition of life is rather complex and ad hoc. Viruses have DNA, which was your previous definition, but since they are not "cellular", they are not life. Prions have a reproductive code, but it is not DNA based, and they are not cellular.


Originally posted by nappyhead
Before we continue on about molecules 'evolving' into more molecules, let me ask you a question, which perhaps you can answer: where has it ever been observed that one organism evolves into another that is more complex? (Excluding viruses and bacterial diseases; because this is not real evolution)


You have to explain what you mean by "more complex". If you simply mean an increase in genetic material, it's observed all the time.

But excluding noncellular and single celled organisms is cheating, because that's where most of the "increase in complexity" is thought to have taken place - before multicellular organisms formed. One of the mechanisms of evolution involves retroviruses tampering with the genetic code causing there own genes to be passed on in future copies. These are refered to as retrotransposons.

Bacteria exchange genetic material like crazy. This is the postulated mechanism by which sexual reproduction first formed.


Originally posted by nappyhead
But you cannot prove that this 'experiment' has even taken place. There is know observable evidence that your theory is true.


That's what this whole discussion is about. Although not every step of the natural experiment has been observed, we have enough observations to fill in the missing pieces.


Originally posted by nappyhead
Even if that one equation is useless that doesn't change the fact that there are still thousands of others...


If that one is bogus, and you know that the author of that bogus equation also knows it's bogus, it would be best to strike that individual from the list. Presenting thousands, or even millions, of invalid arguments is evidence only of the willingness of someone to lie. The more knowingly invalid arguments that propogate, the greater the evidence of their lack of integrity. This is the method that creationists use. Throw out thousands of bogus arguments (an easy thing to do), knowing that the opposition will have to debunk each one (a hard thing to do). If you find someone willing to expend the effort to debunk them, by the time the process has finished, there's no-one left in the audience.

Eusebius would be proud.


Originally posted by nappyhead
Why would DNA form in the first place? What purpose would it have? Answer that.


Reproduction. You seem obsessed with DNA. I don't know how the self replicating and evolving amino acid chains made no impression on you. Some of the reproductive mechanism observed by these chemicals is quite complex.


Originally posted by nappyhead
I'm talking about explanations that take into consideration natural creation of self-replicating molecules.


We understand how abiogenesis could have happened (to the point of self replicating amino acids), we observe candidate amino acids reproducing and evolving, we observe snippets of noncellular RNA reproducing. It isn't hard to fill in the missing pieces with a likely scenario by which self reproducing amino acids formed a small RNA chain which got stuck to itself during reproduction forming the first small DNA snippet. That snippet continued to mutate rapidly until the beginnings of a cell membrane formed, most likely within a clay substrate that acted as the pre-cellular cell membrane. The ability to protect itself provided this new quasi-cellular thing mobility from the protective clay substrate. Once free, each new copy that enhanced that membrane had better mobility and a higher success rate until the first fully cellular organism was complete.

What are the odds of this scenario? No-one knows, but they are not zero, and there's no reason to think they are impossibly high either. That isn't to say it's been observed, but it's a reasonable mechanism that works its way incrementally to DNA. It's enough to refute the claims of impossibility.


Originally posted by nappyhead
Without extended stability what purpose would the RNA snippets serve??
Why would nature ever create RNA in the first place? As a lone molecule it is pointless.


The answer to all these "what purpose" questions is "reproduction", which is the fundamental "purpose" of evolution. It isn't a purpose in the sense of intelligent purpose, it's merely a positively reinforcing feedback loop. Whatever does not contribute to the feedback (reproduction in the case of biology) is overwhelmed by that which does.

It's conceptually no different from putting a microphone near an amplifier. A tone will evolve extremely rapidly, even though there's no purpose for it to do so, and even though the tone starts off as completely random and informationless noise. Generally within no more than a couple of seconds, a loud sustained tone will form from nothing, based on the same principle of positive feedback that we see with self replicating organic material.

If you start from random noise, the odds of a tone spontaneously forming are impossibly small. So the tone-creationist argument would be that god made the first complete tone. The tone-evolutionist would try to sample as much of the intermediate formation as possible, and draw inferences for the undersampled middle points. The tone-creationist would pick apart each of those samples with arguments like "Yah, but we've never observed the missing middle part, and until I observe a complete continuum starting from random noise to a complete tone that looks exactly like this one, I refuse to accept your premise."

Within engineering fields, positive feedback loops are well understood. They always converge to a point of sustainability, where nonlinearities limit further growth, and so that which doesn't contribute to the sustained result is totally squelched out.

We don't need to observe the missing middle part to know it's there by induction from our knowledge of positive feedback loops in general.

Originally posted by nappyhead
I've said this twice before: I don't believe God started the "Big Bang." I was simply suggesting that even if the "Big Bang" were true it would still take a deity to start it.


You've said it, but you haven't supported it. If what you are saying is true, and it would be impossible for a universe ball to overcome gravity and begin to expand, then that isn't how it happened. That's a far cry from proving god did it. You are simply discounting all other scenarios (including unknown scenarios) without justification in order to arrive at another false dichotomy.

But even so, suppose the universe were compressed arbitrarily close to a singularity (pick however close you want to be), and gravity created a potential well that could not be overcome within any reasonable probability. It could still be overcome with unreasonable probability. Given an eternity to overcome it, the odds that the event would happen (within a quantum mechanical perspective) are 100%, no matter how small the odds are within a given interval, as long as they are not identically 0. 1 in 10^40,000 would be trivially easy to overcome given an eternal timeframe. So would any other level of improbability. If it is merely improbable, given unlimited trials, an event is guaranteed to happen.


Originally posted by nappyhead
Energy is constant, but not unlimited. As you well know, my belief is in a God who is omnipotent... "And let there be a net constant of energy," said God, and so there was. He is omnipotent. He can make energy constant in the physical universe if he wants to. That argument doesn't prove anything against my God.


What difference does it make if energy is limited or not, if it always remains constant? By the way, we don't know that energy is limited.


Originally posted by nappyhead
"What is the source of God?" I have said this several times already. It has been observed that physical things must have sources.


The universe is not a physical thing, in the sense of things that must have sources and are observed to decay - things within the universe - it is the container for such things. Must a bucket used to carry water have the same properties as water? You are committing a categorical fallacy by applying inferences gleaned from observation within the context of the universe and applying them to the existence of the universe itself.

We observe that any particular arrangement of energy has a source (say an apple), and decays, but we do not observe that the energy itself has a source or decays.

The fundamental laws of physics, such as conservation of energy, are much closer to direct inference of the nature of the universe. Those laws indicate the universe is eternal.

But more than that, we can arrive at the same conclusion simply through metaphysics, as long as we know that spacetime is an aspect of the universe and not something transcendental. It is meaningless to say "before the universe" once you understand that time is part of the universe.

We're done. You do not seem capable of comprehending that the universe itself is not a "thing" within the universe. It's the sum of all such things plus the framework in which they exist. You keep trying to apply properties of things within the framework of the universe to the existence of the framework itself.


Originally posted by nappyhead
Did you forget that I said I DIDN'T HAVE A FAVORITE PIECE OF EVIDENCE?
Funny you didn't even bother to read or comment on the rest of the things I presented. Did you not know that the creation model assumes that humans were 10 or 12 feet tall???? Go to this site and look at the "New Mexico" tracks near the bottom.


I'm not going to refute every piece of BS evidence you troll off creation sites. You had your shot. If you were serious and really wanted to know more, you'd just go to talkorigins. Pretty much all the garbage evidence creationists use has already been addressed there.

What difference does it make what conjecture such a model makes. There's no model other than "magically humans were transformed" to explain why we are not still 10-12 feet tall - you can't appeal to evolution in your "model". Your "model" is nothing more than an appeal to magic at every step where it contradicts either itself or observation.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by White Widow
God is hardest to believe.

God is a figment of our imagination, people need something or someone to believe in, people don't want to think that if they die nothing happens after that, so they believe in heaven and hell. Basicaly people are afraid of the truth.



You're right! People are afraid of the truth. The truth is that God does exist and we will be held accountable for what we've done in our lives. Those who can't accept that truth and live life accordingly simply opt not to believe in God. They are afraid of the consequences of the truth.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by CommonSense
You're right! People are afraid of the truth. The truth is that God does exist and we will be held accountable for what we've done in our lives. Those who can't accept that truth and live life accordingly simply opt not to believe in God. They are afraid of the consequences of the truth.


NOOOOOO!!! I am so afraid



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by CommonSense
[You're right! People are afraid of the truth. The truth is that God does exist and we will be held accountable for what we've done in our lives. Those who can't accept that truth and live life accordingly simply opt not to believe in God. They are afraid of the consequences of the truth.


It never ceases to amaze me how the faithfull not only believe in imaginary friends, but they so frequently believe in their own psychic powers as well (the ability to globally know the motives of those who are unconvinced by their fables).

If you're right, I get tortured eternally, which is somehow justice for the heinous crime of failing to believe in a bunch of obvious fairy tales. You get to praise god endlessly forever (which one is heaven and which one is hell?).

If I'm right, you're wasting your eternity devoted to your imaginary friend, while I enjoy life freely without the baggage of sin and sacrifices and all that nonsense. Not once do I stop and wonder, "what if I'm wrong". Why don't I? Because I've arrived at my position with an open mind through reason. I don't face the cognitive dissonance caused by faith, nor do I get all emotional when someone challenges my faith, because I don't have any.

"What do you mean you're eternity?" you ask? If I'm right, this life is all there is. When the lights go out, you don't wake back up. The short period between birth and death is all you get. It's you're eternity right here right now, and your wasting it!

I reserve the right to be wrong. If someone shows me something more than a bunch of ancient myths and legends, I'll change my tune.

By the way, there's no better way to shut the door to your so-called-truth than to threaten people with 'consequences' for failing to believe you. Why not make an actual case for your position instead?



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 03:16 AM
link   
You would think that, at some point, people would automaticly question themselevs and the world around them. People would notice the difference between humans and animals, read the bible and just wonder wether it's a hoax or not.

A reason for many people not to believe in God is, because they think belieiving in God would take away their freedom. They want to have as much fun, sex, drugs and whatnot as they please and think a religion will make this impossible.

Reality is that this is quite a retarded reason not to believe in God. If God exists, it doesn't really matter wether you believe in Him, He still exists. His EXISTANCE does not take away your freedoms, but if you had the knowledge of His existance you probably WOULD change your goals in life.

It's a strange discussion though, sometimes I think christians and nonchristians just really live in 2 different worlds. As goals and objectives in life can change and form our entire character, being and mentality, the older we get, the more we grow apart from eachother.

Let's make one thing clear though, if I would not believe in God I would probably also just have "fun" as my main goal in life, I would also go for money, and sex, and all kinds of selfish goals.

Fortunately I know He does exist.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Look, has anyone ever seen an Alien? Huh? Anyone? Please do not tell me anything about UFOs. I threw a frisbee in the air once, in the shape of a Space craft. And all these people came around and started pointing at it saying; Oh My God its and Alien. Come on, there is no proof of them so stop saying that there is until you can tell me there is. The devil's just trying to decieved you. Again.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
You would think that, at some point, people would automaticly question themselevs and the world around them. People would notice the difference between humans and animals, read the bible and just wonder wether it's a hoax or not.


Have you read the Gnostic Gospels or other non-canonical writings (do you even know what I'm talking about)? What about the Q'uran? What about other "holy" writings from Buhddism, Hindu, Scientology, the Book of Mormon, etc? Shouldn't they read all that other nonsense as well?


Originally posted by Jakko
A reason for many people not to believe in God is, because they think belieiving in God would take away their freedom.


That depends on which god you believe in. Some really don't care what humans do, and others want to micromanage. But the real question isn't as much as what motive is there for failure to believe, but rather, what reason is there to believe? After all, you weren't born believing in god.


Originally posted by Jakko
They want to have as much fun, sex, drugs and whatnot as they please and think a religion will make this impossible.


That depends entirely on the religion. Some religions incorporate sex and drugs into the rituals. I suppose thats better than the ones that obsess over human sacrifice.


Originally posted by Jakko
Reality is that this is quite a retarded reason not to believe in God.


Please don't insult the mentally handicapped by putting them in the same category as those who have the ability to think rationally, but foolishly choose to deceive themselves instead. "Deciding" not to believe in god because you want to have fun is no less rational than "deciding" to believe in god because you want to live forever and can't stand the thought that there really might not be a purpose for your existence. Neither are rational. Rational beliefs are based on evidence, not desires.


Originally posted by Jakko
It's a strange discussion though, sometimes I think christians and nonchristians just really live in 2 different worlds.


If only that were true...



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mistress of Night
Look, has anyone ever seen an Alien? Huh? Anyone? Please do not tell me anything about UFOs. I threw a frisbee in the air once, in the shape of a Space craft. And all these people came around and started pointing at it saying; Oh My God its and Alien. Come on, there is no proof of them so stop saying that there is until you can tell me there is. The devil's just trying to decieved you. Again.




There are official documents that prove their existance.Some governments have already acknoleged their extra-terrestrial origin and there have been loads of sightings by serious witnesses backed up by radar confirmation. There are official organisations studying them in most countries...the list of evidence goes on. In a scientific point of view, life has to exist throughout the universe.

Oh,where is the proof for your God?



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 07:53 PM
link   

You keep referring to rules of decay, but have not addressed the point I made a couple of times already, which is that all observations indicate that energy is eternal and is not itself subject to the "rules of decay". But even if you could prove that one day the universe will cease to exist, there is still no basis for the assumption of the existence of something of unlimited power, and if there is something metaphysical, there is no basis for assuming it is even intelligent, let alone infinitely intelligent.

I have a question. If actual infinites are not possible, and god is said to actually have infinite power and intellect, why are these premises not contradictory?


How can energy maintain a net constant? Because an all-powerful God made it that way! It is very simple.

Infinites are only possible in the realm that God resides in. He created our universe differently. Our physical universe operates under different laws in which infinites are not possible unless God himself intercedes.

We can base the existence of an omni^3 God on many things, for example:

1. There must be an infinite-conscience source to explain our universe and the fact that things DO exist. God fits that source perfectly.

2. The conscience cannot be derived from the unconscience.

3. All creatures fit their niche. They are whole and complete and are not transitioning.


Here is some more information:
www.doesgodexist.org...



It seems your definition of life is rather complex and ad hoc. Viruses have DNA, which was your previous definition, but since they are not "cellular", they are not life. Prions have a reproductive code, but it is not DNA based, and they are not cellular.


Interesting.



Originally posted by nappyhead
Before we continue on about molecules 'evolving' into more molecules, let me ask you a question, which perhaps you can answer: where has it ever been observed that one organism evolves into another that is more complex? (Excluding viruses and bacterial diseases; because this is not real evolution)


You have to explain what you mean by "more complex". If you simply mean an increase in genetic material, it's observed all the time.

But excluding noncellular and single celled organisms is cheating, because that's where most of the "increase in complexity" is thought to have taken place - before multicellular organisms formed. One of the mechanisms of evolution involves retroviruses tampering with the genetic code causing there own genes to be passed on in future copies. These are refered to as retrotransposons.

Bacteria exchange genetic material like crazy. This is the postulated mechanism by which sexual reproduction first formed.


By more complex I mean 1 species becoming an entirely different species.



Originally posted by nappyhead
But you cannot prove that this 'experiment' has even taken place. There is know observable evidence that your theory is true.


That's what this whole discussion is about. Although not every step of the natural experiment has been observed, we have enough observations to fill in the missing pieces.


We don't have anywhere near enough observation to prove evolution... that is undebatable.



Originally posted by nappyhead
Even if that one equation is useless that doesn't change the fact that there are still thousands of others...


If that one is bogus, and you know that the author of that bogus equation also knows it's bogus, it would be best to strike that individual from the list. Presenting thousands, or even millions, of invalid arguments is evidence only of the willingness of someone to lie. The more knowingly invalid arguments that propogate, the greater the evidence of their lack of integrity. This is the method that creationists use. Throw out thousands of bogus arguments (an easy thing to do), knowing that the opposition will have to debunk each one (a hard thing to do). If you find someone willing to expend the effort to debunk them, by the time the process has finished, there's no-one left in the audience.


Most of the creationists I've talked with prefer to use evidence to prove creationism rather than evidence to disprove evolution. Your making a stereotypical argument that creationists have a lack of integrity. I could make the same argument about evolutionists and back it up with historical context. Because you believe that my one initial argument about sentient life forming is inaccurate doesn't mean that the thousands upon thousands of other arguments are inaccurate.



Originally posted by nappyhead
Why would DNA form in the first place? What purpose would it have? Answer that.


Reproduction. You seem obsessed with DNA. I don't know how the self replicating and evolving amino acid chains made no impression on you. Some of the reproductive mechanism observed by these chemicals is quite complex.


They didn't make an impression on me because they just became another amino acid chain... they never became a life form, nor anything remotely close to one.

Your statement still doesn't explain why DNA formed. Why would the parent molecule of the DNA become DNA? How could the initial chemical reaction start and progress into DNA? Why did it stop with DNA? How did it "know" to stop at DNA? How can simple molecules exhibit incredible signs of intelligence in that they "know" how to evolve in the "right" direction? How does the latter question relate to life-forms? Where does this intelligence come from? How can an intelligent process come from an unintelligent nature?



Originally posted by nappyhead
I'm talking about explanations that take into consideration natural creation of self-replicating molecules.


We understand how abiogenesis could have happened (to the point of self replicating amino acids), we observe candidate amino acids reproducing and evolving, we observe snippets of noncellular RNA reproducing. It isn't hard to fill in the missing pieces with a likely scenario by which self reproducing amino acids formed a small RNA chain which got stuck to itself during reproduction forming the first small DNA snippet. That snippet continued to mutate rapidly until the beginnings of a cell membrane formed, most likely within a clay substrate that acted as the pre-cellular cell membrane. The ability to protect itself provided this new quasi-cellular thing mobility from the protective clay substrate. Once free, each new copy that enhanced that membrane had better mobility and a higher success rate until the first fully cellular organism was complete.

What are the odds of this scenario? No-one knows, but they are not zero, and there's no reason to think they are impossibly high either. That isn't to say it's been observed, but it's a reasonable mechanism that works its way incrementally to DNA. It's enough to refute the claims of impossibility.


Not impossibility, but improbability. Evolution still has thousands of obstacles to overcome and has taken several huge punches in recent months, especially in the fields of astronomy and astrophysics where even many evolutionists concede the creationists, "have the better argument."

My theory doesn't have to overcome any improbability or impossibility. If God is real then he can explain everything. The eternal power that he exhibits can make up for any short coming in this ordered physical universe.



Originally posted by nappyhead
Without extended stability what purpose would the RNA snippets serve??
Why would nature ever create RNA in the first place? As a lone molecule it is pointless.


The answer to all these "what purpose" questions is "reproduction", which is the fundamental "purpose" of evolution. It isn't a purpose in the sense of intelligent purpose, it's merely a positively reinforcing feedback loop. Whatever does not contribute to the feedback (reproduction in the case of biology) is overwhelmed by that which does.

It's conceptually no different from putting a microphone near an amplifier. A tone will evolve extremely rapidly, even though there's no purpose for it to do so, and even though the tone starts off as completely random and informationless noise. Generally within no more than a couple of seconds, a loud sustained tone will form from nothing, based on the same principle of positive feedback that we see with self replicating organic material.

If you start from random noise, the odds of a tone spontaneously forming are impossibly small. So the tone-creationist argument would be that god made the first complete tone. The tone-evolutionist would try to sample as much of the intermediate formation as possible, and draw inferences for the undersampled middle points. The tone-creationist would pick apart each of those samples with arguments like "Yah, but we've never observed the missing middle part, and until I observe a complete continuum starting from random noise to a complete tone that looks exactly like this one, I refuse to accept your premise."

Within engineering fields, positive feedback loops are well understood. They always converge to a point of sustainability, where nonlinearities limit further growth, and so that which doesn't contribute to the sustained result is totally squelched out.

We don't need to observe the missing middle part to know it's there by induction from our knowledge of positive feedback loops in general.


I'm sorry, but the formation of sound operates under a totally different set of laws than does evolution.



Originally posted by nappyhead
I've said this twice before: I don't believe God started the "Big Bang." I was simply suggesting that even if the "Big Bang" were true it would still take a deity to start it.


You've said it, but you haven't supported it. If what you are saying is true, and it would be impossible for a universe ball to overcome gravity and begin to expand, then that isn't how it happened. That's a far cry from proving god did it. You are simply discounting all other scenarios (including unknown scenarios) without justification in order to arrive at another false dichotomy.

But even so, suppose the universe were compressed arbitrarily close to a singularity (pick however close you want to be), and gravity created a potential well that could not be overcome within any reasonable probability. It could still be overcome with unreasonable probability. Given an eternity to overcome it, the odds that the event would happen (within a quantum mechanical perspective) are 100%, no matter how small the odds are within a given interval, as long as they are not identically 0. 1 in 10^40,000 would be trivially easy to overcome given an eternal timeframe. So would any other level of improbability. If it is merely improbable, given unlimited trials, an event is guaranteed to happen.


Not every physical thing operates under a probability. The "Big Bang Ball" is one of those things. If there was no intelligent force (God) and the ball did exist (which is impossible in itself) the ball couldn't overcome its gravity--it's impossible--even if it did have an eternity. Your argument is like saying that if you had an eternity you could fly even if you stayed like you are now during that eternity.



Originally posted by nappyhead
Energy is constant, but not unlimited. As you well know, my belief is in a God who is omnipotent... "And let there be a net constant of energy," said God, and so there was. He is omnipotent. He can make energy constant in the physical universe if he wants to. That argument doesn't prove anything against my God.


What difference does it make if energy is limited or not, if it always remains constant? By the way, we don't know that energy is limited.


God created physical energy as a net constant. It appears to be a net constant because God made it that way. Very simple.



Originally posted by nappyhead
"What is the source of God?" I have said this several times already. It has been observed that physical things must have sources.


The universe is not a physical thing, in the sense of things that must have sources and are observed to decay - things within the universe - it is the container for such things. Must a bucket used to carry water have the same properties as water? You are committing a categorical fallacy by applying inferences gleaned from observation within the context of the universe and applying them to the existence of the universe itself.

We observe that any particular arrangement of energy has a source (say an apple), and decays, but we do not observe that the energy itself has a source or decays.

The fundamental laws of physics, such as conservation of energy, are much closer to direct inference of the nature of the universe. Those laws indicate the universe is eternal.

But more than that, we can arrive at the same conclusion simply through metaphysics, as long as we know that spacetime is an aspect of the universe and not something transcendental. It is meaningless to say "before the universe" once you understand that time is part of the universe.

We're done. You do not seem capable of comprehending that the universe itself is not a "thing" within the universe. It's the sum of all such things plus the framework in which they exist. You keep trying to apply properties of things within the framework of the universe to the existence of the framework itself.


SO WHAT IF ENERGY CAN CONSERVE ITSELF ETERNALLY! IT HAS TO HAVE AN INTELLIGENT SOURCE! ENERGY IS UNINTELLIGENT. GOD IS INTELLIGENT. THAT IS SO SIMPLE.

Perhaps it isn't me who fails to comprehend the incomprehensible, but you who fails to comprehend the comprehensible.



Originally posted by nappyhead
Did you forget that I said I DIDN'T HAVE A FAVORITE PIECE OF EVIDENCE?
Funny you didn't even bother to read or comment on the rest of the things I presented. Did you not know that the creation model assumes that humans were 10 or 12 feet tall???? Go to this site and look at the "New Mexico" tracks near the bottom.


I'm not going to refute every piece of BS evidence you troll off creation sites. You had your shot. If you were serious and really wanted to know more, you'd just go to talkorigins. Pretty much all the garbage evidence creationists use has already been addressed there.

What difference does it make what conjecture such a model makes. There's no model other than "magically humans were transformed" to explain why we are not still 10-12 feet tall - you can't appeal to evolution in your "model". Your "model" is nothing more than an appeal to magic at every step where it contradicts either itself or observation.


You call it "BS" yet you still can't scientifically refute what I've laid out.

Life-forms grow MUCH larger and live MUCH longer in a compressed chamber absent of UV rays. The creation model suggests that an ice shield of about 20 feet thick surrounded the Earth. This is totally logical. If you go high enough in the atmosphere you will encounter sustained sub-zero temperatures. This ice shield caused a compressed atmosphere of a high oxygenation level absent of UV rays--thus 10-12 foot humans and massive sauropods (which by the way could never have existed within the atmosphere the evolutionists believe they existed in.). Why did most of the dinosaurs die out yet many other life forms live? A meteor? No. An asteroid? No. A comet? No. Dino-gana-herpa-syphyl-aids? No. The collapse of the ice shield? YES. The collapse of the ice shield caused dinosaurs to be unable to breathe in a thinner atmosphere. "And God separated the waters above from the waters below."

I've been to talkorigins plenty of times and there isn't anything exceptional that I haven't heard before. Many world-renowned evolutionists have either become creationist-Christians or have conceded that "the creationist has the better argument." Isn't that interesting? Even despite all this "evidence" you seem to have. Evolution is based on faith and assumption.

The evolutionists have controlled origin science for over a hundred years, but now many new things are surfacing that cast doubt on their theories and further the creationist cause. Even in the 21st century we Christians can defend our faith (using science). And I thought that Jesus was just fairies and hog-wash! Humphh!



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkSide

Originally posted by Mistress of Night
Look, has anyone ever seen an Alien? Huh? Anyone? Please do not tell me anything about UFOs. I threw a frisbee in the air once, in the shape of a Space craft. And all these people came around and started pointing at it saying; Oh My God its and Alien. Come on, there is no proof of them so stop saying that there is until you can tell me there is. The devil's just trying to decieved you. Again.




There are official documents that prove their existance.Some governments have already acknoleged their extra-terrestrial origin and there have been loads of sightings by serious witnesses backed up by radar confirmation. There are official organisations studying them in most countries...the list of evidence goes on. In a scientific point of view, life has to exist throughout the universe.

Oh,where is the proof for your God?


You are just as blinded as you say "Mistress of Night" is. Have you not been reading this whole argument? We've already discussed tons of evidence about how GOD DOES EXIST!

So you say there are official documents
? Can you please cite it on this website?

[edit on 24-6-2005 by nappyhead]



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   


There is evidence for alien life. It's a fact, it exists wether you believe in it or not.

There is no evidence for God, people believe in him because of fear or ignorance.


that is, basically what i said.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by nappyhead

spam
I have a question. If actual infinites are not possible, and god is said to actually have infinite power and intellect, why are these premises not contradictory?


Infinites are only possible in the realm that God resides in. He created our universe differently. Our physical universe operates under different laws in which infinites are not possible unless God himself intercedes.


You've explained nothing. You've merely made an incomprehensible assertion.


Originally posted by nappyhead
We can base the existence of an omni^3 God on many things, for example:

1. There must be an infinite-conscience source to explain our universe and the fact that things DO exist. God fits that source perfectly.


Another baseless and meaningless assertion, I'll just skip the rest.


Originally posted by nappyhead
By more complex I mean 1 species becoming an entirely different species.


That sems to be an arbitrary threshold set at a level you don't think can be met to your satisfaction, especially when you've left the ambiguous term "species" undefined. Why would it not be sufficient to show that not only can genes increase, but chromosomes as well?


Originally posted by nappyhead
We don't have anywhere near enough observation to prove evolution... that is undebatable.


I assume that by "undebatable", you mean nothing can change your mind. I think we agree on that.


Originally posted by nappyhead
Most of the creationists I've talked with prefer to use evidence to prove creationism rather than evidence to disprove evolution. Your making a stereotypical argument that creationists have a lack of integrity.


Creationists on whole are only looking for evidence that supports their position, while simultaneously ignoring anything that doesn't. It's an advanced form of Biblical apologetics.

Are any of the leaders in the filed of creation hypothesis making any kind of a serious attempt to falsify their position? It isn't science if they aren't.


Originally posted by nappyhead
Because you believe that my one initial argument about sentient life forming is inaccurate doesn't mean that the thousands upon thousands of other arguments are inaccurate.


But it does mean that the sources supporting that invalid argument are summarily dismissed as a result of their dishonesty/blatant-ignorance (whichever the case), including their thousands upon thousands of other claims.

If you can find a different source who has not put forth that bogus argument, then we can examine another piece of evidence (one at a time only). Pick your best, and this time do a bit of research to make sure the argument is valid.

I've formed the theory that you are being lazy in this discussion and hoping that simply presenting a bucketload of bogus arguments will wear me out. Won't you help me falsify that theory?


Originally posted by nappyhead
They didn't make an impression on me because they just became another amino acid chain... they never became a life form, nor anything remotely close to one.


Of course it didn't become a life form by your arbitrary and ever changing definition of 'life'. If it had, I have full confidence you would simply have morphed the definition again.


Originally posted by nappyhead
Your statement still doesn't explain why DNA formed. Why would the parent molecule of the DNA become DNA?


You are to be congratulated! You've succeeded where many have failed in proving that I don't have all the answers. Please accept this e-cookie as a prize. :e-cookie:

I concede that since I can't show how DNA formed, that the only possible explanation is that it formed by magic. After all, you and I both know I possess all non-magic knowledge.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 01:32 AM
link   


Originally posted by nappyhead

spam
I have a question. If actual infinites are not possible, and god is said to actually have infinite power and intellect, why are these premises not contradictory?


Infinites are only possible in the realm that God resides in. He created our universe differently. Our physical universe operates under different laws in which infinites are not possible unless God himself intercedes.


You've explained nothing. You've merely made an incomprehensible assertion.


Incomprehensible, yet logical and necessary.



Originally posted by nappyhead
We can base the existence of an omni^3 God on many things, for example:

1. There must be an infinite-conscience source to explain our universe and the fact that things DO exist. God fits that source perfectly.


Another baseless and meaningless assertion, I'll just skip the rest.


Since you can't come up with a logical alternative you just call it 'baseless and meaningless.'

The fact is that physical matter, time, and energy are finite and unconscience. Energy is a net constant, but it is still finite. These things are obvious and the only logical final piece to the puzzle is that some kind of infinite-conscience being or force exists; I believe that force is the God of the Bible because he is at work in my life.



Originally posted by nappyhead
By more complex I mean 1 species becoming an entirely different species.


That sems to be an arbitrary threshold set at a level you don't think can be met to your satisfaction, especially when you've left the ambiguous term "species" undefined. Why would it not be sufficient to show that not only can genes increase, but chromosomes as well?


Chromosomes remain chromosomes and genes remain genes. With your definition of evolution you could make the case that evolution is true because dogs have become different from their initial ancestor -- or that evolution is true because human brains become 'smarter' and develop more complex emotional patterns as they get older.

My threshold is not some sky-high unrealistic expectation -- if evolution is real that is. A species is any organism with DNA; I never said it wasn't. Evolutionary science has yet to show how one organism can become an entirely different one.



Originally posted by nappyhead
We don't have anywhere near enough observation to prove evolution... that is undebatable.


I assume that by "undebatable", you mean nothing can change your mind. I think we agree on that.


My mind would be more open if there were observations or experiments that could at least demonstrate that one organism can transition to another. The experiments just show how something can become more complex, but we already knew that... that is obvious.



Originally posted by nappyhead
Most of the creationists I've talked with prefer to use evidence to prove creationism rather than evidence to disprove evolution. Your making a stereotypical argument that creationists have a lack of integrity.


Creationists on whole are only looking for evidence that supports their position, while simultaneously ignoring anything that doesn't. It's an advanced form of Biblical apologetics.


Ditto to the evolutionists.


Are any of the leaders in the filed of creation hypothesis making any kind of a serious attempt to falsify their position? It isn't science if they aren't.


In a way, yes. The creationists at least confront all the issues of evolution and show why they cannot be accurate and then proceed to show how creationism has much physical evidence to back it up. In general, the evolutionists disregard creationist evidence and claims all-together.



Originally posted by nappyhead
Because you believe that my one initial argument about sentient life forming is inaccurate doesn't mean that the thousands upon thousands of other arguments are inaccurate.


But it does mean that the sources supporting that invalid argument are summarily dismissed as a result of their dishonesty/blatant-ignorance (whichever the case), including their thousands upon thousands of other claims.


This particular argument about creationists being dishonest isn't going anywhere. Call creationists dishonest after you go through each of their arguments accordingly; one is not always representative of the many. I'd also point out that the particular source I cited several weeks ago about the 10^40,000 probability was of an eastern religion and was not a Christian. Are evolutionists, in general, dishonest and integrity-lacking because they disregard the evidence that humans and dinosaurs lived together? Are they dishonest because they brush creationists off as lunatics and fairy-tellers? Are they dishonest because they ignore the evidence that a world-wide flood occured? Or the fact that the animals could fit on the ark the Bible specifies -- easily, with plenty of room for food and provisions? Are they dishonest by arguing evolution is observable because an amino-acid chain becomes a more complex chain, but nothing else? Are they dishonest in fighting against creationism being taught in schools side-by-side with evolution even though creationism has physical, observable science to back some of its claims? Are they dishonest in forcing their beliefs on Christians, but not giving Christians the chance to give their voice in school textbooks? Are they dishonest when they tell college kids that creationism is for stupid, ignorant, idealogues, and isn't science?


If you can find a different source who has not put forth that bogus argument, then we can examine another piece of evidence (one at a time only). Pick your best, and this time do a bit of research to make sure the argument is valid.


Actually you cannot call that source 'bogus.' YOU don't know the circumstances of the primordial earth and you have no real clue how many planets like earth there are (or planets that could support life) outside of our system. You can guess and speculate, but you don't know for sure... therefore that argument may be 'bogus,' but you can't say with certainty. Anyhow-back to the argument.

I'll pick another piece of evidence, (I've already stated a lot by the way, and you have only been able to semi-debunk my 10^40,000 probability argument) but I don't have a favorite. There is a lot of good evidence out there and I don't know nearly all of it as I am a baby believer.

How about the "New Mexico" tracks:

These are definately human footprints... and are in... YOU GUESSED IT! PRE-CAMBRIAN ROCK!

"In 1987 Jerry MacDonald discovered a wide variety of beautifully preserved fossil footprints in the Robledos Mountains of New Mexico. Rumors were heard about "out of place" fossils but the site remained top secret. Finally a tantalizing article appeared in the Smithsonian Magazine, July, 1992. The article acknowledged "what paleontologists like to call, ‘problematica.’" It described what appeared to be large mammal and bird tracks that, "evolved long after the Permian period, yet these tracks are clearly Permian." With a little detective work and some luck we located the area and even more obvious "problematica.""

Look at the footprint picture on this website:

www.bible.ca...


I've formed the theory that you are being lazy in this discussion and hoping that simply presenting a bucketload of bogus arguments will wear me out. Won't you help me falsify that theory?


At least I have rebutted every statement you've put forth. You keep calling my arguments 'bogus,' but you have certainly not provided a logical explanation for universal origins besides saying that energy appears to be eternal... energy is finite and unintelligent!



Originally posted by nappyhead
They didn't make an impression on me because they just became another amino acid chain... they never became a life form, nor anything remotely close to one.


Of course it didn't become a life form by your arbitrary and ever changing definition of 'life'. If it had, I have full confidence you would simply have morphed the definition again.


My definition of life remains the same: any cellular organism containing DNA.



Originally posted by nappyhead
Your statement still doesn't explain why DNA formed. Why would the parent molecule of the DNA become DNA?


You are to be congratulated! You've succeeded where many have failed in proving that I don't have all the answers. Please accept this e-cookie as a prize. :e-cookie:

I concede that since I can't show how DNA formed, that the only possible explanation is that it formed by magic. After all, you and I both know I possess all non-magic knowledge.


I never based my whole argument of God existing on you being unable to demonstrate how DNA formed.

Please don't call this 'bogus' because it is very logical (read it, think about it, and debate it on the facts instead):

There are two possibilities:

1. God exists
2. God does not exist

The physical universe has three well-known attributes:

1. Matter, time, and energy are finite
2. The physical universe has order rather than chaos
3. The physical universe is unintelligent and unconscience

Therefore someone or something created the physical universe.

Even if you disagree with the God I worship you should understand those things. You could at least agree that someone or something formed the universe and is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Perhaps you don't believe it is God, but some kind of supernatural force, but you should at least agree with my above statement.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join