Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[DarthCloakedDwarf]

I was mostly referring to how it always seems to go like this:

Theist: "...so that's how the world began."
Atheist: "You can't prove it, so you're wrong. Here's how the world began..."

[Bauglir]

I was mostly referring to how it always seems to go like this:

Theist: "...so that's how the world began."
Atheist: "You can't prove it, so you're wrong. Here's how the world began..."

It's more like,

Theist: "...so that's how the world began."
Atheist: "You have no evidence for that. Here's how all evidence that's thus far been discovered suggests the world began..."

[Dr. Melon]

It's more like,

Theist: "...so that's how the world began."
Atheist: "You have no evidence for that. Here's how all evidence that's thus far been discovered suggests the world began..."

The problem there is that the observed evidence currently consists of skeletons and old rocks. Personally, I don't think we will ever find the exact origins of the earth. Even the evolution theory is nothing more than a theory - we'd need to find missing links to prove it. Basically, neither side has enough evidence to prove anything, so we could just shut up about it.

[DarthCloakedDwarf]

It's more like,

Theist: "...so that's how the world began."
Atheist: "You have no evidence for that. Here's how all evidence that's thus far been discovered suggests the world began..."

Which is still a leap of faith for the atheist, considering there is a good deal of evidence for intelligent design, and none of the real (as opposed to the missing links, long used as indisputable evidence for mankind's evolution that have been determined to have been all ape, all man (albeit with conditions such as rickets that distort the bones), or a hoax (such as the one combining a human jawbone with an ape's skull, or the one that was found to have been derived from a single fragment of a pig's tooth)) evidence cannot be interpreted as evidence of intelligent design.

[Phmcw]

Actually it's Fundies: "This is how the world began."
Anyone else: "That is obviously stupid because : (insert here lots of evidences)"
Yet bing bang theory , appart from being a great show, isn't a certain theory.
I mean, it's not newton laws, that even if they are not accurate remain valid most of the time (By the way, saying that general realivity is the most developped physical theory to date is like saying that Pentium II is the last brand of processors in the market).

We know cosmology and particle theory is bound to give us a few surprise so it's not the "world of god".

Dr Melon, how can I try to explain that to you... ok here you are : you post on a computer that, if we were so stupid not to have earth age mostly right could not work. The time that the light take to come from the observable edge of the universe is considerably longer that the age of he earth given by the fundie and for your own sake I sincerly hope you are trolling.

There is no evidence for intelligen design. 

[kuro_suna]

considering there is a good deal of evidence for intelligent design,

Name some

and none of the real (as opposed to the missing links, long used as indisputable evidence for mankind's evolution that have been determined to have been all ape, all man (albeit with conditions such as rickets that distort the bones),

Missing links have been unimportant ever since genetic analysis

or a hoax (such as the one combining a human jawbone with an ape's skull, or the one that was found to have been derived from a single fragment of a pig's tooth)) evidence cannot be interpreted as evidence of intelligent design.

[Citation needed]

[kuro_suna]

Personally, I don't think we will ever find the exact origins of the earth.

If we can assume that the earth was formed in a similar manner as all the other planets and solar systems in the galaxy then we do know because we can watch it happen.

[DarthCloakedDwarf]

There is no evidence for intelligen design.

It is said that the mark of an intelligent mind is the ability to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. You have the not accepting it down pat, but why don't you try and consider for a moment that you might not necessarily know everything there is to know about Life, The Universe, and Everything? Before dismissing that there is no evidence for intelligent design, why don't you consider that there might be?

For example, I have yet to hear an intelligent explanation for the origins of the universal natural laws. Not the natural laws as we know them, no, I refer to the laws themselves. What originally determined that water turns into ice crystals when it freezes to become less dense than liquid water? What originally determined that objects in motion tend to remain in motion unless acted upon by force? What originally determined that hot objects radiate light? I do not see how the physical laws that govern the universe (again, NOT our understanding of the laws, the laws themselves) could have somehow written themselves.

Dr Melon, how can I try to explain that to you... ok here you are : you post on a computer that, if we were so stupid not to have earth age mostly right could not work. The time that the light take to come from the observable edge of the universe is considerably longer that the age of he earth given by the fundie and for your own sake I sincerly hope you are trolling.

You are, again, assuming that the light from the edge of the universe wasn't created in transit. For you information, according to the "science" that you hold above everything, the objects at the edge of the universe have travelled faster than the speed of light to get where they are since the start of the universe. Faster than the universal speed limit for matter and energy. Also, don't call people trolls when they're just, as you are, stating opinion.

[DarthCloakedDwarf]

or a hoax (such as the one combining a human jawbone with an ape's skull, or the one that was found to have been derived from a single fragment of a pig's tooth)) evidence cannot be interpreted as evidence of intelligent design.

[Citation needed]

Okay, I'll go get my book. Be back in a moment.

Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation, by Dennis R Petersen.

[kuro_suna]

You are, again, assuming that the light from the edge of the universe wasn't created in transit.

So any evidence we can possibly provide is counter by god made fake evidence for some reason?

Also though we can't currently explain how the universe began creationism doesn't explain anything since its just shift the question to where god came from.

[DarthCloakedDwarf]

You are, again, assuming that the light from the edge of the universe wasn't created in transit.

So any evidence we can possibly provide is counter by god made fake evidence for some reason?

Also though we can't currently explain how the universe began creationism doesn't explain anything since its just shift the question to where god came from.

Simple. The Creator of Time exists outside Time. Has no beginning nor end, as beginnings and ends are things of Time.

[lumin]

I would put forth the argument that it's impossible to believe in Science without believing in a universal higher power or "God".

How did the Big Bang theory start?  Who created laws of physics?  How was dark matter and matter created in the first place?  How does a life form know to evolve, how was rules of evolution created?

If your answer is:

A: "I don't know, because that is as far as science knows", then you have Faith in a Higher Power that you do not comprehend yet.

B: "It was created out of absolutely NOTHING", you do not believe in true science since laws of Conservation of Mass do not allow matter and energy to be created from nothing.

I believe there is a God and that He created all things just as an "Atheist" believes that impenetrable laws have and always have existed in the universe.  These two, when we look at the primordial, fundamental principle, are one and the same.  We all believe in the same thing, we just sometimes don't realize it.

In reality, our corporeal beings are no different from a piece of rock or sand.  We have simply been organized differently, with more complexity.  I believe we, as human beings, are all here for a purpose.  Or why should we exist here at all with our biocentrist ideals and advancements of technology and art? 

The universe didn't HAVE to decide that molecules and elements should be arranged into life such as ours.  It didn't HAVE to decide to to create a perfect sphere, we call Earth, that lies within the perfect distance from the Sun with all of the perfect set of circumstances which brought us into existence.  It didn't have to decide that we should become intelligent enough to speculate at the heavens above and behold life from a greater degree of glory than the microbes that flounder below us.

But the amazing and miraculous thing is that the universe decided to let it all happen.  Again, it didn't need to do this.  It could have remained a lawless void, an empty mistake, a timeless nothing. IT choose to do something, IT decided to design.  That's evidence enough for me to know that God exists - in what form exactly, I do not know.  But I know there is a plan for all of us.

[Andir]

For example, I have yet to hear an intelligent explanation for the origins of the universal natural laws. Not the natural laws as we know them, no, I refer to the laws themselves. What originally determined that water turns into ice crystals when it freezes to become less dense than liquid water? What originally determined that objects in motion tend to remain in motion unless acted upon by force? What originally determined that hot objects radiate light? I do not see how the physical laws that govern the universe (again, NOT our understanding of the laws, the laws themselves) could have somehow written themselves.

There are several possible explanations... I direct you to String Theory as one.

You are, again, assuming that the light from the edge of the universe wasn't created in transit.

What the hell does that even mean?  The light we see could just be "God's Bubble of creation"?  That's like saying that this string I'm looking at may not be entirely made yet.

[Bauglir]

It's more like,

Theist: "...so that's how the world began."
Atheist: "You have no evidence for that. Here's how all evidence that's thus far been discovered suggests the world began..."

Which is still a leap of faith for the atheist, considering there is a good deal of evidence for intelligent design, and none of the real (as opposed to the missing links, long used as indisputable evidence for mankind's evolution that have been determined to have been all ape, all man (albeit with conditions such as rickets that distort the bones), or a hoax (such as the one combining a human jawbone with an ape's skull, or the one that was found to have been derived from a single fragment of a pig's tooth)) evidence cannot be interpreted as evidence of intelligent design.

Ah, you're one of THOSE. Now, for convenience's sake I'll assume you're of the Christian strand of intelligent design. If not, correct me and I'll just let this whole post stand as information for others who are.

Ok, here's some evidence. Cosmic microwave background radiation supports the Big Bang, as opposed to the literal interpretation of Genesis or any other religious text I'm aware of. I don't want to bother explaining all the evidence for the Solar System's formation, as I don't have the astrophysics background to argue it competently, but rest assured things didn't happen in the order given in the Bible, that's for sure. Note that plants cannot possibly have preceded the Sun, nor in fact could any life for reasons that should be obvious.

Transitional forms: Tiktaalik is a transitional form between fish and amphibians, the oldest creature with a neck, and one displaying the characteristic bone arrangement in its limbs that all tetrapods share. Archaeopteryx is a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds, once thought to be a fraud but later shown to be genuine. Synapsid reptiles show clear evolutionary trends toward mammalian traits, including the presence of a single skull opening behind the eyes (the purpose of this being increased jaw musculature), development of mammalian posture (early reptiles had a more lizardlike stance), acquisition of heterodont teeth (meaning more than one kind of tooth; look at a fish or reptile, and note that in almost all cases the teeth are identical except for size), a transition from one type of jaw attachment to the skull that is not seen anywhere else in the fossil record, and so on. If you want to talk about humans specifically transitioning from apes, although I can't imagine what difference it really makes, as it ought to hold about as well for every known species and you'd need counter-evidence to suggest that humans are different, you've probably heard of Australopithecenes, which are an intermediate form between apes and humans. Maybe that's not enough for you, so here's Homo habilis, a link between Australopithecenes and humans.

Of course, you probably think that there still ought be more evidence for evolution than we've yet found in the fossil record, if it were true. Possibly you misunderstand the ridiculous odds against any particular creature being fossilized. Or maybe you misunderstand the rate at which transitional forms tend to be crowded out; once a given feature arises, it has a tendency to be optimized very fast, evolutionarily speaking, meaning there's a very short period of time between a stable population and a stable population of its evolutionary descendants.

Fortunately, though, there IS more evidence, found not in fossils but in living organisms. As an example, have you heard of the middle ear bones? Mammals have three, everyone else who has ears has 1. That 1 is the stapes, which is derived from the hyomandibula, which was originally used in fish as a means of jaw support, which was rendered unnecessary by changes in the skull during tetrapod evolution, but found use as a sound amplifier due to its proximity to the skull. Besides this logical conclusion as to the origin of the stapes, which you could always argue is just conjecture, it is stabilized by the stapedius muscle, which is connected to the facial nerve instead of the vestibulocochlear, which is the nerve that is otherwise associated with hearing. In fish, the facial nerve attaches to muscle surrounding the hyomandibula. There is similar evidence for the other ear bones in mammals, and the tongue.

Now. There is no reason for God to have done all this if he was just magicking things out of the air. There is no reason for anything to be the way it is, if God did anything other than wind up the Big Bang and let it run. And if God did that, then there's no real difference between Atheism and Theism in how you live your life, because whether God exists or not makes no difference, whatsoever.

So. Are we DONE with "the evidence for evolution isn't conclusive" bullshit?

EDIT: 9 new posts, I can understand that. Posting this, then I'll read them.

[Andir]

I would put forth the argument that it's impossible to believe in Science without believing in a universal higher power or "God".

How did the Big Bang theory start?  Who created laws of physics?  How was dark matter and matter created in the first place?  How does a life form know to evolve, how was rules of evolution created?

If your answer is:

A: "I don't know, because that is as far as science knows", then you have Faith in a Higher Power that you do not comprehend yet.

B: "It was created out of absolutely NOTHING", you do not believe in true science since laws of Conservation of Mass do not allow matter and energy to be created from nothing.

C:  It's always been there.