Thread: God

We believe god orginally gave us freewill. But then
adam disobeyed god and ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. We don't absoultly have to do all that is good.

Thats fine, all I'm saying is that we say morals and knowing what is right and wrong come from genes and society, and you say it comes from god. Either way we can choose to follow them or not. Either both of these arguments make us robots or both give us free will. You can't say god implants something within us to help us decide whats good and evil but its free will, but genes and society which do the same thing make us robots.

And TechWins, you beat me to it! Sentaki, I gave the beginnings of proof for evolution, what happened to your end of the bargain? Yet again you provide no proof for creationism, only wrong assumptions about the points that I made in an attempt to dissuade evolution. I won't rehash what TechWins said because he did a pretty good job, but a couple of things:

We have fossils of species A, fossils of species B, fossils of species C. Speicies A lived for a period of time, then dissapers, then Speices B shows up and lives for a period of time, then it dissapears

What you are talking about is extinction, another feature of evolution. But when we think species B came from A, that means it evolved and became species B, so of course we won't see any more fossils of A! While there are many cases where one strand of a species breaks off and evolves while the others don't, most of the time evolution occurs to survive, in which case species B was better adapted to survival, and A dies off! Once again, like I said creationists are not happy unless every single fossil is found that shows every minute difference in changing from A to B.

I have a better example Dogs, look at all the breeds this is evolution right? Slight problem species have not changed.

You're right, this is evolution. Just because they aren't classified as different species yet (it takes a lot more time for a whole species to change than dogs have been around) doesn't mean that they aren't diffenent and evolution hasn't played a serious role on them. While all dogs have very common characteristics since they all evolved a awhile back from a common ancestor, all breeds have different traits and with the exception of human interference which created breeds that would not have survived in the wild on their own, the different dog traits help them survive the environment they live in currently: very thick coating for the wild dogs/wolves who live in the arctic, short fur and ability to go long times w/o water in the desert, etc. You are confusing natural evolution with human interference which creates bizarre dogs that wouldn't have survived natural evolution. If dogs breeded as fast as bacteria, we could simulate them evolving as well in a lab - not that I endorse in any way animal testing

Or the Cookie Cutter theroy.

Yeah, what does that mean and what did it have to do with what I said??

There are litterly thousands of years witch have no fossil evidence not a reltivly short period of time. Second there are also periods of millions of years that the animal did not change at all.

A thousand years compared the millinea that these species comparable to a day to human existance (actually much less than a day, but I dont want to do the math to figure out exactly how much! ) Are you willing to say that because we have no Roman archaelogical evidence dating to July 13th in the year 50 BC that they must not have existed on this day?? This argument doesn't even figure in how much harder it is to find fossils millions of years old compared to artifacts only 2000 years old! Another example of creationists using flawed logic that they would never use any where else. As for the second part of that statement, techwins stated it well!

Your missing my point entirly first of those people commited sucide, second after they all did who else wants to join? Yet Christinity is two thousand years old and people still convert even though it risk there lives.

I might have exagerated a bit with the San Diego cult, but the point I was trying to make is that EVERY religion has people who are willing to do for what they believe in. So the fact that it happens in christianity not only does NOT proove that it is true, but also cannot be considered solely a christian thing. Every religion has people converting to it, and every religion has people who risk their lives because of it.

second Using newly calculated mitochondrial DNA mutation rate, scientists are able to back date the beginnings of the human species. New data indicates there was an "Eve gene," a common mother who was ancestral to all humans, who lived a mere 6,000 years ago

Clyde said it best here, you are completely way off track by what that discovery was. Try reading an actualy science journal on the event before spouting out that it prooves anything - and when I mean read something on it, I DONT mean a christian article that is trying to use it to proove creationism. Read the journals from the people who actually took part in this discovery.

Mark 13:13 - Everyone will hate you because of me.
Mathhew 10:21 Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death

Will you stop avoiding the question? What does this mean? Just answer the question, do you or do you not believe you would be buddhist under those circumstances that I stated? And if so, do you or do you not believe you will not be admitted to heaven because of this? Answer this question instead of skirting it and show me all this proof of creationism you stated you had!

"Why do the non-believers insist on asking for physical proof of something that completely transcends physics?"

Because there is no logical reason to believe that there is anything that "transcends physics".

If there is no evidence for something, and there is no theory predicting it then there is a infintessibly small chance of it being right, like the invisable kangeroo thats jumping my shoes right now....

"Some believers lack logic and ration; likewise, some non-believers lack common sense."

Common sense is very usefull in living life but fairly useless when understanding the universe around us.

>Because there is no logical reason to believe that there is anything that "transcends physics".<

You really believe that? Wow, then there's no hope for you.

Oops, I was writing my last reply at the same time as Sentaki

Darwin came up with the theroy as a result of seeing a bunch of birds that were on an island, that worked well with there surrondings

What difference does it make where he came up with the idea? Without such an ovbious example as the Gallapogos, evolution is very hard to see, espcecially in his time period. Almost all discoveries come from "noticing" something peculiar in some obscure case.

And your whole argument about why we are so similar to apes is because god is making us out of a cookie cutter? I hope the rest of your creationist proof is better than this! So when god decided to make us in his image, he decided to use an ape cookie cutter as well?

Do you think it was easy to be a Christiain in ancient Rome? If your faith is bassed on what others think around you then why call it faith.

No I don't think it was easy to be a Christian in Rome, nor do I think its easy to be Islamic in America right now, or a different religion of any type in another country that believes something else. You keep bringing up these things as though they are solely a christian thing and THEY AREN'T! These traits are NOT indigenous to Christianity but to ALL religions.

So DNA knows when it needs to change?

For you to say this implies that you know nothing about evolution and instead just spouting out "choice phrases" that you probably learned from fellow christians. Go learn about evolution before you decide to argue against it again.

And DON'T forget to answer my final question from my last post! Directly!

The bell rings...

Sorry, one more thing and I'll stop for now, I promise

People are making the very false assumption that radio active dating is inaccurate because it often dates things to a plus or minus of a million years or so. After all a million years is a LONG time therefore its inaccurate right? Well, yes and no. A million years is a long time, but compare it to the time period we are talking about. When we say say something was alive 100 million years ago, what difference does it make whether its 101 million or 99 million? Nothing. The plus minus of radioactive dating is always very small compared to the time period in question making it in the end quite accurate. Astronomers will say that another galaxy is millions of light years away plus or minus millions of miles, but does this inaccuracy mean its possible its right on the other side of Jupiter? Of course not!

And if one makes the VERY faulty assumption that radio active dating is so bad that it is claiming something like dinosaurs were alive millions of years ago when instead they were alive only a couple thousand years ago, they why do we get different results with humans and other animals? Why don't humans and animal remains from 4000 years ago show up as millions of years with carbon dating?

Okay, I'll stop

*in response to the thread as a whole*

If there is a God, he must have been tired when he created the rest of the universe... because when I look at pictures of galaxy clusters, it looks like someone sneezed a bunch of stars onto a black piece of paper.

"You really believe that? Wow, then there's no hope for me trying to get my points across..."

Fair enough.

"For your point, I completely agree. BTW, what's your kangeroo's name?"

Joseph, and he has technicolour dream fur.

current theory suggests

boy that sure sounds like something based in fact to me....

..... We do not know the exact formula of the intial replicator, it is an active area of research in fact its an area i am very interested in doing my PhD in, but it may take a long time to find it if we find it at all.

But that is irrelevant we gain a broad grasp of how life formed without knowing the exact details:

We know there was a "soup" of organic chemicals 4.2 billion years ago when life began, we know that the environment was capable of allowing the formation of complex large molecular structures. We know that the building blocks for life forms spontaneously under those same conditions. We know self replicating molecules are possible (in fact one has been synthesised). And we know that life gets progressively "simpler" as we go back through time: Metazoa (multi-cellular animals) forming 600 million years ago, Eukaryotes forming 1.8 billion years ago, photosynthesis starting 3.5 billion years ago and prokaryotes appearing 3.8 billion years ago.