The argument was that science has explained so much therefore God is barely even probable anymore. That's completely false..science has not answered a single fundemental question about life, or purpose, or the human condition. It just points to vaguer and vaguer conclusions, which draw entirely upon the imagination. The belief in abiogenesis for instance is a metaphysical belief. There is absolutely no evidence to ever suggest that life came from non-life. Nor is the evidence any good that something as complex as a cell or DNA could ever arise via random mutation. A billion monkeys on a billion typewriters are never going to write shakesphere. Even someone like dawkins admits the Universe appears to be designed..but posits that to explain that there are multiple universes and we just happen to live in the one that appears to be designed. That's not science, that's called living in denial.


>> ^messenger:
But, but, but, science DOES explain all the things that it claims to explain. It explains exactly and only those things. It just doesn't claim to explain everything! If God did start the big bang, and science eventually learns every single fact there is to know about the universe, it will be discovered that God exists and started the big bang. Then God and his role in the creation of the universe will be scientific fact. Same with Russel's Teapot -- science may one day prove that it exists. In the meantime, however, there's no sense in believing it, nor god. Science isn't anti-God; it's pro-truth.
So the rest of your argument is that God exists because science doesn't yet have the answers to everything?
MAKE SENSE!!!
(edited)>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all

Here's basic logic..

nothing comes from nothing

something exists

Meaning, that unless the ultimate cause is eternal nothing would exist. This isn't a 50/50 probability..it's a 100 percent certainty.


>> ^erlanter:
Arrogant atheist: I don't know everything, but love evidence because it sheds light on the amazing world around me. I would believe in a god if there was evidence.
Humble believer: I know god made this amazing world for me. I know what god wants for me. I communicate with god daily. I know anguish awaits those who spurn god. Nothing can shake my faith.
Cheers.


>> ^RedSky:
If you are going to use the how did the Universe get here argument you must first justify how your chosen god came to be. "Always existed" is not good enough and I'm sure you're perfectly intelligent enough to see why.
Until then you must admit we (for the sake of argument, ignoring anything science has discovered on this topic so far) are equally oblivious when it comes to the origins of existence.
Going by basic probability too, that A is always more likely A & B, you should also be able to see how using basic logic, the universe existing because God created it having always existed is a less likely proposition than the universe having always existed in and of itself.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.
Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.
You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

But, but, but, science DOES explain all the things that it claims to explain. It explains exactly and only those things. It just doesn't claim to explain everything! If God did start the big bang, and science eventually learns every single fact there is to know about the universe, it will be discovered that God exists and started the big bang. Then God and his role in the creation of the universe will be scientific fact. Same with Russel's Teapot -- science may one day prove that it exists. In the meantime, however, there's no sense in believing it, nor god. Science isn't anti-God; it's pro-truth.

So the rest of your argument is that God exists because science doesn't yet have the answers to everything?

MAKE SENSE!!!

(edited)>> ^shinyblurry:

Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all

If you are going to use the how did the Universe get here argument you must first justify how your chosen god came to be. "Always existed" is not good enough and I'm sure you're perfectly intelligent enough to see why.

Until then you must admit we (for the sake of argument, ignoring anything science has discovered on this topic so far) are equally oblivious when it comes to the origins of existence.

Going by basic probability too, that A is always more likely A & B, you should also be able to see how using basic logic, the universe existing because God created it having always existed is a less likely proposition than the universe having always existed in and of itself.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.
Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.
You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.
Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.
You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

@Sagemind

Being a slave to another person is a wretched life.
Being a slave to a concept is unfathomable.
Religion is a concept of man.
Religion is a concept designed to subjugate and control a population.

Religion is a man made system that has been used for good and evil. We know God through faith alone.

There was a time when education was unheard of and only a relative few were exposed to it. Rulers kept everyone else dumb so they could be controlled. Religion was and always will be designed as a tool to control. In the beginning there were many sects and religions. As the religions caught hold, they slowly choked out as many other religions as they could to exercise their brand of control. Christianity happened to be one of the few that was more ruthless at destroying the others. (Many are documented in the bible - Genocide in the name of religion included.) The smaller religions only needed to be discredited and be called cults - as they continue to do today.

The early church was heavily persecuted by many different dictators. Believers were frequently martyred because they reufsed to worship other Gods. The expansion of the early church under these circumstances is one of the positive evidences for Gods existence as it is unlikely it could have happened in that climate of persecution. There was nothing to gain from being a Christian in those days except being an outcast.

Genocide is committed in the name of many things, and today the masses are no less controlled by secular Governments than they have been under religious ones. Bad behavior is not an exclusive to religion, it is the nature of man himself, who could corrupt anything beneficial. That people have acted badly in the name of Christianity isn't proof of anything except mans inherent corruption.

Now, many, many lifetimes later, man has become educated and has thrown the shackles of religion (a form of slavery) and science has emerged as we seek for fact instead of fiction. There are many who are still bound to religion and can't function without the masters hand to lead them. They have lost, it seems, the ability to reason, with cognitive thinking, on their own.

Many need the presence of a deity to explain the un-explainable. It's a neat fully-packaged explanation that never needs unwrapping. It is easy. It's man's nature to pick the easy route. To many it just makes more sense. To others, those more cerebral, they want to see what is underneath. They refuse to accept what is fed to them and dig a little deeper. What they find is a world of control and dominance but also a world of wonder where education can lead one on many journeys.

The question of whether the Universe is random or deliberately created is not only credible, but utterly necessary and fundemental to understanding who man is and how he relates to the Universe. Perhaps you should try Contrary to popular belief, intelligent design is a scientific theory which seeks to explain the Universe just as evolution does. The question of God is central to philosophy and our most noted philosophers have debated this question of Gods existence throughout recorded history. The complexity of life is inadequately explained by materialistic processes, and many of these theories, such as evolution, are metaphysical to begin with.

There is a percentage of the population that operates on the right side of the brain where zeros and one are absolutes and in-fact they are. They work on a puzzle where the pieces are scattered everywhere in a dark room. The pieces don't always fit perfectly so someone else pulls them apart and the big picture is corrected. Every once in a while a strobe light goes on and larger mistake is noticed and we go back to restructuring out truths.

Religion want's to turn out the lights forever, kick everyone out of the room and continue to control those free thinkers. Individuals with original thoughts scares religion. The control will crumble and individuality will rein. Their fear is that without the control, chaos will ensue. What they don't see is that to stifle education is to bring about that which they fear most.

The most basic and fundemental questions of life have not been advanced one iota. There is a higher truth operating here: Man advances theories of life which convenience his own personal hypocripsy and enable him to do evil without consequence. This is a basic truth:

John 3:20

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

1 Corinthians 2:14

“The natural (unredeemed) man receiveth not the things of the (holy) Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned”.

1 Corinthians 3:19

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

I still am not sure which they fear most. Is it the chaos itself, because look around, it exists with or without religion and often because of religion. Or is it the fear of loosing out on the promise of a Utopian forever. A mythical heaven where every single person has a different definition of. A place of fantasy.

Religion works on some of you. You remain a cow in this life so that you can experience a better life later. Well, heads up people, This is the life and you've been duped. Religion has brain washed you to do it's bidding. You fight the good fight for what you've been told is true by a hierarchy of rulers who seek the top roles in dominance. This isn't just true in Christianity, it goes for all religions. You are the pawns, the people on the front lines, leading the way, taking the brunt of accusation while the leaders at the top live the good live. You send your money (tithes) to them while you scrape to live a decent life.

I neither came to Christianity out of fear, or because I desired another life over this one. Nor was I indoctrinated or persuaded. Rather I was instructed in the spirit, and received personal revelation of the truth. I came to it independently and my convinctions rest solely on that. Your belief about an interdepedence due to a weakness of mind or character is wholly invalid.

I for one will not erase myself to the "Greater Good" of a hierarchy that cares more about it's well being/proliferation than it cares for the individual thought of a free thinking individual. It is my nature to put my thoughts and opinions before those of a mindless juggernaut that is religion. I will not allow my free thought to be controlled, twisted or stifled by anyone or anything.

Anyone with self respect should feel the same. Giving up on reality and calling it faith is really just saying, "Wow, that's just to much to take in and comprehend, I'm just going to shut down now. I will never have to concern myself with trying to keep all the balls in the air anymore. I will let a God sit in the driver's seat and ride out the rest of my life as a passenger." On top of that you spend all your days yelling out the window that you've got it so easy, you don't have to drive, you'll get to enjoy things when you get to your destination. What you fail to see is the person in the driver's seat doesn't have a license to drive, or a body or anything, they are plain fiction and the end of the road is a brick wall. When will you look up and see that you should have taken the wheel and honored the privilege of the ride before it was too late.

This imagined heirarchy of yours is a convenient strawman for your arguments about personal freedom, but it doesn't bear out. There is no conspiracy here. The body of Christ is so fractured at this time that a belief there is a heirarchy of control is simply ludicrous. Belief in God is about personal conviction and personal responsibility. Convinction because we are all sinners who have transgressed Gods laws. Responsibility because God is the moral authority who judicates our lives. You seem to think you're free, but anyone who sins is a slave to sin. You seem to think you're without a god, but you have something you worship. Whether its something in the world, or in the case of many secular humanists, yourself, there is something out there that you bow down and kiss every day of your life. Your freedom is just another box that you feel comfortable in. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

1 Corinthians 13:11-13

When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

The gaps are fundemental..here are some more quotes:

"Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.)

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)

"What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types." (Carroll, Robert L., "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," in Trends in Evolution and Ecology 15(1):27-32, 2000, p. 27.)

"Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion ...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. ...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational evolutionary intermediates between documented fossil species." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89.)

"He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search....It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration...The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (George, T. Neville, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, pp. 1-3.)

"Despite the bright promise - that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing’ evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467.)

"It is interesting that all the cases of gradual evolution that we know about from the fossil record seem to involve smooth changes without the appearance of novel structures and functions." (Wills, C., Genetic Variability, 1989, p. 94-96.)

"So the creationist prediction of systematic gaps in the fossil record has no value in validating the creationist model, since the evolution theory makes precisely the same prediction." (Weinberg, S., Reviews of Thirty-one Creationist Books, 1984, p.

"We seem to have no choice but to invoke the rapid divergence of populations too small to leave legible fossil records." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 99.)

"For over a hundred years paleontologists have recognized the large number of gaps in the fossil record. Creationists make it seem like gaps are a deep, dark secret of paleontology..." (Cracraft, in Awbrey & Thwaites, Evolutionists Confront Creationists", 1984.)

"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it’s rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)

Chicago Field Museum, Prof. of Geology, Univ. of Chicago, "A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks...One of the ironies of the creation evolution debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this 'fact' in their Flood (Raup, David, "Geology" New Scientist, Vol. 90, p.832, 1981.)

"As we shall see when we take up the creationist position, there are all sorts of gaps: absence of graduationally intermediate ‘transitional’ forms between species, but also between larger groups -- between say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be." (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65-66.)

"Transitions between major groups of organisms . . . are difficult to establish in the fossil record." (Padian, K., The Origin of Turtles: One Fewer Problem for Creationists, 1991, p. 18.)

"A persistent problem in evolutionary biology has been the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long term gradual transformations of single lineages are rare and generally involve simple size increase or trivial phenotypic effects. Typically, the record consists of successive ancestor-descendant lineages, morphologically invariant through time and unconnected by intermediates." (Williamson, P.G., Palaeontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic Molluscs from Turkana Basin, 1982, p. 163.)

"What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." (Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)

"The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured . . . ‘The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin’s stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.’ . . . their story has been suppressed." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p. 71.)

"One must acknowledge that there are many, many gaps in the fossil record . . . There is no reason to think that all or most of these gaps will be bridged." (Ruse, "Is There a Limit to Our Knowledge of Evolution," 1984, p.101.)

"We are faced more with a great leap of faith . . . that gradual progressive adaptive change underlies the general pattern of evolutionary change we see in the rocks . . . than any hard evidence." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 57.)

"Gaps between families and taxa of even higher rank could not be so easily explained as the mere artifacts of a poor fossil record." (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p.22.)

"To explain discontinuities, Simpson relied, in part, upon the classical argument of an imperfect fossil record, but concluded that such an outstanding regularity could not be entirely artificial." (Gould, Stephen J., "The Hardening of the Modern Synthesis," 1983, p. 81.)

"The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life’s history - not the artifact of a poor fossil record." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 59.)

"The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 163.)

"Gaps in the fossil record - particularly those parts of it that are most needed for interpreting the course of evolution - are not surprising." (Stebbins, G. L., Darwin to DNA, Molecules to Humanity, 1982, p. 107.)

"The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 40.)

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (Gould, Stephen J., "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?," 1982, p. 140.)

"The lack of ancestral or intermediate forms between fossil species is not a bizarre peculiarity of early metazoan history. Gaps are general and prevalent throughout the fossil record." (Raff R.A, and Kaufman, T.C., Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, 1991, p. 34.)

"Gaps between higher taxonomic levels are general and large." (Raff R.A, and Kaufman, T.C., Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, 1991, p. 35.)

"We have so many gaps in the evolutionary history of life, gaps in such key areas as the origin of the multicellular organisms, the origin of the vertebrates, not to mention the origins of most invertebrate groups." (McGowan, C., In the Beginning . . . A Scientist Shows Why Creationists are Wrong, 1984, p. 95.)

"If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after. But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory." (The Guardian Weekly, 26 Nov 1978, vol. 119, no 22, p. 1.)

“People and advertising copywriters tend to see human evolution as a line stretching from apes to man, into which one can fit new-found fossils as easily as links in a chain. Even modern anthropologists fall into this trap . . .[W]e tend to look at those few tips of the bush we know about, connect them with lines, and make them into a linear sequence of ancestors and descendants that never was. But it should now be quite plain that the very idea of the missing link, always shaky, is now completely untenable.” (Gee, Henry, "Face of Yesterday,” The Guardian, Thursday July 11, 2002.)

>> ^Drax:
Shiny, it's kind of like you're saying,
Ok, we have: . -> O
And you say, ah! But there's no transitional species that spans the gap of . and O
Then we find . -> o -> O
And you say, ah! But there's no transitional species that spans the gap of . and o
or o and O
Basically, the more evidence we find.. the stronger your argument gets! <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/oh.gif">
ok, that last part's just a joke.. but seriously.. the other parts ARE your stance.
It's either that, or you're looking at o and e and expecting to find æ, which just doesn't happen.

So, in other words, you don't have a counter argument except "lalalalalallaalalallalaalllaalala im not listening to you now lalalalallalalalaa i cant hear you lalalalalallaalalala" evolution is right, evolution is true, evolution is my friend, evolution evolution evolution evolution

>> ^gwiz665:
I'm not saying that you have to be an evolutionary scientist to make an argument, I'm just saying you didn't make this particular argument.
The really funny thing is that it's utterly, hopelessly false and misleading. The theory is sound; it explains reality as it is; it can predict. You can use it to create artificial evolution too, even the most stubborn creationist farmers do it.
Evolution is fact, no matter how much you don't want it to be.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Yeah, like you're an evolutionary biologist right? I'll be interested to see your personal research...should win a noble. Give me a break. The theory is fundementally flawed and indefensible..I already know how you're going to reply..and im sorry to tell you the facts aren't on your side. >> ^gwiz665:
There's some lovely quote-mining there. I'll make a proper debunking when I get home and have time to do it.
It's fun to google random excerpts of your post, seems like much of the work was done for you
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/recorded_history.htmhttp://signsofthelastdays.com/archives/how-to-disprove-evolution
http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people
A bunch of your quotes are debunked here
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/contents.html but I haven't checked them all

I'm not saying that you have to be an evolutionary scientist to make an argument, I'm just saying you didn't make this particular argument.

The really funny thing is that it's utterly, hopelessly false and misleading. The theory is sound; it explains reality as it is; it can predict. You can use it to create artificial evolution too, even the most stubborn creationist farmers do it.

Evolution is fact, no matter how much you don't want it to be.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Yeah, like you're an evolutionary biologist right? I'll be interested to see your personal research...should win a noble. Give me a break. The theory is fundementally flawed and indefensible..I already know how you're going to reply..and im sorry to tell you the facts aren't on your side. >> ^gwiz665:
There's some lovely quote-mining there. I'll make a proper debunking when I get home and have time to do it.
It's fun to google random excerpts of your post, seems like much of the work was done for you
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/recorded_history.htmhttp://signsofthelastdays.com/archives/how-to-disprove-evolution
http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people
A bunch of your quotes are debunked here
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/contents.html but I haven't checked them all

Yeah, like you're an evolutionary biologist right? I'll be interested to see your personal research...should win a noble. Give me a break. The theory is fundementally flawed and indefensible..I already know how you're going to reply..and im sorry to tell you the facts aren't on your side. >> ^gwiz665:
There's some lovely quote-mining there. I'll make a proper debunking when I get home and have time to do it.
It's fun to google random excerpts of your post, seems like much of the work was done for you
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/recorded_history.htm
http://signsofthelastdays.com/archives/how-to-disprove-evolution
http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people
A bunch of your quotes are debunked here
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/contents.html but I haven't checked them all

@longde

hehe. An atheist quoting the bible is a bit like a prisoner suing the victim of his crime. I have spoken the words of truth here plainly, neither am I ashamed of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. You have heard ample and abundent testimony about the Word the leads to eternal life. I have been told I shouldn't even use the bible or speak about it, so the rejection of the testimony is clear. Since you have rejected scripture, there is no further obligation here, scriptural or otherwise.

In regards to this thread, this will be my last reply here. The comment system here is fundementally broken and I am going to move this conversation to a new venue because of the freezing that is going on, if any of you wish to follow. I will be posting a video tonight which I am sure will be controversial enough to start another conversation on this topic, so look for that.

A five year old shouldn't even be thinking like that, let alone saying it..imagine what he'll be saying five years from now..perhaps you need to review what kind of media he is exposed to..

if it were me, i would make it known that i never want to hear that language come out of his mouth again, and if it does, its going to get washed out with soap.

yes its funny when kids swear..but its definitely not psychologically healthy for them to develop these kind of negative thought patterns and attitudes..this is his time to free of the worlds bullshit..to feel special..to smell the flowers and play in them too..

help him deal with situations that make him scared, or angry..like when other kids mistreat him. teach him respect for others, and for himself. he needs to have a fundemental respect for people, and life, if you want him to be well adjusted..otherwise this marginally amusing banter is going to turn into something wicked later in life

Thank you. That would be my point. Plus, it'd be nice to know what rules he's making; the rules or laws being: good and evil. Both are very contrived definitions and even in the course of the bible the definition changes (which was once a strong point in my understanding of God and being Mormon; you would need a prophet or relay to update "the rules" as time changes, otherwise "the works" would be forever outdated).
But, more to the point on a very simple design layer. What rules in Gods world (this was one I couldn't counter in my Mormon days) are below or above God. Good and Evil seem to be at a priority level above God, as they are "obvious". But, if God made them and controls them that negates ANY reason to have them in the first place, because as I said before they would be contrived values. Which would force me "morally" to not follow God as he seems to blame people on some sort of whimsical basis (Isiah is full of it, for the religious; the old testament is a living breathing example of this in action--constantly). As you said it seems he's schizoid or sociopathic, or both (could have multiple personality disorder, which explains A LOT). On the believing side and from a "Devil's Advocates" view; God seems to have possibly "made up" the Devil. There is very little information on the Devil and Hell. The one reference we have to punishment in Hell talks of burning lakes. The devil himself is almost never described, or attributed; the same as Hell. There's half as much information about the "bad guy" as their is about Jesus. We never even get a quote for or from him, post angelic contributions.
Anyway if evil is a "given" value, even as simple as: doing the opposite of what God wants. That means evil and good are laws on a level above God's control, although he can manipulate it. That shows that even on a fundamental "physics" or "architecture" setup, there are things that are already more powerful than him (such as any law that runs heaven, hell, Earth, God's "nature" (if you can describe it or he can, then it already shows that language is at a higher level as it cannot be communicated otherwise).
Anyway, none of this is factual proof, but a lot of these type of things should be sufficient enough to put the whole idea or question of God of to the side for this life. It should also make you realize that even if you run into a God later on, you should still question ALWAYS; or least you may follow the Devil...


Okay, well, in our ealier discourse I was wondering what bible you were reading since you didn't seem to understand the fundementals. Now, I know..you were reading the mormon bible. Try reading the New Testament sometime, because everything you're talking about is covered there.

First, good and evil are not rules which God is constrained by. They are not some sort of higher (higher than God) principle that dictates Gods behavior. There isn't anything above God. He is the uncaused cause, the eternal cause. There is no one that is a God to Him. He created everything, and not a thing exists that was not made by His will. Good comes from God. The bible says that every good gift is from above, from the Father of Lights. There is no other model or conception of what good is except what God is. The bible says there is no one good, not one. Meaning that all fall short of Gods grace, that all are sinners. Being perfect, nothing could be added to God to make Him more perfect. So, He is the ultimate good of all things. If God did not exist, there would be no such thing as good.

You say you're not sure about what rules we're supposed to live by. Well, we don't need an update for that one. God already told us what rules we should by when He gave us the Ten Commandments. Now, there is a question about the Sabbath, how Christians should observe it, but it still applies. The rules are His law. Being a moral and just God, He created rules which would lead to living a moral life. God Himself is not under His own law, and only sinners would need a law in the first place. There was no law before the fall. Evil is committing a sin. Sinning is defying Gods will.

Now you say there is nothing direct about Devil in the bible. Untrue. The Devil speaks for himself several times in both the Old and the New Testaments. That is why I suggested you read at least the NT. I don't know what is in the Mormon bible but I can assure you that as far as this matter is concerned, it is wholly inaccurate. Now, I also see you accusing God of being evil, or crazy or both. I think, if you have any respect left for God, that you should choose your words with more care. It says in the bible we will account for every idle word that we speak. Do you want to have to explain why you said these things about God to His face? I know I wouldn't..

In reply to this comment by siaiaiaaaaaa:
Enzoblue


'Self Regulation' is exactly what the Bush administration, and here in Britain, did. They said 'the free market knows best, knows more than us. Let them get on with it'.

And they deregulated everything. And look what happened.

All you people ever seem to understand is black and white. The fact is for most things in life to work, especially in economics, there's always a compromise that needs to be found.
You americans have all been brainwashed by the red army propaganda from way back when, and anything remotely to do with government you cry of communism. How absurd.

Deregulation played a major part in the financial meltdown. As westy says, business fundementally is about exploiting people. If you make a profit on something, you are exploiting. If you were to leave Healthcare to the private world, their fundamental concern is to maximise shareholder wealth - not to maximise the nations health.

You can go on deluding yourselves about glorious capitalism - history and evidence has shown.........it doesn't work. You need a bit of both. You need free markets to keep prices down and generate competition, but you also need governments to not let companies get too huge, create barriers to entry into markets (which is the current situation, thus suppressing competition) and have taxes which benefit people who aren't rich (i.e. 99% of the world population.....)
I advise you to read some books on this myth of 'free market is best'.
The cost of capitalism: robert j barbera
The myth of the rational market: justin fox
House of cards: william d cohan

The last one especially talks about the greed of wall street you hear so much about, but don't seem to acknowledge. When youve got money as a motivating factor, all ethical concerns and welfare of others go straight out the window. If you want your perfect free market - that is the exact mentality that will take place - which would be fine if everyone was starting off on an even plate, with the same amount of assets - but they're not. The inequality between poor/average/rich is so huge it would never be fair to begin with.

The problem of course now is politicians see their positions as careers, rather than civil servants. But with a good government, with good people, if that will ever happen, proper regulation and control of the markets has to take place to ensure the equality gap doesn't become even more wide than it is at the moment. Oil company profits anyone?


good answer.
that would have taken me..oh....a small novella to get my idea across.
well said brother.

Enzoblue


'Self Regulation' is exactly what the Bush administration, and here in Britain, did. They said 'the free market knows best, knows more than us. Let them get on with it'.

And they deregulated everything. And look what happened.

All you people ever seem to understand is black and white. The fact is for most things in life to work, especially in economics, there's always a compromise that needs to be found.
You americans have all been brainwashed by the red army propaganda from way back when, and anything remotely to do with government you cry of communism. How absurd.

Deregulation played a major part in the financial meltdown. As westy says, business fundementally is about exploiting people. If you make a profit on something, you are exploiting. If you were to leave Healthcare to the private world, their fundamental concern is to maximise shareholder wealth - not to maximise the nations health.

You can go on deluding yourselves about glorious capitalism - history and evidence has shown.........it doesn't work. You need a bit of both. You need free markets to keep prices down and generate competition, but you also need governments to not let companies get too huge, create barriers to entry into markets (which is the current situation, thus suppressing competition) and have taxes which benefit people who aren't rich (i.e. 99% of the world population.....)
I advise you to read some books on this myth of 'free market is best'.
The cost of capitalism: robert j barbera
The myth of the rational market: justin fox
House of cards: william d cohan

The last one especially talks about the greed of wall street you hear so much about, but don't seem to acknowledge. When youve got money as a motivating factor, all ethical concerns and welfare of others go straight out the window. If you want your perfect free market - that is the exact mentality that will take place - which would be fine if everyone was starting off on an even plate, with the same amount of assets - but they're not. The inequality between poor/average/rich is so huge it would never be fair to begin with.

The problem of course now is politicians see their positions as careers, rather than civil servants. But with a good government, with good people, if that will ever happen, proper regulation and control of the markets has to take place to ensure the equality gap doesn't become even more wide than it is at the moment. Oil company profits anyone?