God

[Bitter]

Hmm, I get here you're coming from, but i fear you maybe oversimplifying the problem.
Firstly, we do have good evidence for evolution, not just in a better than publicised fossil record than religious people would have you believe, but in genetics themselves, which show clear correlation between us and bacteria, and all other species having come from a common ancestor, mentioned briefly in the Dan Dennett lecture i posted a link to.

There are a few problems with the arm turning into a wing dilemma you point out. Firstly that wings alone are not enough to fly; a honeycomb bone structure, muscle structures and feathers are all fairly vital to flight, as well as an innate ability to fly I am told from a friend doing natural sciences at Cambridge. She informs me that some animals show characteristics of other animals which may be of use to them, but they do not possess the ability to use it. The point being that an arm evolving towards a wing wouldn't be an advantage in itself. Also, as you say evolution is random, and so to imagine a half-arm-half-wing is to suggest that the arm is in "mid transformation" aiming at becoming a wing, which as you said yourself isn't what happens. These evolutions obviously take millions, even billions of years, and any number of influences can affect how they turn out.

It is a tricky subject to articulate a proper response to, and there are many points to be covered, not necessarily satisfactorily, and certainly not on a roller coaster forum. It is a very interesting debate, but we have somewhat strayed from the main topic itself, and taken the discussion about as far as it should probably go. I wouldn't mind furthering our discussion in other ways however, as I always love a good intelligent debate.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

As for correlation between.. things. "God's artistic signature" explains that rather well.

If you'd like to provide evidence of the millions of fossil records required to proove Darwinian theory, that Darwin himself said there would need to be to prove his theory correct... Then go ahead. They don't exist and they probably never will be found even though I think they probably are there. Fossil records are slim at best.

Evoltuion is fact, Darwinian evolution is.. errrugh.

The point is, evolution doesn't cancle out creationism unless you take everything in the Bible literally. Few people do.

 

[Smithy]

I'm not getting drawn into this huge debate going on, so I'll just keep it short.

There is one question that neither science nor religion can answer.

'And how did that get there'.

It's all well and good believing in God, believing in a divine being etc... But the question is still there as to how did they get there. And then how did that. And so on and so forth.

The same applies to Science. The Big Bang Theory. How did all that matter get there? And so on and so forth.

There really will never be an answer to this, at least not in my lifetime. It's impossible to exactly nail the point of existence. Personally, I believe that people started following religion because they were the people that needed to believe in an existence, that needed to know how we got here.

 

[Bitter]

I'm not really sure what your post is trying to say to be honest. What exactly do you mean by "Darwinian evolution", and how does it differ to simply "evolution"? I personally do not have access to fossil records no... but neither do you, so I think neither of us are in a position to comment on their validity. Secondly, I've never heard of "God's artistic signature", and would like to hear more on it, but just from the name alone I'm rather expecting it to be pretty terrible. If it's as a counter argument to genetics, then i must say that the facts shown by genetics are very clear, again my friend is studying them at the moment, and has told me about the various techniques used to study the areas and the results they provide, and they do rather conclusively proof the existence of evolution.

Evolution simply explains how live evolved on Earth from the very simple to the very complex, obviously it doesn't deal with how the Earth, the Moon and the stars got here side of creationism no.... but I don't see how that relates to what we were discussing.

Edit: And I agree with the above that religion probably came about to answer the unanswerable, and also as previously mentioned by others as a means to stop fear of death by providing an explanation for what happens afterwards. However, as discussed before the "what came before that and that and that" argument can be presented in a more convincing way. I cannot recommend reading those books or watching those lectures enough if you are even slightly interested in the subject.

 

[Hyde]

My take on it is simply this.

According to the Big Bang Theory, the entire universe, all of its content and matter, was contained in one beyond microscopic spec with absolutely zero kinetic energy.

A complete ball of true, potential energy.

Now, in order for the Big Bang to have occurred, something had to have moved.

Yet, according to the simple laws of Physics and Inertia, nothing can move if everything started out not moving. (remember Newton's First Law)

So something on the outside of this ball of matter (the universe) had to have given it a poke, a nug which in turn caused the Big Bang.

I simply believe God to be that extra bit of unexplained energy which caused the Big Bang.

Further, with the belief of anti-matter, that being to counterpart of the matter which makes us up, in order for the Big Bang to be valid, there would have to be the same amount of anti-matter as matter in the Bang. (remember, Newton's Third Law)

Yet if this was true, the anti-matter would cancel out the matter, which means the universe would not have been created, everything simply converted into energy.

Bottom-line, we were a mistake.

The universe shouldn't have happened according to current theories.

I further believe God to simply be the explanation for the creation of the universe, the force for which we cannot explain nor understand.

 

[Bitter]

Firstly, Newtons Laws apply to the macroscopic, not the microscopic. The laws regarding atoms and electrons and the very small have nothing to do with Newtons Laws.
Well they may do, and this is what some people like Steven Hawking are working towards, a Unified Theory which combines the theory of the very small with the theory of the very large. But there's no luck there yet, so your arguments using these laws to counter the big band theory don't really hold. I'm not an expert on the big bang by any means, and know relatively little about the subject, I am merely pointing out what i do know.

Another point i'd make is to say that kinetic energy is relative anyways, and so to say something has "zero kinetic energy" is meaningless, in relation to what?

There are various definitions of "God", the most common being a sentient being which knowingly created the Universe and controls it. What you're saying suggests that you don't necessarily believe that whatever created the universe was intentional, you are merely assigning whatever did create the universe with the term "God", which can obviously cause confusion, and you wouldn't worship a force or whatever mechanical process created the universe, so i fear God isn't the word which should be used.
Or you do believe that God intentionally created the Big Bang to create the Universe, in which case, God away.

 

[Hyde]

Bitter, you could convince someone into just about any religion you want!

:lol:

Concerning the ball of matter, it was not zero kinetic energy, but full potential energy.

So something would have definitely had to have hit it on the outside in order to cause the Big Bang, something outside of our universe.

And yes, i do believe God intentionally cause the Big Bang, as I mentioned with anti-matter, somehow there is more matter than anti-matter in this universe, which physically cannot be possible.

So someone or something outside of our understanding obviously wanted something to happen.

 

[Bitter]

Lol, I'll take that as a compliment thanks. I'll just leave it at the comment that I'm not sure about your assertions concerning matter and anti-matter and how it would therefore prove the existence of God. I don't have enough knowledge to outright say you're wrong, but similarly I guess it relates to the point of knowing in depth about the subject before using it as evidence of God.

One point regarding anti-matter and matter is concerning black holes. Matter and anti-matter can spontaneous form from nothing, as both cancel out each others masses and energies by forming exactly at opposites. However, should this happen at the event horizon of a black hole, one of the particles will fall into the black hole by definition, not having enough energy to escape it's immense gravity, while the other will have enough to escape. This means that matter and anti-matter are being spewed out from black holes, as opposed to black holes simply chewing everything up as in popular belief. Steven Hawking did/is doing a lot of research in this area and it was mentioned in the recent documentary about him on Channel 4 if anyone saw that. Interesting stuff.

Oh and

According to the Big Bang Theory, the entire universe, all of its content and matter, was contained in one beyond microscopic spec with absolutely zero kinetic energy.

I know you then said that it was jsut potential energy, i was just dealing with that statement.



Just an edit regarding evolution/Darwinian evolution after discussing the subject with a friend who says that evolution is the process of lifeforms developing from earlier lifeforms on the tree of life. Darwinian evolution (natural selection) is the theory of what drives evolution, which is what Joey has qualms with.

 

[Hyde]

Basically I simply explain those undefined/unknown bits in the creation/Big Bang process to be simply God in action.

 

[Bitter]

A "God of the Gaps" if you will. The gaps getting smaller with further advances in science. I guess there's nothing wrong with this belief in essence, it mostly just stands in the way of furthering scientific knowledge if everyone is just happy attributing things to God rather than investigating them, which thankfully they are not.

 

[Hyde]

Don't get me wrong Bitter, I am as much for scientific research as you are, particularly with the new CERN particle accelerator to try and discover the Higgs particle which is believed to give particles mass.

I absolutely adore physics, learning how things surrounding us work and interact, pretty much being one of the two reason why I decided to head into studying Mechanical Engineering.

But realize, no matter how much research we perform, no matter how much we know, there will always still be an unknown.

And however you interpret that unknown, it is up to you.

Some, like me, simply see it as God's wonder in action.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

Like I said a few pages back, some people see proof for God existing in their everyday life and some people see proof that he cannot exist.

What exactly do you mean by "Darwinian evolution", and how does it differ to simply "evolution"? I

What is there not to comprehend? Darwin was probably wrong. He put forward a theory without any ability to test it. That's not science.

Darwins theory has holes in it. You can find plenty of non-Christian, un-bias, scientific lists of them online. Evolution is even questioned as a "science" because it still, even today, falls short of some of of the criteria.

Evolution, in some format must be true, in my eyes. That doesn't mean Darwin's rather outdated theory must be.

I've never heard of "God's artistic signature", and would like to hear more on it, but just from the name alone I'm rather expecting it to be pretty terrible.

Well, the Bible points out that we were made in God's image (and "our" image, reffering to angles? I could be wrong.) If that's the case, then we share a lot of his attributes on a limited scale. It's important to point out that in Islam, humans are not seen as anything even slightly comparable to God, yet to some Muslims drawing or recreating in any way any of his creatures which have a soul in them is forbidden. Most religions make God anthropomorphic... Or, rather, us Godmorphic? lol

Can you think of anything that creates something that doesn't leave behind some fingerprints of itself? If God created everything, it's not strange that everything shares similar make up. We don't compare ourselves to a rock because we are both made up of atoms, do we? It's actually really stupid to give similar genetics as proof that creationism can't be true - it's evidence in favour of both arguments.

If you think that's "terrible" I say you're a touch on the ignorant. It's perfectly plausible. You're an atheist out to confirm what you already know as truth, not seek it. Everyone should think outside the box at all times. Atheists are farrrrrrr more guilty of just accepting what they are told than most religious folk.

Evolution simply explains how live evolved on Earth from the very simple to the very complex, obviously it doesn't deal with how the Earth, the Moon and the stars got here side of creationism no.... but I don't see how that relates to what we were discussing.

Because it doesn't answer it. And God does, slightly better. Doesn't make it right. I dunno what you mean by how it relates to what we're discussing. The topic is about belief in God.... the whole point of me bringing this up was to show that belief in God and seemingly atheist "truths" like evolution don't have to squabble. (Unless you're a young earth creationist, then there really is no help left for you.)

 

[Hyde]

What is there not to comprehend? Darwin was probably wrong. He put forward a theory without any ability to test it. That's not science.

Darwins theory has holes in it. You can find plenty of non-Christian, un-bias, scientific lists of them online. Evolution is even questioned as a "science" because it still, even today, falls short of some of of the criteria.

Evolution, in some format must be true, in my eyes. That doesn't mean Darwin's rather outdated theory must be.

I think what was meant was that "Darwinian Evolution" and "Evolution" are one in the same.

I mean, Darwin was the first guy to think up the theory of Evolution.

All he simply argued that evolution was simply based on the survival of the strongest species.

That is Darwinian Evolution, which is the base plot of Evolution itself.

So I guess what I'm wondering is, how are the two different to you Joey?

 

[Bitter]

Well all i can say is that i recommend you read Darwins Dangerous Idea or watch that lecture on it I posted up. I don't know what you've got against Darwinian evolution (and i edited my post on the last page discussing the differences between simply evolution and darwinian evolution when i understood what you meant) personally, and I take most things i read on the internet which aren't from scientific journals with a pinch of salt. This God's Signature rubbish does sound like I thought it would, and seems like an extension of the "Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder? Can you name any car without a maker? Can you name any painting without a painter?" "bubble-up" idea of creation. To say that genetics could be proof of "God's Signature" I think is rediculious. I don't know how much you know about genetics, I certainly don't claim to know a lot myself, but I do think that the results show evolution conclusively, and cannot be construed any other way.

As for atheists accepting what they hear more readily than religious people, maybe some who aren't of scientific background, but personally I would disagree, for a start in order to be religious in the first place they have to have willingly accepted the idea of religion from someone, whereas atheists have logically denounced the idea based on other knowledge.

As for God being a "better" answer, again I disagree. Again because of the solving a complex question with a more complex answer doesn't answer anything.

Again I'd recommended those books/lectures as you seem genuinely interested in the subject and somewhat confused about what you believe.

 

[Sam]

Cheers guys- I no longer believe in God now!

Looks like I've been proved wrong, thanks to everyone's excellent responses I see how me and billions of others have made a mistake!

 

[danielfitzgerald99]

But could you prove it if there wasn't a final product?

Science is based on Proof of an outcome and so religion is pretty much the same.

Exactly and we are the outcome.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

What is there not to comprehend? Darwin was probably wrong. He put forward a theory without any ability to test it. That's not science.

Darwins theory has holes in it. You can find plenty of non-Christian, un-bias, scientific lists of them online. Evolution is even questioned as a "science" because it still, even today, falls short of some of of the criteria.

Evolution, in some format must be true, in my eyes. That doesn't mean Darwin's rather outdated theory must be.

I think what was meant was that "Darwinian Evolution" and "Evolution" are one in the same.

I mean, Darwin was the first guy to think up the theory of Evolution.

All he simply argued that evolution was simply based on the survival of the strongest species.

That is Darwinian Evolution, which is the base plot of Evolution itself.

So I guess what I'm wondering is, how are the two different to you Joey?

Are you trying to tell me that everything man has every discovered, observed and thus understood - our understanding remains exactly the same as it does today?

If evolution was disproved tomorrow, it wouldn't aid the creationist argument. If creationism was disproved tomorrow, it wouldn't aid evolution. Both of them have different levels of ...hm, "extreme". Both of them can exist side by side. Neither of them contradict and neither of them is likley to be the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Because we're humans, and we never understand something completely. Science is only out to prove itself wrong, it keeps going over the same idea until it's "definite". If you can think of one single "science" that we know everything about and there is nothing left to learn, I'd love you to give me an example.

Basically, it's daft to assume that Darwin got it perfect when he even started himself that his theory lacked substance.

To say that genetics could be proof of "God's Signature" I think is ridiculous. I don't know how much you know about genetics, I certainly don't claim to know a lot myself, but I do think that the results show evolution conclusively, and cannot be construed any other way.

Lol. You really are being ridiculous now.

How do similarities in genetics prove evolution any more than "God's signature?" I certainly think evolution is truth, but only because

for a start in order to be religious in the first place they have to have willingly accepted the idea of religion from someone, whereas atheists have logically denounced the idea based on other knowledge.

...I put my "faith" in knowledge i can see, rather than stories of knowledge. The problem here is, many people feel those old religious texts are knowledge. I can't understand why, personally, anyone would have more faith in a book who's origins are hazzy than a science being explored and demonstrated to us physically in a frame we can comprehend, right now in front of me - instead of a silly world beyond our comprehension, assuming greater minds than our own exist. Even if they do, I agree, it's daft to almost... use it as an excuse. We have to explore things on level we, as humans, comprehend. Otherwise we could go on forever stating how we don't understand.

The problem is, because x cannot be proved... It doesn't make x false. The key word in there should be yet. X cannot be proved yet. Or disproved, for this matter... People seem to think the way to disprove God is to prove science - when it's not. Nothing could prove or disprove something outside of everything (because, something that created everything would have to exist outside of it). Aside that, science has no intention to prove or disprove anyone but itself right or wrong. True science has no care for what religion is going on about.

But evolution is not, really, a science.

Again I'd recommended those books/lectures as you seem genuinely interested in the subject and somewhat confused about what you believe.

"Confused"? Wow, you are a touch on the ignorant, aren't you?

Whilst I think Sam's last post was utterly ridiculous, I because I certainly wasn't trying to convince anyone not to believe in God, I can understand the aggravation at people like you who think your view is superior.

I have VERY rarely put forward my own views here, because they are irrelevant. The point is you cannot see outside your cosy little box and you're just as bad as Sam. In fact, no, worse. Because you're trying to disprove with facts which cannot disprove anything within the discussion. :lol:

 

[Hyde]

Are you trying to tell me that everything man has every discovered, observed and thus understood - our understanding remains exactly the same as it does today?

If evolution was disproved tomorrow, it wouldn't aid the creationist argument. If creationism was disproved tomorrow, it wouldn't aid evolution. Both of them have different levels of ...hm, "extreme". Both of them can exist side by side. Neither of them contradict and neither of them is likley to be the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Because we're humans, and we never understand something completely. Science is only out to prove itself wrong, it keeps going over the same idea until it's "definite". If you can think of one single "science" that we know everything about and there is nothing left to learn, I'd love you to give me an example.

Basically, it's daft to assume that Darwin got it perfect when he even started himself that his theory lacked substance.

That isn't what I for one wasn't saying at all.

What I was saying Darwin is the guy who invented the theory of evolution.

Darwinian Evolution and Evolution are the exact same thing. It is a matter of to what degree you believe it, which in turn is the same with how much you believe in Creationism.

I too am a 50/50 kinda guy. God created it all, and let evolution take it from there.

But evolution is not, really, a science.

Evolution itself is a concept.

The study of it is science.

Just the same as how Newton developed the concepts of gravity and motion, while the study of these concepts is Physics, a science.

Believe it or not, according to Quantum theory, there is still always the possibility of even Newton's Laws failing.

So you are right Joey, in saying that we will never definitely know anything science wise.

We can get a pretty good idea, but we will never fully know.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

I'm not really 50/50 percent at all. Certainly don't believe in God.

Whatever the case, evolution is very misunderstood. I think if more people did understand it, they'd see it works rather smoothly with the concept of "intelligent design" and be more accepting of it. Then of course, you've got the atheists who don't understand it... And believe the ridiculous misunderstandings! Which is just hilarious.

Regardless, getting rid of ones belief isn't the purpose here... And it's unlikely to be the outcome anyway. The point is expanding ones understanding, and probably beliefs with it. That can only be a good thing, to add to your knowledge.

My blanket problem with religion is i can't figure out why you'd take the holy books as authoritative, but I guess the answer there is often "personal testimony". But no one has ever really been able to explain to me why you'd believe something you can't truly gain knowledge of through experience. You have to have some degree of blind faith.

I dunno. I wish Sam would stop being a plank and put in his two pennies. And where has Brian got to?

I mean, just looking at the first reply to this topic (no offence jayjay!)

I'm not sure about God, but I'm sure there must be a creator. So yeah, the world could have been created by the big bang all by chance, and we could have been evolved from bacteria or whatever. Seriously, what are the chances that the world happens to work perfectly, every single thing in the world having a purpose. The world is just too well designed for me to think it might have happened by chance.

You can see HUGE misunderstandings!

The world is far from working perfectly. It just works how we experience every day and are used to. It's all we know. It's gone through a lot of imperfectness to get here, and imperfect just doesn't last because it doesn't work!

And I know this is only Taylor...

I like to believe that God and Jesus are real

But Jesus is generally accepted as being a factual person.

1)When something explodes, they dont come out is nice round sheres.

Except, Big Bang suggests nothing exploded. :S

Enough of that.


The general only knowing some (often only vague) beliefs of Christianity and no other religion, is really ignorant, too.

 

[robbeal]

I'm just going to interject the debate with my response.

I'm not a believer. I don't go around pointing out i'm an athiest, I don't need a title to say I don't follow a religion. I just live life by the sensible morals that exist in the modern world. I live it so that I enjoy it, that I get the best out of life, but that I don't damage the lives of others around me, and I give myself the best chance of having a successful life. I don't choose to have a religious way of living to achieve this, I can get by fine on my own.

I was brought up with religion, my parents are religious, but not overly. I attended a local sunday school for a few years, and until I was about 15, I still went to church a couple of times a year. Obviously something never clicked inside me and despite all this, the things I was hearing and being taught just never hit me as a way I wanted to lead my life.

Also, as a response to the 'religion causing war' rant that often comes up, its not religion causing war, its people, and their interpretations.

Here's Scroobius Pip to remind us:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KnGNOiFll4[/youtube]