So here's my deal...

l.mcbryar
Theist
Posts: 28
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
So here's my deal...

Everyone on this site wants to know why, or how, can a christian believe in a God, more specificlly, the God of Christianity and Jesus. Well, i have a few questions for those who believe in this thought called evolution. These are why i can't believe that we came from nothing. im only seemingly "attacking" evolutionists because i have the most questions for them. I read that there was a debate about proving and disproving, well, here's my crack at disproval:

1. If we came from evolution, what was the first thing to exist?
2. According to the evolutionist idealisms, there had to be a need for something to evolve, so i propose: what caused the need for something to exist? what sparked this change and flow to create creatures?
3. I know that it isn't the only form of evolution, but this is the most common: humans evolved from apes (general term). if this is the case, why are there still apes, gorillas, and monkeys? why aren't they changing still?

So here is my questions. if i can get someone to talk about it, lets go. these are questions i'm not sure if you've delt with, but i'm not a normal thinking person. I may be in this Christian religion, but i am a free thinking human who has a few questions. Thanks for your time and input, and i am going to wait to see what is said.


mindspread
mindspread's picture
Posts: 360
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
There is a whole section

There is a whole section about Evolution.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forums/yellow_number_five/evolution_of_life

 

I haven't been here long, but I'm sure these questions have been asked more than once, and I'm sure you'll find the answers if you take a moment to look.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Quote: 3. I know that it

Quote:
3. I know that it isn't the only form of evolution, but this is the most common: humans evolved from apes (general term). if this is the case, why are there still apes, gorillas, and monkeys? why aren't they changing still?

This is like me asking "I have familey from Ireland, so why is there still Irish folk?" 

 But the problem here is, we didn't come from apes, we just share a common ancestor.

Another problem is, your confusing evolution and abiogenisis, you talk about evolution but then you ask where the first life came from. And I feel this is going to come up as one big argument from ignorance.

Of course the biggest problem is that... well, your only "attacking" (Not literal, I can't think of a better word, so don't take it the wrong way) evolution. the problem with that is that there are many christians who accept evolution as fact.

there are other bits, but it's not relevent at the moment. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
mindspread wrote: There is

mindspread wrote:

There is a whole section about Evolution.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forums/yellow_number_five/evolution_of_life

 

I haven't been here long, but I'm sure these questions have been asked more than once, and I'm sure you'll find the answers if you take a moment to look.

If they are going to be redundant with the same questions shall we be redundant with the same responses? A little searching of the board they would find the same questions answered over and over... 


l.mcbryar
Theist
Posts: 28
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
i understand but....

I do understand the whole forum on evolution. dont get me wrong. i understand better than you believe. but i am trying to get across that no answer to this date answers the question definitively. until i get that answer, im gonna ask the question. basic questions create the most talk. maybe if it keeps comming up, people will see that the questions asked are the questions most challenged. No information i have recieved, and yes i have read plenty, gives me this final answer. whether we share a common ancestor or not, the genetic flow, as proven by your own deludedgod, keeps moving. there should still be genetics in our system that posses the ability to create the primates we are so closely related to.

and the response about confusing evolution and anything else, unfortunately i have heard plenty of evolutionist debate and read enough text to see that if the arent linked, maybe these major evolutionists should stop saying these things. i heard an evolutionist tell an evangel that the single celled organism appeared from basically nothing. i want to know this then, what is the story? where do i need to ask my questions from? please tell me so that we can keep this from becomeing some debate based on misunderstanding.

and the comment on evolutionist christians.... if the bible doesnt teach it, how can they be called christians? i agree in adaptation, which is not evolution. maybe that is what they mean but don't realize.

Psalms 74:10


KLJ
KLJ's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
That we don't have a full

That we don't have a full answer to everything does not disprove a theory related not to the origin of the universe or even to the origin of life, but only to the origin of man.

The beautiful difference between science and religion is that we embrace unknowns. Scientists have hypothetical answers to some questions and have gotten as far as developing solid theories to others, but the not yet known does not disprove what we do know anymore than it proves that there is some god.

God has always been what people have used to fill in the unknown. Before we found out about the sperm and the egg, god put the baby there. The Church was sure the sun revolved around the earth. We've answered many, many questions and God just hasn't shown up in the research. As we work happily to keep answering the questions can we please stop being hindered by the answers that were made up back in the dark ages?

Were did the first single celled organism come from? I don't know. Where did your god come from? I bet my question gets answered first. Smiling

 

Atheists make lousy suicide bombers.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1231
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
All three questions that you

All three questions that you ask can be answered with what was taught in the biology course at my catholic high school. Are you yet to enter high school?

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Symok
Symok's picture
Posts: 63
Joined: 2006-12-09
User is offlineOffline
l.mcbryar wrote: Well, i

l.mcbryar wrote:
Well, i have a few questions for those who believe in this thought called evolution. These are why i can't believe that we came from nothing.

1) Others have said it already, but I'll say it again: Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, or "whre everything came from". Period.

2) Christians are the ones who believe "something came from nothing". Atheists understand that the base matter of the universe has always existed. 


My Name is Chelsea
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-02-23
User is offlineOffline
OK I will take a shot at

OK I will take a shot at this, though I am unlikely to come up with anything new. Gives me something to do I guess.
 

l.mcbryar wrote:
Everyone on this site wants to know why, or how, can a christian believe in a God, more specificlly, the God of Christianity and Jesus. Well, i have a few questions for those who believe in this thought called evolution. These are why i can't believe that we came from nothing. im only seemingly "attacking" evolutionists because i have the most questions for them. I read that there was a debate about proving and disproving, well, here's my crack at disproval: 1. If we came from evolution, what was the first thing to exist?

The problem is in the phrasing. Evolution explains the origin of species. Evolution sets out to explain how one species may arise from another, not how life began. More technically evolution is concerned with the changes in frequency of alleles with in a population. Scientist are working to figure out how that first “life” arose, but they don’t know yet, and that’s OK.
Quote:
2. According to the evolutionist idealisms, there had to be a need for something to evolve, so i propose: what caused the need for something to exist? what sparked this change and flow to create creatures?

Not really. Evolution is not in any way about “need”. I guess I am not really sure what point 2 is about. Maybe you could rephrase it?
Quote:
3. I know that it isn't the only form of evolution, but this is the most common: humans evolved from apes (general term). if this is the case, why are there still apes, gorillas, and monkeys? why aren't they changing still? So here is my questions. if i can get someone to talk about it, lets go. these are questions i'm not sure if you've delt with, but i'm not a normal thinking person. I may be in this Christian religion, but i am a free thinking human who has a few questions. Thanks for your time and input, and i am going to wait to see what is said.

To use your term humans evolved from apes but gorillas, apes and monkeys also evolved from apes. Here is a way it could hypothetically have happened: Start with a single community of proto-apes, the apes wander about and a population of them becomes separated. Maybe they wander to the other side of some mountains, or after a drought are stranded on the other side of a river, anyway now part of the population of proto-apes is now geographically separate from the rest. We have a group A and a group B. For the sake of the example group B is smaller than group A. Group B is very unlikely to result the full genetic variety or represent the same distribution of alleles as group A. Already these groups have different gene frequencies. So over the generations the two groups are likely to become more diverse from each other, even with out any selective pressure. Now lets say that the conditions on each side of the river are different from each other, natural selection will also work to make the two groups more and more different. Mutations may appear on one side of the river that don’t appear on the other, diseases may strike one group and not the other, a predator might be found on one side or the other. Given enough generations the two groups will still seem similar but will no longer be able to reproduce together. Give it even longer (thousands and thousands of years) and they won’t even recognize each other. Now one is walking upright and the other is swinging in the trees. Why are the “apes” still around? Why not? Apes are very good at what they do, they are very well adapted to their environments and get along just fine.
Hope that helps. Anymore questions and I will clarify where I can, if I can.

I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
Robert A. Heinlein


l.mcbryar
Theist
Posts: 28
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
[/i][/b]just going off of

[/i][/b]just going off of what you all have said, i know. my point is this. if everything here evolves, what did it evolve from? what seems to me is that everyone wants to say that humans adapted and evolved, but what was it that they evolved from? Im not talking about the neaderthal or any other pre-homosapien. my question stems from further back.

lets take all species of all creatures, both current, and extinct. Where did they come from? Did they evolve from one another, or where they seperate from each other in the first place? This is the crucial link that seperates faith from science. The concept of things coming from virtually nothing is disproved by science itself. the law of conservation of matter explains that well. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. This is why scientific theories are so hard to believe. this is supposed to be a law. Fact that cannot be refuted by a test. My faith tells me that the supernatural occured and can answer all of these questions. for those who want to criticize that christians answer all the unknowns with God, thats because that is the answer. I dont have to have some person tell me that God did it for me to believe it, so why do you have to have science tell you the reverse?

I know that faith is this complex thing that involves us stepping out of our little boxes into a world of unknown and trust, but why is it that i, as a christian, an criticized for it? How many atheists [b][i]TRUELY give up their ideals about everything and take a moment to give God a chance? I know, some will say " I was a christian and God never showed himself." That means nothing to me. i have been a christian for over 4 years now and i have seen the things in my life that God has ordained, but have only really had that in depth touch from God a few times. Its not faith thats the problem, its the fear in our own heart. If you think im preaching, im not. i want you to understand that even christians who believe dont always feel God right there beside them, but they still believe.

And i really dont appreciate the comment about me entering high school. Believe me, high school, cake walk. my questions are only based on the lack of a definative answer. Science is proven wrong daily. Science is not reliable. An unchanging faith will always be there.

I said all that to ask these questions. i dont want to see trivial responses to these. i want in depth and thought out answers. Sarcasm doesnt make me want to listen to what is said, so if you are serious on this debate, please answer seriously.

Do you understand what happens if your wrong?

Wouldnt you rather live your life believing in a God, who may not be real, and not have to worry about the consequences, then live without belief and find out after its too late?

What keeps you from believing? from trying to understand?

Psalms 74:10


mindspread
mindspread's picture
Posts: 360
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
If you're playing the

For those of you playing the Pascal's Wager Drinking Game, take a shot now....


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
l.mcbryar wrote: 1. If

l.mcbryar wrote:

1. If we came from evolution, what was the first thing to exist?

 The first thing to exist has nothing to do with evolution.  Evolution explains how life developed once it arose, the study of cosmology is the realm in which you would learn about the existence of matter.  The law of conservation of matter shows us that the most likely scenario is that matter is eternal and has always existed, it didn't come from anywhere, it has existed forever, and will always exist.

Quote:
 

2. According to the evolutionist idealisms, there had to be a need for something to evolve, so i propose: what caused the need for something to exist? what sparked this change and flow to create creatures?

 No, evolution doesn't claim there was a need for anything. 

 

Quote:
3. I know that it isn't the only form of evolution, but this is the most common: humans evolved from apes (general term). if this is the case, why are there still apes, gorillas, and monkeys?

You came from your parents, so how come your parents still exist?  (yes, this is how poor your question was)

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
l.mcbryar

l.mcbryar wrote:
[/i][/b]just going off of what you all have said, i know. my point is this. if everything here evolves, what did it evolve from?  what seems to me is that everyone wants to say that humans adapted and evolved, but what was it that they evolved from? Im not talking about the neaderthal or any other pre-homosapien.

The further back you go, the less complex and smaller the organism gets.  All mammals on Earth evolved from a shrew or mole like mammal.  All shrews evolved from single celled organisms if you take it far enough back.

 

Quote:
the law of conservation of matter explains that well. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. This is why scientific theories are so hard to believe. this is supposed to be a law. Fact that cannot be refuted by a test. My faith tells me that the supernatural occured and can answer all of these questions. for those who want to criticize that christians answer all the unknowns with God, thats because that is the answer.

If you admit that the law of conservation of matter explains it well, then why exactly do you need to have faith in something that explains it differently?

 

 

Quote:
I dont have to have some person tell me that God did it for me to believe it, so why do you have to have science tell you the reverse?

Because through evidence and proof in science we can attain real knowledge, through faith we can attain nothing more but speculation (at best).

 

Quote:
How many atheists [b][i]TRUELY give up their ideals about everything and take a moment to give God a chance?

Keep in mind, the founders of this site all believed in God, for a combined 50+ years.

 

Quote:
Science is proven wrong daily.

Science has never been, nor will it ever be proven wrong, that is an impossibility, as part of science is the ability to change given new evidence.  As evidence presents itself, the best scientific answer encompasses the new information.  It's not that it's wrong, it's that it didn't have all the data.  Since you are so sure of yourself, please go ahead and provide the points that science was "wrong" about yesterday.

 

Quote:
Science is not reliable.

Prove it.

Quote:
An unchanging faith will always be there.

And you think unchanging speculation is more reliable than facts, evidence, and proof?  I'd like to see you try to get that through a court of law, this isn't sarcasm, I'd legitimately like to see the judges face.

 

Quote:
Do you understand what happens if your wrong?

Do you?  You will have wasted your only life on a lie.  Or worse... if one of the other thousands of gods to choose from is the correct one, you will likely have gotten that gpd very angry.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Science is proven

Quote:
Science is proven wrong daily.

That would be true IF science says things, but it doesn't. It's a tool we use, WE say things, the evidence we have says things.

 

Quote:
Science is not reliable.

So I take it your going to get off the computer, dump your medicine, avoid getting shots for viruses, and live in the forest.

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Opps double post.

 

Might as well put something here.

Quote:
Do you understand what happens if your wrong?


Pascal's wager... how new. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
l.mcbryar wrote: Do you

l.mcbryar wrote:
Do you understand what happens if your wrong?

Well if you have a rational mind you can always admit, "I was wrong" and there is not doctrine to keep you from doing this. Where as I think many theists fear the words "I was Wrong", because doctrine does not allow it. 

 


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1231
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
l.mcbryar wrote:

l.mcbryar wrote:
Science is proven wrong daily. Science is not reliable. An unchanging faith will always be there.

Scientific claims may be modified or proven wrong outright - although I'm not sure it happens with a daily frequency. However, such claims are modified or proven wrong by new scientific discoveries. That is the essential value in science - it is a search for the truth, and if evidence renders old ideas false, we do not cling on to the old, false ideas, but adopt the new, true ones. Yes, an unchanging faith will always be there, and that is why we should not go by faith -- as that stands in the way of learning the truth. Case in point: Rather than acknowledge the evidence that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (before humans even appeared), the Rev. Jerry Falwell is content to say his collection of dinosaur bones is a few thousand years old, and then try and fit dinosaurs --and their extinction-- into the 6,000 year history of the universe as suggested by the bible. Anyone who twists facts to fit beliefs is not for long in the real world.

l.mcbryar wrote:
And i really dont appreciate the comment about me entering high school. Believe me, high school, cake walk. my questions are only based on the lack of a definative answer.

I am sorry if I inadvertently offended you by asking you about high school. Despite all appearances, I was not being sarcastic, or suggesting you were uneducated -- I don't know how old you are, so for all I know, you may still have not begun high school. The cursory treatment of evolution which I received in high school (a little over a decade ago) was sufficient to answer those questions. I would like to think that anyone else who has taken a course in high school biology would not find those questions intimidating, nor think them to argue strongly in favor of theism.

 

l.mcbryar wrote:
Do you understand what happens if your wrong?
Pascal's Wager aside, if I'm wrong, I would realize that in order to be right, I would have had to refuse to use my brain, in which case I would wonder why god gave me one.

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


My Name is Chelsea
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-02-23
User is offlineOffline
l.mcbryar wrote: just going

l.mcbryar wrote:
just going off of what you all have said, i know. my point is this. if everything here evolves, what did it evolve from? what seems to me is that everyone wants to say that humans adapted and evolved, but what was it that they evolved from? Im not talking about the neaderthal or any other pre-homosapien. my question stems from further back.

OK so what you are really asking is how life began? Sorry for such a long off topic explanation of evolution but that is what the ape question sounded like. So where did life begin? How did life begin? I have no clue. Maybe life on earth arrived on stellar winds as bacterial spores. Maybe it started as self-replicating molecules. I don’t know, we as a species don’t know.
Quote:
lets take all species of all creatures, both current, and extinct. Where did they come from? Did they evolve from one another, or where they seperate from each other in the first place?

However, this also sounds like you are once again just unclear on how evolution works. All species both current and extinct came from other species. Sometimes the original species sticks around sometimes it goes extinct. In the “first place” there was one species. It diversified to fit various niches as they appeared.
Quote:
This is the crucial link that seperates faith from science…

Here is what I think separates religious folk from not so religious folk. I have no clue how life began I am OK with that. I don’t need to know. Not knowing how it began does not lead me to believe that there must have been a creator. Just because we don’t know what exactly happed millions of years ago does not prove the existence of a creator (nor does it disprove) all it proves is that we don’t know.
Quote:
… for those who want to criticize that christians answer all the unknowns with God, thats because that is the answer.

Is this like when it was not known what the cause of disease was so God was the answer but now we know what the cause of disease is so God isn’t the answer? Or is it just what we don’t know now that God is the answer? I don’t mean to mock, I just want clarification.
Quote:
I dont have to have some person tell me that God did it for me to believe it, so why do you have to have science tell you the reverse?

I think that is the point. I need evidence to believe an unlikely statement, I required evidence before I was convinced that evolution was plausible. You don’t need evidence, you have faith (blind faith). I do not have the capacity for blind faith.
Quote:
I know that faith is this complex thing that involves us stepping out of our little boxes into a world of unknown and trust, but why is it that i, as a christian, an criticized for it? How many atheists TRUELY give up their ideals about everything and take a moment to give God a chance? I know, some will say " I was a christian and God never showed himself." That means nothing to me. i have been a christian for over 4 years now and i have seen the things in my life that God has ordained, but have only really had that in depth touch from God a few times. Its not faith thats the problem, its the fear in our own heart. If you think im preaching, im not. i want you to understand that even christians who believe dont always feel God right there beside them, but they still believe.
When I was Christian I did not expect to feel god’s presence constantly, I just wanted to feel it once, something to base my faith on. I do not have “fear in my own heart” I do not fear punishment from a jealous (I mean loving) God. I do not fear death (though I am sure you won’t believe me) mostly because I do not believe there is a hell, so I don’t have much of a chance of ending up there. I do not fear for unconverted loved ones, friends, or strangers.
Quote:
my questions are only based on the lack of a definative answer. Science is proven wrong daily. Science is not reliable. An unchanging faith will always be there. I said all that to ask these questions. i dont want to see trivial responses to these. i want in depth and thought out answers. Sarcasm doesnt make me want to listen to what is said, so if you are serious on this debate, please answer seriously. Do you understand what happens if your wrong? Wouldnt you rather live your life believing in a God, who may not be real, and not have to worry about the consequences, then live without belief and find out after its too late? What keeps you from believing? from trying to understand?
What keeps me from believing? A total lack of evidence of any kind. Nothing keeps me from trying to understand. I am constantly trying to understand. Not succeeding very well, once again though, that is OK.
I am willing to give you a serious well though out in depth answer to any question you want to ask. I must warn you though, as a mere human I may not know the answer. Ask away. If you could repost the questions you are referring to I would appreciate it. I think in all the debate, argument, and misunderstanding your questions may have become a bit clouded. If you could restate them I am willing and eager to give it a shot. (No sarcasm meant, honestly)

I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
Robert A. Heinlein


l.mcbryar
Theist
Posts: 28
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: The further

Sapient wrote:

The further back you go, the less complex and smaller the organism gets.  All mammals on Earth evolved from a shrew or mole like mammal.  All shrews evolved from single celled organisms if you take it far enough back.

This is the only thing i truely care to comment about. All of this boils down to this question. If evolution is based soley on just the need to create the strongest possible creature, and to rid the gene pool of the weakest, what caused this need to develope from a single celled organism? what caused a true need for the evolution?

What came first? tell me, the need for food, the ability to consume food, or the desire for food? if anyone can answer this correctly, you have converted me. And saying they developed similtaniously doesnt work, evolution proves that.

Thanks

Psalms 74:10


My Name is Chelsea
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-02-23
User is offlineOffline
There is no need.

l.mcbryar wrote:
Sapient wrote:


The further back you go, the less complex and smaller the organism gets. All mammals on Earth evolved from a shrew or mole like mammal. All shrews evolved from single celled organisms if you take it far enough back.


This is the only thing i truely care to comment about. All of this boils down to this question. If evolution is based soley on just the need to create the strongest possible creature, and to rid the gene pool of the weakest, what caused this need to develope from a single celled organism? what caused a true need for the evolution? What came first? tell me, the need for food, the ability to consume food, or the desire for food? if anyone can answer this correctly, you have converted me. And saying they developed similtaniously doesnt work, evolution proves that. Thanks


There is really only one reply to this, evolution has nothing to do with need. Natural selection is not about need. There is no need.

Evolution is not a being that sits that and thinks “we need a stronger creature”. Evolution is not even about strength. It is about filling niches. Evolution has nothing to do with individuals and everything to do with populations. It is about survival and reproduction.

Natural selection is a mechanism by which populations evolve but it is not the only mechanism. Genetic drift is another mechanism by which populations evolve. Natural selection is the mechanism that most people have heard of and most people misunderstand.

The way in which your questions are put make it impossible to answer in terms of evolution because your questions don’t have anything to do with evolution. If you would like to learn about the exact mechanisms by which “eating” is theorized to have evolved then it would be best to put this question to an evolutionary biologist. I do not know enough about bacteria to answer this question, maybe some one else on this forum does or if you want I can point you towards a forum where there is some one.

I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
Robert A. Heinlein


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
mindspread wrote: For those

mindspread wrote:
For those of you playing the Pascal's Wager Drinking Game, take a shot now....

No, you have to take TWO shots for Pascal's Wager because it's the Number One Fallacious Theistic Argument®.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


mindspread
mindspread's picture
Posts: 360
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
Iruka Naminori wrote: No,

Iruka Naminori wrote:

No, you have to take TWO shots for Pascal's Wager because it's the Number One Fallacious Theistic Argument®.

 

 Two shots for Pascal's Wager?  I've only been here about a week and I can already see that I'm going to be taking a lot of shots. 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
l.mcbryar wrote: 1. If we

l.mcbryar wrote:
1. If we came from evolution, what was the first thing to exist?

From Talk Origins. 

 

There is a great deal about abiogenesis that is unknown, but... (m)uch scientific work has been done in testing different hypotheses relating to abiogenesis, including the following:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB050.html

 

Quote:

2. According to the evolutionist idealisms,

You mean, according to your strawman view of evolution. If you want to cite an actual evolutionist 'ideal' why not quote an evolutionary scientist?

Quote:

there had to be a need for something to evolve, so i propose: what caused the need for something to exist? what sparked this change and flow to create creatures?

Again, look to abiogenesis

here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html

and here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB020.html

Quote:

 

3. I know that it isn't the only form of evolution, but this is the most common: humans evolved from apes (general term). if this is the case, why are there still apes, gorillas, and monkeys?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC150.html

Quote:

why aren't they changing still?

Who says they aren't?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB928_1.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB928_2.html

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
l.mcbryar wrote: Everyone

l.mcbryar wrote:
Everyone on this site wants to know why, or how, can a christian believe in a God, more specificlly, the God of Christianity and Jesus.

Not really. I know why, and how. I've thought about it a lot over the years. The trick is to get you to realize how absurd it is.

l.mcbryar wrote:
Well, i have a few questions for those who believe in this thought called evolution.

It's not a thought, it's a fact. Evolution exists, and we see it happen.

l.mcbryar wrote:
These are why i can't believe that we came from nothing.

I don't think we came from nothing either.

l.mcbryar wrote:

1. If we came from evolution, what was the first thing to exist?

You make the assumption that there was a first thing to exist. I do not. Therefore your question is irrelevant.

l.mcbryar wrote:

2. According to the evolutionist idealisms, there had to be a need for something to evolve, so i propose: what caused the need for something to exist?

Again you make assumptions within your questions that are not based on fact. Why do you assume there is a need to exist? Or that there wasn't one and there now is?

l.mcbryar wrote:
what sparked this change and flow to create creatures?

There are a number of theories as to how life could have formed from chemical interactions. None of them have anything to do with evolution however. That's a seperate scientific theory.

l.mcbryar wrote:

3. I know that it isn't the only form of evolution, but this is the most common: humans evolved from apes (general term). if this is the case, why are there still apes, gorillas, and monkeys?

Actually, humans evolved from a family that split a long time ago. We all went off on our different evolutionary tracts at the time. The species we evolved from no longer exists.

l.mcbryar wrote:
why aren't they changing still?

How do you know they aren't?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
l.mcbryar wrote: if anyone

l.mcbryar wrote:
if anyone can answer this correctly, you have converted me. And saying they developed similtaniously doesnt work, evolution proves that.

 I'm too busy to respond thoroughly (although others have and hopefully more will).  I just wanted to mention, let me know if you've been "converted" so we can remove that "theist" badge over your name, and apply the first "Deconverted on RRS" badge.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
l.mcbryar wrote: If

l.mcbryar wrote:
If evolution is based soley on just the need to create the strongest possible creature, and to rid the gene pool of the weakest, what caused this need to develope from a single celled organism?

Your question is flawed because it is based on a misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution is not "based soley on just the need to create the strongest possible creature, and to rid the gene pool of the weakest". That is a very deep misunderstanding you have there.

Quote:
what caused a true need for the evolution?

The word 'need' implies a mind that needs. There is no 'need' for evolution, it just happens when the conditions are right. The thing that starts evolution is replication. It is like asking 'what caused the need for fire?' Nothing caused the need, because there is no 'need' for fire. What causes fire is a temperature high enough to cause an oxidation reaction. There is no 'need' for such a temperature, it just happens sometimes. 

Quote:
What came first? tell me, the need for food, the ability to consume food, or the desire for food? if anyone can answer this correctly, you have converted me.

Of those three, the one that came first was the ability to consume food. From that, once food became more scarce, the desire for food evolved. Also from that, once the organism gained a dependence on the food, the 'need' for the food evolved.

Quote:
And saying they developed similtaniously doesnt work, evolution proves that. Thanks

Actually, you are displaying more lack of knowledge in evolution when you say this. Sophisticated systems with several interconnected parts often develop simultaneously over millions of years. First part A evolves a little bit, then part B evolves a bit to 'catch up with' A, then part C evolves a bit. Then the cycle starts over. At each stage, the entire system gets a tiny bit better with every step. At the end of this process, the entire system is interlocked such that neither a fully formed A, nor B, nor C could have evolved purely on its own. Thankfully, A and B can support the evolution of C; B and C can support A; and A and C can support B.

It's like building a log house. First you put two logs down (east-west), then lay two logs on top of them perpendicular (north-south), then two more on top again (E-W), then two more (N-S), until you have four interconnected walls. Now, none of the walls can stand without the other three walls, but all four of the walls were built together in steps, so they all support each other as the house 'evolves'. 

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


l.mcbryar
Theist
Posts: 28
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Sapient

Sapient wrote:


Quote:
Science is not reliable.

Prove it.


You want proof got it. I want to start with a very small comment you made, and work my way up. im sorry to say, its not a conversion you have today folks. Even less so now that I have done some deeper research on a few topics. Let's begin:

sapient, you say the world is eternal? You said it was here, is here and has always been here. I have to ask you to look at not only the scientific proof, but mathematical.

Ex. if i have a bag of marbles, infinate bag, representing the infinate events that have had to of taken place for the world to have been here eternally, and i decided to give you all of them, i would be left with nothing
Infinity-infinity= 0

Ex.2 lets take another example. i now give you all of the odd marbles, keeping all even. We both get an infinite amount.
Infinity-infinity= infinity

Ex.3 final example. i give you all the marbles numbered 6 and higher, meaning i keep 5.
infinity-5= infinity

These events cannot happen in real life. infinty is represented by equaling 0 and infinity, which mathematically cannot happen, just as an infinate number of events cannot happen. even Stephen Hawkins, one of the leading scientists of all of history agrees with. Therefore, this leads to a world that has a begining. Hince the theory of the Big Bang.

The scientific evidence is thus: In 1915 Einstien created the theory of reletivity. This provided us with the information that the universe is either expanding or imploding. Later, in 1922 Edwin Hubble descoverse the "Red Shift," adding to the evidence the universe is expanding. 18 years later, George Gamow predicted the background temperature of the universe, if the Big Bang happened, to be just above absolute zero. Which was later proven true in 1965 when it was descovered that the background radtation temperature was about 3.7 degrees, which falls into the Big Bang theory.

Now there are other ideas of existance, like the Spontaneous Existance theory, which again leads to the question of who or what created the vacuum that all of these things were created from, not answering anything. But lets take into account the Kalam Arguement, which states:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The Universe began to exist
3. The Universe therefore has a cause.

Spontaneous Existance falls under the statement 1. So what created all of this? Let's look at Stanely Miller's Experiment on the creation of the Universe. He set up a condition, tested it, and created three of the amino acids needed to sustain life. Creation was thought to be proven wrong by this developement.
But lets look at a few things. Miller controlled this experiment, meaning that intelligent design was in it from the beginning. Next, the atmosphere he chose to use has been disregarded as a likely idea of the atmosphere needed to create life. then shortly after the experiment was concluded, the red ooze created turned brown and was extremely toxic to any living amino acids. Later he added a chemical to help sustain the amino acid, which was not in the basis for the creation of life.
Now, in 1966, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences questions the atmosphere of hydogen, ammonia, and methane Miller used. The dispute that there is hardly any evidence of a primative ammonia or methane, but much against it. in '75, Miller's atmosphere is dimissed. 2 years later, two of the leading origins-of-life researchers, Klause Dose and Sidney Fox confirm Miller used the wrong gas mixture. Science magazine, in 1995, reported the miller-urey atmosphere to be dismissed.
Miller was an outspoken atheist.

Again, another major indication that there was something or someone who had a hand in the creation of the universe.

If you would like, i can give you the main reference i used in this. granted, i wasnt the one who put it together, im just a messenger. this book has all the offical citings and all. There are even areas where physicists say that they believe for cosmology and evolution to exist, the chances of all of the proper events to happen on their own equals 1.0*10^-126. Not the best chances.

Miller's experiment also created a mere three amino acids... and it takes at least seventy-five or so to create any structure in a protein.

ill stop there for now about that.

And about evolution not being about need or necesity, thats incorrect. The need is for the strongest genes to pass on so that the species becomes better. this prevents the species from becoming extinct. Sooooo.... again i ask my question, and for those who still want to criticize it not to have to answer it, ill change it a little so that i can get an answer.

What evolved first, the mouth, the ability to use the mouth, or the need for food to sustain the creature?

Hope that makes people happier. Now i would like for this to be answered this way.

Psalms 74:10


l.mcbryar
Theist
Posts: 28
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
and i have a comment on the

and i have a comment on the explainations i see about the fact that evolution can create these great creatures abilities. I want you to look into a book called the case for a creator, written by lee strobel, a former life long atheist. In it he learns of a scientist who compares microbiology to that of a generic everyday mouse trap. another scientist shows him where this comparison fails to meet the microbiology standards.
Here are the steps Michael Behe used to describe this failure:

1. Darwin said in his own Origins of Species "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed in which could not have possibly been formed by numerous successivem modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
2. Therefore, the complex molecular mocromachines that make up cells must have been developed a bit at a time, small step by small step. For instance, using the example of the mousetrap, maybe first there was just the platform, which evolved over time into a platform with a hammer, then to a platform with a hammer and a spring, and so on.
3. But Darwin's theory of natural selection, or "survival of the fittes," says that systems that work the best are the ones that survive and develope further. And a mousetrap that is just a flat wooden platform doesnt work. So according to natural selection, it wouldnt develope any further; it would become extinct.
4. Like the mouse trap, molecular machines are irreducibly complex. Without all their partsin the right places, they do not work. Since natural selection chooses systems that are already working, any incomplete molecular machines would bite the evolutionary dust, not develope bit by bit. Oh, and one more thing: These micromachines are too complex for all their parts to come together all at once by random process.

Behe asks the question: "If creation of a simple device like this requires intelligent design, then we have to ask, 'What about the finely tuned machines of the cellular world?' If evolution can't adequately explain them, then scientists should be free to consider other alternitives."

And thats not from me. Check it out for yourselves.

For further looking:
Behe, Michael J. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemmical Challenge to Evolution. New York; Touchstone, 1996

Psalms 74:10


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
l.mcbryar wrote: and i have

l.mcbryar wrote:
and i have a comment on the explainations i see about the fact that evolution can create these great creatures abilities. I want you to look into a book called the case for a creator, written by lee strobel, a former life long atheist.

That book is pathetic.

If you really care about the truth, go here:

http://caseagainstfaith.com/

And see all the errors in that book exposed.

Anyone who cites Strobel doesn't know what they're talking about. Stop arguing from ignorance and learn about evolutionary theory.

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
l.mcbryar wrote: Everyone

l.mcbryar wrote:
Everyone on this site wants to know why, or how, can a christian believe in a God, more specificlly, the God of Christianity and Jesus. Well, i have a few questions for those who believe in this thought called evolution. These are why i can't believe that we came from nothing. im only seemingly "attacking" evolutionists because i have the most questions for them. I read that there was a debate about proving and disproving, well, here's my crack at disproval: 1. If we came from evolution, what was the first thing to exist? 2. According to the evolutionist idealisms, there had to be a need for something to evolve, so i propose: what caused the need for something to exist? what sparked this change and flow to create creatures? 3. I know that it isn't the only form of evolution, but this is the most common: humans evolved from apes (general term). if this is the case, why are there still apes, gorillas, and monkeys? why aren't they changing still? So here is my questions. if i can get someone to talk about it, lets go. these are questions i'm not sure if you've delt with, but i'm not a normal thinking person. I may be in this Christian religion, but i am a free thinking human who has a few questions. Thanks for your time and input, and i am going to wait to see what is said.

1) Evolution does not require a first thing. Your error is in thinking that it does. So you have created a problem that does not exist.

2) You are wrong about evolution again. Evolution does not require any kind of need. It is entirely a matter of the automatic side-effects of competition between self-replicating entities. Obviously....those that self-replicate better force out those that don't. After billions of years you have humans and the ebola virus and trichinosis.

3) Humans ARE apes, are STILL apes. We did not come from them. Think of it this way. If you came from your parents, why do your parents still exist? Though the analogy is not entirely precise, it should help you to see why your question is ridiculous.

I often say that one of the few things that atheists and theists should be able to agree on is that there has never been nothing. You can't get something from nothing, as the old saying goes.

The irony is that creationism appears to claim that god magically created something from nothing. In this way, most 'creationists' disagree with themselves (which is precisely what contradiction means). They both accept and deny at the same time that something can come from nothing.

Now my question to you is: Why couldn't there be nothing?

As far as I can tell, there could have been nothing just as well as there could have been something. It just so happens that there isn't nothing.

Has it occured to you that there is no reason that there is something rather than nothing?

"It aint whywhywhy. It aint whywhywhy. It just is." - Van Morrison


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: 1. Everything that

Quote:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

I get very tired of this one...

Name ONE THING that began to exist. I dare you.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
l.mcbryar wrote: I may be

l.mcbryar wrote:
I may be in this Christian religion, but i am a free thinking human who has a few questions. Thanks for your time and input, and i am going to wait to see what is said.

As others have very clearly pointed out you have no concept of what evolutionary theory really observes. The tired arguements have been responded to on this board over and over, covered in great detail all over the internet by well established and well respected scientists. Documented in many, many well researched books and various findings and studies have been peer reviewed over and over again. Evolution is a fact and is observable. Hovind, Behe and Strobel misrepresent the basic premises of the theory in hopes of planting the seeds of doubt in laymen who do not care enough to delve deeper into the science.

The arguements you are putting forth are easily refuted, and have been refuted in this very thread.

The question is, why does the theory of evolution seem to shake the foundation of the christian faith? Do you feel less special knowing all life on this planet came from a common ancestor? Will your life be any different knowing that evolutionary theory is a fact? 

Your bible professes special creation, FROM DIRT!! How can evolution make you feel any less special than that?


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
I would strongly encourage

I would strongly encourage you to learn a little bit about the theory of evolution.  I was denied a decent science education by fundamentalists.  I've done all of my learning outside a classroom and I find paleontology and natural history absolutely fascinating! 

Did you know that 99.99999% (might have the exact percentage wrong) of all animals that have ever existed are now extinct?  It's impossible for all those animals to have lived at the same time.  They couldn't have found separate niches.  The dinosaurs would have killed off all the mammals.  The sheer biomass itself would have choked the earth. Smiling

I find the real story of life absolutely fascinating...more glorious than a silly creation story by a whiny, self-centered sky fairy who can't stand it if people don't worship him. Talk about narcissism!  YHWH: the biggest narcissist in all fiction! (Apologies to Richard Dawkins.)

Seriously, take a real look at evolution.  It really is fascinating.  I understand from experience that giving up religion is difficult, but there are compensations.  One of the greatest compensations is the awe that can fill you when you look at forbidden knowledge: the evolution of life on Planet Earth. Smiling 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


l.mcbryar
Theist
Posts: 28
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
*Sigh*

you say that you want to look into the scientific proof of how everything got here. i have given scientific and mathematical proof. what more would you ask for? Infinity cannot happen, therefore things have a begining, for those who want something that began, The Earth. Then, scientists have disbunked many of the same arguements i see here. The best arguements i have heard so far on this site would be from deludedgod. Im interested in his forum and im reading, not seeing it come together, but reading. I did my research and everyone here wants to give the same tired answers to my same tired questions, until i challenge it with math and your very own science. If you really want to prove me wrong, prove infinity to be a value. Look at my last postings and read the facts that lay before you. Einstien led the charge, the greatest mind in history began the disproof. I would encourage you to check my math. Go back and see if changes. Check better into your theories about evolution. Many scientists believe that Darwin's evolutionary tree is upside down!!! That in itself is enough proof. You want to look into something, check that.

You criticize but don't want to try and teach. I am open minded enough to read and at least look at it from your point. I dont care if anyone on here was a christian, because for you to claim that you were a christian, you would have truely repented. That is the only way to be a christian. It is said, "For I am the way the truth and the life. Noone comes through the father except through me." Christ is the only way. You want to claim ex-Christian, i dont buy it. Based on what i have read, thats not christianity. If you cant sit down and piece together an argurment that your own science doesnt refute, what does that tell you? Im sorry. i may believe in a God, but at least i know that my beginings come from somewhere other than luck.

Too many scientists will tell you that we are in the perfect spot for creation. They will also tell you that the chances of life just happening are ridiculous. Too many factors have to come together at the same time in this perfectly ideal environment. they cant even find a place for amino acids to have come together. And that spot would have to have enough nitrogen, which just cant be found. Again, look at your own facts.

Chemist Henry F. Schaefer, James Tour of Nanoscale Science and Technology at Rice U., Fred Figworth- the professor of cellular and molecular physiology at Yale, The director of the center for Computational Quantom Chemistry all doubt evolution. These are major names for those of you who want me to give them. Check them out for yourselves. And there are even more. Im sorry, but nothing in this thread has impressed me.

You say we ask all the same questions, and wonder why. Ill tell you why, the answers dont answer the questions. Try something new.

Psalms 74:10


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
"i may believe in a God, but

"i may believe in a God, but at least i know that my beginings come from somewhere other than luck."

No, you don't know. You believe and there's a huge difference.

There are people who want to know about the origins of life, the cosmos. These people toil in obscurity while pseudo-scientists and religious zealots pull in millions and get their faces plastered on television for misinforming an impressionable audience. And that's the crime. That you and others can claim you know something that you haven't the slightest shred of understanding for. What will you're knowing give humanity?

It won't give AIDS patients protease inhibitors ... or a child with full body burns new s-kin thorugh stem cell therapies ... it is in not knowing and striving to find a real answer that these problems are solved. Darwin and so many others have gaven us a gift of understanding that has yielded so much ... and you would supplant the truth for a fairy tale because it upholds your chauvenism. That's just arrogance.

I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com


My Name is Chelsea
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-02-23
User is offlineOffline
Attempt at answers.

l.mcbryar wrote:
you say that you want to look into the scientific proof of how everything got here. i have given scientific and mathematical proof. what more would you ask for?
Infinity cannot happen,
Says who? On what proof? Wouldn’t god be infinite? Unborn and undying.
Quote:
therefore things have a begining, for those who want something that began, The Earth.

--snip--

Look at my last postings and read the facts that lay before you.

--snip-- 

You criticize but don't want to try and teach. I am open minded enough to read and at least look at it from your point.



I will try to teach. I will try not to criticize.

Your previous post:
Quote:
1. Darwin said in his own Origins of Species "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed in which could not have possibly been formed by numerous successive modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

This in itself isn’t proof, just a quote. I am assuming this is just to lead into #2.
Quote:

2. Therefore, the complex molecular mocromachines that make up cells must have been developed a bit at a time, small step by small step. For instance, using the example of the mousetrap, maybe first there was just the platform, which evolved over time into a platform with a hammer, then to a platform with a hammer and a spring, and so on.

Again I am assuming this is still the lead in not actual proof. I would also like to say that a mousetrap is a poor analogy. I personally don’t like analogies it is too easy to point out their inevitable problems and ignore the bigger issue. So forgive me if I don’t address your analogy, I will leave that to someone else.
Quote:

3. But Darwin's theory of natural selection, or "survival of the fittest," says that systems that work the best are the ones that survive and develop further. And a mousetrap that is just a flat wooden platform doesnt work. So according to natural selection, it wouldnt develope any further; it would become extinct.

You have only proven so far that a mouse trap can’t evolve. I will agree with that.
Quote:

4. Like the mouse trap, molecular machines are irreducibly complex. Without all their partsin the right places, they do not work. Since natural selection chooses systems that are already working, any incomplete molecular machines would bite the evolutionary dust, not develope bit by bit. Oh, and one more thing: These micromachines are too complex for all their parts to come together all at once by random process.


Here, I am assuming, is the evidence you are speaking of.
Irreducible complexity:
I will try to teach you why this is a poor argument. If I am not convincing I would also ask that you visit this link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
It provides full explanations of why this argument is not valid, including links to peer-reviewed biochemical papers. Much better credentials than I can offer.
One common example used by ID proponents is the bacterial flagella. It is also a good example for showing one of the weaknesses of the IR argument. The IR argument assumes that a reduced version of the final structure must be used for the same function. This is not the case. For instance, precursors to the flagellum's motor can be found being used as ionic channels within bacteria, known as the Type III Secretory System.

Quote:
I dont care if anyone on here was a christian, -- this seems irrelevant to the discussion at hand (proof that is), so for sake of space - snip-- at least i know that my beginings come from somewhere other than luck.

Too many scientists will tell you that we are in the perfect spot for creation. They will also tell you that the chances of life just happening are ridiculous. Too many factors have to come together at the same time in this perfectly ideal environment.


Links:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI301.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe
These links cover the scientific arguments well. If you don’t understand part, point it out, we will try to help clarify.
I will just say that even if something is highly improbable that does not make it impossible. Chances against winning the lottery are high, but some one usually does. It is very unlikely to be hit by lightning but people do.

Quote:
they cant even find a place for amino acids to have come together. And that spot would have to have enough nitrogen, which just cant be found. Again, look at your own facts. Chemist Henry F. Schaefer, James Tour of Nanoscale Science and Technology at Rice U., Fred Figworth- the professor of cellular and molecular physiology at Yale, The director of the center for Computational Quantom Chemistry all doubt evolution. These are major names for those of you who want me to give them. Check them out for yourselves. And there are even more. Im sorry, but nothing in this thread has impressed me. You say we ask all the same questions, and wonder why. Ill tell you why, the answers dont answer the questions. Try something new.


I can only say that far more scientists support evolution. Perhaps, most scientists are wrong, which I doubt, but it could be. Even if evolution were false, I would still ask you to give positive evidence for a creator. Disproving a scientific theory does nothing more than disproving a scientific theory, it does not prove god exists and it most especially does not prove a specific religion’s god exists. Can we agree on that? Even if you prove the existence of a creator, I would still need evidence that your version of god is correct. You would need to prove to me that god has the attributes you say he does. So I would like to ask you for proof. No need to prove a creator exists, just show me prove that he is who you think he is.

Or if you prefer you can make a list of the attributes god has. I (and others I am sure) will let you know why I don’t agree, or why I don’t think it is possible. Then you can respond and show us your proof. Sound good?

I have tried to avoid any personal attacks, I have tried to explain to you why I don’t believe what you do. Let me know if there are points that need expansion.

I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
Robert A. Heinlein


Iphtashu Fitz
Iphtashu Fitz's picture
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-02-28
User is offlineOffline
l.mcbryar wrote: An

l.mcbryar wrote:
An unchanging faith will always be there.

Really? It seems to me that peoples faith changes fairly regularly. How many variants of Christianity have sprung up over the past 2000 years? How many people have been brainwashed into joining cults? There are plenty of studies documenting the growing influence of Islam. Where do those numbers come from if faith is unchanging?


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1231
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
l.mcbryar wrote: Too many

l.mcbryar wrote:
Too many scientists will tell you that we are in the perfect spot for creation.

Is there a single scientist who would say we aren't in the perfect spot for creation?  Obviously we are, because we're here talking about it.  Take a moment to also observe we're also in the perfect spot for earthquakes, cancer, birth defects, and getting wiped out by an occasional asteroid, among other things.  

l.mcbryar wrote:
They will also tell you that the chances of life just happening are ridiculous.

How so?  If you roll a pair of dice 50 billion times and get double  sixes once, do you consider that one instance ridiculous?  In case the analogy isn't clear:  double sixes -> life on earth; the other 49,999,999 dice rolls -> all the other planets in the galaxy and beyond, where presumably life has not emerged.

l.mcbryar wrote:
Too many factors have to come together at the same time in this perfectly ideal environment.

There are countless stars and planets throughout the universe.  Is it really that astounding that the factors should come together  at least once?  Each time you roll the dice, your chances of getting double sixes improve. 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
l.mcbryar wrote: you say

l.mcbryar wrote:
you say that you want to look into the scientific proof of how everything got here. i have given scientific and mathematical proof. what more would you ask for?

You have done no such thing. What little mathematics and pseudo science you introduced was completely refuted.

l.mcbryar wrote:

Infinity cannot happen, therefore things have a begining, for those who want something that began, The Earth.

Infinity can happen. There are a number of theories that could explain infinity. The earth didn't "begin". The earth formed. Every particle in the earth already existed before the earth existed as a planet.

l.mcbryar wrote:
Then, scientists have disbunked many of the same arguements i see here.

Assertion without evidence.

l.mcbryar wrote:
The best arguements i have heard so far on this site would be from deludedgod. Im interested in his forum and im reading, not seeing it come together, but reading. I did my research and everyone here wants to give the same tired answers to my same tired questions, until i challenge it with math and your very own science.

As we have already seen your "challenge" flopped.

l.mcbryar wrote:
If you really want to prove me wrong, prove infinity to be a value.

I don't have to. Infinity is possible. That's all that matters.

l.mcbryar wrote:
Look at my last postings and read the facts that lay before you. Einstien led the charge, the greatest mind in history began the disproof. I would encourage you to check my math. Go back and see if changes.

Infinity can happen. Travelling distance around a circle is infinity. You have very low level comprehension of the subject and the physics it would seem. Even more amusing, if infinity couldn't happen, neither could your god. So your argument destroys your own position, even though it's a false argument.

l.mcbryar wrote:
Check better into your theories about evolution. Many scientists believe that Darwin's evolutionary tree is upside down!!! That in itself is enough proof. You want to look into something, check that.

It is not. We've already proved evolution beyond debate. We watch it happen. You're deluding yourself.

l.mcbryar wrote:

You criticize but don't want to try and teach.

You criticize and then teach lies. I'd say that's a step lower. And there are a lot of teachings in here that have been presented to you. Ignoring them is your choice, not ours.

l.mcbryar wrote:
I am open minded enough to read and at least look at it from your point.

I've done it from yours as an intellectual exercise.

l.mcbryar wrote:
I dont care if anyone on here was a christian, because for you to claim that you were a christian, you would have truely repented. That is the only way to be a christian. It is said, "For I am the way the truth and the life. Noone comes through the father except through me." Christ is the only way. You want to claim ex-Christian, i dont buy it. Based on what i have read, thats not christianity. If you cant sit down and piece together an argurment that your own science doesnt refute, what does that tell you? Im sorry. i may believe in a God, but at least i know that my beginings come from somewhere other than luck.

No, you just think they do.

l.mcbryar wrote:
Too many scientists will tell you that we are in the perfect spot for creation.

No they won't. You are just asserting that they will without evidence.

l.mcbryar wrote:
They will also tell you that the chances of life just happening are ridiculous.

Again, no they won't. They will tell you that the chances of life happening are low but possible. They will then tell you that anything that can happen will happen.

l.mcbryar wrote:
Too many factors have to come together at the same time in this perfectly ideal environment.

Mere proof you don't know the fallacies, lies, and omissions in creation probability arguments in the first place.

l.mcbryar wrote:
they cant even find a place for amino acids to have come together.

What are you talking about? It could have happened anywhere. You want the actual piece of earth that life formed on? Good luck with that. It's probably floating around the core of the planet right now.

l.mcbryar wrote:
And that spot would have to have enough nitrogen, which just cant be found. Again, look at your own facts.

I'm shaking my head at your ignorance.

l.mcbryar wrote:
Chemist Henry F. Schaefer, James Tour of Nanoscale Science and Technology at Rice U., Fred Figworth- the professor of cellular and molecular physiology at Yale, The director of the center for Computational Quantom Chemistry all doubt evolution. These are major names for those of you who want me to give them. Check them out for yourselves. And there are even more. Im sorry, but nothing in this thread has impressed me.

Any list you can make, I can make one a thousand times larger with a thousand times more credibility.

l.mcbryar wrote:
You say we ask all the same questions, and wonder why. Ill tell you why, the answers dont answer the questions. Try something new.

The answers do answer the questions that the answer pertains to. You're trying to make the answer pertain to questions it has nothing to do with.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


l.mcbryar
Theist
Posts: 28
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Im so sick of this

There are way to many things to say here. Im sick of this. I just want answers. Now all that i am hearing is whinning. Vastet, im sorry, but your wrong. Infinity has no value and therefor cannot be real. Ask any mathmetician. I did. its an imaginary number. It cannot happen in real life. And the comment about God being infinite, in a way. If God is real, he would transcend time. Like the bible says, to God a day is a thousand years and a thousand years is a day. He cannot be measured in time. And so my math, at the very least stays strong. And all the comments made to try and belittle me, they mean nothing. Like i said in the very beginning of this thread, im not like anyone else on this site. I dont care if you bash me, and i care less if you just want to say things to make me mad. Im human, ill get mad, but i let it go. this thread has now gotten to the point where proof is getting scarce and all im seeing is a pathetic attempt to belittle someone. if this gets deleted, oh well, its the truth.

If you want to disprove me, at the very least, DISPROVE MY MATH!!!!! That is a type of proof you want, concrete facts. Vastet, you made the comment "I don't have to. Infinity is possible. That's all that matters." Well if thats the case:
I dont have to prove God exists, its possible, thats all that matters. Not the same, why???? Where is the proof? Now its my turn. I slowly got to the point im at in this thread for a reason. just to see what would happen when there was an arguement that i have yet to see any answer for.

So dont make comments you cant or wont back. im sick of the petty crap that is being posted and expected to be taken as proof. Just saying its true doesnt make it so.

And about all the different denominations of christianity, they still believe christ is the son of God and that he was resurrected. Now thats the truth.

Psalms 74:10


My Name is Chelsea
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-02-23
User is offlineOffline
Sorry

l.mcbryar wrote:
There are way to many things to say here. Im sick of this. I just want answers. Now all that i am hearing is whinning. ---. And all the comments made to try and belittle me, they mean nothing. Like i said in the very beginning of this thread, im not like anyone else on this site. I dont care if you bash me, and i care less if you just want to say things to make me mad. Im human, ill get mad, but i let it go. this thread has now gotten to the point where proof is getting scarce and all im seeing is a pathetic attempt to belittle someone. if this gets deleted, oh well, its the truth. If you want to disprove me, at the very least, DISPROVE MY MATH!!!!! That is a type of proof you want, concrete facts. --- im sick of the petty crap that is being posted and expected to be taken as proof. Just saying its true doesnt make it so.


I.mcbryar,
I am sorry you feel like everyone is just belittling you. I honestly did not mean to belittle you. Though maybe you don’t mean to include me since you have replied to anything I have said?
I will admit I cannot prove infinity exists, or more relevantly I cannot disprove that the universe had a beginning. I can’t see anyway to disprove that the universe had a creator. In all honesty the question of how the universe began just really messing with my mind. I can’t imagine anything having no beginning or no end so that suggests that there must have been a creator, but then where did the creator come from? I suppose there could be an infinite creator. I am willing to stipulate an infinite creator. (I speak for myself here, I know that many atheists disagree and I am likely to get jumped on. Xxx)
So there you are, I am willing to agree with you. The universe, the space/time continuum was created. (I am not mocking or belittling, I am being entirely serious).
I am even willing to stipulate, for the sake of argument, a creator who got evolution started (ie made the first single celled organism and put it in the goo). What I have difficulty believing is that if such a creator exists that he/she/it has any further specific attributes. What I mean is that if any specific religion wants to convert me they will need to show that their concept of god is the creator.
So I guess I can’t give you the proof you mention specifically concerning infinity. Is there other proof you are looking for that I might know something about? I would love to have a rational, polite discussion about the likelihood of the Christian god of the Bible existing. I think it is unlikely but I am willing to discuss any proof you have of his existence. I think we could have a constructive conversation based on this common ground.

I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
Robert A. Heinlein


Family_Guy
Family_Guy's picture
Posts: 110
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
As to infinities:

We are surrounded by them on a daily basis.  How many numbers are there between zero and one?  Well, I can keep throwing zeroes behind that decimal point, and there's nothing stopping me from doing so.  The only solution to the question is that there are an infinite number of numbers between any two numbers.

I saw your question earlier about getting rid of all the even numbers in a marble bag with infinite marbles, but the problem is that something that is infinite is not tangible.  You can't have a bag with infinite marbles because as I take them out of the bag and start counting, I will always have a finite number.  The number can be astronomically high, but it is FINITE.

So infinities do not exist when dealing with tangible things, such as the number of grains of sand on a beach, or the number of atoms in a mole of air.  However, when things are taken from the concrete to the abstract, infinities abound.

When you approach the speed of light, your mass will rise until it becomes infinite.  When you fire a laser beam into space, until it collides with something, it will continue travelling in one direction for an infinite amount of time and travel an infinite distance.

Someone mentioned the Euclidean example of walking around and around a circle; a circle has a set circumference, but that doesn't mean it can't be traversed ad infinitum.

 I don't discuss the rest of what you pondered, because I'll leave that to the people who know more about biology, but I figured I'd let you know about infinities.

Good luck with your deconversion.  I can see you starting to understand that some of what you hold faith in might be for the birds (or bats, depending on how closely you read your Bible).

...from the mind of Family Guy.

"Like Fingerpainting 101, gimme no credit for having class; one thumb on the pulse of the nation, one thumb in your girlfriend's ass; written on, written off, some calling me a joke, I don't think that I'm a sellout but I do enjoy Coke."

-BHG


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1231
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Not sure anyone cares, but

Not sure anyone cares, but I felt compelled to redress  my mis-wording here: 

zarathustra wrote:

Each time you roll the dice, your chances of getting double sixes improve.

 What I meant is that the greater number of rolls, the better the chances of rolling double sixes.  Each roll itself is independent, so the chances of rolling sixes is not itself influenced by the previous rolls.

We now return you to our regularly scheduled program.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
l.mcbryar wrote: There are

l.mcbryar wrote:
There are way to many things to say here. Im sick of this. I just want answers. Now all that i am hearing is whinning.

Typical theist. Dodge and dodge and run away.

l.mcbryar wrote:
Vastet, im sorry,

No you aren't.

l.mcbryar wrote:
but your wrong.

No I'm not.

l.mcbryar wrote:
Infinity has no value

What is value? We can empirically illustrate the existance of infinity. I did so in my previous post. You sir, are a bald faced liar.

l.mcbryar wrote:
and therefor cannot be real. Ask any mathmetician. I did. its an imaginary number.

Any mathemetician worth his weight in water would tell you that infinity has no place in practical mathematics. Not one would tell you that it doesn't exist at all. Every one will point to pi as proof of infinity.

l.mcbryar wrote:
It cannot happen in real life.

Proven lie.

l.mcbryar wrote:
And the comment about God being infinite, in a way. If God is real, he would transcend time. Like the bible says, to God a day is a thousand years and a thousand years is a day. He cannot be measured in time.

Fictional claptrap. You might make a good dungeons and dragons author. Making up things as you go along, or spouting pre-made up things taught to you by the church or other spokesmen. You can't prove there's any such thing as "transcending time". You theists make so many fantastic ideas to try and prove god, it'd be amusing if it weren't for the fact you actually believe it.

l.mcbryar wrote:
And so my math, at the very least stays strong.

I've destroyed it twice now. Care to go for a third?

l.mcbryar wrote:
And all the comments made to try and belittle me, they mean nothing. Like i said in the very beginning of this thread, im not like anyone else on this site. I dont care if you bash me, and i care less if you just want to say things to make me mad. Im human, ill get mad, but i let it go. this thread has now gotten to the point where proof is getting scarce and all im seeing is a pathetic attempt to belittle someone. if this gets deleted, oh well, its the truth.

I call it like it is. If you lie, I'll call you a liar. If you whine about it, I'll point and laugh at your patheticness. I don't care if you care or not, but you invited ridicule by posting ridiculous assertions without evidence. Reap what you sow.

l.mcbryar wrote:
If you want to disprove me, at the very least, DISPROVE MY MATH!!!!! That is a type of proof you want, concrete facts.

I did already. Infinity exists.

l.mcbryar wrote:
Vastet, you made the comment "I don't have to. Infinity is possible. That's all that matters." Well if thats the case:
I dont have to prove God exists, its possible, thats all that matters. Not the same, why???? Where is the proof?

Invalid attempt, though I applaud the try for it's originality. [/sarcasm]
You said infinity doesn't have a value and therefore can't exist, I proved a value isn't required for it to exist. Infinity is a concept, not a number. All you've done with your rebuttal is prove that the concept of god exists, of which we well know. That doesn't mean god exists.

l.mcbryar wrote:

So dont make comments you cant or wont back. im sick of the petty crap that is being posted and expected to be taken as proof. Just saying its true doesnt make it so.

Repeat those words to yourself over and over until they sink in.

l.mcbryar wrote:
And about all the different denominations of christianity, they still believe christ is the son of God and that he was resurrected. Now thats the truth.

Maybe it is. That's quite the generalization you've made there. But it's not one I care about, so it's not one I'll bother to argue. Especially since it doesn't prove anything. The Jews and Moslems believe jesus existed too. How do you know they aren't right? The Jews existed ages before the Christians did. But the name is mentioned nowhere in Wicca. Nowhere in Greek, Roman, Egyptian, or any other religion predating christianity. Nor is there mention of the Christian god.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


l.mcbryar
Theist
Posts: 28
Joined: 2007-02-22
User is offlineOffline
again, making me sick

Vastet now you are being sinical. i seriously ask you to look back at a posting slightly before yours by family_guy. unfortunalty, he explains your infinity perfectly. there will always be a finite answer. and because the idea of infinity is just a concept, it therefor cannot happen, disproving that the earth had to have a beginning.

And duh on the concept of all the religions not mentioning Jesus. they werent around. Notice the fact that christianity is just 2000 years old...not even yet. so duh. Greek/Roman mythology were long since forgotten, and wicca is just on its own. and do not criticize me on wicca, i know enough about it, and it is in a seperate place. That arguement is pathetic. you want to be honest, real, and knowing? then do me a favor, use relivent information. and you have yet to diprove infinity, because you cant. No matter what, you will always have a finite number. so please, bring into the account something worth wild.

And chelsea, sorry. i have read, just things get me off of responding to all. you bring up valid things, and i agree with you, about having a rational conversation. i just get taken from six ways being the only one to debate anything coming against faith. and i see where you are comming from. email me sometime.

Psalms 74:10


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
l.mcbryar wrote: Sapient

l.mcbryar wrote:
Sapient wrote:

Quote:
Science is not reliable.

Prove it.

You want proof got it. I want to start with a very small comment you made, and work my way up. im sorry to say, its not a conversion you have today folks. Even less so now that I have done some deeper research on a few topics. Let's begin: sapient, you say the world is eternal?

If you're gonna start with a comment I made, how about actually using a comment I made?

I said matter is most likely eternal not "the world." 

If you don't agree with me then what created your god?

 

Quote:
even Stephen Hawkins, one of the leading scientists of all of history agrees with. Therefore, this leads to a world that has a begining. Hince the theory of the Big Bang.

The Universe had a beginning, Hawking and I agree.  Matter is eternal, Hawkins and I agree.

 

The theory of inherent dishonest in theism states that a theist must be ignorant and or dishonest when defending a god.  Which was it for you?  What led you to mischaracterize my position in your strawman and then tear it down?  Was it ignorance of my position or dishonesty?

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: The first

Sapient wrote:

The first thing to exist has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution explains how life developed once it arose, the study of cosmology is the realm in which you would learn about the existence of matter. The law of conservation of matter shows us that the most likely scenario is that matter is eternal and has always existed, it didn't come from anywhere, it has existed forever, and will always exist.

So this is seriously your definitive response?  You're satisfied with the conclusion that "matter is eternal and has always existed, it didn't come form anywhere, it has existed forever, and will always exist"? 

That kind of blows my mind.   


My Name is Chelsea
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-02-23
User is offlineOffline
New thread?

l.mcbryar wrote:

And chelsea, sorry. i have read, just things get me off of responding to all. you bring up valid things, and i agree with you, about having a rational conversation. i just get taken from six ways being the only one to debate anything coming against faith. and i see where you are comming from. email me sometime.


I could ask why “irrational” questions from people who appear to be unwilling to listen to your arguments take precedence over “rational” questions?

I will start up a new thread with specific questions I have about various attributes Christians believe god has and why. Hopefully you will be able to find time to answer. If others butt in with sidetracks, or attacks, feel free to ignore them. Though to be fair if any theist post sidtracks or attacks I will ignore them as well.

New Thread 

I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
Robert A. Heinlein


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Of course I have to chime

Of course I have to chime in and remind everyone that this is the Kill 'Em With Kindness thread.

No insults.  No attacks.  

We must be on our best behavior here.  Wink

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
jmm wrote: Sapient

jmm wrote:
Sapient wrote:

The first thing to exist has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution explains how life developed once it arose, the study of cosmology is the realm in which you would learn about the existence of matter. The law of conservation of matter shows us that the most likely scenario is that matter is eternal and has always existed, it didn't come from anywhere, it has existed forever, and will always exist.

So this is seriously your definitive response? You're satisfied with the conclusion that "matter is eternal and has always existed, it didn't come form anywhere, it has existed forever, and will always exist"?

That kind of blows my mind.

 I can't see how it would blow your mind, do you believe God has existed eternally?  If so, why is it so hard to understand?

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: jmm

Sapient wrote:
jmm wrote:
Sapient wrote:

The first thing to exist has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution explains how life developed once it arose, the study of cosmology is the realm in which you would learn about the existence of matter. The law of conservation of matter shows us that the most likely scenario is that matter is eternal and has always existed, it didn't come from anywhere, it has existed forever, and will always exist.

So this is seriously your definitive response? You're satisfied with the conclusion that "matter is eternal and has always existed, it didn't come form anywhere, it has existed forever, and will always exist"?

That kind of blows my mind.

I can't see how it would blow your mind, do you believe God has existed eternally? If so, why is it so hard to understand?

 

No, it's not hard to understand.  It just surprises me that your conclusion is so simple.  Nothing wrong with simplicity, but I guess I was expecting something different.  

I guess I was expecting some profound explanation on the origin of matter, but all I got was, "It was always there, it will always be there."   

It was kind of like discovering the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain.