Does God Exist?

[Doom_Dragoon]

Personally, I think God does exist, but in the back of my mind I think that God may have been just thought up to make people feel better. This is because most people can't fathom that there may not be anything after death. Such as you die, gg, now you lie in the ground. It could be compared to the Bible, which was made up by a bunch different people. Who's to say they weren't just writing it in their best interest, which I think is true.

Anyway, give me your opinions. I'd like to see what you guys think about the subject.

Note: Don't flame me and try to say what a blastphemer I am. Please and thank you.

[TranquilNightElf]

YEs ..plain and simple....needs no further explanation for me.The body is what goes in the ground or is cremated.The soul is eternal and is a part of the essencce of the greater being that is God who never takes human form.


EDIT:
There is no heaven and hell, only what we create for ourselves.
"hell" is our continued lives on this material plane having forgotten our true nature and "heaven" is with the eternal light, our home.



PS.This thread is going to be about a lot of people expressing their deep faith and beliefs, which will be undoubtedly vary dramatically from person to person.
We are all sensible here but still I request for this not to get out of hand with regards to flaming.

[Doombringer64]

No, he doesn't exist, well not in the way the Catholics would like you to believe.

[Valjean]

Bah. If God is real, the Bible is still full of BS.

I doubt god's existance. I know that the bible's wrong though. =P

[Fenguin]

Ouch... touchy subject. Some people can get very very angry because of this. Like, really really really angry.

Personally, as a non-denominational Christian [yup, and I'm proud of it!], I believe that God exists. I have a somewhat transcendentalist view that God can be seen in our life: nature, other people doing good things, etc. :D

[Lucifer_Hawk]

you might wanna watcfh out in this thread, people can turn into real asses on things like this. I, personally, am undecided, I have been raised to believe that god is real but when I think of it myself, alot of questions come to mind that make me wonder. I really have no true opinion on it, I am leaning more at the moment to him not being real, but I am still undecided.

[Modred]

It's not that people can turn into asses over this stuff, its more that people will turn into asses over this sort of stuff. And then we get about twenty or thirty evolution v creationism threads and nobody gets along anymore.

I believe in God as mentioned in the Bible.

But I keep thinking of a quote (which I cannot remember the exact phrasing of) of Tecumseh that was something to the effect of that the creator gave the white men and the red men a different lifestyle, different foods, and different ideas, so would it not be proper that he also give the each a different religion according to their own understanding?

[Battlecruiser]

this is a real controversial topic. I am not going to comment becuase I am the protector of order. commenting would lead to chaos and then even the destruction of the world so I am not going to comment. Any fighting in this thread will be stopped by me becuase I protect order.

don't ban me for spamming haha

[Firehawk]

YEs ..plain and simple....needs no further explanation for me.The body is what goes in the ground or is cremated.The soul is eternal and is a part of the essencce of the greater being that is God who never takes human form.
Um... if you believe that God exists, then you logically believe at least certain parts of the bible. I'd just like to note that Jesus Christ is, according to the bible, God in human form.

[frogger]

I don't think god exists. However, i also think that we should 'live and let live' because whether or not god exists, faith is still a powerful thing.

I was brought up in a catholic home, and through the years have come to beleive that their is no heaven and no hell. I think that the christian religion tries to scare people into beleiving them by saying 'do this or something bad will happen' ie hell.

If god exists and was ever forgiving, they why would he let anyone go to hell?
why does he/she care so much if we go to church or praise him/her? But, if the idea of god will get someone through a hard time, good for them.

[Nuts]

No proof exists to support the idea of a deity, and since you cannot prove a negative, there can be no sensible conclusion to the current thread. Any claims to the contrary would be conjecture at best, and pure fantasy at worst.

Beliefs mean nothing when pertaining to facts.

[Fenguin]

There's no proof to deny the existence of a deity either.

[OboeGuru]

But there are studies being done that make the validity of the Bible questionable. To me, that should start raising questions about the validity of the teachings.

The way I see it is that way, way back when scientific progress was much slower and less extensive, it was convenient to have an all-powerful Deity to be responsible for all the unexplainables in the world/universe.

And Feng...you cannot prove a negativeYou wasted a post. :p

I have no doubt that beliefs help people through troubled times. But the reason they get through is not because of God's Grace or anything, it's a matter of neurochemistry. The hope they create within themselves keeps the endorphin levels up and, to a degree, aids the process of recuperation from whatever.

[Fenguin]

I didn't waste a post. $postcount++ anyhow. :D
Oh, and post evidence on why God isn't real. Go on...

[OboeGuru]

Do you read the @#$%ing posts or not?!

QUOTE: Originally posted by Nuts:
you cannot prove a negative

Post me proof that a deity does exist. Proof that comes from a totally unbiased scientific study. That is, has absolutely no ties to a religious organization in any way. Go on... Good luck finding that.

[frogger]

i am not trying to prove or disprove gods existence, if it was proved or disproved, this thread wouldn't be here. I just think (an opinion) that god doesn't exist.

[Fenguin]

But there are studies being done that make the validity of the Bible questionable.
You said yourself that there are "studies... that make the validity of the Bible questionable." Please elaborate. That statement in itself is an attempt to prove something unprovable.
Oh, and guess what? You can prove a negative. For example, you can prove that you aren't holding a baseball bat in your hand just by looking at it. Or you can prove that two triangles aren't congruent by showing that one pair of angles aren't equal.

[OboeGuru]

But there's a difference. Those are proofs made by proving that somethign is true that makes the other circumstance invalid. Inference. You can prove I'm not holding a baseball bat because you can prove that my hand is empty. You already gave the proof for the triangles.

There is no inference by which you can conclude that God does not exist. So you cannot prove that particular negative. Symantics...

[Fenguin]

Again, I ask you to elaborate on these "studies." I would really much like to see them and their process of proof.
In addition, when you stated "you cannot prove a negative" before, you did not say anything about generality or specificity. It is logical to assume that the statement "you cannot prove a negative" referred to most cases, not just one specific case about God.

[OboeGuru]

Okay, I meant it that way, sorry for forgetting the specificity. Don't talk to me about logic in here, logic to me says that God doesn't exist. My logic also said that the statement applied to this specific circumstance. Logic varies person to person.

[frogger]

so said kant, go figure

[Fenguin]

*cough cough* I will post this with no other argument so I get an answer: I would like to see these "studies" you speak of. I would like enlightenment on what they are really about and how these people are trying to disprove all of religion.

[OboeGuru]

It was something I saw years ago, you think I can remember where I saw it, much less how to find it? I just remember reading it and being intrigued at the concept.

[Doom_Dragoon]

By George, look what I started. Go me! I personally think that the bible was made up to make sure people behaved in a way that be suited to those writing it.

[TranquilNightElf]

Um... if you believe that God exists, then you logically believe at least certain parts of the bible. I'd just like to note that Jesus Christ is, according to the bible, God in human form.

How can you not believe in some parts of each and every religion?..they are essentially the same.

Christ, Was not God, he was a person enlightened by God and to that end it empowered him over and above the masses.
Samething goes with the prophet Mohammed, Guru Nanank, Gautam Buddha etc.



By George, look what I started. Go me! I personally think that the bible was made up to make sure people behaved in a way that be suited to those writing it.

If that is so then who do you think started this fiendish scheme of mass control :)

[frogger]

squabling over beleifs is very funny.

than u DD

[Mattimeo]

To me science has proved enough about how the universe works to eliminate the neccesity of a omnipotent being controlling everything that takes place. I personally find it easier to live my life without believing in a god because of all that being a very religious person entails. But you can believe whatever you want and I won't stop you, just like I won't stop you from thinking the Red Sox are better than the yankees ^^ (even though the very though that anybody is better than the yankees is BS)

[MacG]

I'm a Agnostic one. I don't think anyone can tell if there is god. It's either believe it or don't and I can't stray totally into believing that there is god. There are so many religions out there, does the christian god exist? I am not raised christian, so I don't believe so.

[Nuts]

Oh, and guess what? You can prove a negative. For example, you can prove that you aren't holding a baseball bat in your hand just by looking at it. Or you can prove that two triangles aren't congruent by showing that one pair of angles aren't equal.

My statement was made in the context of this thread.
You cannot prove a negative for entities such as God, Martians, Ghosts, etc... These are areas in which disbelief is based on assumption or lack of evidence to induce said belief.

It's pointless to argue these things.

[Doom_Dragoon]

Oh come on Nuts, it's fun to start up controversial, intelligent convos.

[Cygnus]

I must conclude that I'm simply a skeptic. I mean one who accuse Christians as being dogmatic and at the same time concluding that god does not exist and holding onto that belief as strongly as the ones you have accused, is a hypocrite. Therefore I once was a hypocrite. If you simply always question your beliefs even if you think they are right.

I doubt that a god exists, but I am open to evidence to point me the other way. It's the only way to be unbiased. Simply always question.

[Doom_Dragoon]

Well, I'm getting there with my personal thought sessions when I think on such trivial matters as these.

[frogger]

i would have liked to say i was neutral about god for a while, but i wasn't. I was raised catholic, so i used to worship and beleive him. then i decided that something was off because i had never seen any evidence to make me beleive in him. Then i started realizing how the preachers are always talking about 'eternal damnation' wich is pretty much saying 'were wright, so beleive us or suffer' and i thought that if they were really right, they wouldn't need to create a hell to make people beleive in them. (just the lowly opinion of a non-beleiving athiest)

[EdvardMunch]

The Riddle of Epicurus
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

[Scauthra]

God was invented by the human mind in a way to give faith and order. Now the question if there is one? If there is such a thing as a god or goddess, it hasint show much sign of being real or careing much about this place.

In my mind there is no god. And if christianity is the true religion, then I suffer. Woopy do.

[Doom_Dragoon]

That's where I have problems. Every religion seems to say that if you do not live under their rules, you go to hell, but hey wait a minute, does that mean that most people are going to hell then?

[Fenguin]

Hehe, that reminds me of that proof that hell is exothermic. Look around for it on Google ;)

[Adovid]

The Riddle of Epicurus
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

The Riddle of Humanity
Is Humanity willing to exist without evil, but not able? (Are they sentient beings with free will?)
Is Humanity able to exist without evil, but not willing? Then humanity is malevolent.
Is Humanity both willing and able? Then why do they do evil?
Is Humanity both unwilling and unable?(Then what is malevolence without free will?)

[Fenguin]

Humanity is able to exist without evil, but not willing. Humanity is malevolent. :)

[EdvardMunch]

I agree, humanity chooses to be malevolent.

[Doom_Dragoon]

This is because no one is ever satisfied with what they have. Greed...

[BSTRhino]

Yes. Me and Dark Soul were just playing Astonia 3, and we got a macro demon 3 times in a row. That's pure coincidence. If you go around through life and you count up how many times these 'coincidences' happen, it's like someone's out there, making them happen. It's really amazing.

[frogger]

when you say coincidence you downplay the fact that their is something makeing them happen, making them more they random events. But later you say its like someone's out their, making them happen. Which is it? coincidence or makeing them happen? That post was confusing.

[GrassDragon]

i think BST was using a little thing called SARCASM. learn it, use it, its lots of fun, though hard to put across online :\

[frogger]

yes, sarcasm is hard to put across the net, and i've heard, and beleive, that it a tool of the weak mineded (a seperate peice)

[BSTRhino]

Actually I was being serious.

I meant coincidence as in, it's really unlikely to happen, yet it does. It's like someone's up there making all these unlikely events happen.

Like, another time, I went into a lift, and in that same lift was someone I hadn't seen for a year. Imagine if I had gone in that lift one minute later, or one minute earlier. I just happened to go into the lift at the right time. It's a coincidence.

But what I mean is, 'coincidences' or in other words, unlikely situations like this happen so often it's like someone's making them happen.

[EdvardMunch]

Some events may have a 1 in a billion chance of happening, but that means that in 999,999,999 other places that event isn't happening. With so many people on this planet, most events aren't a matter of whether they will or won't happen, but where. You being there is a matter of personal luck. Besides, if someone is causing these good coincidences, doesn't it follow that someone also causes the bad coincidences that lead up to someone's worst day? Two bad drivers happen to be on the same stretch of road at the same time and run into and kill each other.

[Wick3d]

the only person who could definitively say god does not exist is god. so, sorry.

[OboeGuru]

the only person who could definitively say god does not exist is god. so, sorry.
Ummm, no, sorry, I can't let that BS stand.

I compare believing in the existence of God to a number of things. Things like: believing the Earth is flat, believing in a Geocentric (revolves around Earth) universe. Both of those were eventually disproven after scientific advance had reached a certain level. So will be the fate of belief in God/the existence of God. But not anytime soon, I doubt the human race has reached the necessary level of knowledge to create a substantial disproof yet. The atheist revolution is coming, are you ready?

[Wick3d]

ready to not be a part of it

[Doom_Dragoon]

the only person who could definitively say god does not exist is god. so, sorry.That's an oxymoron if I ever heard one.

[GrassDragon]

Both of those were eventually disproven after scientific advance had reached a certain level. So will be the fate of belief in God/the existence of God.

what if scientific advancement were to prove that God did exist? we dont know for sure that science will disprove the existance of God.

[Traveller]

yes God exists, if we were from animals then why do we play music while other animals don't? do you see chimps swatting hollow logs other than in a Disney film? oh, and whales are communicating with those "songs", but since i haven't heard of any evidence that they assemble into audiences to listen i can't seriously consider that they are singing.

[Fenguin]

Ummm, no, sorry, I can't let that BS stand.

I compare believing in the existence of God to a number of things. Things like: believing the Earth is flat, believing in a Geocentric (revolves around Earth) universe. Both of those were eventually disproven after scientific advance had reached a certain level. So will be the fate of belief in God/the existence of God. But not anytime soon, I doubt the human race has reached the necessary level of knowledge to create a substantial disproof yet. The atheist revolution is coming, are you ready?
You can't prove or disprove that God exists by any means. You could disprove the others because they're governed by scientific laws.
We can't prove that God is matter or non-matter, so we can't apply scientific laws to God. God could be extradimensional, for all we know, and we wouldn't be able to find him anywhere. :annoy;::annoy;:

[OboeGuru]

what if scientific advancement were to prove that God did exist? we dont know for sure that science will disprove the existance of God.
Good point, I must say. All our reseach could conceivably point to a higher-plane being causing the Big Bang, though I seriously doubt that.

Extra dimensions for the most part are still speculation, are they not? I really don't want to see any arguments about God being some sort of extradimensional being, there's absolutely no foundation.we can't apply scientific laws to GodWhat if "God" IS scientific law???

yes God exists, if we were from animals then why do we play music while other animals don't? do you see chimps swatting hollow logs other than in a Disney film? oh, and whales are communicating with those "songs", but since i haven't heard of any evidence that they assemble into audiences to listen i can't seriously consider that they are singing.It's called WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME BRAIN DEVELOPMENT. Though similar, a chimp's brain is not developed the same as a human's, and they very well could be taught to play some sort of music, given time. Just because we all have a common ancestry in the grand scheme of things, it does not mean that all species should have the same abilities. Why don't you just make an argument about flying while you're at it, or about epidermal breathing, or ability to utilize dissolved oxygen in water. It's evolution, a massive branching out of all Earth's creatures.

[IceFlare]

Didnt want to read the whole thread but Im assuming that this thread also bases around religion. If we REALLY knew a GOD or benevolent all knowing entity exists, then the religion that revolves around it wouldnt be a religion, it would be a fact and there would be no point in choosing to believe or not or even choosing different religions. Therefore, religion exists because no benevolent entity can be totally proven to exist. This is all my opinion. Please dont flame me for being stupid in my own ways =)

[Fenguin]

What if "God" IS scientific law???
That statement has absolutely nothing to do with whether God exists or not. It is just an assumption that is in no way an argument.
If God isn't "matter" as we define it [which most religions believe], there's no way to apply scientific laws to God. We can only discover laws about matter and antimatter because we can only produce and "see" those things.

[frogger]

the atheist revolution is comeing, Obeguru, but i think that your leaving out some in-between steps. We thought that their were tons of gods a while ago. Now we think theirs one. Next we will probably think that their is something really powerful, but not ultra-powerful. once we reach that step, of thinking of deity's as something really big and bad (or good) but not infinitly powerful, science can more aptly try proving god does not exist. I (as i have posted several times in this thread) and atheist, and although i think the athiest revolution is comeing, i think it will be a few years off. people aren't ready to think that they control their own fate, and that when they die, thats it. It is a pretty grim thought. It is also odd that religious people tend to get really defensive when talking about their chosen deity. If they really beleived in him/her/it, why would they care what anyone eles thought?

[Traveller]

but flight isn't restricted to one species, nor epidermal breathing or breathing water. from what i've seen an appreciation of music is unique to humans. as for proving that God doesn't exist scientifically, how would that be possible? could an AI program on a computer prove that it's programmer doesn't exist? if you are the definition of the rules, then how can anyone use them to prove that you don't exist?

edit: typo

[Wick3d]

If they really beleived in him/her/it, why would they care what anyone eles thought?
i dont. I dont know anyone else who does

[Kingyu]

It is interesting to note how God evolves with us. In ancient times, the concept of a God was an all-powerful being(s) that could destroy any threat to him and should be worshiped out of fear. As polytheism started to be replaced by monotheism, God started to become the all creator of everything and everyone and the deity god as a whole became more advanced. The ancients never saw black powder weapons, nor did they have an understanding of how the universe worked. Whenever we advance our God advances with us. One tends to wonder, "When will be overtake the master?"
If we become so powerful that the laws of space and time bend to the will of humanity, then how great would god have to become? When we master the unknown of the universe, what will happen to God?

[OboeGuru]

It is also odd that religious people tend to get really defensive when talking about their chosen deity. If they really beleived in him/her/it, why would they care what anyone eles thought?
I totally agree, it's as if they're trying to hide themselves from the truth, or rather trying to hide themselves from the extremely-possible/absolute-most-likely-assertion that everything has a logical, completely scientific reason, albeit we may not have the knowledge to explain it (yet).

[Fenguin]

It's funny how when people discover a pattern, they get all giddy and excited and they assume that the pattern holds for everything.
On that note, prove that everything has a "logical, completely scientific reason." You said it was a fact, so it shouldn't be hard for you to show it's true.

[OboeGuru]

I think it's funny how philosophers scrabble with different interpretations of religious texts to change meanings to suit what science proves. I find it hard to believe that people can believe in something that doesn't have a firm foundation. Sure science doesn't exactly have one either, but that's because the foundation is still being laid, the foundation of religion was made centuries ago, it should be solid and unvarying. Science can be expected to change because of the ever-present improvements in abilities to comprehend and experiment.

[Fenguin]

The foundation of religion is as stable as can be. The Orthodox faith remained unchanged for 2000 years. Buddhism has not changed since its founding. Neither has Islam. Even science can't beat that.

[frogger]

on an off note, not for or against religion, i think its funny that 10 different people will get 10 different ideas from the same set of scripture, when the scripture is religious in origin.

[Case_in_point]

If you look back at all the religions, they all have subtle similarities, which means there may have been a real God and that he spoke to someone long ago. The thing is, as people migrated to different parts of the world, the story probably changed, and formed the multitude of religions we have today.

Do I think he exists?

I believe there is some higher power, but I don't think it is accurately portrayed in any religion today. And as far as religion goes, even though some of them may seem crazy, who cares?

Even if it's all a lie, the vast majority of the most popular religions are built on the principles of good will towards others, of being kind and helping people. What's wrong with that? As long as you aren't sacrificing people or beating women for wearing a skirt, who cares what your God looks like. That's why I think we should just let others believe what they want, even if we don't like it, there's no way yet to prove that any of the religions are right or wrong.

In the future? Hey, Greek religion was proved false, as was Norse, Native American, and many others. Maybe someday there will be a class called Christian Mythology....

[Fenguin]

I have something small to say: Greek, Norse, and Native American religions were only rendered obsolete because they were replaced with other religions. :D
Greek -> Greek Orthodox Christianity
Norse -> Christianity [more "blended" instead of replaced, but still disappeared with the advent of Christianity]
Native American -> Christianity [although it is still somewhat practiced today in some parts of America]

[Case_in_point]

Yes, I won't argue with that at all. But replaced and proven false are different things. We know that there isn't some guy up there hurling thunderbolts when he's angry, it's electric particles in a storm cloud.

But you are correct, those religions were replaced first then proven false, for the most part anyway, much later.

[Wick3d]

rofl, you could just pull a calvin and make up ur own religion.

[Carnage]

Yes. Quit askin'. :P

It is interesting to note how God evolves with us. In ancient times, the concept of a God was an all-powerful being(s) that could destroy any threat to him and should be worshiped out of fear. As polytheism started to be replaced by monotheism, God started to become the all creator of everything and everyone and the deity god as a whole became more advanced. The ancients never saw black powder weapons, nor did they have an understanding of how the universe worked. Whenever we advance our God advances with us. One tends to wonder, "When will be overtake the master?"
If we become so powerful that the laws of space and time bend to the will of humanity, then how great would god have to become? When we master the unknown of the universe, what will happen to God?

You humans believe you know so much when in fact you know so little. You haven't even begun to discover the enormous amount of secrets your world hides and yet you believe you can unlock the mysteries of the great beyond and the universe itself? You amuse this one to no end. :)

[Hikari256]

The Riddle of Epicurus
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

My belief is that he (not inteded to imply that god is male. I conseder "him" geder neutral) is able and willing, but has not done so because of other concerns which preclude the eradication of evil. You say humnity is malevolent. Therefore, would God not have to either destroy or reshape on a fundamental level (which is lttle different from destroy) humanity in order to eradicate evil?

My Religion holds that God Loves humanity but hates teh evil and sin withing us. he cannot accept us because of our sin, but cannot eradicate us because of his love. So, for justice and love, he sent Jesus as teh sacrifice to clease the sin from those who ere willing to accept his grace.

On an unrelated note, i would like to give out a Kudos for having the most civil religious debate o have seen online. I usually see three way mudslinging contests betwwen Wiccans/Pagans/Astratu, Christians/Jews, and Athiests.

[EdvardMunch]

If he is able and willing, then why doesn't God stop natural disasters? Landslides that take out churches and floods that strike poverty stricken areas and the like. And then there's the existence of diseases.

Another question: Why doesn't God just reveal himself? I believe that if God unquestionably made his presence known and explained who and what he was, everybody would do everything he says. I know I would.

[Traveller]

he has revealed Himself. Israel still exists as a nation despite all of it's enemies surrounding it. that ought to be enough proof in itself.

[Nuts]

Israel exists because of America, not the good graces of some all powerful deity.

How long are you people going to debate this issue? It's impossible to prove one way or the other, it's all wishful thinking on both sides of the aisle.

[Scorch]

Check please. I personaly subscribe to Christianity. At best, I'm right, I got heaven. At worst, I'm wrong and end up going through life being a good person. My personal opinion on atheists is
the idea of an all-powerful God is too terrifying for them as it would mean being accountable for their actions. It's much easier to just deny the idea altogether for them than accept the idea that they can be judged for their actions. Why else would the likes of oboeguru feel the need to sceam 'It's BS!'?

[Nuts]

Scorch, be mindful of those atheists (like myself) whom have what I believe to be a strong moral fiber yet still maintain a non-belief in a deity. My beliefs are rooted in my own personal experiences, not the fear of judgement. To fear judgement would be a passive acknowledgement of a deity, ergo a theist, or at the very least agnostic.

Oboe is what I consider a militant atheist.

[Jedi_Templar]

Does God exist?

He cannot be proven nor disproven scientifically (to my knowledge), but I do believe He exists. Why?

The universe is far too complex for there to NOT be a God.

[TantridFrost-88]

Umm.. Honestly, I think that there is a God. I mean there might be and might not be, just what you grew up thinking. If there isnt a God, what is there? Because ya know, how did we end up here? I mean jeez, i dont think Adam and Eve were just born from a damn egg because of luck and started inbreeding...

[Protosschick99]

Hey man, I believe in God all the way!

He's awesome, He's wonderful, He's Almighty, He's loving, and He has been soooo good to me!

Too much has changed in my life for the better for me to say that God doesn't exist. I've seen too many things that the Lord has done to deny Him. I've witnessed too many miracles to declare that God isn't real. I have watched many a time how I've recieved favor from numerous ppl who don't know about my faith. I've seen demons driven out of ppl, I've watched ppl become healed of cancer, I've watched marriages become restored, I've seen whole families come together once again and remove that spirit of unforgiveness, I've watched prophecies come true, I've seen ppl straight out leap for the Holy Ghost, I saw my best-friend get delivered of anxiety attacks, I've seen my other friends get prophesied over about being missionaries, I've watched others be healed of athritis, I've seen women get healed of tumors and such!

I've seen and heard miracles, signs, and wonders! I cannot deny my God. I just cannot. It is just.....Not me. My God is there, He always has been, and I love Him with all my heart. Thank the Lord that Jesus came and died for us cuz if it wasn't for Him, we wouldn't be able to have a relationship with God :)

So that is what I have to say, I am grateful and I believe in God. :D

[BSTRhino]

Wow P-chicky, when you put it like that... who can refute such a thing?

I believe in angels
Something good in everything I see
I believe in angels
When I know the time is right for me
I’ll cross the stream - I have a dream

[TantridFrost-88]

Hehehehe, well see, everyone has their own beliefs.

[Fenguin]

But some people's are naturally superior to other people's. ;) jk :p

[Jedi_Templar]

Umm.. Honestly, I think that there is a God. I mean there might be and might not be, just what you grew up thinking. If there isnt a God, what is there? Because ya know, how did we end up here? I mean jeez, i dont think Adam and Eve were just born from a damn egg because of luck and started inbreeding...
Hate to start the oft-discussed topic (creation/evolution), but since Adam and Eve were perfect, their DNA would have been perfect and not as affected by the effects of inbreeding like people are today (which causes massive genetic errors and mutations).

[OboeGuru]

Scorch, be mindful of those atheists (like myself) whom have what I believe to be a strong moral fiber yet still maintain a non-belief in a deity. My beliefs are rooted in my own personal experiences, not the fear of judgement. To fear judgement would be a passive acknowledgement of a deity, ergo a theist, or at the very least agnostic.

Oboe is what I consider a militant atheist.
Though I may be very aggressive about my beliefs (or lack thereof, depending on how you look at it), I too maintain a basic moral fiber that most of my Christian friends have no problem with. Of course, having rejected the Bible, I have a few ideals that would tend to piss off a "good Christian." Anyone's free to judge a person however/whenever they want, the way I see it, so fearing judgement is basically congruent to fearing living and socializing, and that's no way to be.

Just for argument's sake I say this: If there turns out to be a God who passes judgement, I'd be damned anyways, regardless of practicing religion. :p That's just the way I am. :D

But some people's are naturally superior to other people's. ;) jk :p
That was unnecessary... regardless of the "jk", it just doesn't need to be said.

[Hikari256]

If he is able and willing, then why doesn't God stop natural disasters? Landslides that take out churches and floods that strike poverty stricken areas and the like. And then there's the existence of diseases.


Nature takes it's course. Miracles may haoppen, but God is under no obligation to come save us. Everyone has to dies somday. Some people just arrive at their time sooner.


Another question: Why doesn't God just reveal himself? I believe that if God unquestionably made his presence known and explained who and what he was, everybody would do everything he says. I know I would.

If he exposed himself, he would deprive us of freewill, since we wopuld all (except for those who WANT death) Immediately respect/worship him. He doesn;t want to coerce us, he wants us to LOVE him of our OWN FREE WILL.

[Jedi_Templar]

If he exposed himself, he would deprive us of freewill, since we wopuld all (except for those who WANT death) Immediately respect/worship him. He doesn;t want to coerce us, he wants us to LOVE him of our OWN FREE WILL.
That's a good explanation. Never thought of that.

[frogger]

i leave for a few days, and look at what happens! jk.

but seriously, whether god exists or not, faith definitly does. I've seen the effects of faith, or of the human 'spirit' through hard times. And if someone doesn't have the umph in to trust in themselves and they trust in their chosen diety, good job. and I mostly watch myself, and myself only. I've been screwed too many times by people after helping them. I just don't find enough 'warm fuzzy' feelings to justifiy the crap it gets me into later. But live and learn...

[Carnage]

"If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you." Jesus' words in Matthew 17:20

Question is, who here thinks they have faith enough in God to move a mountain? In all seriousness...

Something to think about, folks.

[Mordecai2k]

I don't really care for religion, but i feel obligated to defend my faith

Yes, i do believe he exists.

[SSA_Ultimasheep]

I honestly am undecideed but if he really exests why does did the church burn nonbelivers and people who raised questions about him in the middle ages? kinda suspecious behavior

[Scorch]

Because men, being corruptable, dropped the ball. Every orginization gets bad leaders sometimes, as it's human nature to be failible. Just as there are bad generals, bad presidents, and bad kings, there can also be bad church leaders.

[DaDaimon]

If he exposed himself, he would deprive us of freewill, since we wopuld all (except for those who WANT death) Immediately respect/worship him. He doesn;t want to coerce us, he wants us to LOVE him of our OWN FREE WILL.


That's absolutly ridiculous first of all this 'evidence' assumes we have a free will in the first place.
Second of all god is supposed to be omniscient, meaning he knows what choice we will make, meaning we have no free will.
Third of all since god is omniscient he knew all the choices and all the things which would happen when he created the universe, meaning he knows the beginning, he knows the end and knows what happens in between.
There goes free will right out of the window, so basically this argument of why god doesn't reveal himself to us if he exists, is bullshit.

I ask all those that think god exists to apply the scientific method, meaning examine the data, then create the theory. Not create the theory and see what data we can fit to it.

[Jedi_Templar]

I ask all those that think god exists to apply the scientific method, meaning examine the data, then create the theory. Not create the theory and see what data we can fit to it.
OK, lets see-

Life is organized into very, very complex information (DNA/Proteins). The universe is also very organized.

As far as we know from emperical knowledge, only sentiences can create organization. So, since the universe and life have complex, organized forms, there must be a sentience that created it.

Say that it's possible to randomly create an Xbox from silicon, plastic, and copper, you would be laughed at. Say that life was randomly created from carbon, oxygen, and water, you would be thought of as smart. I'd rather think an Xbox is possible.

[Hikari256]

That's absolutly ridiculous first of all this 'evidence' assumes we have a free will in the first place.
Second of all god is supposed to be omniscient, meaning he knows what choice we will make, meaning we have no free will.
Third of all since god is omniscient he knew all the choices and all the things which would happen when he created the universe, meaning he knows the beginning, he knows the end and knows what happens in between.
There goes free will right out of the window, so basically this argument of why god doesn't reveal himself to us if he exists, is bullshit.

I ask all those that think god exists to apply the scientific method, meaning examine the data, then create the theory. Not create the theory and see what data we can fit to it.

Omnicience of God doesn't mean we can't have free will. If you want to take the multiverse view of things, GOD knows all possibilities, and may exert some degree of control, but he leaves a great deal up to the free will he gave to us. The determinist/indeterminist debate is still going, but i see no reasone why Omnicience of God would conflict with free will.

[Jedi_Templar]

Omnicience of God doesn't mean we can't have free will. If you want to take the multiverse view of things, GOD knows all possibilities, and may exert some degree of control, but he leaves a great deal up to the free will he gave to us. The determinist/indeterminist debate is still going, but i see no reasone why Omnicience of God would conflict with free will.
Odd, I was thinking the same thing.

Omniscience does not equate to predetermination.

[Hikari256]

I honestly am undecideed but if he really exests why does did the church burn nonbelivers and people who raised questions about him in the middle ages? kinda suspecious behavior

95% of the people burned by the catholic church were Christians who didn't follow the party- er i mean pope's line. The inquisition, while officcilly religiously motived was in fact an act of greed and fear. The only difference between teh Inquisition and the Chinese Cultural Revolution was that one killed "heretics" (who ARE believers, just not in line iwth teh pope's decrees) and the other killed "capitalists". In both cases, the majority of the people killed were completely inocent: they were fingered by jealous neigbors and greedy looters.

History Knowledge = Good

[Jedi_Templar]

History Knowledge = Good
It's also good to have a non-biased source of history.

Many atheists will bring up that religion has caused strife in the past. While this is somewhat true, most "religious" strife was actually political in nature. The Crusades were the Popes attempts at controlling the Middle East- likewise, the Inquisition was a way for the Catholic Church to stamp out any attempt to debase their power.

Religion has been used, wrongly, as a means to power. The Christian and Muslim faiths are ones of peace, turned towards war and power by greedy conspiriators. Just because they're the leaders of religions don't mean that they are free of sin. There has only been one who was free from sin.

[Hikari256]

It's also good to have a non-biased source of history.

Many atheists will bring up that religion has caused strife in the past. While this is somewhat true, most "religious" strife was actually political in nature. The Crusades were the Popes attempts at controlling the Middle East- likewise, the Inquisition was a way for the Catholic Church to stamp out any attempt to debase their power.

Religion has been used, wrongly, as a means to power. The Christian and Muslim faiths are ones of peace, turned towards war and power by greedy conspiriators. Just because they're the leaders of religions don't mean that they are free of sin. There has only been one who was free from sin.

Wasn;t just Christianity and Islam. Many religions have been misused in this manner. Buddhism, Judaism, Falong Gong, etc.

[DaDaimon]

Omnicience of God doesn't mean we can't have free will. If you want to take the multiverse view of things, GOD knows all possibilities, and may exert some degree of control, but he leaves a great deal up to the free will he gave to us. The determinist/indeterminist debate is still going, but i see no reasone why Omnicience of God would conflict with free will.

I am going to ask you what your definition is of god.

I assume you will agree with this definition?


God
1a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.


and I assume you see this as the defintion for omniscient


om·nis·cient ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-nshnt)
adj.
Having total knowledge; knowing everything


and this as the defintion of omnipotence?


om·nip·o·tent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-np-tnt)
adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.


Considering god is omnipotent and omniscient according to the dictionary.com defintion, the same dictionary tells us the definition of omniscient means knowing everything or total knowledge. We can draw quite a simle conclusion from this fact.

There are many possibilities yet god knows all, that's the nifty thing about being god, so he knows also which possibillity will prevail. Ergo he knows the outcome and what's in between. Ergo there is no free will.

[Jedi_Templar]

The Bible does not specifically mention that God is all-powerful or all-knowing. While such qualities are implied, the Bible does not make such claims.

Besides, to attempt to know the mind of God is impossible. We do not know in what ways and purposes God works.

[Case_in_point]

Remember kids, if God does exist, he ain't a human, so human logic and rationalizing are useless for the most part when trying to define him, or her, hopefully a him.

As for the freewill thing. It depends on how far ahead we're talking about. If it's only a few seconds, than things can still change. He can see what will happen depending on the choices we make. We can still make choices, it's just that he will know what those choices lead to, assuming we stick through with it. It's like watching a mouse run a maze, you know what will happen if the mouse follows a certain track, but you don't know if he'll stay on that track long enough to arrive at the forseen outcome. That's one way that free choice and all-knowing can co-exist.

[LuckyBastard]

I believe that there is a God, but I do not believe that the Bible can ever be 100% accurate.

[Dark_Magneto]

Gods, traditionally, are used to explain what was at the time inexplicable phenomena. From the rising to the sun to sea storms to lightning, what have you. They haven't changed too much since then. they are still used to explain the unknown.

The gods of past died as soon as logic and reason proved that they were invalid by demonstrating the causes of storms and lightning and such, and the gods people believe in today will die once science figures out the gap of ignorance they hide in. Until science can explain everything in the cosmos, there will always be a crack to jam a god in.

I'm convinced that such doctrine will ultimately prove to be fatal. For if a gods are only able to be maintained not of any proof of their own, but merely by the inability to disprove them at the time, then it just becomes a cycle of ignorance trying to preserve itself and little else.

Now as for whether there is some form of creative force that we aren't aware of (Doesn't haver to be anthropomorphic, have human feelings and consciouness, and distribute all the traits of man as traditional gods generally do), there's no way to know right now because there is absolutely no data on it and no claim about it is issued at all.

[Doom_Dragoon]

*applause* Now that's the kind of thing I like to read. It really makes ya think...

[DaDaimon]

The Bible does not specifically mention that God is all-powerful or all-knowing. While such qualities are implied, the Bible does not make such claims.


Where did I mention the bible?
However if the biblical god does not posses these qualities he simply isn't a god, just some highly developed being, comparable to what the Europeans were when they entered the southern americas.


Besides, to attempt to know the mind of God is impossible. We do not know in what ways and purposes God works.

We however do know that for being a god you need to know everything at least according to our definition of god. Thus we know he is omniscient. The implications of that can be seen in my previous post.

[Mechsaurian]

I do not think there is a god.

There is no evidence to support his existence, and, in fact, there is evidence suggesting he DOESN'T exist.

What I mean is, there obviously isn't a god on Earth. We already know there isn't a heaven anywhere near Earth; that means it has to be somewhere in space. Which is physically impossible, since living things cannot survive without air, of which there is none in outer space. One might assume maybe god ISN'T a living thing, but that whole idea just goes down the toilet from the start.

I don't believe in god. Never will. Have a nice day.

[Jedi_Templar]

I do not think there is a god.

There is no evidence to support his existence, and, in fact, there is evidence suggesting he DOESN'T exist.
Making you agnostic, correct?


What I mean is, there obviously isn't a god on Earth. We already know there isn't a heaven anywhere near Earth; that means it has to be somewhere in space. [/QUOTE

Jesus does make the claim that His kingdom is not of this Earth. Perhaps another dimension?

[QUOTE
Which is physically impossible, since living things cannot survive without air, of which there is none in outer space.
If the dimension thing doesn't work out, maybe another planet?


One might assume maybe god ISN'T a living thing, but that whole idea just goes down the toilet from the start.
Why?


I don't believe in god. Never will. Have a nice day.
I most certainly will have a nice day.

[Nuts]

There is no evidence to support his existence, and, in fact, there is evidence suggesting he DOESN'T exist.

Perhaps you could enlighten us all with this "new" evidence. And please be certain that it's not circumstantial, because that only qualifies as evidence in a court of law.

[Hikari256]

Which is physically impossible, since living things cannot survive without air, of which there is none in outer space.

No Living thing known to human science. Which doesn't mean no living thing. I life form might concievably survive in space if it had some method of gathering enough energy without losing it to the vacuum of space.

Science... it's a good thing to learn

[RoP]

I believe in God. I dont know whether I believe in God because I want to or because I know He exists.
Example (for reason #1): I believe in God because a thought of a being who is always there for me to turn to is very comforting. It allows me a sort of inner spiritual peace that I know I cannot attain thinking that I am to face the world alone.
Example (for reason #2): I believe in God because I believe that all our ancestors came up with cannot be junk. Also, there have been many unexplainable events in our history that could not happened just by chance. Even the formation of the universe is a simple example. Though I believe in macroevolution, I just can't believe that life was formed by chance. A biologist (don't know exactly who) calculated the probablilty for life to occur through chance. It is so minutely small that we may as well say that it's 0.

[Dark_Magneto]

It was a creationist, no doubt. They throw around alot of false numbers when it comes to abiogenesis. The chance of anything happening that has actually ocurred is at least 1, otherwise it would have never happened at all, period.

The ancestors were wrong about alot. They thought the world was flat, center of the universe, thety thought supernatural entities controlled weather patterns and everything else that couldn;t be readily explained, they thought that the sky was a solid dome and the stars hung from it like a cieling and the sun was a few miles up in the sky within the dome. They thought the earth was immoveable and established on a set of pillars. Yeah, they were smoking something when they came up with that stuff.

[Doom_Dragoon]

Which is why they blamed it on God(s) in the first place. Once (if ever) we discover these things, other will look back and laugh at what we thought was controlled by God(s)

[Visions_of_Khas]

I am borderline atheist. The only reason I am not completely is because I'm too blasted open-minded to the unlikely ><

I believe in God because a thought of a being who is always there for me to turn to is very comforting

This is one reason why I do not think there is a god. It is, of course, a comforting thought for humans that there is something to fall back on. Also, they are something that people can blame. Few people like taking responsibility, fewer wanting to actually sort things out and find the real cause for something.

Why can't life have emerged without a "greater" help? Though life did originate from lifeless, spontaneous biogenesis isn't possible the way the people long, long ago thought it was.

If one looks back on the history of religion, they will of course find that there are hundreds of different faiths, all preaching different things, many saying that theirs is the only true god(s), and the other are false. Also, the story of many religions changes drastically. Take Christianity, for example. For a part of the time, God appeared to be a loving father. Other times, He is a wrathful being, threatening to send you to oblivion for the slightest offense. These stories were all manipulated by those who preache them. With stories that are so easily changed, what exactly can we believe?

[Mechsaurian]

Making you agnostic, correct?No, I think you misunderstood me. I did say there's no evidence FOR, but I said there IS evidence AGAINST (in my opinion)

If the dimension thing doesn't work out, maybe another planet?So you are suggesting an alien life-form has complete control and knowledge over everything in the universe? I'm not trying to shoot you down or anything, but that sounds like a somewhat foolish assumtion.

Why?If God is an inanimate object, he cannot do anything. Basically, the idea that God is not a living organism at some level is the same as suggesting he's a rock. In which case he, no matter what, offers no protection or support for us.

And if God can't offer anything but being there because he does not function, what comfort could be obtained from believing in him?

I most certainly will have a nice day.Okay then. Nice to know I didn't make anyone mad.

EDIT: I just noticed other posts I might need to respond to.

Perhaps you could enlighten us all with this "new" evidence. And please be certain that it's not circumstantial, because that only qualifies as evidence in a court of law.
As I said before, unless God is a nonliving organism (which of course is completely impossible) he obviously must live somewhere else. If he lives somewhere else, there is no way he can possibly know or act upon anything we do on Earth. unless of course God has magical powers, which also don't exist.

No Living thing known to human science. Which doesn't mean no living thing. I life form might concievably survive in space if it had some method of gathering enough energy without losing it to the vacuum of space.

Science... it's a good thing to learn
A nice theory, but also impossible. For the third time, unless God is a nonliving organism (impossible) he needs energy to survive. There is no energy in space. At all. Vacuum. Gases that are breathed in do more than provide energy to an organism. They serve as a basic component of the organism's form. And there is not enough of these gases in space to be formed into limbs or organs or whatever. Unless God gets his gases from somewhere else (see what I think about that in an earlier paragraph)

I also must update my claims earlier. I said there were no breathable gas particles in space. It turns out there are, but so little (and so far apart) that there isn't enough to be breathed.

[Jedi_Templar]

It was a creationist, no doubt. They throw around alot of false numbers when it comes to abiogenesis. The chance of anything happening that has actually ocurred is at least 1, otherwise it would have never happened at all, period.

OK, so if you take the number of amino acids (20) and find the probability of finding one of them (1/20), you can calculate the probability of randomly creating one protein!

The formula is p (exponent) x, p being the probability and x being the number of opportunities. Most proteins are about five hundred amino acids long- the probability of randomly forming one of these?

(1/20) (exponent) 500 = 3.05x10 (exponent) -651.

Now do you understand why we say that life couldn't have begun in the first place?

[Grom_Icecream]

Well. I certainly believe your math is crap.


Seriously, a probability cannot be a negative number, based on definition alone. It can only be between 0 and 1 inclusive. As for your theory of protien formation i'd advise looking at some basic biology stuff.

Seriously though, im of the opinion God aint there. Science can explain most things, and those it cant are probably irrelevant anyway. If there was a god though, i think i would be a good candidate.

[Dark_Magneto]

OK, so if you take the number of amino acids (20) and find the probability of finding one of them (1/20), you can calculate the probability of randomly creating one protein!

The formula is p (exponent) x, p being the probability and x being the number of opportunities. Most proteins are about five hundred amino acids long- the probability of randomly forming one of these?

(1/20) (exponent) 500 = 3.05x10 (exponent) -651.

Now do you understand why we say that life couldn't have begun in the first place?

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics,
and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html)

[OboeGuru]

Nice find Dark_Magneto, that really picks apart that whole creationist argument.

[Grom_Icecream]

The creationist argument shouldnt even be titled an "argument" as usually these require at least a scrap of proof.

This argument consists of saying there is no other way to explain life. Thus GOD (assuming hes real) created it. At least thats my uneducated view. The scientific arguments at least have proof that is measurable and demonstratable.

[CODEZERO]

there is only one god here and he is the anime god who shoot sheep yes this from anime hero arena on war3tft that game is addicting

[Netrunner]

here's something to chew on, If god is really omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibeneficient. Why do we experience things like death or pain and siffering? Added bonus, the "christ died to save us" thing is complete BS because we aren't anywhere near saved.

[Carnage]

here's something to chew on, If god is really omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibeneficient. Why do we experience things like death or pain and siffering? Added bonus, the "christ died to save us" thing is complete BS because we aren't anywhere near saved.

"And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy..."

I pray the Lamb has mercy on you as well as everyone else here who says such things. :concern:

[Jedi_Templar]

OMG, DM, I thought you would acutually proof-read your proofs.

Quote from "Damned Lies..."
"So how does this shape up with the prebiotic Earth? On the early Earth it is likely that the ocean had a volume of 1 x 1024 litres. Given an amino acid concentration of 1 x 10-6 M (a moderately dilute soup, see Chyba and Sagan 1992 [23 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#r23)]), then there are roughly 1 x 1050 potential starting chains, so that a fair number of efficent peptide ligases (about 1 x 1031) could be produced in a under a year, let alone a million years. The synthesis of primitive self-replicators could happen relatively rapidly, even given a probability of 1 chance in 4.29 x 1040 (and remember, our replicator could be synthesized on the very first trial)."

I'm guessing that the guy is not an expert on organic molecules, or else he would have known amino acids dissolve in water. GG NO RE.

[Netrunner]

Also, how can god really exist? I mean seriously, how does he exist at all, he has to be a part of a race, and races do not ever get nearly that powerful. ever, and plus, how will there be a
"heaven" either. there is a hell, i've been there, boot camp is hell.

[Jedi_Templar]

Also, how can god really exist? I mean seriously, how does he exist at all, he has to be a part of a race, and races do not ever get nearly that powerful. ever, and plus, how will there be a
"heaven" either. there is a hell, i've been there, boot camp is hell.
Oh, what are you babbling about?

God just Is. He's not a part of a race- He's just God, I guess.

IMO, He exists outside of this dimension in another (ie, Heaven), so is not subject to the same sort of natural laws that we encounter, like entropy or gravity.

[Muse]

I believe there is sufficient evidence for either argument to draw the conclusion that we will never know if there is a God, maybe we will know on Judgement Day, or maybe we won't because it might not ever come to pass. Even if you declare that you know He/She/It exists, you never will know for sure until you have experienced Him/Her/It in reality, forget dreams, for they are in your mind and you can't prove anything with dreams. I've had enough experiences that I really do not know, and I really don't want to spend my time thinking about it.

NOTE : According to the Pagan religion, Jesus Christ was married.

[Jedi_Templar]

I believe there is sufficient evidence for either argument to draw the conclusion that we will never know if there is a God, maybe we will know on Judgement Day, or maybe we won't because it might not ever come to pass. Even if you declare that you know He/She/It exists, you never will know for sure until you have experienced Him/Her/It in reality, forget dreams, for they are in your mind and you can't prove anything with dreams. I've had enough experiences that I really do not know, and I really don't want to spend my time thinking about it.
:\

OK, yes, outside of the Bible, there is little direct proof of God's existence. However, indirectly, from cultures and societies, there is tons of proof.

1. The survival of the Jews. The Jews, if you haven't known and have been living under a rock, have gone though a lot of bad sh-t throughout history. They've been severaly conqured at least five times (Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Nazi Germany), have been nearly wiped out (Holocaust), and have been hated throughout history. And yet they survive. If we assume that they are God's Chosen People, it makes sense.

2. The world-wide flood stories. I am referring to Noah's flood, where he built the ark, put the animals on, and so on. A lot of cultures have flood myths, and there is no logical way that all of these cultures have flood stories.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/images/noah_flood_tradition.jpg

That is a wide variety of cultures that would never, geographically, have been able to meet. How did they all have similar myths if it were not based on a historical event? It would have been different if the nations were all in the middle east, but how do we account for the new world civilizations?

There are several other things I could bring up. But I can't think of them.;)

[Muse]

1. Well, things happen. I'm not saying what you said isn't true, I'm just pointing out that some things just happen and that is the way things happen to go. As far as I am concerned, and I have found that many agree with me, that religion is the cause of many problems in society, what with suicide bombings, and attacking other religious communities, calling them inferior or referring to them as "infidels" of a lesser religion or one that is false. I'm rather sick of it, and if everyone could kindly stop bickering, we could all get on with our lives. Keep the religion if it pleases you, just leave us who are not interested out of it.

2. Sure there is, they looked at the environment around them, and besides there was an Ice Age, when all the ice melted, I'm sure there was a world-wide flood.

[Netrunner]

Through spreading, and also people create myths. How do you think religon every really existed?
and that god just is, it doesn't make sense, nothing ever is "just there" something happened to make it there, but this winds up being a paradox, making the beginning of the universe should never exist...yet it does...hold on letting my brain relax
okay now jesus christ was jewish in the first place. and your "dimension" thing is just outright wrong or you used the wrong wording, a dimension is a direstion you can see things in such as length, height, width, and depth. and a "plane" doesn't work for heaven, for a plane of existence to be there, there has to be somthing in it, something real, no gods that can't exist or angels that can't exist either.

[Netrunner]

"And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy..."

I pray the Lamb has mercy on you as well as everyone else here who says such things. :concern:
look, the lamb? what are you talking about, if you are talking about god giving me mercy, that just can't happen, because he doesn't exist in this plane or most planes, or all planes
see, god is just a matter of belief, I happen to think that the whole thing is bullsh|t

[Jedi_Templar]

Through spreading, and also people create myths. How do you think religon every really existed?Uh, man looking at the environment and wondering "What is that big yellow thing in the sky?" Why didn't the Jews and Christians worship the sun? Hmm?


and that god just is, it doesn't make sense, nothing ever is "just there" something happened to make it there, but this winds up being a paradox, making the beginning of the universe should never exist...yet it does...hold on letting my brain relaxThen why is the universe here? Why did evolution happen (if it did happen)? It just did, according to the atheist scientists.


okay now jesus christ was jewish in the first place. and your "dimension" thing is just outright wrong or you used the wrong wording, a dimension is a direstion you can see things in such as length, height, width, and depth. and a "plane" doesn't work for heaven, for a plane of existence to be there, there has to be somthing in it, something real, no gods that can't exist or angels that can't exist either.OK, then call it another plane of existence. Which is basically a dimension.


look, the lamb? what are you talking about, if you are talking about god giving me mercy, that just can't happen, because he doesn't exist in this plane or most planes, or all planes
see, god is just a matter of belief, I happen to think that the whole thing is bullsh|t

I think atheism is bullsh-t. Doesn't make me correct, does it?

[Muse]

Can you read things through or is your Bible blocking the screen? I'm no true athiest, but I have my doubts. Then again, I have my suspicions that God does in fact exist.

[Jedi_Templar]

Can you read things through or is your Bible blocking the screen? I'm no true athiest, but I have my doubts. Then again, I have my suspicions that God does in fact exist.
That would make you an agnostic.

Do I make the assumption that God is real? Yes. Not anymore so that atheists believe He doesn't exist. Everyone needs something to believe.

[Netrunner]

I said something had to make it be so. I never said we had to know what it was.. What if we are in fact some alien's science projesct, and "god" was just him fooling around with us. Again, "dimension" isn't the right term, jedi Templar. see I think out argument is enough to prove that we don't know, perhaps we are BOTH full of sh-t
and also, I do not think there ever is a "just is" I have always thought all the sides you are referring to are full of sh-t and most people are just stupid, you need something to get there somehow nothing is there for no reason, and wait hold on worship the sun. egyptians, and religons are all about beliefs. What do you BELIEVE no know is the most important thing ever? see your logic confuses me. I never said that something "just is" I BELIEVE that everything has a purpose to serve. and an all powerful being that keeps everyone in line does not serve a purpose if you know what I mean. Everyone has a reason to be here. everybody was created not just put here. this violates another "just is" theory in creationism how did anything get there? god has to get there first. obviously there aren't any bible or religous stories about THAT now are there...

[Grom_Icecream]

Just a few little notes:

If there actually was a flood like that described in the bible there would be evidence. Its been checked worldwide many times and there is little to no evidence of a huge flood. Minor floods have been found though.

A lot of races have worshipped the sun. In early times (B.C.) and in the americas a lot of groups worshipped the sun.

Also,

If god existes in another so called plane....how does he influence this plane?

Why explain life with creationism when there are more plausible ways.

[Muse]

That would make you an agnostic.

Do I make the assumption that God is real? Yes. Not anymore so that atheists believe He doesn't exist. Everyone needs something to believe.
That just about sums up why we live in such a troubled world.

[Netrunner]

That just about sums up why we live in such a troubled world.I really think that religon is part of the reason WHY we need religon. If you get what I mean, people need religon to get through things like wars. Most wars are for religous reasons, and so on and so on.

[Jedi_Templar]

I really think that religon is part of the reason WHY we need religon. If you get what I mean, people need religon to get through things like wars. Most wars are for religous reasons, and so on and so on.<whacks Netrunner for being an idiot>

Please, most wars are for political and economic gain. Religion has very little to do with war, even so-called religious wars.


If there actually was a flood like that described in the bible there would be evidence. Its been checked worldwide many times and there is little to no evidence of a huge flood. Minor floods have been found though.
If one would look at the fossil record, one would see that there is evidence of a flood. Huh? you wonder. Well, if there was a flood, then we would find millions of dead animals buried quickly by water. And what do we see? Millions of dead animals buried quickly by water. While this might seem to be circular logic, it isn't. It's a modified version of the scientific method, ie, developing a theory, testing it/observing evidence, etc.
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid9.htm

REASONS WHY THE FOSSIL RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT EVOLUTION

1. Stasis

The fossil record is one of stasis, not change. Lifeforms remain the same for "millions of years", then die out. Even one of the most respected of evolutionists, Stephen Jay Gould, acknowledges this. If there was evolution, we could easily see it. However, we see that most lifeforms appear suddenly in the record, then die out. Even some "missing links", such as Archeopterix, are little more than hybrids of two groups (in this case, birds and reptiles, and only because Arch has teeth). Calling Archeopterix and similar fossils the "missing link" between birds and dinosaurs is like saying the platypus is the "missing link" between birds and mammals.

Even the term "missing link" implies that there isn't a uniformatism mechanism of evolution. It implies that there is only one step between one lifeform and another lifeform. Which would never happen, under Darwinism. But we never have found a respectable and definite missing link! While we find some candidates (such as the therapisda, the missing link between reptiles and mammals), such animals could be covergent evolution (such as thyacin and wolves). In the therapsida example, the only link is that the theraspidas appear to have a cross between the multi-jointed lower jawes of reptiles and fused lower jaws of mammals. It could be a coincedence, and not a missing link.

http://www.evolution-facts.org/2evlch17a.htm

2. Out of date fossils

On numerous occasions, fossils are found "out of sync" in the fossil record, meaning that the fossil is too early or too late in the evolution tree. Tree pollen and fish fossils are found in Cambrian rock, millions upon millions of years before these lifeforms evolved. While there is a geological mechanism that messes up the fossil record, this is not always present with the out of date fossils.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n2_fish.asp

3. Out of place geologic ages

The geologic column is a modern myth, like alchemy and heliocentrcism before it. The geologic column has never been observed in nature, and only exists within textbooks. While most fossil bearing rocks are found in one or two levels, there are some mysteries-
a) Missing Levels (Cambrian rock under Silurian without Ordovician between)
b) Out of sync levels (Older Cambrian rock above younger Silurian rock)
c) Polystratic Fossils (Fossils running through two geolgic ages, such as tree trunks in coal seams. If this did happen in nature, the tree trunk would remain for millions of years before it was buried, which is impossible)
http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp

4. The innaccuricies of Radiometric Dating

The High and Mighty WinAce (for those who don't go to Blizzforums, literally the smartest person I have ever met on the Internet, and giver of many an intellectual @ss-whoppings on moi) has stated that water affects radiometric dating- it accelerates it, making (in his example) freshly killed seals look millions of years old. Well, WinAce, what is one of the steps in fossilization? Immersion of a corpse in water!
Source-http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp

5. Living Fossils

You might have heard of living fossils. These are animals thought to be extinct and are found to be alive. The most famous of these is the coelcanth, a deep sea fish found off the coast of Madagascar in 1938. It's bone structure is similar to the rhapisdid line of fish, which supposedly evolved into amphibians. This was thought to be a huge discovery, until dissections of the fish revealed that it's anatomy is so very different than amphibians, that the rhapsidid fishes couldn't be ancestors of amphibians.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-126a.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-143a.htm

Did I totally take this thread from the existence of God to another creation/evolution thread? You better believe it.

[Muse]

Sorry, I didn't say war was the only part of what I meant by "troubled world". Suicide bombings, holy war, Israel and Palistine, the Crusades, the Catholic Church, there are many more examples. Religion was much stronger earlier in this world's history, and it has left deep wounds. I'm sorry Jedi_Templar, but if you are going so far as to try to disprove evolution, then you have to be quite the pious person.

Those websites appear to be biased too. Just like the ones that try to prove evolution is what really happened. I can't trust anybody now, can I?

[Jedi_Templar]

Sorry, I didn't say war was the only part of what I meant by "troubled world". Suicide bombings, holy war, Israel and Palistine, the Crusades, the Catholic Church, there are many more examples. Religion was much stronger earlier in this world's history, and it has left deep wounds.
Most of those wars were more for political and economic supremecy than religion. Mostly, the leaders at the time use religion as a means to rally the people to support their cause.


I'm sorry Jedi_Templar, but if you are going so far as to try to disprove evolution, then you have to be quite the pious person.
Never doubt the power of the indivdual. Darwin is an example of this.

Thanks for calling me pious.


Those websites appear to be biased too. Just like the ones that try to prove evolution is what really happened. I can't trust anybody now, can I?
I guess not.

OK, so maybe the websites are a bit biased. But anything you are going to find anywhere is going to be biased to some degree.

[Netrunner]

<whacks Netrunner for being an idiot>

Please, most wars are for political and economic gain. Religion has very little to do with war, even so-called religious wars.

If one would look at the fossil record, one would see that there is evidence of a flood. Huh? you wonder. Well, if there was a flood, then we would find millions of dead animals buried quickly by water. And what do we see? Millions of dead animals buried quickly by water. While this might seem to be circular logic, it isn't. It's a modified version of the scientific method, ie, developing a theory, testing it/observing evidence, etc.
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid9.htm

REASONS WHY THE FOSSIL RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT EVOLUTION

1. Stasis

The fossil record is one of stasis, not change. Lifeforms remain the same for "millions of years", then die out. Even one of the most respected of evolutionists, Stephen Jay Gould, acknowledges this. If there was evolution, we could easily see it. However, we see that most lifeforms appear suddenly in the record, then die out. Even some "missing links", such as Archeopterix, are little more than hybrids of two groups (in this case, birds and reptiles, and only because Arch has teeth). Calling Archeopterix and similar fossils the "missing link" between birds and dinosaurs is like saying the platypus is the "missing link" between birds and mammals.

Even the term "missing link" implies that there isn't a uniformatism mechanism of evolution. It implies that there is only one step between one lifeform and another lifeform. Which would never happen, under Darwinism. But we never have found a respectable and definite missing link! While we find some candidates (such as the therapisda, the missing link between reptiles and mammals), such animals could be covergent evolution (such as thyacin and wolves). In the therapsida example, the only link is that the theraspidas appear to have a cross between the multi-jointed lower jawes of reptiles and fused lower jaws of mammals. It could be a coincedence, and not a missing link.

http://www.evolution-facts.org/2evlch17a.htm

2. Out of date fossils

On numerous occasions, fossils are found "out of sync" in the fossil record, meaning that the fossil is too early or too late in the evolution tree. Tree pollen and fish fossils are found in Cambrian rock, millions upon millions of years before these lifeforms evolved. While there is a geological mechanism that messes up the fossil record, this is not always present with the out of date fossils.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n2_fish.asp

3. Out of place geologic ages

The geologic column is a modern myth, like alchemy and heliocentrcism before it. The geologic column has never been observed in nature, and only exists within textbooks. While most fossil bearing rocks are found in one or two levels, there are some mysteries-
a) Missing Levels (Cambrian rock under Silurian without Ordovician between)
b) Out of sync levels (Older Cambrian rock above younger Silurian rock)
c) Polystratic Fossils (Fossils running through two geolgic ages, such as tree trunks in coal seams. If this did happen in nature, the tree trunk would remain for millions of years before it was buried, which is impossible)
http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp

4. The innaccuricies of Radiometric Dating

The High and Mighty WinAce (for those who don't go to Blizzforums, literally the smartest person I have ever met on the Internet, and giver of many an intellectual @ss-whoppings on moi) has stated that water affects radiometric dating- it accelerates it, making (in his example) freshly killed seals look millions of years old. Well, WinAce, what is one of the steps in fossilization? Immersion of a corpse in water!
Source-http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp

5. Living Fossils

You might have heard of living fossils. These are animals thought to be extinct and are found to be alive. The most famous of these is the coelcanth, a deep sea fish found off the coast of Madagascar in 1938. It's bone structure is similar to the rhapisdid line of fish, which supposedly evolved into amphibians. This was thought to be a huge discovery, until dissections of the fish revealed that it's anatomy is so very different than amphibians, that the rhapsidid fishes couldn't be ancestors of amphibians.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-126a.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-143a.htm

Did I totally take this thread from the existence of God to another creation/evolution thread? You better believe it.<WHACKS Jedi_Templar for also being an idiot>

1: It is true that fossils are inaccurate. See, but how can this affect evolution that greatly how things are arranged, in most cases, (most jedi_templar do not talk about DNA I know that)
it doesn't matter where things are placed in a bin, everything in the bin will still be there and will still have came to be in the same order, what if there were flood or mining or volcanic eruptions that stirred up the earth.

2: Examples of religous wars WWII(holocaust), again Crusades, War on Terror (terrorist side), Most Middle Eastern countries.
EDIT: wait, I found a part of your argument on this that was worth going for, If most "religous wars" are for military or economic supremecy
, then how come muslims (or whoever this is) hate ALL infidels, not just the ones that are better or equal to their supeiriority.
3: Stasis is created by the pressure of tons of rock onto something pushing virtually into the rock below. Thus, the creature or thing leaves it's imprint on it

4: Ever heard the "Tsunami" theory, they say that the dinosaurs were wiped out by water, so your Global flooding is partially correct, however that was before humans ever walked the earth, and definitely before we could count, let alone do wrong willfully. We just didn't exist, in any form.

5: Radiocarbon dating is inaccurate, so what, they will be PROPORTIONATE that means we just take off the correct number of millions and that will equal the number of years everything is actually, of course you need the right number of millions, you still cannot prove that life came to be a few thousand years ago yourself.

6: Dinosaurs could have lived for Eons and Eons without change if something drastic hadn't happened (asteroid, flood, whatever)
because unless everything changed at once, nothing really needed to change.

7: MY Dinosaurs wiped out theory([art of which from a moon formation theory) See, The moon was formed from a piece of earth that came off in an extreme impact. The piece of rock that impacted with earth at that time created a chain of natural disasters that wiped out the dinosaurs.

Also, why don't we stop wasting out time, both of our proofs for both sides have been smashed or are invalid. There is not enough proof left to be conclusive for either side.

[Jedi_Templar]

<WHACKS Jedi_Templar for also being an idiot>
<Blocks it>


1: It is true that fossils are inaccurate. See, but how can this affect evolution that greatly how things are arranged, in most cases, (most jedi_templar do not talk about DNA I know that)
it doesn't matter where things are placed in a bin, everything in the bin will still be there and will still have came to be in the same order, what if there were flood or mining or volcanic eruptions that stirred up the earth.[QUOTE]

No, what I was referring to is that IF evolution had occured, the best proof would be in the fossil record, where we could see lifeforms change. But this doesn't happen.

[QUOTE]
2: Examples of religous wars WWII(holocaust), again Crusades, War on Terror (terrorist side), Most Middle Eastern countries.
I doubt that you could call the Holocaust a religious war. It was more racist than religious (keep in mind Hitler had a plan to eliminate all religions, not just Judiasm).

The Crusades were, for the most part, attempts by the Pope and kings of Europe to gain power in the Middle East. Well, depends on which Crusade you're talking about. There were nine (the one we usually think of, the one with King Richard (of Robin Hood fame) was the third Crusade). Almost all of the rest failed.

Dude, Al-Queda is not an ideal example of how Muslims act. Saying that all Muslims act like the terrorists is like saying that all Christians act like the KKK.


3: Stasis is created by the pressure of tons of rock onto something pushing virtually into the rock below. Thus, the creature or thing leaves it's imprint on it
Frankly, wtf are you talking about? Stasis means that they don't change. What you are referring to is metamorphases in rocks. That process would destroy any fossil.


4: Ever heard the "Tsunami" theory, they say that the dinosaurs were wiped out by water, so your Global flooding is partially correct, however that was before humans ever walked the earth, and definitely before we could count, let alone do wrong willfully. We just didn't exist, in any form.
Proof? At least the evolutionists who insist the dinos died out by meteor or volcanos have some proof- a layer of iridium (a rare element) is found around the world at the K-T boudary (when the dino's die out), and is usually found in conjunction with volcanos and meteors.

As for your global flood theory- how did the other animals (crocs, mammals, birds, amphibians, etc.) survive if there was a global flood without a Noah?


5: Radiocarbon dating is inaccurate, so what, they will be PROPORTIONATE that means we just take off the correct number of millions and that will equal the number of years everything is actually, of course you need the right number of millions, you still cannot prove that life came to be a few thousand years ago yourself.
Well, there are some ways to prove the Earth isn't 4.6 billion years old. Here's a whole list of them- http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

TOTALLY TRUE FACT- You know the specific procedure of how the scientists measure the date using radiometric methods? Scientists A brings in a fossil, and gives the approxomate age of the fossil as it would fit in the geologic column (for example, an Allosaurus femur would be from about 100 million years ago). Scientists B would then date and redate until they get the "correct" date, ie, what Scientists A said. That report was from the manager of a radiometric dating lab.


6: Dinosaurs could have lived for Eons and Eons without change if something drastic hadn't happened (asteroid, flood, whatever)
because unless everything changed at once, nothing really needed to change.
You know how much the Earth changes within a decade? The Earth is constently changing, even under uniformatism. Any form of life could never stay the same for hundreds of millions of years.


7: MY Dinosaurs wiped out theory([art of which from a moon formation theory) See, The moon was formed from a piece of earth that came off in an extreme impact. The piece of rock that impacted with earth at that time created a chain of natural disasters that wiped out the dinosaurs.
Moon supposedly came out of the Earth before life existed.

Flak- if all evolutionists were this dumb (no offense, Netrunner), my crusade wouldn't be so difficult.

[Netrunner]

Hmm, thank you for pointing the last part out, I had my numbers wrong.
And yes, I figured the earth was constantly chaging, wait a second i'm contradicting myself. great. Okay you're right on that one, man, I gotta start to use this memory of mine.
About the stasis thing, huge amounts of pressure are required to leave an imprint on a rock or piece of mineral.
The tsunami theory is about that meteor or whatever created such rapid change that the dinos were wiped and/or had to adapt so quickly that their very existence was erased. so again, not enough to prove conclusive for either side
I never said earth was that old, i said dating is proportionate, if you add or subtract the right number of millions.
I am not evolutionist either, I just think every "group" is full of it, and their needs to prove that they are right again why don't we STOP WASTING OUR TIME. and go where we can do something useful.
another thing, if Hitler had plans on wiping out other religons, that just hands more proof right to me, so really I think we're both just going around in circles
One MORE thing, Jedi_Templar, if you say no offense after something offensive to me, It really counts as not wanting to get in trouble for being a jerk

[Muse]

Most of those wars were more for political and economic supremecy than religion. Mostly, the leaders at the time use religion as a means to rally the people to support their cause.
Know what really annoyed me? In almost all of those cases, they were "carrying out God's will".

It is God's will that I sit here, typing. Is that so important?

[Mechsaurian]

Please, most wars are for political and economic gain. Religion has very little to do with war, even so-called religious wars.
<Whacks Jedi_Templar for being an idiot>

I feel bad for people who say foolish things in front of others. Wars not for religion? Think of the crusades, one big offensive against completely innocent people. Or when the Aryans invaded India (not Nazi Aryans, the people who represent the majority of Indians today). Must I remind you of the purpose of Jihad?

My point is, wars are not really over religion, they are for political or economic gain as you said, but religion is an easy fallback should anyone question the purpose of a war. Religion is a great way to lie about the morality of something. And the existance of god is the base of most religions, isn't it?

[Jedi_Templar]

<Whacks Jedi_Templar for being an idiot>
Blocks it again.


I feel bad for people who say foolish things in front of others. Wars not for religion? Think of the crusades, one big offensive against completely innocent people. Or when the Aryans invaded India (not Nazi Aryans, the people who represent the majority of Indians today). Must I remind you of the purpose of Jihad?
They are disillusioned peole that either think they are doing God's will when it's voices in your heads, or liars who exploit the bond common people have with their faith.

My point is, wars are not really over religion, they are for political or economic gain as you said, but religion is an easy fallback should anyone question the purpose of a war. Religion is a great way to lie about the morality of something. And the existance of god is the base of most religions, isn't it?
And? Is that a valid reason to get rid of religion? Why not get rid of government and money? They are reasons for war.

[CODEZERO]

u kno what i think there is no god it only a belief to calm people down so that they can rest without worrying or without worrying about death etc

[Mechsaurian]

And? Is that a valid reason to get rid of religion? Why not get rid of government and money? They are reasons for war.
I suppose it would be a reason to get rid of religion. Religion is to leader as get out of jail free for soemthing you know is wrong card is to a common person.

And government and money are both important staples of human culture. Without government to keep people in line and some kind of trade to obtain items we want/need, we might as well become primitive cavemen again, as soceity as a whole could not function without these two parts.

[Jedi_Templar]

I suppose it would be a reason to get rid of religion. Religion is to leader as get out of jail free for soemthing you know is wrong card is to a common person.
Uh, no?

It can be, but anything could be. Including money.

And government and money are both important staples of human culture. Without government to keep people in line and some kind of trade to obtain items we want/need, we might as well become primitive cavemen again, as soceity as a whole could not function without these two parts.
Not really. Humanity was having a good old time during the middle ages, without any substantial government or economy. OK, so maybe not a good old time. However, we survived, and in the game of life, that's all that matters.

[Grom_Icecream]

Whats all this talk of disbanding religion, because its never gonna happen. There are many reasons for war. The main reason for war is gain. You want something, whether it is money, land, revenge, etc. People dont just go to war for the hell of it (unless they are crazy and powerful).

As to jedi_templars rebuttals of evolutionism you seem to be missing a few small points. I will agree the fossil record is highly incomplete and quite unreliable for dates and ages. The talk of missing links and the like is quite silly really. If there is a common ancestor for something like mammals and amphibians it is not gonna be a platypus. It is going to be something completely unlike both, which mammals and amphibians evolved from, not a mix of the two.

These days evolution is measured more by DNA than any other factors, like anatomy. The genetic difference between Humans and Apes is 2%. We have genomes that are 98% the same. Thus we are closely related to apes on an evolutionary scale. You can trace evolution this way and find links between near everything. Usually this is not enough to convince people that we all had common ancestors.

On an interesting note, some people think plants are the most highly evolved organisms because they incorporate and use DNA from multple genomes, where as animal species have DNA from only 3 different genomes. Also, it can be shown that 8% of all men in asia are directly related to Genghis Kahn. (irrelevant but cool)

[Netrunner]

Thank you, I do agree that fossil dates are inaccurate, proof to you, but as grom said, tracing
through DNA would be more accurate, The only thing that is "just there" (going back on this) in my opinion is the chance that something can happen.

[Jedi_Templar]

Thank you, I do agree that fossil dates are inaccurate, proof to you, but as grom said, tracing
through DNA would be more accurate, The only thing that is "just there" (going back on this) in my opinion is the chance that something can happen.Ah, yes, the DNA arguement. Well, that's a misnomer too.

See, if a lifeform has similar DNA to another, it doesn't suggest an evolutionary link. For example, man and chimpanzees DNA could be similar for two reasons- one) man and ape evolved from a common ancestor or two) because their body struction is similar, they would have similar DNA, regardless of evolutionary link or not.

So, if an intelligent being (ie, God) made man and ape, due to their similar body structures, He would have used similar DNA. Obviously, He would have used vastly different DNA between man and, say, a frog, since their bodies are very different.

Another chemical- cytochrome, which is a protein found in hemoglobin (larger proteins that carry oxygen in red blood cells)- gives a surprising evidence against evolution. Had evolution occured, the percentage higher between man and other animals should be higher when "going down" the evolutionary tree, ie, the comparison similarity between man and ape cytochrome is going to be higher than man and frog.

However, the cytochrome difference betweena lamprey and another fish (the carp) is 75%. The difference between lamprey and frog is 81%. Lamprey and chicken is 78%. Between lamprey and kangaroo is 76%. Lamprey and human is 73%. There should be an increasing difference as the cytochrome c is compared to "higher" animals, but we find they are basically the same. WTF!

That is, if evolution was true.

Now, about fossils and the record "not being complete". Lets take bird evolution. Bird evolution should have taken about 30 million years. Assuming that one fossil from this evolutionary process was successfully fossilized (a conservative estimate), there should be 30 million fossils. However, we don't find 30 million fossils. Even if we found only 1% of the fossil line, we should have found 300 thousand fossils, not less than a dozen.

Hmm...

[Grom_Icecream]

Hmmm. The cytochrome argument ay? Well interesting as it is it is kind of irrelevant. The difference between the different species is "basically the same" because it is a functional protien. It has the same function in all species. The minor differences are just minor changes in efficiency. As it is a specialising protien there is no reason for it to change across species.

Man and chimps have similar DNA because they evolved from a common ancestor. That is why they have similar anatomy. Not the reverse, which is that they have similar DNA because of their anatomy. You would actually be suprised at the DNA similaritys between all organisms. There is something like a 10-20% DNA similarity between humans and plants. It is a lot higher in the animal kingdom. This is because most things have the same genes, just in some they are inactivated, or have different functions.

You can actually see evolution in action these days by looking at gene incorporation into the nucleur genome. Plants are still incorporating DNA into their genomes at quite a high rate. Thus aquiring new genes, thus evolving.

I havent heard that bird evolution time thing. What are they evolving from? If there are no fossils its probably because birds are food. I doubt many birds die of old age, or get caught by natural disasters.

I read that young earth page. I was just wondering how they refute carbon 14 dating. Which is proven to be HIGHLY accurate up to 40 000 years. They have also found artifacts around this age. I thought they were arguing the earth is roughly 6000-10000 years old??

[Jedi_Templar]

Hmmm. The cytochrome argument ay? Well interesting as it is it is kind of irrelevant. The difference between the different species is "basically the same" because it is a functional protien. It has the same function in all species. The minor differences are just minor changes in efficiency. As it is a specialising protien there is no reason for it to change across species.
Well, true. But still...


Man and chimps have similar DNA because they evolved from a common ancestor. That is why they have similar anatomy. Not the reverse, which is that they have similar DNA because of their anatomy. You would actually be suprised at the DNA similaritys between all organisms. There is something like a 10-20% DNA similarity between humans and plants. It is a lot higher in the animal kingdom. This is because most things have the same genes, just in some they are inactivated, or have different functions.
Yeah, I know. But you are assuming that life evolved from one another, rather than being created at the same time. So, this point can be taken either way, so we need additional proof- such as the fossil record.


You can actually see evolution in action these days by looking at gene incorporation into the nucleur genome. Plants are still incorporating DNA into their genomes at quite a high rate. Thus aquiring new genes, thus evolving.

Oh? That's interesting. Then again, such "DNA incorporation" is probably really cross pollenation by humans rather than a natural factor. Darwin made the same mistake by comparing natural selection to artificial breeding. I don't blame you- it's so tempting.

One thing that I find interesting is why evolutionists never bring up bacteria as an example of macroevolution. We know bacteria are highly reactive to anti-biotics. And we can experiment with them to simulate macroevolution- as many generations of vertabrates in a million years as in a day!