Are you for Creation or Evolution?

by stardesk Thu May 22, 2014 9:32 pm

Ladies and Gentlemen, are you somewhere betwixt and between creation and evolution? Are you unsure of which direction to go? Then if you can get it, read the book pictured below. I've studied evolution for a long time, have read mountains of papers, mags and books, but this one, 'Why Evolution is True,' by Prof Jerry Coyne, is the best I've ever read. It is easy reading, especially for the layman, and not full of technical jargon a lot of people wouldn't understand. Honestly, I recommend it to all and everyone, even Creationists, for it may help them to ditch their belief in another mythical being.

Are you for Creation or Evolution? Img11310

Are you for Creation or Evolution? Img11310

by Guest Thu May 22, 2014 9:36 pm

Now you've been and gone and done it!!!!!

::lightsab:: ::lightsab:: ::lightsab:: ::lightsab::

by Guest Thu May 22, 2014 9:50 pm

What about 2 other options.

Being for both creation and evolution.

Being for evolution but only as a part of the puzzle not the whole thing.

Yes the two can be crossed over - however it is possible to have evolution as a part of the puzzle without having creation as a different part.

by stardesk Thu May 22, 2014 9:56 pm

Hi Sassy and Sphinx. Thanks for your replies which I promise I'll answer tomorrow. I've had a busy day and off to my bed in a minute.

Night night.
XXX

by Guest Thu May 22, 2014 10:02 pm

Night Stardesk, not much to answer in mine lol

by Ben Reilly Thu May 22, 2014 10:06 pm

The answer's simple for me as well -- I find the evidence for evolution convincing, and the evidence for creation nonexistent.

I also think it's best if religious people pull out of this argument ASAP, as they only end up making fools of themselves, as with the Banana Fallacy ::sexbnan: ::sexbnan: ::sexbnan:

by Rubio Thu May 22, 2014 10:13 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:The answer's simple for me as well -- I find the evidence for evolution convincing, and the evidence for creation nonexistent.

Do you have any first hand experience of palaeontology?

What evidence for evolution is there in the fossil record?

by Ben Reilly Thu May 22, 2014 10:24 pm

Rubio wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:The answer's simple for me as well -- I find the evidence for evolution convincing, and the evidence for creation nonexistent.

Do you have any first hand experience of palaeontology?

What evidence for evolution is there in the fossil record?

No first-hand experience, but I've been reading about it since I was old enough to read, and there's a lot of evidence in the fossil record for evolution, but even more in genetics.

As far as the fossil record goes, though, here's a good link:

http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/examplesofevolution.html

by Guest Thu May 22, 2014 10:55 pm

Actually the evidence for evolution only applies to micro evolution - changes within a species - and I will accept that as proven.

What there is no evidence for is macro evolution - ie the evolution of completely new species.

I am talking things like wings and eyes - to go from no wing/eye to wing/eye - the problem of no existence anywhere of intermediate stages, not to mention the fact that any intermediate stage would have to be weaker on survival than either the end point or the starting point.

I accept evolution as proven process - I do not accept it as the whole total or even necessarily nearly the whole total.

Sort of like the carburettor on an engine or even an engine in a car - definitely there and definitely essential but pointless on their own and nowhere near the whole picture.

by Ben Reilly Thu May 22, 2014 11:14 pm

sphinx wrote:Actually the evidence for evolution only applies to micro evolution - changes within a species - and I will accept that as proven.

What there is no evidence for is macro evolution - ie the evolution of completely new species.

I am talking things like wings and eyes - to go from no wing/eye to wing/eye - the problem of no existence anywhere of intermediate stages, not to mention the fact that any intermediate stage would have to be weaker on survival than either the end point or the starting point.

I accept evolution as proven process - I do not accept it as the whole total or even necessarily nearly the whole total.

Sort of like the carburettor on an engine or even an engine in a car - definitely there and definitely essential but pointless on their own and nowhere near the whole picture.

To compare something human beings designed to nature is a fallacy; it's being stuck in a mindset that everything that exists must have ultimately been created. Of course, that would require that the creator have been created.

There are transitional fossils of amphibians that evolved into reptiles, reptiles that evolved into land mammals, and land mammals that evolved into sea mammals. If that isn't dramatic evolutionary change I don't know what is, but even the most dramatic transitions are still relatively incremental.

There is no reason that a simple patch of cells that detected light couldn't evolve into more complex eyes, or that a pair of arms with a membrane that could be used to propel a running animal, enable leaps into trees, enable gliding and facilitate body heat regulation could become flying wings -- there are still many flightless birds that use their wings for other similar purposes.

by Guest Thu May 22, 2014 11:35 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
sphinx wrote:Actually the evidence for evolution only applies to micro evolution - changes within a species - and I will accept that as proven.

What there is no evidence for is macro evolution - ie the evolution of completely new species.

I am talking things like wings and eyes - to go from no wing/eye to wing/eye - the problem of no existence anywhere of intermediate stages, not to mention the fact that any intermediate stage would have to be weaker on survival than either the end point or the starting point.

I accept evolution as proven process - I do not accept it as the whole total or even necessarily nearly the whole total.

Sort of like the carburettor on an engine or even an engine in a car - definitely there and definitely essential but pointless on their own and nowhere near the whole picture.

To compare something human beings designed to nature is a fallacy; it's being stuck in a mindset that everything that exists must have ultimately been created. Of course, that would require that the creator have been created.

There are transitional fossils of amphibians that evolved into reptiles, reptiles that evolved into land mammals, and land mammals that evolved into sea mammals. If that isn't dramatic evolutionary change I don't know what is, but even the most dramatic transitions are still relatively incremental.

There is no reason that a simple patch of cells that detected light couldn't evolve into more complex eyes, or that a pair of arms with a membrane that could be used to propel a running animal, enable leaps into trees, enable gliding and facilitate body heat regulation could become flying wings -- there are still many flightless birds that use their wings for other similar purposes.

I was not comparing it I was using it as a demonstration of my point.

A simple set of cells detecting light could easily evolve into a retina - however a retina will not work as an eye without a lens or aperture control (iris in the eye) neither of which have any point outside the eye whereas light sensitivity does. The closest thing to an iris outside the eye is chromatophore (common in octopii and the mechanism behind colour change in chameleons) with similarities also with sphincters so you would expect an evolutionary path to produce either of these things - yet that is not what happened.

Pairs of limbs with membranes slow animals running making them more vulnerable to predation. The mechanism of gliding or heat regulation is completely different from the mechanism of flying primarily because flying involves the necessity of limb movement in 3 axis whereas gliding/heat regulation only requires 2 (there are other differences including musculature but they are not so obvious) - in fact for gliding animals to attempt flapping would result in decrease of efficiency gliding and possibly a fatal one.

Actually when it comes to transitional types they are theorised by none has been found - we have the sea otter which has limbs and we have seals and other similars with flippers and we have dolphins - what we do not have is the theoretical animal with something half way between a limb and a flipper, nor do we have something halfway between a seal and a dolphin. If we theorise that such transitional types must have existed why do we never find any?

by Ben Reilly Thu May 22, 2014 11:48 pm

sphinx wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
sphinx wrote:Actually the evidence for evolution only applies to micro evolution - changes within a species - and I will accept that as proven.

What there is no evidence for is macro evolution - ie the evolution of completely new species.

I am talking things like wings and eyes - to go from no wing/eye to wing/eye - the problem of no existence anywhere of intermediate stages, not to mention the fact that any intermediate stage would have to be weaker on survival than either the end point or the starting point.

I accept evolution as proven process - I do not accept it as the whole total or even necessarily nearly the whole total.

Sort of like the carburettor on an engine or even an engine in a car - definitely there and definitely essential but pointless on their own and nowhere near the whole picture.

To compare something human beings designed to nature is a fallacy; it's being stuck in a mindset that everything that exists must have ultimately been created. Of course, that would require that the creator have been created.

There are transitional fossils of amphibians that evolved into reptiles, reptiles that evolved into land mammals, and land mammals that evolved into sea mammals. If that isn't dramatic evolutionary change I don't know what is, but even the most dramatic transitions are still relatively incremental.

There is no reason that a simple patch of cells that detected light couldn't evolve into more complex eyes, or that a pair of arms with a membrane that could be used to propel a running animal, enable leaps into trees, enable gliding and facilitate body heat regulation could become flying wings -- there are still many flightless birds that use their wings for other similar purposes.

I was not comparing it I was using it as a demonstration of my point.

A simple set of cells detecting light could easily evolve into a retina - however a retina will not work as an eye without a lens or aperture control (iris in the eye) neither of which have any point outside the eye whereas light sensitivity does. The closest thing to an iris outside the eye is chromatophore (common in octopii and the mechanism behind colour change in chameleons) with similarities also with sphincters so you would expect an evolutionary path to produce either of these things - yet that is not what happened.

Pairs of limbs with membranes slow animals running making them more vulnerable to predation. The mechanism of gliding or heat regulation is completely different from the mechanism of flying primarily because flying involves the necessity of limb movement in 3 axis whereas gliding/heat regulation only requires 2 (there are other differences including musculature but they are not so obvious) - in fact for gliding animals to attempt flapping would result in decrease of efficiency gliding and possibly a fatal one.

Actually when it comes to transitional types they are theorised by none has been found - we have the sea otter which has limbs and we have seals and other similars with flippers and we have dolphins - what we do not have is the theoretical animal with something half way between a limb and a flipper, nor do we have something halfway between a seal and a dolphin. If we theorise that such transitional types must have existed why do we never find any?

I can only encourage you to explore the relevant research. Evolutionary biologists have indeed shown that all vertebrate eyes evolved the same way; there is no need for a "half-flipper" in order to denote a transitional species. And dolphins didn't evolve from seals, their paths diverged long before either species became aquatic and seals are more closely related to dogs and bears; dolphins are more closely related to even-toed ungulates.

In fact, all species are transitional, in that natural selection never takes a break.

by Ben Reilly Thu May 22, 2014 11:49 pm

Meanwhile, let's have some scientific evidence for creation, or for a creator!

by Guest Thu May 22, 2014 11:59 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Meanwhile, let's have some scientific evidence for creation, or for a creator!

Again the statement evolution is not the whole answer does not automatically indicate the existence of a creator.

Before evolution was discovered/proposed creation was accepted as the answer

Now evolution is accepted by some as the answer.

If Darwin had accepted creation as the answer he would never have conceived of evolution. So hopefully there are scientists not accepting evolution as the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth who are conceiving of other ideas that will fit evolution but take us further beyond it.

by veya_victaous Fri May 23, 2014 12:13 am

sphinx wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
sphinx wrote:Actually the evidence for evolution only applies to micro evolution - changes within a species - and I will accept that as proven.

What there is no evidence for is macro evolution - ie the evolution of completely new species.

I am talking things like wings and eyes - to go from no wing/eye to wing/eye - the problem of no existence anywhere of intermediate stages, not to mention the fact that any intermediate stage would have to be weaker on survival than either the end point or the starting point.

I accept evolution as proven process - I do not accept it as the whole total or even necessarily nearly the whole total.

Sort of like the carburettor on an engine or even an engine in a car - definitely there and definitely essential but pointless on their own and nowhere near the whole picture.

To compare something human beings designed to nature is a fallacy; it's being stuck in a mindset that everything that exists must have ultimately been created. Of course, that would require that the creator have been created.

There are transitional fossils of amphibians that evolved into reptiles, reptiles that evolved into land mammals, and land mammals that evolved into sea mammals. If that isn't dramatic evolutionary change I don't know what is, but even the most dramatic transitions are still relatively incremental.

There is no reason that a simple patch of cells that detected light couldn't evolve into more complex eyes, or that a pair of arms with a membrane that could be used to propel a running animal, enable leaps into trees, enable gliding and facilitate body heat regulation could become flying wings -- there are still many flightless birds that use their wings for other similar purposes.

I was not comparing it I was using it as a demonstration of my point.

A simple set of cells detecting light could easily evolve into a retina - however a retina will not work as an eye without a lens or aperture control (iris in the eye) neither of which have any point outside the eye whereas light sensitivity does. The closest thing to an iris outside the eye is chromatophore (common in octopii and the mechanism behind colour change in chameleons) with similarities also with sphincters so you would expect an evolutionary path to produce either of these things - yet that is not what happened.

Pairs of limbs with membranes slow animals running making them more vulnerable to predation. The mechanism of gliding or heat regulation is completely different from the mechanism of flying primarily because flying involves the necessity of limb movement in 3 axis whereas gliding/heat regulation only requires 2 (there are other differences including musculature but they are not so obvious) - in fact for gliding animals to attempt flapping would result in decrease of efficiency gliding and possibly a fatal one.

Actually when it comes to transitional types they are theorised by none has been found - we have the sea otter which has limbs and we have seals and other similars with flippers and we have dolphins - what we do not have is the theoretical animal with something half way between a limb and a flipper, nor do we have something halfway between a seal and a dolphin. If we theorise that such transitional types must have existed why do we never find any?

not sure about them all but the Eye, well there is the steps and even a variation that can be seen not only in fossils but in a creature alive today

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698913000539

Cuttle fish have retina but no lens, thus (as fossils suggest) the lens evolved later, probably due the creatures greater reliance on sight.

Some Cuttle Fish have evolved an a different option than lens and instead have a W shaped retina that allows then to see a much large spectrum of light than our flat retina.

http://io9.com/5886954/cuttlefish-are-the-first-known-species-to-see-the-world-in-polarized-light

Are you for Creation or Evolution? 17e75911f3gmkjpg

Are you for Creation or Evolution? 17e75911f3gmkjpg

by Ben Reilly Fri May 23, 2014 12:24 am

sphinx wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:Meanwhile, let's have some scientific evidence for creation, or for a creator!

Again the statement evolution is not the whole answer does not automatically indicate the existence of a creator.

Before evolution was discovered/proposed creation was accepted as the answer

Now evolution is accepted by some as the answer.

If Darwin had accepted creation as the answer he would never have conceived of evolution. So hopefully there are scientists not accepting evolution as the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth who are conceiving of other ideas that will fit evolution but take us further beyond it.

The theory continues to this day to be refined, but nobody has been able to overturn the fundamentals -- natural selection and genetic variability leading to the changing of species, the extinction of some and the emergence of new ones over time.

In fact, there's now evidence that some organisms have evolved the ability to evolve faster in times of stress:

http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140115-under-pressure-does-evolution-evolve/

by stardesk Fri May 23, 2014 3:17 pm

Hi folks. Now, back to the topic and your questioning replies. No where in the stories of creation does God say: This small mammal (Archaeopteyx) will eventually grow feathers and wings, and will learn to fly and become a bird. He didn’t say this land creature will go into the waters and become a whale, (Baleen Whale), retaining its feet and legs in its flippers. He never said that this breed of primates will eventually shed its fir and become human. No mention is made of the hundreds of breeds of dinosaurs which eventually died out from one cause or another. For some religious authorities to say they now accept evolution, is tantamount to denying Creation, which in itself is a step towards denying the Biblical stories and perhaps, even God himself. You can’t have it both ways.

What we have in the Creation story is a full-blown, ready made, animal and bird kingdom. Some breeds being for farming and eating, whilst others, like the donkey and/or horse, are for your use as carriers.

Ben has made some good points about natural selection, and one thing we should bear in mind are viruses, which have the ability to change in order to ward off modern-day medicines and drugs.

For those interested and curious, go to this website for your answers on transitional fossils. You wont be disappointed.
http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

By the way, there are now over 250,000 collected fossils worldwide. Many are of transitions.

by Guest Fri May 23, 2014 8:28 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Meanwhile, let's have some scientific evidence for creation, or for a creator!

This statement shows that you're utterly ignorant and incapable of understanding the concept of a spiritual creator

You're request is as ridiculous as asking for the scientific equation to prove love or hate

I do love it when idiot atheists make such mind boggling blunders like asking for physical proof of a spiritual entity and then proclaiming that since no such proof is forthcoming that god doesn't exist

I also love the fact that atheists and evolutionist miss one vital and obvious point - that their views are simply a scientific based belief system instead of a religious one

by stardesk Fri May 23, 2014 9:10 pm

Hardly a belief system, Smelly, not your implication that it is similar to religious belief. In a different context yes, I 'believe' in evolution because it is right in front of our eyes, it is a proven fact, as opposed to a non-factual belief as it is with religion. There is a big difference in the the 'belief' contexts.

by Lone Wolf Fri May 23, 2014 9:15 pm

sphinx wrote:
What about 2 other options.

Being for both creation and evolution.

Being for evolution but only as a part of the puzzle not the whole thing.

Yes the two can be crossed over - however it is possible to have evolution as a part of the puzzle without having creation as a different part.

BULLSHIT...

Sphinx proves her complete lack of understanding of the "life sciences"...

by Lone Wolf Fri May 23, 2014 9:18 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Meanwhile, let's have some scientific evidence for creation, or for a creator!

This statement shows that you're utterly ignorant and incapable of understanding the concept of a spiritual creator

You're request is as ridiculous as asking for the scientific equation to prove love or hate

I do love it when idiot atheists make such mind boggling blunders like asking for physical proof of a spiritual entity and then proclaiming that since no such proof is forthcoming that god doesn't exist

I also love the fact that atheists and evolutionist miss one vital and obvious point - that their views are simply a scientific based belief system instead of a religious one

Smelly' once again demonstrates why he is so widely considered as an uneducated and constantly dribbling nitwit...

by Guest Fri May 23, 2014 9:21 pm

and lone wolf once again demonstrates the heights of intellectual content HE is capable of producing.... Rolling Eyes

by Guest Fri May 23, 2014 9:25 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:and lone wolf once again demonstrates the heights of intellectual content HE is capable of producing....

Don't mock the afflicted lol

by Lone Wolf Fri May 23, 2014 9:31 pm

ANYONE who is still kicking the creationist/"ID" football around in this day and age is fundamentally an anti-science denialist, too scared to actually look at the collective evidence against their ignorant "faith" that is staring them in the face each and every day...

MAINLY in the wide biodiversity of life on this planet, far too numerous, varied and interconnected as to have either fitted into the mythical "Noah's Ark", nor to have developed this far in merely six-and-a-half thousand years.. elephant

by Lone Wolf Fri May 23, 2014 9:34 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
and lone wolf once again demonstrates the heights of intellectual content HE is capable of producing....

:-:cawg:-:

VICTOR ~

A fuckwit last week...
A fuckwit again today..
And still a fuckwit next week.

by Guest Fri May 23, 2014 10:17 pm

stardesk wrote:Hardly a belief system, Smelly, not your implication that it is similar to religious belief. In a different context yes, I 'believe' in evolution because it is right in front of our eyes, it is a proven fact, as opposed to a non-factual belief as it is with religion. There is a big difference in the the 'belief' contexts.

by Ben Reilly Fri May 23, 2014 10:24 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:Meanwhile, let's have some scientific evidence for creation, or for a creator!

This statement shows that you're utterly ignorant and incapable of understanding the concept of a spiritual creator

You're request is as ridiculous as asking for the scientific equation to prove love or hate

I do love it when idiot atheists make such mind boggling blunders like asking for physical proof of a spiritual entity and then proclaiming that since no such proof is forthcoming that god doesn't exist

I also love the fact that atheists and evolutionist miss one vital and obvious point - that their views are simply a scientific based belief system instead of a religious one

I understand that some people feel they have "other ways of knowing" that God exists or that the universe was created. But unless you reject every religious story ever told (i.e. the Bible, the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, etc.) and just believe in some God that has never been described in any religion, there has got to be evidence at least of creation -- that God had some tangible effect on the universe. If there was a Great Flood there would be evidence, for example.

The whole idea of a "scientific belief system" is a paradox -- science doesn't deal in beliefs, just evidence. Evolutionary biologists don't "believe" in evolution; they find the evidence convincing and thus the theory, acceptable. I guess you could have a "scientific belief system" in a philosophical sense, like the Sagan quote about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence, but I hate it when people act like scientists meet up on Sundays to sing songs about Darwin to one another Razz

by Guest Fri May 23, 2014 10:32 pm

I've never seen a shred of evidence to support creation Stars,,I go evolution without a doubt...

At least there is some evidence to support that.

...if any creator comes forward and bites me in the arse, then I'll be the first to admit I was wrong, but that's not going to happen. Smile

by Guest Fri May 23, 2014 10:35 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:Meanwhile, let's have some scientific evidence for creation, or for a creator!

This statement shows that you're utterly ignorant and incapable of understanding the concept of a spiritual creator

You're request is as ridiculous as asking for the scientific equation to prove love or hate

I do love it when idiot atheists make such mind boggling blunders like asking for physical proof of a spiritual entity and then proclaiming that since no such proof is forthcoming that god doesn't exist

I also love the fact that atheists and evolutionist miss one vital and obvious point - that their views are simply a scientific based belief system instead of a religious one

The existence of spirits does not mean mean there is a God Smelly!!

by Guest Fri May 23, 2014 11:26 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

This statement shows that you're utterly ignorant and incapable of understanding the concept of a spiritual creator

You're request is as ridiculous as asking for the scientific equation to prove love or hate

I do love it when idiot atheists make such mind boggling blunders like asking for physical proof of a spiritual entity and then proclaiming that since no such proof is forthcoming that god doesn't exist

I also love the fact that atheists and evolutionist miss one vital and obvious point - that their views are simply a scientific based belief system instead of a religious one

I understand that some people feel they have "other ways of knowing" that God exists or that the universe was created. But unless you reject every religious story ever told (i.e. the Bible, the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, etc.) and just believe in some God that has never been described in any religion, there has got to be evidence at least of creation -- that God had some tangible effect on the universe. If there was a Great Flood there would be evidence, for example.

The whole idea of a "scientific belief system" is a paradox -- science doesn't deal in beliefs, just evidence. Evolutionary biologists don't "believe" in evolution; they find the evidence convincing and thus the theory, acceptable. I guess you could have a "scientific belief system" in a philosophical sense, like the Sagan quote about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence, but I hate it when people act like scientists meet up on Sundays to sing songs about Darwin to one another

science doesn't deal in beliefs??

what about the big band THEORY?? its not a fact and yet many atheists BELIEVE in it

evidence of creation??

you don't consider yourself evidence of creation??

are you a figment of your own imagination then??

sorry ben, but being an atheist doenst automatically raise your intelligence levels and make you "enlightened", i find it quite the opposite in fact, many atheists have no understanding of religion or god and yet are adamant theirs is the correct view even though their arguments are ALL flawed due to that lack of understanding and more importantly arrogance - the self assured Guarantee that they are right. You are no different

i believe in god but openly acknowledge that it could all be bullshit

you don't believe in god but are too arrogant or scared to admit you could be wrong, your argument on this topic is relies on blind belief - belief that you are right

and lastly i dont believe that anyone can truly be an atheist without first being religious

by Guest Fri May 23, 2014 11:46 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

I understand that some people feel they have "other ways of knowing" that God exists or that the universe was created. But unless you reject every religious story ever told (i.e. the Bible, the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, etc.) and just believe in some God that has never been described in any religion, there has got to be evidence at least of creation -- that God had some tangible effect on the universe. If there was a Great Flood there would be evidence, for example.

The whole idea of a "scientific belief system" is a paradox -- science doesn't deal in beliefs, just evidence. Evolutionary biologists don't "believe" in evolution; they find the evidence convincing and thus the theory, acceptable. I guess you could have a "scientific belief system" in a philosophical sense, like the Sagan quote about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence, but I hate it when people act like scientists meet up on Sundays to sing songs about Darwin to one another

science doesn't deal in beliefs??

what about the big band THEORY?? its not a fact and yet many atheists BELIEVE in it

evidence of creation??

you don't consider yourself evidence of creation??

are you a figment of your own imagination then??

sorry ben, but being an atheist doenst automatically raise your intelligence levels and make you "enlightened", i find it quite the opposite in fact, many atheists have no understanding of religion or god and yet are adamant theirs is the correct view even though their arguments are ALL flawed due to that lack of understanding and more importantly arrogance - the self assured Guarantee that they are right. You are no different

i believe in god but openly acknowledge that it could all be bullshit

you don't believe in god but are too arrogant or scared to admit you could be wrong, your argument on this topic is relies on blind belief - belief that you are right

and lastly i dont believe that anyone can truly be an atheist without first being religious

Theories are tested, did you know that, so how do you test that God exists with belief?

Do you even understand the concepts of theories? Or even an hypothesis?

Are you saying no tests have been done to prove the big bang theory?

I really have no concern whether there is a God, why would I, the only view to do that would be off the beliefs found in man made religion, where it is Gods of vengeance which seeks to form a view to me that something of such supreme intelligent would need to be able to destroy something is so illogical it points to something so intelligent that emotions cloud its judgements. That would make no logical sense to create something, just to destroy it, if it displeased you, that would be like killing your own child. Logic shows no sense to the man made religious deities, so nobody can prove or disprove god exists, i accept that but there is no reason to believe either, especially based on logic, because you really do not believe in a creator God, but one formed from a fear of what they will do if you do not believe. Your perception was altered to belief in God, based off this one fact, fear, because if you did not fear, why would you need to believe?

by Guest Sat May 24, 2014 12:02 am

Lone Wolf wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:
and lone wolf once again demonstrates the heights of intellectual content HE is capable of producing....

:-:cawg:-:

VICTOR ~

A fuckwit last week...
A fuckwit again today..
And still a fuckwit next week.

WHEN...you actually make a post that brings something useful to the debate....I may consider you "useful" until then you remain a waste of oxygen...
your knowlege (of anything) is zero
your (alleged) qualifications spectacularly FAIL to shine through
your ability to use logic is infinitly small, as is your apparent IQ
you are in fact...a waste of space....an antipodean irritant....

by groomsy Sat May 24, 2014 1:40 am

..................

by Ben Reilly Sat May 24, 2014 2:01 am

smelly_bandit wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

This statement shows that you're utterly ignorant and incapable of understanding the concept of a spiritual creator

You're request is as ridiculous as asking for the scientific equation to prove love or hate

I do love it when idiot atheists make such mind boggling blunders like asking for physical proof of a spiritual entity and then proclaiming that since no such proof is forthcoming that god doesn't exist

I also love the fact that atheists and evolutionist miss one vital and obvious point - that their views are simply a scientific based belief system instead of a religious one

I understand that some people feel they have "other ways of knowing" that God exists or that the universe was created. But unless you reject every religious story ever told (i.e. the Bible, the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, etc.) and just believe in some God that has never been described in any religion, there has got to be evidence at least of creation -- that God had some tangible effect on the universe. If there was a Great Flood there would be evidence, for example.

The whole idea of a "scientific belief system" is a paradox -- science doesn't deal in beliefs, just evidence. Evolutionary biologists don't "believe" in evolution; they find the evidence convincing and thus the theory, acceptable. I guess you could have a "scientific belief system" in a philosophical sense, like the Sagan quote about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence, but I hate it when people act like scientists meet up on Sundays to sing songs about Darwin to one another

science doesn't deal in beliefs??

what about the big band THEORY?? its not a fact and yet many atheists BELIEVE in it

evidence of creation??

you don't consider yourself evidence of creation??

are you a figment of your own imagination then??

sorry ben, but being an atheist doenst automatically raise your intelligence levels and make you "enlightened", i find it quite the opposite in fact, many atheists have no understanding of religion or god and yet are adamant theirs is the correct view even though their arguments are ALL flawed due to that lack of understanding and more importantly arrogance - the self assured Guarantee that they are right. You are no different

i believe in god but openly acknowledge that it could all be bullshit

you don't believe in god but are too arrogant or scared to admit you could be wrong, your argument on this topic is relies on blind belief - belief that you are right

and lastly i dont believe that anyone can truly be an atheist without first being religious

1) A scientific theory isn't a hunch, it's backed up by evidence. That said, the big bang theory could be dead wrong, but that wouldn't make creation right by default.

2) I'm no more evidence of any creation than anything else is.

3) I never said being an atheist makes you smarter. As for understanding God, since I strongly suspect one doesn't exist, for me that would be like trying to understand Klingon -- pointless.

4) I don't believe in God but openly acknowledge I could be wrong. I just don't think I am. Kinda like how you don't think you're wrong Wink

5) Lastly, I've related many times here about how I tried to maintain faith in Christianity for about 30 years before admitting to myself I didn't believe it, but saying nobody could be an atheist without first being religious is like saying nobody could be a vegetarian without first being a meat-eater -- it doesn't happen often but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

Why are you always so combative?

by Guest Sat May 24, 2014 7:38 am

I have no idea why you are trying to justify yourself to someone like smelly who is led by hate Ben, because his whole belief system is led by fear and as I already explained if he did not fear he would have no reason to believe. Plus the fact he is clueless and never argues anything of his own invention. Sadly this like many people in the world is drummed into them from an early age with a fear belief of religion, it is never love but fear of these mythical deities, which as seen makes no sense that I something with humble intelligence can see past vengeance and pettiness more than something that is supposed to have created me with these views, showing to me it is bullshit.

Smelly is clueless and plagiarizes many things he reads on the web, nothing he argues comes from himself, hence why he thinks science is just about belief also, showing how silly he really is in his beliefs, with having the cheek to call you clueless when he has no qualifications and is nothing more than a clueless grunt.

by Ben Reilly Sat May 24, 2014 7:55 am

Didge wrote:I have no idea why you are trying to justify yourself to someone like smelly who is led by hate Ben, because his whole belief system is led by fear and as I already explained if he did not fear he would have no reason to believe. Plus the fact he is clueless and never argues anything of his own invention. Sadly this like many people in the world is drummed into them from an early age with a fear belief of religion, it is never love but fear of these mythical deities, which as seen makes no sense that I something with humble intelligence can see past vengeance and pettiness more than something that is supposed to have created me with these views, showing to me it is bullshit.

Smelly is clueless and plagiarizes many things he reads on the web, nothing he argues comes from himself, hence why he thinks science is just about belief also, showing how silly he really is in his beliefs, with having the cheek to call you clueless when he has no qualifications and is nothing more than a clueless grunt.

You're right. I guess the main thing I wanted to communicate was that I did try to obey the fearmongers for three decades; I don't hold myself above anybody who still fears hell, eternal torture, etc. I understand where the fear comes from; it's something embedded in us by people we are forced to trust with our lives, at an age when we can't do anything else.

It reminds me of this comic, which puts it so much better than I can:

Are you for Creation or Evolution? Choose

Are you for Creation or Evolution? Choose

by Guest Sat May 24, 2014 8:03 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Didge wrote:I have no idea why you are trying to justify yourself to someone like smelly who is led by hate Ben, because his whole belief system is led by fear and as I already explained if he did not fear he would have no reason to believe. Plus the fact he is clueless and never argues anything of his own invention. Sadly this like many people in the world is drummed into them from an early age with a fear belief of religion, it is never love but fear of these mythical deities, which as seen makes no sense that I something with humble intelligence can see past vengeance and pettiness more than something that is supposed to have created me with these views, showing to me it is bullshit.

Smelly is clueless and plagiarizes many things he reads on the web, nothing he argues comes from himself, hence why he thinks science is just about belief also, showing how silly he really is in his beliefs, with having the cheek to call you clueless when he has no qualifications and is nothing more than a clueless grunt.

You're right. I guess the main thing I wanted to communicate was that I did try to obey the fearmongers for three decades; I don't hold myself above anybody who still fears hell, eternal torture, etc. I understand where the fear comes from; it's something embedded in us by people we are forced to trust with our lives, at an age when we can't do anything else.

It reminds me of this comic, which puts it so much better than I can:

That cartoon made me chuckle.
The way I see things you are your own person not led by fear, where as many religious people are, because as stated if you do not fear there is no reason to believe logically.

by Ben Reilly Sat May 24, 2014 8:07 am

Didge wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Didge wrote:I have no idea why you are trying to justify yourself to someone like smelly who is led by hate Ben, because his whole belief system is led by fear and as I already explained if he did not fear he would have no reason to believe. Plus the fact he is clueless and never argues anything of his own invention. Sadly this like many people in the world is drummed into them from an early age with a fear belief of religion, it is never love but fear of these mythical deities, which as seen makes no sense that I something with humble intelligence can see past vengeance and pettiness more than something that is supposed to have created me with these views, showing to me it is bullshit.

Smelly is clueless and plagiarizes many things he reads on the web, nothing he argues comes from himself, hence why he thinks science is just about belief also, showing how silly he really is in his beliefs, with having the cheek to call you clueless when he has no qualifications and is nothing more than a clueless grunt.

You're right. I guess the main thing I wanted to communicate was that I did try to obey the fearmongers for three decades; I don't hold myself above anybody who still fears hell, eternal torture, etc. I understand where the fear comes from; it's something embedded in us by people we are forced to trust with our lives, at an age when we can't do anything else.

It reminds me of this comic, which puts it so much better than I can:

That cartoon made me chuckle.
The way I see things you are your own person not led by fear, where as many religious people are, because as stated if you do not fear there is no reason to believe logically.

Yep! And to them, hating people who don't believe = fighting the good fight.

As far as evolution goes, we're not really that evolved ::D::

by Guest Sat May 24, 2014 8:12 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Didge wrote:

That cartoon made me chuckle.
The way I see things you are your own person not led by fear, where as many religious people are, because as stated if you do not fear there is no reason to believe logically.

Yep! And to them, hating people who don't believe = fighting the good fight.

As far as evolution goes, we're not really that evolved ::D::

Agreed on humans being evolved... ::D::

I think the more religion loses its hold the better chance humanity has of evolving.

So to all those advocating that evolution is just a belief are themselves led by religion and not any clear thinking, including Sphinx, she has not accepted that creationism has no means of testing whereas evolution does.

by Guest Sat May 24, 2014 9:51 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:Meanwhile, let's have some scientific evidence for creation, or for a creator!

when was it decided something could not exist unless science says it can..lol

by Guest Sat May 24, 2014 9:57 am

I don't feel the need to know where the first humans came from.

And you're chasing the impossible anyway, i have a feeling you're lacking something in your lives.

But good luck.

by Lone Wolf Sat May 24, 2014 3:07 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Lone Wolf wrote:
:-:cawg:-:

VICTOR ~

A fuckwit last week...
A fuckwit again today..
And still a fuckwit next week.

WHEN...you actually make a post that brings something useful to the debate....I may consider you "useful" until then you remain a waste of oxygen...
your knowlege (of anything) is zero
your (alleged) qualifications spectacularly FAIL to shine through
your ability to use logic is infinitly small, as is your apparent IQ
you are in fact...a waste of space....an antipodean irritant....

:-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-:

Fuck off Victor, you senile old fool...

AFTER your pathetic and puerile displays over the last few months, you are the last person on here who is any position to attack anyone else's intellectual capabilities..

Now toddle off back to the dunce's corner, you pathetic little weasel.
Your "considerations" on here are less than zero value these days.. :-:bravo:-:

P.S. I ALSO note that the intellectual giant pagan druid "Victor" still hasn't contributed anything of substance to this topic !!!

by Guest Sat May 24, 2014 3:40 pm

you'll be waiting a long time for lone wolf to add anything but insults to any topic...

by Lone Wolf Sun May 25, 2014 9:08 am

Lone Wolf wrote:

ANYONE who is still kicking the creationist/"ID" football around in this day and age is fundamentally an anti-science denialist, too scared to actually look at the collective evidence against their ignorant "faith" that is staring them in the face each and every day...

MAINLY in the wide biodiversity of life on this planet, far too numerous, varied and interconnected as to have either fitted into the mythical "Noah's Ark", nor to have developed this far in merely six-and-a-half thousand years..

by Guest Sun May 25, 2014 9:15 am

or the people who still believe in creation have seen the huge holes in the evolution theory and will not follow the evolution religion blindly as it clearly makes no sense...

by Guest Sun May 25, 2014 9:18 am

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:or the people who still believe in creation have seen the huge holes in the evolution theory and will not follow the evolution religion blindly as it clearly makes no sense...

What huge holes?

You mean like blind faith in a book compiled by men called the bible?

by Guest Sun May 25, 2014 9:23 am

Didge wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:or the people who still believe in creation have seen the huge holes in the evolution theory and will not follow the evolution religion blindly as it clearly makes no sense...

What huge holes?

You mean like blind faith in a book compiled by men called the bible?

the huge holes such as the lack in fossil records, the lack of transitional fossils, the lack of any evidence of a change from one species to another, the so called mutations that cause change, why do we only see neutral or negative mutations, among many others, you blindly follow your religion of evolution as you have no way of checking it for yourself...
Smile

by Guest Sun May 25, 2014 9:26 am

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
Didge wrote:

What huge holes?

You mean like blind faith in a book compiled by men called the bible?

the huge holes such as the lack in fossil records, the lack of transitional fossils, the lack of any evidence of a change from one species to another, the so called mutations that cause change, why do we only see neutral or negative mutations, among many others, you blindly follow your religion of evolution as you have no way of checking it for yourself...

What lack of fossil records?
That is bollocks and you complain about this and you put faith in a book written by men, fuck me, that is hilarious

by Guest Sun May 25, 2014 9:29 am

Didge wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

the huge holes such as the lack in fossil records, the lack of transitional fossils, the lack of any evidence of a change from one species to another, the so called mutations that cause change, why do we only see neutral or negative mutations, among many others, you blindly follow your religion of evolution as you have no way of checking it for yourself...

What lack of fossil records?
That is bollocks and you complain about this and you put faith in a book written by men, fuck me, that is hilarious

lol.. the fossil record is woefully lacking and unable to prove anything, why do you think they came up with punctuated equilibrium to fill in the huge gaps and cover up the rubbish, do you actually know anything about evolution or do you just accept anything that doesn't mean believing in God...

by Guest Sun May 25, 2014 9:32 am

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
Didge wrote:

What lack of fossil records?
That is bollocks and you complain about this and you put faith in a book written by men, fuck me, that is hilarious

lol.. the fossil record is woefully lacking and unable to prove anything, why do you think they came up with punctuated equilibrium to fill in the huge gaps and cover up the rubbish, do you actually know anything about evolution or do you just accept anything that doesn't mean believing in God...

You claim it is lacking and yet still defend your stance based upon fiction, that is what is comical, you have no evidence for God, except a book written by men and you bemoan evolution, it has to be the silliest argument you will find

by Sponsored content