KIA&SS wrote:

I have an answer. Have you ever considered that you are just to blind to see it?
My God reveals himself to me every day. In the air I breath, the sound of birds chirping, the growing of green grass, the birth of young, the power of the sun.
What is my God afraid of? Nothing. He reveals himself every day, you just chose to ignore him.

How is that an answer? How am I blind? You're the blind one here! I was once a believer myself, I just reevaluated my beliefs and over time changed them into what they are now. By saying that he proves his existence in "the air I breath, the sound of birds chirping, the growing of green grass, the birth of young, the power of the sun." is insinuating that you know that God created these things. Yet again, how do you even know he even exists which would be required for him to created these things? I mean, it doesn't make logical sense. If we use that logic then shit, I guess the presents under the tree when I wake up Christmas morning are proof that Santa exists.

I chose to ignore him? You talk about him like you have undeniable proof of his existence.

KIA&SS wrote:

Then a religious person? Yes, I would have to agree.
But religion and God are not the same thing.

I am fully away of this fact.

KIA&SS wrote:

We all only live once. We all only get one shot. What if there is someone out there that believes like you, that they should live by their own standards except their standards are to murder? Rape? Cannibalize? Start nuclear war? Maybe they believe the human race is wrecking the planet so they want to help by exterminating us? What makes you any better them, by your logic?
I don't feel guilt anytime I make a mistake, nor do I fear.
I hope you are satisfied and happy. I truly do wish you all the happiness this earth has to offer. If you die tomorrow, or a hundred years hence I hope your happiness and satisfaction are fulfilled. For if you die and they aren't, remember me telling you this. "You never knew what true happiness was because you stubbornly closed your mind to the possibility of a God who required nothing but instead died for you."

I get that we all only live once. I think you pretty much got my point. You have to be mentally corrupt to want to murder, rape, eat another human being or start nuclear war. It's not often someone who is sane minded chooses to carry out such sadistic acts. Your rational is severely flawed. Just because you don't believe in a higher power and wish to make your own choices doesn't mean you'll make bad ones. I'm kind of confused, especially since you agreed that religion has been the cause of war and terrorist acts. The people in al-Qaeda that carried out 9/11 believed in a religion and a God and they hijacked plans and flew them into fucking buildings and killed thousands of people. They sure as hell didn't have the same thought process as me. And don't give me the, "Well, they're extremists." I can't even tell you how many times people play that card.

KIA&SS wrote:

I respect you, as a person, as a human being, as (debate) opposition. Your lack of belief in anything but yourself... I cannot respect. I believe that you are smarter then that. I find it sad that you have truly blinded yourself to all possibilities because of what? A human priest lying to you? Something a friend said? The impossible task of mentally reckoning that a perfect God can exist without religion.

I didn't make these changes because a priest lied to me or something a friend said. I made them because I WANTED TO. I'm a skeptic and wish to seek the truth. It's as simple as that. Furthermore, before becoming Agnostic I did believe in God without the religious aspect. You're making these horribly false assumptions. I'm also severely offended that you assume I only believe in myself. You do you think you are? I believe in logic and science. The belief in a higher power simply isn't logical.

KIA&SS wrote:

My friends, or at least fellow debaters, I believe in God because he brings me joy unimaginable by those who have not met him. I believe in him because every other option lacks logic, hope, freedom, love, peace, or justice. Not because I will burn if I don't.
I am free. I am joyful. I have no fear. I have hope. I know what love really is. I don't have to judge because one far greater then I is just. I awake every morning to the knowledge that the day is a gift given just to me. I will live forever, and in that forever I will never be bored because a God that is powerful enough to make me is powerful enough to make things that I can't even imagine. Powerful enough to make eternity just as exciting if not more exciting then now!

You can keep your belief in yourself, your short life, your big bang, and whatever else you wish. Just do me that favor of asking yourself how much sense your belief makes in the big picture. If there is even the smallest chance that I am not as happy as I could be then I must ask myself why. I urge you to do the same.

No, I am not trying to convert you. I couldn't even if I wanted to for a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. I am quite simply telling you what I believe. I don't expect anyone to believe the same as me, for indeed few believe as do.
You may find it interesting to know that I have met very few that are part of any religion that like my beliefs. Not even the majority of Christians like them.

I'm about to sound like a dick, but you're coming off as extremely condescending. You're talking down to me because I don't believe in what you do.

"I don't have to judge because one far greater then I is just."
This line is especially comical, since you've judged me multiple time throughout your failed attempt of an argument.

Sorry, but I would've loved to have a nice, calm argument with you until you gained the audacity to say that the only thing I believe in is myself, among other offensive remarks. You don't even fucking know me.

It doesn't matter what other people think.

By that logic I shouldn't care what you think... and we don't have debate.

You realize people from every other religion say that, right? It's physiological.

Is it?

Instead of basing your belief in God off of evidence and logic, you instead chose the belief which was most convenient for you?

You keep believing the the big bang is logical. How? No one was there to see it. No has and irrefutable evidence (greatly enjoying books on the subject btw).
My belief in God is just as logical as anyone who believes in the big bang or evolution. Why? Because as has already been stated by many people we cant prove either one. To me the earth being here is logical proof that God exists. To you the earth being here is logical proof the big bang happened. Same thing is behind both, blind faith.

So you deserve hell from a God who did nothing to try and prove his existence to you?

Speak for yourself. My God proved his existence to me, does so every day. Can I know for absolute certainty based of science facts that it is God? No. But for me it is far more logical then any other option. And yes, I deserve hell. Why? Because I have thoroughly taken my life and made whats fit for hell out of it. I have lied, stolen, torn people down, hurt people. The difference between me and most of those I talk to is I don't have problem admitting I am wrong and horrible.

Here we go again. That "explosion" does not state that something came from nothing. You keep saying it, but it's a blatant lie.

So your telling me that the explosion came from something? (was it a dot? If it was where did the matter come from? and what made it explode?) Your saying you did not come from rocks? And that evolution wasn't by survival of the fittest?
If you are I want to know why you are calling your scientists liars? And what exactly do you believe?

You're complaining that you'd have to do good works? Seriously?
The Bible may not require it for salvation but it's heavily advocated.

Advocated does not mean I have to do them. If you do good works does that make you a Christian? What kind of dumb logic is that anyway?

By the way, saying you believe in God but not Allah is like saying you believe in Santa Claus but not Saint Nicholas.
God and Allah are the same Abrahamic God.

Dude... you can't be serious? Please tell me you at least did your research before stating this? I listed how many Gods I've studied and your going to try to claim these two are the same? Seriously?
Could research more before stating stupidity?

There is absolutely no question that Allah was worshipped by the pagan Arabs as one of many polytheistic gods.
Allah was worshipped in the Kabah at Mecca before Muhammad was born. Muhammad merely proclaimed a god the Meccans were already familiar with. The pagan Arabs never accused Muhammad of preaching a different Allah than the one they already worshipped.
Many scholars say "Allah" is derived from a compound Arabic word, AL + ILAH = Allah. "Ilah" in Arabic is "God" and "Al" in Arabic is a definite article like our word "the". So from an English equivalent "Allah" comes from "The + God". Others, like Arthur Jeffery say, "The common theory is that it is formed from ilah, the common word for a god, and the article al-; thus al-ilah, the god," becomes Allah, "God." This theory, however, is untenable. In fact, the name is one of the words borrowed into the language in pre-Islamic times from Aramaic." (Islam: Muhammad and His Religion, Arthur Jeffery, 1958, p 85)
Although "Allah" has become known as the proper name for the Muslim god, Allah is not a name, but a descriptor that means literally, "the god". All pagan cultures have these generic terms that refer to their "top god" as "the god". In comparison to the perfect monotheism of Judaism and Christianity, "Allah" was originally no more a proper name for the Muslim God, than the word Hebrew "elohim" (god) or Greek "theos" (god) are proper names of the one true God of the Bible. "Jehovah" is the only revealed proper name for the "Elohim" of the Old Testament ( Ex 3:13; 6:3) and "Jesus" is the only revealed proper name of "Theos" in the New Testament. (Acts 4:12) Islam has no proper name for their god, but merely transformed, by universal use and confusion, the generic Allah into a proper name. So although today, Muslims use "Allah" as a proper name, it was never used this way originally. Allah, therefore is equivalent to "elohim" and "ho theos" but not "Jehovah" or "Jesus". Allah is not the name of the nameless Muslim God. However Muslims will claim that Allah is the name of God that corresponds to Jehovah. Both the Father and the Son are called "ho theos" (The God). Jesus is called "The God" many times in the New Testament: John 20:28; Heb 1:8. An important conclusion from this, is that the mere fact that "Allah" is equivalent to "elohim" and "ho theos" does not mean they are directly corresponded. It certainly doesn’t prove Allah is the same as the God of the Old or New Testament. It does not prove that Muslim’s worship the same God as Christians. If this correspondence proved the Muslim god was the same as the Christian God, then because pagan religions also have generics that correspond to "the god" (Allah), this correspondence would also prove that Allah is the same god as the Buddhist god, for Buddhists also refer to their god as "the god".
For more info: bible.ca/islam/islam-allah-p ... origin.htm

god, God, god... Everywhere you look there's a god.... does that make them all the same one?

I don't go off of blind faith, sorry. If you want to lie to yourself and believe that the big bang and evolution require blind faith, go for it. Just don't indoctrinate us with what you've talked yourself into believing.
As they say, ignorance is bliss.

You ever see or met anyone that has seen anything evolve? Can you explain the trees in the fossilized rock? Do they not date fossils by the rocks and the rocks by the fossils? Is the moon not moving away from us? And you don't believe by blind faith?
Do you realize you sound ignorant when you state that you don't have blind faith? Or when you state Allah is the same as the Christian God?

Nobody who understands astronomy and evolution believe that life evolved by chance. Only brainwashed creationists believe evolution says that.

Only brainwashed evolutionists believe that we all came from rocks.

No you didn't. You just said you believe by blind faith alone, and you chose your God based on how pleasing his requirements were. That's not a logical choice; that's an egotistical and incompetent one. It's also insulting to other Christians who believe for genuine reasons.

I do believe by blind faith. Do I see God every day. Yes. I am certain it is God because of my faith. What I call God you call the product big bang. Those who believe in the big bang believe that every day on blind faith.
We both have blind faith you just don't want to admit it.
Whatever is wrong with my reasons? Whatever is wrong with questioning ones own beliefs? What is false about my belief in God?

Yet again, how do you even know he even exists which would be required for him to created these things? I mean, it doesn't make logical sense.

The big bang makes sense? Humans coming from rocks makes sense? The moon makes sense? The fact that planets and moons spin opposite directions makes sense (it depends on which big bang story you believe for you to understand this question.)? Seriously that all makes sense to you? I forgot your agnostic... believing that you just don't know and that there is no way to be sure makes sense to you? Catholics are not Christians (though there are Christians in the catholic church) and I wouldn't believe in the catholic depiction of Jesus either. I don't blame you for saying "it makes no sense" I don't judge you for not believing. I am asking you how much sense your belief or lack of makes.

If we use that logic then shit, I guess the presents under the tree when I wake up Christmas morning are proof that Santa exists.

There is no logic to this comment. The two are no where near the same. Santa is a lie told to children by their parents. Santa is a lovely lie invented by the devil to embody the attributes of Jesus Christ. And while we are on the subject there is nothing Christian about Christmas and Jesus wasn't born in December nor does he want anyone to celebrate his birth. In fact Jesus himself said, "Better is the day of ones death then the day of ones birth."

I chose to ignore him? You talk about him like you have undeniable proof of his existence.

I do. I can't deny his existence. I tried. I have Gods spirit living inside of me. Denying him would be like denying my existence.

You have to be mentally corrupt to want to murder, rape, eat another human being or start nuclear war. It's not often someone who is sane minded chooses to carry out such sadistic acts. Your rational is severely flawed.

No one believes that they are insane.
You said: "I would much rather live my life by my standards, create my own opinions on the world", "live my life the way that I wish to live it".
By your logic everyone of us should have our own standards, create our own opinions on the world, and live the way we wish. (It is what you said not a judgment.)
If that is so then there can be no mental corruptness because what you think is mentally corrupt another person may not. Who are you to tell me or anyone else what to believe? What our standards should be? How we should live our lives? Whether we are insane or not?
Who are you that your morals are so perfect the rest of us should conform?

Just because you don't believe in a higher power and wish to make your own choices doesn't mean you'll make bad ones.

No it doesn't. May people do believe in higher powers and use that as an excuse for there own agendas. They blame their gods for their own cruelty. Crusades are a great example.

I'm kind of confused, especially since you agreed that religion has been the cause of war and terrorist acts. The people in al-Qaeda that carried out 9/11 believed in a religion and a God and they hijacked plans and flew them into fucking buildings and killed thousands of people. They sure as hell didn't have the same thought process as me. And don't give me the, "Well, they're extremists." I can't even tell you how many times people play that card.

I wouldn't play that card as I do agree with you. Religion is the cause of war, murder, destruction and stupidity. Man invented religion to serve their own agendas. The terrorists in 9/11 (most likely) believed in Allah and did what their quran orders them to do. They committed a terrible act and used the excuse our god said too. In their, case they were right. The quran did order them to do so. Their religion told them what to do.
Many people, Christians included use religion as a cloak to not take responsibility for their own actions.

Jesus came to abolish religion. Jesus hated religion. Religious people hated Jesus.
Religion says do. Jesus says done. Religion makes you blind, while Jesus makes you see.
Religion is man searching for God. True Christianity is God searching for man.
When Jesus said "It is finished" I believe he meant it.

I'm a skeptic and wish to seek the truth. It's as simple as that. Furthermore, before becoming Agnostic I did believe in God without the religious aspect.

Then you are like me. For I am a skeptic always searching for the truth.

I'm also severely offended that you assume I only believe in myself. You do you think you are? I believe in logic and science.

It is what you said. You believe in your logic and your sense. "I would much rather live my life by my standards, create my own opinions on the world", "live my life the way that I wish to live it"
Would you believe in someones logic that there are to many people on earth so some should die? If not then don't you logically only believe the logic that suits you best? Thus believing only in your self logic?
Science I also believe in. But logically, evolution is not scientific.

The belief in a higher power simply isn't logical.

By my logic it is. By the logic of millions of other people it is. You simply don't agree with that logic thus you believe in yourself.

"I don't have to judge because one far greater then I is just."
This line is especially comical, since you've judged me multiple time throughout your failed attempt of an argument.

I am not judging you. You made statements and I countered them with what I believe. You made statements and I logically questioned them. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I am judging you. I don't believe you are stupid. I don't belive you are beneath me. I don't believe I am any better then you. In fact I am probably worse. I am not judging you and I apologize if you feel I am.

I'm about to sound like a dick, but you're coming off as extremely condescending. You're talking down to me because I don't believe in what you do.

I think we are talking as equals. I in no way intend to talk down to you. And you don't sound like any such thing. You just sound frustrated.

Sorry, but I would've loved to have a nice, calm argument with you until you gained the audacity to say that the only thing I believe in is myself, among other offensive remarks. You don't even fucking know me.

I don't know you, your right. It is simply what you said. I am still open for a nice calm argument as I am still calm. I apologize if you are offended.
Though... considering I don't even know you why should you be offended by anything I say?

SS

KIA&SS wrote:

By that logic I shouldn't care what you think... and we don't have debate.
Is it?

Now you're taking my statements out of context. What a surprise, another fallacy on your part.

KIA&SS wrote:

Is it?

People from every religion claim to "know" or feel the presence of their God; they believe he brings joy to their life. It has to be at least somewhat physiological.

KIA&SS wrote:

You keep believing the the big bang is logical. How? No one was there to see it. No has and irrefutable evidence (greatly enjoying books on the subject btw).

We're not doing this again. We've already been through the whole "nobody has seen it" charade. Nobody has seen black holes either, but their existence has been demonstrated through other means. Just like the big bang. Once again, if you want to lie to yourself, fine. Just don't try and pass it off here.

KIA&SS wrote:

My belief in God is just as logical as anyone who believes in the big bang or evolution. Why?

I would agree. The difference is, I don't believe belief in God is based on blind faith. You do.

KIA&SS wrote:

Because as has already been stated by many people we cant prove either one.

We can't prove or disprove God with 100% certainty. With that being said, we rarely prove or disprove anything with 100% certainty. We wouldn't get anywhere if we required that degree of proof.

KIA&SS wrote:

Speak for yourself. My God proved his existence to me, does so every day. Can I know for absolute certainty based of science facts that it is God? No. But for me it is far more logical then any other option. And yes, I deserve hell. Why? Because I have thoroughly taken my life and made whats fit for hell out of it. I have lied, stolen, torn people down, hurt people. The difference between me and most of those I talk to is I don't have problem admitting I am wrong and horrible.

Even if you did all those, why is it fair for you to go to hell for not believing in a God, when that God didn't at least partially manifest himself?

KIA&SS wrote:

So your telling me that the explosion came from something? (was it a dot? If it was where did the matter come from? and what made it explode?)

I'm saying it's possible that our universe is eternal. In which case, we did not come from nothing. The energy and matter always existed.
Contrary to popular belief, the big bang wasn't an explosion. It's an expansion. As for what made it expand, the big bang "theory" doesn't deal with that. It doesn't ask what came before the big bang, or what sparked the big bang. The theory deals with what happened in the milliseconds after the big bang.

On a more ironic note, within the last couple of days, scientists are nearly 100% certain that they found the "spark" for the big bang. The Higgs boson (the God particle). So there you go.

KIA&SS wrote:

Your saying you did not come from rocks? And that evolution wasn't by survival of the fittest?

What?

KIA&SS wrote:

Advocated does not mean I have to do them. If you do good works does that make you a Christian? What kind of dumb logic is that anyway?

Quit putting words in my mouth, I never said nor even implied that doing good works makes you a Christian. I specifically said it's not required for salvation.

KIA&SS wrote:

Dude... you can't be serious? Please tell me you at least did your research before stating this? I listed how many Gods I've studied and your going to try to claim these two are the same? Seriously?
Could research more before stating stupidity?

You're saying Allah and the Judeo-Christian God aren't the same? Each of the Abrahamic religions worship the same God, but have varying opinions of his characteristics and follow different doctrines.

KIA&SS wrote:

god, God, god... Everywhere you look there's a god.... does that make them all the same one?

No, but Allah and the Judeo-Christian God are both the God of Abraham. You deny this?

KIA&SS wrote:

You ever see or met anyone that has seen anything evolve?

We see evolution in progress everyday.

KIA&SS wrote:

Can you explain the trees in the fossilized rock? Do they not date fossils by the rocks and the rocks by the fossils? Is the moon not moving away from us?

What in the hell are you talking about?

KIA&SS wrote:

Do you realize you sound ignorant when you state that you don't have blind faith? Or when you state Allah is the same as the Christian God?

Do you realize you're one of the stupidest and most incongruous creationists this forum has ever seen?

KIA&SS wrote:

Only brainwashed evolutionists believe that we all came from rocks.

Either you didn't pay attention in biology class, or you had a really stupid teacher. Pure instinct tells me it's the former.

KIA&SS wrote:

I do believe by blind faith. Do I see God every day. Yes. I am certain it is God because of my faith. What I call God you call the product big bang. Those who believe in the big bang believe that every day on blind faith.

If you see God everyday then it wouldn't be blind faith.

KIA&SS wrote:

We both have blind faith you just don't want to admit it.

No I don't.

KIA&SS wrote:

Whatever is wrong with my reasons? Whatever is wrong with questioning ones own beliefs? What is false about my belief in God?

Your reasons are conceited and narcissistic. You chose which God to believe in based on which was most convenient for you. People like you are the reason why atheists and agnostics view Christianity and other religions in such bad light. It's reprehensible to watch.

KIA&SS...

You're boasting about how evolution and the Big Bang and other things can't be proven because we haven't seen them. Which is very true. However, what I'm troubled by is the fact that you insist that your God has to exist and he is the reason the universe exists. The problem is you have never seen God with your own two eyes. You've never seen Jesus with your own two eyes. You've never witnessed anyone heal illnesses at will, you've never seen anyone turn water into wine, make a blind man see, rise from the dead or any of those profound miracles found in The Bible. So how can you sit there and criticize the Big Bang and evolution when your God is no more evident that those two scientific theories about the creation of the universe and the development of man-kind? I really don't think a single one of us knows how or why matter even exists. We've created interesting scientific theories and interesting spiritually driven theories, but that's all they are. Theories. And a theory cannot be considered a fact until it is proven.

You can't really prove that we evolved from monkeys, we can't prove the universe developed from a giant explosion and we can't prove the existence of God. Perhaps the universe has always exists and always will exist. Perhaps there's no beginning and no end. Has anyone ever considered that? I don't really think anyone who believes in God can call me crazy for making that claim either. Since I'm pretty sure those who believe in God believe that he has no beginning and no end.

Let's think about this.

We all know that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Energy is only transfered into different forms. The simplest of these forms is kinetic and potential. Then we have thermal, mechanical, chemical, electrical, electrochemical, electromagnetic, sound and nuclear. I think we all learned this in our grade school science classes. And we know it to be a fact. Now, all matter has energy. This is also a fact.

So, all matter contains energy and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. So, I think we can safely say that the energy we have today is the energy we always have had and it's the same energy we always will have. No more, no less. It's just been arranged in different ways to create different things. It may be hard to comprehend, but if you really think about it, it actually makes a lot of sense.

Now again, this idea is just another theory. The theory of coarse is heavily based on scientific fact however, but we still can't say 100% that it's what actually happened. To an educated person though, it makes sense. Way more sense than the existence of some kind of a higher power.

And I get that you believe in God and that it brings you joy, but I don't think you're fully understanding the idea that I'm trying to convey.

When I say I want to develop my own morals, standards and opinons. I mean I want to be able to have my own opinions of homosexuality, abortion, sex and other issues and not be influenced by a third-party. A third party can include the news media, society or government- I'm not solely speaking of God, religion or The Bible; although these are included. I want to develop these opinions based off scientific research, world observation and other means. I think the world would be a better place if more people thought like this. Your claim that this would create criminals is somewhat crazy. As we are growing our parents are supposed to give us a moral foundation. They are supposed to tell us that lying, cheating, stealing and killing is wrong. They are supposed to teach us things like respect, fairness, and common courtesy. We also have laws that tell us not to kill, steal, rape, etc. If you break these laws the consequences range from imprisonment to even death in some cases. All of these things prevent us from turning into murderers, rapists, thieves or other things. The sad truth though is that no matter what you do we will always have crime. Why? Because human nature isn't perfect. We make mistakes every single waking day of our lives. It's just that some people make really big mistakes. However, like I said before, people who kill, rape or other things probably have something wrong with them. They don't have a healthy moral standing. Perhaps because he or she wasn't raised in a manner that promoted good behavior or they were abused as a child. There's a huge slew of possibilities.

I'm not trying to make you an Atheist, but it's impossible to have a well structured argument with someone who is close minded and who thinks their beliefs are the only possibility. You have to be willing to accept other ideas outside your own. God isn't the only possibility out there. I know you might think that, but it's extremely ignorant and close-minded of you. You have to, at the very least, acknowledge these other possibilities. You have to be aware that perhaps theres a chance that they might be right and your wrong.

My purpose throughout this is to try and get it into your head that there are a huge number of choices of beliefs and theories out there as to why and how the universe came to be. And that any one of these choices could be the correct one. We as humans pick usually one choice to believe in, the one that we like the most and that we think makes most sense. But after you've made that choice, you must be willing to acknowledge you may have picked the wrong one. It's as simple as that.

I thought this was hilarious seeing as how KIA&SS uses pretty much all of these:

Lukla,
Do you know what physiological means?

Definition of PHYSIOLOGICAL
1.) of or relating to physiology

2.) characteristic of or appropriate to an organism's healthy or normal functioning

3.) differing in, involving, or affecting physiological factors

phys·i·ol·o·gy
1. The biological study of the functions of living organisms and their parts.
2. All the functions of a living organism or any of its parts.

You accuse me of not paying attention in biology class and you don't even know how to use the word physiological correctly. Why on earth should I respect someone spouting science they can't even use the correct terminology for?

As for Allah and God I posted the article stating what I agree with. No they aren't the same.

We see evolution in progress everyday.

Micro evolution. Dogs turning into differing kinds of dogs yes. Not macro evolution, dinos turning into birds, or apes to man.

What in the hell are you talking about?

Look up the dating of fossils. Then look up the dating of rocks. It's circular and faulty reasoning. The moon I already covered in the past.

If you see God everyday then it wouldn't be blind faith.

True, I concede the point. My faith isn't blind in God existing, but my faith is blind in him creating the world.

Your reasons are conceited and narcissistic. You chose which God to believe in based on which was most convenient for you. People like you are the reason why atheists and agnostics view Christianity and other religions in such bad light. It's reprehensible to watch.

My reason is God loved me, how is that conceited? My reason is I can do nothing to please God, how is that conceited?
Do you know what narcissistic means?
I chose my God based upon what my God did for me. He sent his son to die, for me.
And people like you are confusing and contradictory .
And you don't know how to use the English language correctly.
Reprehensible means deserving blame. The sentence: "Its deserving blame to watch." Makes you look just as foolish as your misuse of physiological.

gman4354,

First thank you. Thank you for actually making your points in a comprehensive and mature manner.

So how can you sit there and criticize the Big Bang and evolution when your God is no more evident that those two scientific theories about the creation of the universe and the development of man-kind?

You are right I have no more evidence of God creating the world then you have of the Big Bang. I am pointing out the quite apparent flaws in the Big Bang and evolution. I am seeking the truth of the matter and asking the questions pertaining to the flaws. I don't see that as criticizing I see it as testing the theory.

The problem is you have never seen God with your own two eyes. You've never seen Jesus with your own two eyes. You've never witnessed anyone heal illnesses at will, you've never seen anyone turn water into wine, make a blind man see, rise from the dead or any of those profound miracles found in The Bible.

The difference is I am not trying to pass my God off as science. Evolutionist try to pass their belief off as science. Its not.
I haven't seen God with my two eyes, but I do have record of people claiming to have done so. Evolutionists don't have that. I never witnessed Jesus with my two eyes but secular history even acknowledges the existence a man named Jesus. Evolutionist don't have that. I haven't seen water turn into wine but have seen freakishly supernatural things occur that science has yet to explain (though it still might and I am open to that.)

Perhaps there's no beginning and no end. Has anyone ever considered that?

I have actually.

To an educated person though, it makes sense. Way more sense than the existence of some kind of a higher power.

There are couple of things that make it not make sense. The scientific laws that state everything is constantly decaying. (The orbit of the sun and moon for example.) The fact that if there was a big bang and everything was brought together to then explode and expand makes no sense because there would have to be some force to bring it together.

And I get that you believe in God and that it brings you joy, but I don't think you're fully understanding the idea that I'm trying to convey.

Your right I don't but I shall keep trying.

When I say I want to develop my own morals, standards and opinons. I mean I want to be able to have my own opinions of homosexuality, abortion, sex and other issues and not be influenced by a third-party. A third party can include the news media, society or government- I'm not solely speaking of God, religion or The Bible; although these are included.

Alright... please help me understand. How can you or I or anyone make a completely, not influenced by anything outside ourselves opinion? Would we not have to be born and live a secluded life to accomplish this?

I want to develop these opinions based off scientific research, world observation and other means.

Is not scientific research and other means, a contradiction of "no third party influences" considering that there is debate among those in the scientific community?

Your claim that this would create criminals is somewhat crazy.

I did not claim it would, I simply stated it could and asked that if it did, how could we judge them for doing so by your logic of making your own choices on morality.

As we are growing our parents are supposed to give us a moral foundation. They are supposed to tell us that lying, cheating, stealing and killing is wrong. They are supposed to teach us things like respect, fairness, and common courtesy.

Yes, but then, I have to ask where the parents morals come from? And what if the parents are born in a cannibalistic society? Would they not teach their children that cannibalization is morally acceptable? Would they be wrong for doing that? And if so why? There are people alive today who believe that the world is crowded and think humans should be exterminated. They will likely teach their children this. What makes them wrong by your logic of we decide our own morality? Take Nazi's for example, they want to exterminate the Jewish people and they will teach their children this. By your logic what makes them morally wrong? What makes thing you find horrible morally wrong if we all should choose our own morals? Who are you to decide if other people morals are right or wrong?

We also have laws that tell us not to kill, steal, rape, etc. If you break these laws the consequences range from imprisonment to even death in some cases. All of these things prevent us from turning into murderers, rapists, thieves or other things.

And yet we constantly debate this moral line, thus we have changes in laws and the punishments for breaking them.

The sad truth though is that no matter what you do we will always have crime. Why? Because human nature isn't perfect. We make mistakes every single waking day of our lives. It's just that some people make really big mistakes. However, like I said before, people who kill, rape or other things probably have something wrong with them. They don't have a healthy moral standing. Perhaps because he or she wasn't raised in a manner that promoted good behavior or they were abused as a child. There's a huge slew of possibilities.

I agree none of us are perfect. But by your logic how can we draw the moral line for another individual? How can we judge them on what they find morally correct if all we have are our own opinions to guide us?

I'm not trying to make you an Atheist, but it's impossible to have a well structured argument with someone who is close minded and who thinks their beliefs are the only possibility. You have to be willing to accept other ideas outside your own. God isn't the only possibility out there. I know you might think that, but it's extremely ignorant and close-minded of you. You have to, at the very least, acknowledge these other possibilities. You have to be aware that perhaps theres a chance that they might be right and your wrong.

I agree you have to be open to other possibilities. I have already stated on this thread that I could be wrong. I think God is the only logical possibility for me. That does not mean I believe that he is the only idea.
How can you say that I must accept ideas outside my own and yet you state that you don't want any third party influences to make your opinions? Is that not contradictory? Are you telling me what my morals should be? Why should I accept your morals if you are?

My purpose throughout this is to try and get it into your head that there are a huge number of choices of beliefs and theories out there as to why the universe came to be. And that any one of these choices could be the correct one.

There could be. I agree. I already stated I chose the one that makes logical sense for me.

We as humans pick usually one choice to believe in, the one that we like the most and that we think makes most sense. And that's that. But you must be willing to acknowledge you may have picked the wrong choice. It's as simple as that.

I acknowledge. But I am at peace with my choice. If I made the wrong choice and the world came from the big bang then I will die and and thats that. If there is some other god out there and I burn or am punished I still am only getting what I deserve.

Are you willing to acknowledge that your choice could be wrong? Are you willing to acknowledge that you could be punished for your choice? Are you at peace with that?

SS







---------- Post added at 04:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:10 PM ----------

I thought this was hilarious seeing as how KIA&SS uses pretty much all of these:

That's funny because I am pretty sure most of the debaters here have done a number of these.

KIA&SS: I’m clumping a few of your posts together into related topic for ease of replying.

KIA&SS wrote:

You keep believing the the big bang is logical. How? No one was there to see it. No has and irrefutable evidence (greatly enjoying books on the subject btw).

---

To me it is more plausible then the world exploding into existence and life evolving by chance.

---

So your telling me that the explosion came from something? (was it a dot? If it was where did the matter come from? and what made it explode?) Your saying you did not come from rocks? And that evolution wasn't by survival of the fittest?

---

The fact that if there was a big bang and everything was brought together to then explode and expand makes no sense because there would have to be some force to bring it together

For having read about the subject you seem to know very little. The big bang was not an explosion. It is not a creation theory in the sense of “something coming from nothing.” We did not “come from rocks”.

Every argument you’ve used is a very common one, and I’m inclined to think that the only work you’ve read on the subject are books written by creationists who also don’t understand the big bang or evolution. We know very little about what happened in the moments leading up to the big bang, but that doesn’t automatically mean that the entire theory is wrong, or that God is an automatic explanation.

I agree none of us are perfect. But by your logic how can we draw the moral line for another individual? How can we judge them on what they find morally correct if all we have are our own opinions to guide us?

THIS may be of interest to you.

My friends, or at least fellow debaters, I believe in God because he brings me joy unimaginable by those who have not met him. I believe in him because every other option lacks logic, hope, freedom, love, peace, or justice.

It is absolutely possible to have all of those things without God.

Advocated does not mean I have to do them. If you do good works does that make you a Christian? What kind of dumb logic is that anyway?

This is my biggest qualm with religion. I don't understand why belief/blind faith is of utmost importance, even more important than being a good person. It's a value system that is absolutely backwards in my mind.

Jesus came to abolish religion. Jesus hated religion. Religious people hated Jesus.
Religion says do. Jesus says done. Religion makes you blind, while Jesus makes you see.
Religion is man searching for God. True Christianity is God searching for man.
When Jesus said "It is finished" I believe he meant it.

re·li·gion   [ri-lij-uhn]
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.


While that video had a good message, you can't "hate religion/love God", and Jesus didn't come to abolish religion. Christianity is a religion.

KIA&SS wrote:

Micro evolution. Dogs turning into differing kinds of dogs yes. Not macro evolution, dinos turning into birds, or apes to man.

Macroevolution is simply an extension of microevolution. No one has directly observed macroevolution because it takes hundreds, thousands, and millions of years, but we have ample evidence to suggest it has occurred.

The difference is I am not trying to pass my God off as science. Evolutionist try to pass their belief off as science. Its not.

Yes, it is.

I'm sorry, KIA&SS. But he's right. You have been using a lot of these and you continue to.

Not to mention, you didn't even attempt to refute my whole energy theory. I thought was funny. You seem to only attempt to refute parts of my argument and throw out the bits that you can't argue with.

KIA&SS wrote:

Lukla,
Do you know what physiological means?

You accuse me of not paying attention in biology class and you don't even know how to use the word physiological correctly. Why on earth should I respect someone spouting science they can't even use the correct terminology for?

I meant psychology, my bad.

The point is that many of the feeling you get when praying, worshiping, believing in God, etc. can be attributed to psychological factors.
One could always argue that God works through the brain, but if people from every religion have an emotional response, some of it has to be attributed to psychological factors.

KIA&SS wrote:

As for Allah and God I posted the article stating what I agree with. No they aren't the same.

I fail to see how the article proves that Allah and the Judeo-Christian God are not the same Abrahamic God.

Both Arabic speaking Christians and Jews use the term "Allah" when describing God. But my point was never that because Allah means God, they were the same God.
Both come from the same source; they just have different interpretations of who God/Allah is.

KIA&SS wrote:

Micro evolution. Dogs turning into differing kinds of dogs yes. Not macro evolution, dinos turning into birds, or apes to man.

To start, evolution doesn't state that apes evolved into man. I can't tell you how many times I hear this, and it's flat out wrong.

We can observe macro-evolution through the fossil record.

KIA&SS wrote:

Look up the dating of fossils. Then look up the dating of rocks. It's circular and faulty reasoning. The moon I already covered in the past.

Circular how?

I already dealt with your moon problem.

KIA&SS wrote:

True, I concede the point. My faith isn't blind in God existing, but my faith is blind in him creating the world.

If it's not blind faith that he exists, then it's not blind faith to assume he created the world.

KIA&SS wrote:

My reason is God loved me, how is that conceited? My reason is I can do nothing to please God, how is that conceited?
Do you know what narcissistic means?

I just told you why.

You didn't choose your belief in God based on which one was most logical. You chose based on which was easiest for you. You didn't choose Allah because you would have to submit yourself and would have to do good deeds. Long story short, you chose the God which required the least amount of effort on your part. Some people would call that selfish.

KIA&SS wrote:

And people like you are confusing and contradictory . And you don't know how to use the English language correctly.
Reprehensible means deserving blame. The sentence: "Its deserving blame to watch." Makes you look just as foolish as your misuse of physiological.

Spare me. It was 1 mistake to your 50.

Oh you're going after my English now? This should be fun.
Turning "it's reprehensible to watch" into "it's deserving blame to watch?" Really? I can make any piece of diction seem out of place by fallaciously replacing it with a definition.

A proper sentence such as "it's sad to watch" can be turned into an improper one such as "it's affected by unhappiness to watch."
Use a thesaurus next time, and learn what an adjective is.[FONT=&quot] Thank you.
[/FONT]

God damn, I still cannot rep you. Y U SO AWESOME LUKLA

I just wanted to add onto this. Not only is what you said true, but prayer is also an illusion.

Here's what I mean: youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI

It's too long to explain via a forum post.

you're a very troubled young lady. anybody ever tell you that?

"Freedom of speech is useless without freedom of thought. And I fear that the politics of protest is shutting out the process of thought, so necessary to rational discussion. We are faced with the Ten Commandments of Protest:Thou Shalt Not Allow Thy Opponent to Speak. Thou Shalt Not Set Forth a Program of Thine Own. Thou Shalt Not Trust Anybody Over Thirty. Thou Shalt Not Honor Thy Father or Thy Mother. Thou Shalt Not Heed the Lessons of History. Thou Shalt Not Write Anything Longer than a Slogan. Thou Shalt Not Present a Negotiable Demand. Thou Shalt Not Accept Any Establishment Idea. Thou Shalt Not Revere Any but Totalitarian Heroes. Thou Shalt Not Ask Forgiveness for Thy Transgressions, Rather Thou Shalt Demand Amnesty for Them. " ~ Agnew, Spiro T.

Some of you sound like you sound like you follow these ten commandments, dutifully.

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something." ~ Plato

I have something to say and rest my case with the following.

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived and dishonest - but the myth - persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic." ~ John F Kennedy

For having read about the subject you seem to know very little. The big bang was not an explosion. It is not a creation theory in the sense of “something coming from nothing.” We did not “come from rocks”.

The big bang was an expansion or so I have heard recently. What made it expand if you prefer this word? What about the primordial soup? The liquid providing favorable conditions for the emergence and growth of life forms? Did it or did it not rain on the rocks for millions of years?

It is absolutely possible to have all of those things without God.

Perhaps for you, but what about the millions of people who aren’t happy without one? Do you accuse them all? Who are you to so?

THIS may be of interest to you.

It was. It also did not answer the majority of my questions.

While that video had a good message, you can't "hate religion/love God", and Jesus didn't come to abolish religion. Christianity is a religion.

That is because you don’t understand. You can’t understand because you refuse to understand. Jesus came to abolish religion, Jesus didn't invent Christianity. Man did. Jesus said, "It is finished." He did not say, "Make a religion in my name." Why would I worship a God that needed religion to sustain himself? I wouldn’t. A god that needs religion is not a god worth my time. A god that needs me is not a god worth my time. A God that wants me is a God I want. A God that is "I Am" is what I want.

No one has directly observed macroevolution because it takes hundreds, thousands, and millions of years, but we have ample evidence to suggest it has occurred.

Sure you do… you have evidence you came from a soup that came from rain raining on rocks. Your evidence is not good enough for me.

Not to mention, you didn't even attempt to refute my whole energy theory. I thought was funny. You seem to only attempt to refute parts of my argument and throw out the bits that you can't argue with.

I didn’t refute it because I agree. In fact, my God states that he is “I Am” He is “Alpha and Omega.” You know what, I am fully capable of believing that my God is the energy that has always been there.

One could always argue that God works through the brain, but if people from every religion have an emotional response, some of it has to be attributed to psychological factors.

Are you arguing that without God you can’t have emotional response? Are you arguing that the emotional responses are wrong? Have you spoken with those from every religion? Or do you just like all inclusive statements?

To start, evolution doesn't state that apes evolved into man. I can't tell you how many times I hear this, and it's flat out wrong.

Human Evolution Timeline Interactive | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
I apologize… let me get the proper scientific names of the creatures they draw looking like and compare to chimps and apes… that we evolved from.
Australopithecus anamensis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Your right… I shouldn’t have said apes I should have said primate. I should have said primate that looks like an ape, is what we evolved from.

We can observe macro-evolution through the fossil record.

Alright even supposing I believed that, what about the at least 6000 years of human history we have? Why has no one ever observed the changes from species to species? What about the creatures such as the archerfish? What about Dolphins and Whales? Aren’t they a bit backwards of evolution? What about The Duckbill Platypus?
What about sex? Offspring of evolving creatures? Have you noticed recently that birds and crocs cant breed and make offspring? Would not the same mutation have to occur in the same creature and then those two creatures would have to find each other to breed before their deaths? Why is it that many modern animals are very much like their fossil counterparts, with no evolutionary change apparent over millions of years?
You expect me to believe this? This makes sense to you? And I am illogical?

I already dealt with your moon problem.

Oh? How? All you said is you don’t believe it. Does not change the fact that the moon is moving away from us. Scientists said it not me. Are you saying you don't believe your own science? Are you saying that you are picking and choosing which parts of what they say to believe?

Circular how?

I’ll tell you what, you research this yourself, since you you don’t seem to like my sources no matter where they come from, most likely because it is me posting them. I will however give you some quotes on what others have said on the subject.

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning . . because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of science, January 1976.

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."—*Ronald R. West, "Paleontology and Uniformitarianism," Compass, May 1968, p. 216.

Also radiometric dating (the newest fossil dating system) has flaws based upon the following assumptions.
1.) The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known.
2.) The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.
3.) The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed.

Unless you were there you cannot know for certain the initial conditions of the rock, not to mention the other two. Go do your own research.

If it's not blind faith that he exists, then it's not blind faith to assume he created the world.

That is foolish logic… If I see a purple cat, then its safe to assume that purple cats created the world.

I just told you why.

Shakes head, whatever you say.

You didn't choose your belief in God based on which one was most logical. You chose based on which was easiest for you. You didn't choose Allah because you would have to submit yourself and would have to do good deeds. Long story short, you chose the God which required the least amount of effort on your part. Some people would call that selfish.

I am not believing for anyone else. I am believing for myself. So yes, I guess you could say that my belief is selfish, as it is for myself.
I did base it on what was most logical. What is most logical for me. I didn’t choose Allah because he does not offer freedom, he offers slavery and his holy book is filled with, what I find, to be morally evil rules and conditions. I do good works not because I have to, but because I want to. I do good works not because I am good, but because God is good in me. I serve and worship my God because I can, not because I have to. I obey my God not because I have to, but because I want to. I help people because I can, not because I have to. I love people because I can, not because I have too.
You want to condemn me for my belief the so be it. I expect no less.

Oh you're going after my English now? This should be fun.
Turning "it's reprehensible to watch" into "it's deserving blame to watch?" Really? I can make any piece of diction seem out of place by fallaciously replacing it with a definition.

A proper sentence such as "it's sad to watch" can be turned into an improper one such as "it's affected by unhappiness to watch."
Use a thesaurus next time, and learn what an adjective is. Thank you.

Look the fool for not knowing how to use the language, it matters not to me. Reprehensible does not mean or have the synonym of sad.

“The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.” ― Socrates

prayer is also an illusion

Perhaps prayer is redundant, however, for me it is like talking to a friend. Talking to a friend can be redundant. It can till be enjoyable. What kind of worship would be just talking to God to ask for stuff? That isn't worship, that is spoiled brat syndrome.
If you want a God to fix all your problems, your out of luck because doesn't work that way.

I don’t intend to ever tell anyone what is right for them to believe, its not my place to do so. Nor have I tried to tell anyone here what is right for them to believe. What I have done, is stated what my beliefs are. I don’t expect you to agree with me or like it, that I believe what I do. Some of you, have called me selfish for my belief. Are we not all selfish when it comes to our beliefs, for do we not only believe for ourselves? Do you seriously believe anything you believe for the good of everyone or anyone else? Some have called me illogical, I counter that my belief is, at the very least, no more illogical then yours.

I question everything. I question my beliefs, I question the beliefs of others, I question what people call science, and I even question true science. Because I question everything, when I come across a belief with so many questions, so many holes, that it does not even seem plausible, I start to wonder why so many smart people would believe such a ridiculous theory. The only reason I can come up with is that they have purposely closed of their minds to anything else.
Many of you have posted on this thread a dozen reasons why you think evolution makes sense. Why the Big Bang happened. I noticed a few things: You all seem to have a slightly different set of facts to support your theory. Some of you have completely opposite thought processes. Such as: the Big Bang was the beginning, no it was just an expansion, the universe has always been here, the universe began that day, we didn’t come from rocks, but it did rain on the rocks to make the primordial soup that all life came out of… I have even heard from a scientist that we were seeded on the planet by aliens.
In summery evolutionists can’t answer simple questions, they rarely seem to agree on any two belief sets and yet they all claim to be right. We came from a primate, monkey like creature but don’t you dare call it a monkey! Life started in the primordial soup that came from rain on rocks… but you didn’t come from rocks or rain. In short you expect me to believe you know what your talking about and all I see is a bunch of contradictory blather you call science and I call a fairy tale. You might as well have been delivered by storks for as much sense as your belief makes to me.
If you seriously believe what you say you do, then you have more faith then I could ever hope to have. Its not that I am close minded to your ideas, its that I can’t mentally fit them into my logical brain. I don't have enough faith to believe what you do.

Does my belief in God make sense? To me it makes more sense then believing I came from a rock or soup or some swimming creature that one day decided to crawl up on land.
I believe in God because he at least makes some form of sense to my brain. Am I insane for that? Maybe… what of it?

Does God exist? I believe he does. You cannot prove me wrong. You can call me illogical, while all the while believing something just as illogical, and even more illogical to my mind.

I love science. I love finding facts and truth. But what you claim as science I will never believe as such, for even young children can find the flaws in evolution. God is not science, but he did make science. Evolution is not science but it is a belief.

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
― Albert Einstein
“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?”
― Albert Einstein
“It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.”
― Albert Einstein
“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”
― Stephen Hawking


Alas, I should have perhaps held my peace, for it is written: Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words. And, A fool also is full of words: a man cannot tell what shall be; and what shall be after him, who can tell him?

Psalm 14:1 ~ The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

SS

“One life is all we have and we live it as we believe in living it. But to sacrifice what you are and to live without belief, that is a fate more terrible than dying.” Joan of Arc

Prayer is like talking to a friend?

But with friends, they usually talk back.

KIA&SS wrote:

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
― Albert Einstein

The point of this quote is to explain that science will never be able to explain everything and that religion will never be able to be founded. I don't know why you posted it... It doesn't support your opinion at all.

KIA&SS wrote:

“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”
― Stephen Hawking

Yeah, we actually have that equation now. And thanks to the existence of the Higgs Boson particle, it's now complete.

KIA&SS wrote:

That is because you don’t understand. You can’t understand because you refuse to understand. Jesus came to abolish religion, Jesus didn't invent Christianity. Man did. Jesus said, "It is finished." He did not say, "Make a religion in my name." Why would I worship a God that needed religion to sustain himself? I wouldn’t. A god that needs religion is not a god worth my time. A god that needs me is not a god worth my time. A God that wants me is a God I want. A God that is "I Am" is what I want.

You're wrong, and this is why:

1. Jesus was an observant Jew.
2. Religion is mentioned in The Bible, and even defines what religion is.

James 1:27 - Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. (NIV).

3. It says quite clearly in the Gospel of Matthew that Jesus did not come to abolish anything.

Matthew 5:15 - Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (NIV).

Would Jesus like what our idea of religion is presently? No, not at all. But did he come to abolish religion? Absolutely not.

The only true statement you made in that entire paragraph is the fact the Jesus didn't invent Christianity.

For a believer you sure don't know what the hell you're talking about.

KIA&SS wrote:

I love science. I love finding facts and truth. But what you claim as science I will never believe as such, for even young children can find the flaws in evolution. God is not science, but he did make science. Evolution is not science but it is a belief.

I don't think we're trying to make the claim the God is science. I don't know where you got that idea from?

The idea that humans evolved from primates is a theory or belief. However, evolution by itself really isn't 100% belief. Parts of it have actually been observed. Natural Selection, which is a key element in evolution (though it is not interchangeable with the term evolution), is one of them. A well known, very often observed example of natural selection is the mutation of microorganisms, like bacteria and virus's. It's why bacteria can develop resistance to antibiotics and is the reason why doctors avoid prescribing penicillin too often for bacterial infections in humans. And most recently an interesting mutation of a certain virus has been observed.

A new research by scientists at Michigan State University has followed a virus called “Lambda” that mutated extremely quickly and developed the ability to infest a bacteria through a new doorway. Normally, the Lambda virus is inherently capable of infesting E. coli cells through a receptor LamB, on the bacterium’s outer membrane. When cultured under certain conditions, however, the E. coli cells develop a natural resistance to the LamB virus, and no longer produce the LamB receptors.

Four genetic mutations in viruses like these two lambda viruses led them to find a new way to attack their bacterial hosts.

(c) Center for Advanced Microscopy, MSU

In 25 of the 102 trials, the virus acquired the ability to infect bacteria through another receptor, called OmpF. The researchers looked at the genetic changes associated with this new ability and found that all the strains that could infect the bacteria shared at least four changes. The other 80 viruses that attempted to infect the bacteria also mutated, but the researchers found that all four mutations had to be shared as a sum and work together to enter the host.

“When you have three of the four mutations, the virus is still unable to infect (the E. coli),” Justin Meyer, the lead researcher and a graduate student at Michigan State University, said. “When you have four of four, they all interact with each other. … In this case, the sum is much more than its component parts.”

“In other words, natural selection promoted the virus’ evolution because the mutations helped them use both their old and new attacks,” Meyer explained.



There's not much you can really dispute with here.

KIA&SS wrote:

Some of you sound like you sound like you follow these ten commandments, dutifully.

No, we're just educated on the subject. Unlike you.

Alright even supposing I believed that, what about the at least 6000 years of human history we have? Why has no one ever observed the changes from species to species? What about the creatures such as the archerfish? What about Dolphins and Whales? Aren’t they a bit backwards of evolution? What about The Duckbill Platypus?
What about sex? Offspring of evolving creatures? Have you noticed recently that birds and crocs cant breed and make offspring? Would not the same mutation have to occur in the same creature and then those two creatures would have to find each other to breed before their deaths? Why is it that many modern animals are very much like their fossil counterparts, with no evolutionary change apparent over millions of years?
You expect me to believe this? This makes sense to you? And I am illogical?

I'd like to address this, the rest can just be left alone, as I don't give a fuck.

The main reason they have not "evolved" like you suggest, is because they do not need to. They are constantly adapting to an ever changing world due to our influence, they are constantly "evolving" to suit. They have no need to progress to another species as they are already well suited to their environment. The same as us, we have no need to evolve as a whole, we are the apex predator, we only need to evolve on a personal level.

We did not evolve FROM primates, we are a genetic mutation that branched off, we evolved with primates, the same as we evolved from relatively nothing millions of years ago.

Perhaps for you, but what about the millions of people who aren’t happy without one? Do you accuse them all? Who are you to so?

You specifically stated "I believe in him because every other option lacks logic, hope, freedom, love, peace, or justice." I never said people can't be happy with a God, but they could be perfectly content in either circumstance. You're the one that's not being inclusive.

It was. It also did not answer the majority of my questions.

You seemed to be concerned that it's difficult to define morality or to let each individual define it themselves. The video is just suggesting that perhaps morality isn't as "opinion-oriented" and individual as people make it out to be.

KIA&SS wrote:

I have something to say and rest my case with the following.
The big bang was an expansion or so I have heard recently. What made it expand if you prefer this word?

The big bang model doesn't explain what initially caused it. There are a couple ideas, but I'll reiterate: no one knows for sure. That doesn't mean God did it.

Sure you do… you have evidence you came from a soup that came from rain raining on rocks. Your evidence is not good enough for me.

Much like the big bang theory says little about the moments preceding it, evolution does not include abiogenesis.

You seem to think that complex life spontaneously popped up out of this "primordial soup", which isn't the case - it was way more gradual than that.

Why has no one ever observed the changes from species to species?

Because it takes thousands of years.

What about the creatures such as the archerfish?

What about them?

What about Dolphins and Whales? Aren’t they a bit backwards of evolution?

Evolution doesn't have a "goal" and can't move backwards.

What about The Duckbill Platypus?

What about them?

What about sex? Offspring of evolving creatures?

Reproduction is necessary?

Unless you mean the evolution of sex itself: it's advantageous because it creates more variation. Even some bacterias, which normally replicate on their own, have evolved mechanisms for gene transfer between two different organisms because it's beneficial for survival.

Have you noticed recently that birds and crocs cant breed and make offspring?

Because that branch occurred millions of years ago.

Would not the same mutation have to occur in the same creature and then those two creatures would have to find each other to breed before their deaths?

There are a number of reasons why some particular individuals never mate (I'd guess usually geographical). Species don't need to change so drastically that they can't reproduce altogether - they just can't be able to produce fertile offspring.

Why is it that many modern animals are very much like their fossil counterparts, with no evolutionary change apparent over millions of years?

Not sure what you've even asking:

Many fossils are branching points in a phylogenetic tree.

Some organisms have remained well-adapted and have therefore changed less than others.

The fossil record is incomplete and can't tell us everything; it is only one tool used to develop an evolutionary timeline.

Many of you have posted on this thread a dozen reasons why you think evolution makes sense. Why the Big Bang happened. I noticed a few things: You all seem to have a slightly different set of facts to support your theory. Some of you have completely opposite thought processes. Such as: the Big Bang was the beginning, no it was just an expansion, the universe has always been here, the universe began that day, we didn’t come from rocks, but it did rain on the rocks to make the primordial soup that all life came out of…

You're misconstruing everyone's beliefs to make it sound contradictory so you can keep feeding yourself the idea that it's illogical.

No one said the big bang was the "beginning". Even if they did, it doesn't matter. We're not all physicists. However, it is a fact that the model itself doesn't say it was the beginning.

"We came from rocks" is a gross oversimplification of the formation of life to make evolution sounds illogical when it really isn't. Evolution has nothing to do with rocks. "We came from molecules", perhaps.

KIA&SS wrote:

Are you arguing that without God you can’t have emotional response?

No.

KIA&SS wrote:

Are you arguing that the emotional responses are wrong?

No.

KIA&SS wrote:

Have you spoken with those from every religion?

No.

KIA&SS wrote:

Or do you just like all inclusive statements?

Let's try this again.

When people pray to God, they often have an emotional response. They feel happy, blissful, and sometimes claim to "feel his presence." People from every religion get this, and here lies the problem. If only one God exists, yet people from every religion claim to feel the presence of their God in prayer, then part of it has to be psychological. Otherwise, what's causing it? If the Christian God exists, then a Hindu during prayer shouldn't be feeling the presence of anything. Since he or she does, it has to be psychological.

KIA&SS wrote:

Human Evolution Timeline Interactive | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
I apologize… let me get the proper scientific names of the creatures they draw looking like and compare to chimps and apes… that we evolved from.
Australopithecus anamensis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Your right… I shouldn’t have said apes I should have said primate. I should have said primate that looks like an ape, is what we evolved from.

Huh? Humans technically are primates.

But what I was getting at is that we did not evolve from apes/chimpanzees/monkeys, which is a common misconception. Humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees.

KIA&SS wrote:

Alright even supposing I believed that, what about the at least 6000 years of human history we have? Why has no one ever observed the changes from species to species?

Because macro-evolution involves millions of mutations over a long period of time.

KIA&SS wrote:

What about the creatures such as the archerfish? What about Dolphins and Whales? Aren’t they a bit backwards of evolution? What about The Duckbill Platypus?

What of them?

Backwards of evolution how?

KIA&SS wrote:

What about sex? Offspring of evolving creatures? Have you noticed recently that birds and crocs cant breed and make offspring?

What's your point? After millions of years of evolution, you expect them to be able to breed?

KIA&SS wrote:

Would not the same mutation have to occur in the same creature and then those two creatures would have to find each other to breed before their deaths? Why is it that many modern animals are very much like their fossil counterparts, with no evolutionary change apparent over millions of years?

Not sure what you're asking in either of these questions. Give me an example.

KIA&SS wrote:

Oh? How? All you said is you don’t believe it. Does not change the fact that the moon is moving away from us. Scientists said it not me. Are you saying you don't believe your own science? Are you saying that you are picking and choosing which parts of what they say to believe?

I never said the moon wasn't moving away from earth, and I dedicated an entire paragraph to your moon dilemma several pages ago.

This was my response to the problem:

As I said before, the site assumes earths gravity is a linear force. It neglects the fact that when the earth originally formed, it didn't have the same mass and therefore had less forceful gravity. It's also talking as though you had earth and then oceans the same evening. However, we estimate that water existed on earth from its beginning in some form, but that our oceans didn't form until billions of years later.
But regardless of that, I'm not even sure the argument it's trying to make. What exactly is the problem in having the moon closer to the earth? Larger tides?

teenhut.net/debate-forum/13352…ist-9.html#post1062956393

You never even attempted to refute my response.

KIA&SS wrote:

I’ll tell you what, you research this yourself, since you you don’t seem to like my sources no matter where they come from, most likely because it is me posting them. I will however give you some quotes on what others have said on the subject.

Give me a source that's not from a biased creationist website and I'll address it. I've already responded to one argument you've given me from a creationist website; I don't need another one.

KIA&SS wrote:

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning . . because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of science, January 1976.

Fossil dating relies on the sequence of rocks. Using a fossil to date a rock isn't going to be anywhere near as accurate.

KIA&SS wrote:

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."—*Ronald R. West, "Paleontology and Uniformitarianism," Compass, May 1968, p. 216.

Quotes aren't evidence of anything, so unless I get some examples, this is moot.

KIA&SS wrote:

Also radiometric dating (the newest fossil dating system) has flaws based upon the following assumptions.
1.) The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known.
2.) The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.
3.) The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed.

You stole this off a creationist website, but I'll bite this once.

For the first two, we can use other methods of dating to help collaborate results. i.e. using dendrochronology or even relative dating in conjunction with radiometric dating.

For the third one, scientists have a difficult time altering the decay rate of the elements when doing so intentionally, and on top of that there's no evidence suggesting the decay rate has been altered. It's possible the decay rate isn't constant, but not probable.

KIA&SS wrote:

That is foolish logic… If I see a purple cat, then its safe to assume that purple cats created the world.

You said your faith in Gods existence is not blind. The God you believe in, by definition, is the creator of earth and the universe. Therefore, your faith in him creating the universe is not blind.

Definitions of god obviously vary, but general consensus regards him as the creator of the universe, earth and humans. So if you're certain god exists, then it does not require blind faith to assume he also created earth.

KIA&SS wrote:

I did base it on what was most logical. What is most logical for me. I didn’t choose Allah because he does not offer freedom, he offers slavery and his holy book is filled with, what I find, to be morally evil rules and conditions. I do good works not because I have to, but because I want to. I do good works not because I am good, but because God is good in me. I serve and worship my God because I can, not because I have to. I obey my God not because I have to, but because I want to. I help people because I can, not because I have to. I love people because I can, not because I have too.
You want to condemn me for my belief the so be it. I expect no less.

Except all your reasons are about you, and what you want. None of them are concerned with which God is actually the most likely to exist, or the most logical. That is not basing your decision on what is the most logical; that's basing your decision on what suits your needs. Huge difference.

KIA&SS wrote:

Look the fool for not knowing how to use the language, it matters not to me. Reprehensible does not mean or have the synonym of sad.

Never said it did. You missed my point.
Let's try this a different way.

Go ahead and give me a random, basic sentence. Just something with a subject, verb and an adjective.
i.e. "The teacher was exhausted."