Wiping the slate clean, do you believe in God or not, and why?

    • Re: Wiping the slate clean, do you believe in God or not, and why?

      LuklaAdvocate wrote:

      Can you rephrase this? I'm not entirely sure what you're asking.

      In the sense that, if I'm not mistaken, you identified evidence for a God in the functional and intelligible purpose of the contents of the universe. According to that argument, then, seemingly pointlessly intricate structures such as a snowflake could indicate something more random.

      LuklaAdvocate wrote:

      I personally see objective morality, even though more abstruse morality issues can sometimes appear nebulous.

      Where do you see objective morality?

      LuklaAdvocate wrote:

      You mentioned it already, but just to be certain, using the 13.7 billion year time slot isn't applicable when we're referring to life.

      I feel that it's relevant to an extent. We are ultimately just matter, just another development in the universe, and time also needs to be taken to assume the right conditions for life as we know it.

      Yoda wrote:

      Life isn't exactly "fragile", but no matter how "tough" it is, creatures wouldn't have be able to survive and pass on those vital mutations if all of their vital organs necessary for life hadn't yet evolved fully, and thus functioned properly. How did organisms breathe before lungs and gills had evolved fully? How did organisms reproduce before their reproductive organs were fully formed? How did organisms see before their eyes were fully developed? How did organisms hear before their ears were fully developed? Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. I'm just getting this incredibly ludicrous picture in my head of these poor creatures flopping about with useless, half-formed appendages meant to accidentally become legs in a billionquadrillionseptoquintoheptononillion years. And that's assuming that they've managed to live at all, due to impaired breathing from underdeveloped lungs, or nervous systems, or whatever.

      I'm unfortunately no expert on biology or evolutionary science and so I couldn't provide a full or cogent reply, although I'm sure someone like Richard Dawkins would probably have plenty to say. However, what is apparent is that your argument is based off irreducible complexity, which scientifically isn't particularly highly regarded.
      But to take the easiest examples of eyes and ears, in an atheistic worldview their origins are, to tell the truth, accidental. But this doesn't make them improbable.
      Eyes began as simple photoreceptor cells from mutation that identified light and its lack thereof, hence providing that organism with better chances of survival, by escaping danger much in the same way that you'll see insects react to your shadow. The photoreceptor cells thus stayed and were then capable of developing further, with each development providing better survival rates and being passed on, leading to an eye today which we believe cannot be condensed down, but that's probably because naturally it will only have developed things of necessity to improve. See what you make of this link: Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      With regards to the ear, the link between reptiles into mammals is quite clear, and we can see how large bones that made up reptillian jaws found a new use for interpreting air vibrations and slowly reduced into the tiny ear bones we have today.
      What I'm trying to say is, if natural selection can find a use for a mutation, it will do so and stay, evolving in 'useful' stages.
      In your 'poor, floppy creature', you had imposed half-versions of the organs we see today, but this simply isn't the case, because such an organism would have not survived. Things are not irreducibly complex.
      [CENTER]


      [RIGHT]Ta-ta
      [/RIGHT]
      [/CENTER]

    • Re: Wiping the slate clean, do you believe in God or not, and why?

      Esmo wrote:

      However, what is apparent is that your argument is based off irreducible complexity, which scientifically isn't particularly highly regarded.


      The Wikipedia article on irreducible complexity made me giggle, especially the section mentioning creationist Michael Behe, and that most Darwinist scientists dismiss his views as "an argument from ignorance," i.e. "ur dum." :lol:

      However I think Behe's "mousetrap analogy" where removing one part of the trap makes the whole thing useless is the wrong analogy to make. He should've argued something like "Mousetrap evolution" actually begins as chunks of steel and blocks of wood that are then formed into useable components and then assembled into working traps (by mousetrap machines) and nobody will argue with the fact that those initial pieces of metal and wood aren't going to trap a single goddamned mouse.

      Esmo wrote:

      See what you make of this link: Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      With regards to the ear, the link between reptiles into mammals is quite clear, and we can see how large bones that made up reptilian jaws found a new use for interpreting air vibrations and slowly reduced into the tiny ear bones we have today.


      I like how the chart showing the supposed evolution of the eye [seen here] assumes that a fully-functioning optic nerve was already present while the primordial eye itself is nothing but a smattering of photoreceptors.

      Esmo wrote:

      What I'm trying to say is, if natural selection can find a use for a mutation, it will do so and stay, evolving in 'useful' stages.


      Natural selection as it has been observed by scientists is a concept distinct from evolution, though. We all know about Darwin's studies of finches with different-shaped beaks which he believed had "evolved" to suit their environment, but we now know that that wasn't exactly correct. Natural selection in the case of those finches dealt with the preservation and elimination of genes that were already present in a completely and fully-formed finch and its gene pool, and don't explain how the ancestor of all modern finches actually evolved in the first place.

      Esmo wrote:

      In your 'poor, floppy creature', you had imposed half-versions of the organs we see today, but this simply isn't the case, because such an organism would have not survived.


      So then the only other possible conclusion I can arrive at is that each beneficial mutation must've produced a fully functioning new organ, limb, etc. within a single generation...in effect, Steven Jay Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" theory.

      In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing this theory and called it punctuated equilibria.[2] Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's theory of geographic speciation,[3] I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis,[4] as well as their own empirical research.[5][6] Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.


      I have serious doubts as to whether SJG's theory is really all that probable, not to mention I have no idea how widely it's accepted in the scientific community, but it does eliminate a couple of nagging annoyances I have with the traditional Darwinist views.

    • Re: Wiping the slate clean, do you believe in God or not, and why?

      I don't believe in god, because I looked at the whole thing existentially and thought, why are we applying logic to something that doesn't need it just to sate our own questions and curiosity. We live in an existence, and as sentient creatures we want to question and know more about our existence, so we try to find out where we come from/ whats the point/ what happens when we die, and as the idea that there is no answer is pretty frickin' scary, we make up our answers to make us chillax a bit.
      [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    • Re: Wiping the slate clean, do you believe in God or not, and why?

      DamnImGood wrote:

      The "science vs. God/religion" argument isn't so much about exclusivity. When people say "science vs. God/religion" they're more referring to the scientific method vs. God/religion, because if you believe in forming hypotheses, testing conditions and coming to conclusions, then you'd never believe there is a God, because there's nothing to test to support its existence.

      Sure you can still be a scientist or even like science and still believe in God, but that's not what people usually mean.

      Aye. I'm more or less referring to when people use "x" scientific fact to try and prove God doesn't exist - even if there is a sound explanation for a certain phenomenon, it hasn't really proven anything about God for either side. Does that make sense?

      I totally understand not believing in God due to lack of evidence. [As far as I know] science is based on proving that things exist, not that they don't exist. I remember the "burden of proof" being brought up in the debate I attended, but can't remember the theist's counter for it.



      Yoda wrote:

      Life isn't exactly "fragile", but no matter how "tough" it is, creatures wouldn't have be able to survive and pass on those vital mutations if all of their vital organs necessary for life hadn't yet evolved fully, and thus functioned properly.

      How did organisms breathe before lungs and gills had evolved fully? How did organisms reproduce before their reproductive organs were fully formed? How did organisms see before their eyes were fully developed? How did organisms hear before their ears were fully developed? Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

      Think about all the organisms that don't have organs at all - you can't even see them and they're still fully functional. Some of them are tough enough to be able to proliferate in conditions where most other life cannot.

      Organs didn't just pop into existence, so presumably they would have developed in ways that were beneficial, but allowed the organism to survive. Early lungs may have not been fully functional for a human, but it wasn't a human that was using them. Early eyes were not fully developed human eyes, but the simple little bunch of receptors in early eyes still served a purpose. And remember, before these even existed at all, organisms were still able to get by without them.

      Now, as humans, our organs are necessary for life because all our tissues have become dependent on one another for function. Perhaps some cells have lost certain characteristics or functions that are were longer necessary, as something else was now providing that for them.

      I'm sure you'd find theories about how all of those things formed, but the key point is that before and as they were forming, organisms were already functioning and surviving.


      I'm just getting this incredibly ludicrous picture in my head of these poor creatures flopping about with useless, half-formed appendages meant to accidentally become legs in a billionquadrillionseptoquintoheptononillion years. And that's assuming that they've managed to live at all, due to impaired breathing from underdeveloped lungs, or nervous systems, or whatever.

      Like this? ^^
      YouTube - Mudskippers make their own little pools


      Yoda wrote:


      I like how the chart showing the supposed evolution of the eye [seen here] assumes that a fully-functioning optic nerve was already present while the primordial eye itself is nothing but a smattering of photoreceptors.

      Even though it's illustrated the same, I think that diagram just means that the photoreceptors were linked to nerves of some sort.

    • Re: Wiping the slate clean, do you believe in God or not, and why?

      LuklaAdvocate wrote:

      Yes, I believe in God, more specifically the Abrahamic God. I'm not going to list them all, but some arguments, including the anthropic arguments, transcendental arguments, teleological arguments, and the arguments from morality are more than sufficient proof of a higher being.

      But none of these are provable pieces of evidence a deity exists.

      LuklaAdvocate wrote:

      Have you ever heard the quote, "the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein?" And before I go any further, I'll mention quickly that I know this is considered Hoyle's fallacy, but this is for the sake of a different argument I'm making here.

      Yeah I've heard the quote and others like it, and I don't put much stock into them. Anyone can say [condition] is like [condition].

      LuklaAdvocate wrote:

      In terms of the snowflake, that would be the equivalent of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and creating a massive pile of twisted steel and rubble. If you looked closely at the pile, I imagine it would look fairly intricate. However, that pile has no rational intelligibility to it; it's simply a giant heap of twisted metal that only looks complex because you have steel plates spread in every direction. If that same tornado came rolling through and assembled a fully functional 747, not only would that aircraft be extremely complex, but it also has a rationally intelligible nature to it.

      I would think a snowflake as far more intricacy than a pile of rubble. A pile of rubble is just a random pile of, well, rubble, whereas a snowflake is a near-perfect symmetrical object.

      LuklaAdvocate wrote:

      When theists utilize the teleological argument, it's more than just complexity. It's that the complexity has a functional rationale to it; something material actually comes out of that complexity instead of just meaningless parts.

      Fair enough, but I could easily say the Universe (that God created) is just meaningless parts; balls of gas and rock flying mindlessly through space with no purpose. And not just a few of them, but hundreds of trillions of them. They're just floating there, doing nothing. I would say the Universe isn't a very complex "construction", if you will, nor would I say it appears to have been created by a higher power. It certainly doesn't have any more complexity than a snowflake.

      Esmo wrote:

      Not really. I can't think of any other way of describing myself other than agnostic, because atheism certainly doesn't do so satisfactorily.

      You are still an atheist. You may have other beliefs, thoughts and ideas, but you're still an atheist by definition. I don't like calling myself a metalhead, but I know I am one by definition. Not all atheists have to think alike; some atheists believe Reptilians are secretly infiltrating the human race.

      Yoda wrote:

      They could be, but I honestly don't think things like, for example, spoken language, can reasonably be attributed to accidental formation. It's one of those suspiciously "perfect" things that would most logically have required an awareness of the many complex facets of language in order for it to have come into existence. To facilitate spoken language as humans know it, one needs:

      You're giving too much credit to language. Not only is it far from perfect, but it's really not that complex. Many creatures emit noises in one form or another for many reasons. Pretty much all of them are for survival; alerting of a predator, attracting a mate, etc.

      Over time the noises became more complex, and started carry more than just a simple meaning ("go away", "come here"). Human speech is made up of only 36 different sounds (I think it's 36, something like that - it's not very many). Humans are not the only creatures on Earth that have an "above-average" level of language. Chimpanzees (and other primates) use language to coordinate their efforts. Granted, chimpanzees and other primates are not next in line for the Nobel Prize in Literature, having "language" isn't exactly unique. Even simple grunts and noises are recognized within species, and sometimes even outside (a dog barking angrily will ward off an approaching raccoon, for example).

      Yoda wrote:

      1.) A form of consciousness; in order to be aware that there are others present to communicate with (amongst other things, see 5.)
      2.) Organs that can move air (i.e. the lungs/diaphragm)
      3.) A vocal apparatus to produce the necessary sounds from the air being passed through them (vocal chords; "voice box").
      4.) An auditory apparatus to hear the sounds
      5.) An organ that can process the sounds and allow the person to comprehend them as language (i.e. the brain), which is done using pre-existing knowledge of the language........and so on and so forth.

      As I think Scaredycrow already pointed out, these organs have dual, triple and sometimes even more functionality to them. It's unlikely they developed for the purpose of producing and understanding language.

      Yoda wrote:

      See what I mean? Purely accidental evolution has no awareness of any kind...how did it just so happen that things worked out to where certain vital evolutionary processes evolved to take advantage of things like manipulating air to produce sound? Or, just breathing in general? How do random genetic mutations "figure this out"? How did life manage to stay alive until all this was perfected? If you ask me, I'd say there's only one possible way this all makes sense...and that's if it were brought into existence by an intelligent being who knew exactly what he/it was doing.

      Moving air to produce sound is one of the basic properties of physics. Breathing was probably "developed" (for lack of a better word) because all creatures require oxygen to survive, and absorbing it from the environment simply wasn't sufficient enough.

      Life didn't "figure" any of this out. Life wasn't as complex "back then" as it is now. It took millions of mutations and billions of years for life to get to where it is now, or even 100 million years ago.

      I guess I just don't see life as being that complicated. *shrug*

      BodyBuilder wrote:

      The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand on the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it.

      -Daniel 7:4

      The fact that you think the mere mentioning of a the word "eagle" from a random passage in the Bible is referring to the United States (and therefore somehow proves the Bible is foretelling events about the United States) tells me everything I need to know about you.

      BodyBuilder wrote:

      :nono: Please give me an actual argument instead of name calling for the sake of your maturity.

      I'm busy, so I'm not going to devote a lot of time to someone who thinks "every person on Earth" is represented by the United States. Like I said, arrogant and ignorant. You're from Alabama, aren't you?

      Oh, by the way, the REAL ID Act of 2005 has nothing to do with having a mark or a number. The law expands powers of Homeland Security regarding driver's licences and other powers relating to immigration. Furthermore, all 50 states have extended their deadline for implementing the law and 25 of them have passed legislation to not participate in the program. There goes your so-called prophecy.

      If you think I am immature, cool. I couldn't care less. Your absurdity trumps my immaturity.
      "I've never understood ethnic or national pride, because to me pride should be reserved for something you achieve or attain on your own, not something that happens by accident of birth."
      - George Carlin

      Striker88;1062839033 wrote:

      You know why nobody has gotten evidence? God hasn't allowed that and won't.

    • Re: Wiping the slate clean, do you believe in God or not, and why?

      Esmo wrote:

      In the sense that, if I'm not mistaken, you identified evidence for a God in the functional and intelligible purpose of the contents of the universe. According to that argument, then, seemingly pointlessly intricate structures such as a snowflake could indicate something more random.
      The hexagonal shape you see in essentially every snowflake isn't random. The only random parts of a snowflake are its size and the build of that particular hexagonal shape.

      Esmo wrote:

      Where do you see objective morality?
      In the difference between our desire to do good and then the mindset that we should do good. "Desire" being an instinct, whereas the "should" mindset being objectivity kicking in.

      The only two people I've seen explain it really well are C.S. Lewis, and to a degree, Immanuel Kant.

      Esmo wrote:

      I feel that it's relevant to an extent. We are ultimately just matter, just another development in the universe, and time also needs to be taken to assume the right conditions for life as we know it.
      I really only see the entire universal time period being relevant to abiogenesis. When it comes to humans, why would you take into account anything before the first blocks of life began to evolve?

      DamnImGood wrote:

      But none of these are provable pieces of evidence a deity exists.
      It's circumstantial evidence, yes. If you have enough of it, it's nearly as good as direct, provable evidence.

      DamnImGood wrote:

      Yeah I've heard the quote and others like it, and I don't put much stock into them. Anyone can say [condition] is like [condition].
      Like I said, the quote itself is a fallacy. I was using it to illustrate a point that has nothing to do with what the quote originally referred to.

      DamnImGood wrote:

      I would think a snowflake as far more intricacy than a pile of rubble. A pile of rubble is just a random pile of, well, rubble, whereas a snowflake is a near-perfect symmetrical object.
      I would agree that a snowflake is more intricate than a pile of rubble. But that still doesn't defer my original point; a snowflake is only symmetrical due to the placement and shape of water molecules. There's no special construction that goes into creating a snowflake.

      Humans required convenient mutations to get to their current anatomy. Snowflakes require nothing more than mundane and non germane water molecules to give them their symmetrical hexagonal shape.

      DamnImGood wrote:

      Fair enough, but I could easily say the Universe (that God created) is just meaningless parts; balls of gas and rock flying mindlessly through space with no purpose. And not just a few of them, but hundreds of trillions of them. They're just floating there, doing nothing. I would say the Universe isn't a very complex "construction", if you will, nor would I say it appears to have been created by a higher power. It certainly doesn't have any more complexity than a snowflake.
      You're listing random components of the universe. The complexity of the universe is within its very fabric. Matter, energy, gravity, atoms, etc. Those balls of gas and rock are mere byproducts of what allows the universe to produce life. While they alone do not necessary have bearing on our every day life, other aspects of the universe do, and they're far more intricate than a measly snowflake.
      [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

      The post was edited 1 time, last by LuklaAdvocate ().

    • Re: Wiping the slate clean, do you believe in God or not, and why?

      Yoda wrote:

      most Darwinist scientists dismiss his views as "an argument from ignorance," i.e. "ur dum." :lol:

      Not really, that's not the definition of ignorance. I can make an ignorant argument about the virtues of Japanese architecture as opposed to Korean architecture. It's something I know next to nothing about. What the scientists are saying is that Behe is making arguments without a full appreciation of the observed facts.

      Yoda wrote:

      I like how the chart showing the supposed evolution of the eye [seen here] assumes that a fully-functioning optic nerve was already present while the primordial eye itself is nothing but a smattering of photoreceptors.

      Erm... it doesn't, actually. Read the annotations: at a), we have 'nerve fibres'. At f), we have an optic nerve.

      Yoda wrote:

      Natural selection as it has been observed by scientists is a concept distinct from evolution, though. We all know about Darwin's studies of finches with different-shaped beaks which he believed had "evolved" to suit their environment, but we now know that that wasn't exactly correct. Natural selection in the case of those finches dealt with the preservation and elimination of genes that were already present in a completely and fully-formed finch and its gene pool, and don't explain how the ancestor of all modern finches actually evolved in the first place.

      Any life from its beginning to the present is under the laws of natural selection, which is so obvious a set of laws itself it almost doesn't deserve a label. Animals with the genes best suited to the purpose at hand stay, and the others don't. Any ancestor to the modern-day finch would have been subejct to it.
      What's more, you have to remember that at no point has life been conscious of being 'halfway there'. Archaeopteryx was as fully formed as the birds of today are. Beneficial mutations would thus spread their way throughout the species. The only reason I feel we haven't been able to observe this yet is because obviously it's a rare event by our timeframe. But I'm not going to say much more because, as I've already said, I'm not an evolutionary scientist and I'm at risk of making an ignorant argument :P.

      Yoda wrote:

      So then the only other possible conclusion I can arrive at is that each beneficial mutation must've produced a fully functioning new organ, limb, etc. within a single generation...in effect, Steven Jay Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" theory.

      Not really, because, as demonstrated with the evolution of the eye, bits throughout could serve a purpose.

      Yoda wrote:

      I have serious doubts as to whether SJG's theory is really all that probable, not to mention I have no idea how widely it's accepted in the scientific community, but it does eliminate a couple of nagging annoyances I have with the traditional Darwinist views.

      I have heard that argument, which I believe is intended as an explanation for the jumps we see in the fossil record. I don't know much else though.

      DamnImGood wrote:


      You are still an atheist. You may have other beliefs, thoughts and ideas, but you're still an atheist by definition. I don't like calling myself a metalhead, but I know I am one by definition. Not all atheists have to think alike; some atheists believe Reptilians are secretly infiltrating the human race.

      Why does a non-belief in God take precedence over other beliefs, thoughts and ideas that I personally are on an equal standing. As I said before, some days I believe in God, and some days I don't, and I don't feel that we can ever know, which is essentially a translation of agnosticism itself - without knowledge.

      LuklaAdvocate wrote:


      In the difference between our desire to do good and then the mindset that we should do good. "Desire" being an instinct, whereas the "should" mindset being objectivity kicking in.

      The only two people I've seen explain it really well are C.S. Lewis, and to a degree, Immanuel Kant.


      I've now got thinking quite hard about the nature of objectivity or subjectivity, so I don't really know what to say now. But I'll throw this in for the timebeing:

      What is to stop a sense of morality from being a part of our evolutionary makeup in order to fulfil certain social roles? For example, the famously sexually promiscuous and even incestuous Bonobo will nonetheless avoid mother-son sexual behaviour, and considering their closeness to humans, it is possible that they have a concept of that being a taboo. Likewise the morality that we have innate/adopted ensure cohesion within a society.

      LuklaAdvocate wrote:


      I really only see the entire universal time period being relevant to abiogenesis. When it comes to humans, why would you take into account anything before the first blocks of life began to evolve?


      Well, if the universe was much younger, then we wouldn't have reached humans yet.
      [CENTER]


      [RIGHT]Ta-ta
      [/RIGHT]
      [/CENTER]

    • Re: Wiping the slate clean, do you believe in God or not, and why?

      [FONT=&quot]I need to edit a post....so in the meantime just sing this with me:[/FONT]



      [FONT=&quot]Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,[/FONT]
      [FONT=&quot]That saved a wretch like me....[/FONT]
      [FONT=&quot]I once was lost but now am found,[/FONT]
      [FONT=&quot]Was blind, but now, I see.[/FONT]
      [FONT=&quot][/FONT]

      The post was edited 4 times, last by BeThatAsItMay ().

    • Re: Wiping the slate clean, do you believe in God or not, and why?

      The slate just has been wiped clean. We all believe!

       Everyone is spiritual, everyone believes in the God (in one way or another) deep down in themselves and especially in moments close to the death. Across the nations and through the ages people felt it and expressed it in the different ways. It is the global phenomenon that can't be denied.


      It is not an assignment that you copy from your classmates and then it spreads all over the collage, this belief happened independently and randomly and it always comes to the same. There is something we can't understand but we can intuitively sense.





      Why some people can't feel it, if they can't understand it, beats me.






       The Efficacy of spiritual prayer. Can you explain it. No! Is it there? Yes.


       The Light of the Sun. Can you explain it. No! Is it there? Yes.


       Use Maxwell's Equations and prove that the light is the continuous wave (an electro-magnetic for that matter).

       Scottish guy did it in 1861. So the continuous-wave nature of light was established. An incontrovertible fact! The indisputable truth at the time.


       Then a patent office clerk, Albert, comes along and says that the light is not a continuous wave. So rude! He argues that, as a matter of fact, it is sent by the Sun in discrete packages. (And you know, people didn’t believe him for two decades.)



       Now we have a problem at our hands..is the light of continuous or discrete nature? It's hard to decide because one option excludes the other. Which one would you go for? Discrete. No. Continuous sounds better!

       I suggest a fairy-tale that says it can be both the continuous(wave) and discrete(particle), depending how it fits situation and let's call it the wave-particle duality.

       Problem solved.




       Do you believe in my strange fairy-tale about light ?


       I must confess, I don’t believe it...despite the fact that it may as well be true.

      I know so many people who don’t believe.






       I wonder if someone knows of any example of duality (physical or psychological or the other) in regards to us, human beings, even if you don’t believe in it?

       I know, the death and resurrection……it may as well be true even though James and Albert didn’t write mathematical equations about it, but we have a Pope.



       We are not just dust in the wind, Livgren you are wrong!

      The post was edited 2 times, last by BeThatAsItMay ().

    • Re: Wiping the slate clean, do you believe in God or not, and why?

      Esmo wrote:

      Erm... it doesn't, actually. Read the annotations: at a), we have 'nerve fibres'. At f), we have an optic nerve.


      Yeah I noticed that ~_~ My bad.

      Esmo wrote:

      I have heard that argument, which I believe is intended as an explanation for the jumps we see in the fossil record. I don't know much else though.


      To me it seems like an interesting but desperate attempt to come up with some logical explanation for events that are blatantly missing from the fossil record. Every now and then some odd bone fragments are unearthed and paraded around to troll the creationists, but are always later revealed to be either a) hoaxes; b) just an ordinary species going about its business. Nothing I've ever seen has impressed me in the least, as far as those pesky missing links go.

      Esmo wrote:

      As I said before, some days I believe in God, and some days I don't, and I don't feel that we can ever know, which is essentially a translation of agnosticism itself - without knowledge.


      You seem surprisingly cynical about the whole "God" thing...I was expecting you to be more of a deist like me but instead I'm getting more of an "Esmond Dawkins" vibe. :D

      BeThatAsItMay wrote:

      [FONT=&quot]I need to edit a post....so in the meantime just sing this with me:[/FONT]



      [FONT=&quot]Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,[/FONT]
      [FONT=&quot]That saved a wretch like me....[/FONT]
      [FONT=&quot]I once was lost but now am found,[/FONT]
      [FONT=&quot]Was blind, but now, I see.[/FONT]
      [FONT=&quot][/FONT]


    • Re: Wiping the slate clean, do you believe in God or not, and why?

      Oh my gawd, all this talk is reminding me of my "Holly Trinity primary school" days. All the choir singing during assembly, the after play time prayers... Excuse me while I cry and eat cake.

      (I had to go to a religious primary school when I was 5, not because my parents were religious, but they were too lazy to drive me about an extra half a mile to the other primary school. Those were dark times.)
      [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    • Re: Wiping the slate clean, do you believe in God or not, and why?

      What is the point of this. No matter how much evidence you produce for or against God people will still hold onto their beliefs. Disciples!! If you read this, know that arguing for God will never change a persons heart, only a radical encounter with God can do that.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by nothing11111 ().

    • Re: Wiping the slate clean, do you believe in God or not, and why?

      Yoda wrote:

      You seem surprisingly cynical about the whole "God" thing...I was expecting you to be more of a deist like me but instead I'm getting more of an "Esmond Dawkins" vibe. :D

      True, I was expecting to be more of a deist when I went into this debate, and in conversation I will still sometimes describe myself as agnostic/deist. I guess it's because I'm quite particular about where I see God, and thus I'll argue with anything else. Overall these things are less substantial but at the same time more numerous than the other side of the argument which is empirical science.

      But I'm certainly no Richard Dawkins. He has a hard atheist and anti-religious opinion that I don't agree with at all.

      ---------- Post added at 02:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:10 PM ----------

      cazoofoo wrote:

      Oh my gawd, all this talk is reminding me of my "Holly Trinity primary school" days. All the choir singing during assembly, the after play time prayers... Excuse me while I cry and eat cake.

      (I had to go to a religious primary school when I was 5, not because my parents were religious, but they were too lazy to drive me about an extra half a mile to the other primary school. Those were dark times.)

      I expect/hope things have changed these days, but in British primary schools the difference isn't so much religious or non-religious, but officially religious with lots of religion or officially non-religious with a little less religion.
      [CENTER]


      [RIGHT]Ta-ta
      [/RIGHT]
      [/CENTER]

    • Re: Wiping the slate clean, do you believe in God or not, and why?

      "I expect/hope things have changed these days, but in British primary schools the difference isn't so much religious or non-religious, but officially religious with lots of religion or officially non-religious with a little less religion."

      It wasn't so bad, I wasn't religi-raped or anything. I just had to say prayers and do choir.
      [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]