The truth about God is here. (please read!)

The Guardian · May 20th 2009, 9:11pm

Neal wrote:

No?

More like what you accept and what not accept - no dictionary can answer that. We're having a hard time trying to follow your criteria.

I personally feel you got tired of arguing why Creationism is right (per months ago), so now you spend your time arguing and trying to put evolution down in the hopes of bringing Creationism and the Bible up.

Tired of arguing? Against stupidity, perhaps. Evolution is a conclusion of personal opinion, and/or bias, of which is used to theorize what could be true, however they cannot prove it. This is a theory, the unproven(the unknown).

Fact, is something that is and has been observed.

gardenhead · May 20th 2009, 9:23pm

So we still aren't agreeing that theories are not just mere guesses?

:confused:

LuklaAdvocate · May 20th 2009, 11:39pm

The Guardian wrote:

You're prove? below?

Huh?

You didn't answer my question.

The Guardian wrote:

Of which, it has not been proven in any way to genetically change. We do however kill, skin to keep ourselves warm, however thats not a genetic change.

Genetic changes gave us the mental and physical ability to skin other animals and find ways to keep ourselves warm. Brain power.

The Guardian wrote:

Lukla, prove it.

Did you not read the link?

How do you think the Galápagos finches gained larger beaks? They sure as hell didn't stretch them out with their claws.

The Guardian wrote:

You expect me to believe a blog? lol. Prove it, i don't care if you drag me there, I want proof.

I expect you to read the blog. It tells you exactly what you asked for.

By the way, read the article, not the responses that followed.

The Guardian wrote:

It may be three months, for four to eight years....

So many, willing to bash yet none to prove. Sad really, I expected more.

Huh?

We have offered you evidence. You dismiss it by ignoring the articles.

Root_beer_junkie · May 21st 2009, 3:40am

My question was never responded to by rachel_freshman09, and I think it's a good question. So I'll post it again- and anyone can answer this time.

How do you know for certain that your religion is the correct one? Let's assume you were born into Christianity, and you believe yours to be the one true faith. But had you been born in another part of the world, you would likely have been brought up with belief in a different set of scriptures, a different afterlife, and a different way of life and worship. Yet you would believe your faith to the the only true faith and Christianity to be false.

That is why I ask: how do you really know yours to be the the only correct religion?

VenomX · May 21st 2009, 2:46pm

Root_beer_junkie wrote:

My question was never responded to by rachel_freshman09, and I think it's a good question. So I'll post it again- and anyone can answer this time.

How do you know for certain that your religion is the correct one? Let's assume you were born into Christianity, and you believe yours to be the one true faith. But had you been born in another part of the world, you would likely have been brought up with belief in a different set of scriptures, a different afterlife, and a different way of life and worship. Yet you would believe your faith to the the only true faith and Christianity to be false.

That is why I ask: how do you really know yours to be the the only correct religion?

There is no correct religion. No matter what religion people follow, it still destroys us as human beings.

The Guardian · May 21st 2009, 4:05pm

LuklaAdvocate wrote:

Huh?

You didn't answer my question.Genetic changes gave us the mental and physical ability to skin other animals and find ways to keep ourselves warm. Brain power.Did you not read the link?

How do you think the Galápagos finches gained larger beaks? They sure as hell didn't stretch them out with their claws.I expect you to read the blog. It tells you exactly what you asked for.

By the way, read the article, not the responses that followed.Huh?

We have offered you evidence. You dismiss it by ignoring the articles.

Genetic changes? In cloning they found the slightest change could be deadly, in the case of dolly the sheep the genetics were not in perfect position she lived an extremely short life. Of which you have no way of proving your precious genetic changes, whether bodily, in under the skin where you cannot see it. The Genetic change has the high chance of killing the individual.

If a sheep all has the same length of leg and then one has a mutation causing shorter legs, guess which the wolves will tear down?

brain power is the same, knowledge to which you refer is the same as well. As each person in the world has the same mental capacity, some have a disorder restricting and part of it, you and I have that same mental capacity, you only have to choose to use it.

The article, Lukla, is an opinion not proof. An opinion of the observed, none of which has been proven. You never offered evidence you offered an opinion of the evidence.

Now, here is something for you to ponder... What if they were always like that, being two different birds.

Now, some real proof please?

Bebop · May 21st 2009, 11:15pm

Genetic changes? In cloning they found the slightest change could be deadly, in the case of dolly the sheep the genetics were not in perfect position she lived an extremely short life. Of which you have no way of proving your precious genetic changes, whether bodily, in under the skin where you cannot see it. The Genetic change has the high chance of killing the individual.

Genetic change isn't always bad. A lot of times it is, but not always. Sometimes it's even beneficial.

If a sheep all has the same length of leg and then one has a mutation causing shorter legs, guess which the wolves will tear down?

Then that mutation will die out and not get passed along to the next generation. Natural Selection at work.

brain power is the same, knowledge to which you refer is the same as well. As each person in the world has the same mental capacity, some have a disorder restricting and part of it, you and I have that same mental capacity, you only have to choose to use it.

I have no idea what this is about. >.>

The article, Lukla, is an opinion not proof. An opinion of the observed, none of which has been proven. You never offered evidence you offered an opinion of the evidence.

I haven't read the article in question yet, I'll get back to this eventually.

Now, here is something for you to ponder... What if they were always like that, being two different birds.

Now, some real proof please?

I'd imagine the shorter beaked birds would have died out rather quickly if that were the case. The birds with larger beaks have a survival advantage. Then the ones with large beaks would very likely have been the only species on the island when we got there. I think the fact that we have documentation of the shorter beaks at all supports the idea of evolution, but I'll grant that it is an interesting thought.

LuklaAdvocate · May 21st 2009, 11:19pm

The Guardian wrote:

Genetic changes? In cloning they found the slightest change could be deadly, in the case of dolly the sheep the genetics were not in perfect position she lived an extremely short life. Of which you have no way of proving your precious genetic changes, whether bodily, in under the skin where you cannot see it. The Genetic change has the high chance of killing the individual.

Not all changes are productive for a species. This is what leads to extinction...

The Guardian wrote:

If a sheep all has the same length of leg and then one has a mutation causing shorter legs, guess which the wolves will tear down?

Relevance?

The Guardian wrote:

brain power is the same, knowledge to which you refer is the same as well. As each person in the world has the same mental capacity, some have a disorder restricting and part of it, you and I have that same mental capacity, you only have to choose to use it.

Humans have gained their brain power. Yes, they can adapt to the environment around them because of that brain power. That doesn't change the fact that evolution led to that brain power which led to adaption.

The Guardian wrote:

The article, Lukla, is an opinion not proof. An opinion of the observed, none of which has been proven. You never offered evidence you offered an opinion of the evidence.

Now, here is something for you to ponder... What if they were always like that, being two different birds.

Now you're just fishing for arguments.

I only ask that you read the article before responding.

"Every year since 1973, large numbers of medium ground finches (Geospiza fortis) living on the island of Daphne Major have been marked, weighed and measured, and so have their chicks.

Over the course of 30 years, annual measurement of finches shows that both body size and beak size evolved significantly." A Natural Selection - Olivia Judson Blog - NYTimes.com

Are you saying its her opinion that these birds have been obtaining larger beaks?

You have still neglected to answer my question regarding the chart.

almost depressed · May 22nd 2009, 1:34am

thanks for the post. although i believed in God before i read it, my faith was strenghtened by your words.

The Guardian · May 22nd 2009, 5:03am

Bebop wrote:

Genetic change isn't always bad. A lot of times it is, but not always. Sometimes it's even beneficial.

Not all the time? Show me one that is beneficial, Dig.

Bebop wrote:

Then that mutation will die out and not get passed along to the next generation. Natural Selection at work.

If it, happened once, it means it can happen again. Thus the reason, even though the person in your family never married(or had intercourse), one that has cancer their family is noted by the hospital as "at risk for."

Bebop wrote:

I have no idea what this is about. >.>

Then is there really a need for you to respond to this? Hardly, let it be.

Bebop wrote:

I'd imagine the shorter beaked birds would have died out rather quickly if that were the case. The birds with larger beaks have a survival advantage. Then the ones with large beaks would very likely have been the only species on the island when we got there. I think the fact that we have documentation of the shorter beaks at all supports the idea of evolution, but I'll grant that it is an interesting thought.

Imagining things, is not the same as fact or proof. You of all people should know this.

---------- Post added at 11:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:53 PM ----------

LuklaAdvocate wrote:

Not all changes are productive for a species. This is what leads to extinction...Relevance?Humans have gained their brain power. Yes, they can adapt to the environment around them because of that brain power. That doesn't change the fact that evolution led to that brain power which led to adaption.Now you're just fishing for arguments.

Mutation is not normally the cause of extinction, nor is evolution gone wrong. Instead normally the one that sits just above in the food chain, exerting its energies on it. In many cases, the human race was the cause. Whaling nearly place the Blue Whale into extinction where there are now very few known to live. Although they are one of the most beautiful, and graceful creatures alive.

LuklaAdvocate wrote:

I only ask that you read the article before responding.

"Every year since 1973, large numbers of medium ground finches (Geospiza fortis) living on the island of Daphne Major have been marked, weighed and measured, and so have their chicks.

Over the course of 30 years, annual measurement of finches shows that both body size and beak size evolved significantly." A Natural Selection - Olivia Judson Blog - NYTimes.com

Are you saying its her opinion that these birds have been obtaining larger beaks?

You have still neglected to answer my question regarding the chart.

And for what reason should I read it?

This is known as genetic variation.

It's her opinion that, they evolved, when she cannot prove such.

LuklaAdvocate · May 22nd 2009, 6:08am

The Guardian wrote:

Mutation is not normally the cause of extinction, nor is evolution gone wrong. Instead normally the one that sits just above in the food chain, exerting its energies on it. In many cases, the human race was the cause. Whaling nearly place the Blue Whale into extinction where there are now very few known to live. Although they are one of the most beautiful, and graceful creatures alive.

Bad mutations cause unneeded or unwanted attributes to a species.

Whales have not evolved the ability to defend themselves against humans; humans have evolved to the top of the food chain. It's all evolution, you're just looking at it in a different light.

The Guardian wrote:

And for what reason should I read it?

This is known as genetic variation.

It's her opinion that, they evolved, when she cannot prove such.

So you haven't read it?

This has nothing to do with genetic variation. These specific medium ground finches have taken on larger beaks within just a few decades.

Root_beer_junkie · May 22nd 2009, 7:53pm

Just so you all know, Darwin himself brought up the religious controversy in his writings on natural selection. He didn't feel that the concept of evolution was anti-religious; he actually felt that the course evolution took might have been part of a divine plan.

So I really don't see why it's relevant to argue evolution here.

By the way, I know this because I read a passage from that paper myself for a history class assignment.

M.M.oody · May 27th 2009, 10:44pm

panicmayarise wrote:

First question : How do you know that your interpretation of God is correct? Last time I checked, he's quite malevolent.

Your interpretation of God cannot be correct if the Biblical God and God of most religions is true.

If there is a being of limitless power that is all knowing, all seeing, all powerful, and perfect, then the fault is in your logic and reasoning when it pertains to moral fiber and implications(which the Bible directly states multiple times), not His.

Second : Do prayers work? If they do, how do you know it's divine intervention?

Belief.

Third : What makes you so sure that your religion is the correct one, if ever there was a correct one?

Faith.

Jesus Christ in Himself is an excellent point as everybody knows he lived. Of course, he's been in books like the Koran, also, in which he had a more 'human' side.

Out of all major religions throughout history, Christ has been the character that's been written about the most by ancient scholars, theists, believers, disciples, apostles, and witnesses.

Fourth : How do you know that the bible is correct? Since this book is the only "evidence" you Christians have, i'd like you to tell me how this book is really the word of God, and not just a fabrication of a select number of people.

The Bible is accurate from cover to cover, as far as from a historical standpoint. It has been historically proven(what can be) that events in the Bible have actually happened... in fact, they've yet to disprove anything from the book. Obviously, this isn't any means of saying the Bible is 100% correct, seeing as the Koran and a few other select books from ancient times share this claim, but the Bible is the only one that was being written through literally thousands of years and hundreds of different parts of the world with no variation or deviation from plot, story arc, or timeline(unless you believe the order the books are placed in is timeline).

2. Don't even state anything from the bible because honestly, that thing is only convincing to the already convinced.

If we are not to state anything from the Bible, don't attack with the viewpoint that if our God is real, he must be evil and therefore cannot exist due to the Bible's claims of him being benign. That's just a stupid, childish argument and is the main reason why Richard Dawkins' is a joke of a scientist.

You have no idea how God and Jesus work. Claiming that you do is an ignorant and fallacious behavior. No one knows anything about God or Jesus apart from the supposed information from the bible. This makes your entire post illogical and invalid, as it only arose from your imagination and brought forth from your own speculation. Did you honestly think this would convince anyone? An atheist especially? People who choose to live to with logic and reason?

The close-minded belief that you are the only people who live with logic and reason astounds me. Just because someone believes in an all-powerful creator they aren't free-thinkers? Voltaire, Edison, Thoreau, Einstein, Aristotle, Plato, etc, ALL believed in a God/some form of creation. The way the Atheistic viewpoint breeds a form of ignorance and intolerance to people with differing viewpoints(like your logic/reason quote) is the reason I laugh so much when I debate people like you.

Not a single thing you said can be proven.

Better luck trying to convince other people. It will take much more than outlandish claims and improbable assumptions to make me believe anything.

Likewise.

---------- Post added at 03:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:10 AM ----------

VenomX wrote:

There is no correct religion. No matter what religion people follow, it still destroys us as human beings.

To say religion destroys is a double-edged sword.

Maybe if we lived in the Middle East or other countries where Christianity, Islam, etc, are frowned upon, but it has been shown people of all religions can live together in harmony by America.

It's just a matter of policing the insurgents and radicals.

---------- Post added at 03:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:13 AM ----------

Root_beer_junkie wrote:

Just so you all know, Darwin himself brought up the religious controversy in his writings on natural selection. He didn't feel that the concept of evolution was anti-religious; he actually felt that the course evolution took might have been part of a divine plan.

So I really don't see why it's relevant to argue evolution here.

By the way, I know this because I read a passage from that paper myself for a history class assignment.

Yes, this is true, though I don't believe evolution is the answer, seeing as I believe the Earth is only 10-12,000 years old.

Root_beer_junkie · May 28th 2009, 12:20am

M.M.oody wrote:

Yes, this is true, though I don't believe evolution is the answer, seeing as I believe the Earth is only 10-12,000 years old.

Why do you believe that? Why do you believe, despite overwhelming evidence of evolution and of Earth's much older age, those two "facts"?

Neal · May 28th 2009, 1:44am

Root_beer_junkie wrote:

M.M.oody wrote:

Yes, this is true, though I don't believe evolution is the answer, seeing as I believe the Earth is only 10-12,000 years old.

Why do you believe that? Why do you believe, despite overwhelming evidence of evolution and of Earth's much older age, those two "facts"?

It's called: randomness. Things that were randomly generated.

For example, I firmly believe and always have believed that invisible pink unicorns are on Pluto. You say I have no proof of that? No need. For I have my faith.

gardenhead · May 28th 2009, 2:05am

Feels good man.

M.M.oody · May 28th 2009, 3:05am

Root_beer_junkie wrote:

Why do you believe that? Why do you believe, despite overwhelming evidence of evolution and of Earth's much older age, those two "facts"?

Because there is also tons of evidence to the contrary.

No one can say for sure.

---------- Post added at 07:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:32 AM ----------

panicmayarise wrote:

Feels good man.

Thanks for adding absolutely nothing to this conversation.

gardenhead · May 28th 2009, 5:07am

Lol. Ive already contributed far more to this thread than you could ever come up with.

M.M.oody · May 28th 2009, 5:30am

panicmayarise wrote:

Lol. Ive already contributed far more to this thread than you could ever come up with.

Then how about you formulate a response?

Everything you've said so far in this entire thread can be refuted by anyone that has A) studied the subject of whether a God is possible or not, B) researched the Bible, and C) tries to keep as much of an open mind as possible.

It's clear through reading this thread over that yours is closed, but I must say, I have already contributed more to this discussion than your rehashed arguments spouted by other Atheist thinkers. Why don't you think for yourself, rather than let people think for you?(because either way, you're doing that)

Hell, if you want to say that we "don't think with logic and reason," then you might as well use your own... rather than what you've read, which is clearly what you're doing.

Root_beer_junkie · May 28th 2009, 6:04am

M.M.oody wrote:

Because there is also tons of evidence to the contrary.

No one can say for sure.

Okay. Exactly what evidence are you referring to?

Maybe no one is a hundred percent sure, but some have more certainty than others. That argument doesn't really support your stance.

Share