Skip to main content

nash,

what if we had a box of watch parts. What if, when we shake them, some of them combine to form useful things?

Then, what if we continue to shake them, those useful things combine with other parts to take advantage of environmental opportunities, such as using the agitation to randomly evolve? Over time it's likely.

And, what if we shake them often enough that they are capable of reproducing themselves? Over billions of years, it's not impossible at all.

I know, I'm being silly. the watchmaker analogy is silly, too. I can go to the watch shop and meet the watchmaker. I can see him work.

I can't see god work. No one can. Because god is a poor explanation for life.

DF
quote:
nash,

what if we had a box of watch parts. What if, when we shake them, some of them combine to form useful things?

Then, what if we continue to shake them, those useful things combine with other parts to take advantage of environmental opportunities, such as using the agitation to randomly evolve? Over time it's likely.

And, what if we shake them often enough that they are capable of reproducing themselves? Over billions of years, it's not impossible at all.

I know, I'm being silly. the watchmaker analogy is silly, too. I can go to the watch shop and meet the watchmaker. I can see him work.

I can't see god work. No one can. Because god is a poor explanation for life.


Like you said, you have to go to the watch shop to meet the watchmaker. You have to be willing to find him to see who made your watch. Until you do, you'll never see who made your watch. The same thing with God. He's not going to come to you to prove Himself, you have to look for Him. Until you're able to do that, you'll never find proof. Those of us who believe do see God at work and we have pretty clear evidence of His existance.
I’m enjoying this thread. I’ve been searching various sites from both points of views and wanted to share this site: http://www.samsloan.com/creation.htm. (Mostly about the eye part because I’m nerdy that way.) Don’t know much about the author of the site (Cash) except when I did search him, he apparently didn’t like Falwell. Cool.

The human eye is furnished with automatic aiming, automatic focusing, and automatic aperture adjustment. It can function in almost total darkness and in bright sunlight as well.
It can see an object as fine as the diameter of a hair and make about 100,000 motions a day. Then, while we sleep it performs its own maintenance work. Scientists still do not fully understand how it works. For anyone to think that the human eye could evolve into such an intricate organ is utterly ridiculous! Even Darwin admitted "to suppose that the eye. . . . . . . . . . . . could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. . . . . The belief that an organ as perfect as the eye could have been formed by natural selection is more than enough to stagger anyone." (Its odds are 1 in 10 to the 266th power)
Just saying,

nice try. Your site is biased to a religious point of view, and contains many logical errors.

for example, you use the bible as a reference in which you place credence. it has none. it is a book of poetry and superstition, little else. It is a very poor scientific reference.

Then, you say "Evolution is built upon a supposition - that creation exists by natural causes. Having started the supposition, they looked to nature to prove it. (This is circular reasoning)" Evolution is a provisional conclusion derived from evidence. It is the result of natural evidence. Science demonstrates the reality of evolution every day, and if you have a better explanation, please present it. if that explanation is Creationism, it has been found to be incorrect in every detail.

Creationism is the true circular reasoning. Creationists assume the fairy tale of the bible is true, then use the same book and poor pseudo-science to bolster it's claims. It's somewhere between laughable and pathetic.


Glad you're enjoying the convo, to. Keep in touch.

DF
Did you try this? It was written by a former athiest and she says a lot of the same things I've been saying, only better.

http://everystudent.com/features/isthere.html?gclid=CIGqpq707o0CFRqsOAoddAuWPA

Atheist use words like "fairy tale" to try and disprove the Bible. It hasn't been disproven conclusivly any more than evolution. Is there reason for doubt, sure. But that's where faith comes in. You put your faith in a book written by Darwin, I put my faith in an older book, what's the difference?
oh, for chrissakes...


quote:
The site is developed by an interdenominational Christian organization: Campus Crusade for Christ, International.


I became aware of those bustards at Auburn. they used love-bombing and other reprehensible psychological techniques to ensnare gullible youngsters.

They are expert at deception and pseudo-intellectual manipulation. A friend of mine, who I had known all my life, almost killed himself because of the guilt and grief they instilled in him. He remains warped to this very day.

I reject their arguments on their lack of merits, and because I know that those sons of *****es will lie to further a political cause.

DF
Perhaps you’ve misunderstood me, DF. I’m not trying anything.?! True. The link I posted is biased, but that’s not why I posted the link at all. I posted it because I took the information about the human eye and the quote from Darwin from it. Since I copied it from the site, I wanted to provide the link. I’m not here to argue that someone’s very own interpretation is wrong.

Last week while crossing the Patton Island Bridge, my six year old asked me if there were sharks in the river. I told her possibly, there are some species of sharks known to be in fresh water. She then asked me why God made sharks when they hurt people. Without want of begging the question about why, I told her that people go into sharks natural habitats etc. So maybe that might shed light as to why I’m interested in this topic.

I find it interesting that George Lemaitre, a Roman Catholic Priest, was the theory inventor of the Big Bang. I find the calendar year interesting, how one man had the impact to change the calendar year, even though common era is used by some, it still remains changed. From the human gnome to black holes…the whole thing is just interesting is all.

Sorry to continue in the digressing of your original topic. To that, the best was the event happening at 1:35 AM.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
Until you're able to do that, you'll never find proof. Those of us who believe do see God at work and we have pretty clear evidence of His existance.


But, Nash, that is FAITH, not science. As much as you like to try, you simply cannot mix the two.

I can look into my son's eyes or watch a butterfly and see "evidence" of God if I so choose. The problem with that is that there is a insurmountable, unbelievably large amount of data that suggests that my son's eyes resulted from a beautiful chemical reaction between my sperm and my wife's eggs. Nothing more.

I can look at the complexity of something as simple as a spider web and marvel at the Hand that must have worked at building such a wonder. But then there's that insurmountable amount of evidece that the spider is simply a relative of the sea crab that long ago evolved to become a land predator.

You, too, can have your religion and science, too, but you will have to drop some of the really stupid notions that Noah's Arc and Adam and Eve were anything but fairy tails or parables.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
Did you try this? It was written by a former athiest and she says a lot of the same things I've been saying, only better.

http://everystudent.com/features/isthere.html?gclid=CIGqpq707o0CFRqsOAoddAuWPA


Okay, I'll nibble. I don't want to tackle the whole thing as there is so very much wrong with it that I don't know where to start. So, why don't you pick what you believe to be the the single most "convincing" claim made in that site and I'll tell you why it is so grievously wrong.
quote:
You put your faith in a book written by Darwin, I put my faith in an older book, what's the difference?


No one, esp Big Charlie himself, ever asked me to have faith in The Origin of Species. Darwin put it out there, and let its merits support it. I don't need faith to understand evolution, it's not a matter of faith.

It's reason, observation, experiment, and measurement that provide us with the incontrovertible accuracy of evolution.

DF
quote:
It's reason, observation, experiment, and measurement that provide us with the incontrovertible accuracy of evolution.


Evolution has not been proven to be accurate, it's been contested among scientists since Darwin wrote his book. That's why archaeologists are still looking for the "missing link". If it was fully proven as fact, why are people still trying to find evidence? It's still a theory for a reason.

Life is simply too complicated and too perfectly designed to have just made itself by random accident.

Biochemistry proves creation

Darwin's theory challenged
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
You put your faith in a book written by Darwin, I put my faith in an older book, what's the difference?


That's an extremely bad comparison. If you wanted to pick the one book that would most discredit the bible, Darwin's work would be my top choice. Origin of Species was written 150 years ago by a scientist. The bible was written 2000 to 3000 years ago by philosophers and poets and preachers.

The bible says we were poofed into existence by omnipotent space alien. Darwin says we evolved through natural processes.

There have been almost literally COUNTLESS addendums to Darwin's book since it was written. Each addendudm is celebrates and debated until everyone agrees the addemdum stands on it's own. It has been upheld by the laws of physics and man.

Until very recently, updates to the bible would make you the man of honor at your own BBQ.

Again, Nash, you CAN have your bible and appreciate science. You'll just have to drop fundamentalism as your religion.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
Evolution has not been proven to be accurate, it's been contested among scientists since Darwin wrote his book. That's why archaeologists are still looking for the "missing link". If it was fully proven as fact, why are people still trying to find evidence? It's still a theory for a reason.


HEre we go again. Nash, you are hung up on this "theory" versus "law" stuff. I can't express to you how utterly stupid that notion is. Seriously, dude, this one single confusion you have makes you and your ilk look completely clueless.

Please take a look at the following article and educate yourself.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Both your links refer to work done by Micheal Behe. This retard has been so very thoroughly discredited by the scientific community that you may as well be quoting Forest Gump. His own university disowned him because of it utter unscientific views.

He was also flat out made a fool of by a Scopes-like federal trial in Dover, Pennsylvania.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

Seriously, Nash, your God gave you a brain that is capable of reason. It is not a sin to use it!
Last edited by Guffaw
I can find plenty of sites that say man made Global Warming is a fact. I don't buy it because there are too many things that simply don't add up. The same goes for evolution. There are just some questions that evolution fails to answer, so I can't just blindly accept it.

At one time, the majority of people thought the world was flat and ridiculed Columbus for thinking differently. At one time, the majority of people thought the sun revolved around the earth and made Gallello retract his findings that said otherwise. So to say that the majority of someone's colleges ridicule them for their beliefs doesn't mean the majority is right.

Miamizsun's signature is dead on accurate and we've seen examples of the first two stages right here on this thread. If you want to accept without question that evolution is reality and that there is no God, that's your right. Personally, I tend to question religion, science, and everything else. Until all my answers about creation can be answered, I'll always doubt the validity of the random accident explanation.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:

At one time, the majority of people thought the world was flat and ridiculed Columbus for thinking differently. At one time, the majority of people thought the sun revolved around the earth and made Gallello retract his findings that said otherwise.


At one time, the majority thought man was created from the dust and woman was cloned from a rib of man by an omnipotent space alien. . . . No, don't laugh, it's true. They really did think that. I'm SERIOUS, man!

Fortunately. all those theories were proven blatantly false by very smart scientists hundreds of years ago.
quote:
Fortunately. all those theories were proven blatantly false by very smart scientists hundreds of years ago.


Science has never proven that God does not exist. Actually, the more scientific knowledge we gain, the more unlikely it that this existence came together by accident. That theory is like saying if you thew enough paint on a ceiling, eventually you'll have a recreation of the Sistine Chapel. If you want to believe it, fine, but you really have no room to laugh at someone else's beliefs.


Here are some questions evolution can't answer. How did life actually start? At one point did gasses, minerals, and elements come together to form a self sustaining life form? Where did those gasses, minerals, and elements come from? How did they travel to be at exactly the right spot at exactly the right time to create life? If no one was around when the first life form was created, then how do we know anything about it? What exactly brought all of those things together in exactly the right way and how did they suddenly become alive? How did the first living thing know to take in sustenance, to process sustenance, to excrete waste, to move, to reproduce? How did it suddenly devlop the ability to do all of those things?

"It just happened" is not an acceptable answer, but is the only one offered other than admitting intelligence.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:

Science has never proven that God does not exist.


I've explained this to you quite a few times now. You just can't seem to grasp the fact that "science" would never say something "does not" exist. It simply goes with whatever the evidence and the facts suggest.

quote:
Here are some questions evolution can't answer. How did life actually start? At one point did gasses, minerals, and elements come together to form a self sustaining life form? Where did those gasses, minerals, and elements come from? How did they travel to be at exactly the right spot at exactly the right time to create life? If no one was around when the first life form was created, then how do we know anything about it? What exactly brought all of those things together in exactly the right way and how did they suddenly become alive? How did the first living thing know to take in sustenance, to process sustenance, to excrete waste, to move, to reproduce? How did it suddenly devlop the ability to do all of those things?

"It just happened" is not an acceptable answer,


No one but you has said, "It just happened." I'll say this once again: We don't know how life began.

Let em say that again to you will understand: WE DON'T KNOW.

We have hypothesis and theories. Some mechanisms are well understood and generally accepted and stand up to the Scientific Method. Some are not so well understood and are debated hotly. Riches and fame will go to the many people in the future who settle these questions to the best of our ability. But, again, WE DO NOT KNOW.

What we do know as a fact is that there is absolutely, positively no evidence that an omnipotent space alien did it. None at all. There is absolutely, positively overwhelming evidence that life started via natural processes. If, however, you can produce some evidence - perhaps a bit of His fingernail, his space ship, the name of the planet He hails from, something we can go on -- you are flying purely on faith alone. That is not science. That is religion, or, in your case (I am sorry to say) ignorance.
but nash,

we ARE a collection of amino acids and related chemicals. We KNOW that life started simply and developed into more advanced organisms. We know that life is not perfect; we get cancer.

It does not stand to reason or observation that we are designed. Science has the answers to our current condition, religion does not.

DF
DF, that didn't even come close to my questions. Saying "we don't know" does not constitute proof of creation being caused by accident instead of design.

I refuse to blindly accept anything without question. It used to get me in trouble as a kid because I couldn't take "because I said so" as an answer. I don't care if it's a scientist, preacher, my dad, or someone on a message board. If something doesn't add up, I question it. If my questions can't be answered, I don't buy it. If asking questions makes me ignorant, then so be it.

To say that the complexities of life are due to nothing more than an accident is a pretty weak theory to me, but if that's something you're willing to accept without questioning, that's your right.

The atheists I've known became atheists because of some negative experience with a church or someone who said they were religious. What better way to distance oneself from that negative experience than ridiculing those who believe in God and making it out to be silly. The atheists I've known didn't take that route because atheism is the most logical, they took it as a retaliation towards religion. No matter what evidence I provided or what challenges I provided to your ideas, you still won't consider them with an open mind. Not because of logic or reasoning, but because of a disrespect and animosity towards God and those who believe in Him. Referring to Him as a "space alien", comparing him to Santa Claus, and calling me ignorant proves this.

Say whatever you want, but to believe in a great accident with all the knowledge we have of science requires a lot more faith than it does to believe in God.
Nash,

I believe you were speaking to Gofish, but that's ok.

It's ok to say "I don't know". At least that's honest. Why must some people, when faced with a question beyond their comprehension, simply make up an answer?

What is the ultimate reality of biogenesis? "I don't know" is an honest answer. "God did it" is made up.

There are lots of things god used to get credit for which we now know are natural events. The origin of life and the diversity of species are explainable, natural phenomena. There's no reason to bring god into it.

DF
quote:
What is the ultimate reality of biogenesis? "I don't know" is an honest answer. "God did it" is made up.

There are lots of things god used to get credit for which we now know are natural events. The origin of life and the diversity of species are explainable, natural phenomena. There's no reason to bring god into it.


If you don't know the answer, then how can you rule out God as a possibility? Again, that comes down to faith. To me, to say existence is an accident sounds made up. The human brain is more complex than a computer. We still don't know exactly how it works. Yet I'm supposed to believe that some cosmic materials just happened to find each other with no help and purely by chance. Those materials would eventually and with no reason combine and form the modern human brain.

That is more plausible than our brains were designed? That sounds made up to me, but if you believe it, good for you. You've got a stronger ability to believe than I do.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
Referring to Him as a "space alien", comparing him to Santa Claus, and calling me ignorant proves this.


What would you call a technologically advanced, mind reading superbeing that lives in the sky but still, presumably, in this universe? Is that not a space alien?

Really, Nash, I do not believe religion is silly (ot at least it doesn't have to be). I believe fundamentalist, literal interpretations of the bible is just so incredibly ignorant in this age of reason. Your willful blindness to the physical world and science borders on insanity. Seriously.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
If you don't know the answer, then how can you rule out God as a possibility?


Ignorance again!

No one has ever ruled out God as a possibility. Science doesn't "rule out" anything. It simply makes observations based on the evidence.

There is a distinct possibility that God exists. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. In fact, evidence indicates that God is not necessary.

Will man be called a God when he makes the first super-human computer?

Add Reply


Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×