You are sadly mistaken . . . or misinformed. The case for evolution has never been stronger, the evidence is overwhelming. I do research for a living and I have read some of the creationists dogma. It is just not convincing to a scientist. Maybe to a theologist. I've said it before: One cannot prove faith through science, nor can one prove science through faith. Creationism is just not science. Never was, never will be. The notion that evolution is "on the way out" is very naive and unsupported by the vast body of research on the subject. It may be clear through et cetera, but certainly not through science. Examples?
well, because you are lying and they have found plenty. no. but even the guy who came up with pnctuated equilibrium agrees that his theory is not entirely necessary: "But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould personally i side with richad dawkins and oppose gould's position. however, it should be noted that among non insane people, there is no debate that evolution happens, but only debate over the specifics of exactly what happened. the fact that you ask this shows me that you are really going out of your way to not understand what you are talking about. if you wont accept that in some situations, order arisies from chaos, i cant help you, you have to seriously be a nutcase to claim that entropy or thermodynamics disproves evolution. holy jeebus that has nothing to do with it. whatever, i dont care, i do not deny the existence of god. right, i know, but somehow god's existence doesnt mean he had a creator, god has no beginning, we already went over this.
Martin, you're a hard case.....I know there is really no point but what the hell: -you have parents because you are a human being. -God does not have a parent/cause/beginning because he is not a human being or material thing for that matter. He is not dependent on anything else for his existence. That is the nature of Supreme Beings....... As far as the rest of your previous reply: -I'm not lying about the transitional fossils. To be lying I would have to be aware of the transitional fossils and despite that knowledge still denying that they exist. I may be mistaken, certainly. I haven't followed it very closely after my college years. I would have thought the discovery of transitional fossils would've gotten more press. I must be watching FOX too much again..... -your point about entropy is well taken, you may well be correct that in some cases order does arise from chaos.....but a whole universe based on the idea that interstellar dust at some point gives birth to consciousness.....that's a stretch... -I realize you don't actively deny the existence of God, but your claim that people aren't capable of grasping the truth has the same effect on people's minds as being athiest. Would you at least admit that human beings are capable of knowing the truth? Red, I had a reply to your previous post but apparently miskeyed and saved it or something....I'll have to get back to you....just got to work, etc.
what is this based on again? personally, i have no experience with the nature of supreme beings and their characteristics, you know someone who does? i probably shouldnt have said you were lying, however, you must have really made a strong effort to be ignorant, which i guess you have, because of your faith. maybe, i dont know, the real story might be too complicated to understand, like trying to explain a painting to a person who was born blind. they dont even have a grasp of what color or light is, it is just sort of incomprehensibly complex, from their perspective. for example, i have heard string theory explained many time, and i dont really get what the hell they are talking about, it just sounds like a mish-mosh of words. it may be beyond my ability to comprehend. and there may be things that nobody can comprehend.
"what is this based on again? personally, i have no experience with the nature of supreme beings and their characteristics, you know someone who does?" -Just because you have no experience with supreme beings doesn't mean you can't make some judgements about one. I have no experience with Moscow but I don't deny its existence. I don't have any personal knowledge or understanding for plenty of things (go ahead, insert joke here...) but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Cosmic rays, gluons, quarks, radio waves, etc. I don't understand or experience any of these things personally....my only knowledge of radio waves is that I don't see them but somehow they produce some wonderful sounds of LSU football during the fall......a person's knowledge/experience of a supreme being is similar in some ways. I never have seen God but there have been some seemingly sane and definitely influential individuals who claim to have heard His voice, felt His prescence, seen His Son walk on water, raise other people from the dead, raise Himself from the dead........all this can be dismissed naturally. Any evidence can be dismissed....just ask the OJ jury.... I think it would be more accurate to say that there is evidence for a God, it's just not overwhelming like evidence is for the existence of Moscow, for example. -My point really is that truth exists and human beings are capable of knowing the truth. If that statement is, in fact, true then the argument for God, etc. becomes much easier. -Also your point on trying to explain art/light to a blind person doesn't address the issue. The fact is that whether the blind person understands it or not light exists.
right, that is why i asked if you knew anyone else who could explain how they knew the characteristics of god to me. i have seen people who have been to moscow and they have photos and buckets of evidence that it exists, so much that i would be stunned if it didnt. but for all of the things you mention, we could go in a lab and marvel at them. where is the lab where they show how god is eternal and has no creator? fine. well, i guess all i can say is that the evidence has not been strong enough to sway me. as far as i can tell, people cannot walk on water or be raised from the dead. but i will change my mind if they come out with new studies. i guess i am a skeptic by nature, because as time goes by i have noticed that most sources of information are far more unreliable than they would have you believe. i am like doubting thomas. i need jesus to come to me so i can meddle around with him. as for your point that there are sane people who have seen supernatural things, i can find seemingly sane individuals that support contradictory religious views and supernatural theories. if you say so, but i see no reason to believe. it might be right, but anything might be right. right, but maybe the answers about the universe are not so simple as a christian god creator. maybe it is something so fancy i cant even imagine it. either way i dont see what reason i have to believe anyone knows the answers, or even that anyone could. maybe they can, maybe they cant.
First of all I have to apologize for my poor posting abilities....I can't seem to highlight the blocks as neatly as I should, so bear with me: We have mountains of literature on God and his characteristics, etc. The easiest one to find would be a Bible. As far as anyone I personally know....no, I'm not aware of them having visions or conversing with God. I also don't know anyone who experienced WWI. I can read about it though. I can read about Ancient Greece and Egpyt and Plato and Aristotle...do you doubt the authenticity of what they wrote. Their work was done before Christ walked the earth. Most people would accept that those personalities did exist and wrote the body of work attributed to them. I don't understand why people are so trustful of them but cannot believe the Apostles.... There were many visionaries throughout history, though. There are plenty alive today.....naturally the question is whether they are authentic or not. That's always the question......was the Virgin Mary really a Virgin? I'm sure you would say no. Did Jesus walk on water? Again, in your mind I'm guessing, no. Do the children in Yugoslavia really receive visions of the Virgin Mary, today and for the last 10 yrs or so? No, again? How about the ones in South America? How about Padre Pio, the Italian Saint who had so many miracles around him it's absurd...? How about the Shroud of Turin? You can find experts to say the dates are all wrong, you can also find experts to say the dates are fine, the Carbon dating problems are caused by the Shroud being repaired after a fire during the Middle Ages....there is always evidence and arguments to be made on both sides......the real questions start well before that. -A few things about the nature of a Supreme Being may help so see if this makes sense: -start with a triangle.....a triangle has three sides.....that's the definition of a triangle.....if it doesn't have three sides you are talking about something besides a triangle. -God does not exist within time anymore than he exists at a specific location. God permeates the universe/time whatever but he is in no way confined by it. God created time and space. He is outside of it the same way a writer is outside and independent of the world within which the characters of his book act and are located. If you insist on debating whether God has a beginning or not you are confused about the definition of God/Supreme Being, etc. Like someone in geometry class debating how many sides a square or triangle has. We already know how many sides they have. You can say you don't think God exists but to try to cause problems about whether he has a beginning is pointless. So to summarize a few truths for today: -A triangle has three sides. -A supreme being is not material and has no beginning and no end. -OJ did it, and we all know it. -Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone.....sorry, I just like to slip that in there when I can.... As far as your point about God being so far above our understanding, I agree. I also think it is interesting that Christianity is the only one with even an inkling about how He is different from us, etc. It's the idea of the Trinity and I think you'll find it's the only idea on the market that attempts to explain how God truly is, etc. The only reason Christianity has it is because of Jesus and his revelation to the Apostles. Nobody came up with that by brainstorming or testing....we had to be told....Another reason or coincidence in favor of Christianity if you ask me.
we also have mountains of contradictory material. and mountains of firsthand accounds af alien abductions. i'm not a historian, maybe aristotle didnt exist, i dont really care. i do know there are writings attributed to him that are very good, and you can read them and they make sense. if aristotle were to make claims about magic, i would no longer believe him. here is a quote about aristotle from my favorite guy dawkins: "You could give Aristotle a tutorial. And you could thrill him to the core of his being. Aristotle was an encyclopedic polymath, an all time intellect. Yet not only can you know more than him about the world, You also can have a deeper understanding of how everything works. Such is the privilege of living after Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Planck, Watson, Crick and their colleagues. " since we live in the time we live in, we dont need to resort to magic to explain as many thing as we used to. i dont consult thousand year old authors for explanations of science or the universe. back then they had a pretty poor understanding of the world compared to us. we are just totally on a different page from each other. things you take as givens, i totally question: why? says who? based on what research? he is? how so? when did scientists figure this out? definitely. but you have defined him as without beginning, so i guess he is. not sure why though. the crux of this comes down to this. you have faith. i dont. you arent gonna make any rational arguments for your beliefs, it just wont happen. god may reward you for your faith and punish me for my lack of it. oh well, thanks alot god, for the freewill. i guess i am headed for eternal damnation, i deserve it.
I have to totally disagree with you on that. The arguments I make may be flawed (I don't think so but I'm aware it's possible) but they are definitely rational. And as far as the arguments back and forth, I'd say your incessant questioning of even the most basic concepts would make it hard for you to come to any conclusions about anything. Try these and see if you disagree: -human beings are created by their parents. Every human being has two parents. -no man has ever given birth. Men do not give birth, women do. -no woman has ever given birth to a horse. Women give birth to human beings not horses. ok so far? -God is what human beings call an omniscient, omnipotent being. The word God means an omniscient, omnipotent being. Sometimes people use the words Supreme Being just for variety. But those are the words people tend to use when they mean an omni....ah, hell you get the idea. Some people say God exists, some say he does not exist. But both people know what concept they are talking about. -triangles have three sides..... -language is not some meaningless bable between people. Words have meaning and can reflect the truth or not. Depending on the circumstances the words can reflect 100 percent of the truth or some percentage less than that. As reasonable people we are expected to try and make sense and not waste everyone's time with bable. Follow this and tell me where it's wrong: -The universe exists. -human beings exist. -the universe has not always existed-(how do I know this?)-because anything that is material has a beginning. That means it was created. The universe is made of material stuff. That means there was a "time" when the universe was not. -human beings have not always existed. That means we had a beginning. So what gives? Why are we here? These are valid questions if you get a moment to think in between paying bills. So what are the competing theories on the market? There really aren't that many left. There are two big camps now.........you've got the Atheist/Agnositic/Evolution group pushing their ideas and at this point the only ones disagreeing are those that believe in God and Creationism. That's really it. The bottom line is that if evolution is disproven then the Atheist don't have a leg to stand on, that's the point. You can't be an atheist if you accept that the universe was created. That's why they will fight tooth and nail to discredit people who espouse Creationism. And about Creationism not being scientific......in what way? Creationism jives just as well with science as any other theory. The idea that the universe popped into existence from nothing is one idea. The other is there was a "Cause" that generated the universe. Both of them result in the universe we observe. Neither theory/idea allows you to test what happened before the moment of creation so why is the creation theory "unscientific"? Both theories allow you to test the universe currently to your heart's content..... what's the problem, where is the unscientific nature of Creationism? That's another thing that gets to me about people in these discussions, they're always making out like believers are trying to send people to hell. You can't even tell me where you will be 10 years from now....how the hell is anybody supposed to know if you or anybody is going to end up in hell. I think people say that to try to paint the Christian as a hater. Well, I don't hate anybody. I just would like discussions to have at the least a faint resemblence of the truth. Otherwise we are all wasting our breath.
says who? why does everything material need a beginning? maybe all the matter that ever existed was present in the superdense big bang thing before it busted into the universe, and it always existed. when you say everything has a beginning, and that means it was created, you are making that up. you dont know that. after "human beings exist", all your other premises were your inventions and theories that i have no reason to believe. your assertion that god is immaterial is also based on nothing. it isnt the believers that will make me burn in hell, it is god. i am saying god is the hater.
