There Is No God

[MAX]

Do you realize that to create fossils, you need very specific conditions? Not all organisms fossilize. Even if we didn't have any fossils, the theory would not be disproven. It would solely have a gap of evidence concerning that particular point, while huge amounts of evidence concerning all the other ones.

But it doesn't matter, because, even do having those fossils, we do not need them.

Watson and Crick discovered some years ago something they called DNA. It links us without any doubt to all the other living beings, and it tells the history of all the past branches and divisions that separate us from the other species. And it puts the age of the human species at an interval already estimated by the theory of evolution.

I'm still waiting for your evidence of creation, so stop deflecting my question with more questions. Give us all some evidence. Earn a Nobel.

[andre]

Watson and Crick discovered some years ago something they called DNA. It links us without any doubt to all the other living beings, and it tells the history of all the past branches and divisions that separate us from the other species. And it puts the age of the human species at an interval already estimated by the theory of evolution.

I am aware of DNA. There is a lot of commonality between other species and humans, sure. But how did DNA begin to self replicate, and why do all of the chromosomes contain the DNA blueprints? Why did both a male and female gender both evolve so perfectly and were able to pro-create at the same time? And not just humans, but other mammals and species?

I have better access to some stuff at home, but I'm in class right now, so you'll have to wait until the afternoon.

[MAX]

See below.

I'm still waiting for your evidence of creation, so stop deflecting my question with more questions. Give us all some evidence. Earn a Nobel.

[Just Gabriel]

Why did both a male and female gender both evolve so perfectly and were able to pro-create at the same time? And not just humans, but other mammals and species?

Because all the ones that couldn't pro-create died off... leaving the ones that could. Not a very difficult concept, is it? If it is indeed true that we evolved from single-celled organisms, the ability to sexually reproduce and divide roles in a gender-specific fashion were all evolved. It's not like two random invididuals tried to mate out of nowhere.

[MAX]

Not only that. Nature doesn't just have males and females. There are lots of variations. Asexual reproduction is the main means of reproduction, going by the number of organisms that do it. Lots of bacteria share genes chemically with their neighbours, this increases the likelihood of their offspring being naturally selected over more genetically limited stock. Think of males, then, as messenger females, who spread around different genes to increase diversity and the likelihood of a successful hybrid offspring. Parthogenesis also exists, as well as animals that can change sex, so really, gender isn't "irreducibly complex".

Furthermore, even if it was, "God" wouldn't be ansanswer, nor would anything "supernatural" since we have no rational basis to presuppose these as real or explanatory.

Since common ancestry accounts for why almost all animals breed sexually, it's not difficult to explain why such traits are popular among complex organisms.

[MAX]

I just want to know this evidence for creationism that he's talked about, but not provided us...

[andre]

Sorry it has taken a while. I came home from school to find out that the DSL at my home is messed up, and a Verizon technician won't be out until Monday :/ Crap. So, this is on my laptop. Anyway.

Although I know that nothing I write will ever satisfy you, I can still try. So, I took some time to compile some thought provoking points for you.

So, you want evidence of creation. All of the evidence that you could possibly want is all around you. I've mentioned that many times before, that the same evidence is present for analysis. And since eovlution is unsatisfying, a logical conclusion is that we were created.

MAX, do you believe in things you cannot see? Think carefully before you answer that to yourself.

What about black holes? They are not discerned by their physical appearance, since they are invisible, but they are discerned by the effects that they cause. And what about new planets? Astronomers can find new planets before they are even visible, just by seeing the effects on the star that they orbit. So, in fact, there are some things that exist, but that people cannot see. Then why is God so much of a far-fetched concept?

You also mentioned that the Universe has always been. That is incorrect.

"To avoid the issue of creation it would be necessary for all the material of the Universe to be infinitely old, and this cannot be...Hydrogen is being steadily converted into helium and the other elements...How comes it then that that Universe consists almost entirely of hydrogen? If matter were infinitely old this would be quite impossible. So we see that the Universe being what it is, the creation issue simply cannot be dodged.."--Sir Fred Hoyle

He is an astronomer, so he is an authority on the subject. So is Robert Jastrow, who has this to say.

"Few astronomers could have anticipated that this event--the sudden birth of the Universe--would become a proven scientific fact, but observations of the heavens through telescopes have forced them to that conclusion." He also mentioned: "The astronomical proof of a Beginning places scientists in an awkward position, for they believe that every event has a natural cause..."

So, the Universe had a beginning, that's clear and proven, since the Universe is expanding, in opposition to entropy. The question is, what or who created the Universe?

[MAX]

So, you want evidence of creation. All of the evidence that you could possibly want is all around you. I've mentioned that many times before, that the same evidence is present for analysis. And since eovlution is unsatisfying, a logical conclusion is that we were created.

Show this creators existance, not his works which look precisely like he disguised them to be autonomous natural processes.

MAX, do you believe in things you cannot see? Think carefully before you answer that to yourself.

Do you beleive in Leprechauns? Think carefully before you answer that to yourself.

What about black holes? They are not discerned by their physical appearance, since they are invisible, but they are discerned by the effects that they cause. And what about new planets? Astronomers can find new planets before they are even visible, just by seeing the effects on the star that they orbit. So, in fact, there are some things that exist, but that people cannot see.

Odd how the actual astrophysicists themselves say otherwise.

Oh, guess what andre! The Sun works because it's full of angels all mooning earth! The radiant beauty of angel buttocks is so bright, it lights up the whole world!

Then why is God so much of a far-fetched concept?

This is just repetition of your earlier fallacious arguments, all of which have already been addressed. Stop relying on repetition.

You also mentioned that the Universe has always been. That is incorrect.

"To avoid the issue of creation it would be necessary for all the material of the Universe to be infinitely old, and this cannot be...Hydrogen is being steadily converted into helium and the other elements...How comes it then that that Universe consists almost entirely of hydrogen? If matter were infinitely old this would be quite impossible. So we see that the Universe being what it is, the creation issue simply cannot be dodged.."--Sir Fred Hoyle

He is an astronomer, so he is an authority on the subject. So is Robert Jastrow, who has this to say.

"Few astronomers could have anticipated that this event--the sudden birth of the Universe--would become a proven scientific fact, but observations of the heavens through telescopes have forced them to that conclusion." He also mentioned: "The astronomical proof of a Beginning places scientists in an awkward position, for they believe that every event has a natural cause..."

So, the Universe had a beginning, that's clear and proven, since the Universe is expanding, in opposition to entropy. The question is, what or who created the Universe?

A) Appeal to Authority, again.

B)Each and every one of these common creationist arguments is an argument from incredulity, in which it seems so fantastic that something that is complex (difficult to understand, with several parts) could've come about via natural means.

Hoyle, was a philosopher, not a biologist, and this Jastrow character is full of ****. Please find me these astronomers who oppose Big Bang theory.

Many Christian scientists try relentlessly to impugn the intellectual honesty of their non-Christian fellows. This behaviour is churlish and dishonest; there is no serious opposition to Big Bang theory among astronomers, and I would defy anyone to find any significant group of astronomers that voices this mythical opposition.

Moreover, it is a leap in logic to believe that a universe with a beginning implies a Creator. The universe was its own beginning.

http://img.photoamp.com/i/gT5RrO3mRo.gif

[Miggy-AMN]

Well, I believe I was created. Evolution is a dead-end theory, and scientists keep beating a dead horse.

Besides, I don't think I evolved from a friggin' monkey!

[bountyhunter]

dude, you live in a fruckin tree. You are a monkey.

Andre...do you know what fission is?

You know, where helium is converted back to hydrogen?

[MAX]

Well, I believe I was created. Evolution is a dead-end theory, and scientists keep beating a dead horse.

Besides, I don't think I evolved from a friggin' monkey!

That explains your ignorance about what science is. Evolution is known to be true because of evidence. Just to point out why it's not a dead-end theory. Viruses and bacteria evolve to become resistant to medicines. This is not only observed but it is a major problem that science must confront every day.

Also, we don't come from current apes, of course, but humans are actually a type of great ape, and the common ancestor for apes came from the old world monkey, which also gave us current monkeys, as well as apes. Basically, humans and current apes shared a common ancestor.

But in any case, evolution is the best explanation for phenomena that have been observed.

[Rensa]

Hehe, Max, I think you lose your sense of humour when you're raging against andre - Mig's just winding you up :P

[MAX]

How was I supposed to know, he voted yes! lol

[MAX]

Jeff... I hate to burst your bubble, tiger, but the person who created the poll made it so anyone can view who voted what.

You godless heathen.

[andre]

Hehe, Max, I think you lose your sense of humour when you're raging against andre - Mig's just winding you up :P

sweet. I'm a sap to his humor. --~

Yeah, MAX, about this Big Bang Theory....ahem....that's some of the most ludicrous stuff that has to have ever been theorized, and any scientists with a billionth of his/her brain working can tell that it was only theorized to piss in the face of creation, by people who are uncomfortable with the notion that we were created.

[Smalldude76]

sweet. I'm a sap to his humor. --~

Yeah, MAX, about this Big Bang Theory....ahem....that's some of the most ludicrous stuff that has to have ever been theorized, and any scientists with a billionth of his/her brain working can tell that it was only theorized to piss in the face of creation, by people who are uncomfortable with the notion that we were created.

Yes, it's right up there with legalising gay marriage, not making everyone go to church on sundays, and the refusal to incinerate Satanists upon first glance. Pissing in the face of Christianity, or believing something completely different?

You make it sounds like theorists squirm in their beds unable to sleep if they hadn't pissed off a creationist that day. Not everyone believes in the same bullshit like creationism, and alternate belief isn't shitting on yours.

[andre]

It's believing something that has no basis and that cannot possibly be proven. That's the problem. It's "reason" that is so far from reasonable that it's not even funny. It's a run-around to avoid facing bigger issues.

[Smalldude76]

It's believing something that has no basis and that cannot possibly be proven. That's the problem. It's "reason" that is so far from reasonable that it's not even funny. It's a run-around to avoid facing bigger issues.


I sure as hell hope you're talking about religion. :P

[andre]

I sure as hell hope you're talking about religion. :P

Are you that braindead? Just wondering...

[Smalldude76]

Are you that braindead? Just wondering...

Nope, you stated that

It's believing something that has no basis and that cannot possibly be proven. That's the problem. It's "reason" that is so far from reasonable that it's not even funny. It's a run-around to avoid facing bigger issues.

Religion has no basis apart from the bible (assuming Christianity at this point). There is no basis as it was written by man, and believed (key word in there) by Christians(woop! another!) that it was written by god through those men. It also cannot be proven. That's the probelm. It's "reason" that is so far from reasonable that it's not even funny. It's a run-around to avoid facing bigger issues.

See, I didn't even have to type out the latter half of that one, mate. Good ol' copy and paste job right from the horse's ignorant mouth.


edit - you must also realise that I'm not supporting the big bang - it's as bullshit as Christianity, mind you.

[andre]

See, a major problem with your argument is that the Bible has been proven accurate, with regards to accounts of history and authenticity. You might refer to all of the cueniform tablets and other articles of antiquity that have been unearthed that back up claims that are made in the Bible.


edit - you must also realise that I'm not supporting the big bang - it's as bullshit as Christianity, mind you.

I'll agree with you, to a point. Nice to know that we have at least that much in common.

[MAX]

Yeah, MAX, about this Big Bang Theory....ahem....that's some of the most ludicrous stuff that has to have ever been theorized, and any scientists with a billionth of his/her brain working can tell that it was only theorized to piss in the face of creation, by people who are uncomfortable with the notion that we were created.

Anybody reading your posts can see that you are obviously at a loss to counter my arguments. Your responses are simple red herrings, meant to divert attention away from arguments that you can't counter, and I happily accept your concession on the points at hand.
;)

See, a major problem with your argument is that the Bible has been proven accurate, with regards to accounts of history and authenticity. You might refer to all of the cueniform tablets and other articles of antiquity that have been unearthed that back up claims that are made in the Bible.

Does someone spoon feed you these lies? Or does it just come with the brainwashing? I just finished a book called "101 Myths of the Bible" by Gary Greenberg; President of the Biblical Archaeology Society of New York. I thought it was a pretty good read. It talked mostly about how he believes the stories of the Bible are mostly stories from Egyptian and Babylonian mythology altered to match a monotheistic POV but many of the stories also include archeological facts that conflict with Biblical claims.

Genesis has a global flood and humanity originating in the Middle East instead of Africa. Anyone who sees the Bible as anything more than poorly-written fiction is deluding themselves. To be quite honest, I find it bewildering that anyone could consider the Bible anything but fiction, I mean, talking snakes and donkeys?!

Remember the story of Jonah living in the belly of a whale for 3 days? That's really in there. Do you truly, honestly, sincerely believe that a man really did live in the belly of a whale for three days before it vomited him out?

Well, you can believe what you want to believe, but don't expect reasonable people to take the bible seriously when it comes to history or science.

The most intellectually honest way to read the Bible is to recognize that it's a collection of independently authored mythological stories from a particular culture which reflect the prejudices and beliefs of its various authors, because that's the truth.

[andre]

ahem.

bravo, Jeff, on being an ass.

You come into this thread to stir up **** and throw stones at me and to be a tard. Bravo, again.


Well, you can believe what you want to believe, but don't expect reasonable people to take the bible seriously when it comes to history or science.

I believe the Bible book of Isaiah makes an interesting point, about the Earth being a 'circle.' For you, that's a 2 dimensional sphere, which is the general shape of the earth. The book was written nearly 3000 years ago, which was...well, thousands of years before science could prove it be correct.

What's unreasonable is that you flatly dismiss anything that could possibly be related to a higher intelligence.

[MAX]

Jeff, your link is broken...but I'm SURE you're referring to this woman...lol

http://hem.bredband.net/b217293/godwarriorbumper.jpg

See andre's mom in action HERE (http://www.break.com/index/tradingspouses.html)!!


...and here HE is, making sure he remains a virgin...forever.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v153/iisthemoose/hardcoredancer.jpg

[andre]

wait? you say that I threw out red herrings? hmm....*cough* hypocrite *cough*

[MAX]

I believe the Bible book of Isaiah makes an interesting point, about the Earth being a 'circle.' For you, that's a 2 dimensional sphere, which is the general shape of the earth. The book was written nearly 3000 years ago, which was...well, thousands of years before science could prove it be correct.

What's unreasonable is that you flatly dismiss anything that could possibly be related to a higher intelligence.

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

A verse that talks about God sitting on the Earth and outerspace as a curtain or tent is historically accurate? lol

The best thing about that quote about the sky like a tent is that it actually is a verse talking about the Earth being flat. Just think about the analogy and you'll see why.

The verse immediately before is another one that talks about the Earth having FOUNDATIONS indicating its flat.

I love the way fundies are so eager to quote the "circle of the earth" verse while ignoring the "four corners of the earth" ones (Isaiah 11:12, Ezekiel 7:2).

[andre]

There is such a thing as "figurative language." Perhaps you've heard of it throughout history in other works?

[MAX]

There is such a thing as "fiction." i.e., the bible, and harry potter.

[andre]

i.e. "the big bang" et al.

[MAX]

only if you're a religious nut case that looks to invisible supernatural events to explain things, te he.

[andre]

as opposed to events that can't be proven? ever be proven?

[MAX]

The universe can be observed. God can't. Life can be observed. God can't. Evolution has been observed. God hasn't.

So.. I win.

[andre]

*shakes head*

And all I can do is laugh.

[MAX]

That's all any crazy fundi who believes in sky pixies can do.

Science has huge amounts of evidence for both evolution, abiogenesis, and big bang. God is nothing more than a dream, something to give people who can't understand science hope and understanding of their world around them.

He doesn't exist.