Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

And so we finally, after 31 pages, get to the crux of the problem, eh?

Of course. Typical 1-15 pages of flaming, 2 pgs on topic, more flaming, me "whining", then back to work.....

It seems like we're not gonna reach an accord, and I have no desire to convert you or anything. Simply put, I cannot (nor will I ever probably) be able to provide the manner of proof you seek, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Faith has its rewards.

My evidence stems more from the beauties of the world; art, sunny days, rainbows, rain, thoughts about my purpose on this planet, "Miracles" in every day life, that sort of thing. While there may be rational, observable, and scientific explanations for all of the above, I'm not one to hold to chance and randomness. I still marvel at the vast complexity of the world when looking at the sky down to the ants, and question the purpose of it all. Maybe it's just a little too much for me to believe the lack of a creator behind it all because I'm not a man of the sciences, maybe it's because there really is a creator. Who knows......Classicists are dreamers anyways, believing in a deity isn't out of our realm..... ;)

At 3/19/07 08:01 PM, I-have-2-arms wrote: I see that you all decided to shoot past my idea and just keep on going. How funderful

This is the Official Religion Thread, as deemed by Proteas. This thead won't just "die" like the others. How bout instead of bitching you actually help turn things around and JOIN the debate? Take a progressive stance.

Observable, repeatable and impossible events. If tomorrow (and every day afterward) Pi was calculated as 4.23581723... I would instantly believe a god existed. If some universal force's strength was changed, if another planet appeared in the solar system, etc etc etc.

So: independently observable and recordable, and physically impossible.

Oh oh! Go figure, after I post I think of something.

The guidelines for Sainthood:

"The Holy Father looks to a sign from God as confirmation of God's positive judgment concerning beatification or canonization. Miracles are a positive sign that God indeed confirms the decision of the Church."

http://www.fathermcgivney.org/sainthood/index .cfm

Now my understanding is that the look into these miracles is somewhat extensive, and they DO bring in relevant Ph.D's on the cases to determine whether or not the miracle is explainable or not.

I realize that just because it may not be explainable TODAY does not necessarily mean it is out of the realm of scientific explanation, but does the existence and affirmation of such miracles provide evidence for the existence of God?

Moreover, this is not relative to only the Judeo-Christian religions:

http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1995/12 /15_miracles.shtml
http://www.realsikhism.com/miracles/kabeer.ht ml
http://www.einterface.net/gamini/buddhist.htm l

And so on and so forth. Would such a universal existence of unexplainable phenomena not count towards "Observable, repeatable and impossible events."?

It seems to me that the universal application of miracles, both past and present, would denote a higher force at work, as the only way to disprove such a notion would be to disprove each one. Since we do not have the know-how to accomplish such a task, it stands to reason that these cases must be counted in the "X-Files" if you will, and I theorize that such miracles, witnessed universally by man, suggest the possibility of a (many) hidden force(s) at work, which for all intensive purposes, may be called "God" (to simply denote theism in general).

At 3/20/07 12:14 AM, Imperator wrote: My evidence stems more from the beauties of the world; art, sunny days, rainbows, rain, thoughts about my purpose on this planet, "Miracles" in every day life, that sort of thing. While there may be rational, observable, and scientific explanations for all of the above, I'm not one to hold to chance and randomness. I still marvel at the vast complexity of the world when looking at the sky down to the ants, and question the purpose of it all. Maybe it's just a little too much for me to believe the lack of a creator behind it all because I'm not a man of the sciences, maybe it's because there really is a creator. Who knows......Classicists are dreamers anyways, believing in a deity isn't out of our realm..... ;)

I can see that. I see the same wonder as you, but rather I see the wonder of the natural, rather than a manifestation of a supernatural will. I understand why most people believe in the supernatural, to give them a sense of belonging, uniqueness, a connection to the world and the universe they might not have had otherwise, and a guardian angel (so to speak) that is looking after them... something that gives them the ability to hope, even when all seems to be lost, even when they may loose their life. I undestand that, but I don't personally feel the need for a big brother watching over me (much less judging me), and I don't need the idea of the supernatural to see wonder in the natural world, or the art and music that we create because of it. On that level, it's not so much that I don't believe so much as that I don't feel the need for it.

At 3/20/07 12:31 AM, Imperator wrote: Now my understanding is that the look into these miracles is somewhat extensive, and they DO bring in relevant Ph.D's on the cases to determine whether or not the miracle is explainable or not.

Well, I'm not really knowledgeable about miracles, nor the lengths gone to verify them, the data recorded or the answers given, but if you have any detailed links, I'd be interested to see them.

I realize that just because it may not be explainable TODAY does not necessarily mean it is out of the realm of scientific explanation, but does the existence and affirmation of such miracles provide evidence for the existence of God?

Could be. I'm afraid I can't really answer without more information. IF a miracle is found to be truly unexplainable by physical sciences, then I might be willing to consider it evidence of a supernatural force.

Moreover, this is not relative to only the Judeo-Christian religions:

http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1995/12 /15_miracles.shtml

I'm not familiar with the "milk miracle" mentioned on this page. It mentioned that it was televised worldwide, which would certainly be an interesting advancement in the propagation of miracles.

And so on and so forth. Would such a universal existence of unexplainable phenomena not count towards "Observable, repeatable and impossible events."?

The fact that they're evidenced from culture to culture is probably only evidence of the power of religion on all cultures, not necessarily on the veracity of the miracles themselves. As an analogy, everyone gets hiccups... doesn't mean there's a connection between them, much less a supernatural force.

It seems to me that the universal application of miracles, both past and present, would denote a higher force at work, as the only way to disprove such a notion would be to disprove each one.

I think this falls into the same category as the argument "Well, we can't disprove every version of a deity, so that itself is evidence that one exists". And I'm not sure I can agree with that logic.

However, the fact that miraculous events happen in every culture, not just those being in the religious majority (or even in the big three), seems point more to the idea that god isn't like ANY of the current notions, but rather a much less definable thing. I point (again) to the Hinduist idea of Brahman, or the divine energy that permaeates the universe, which multiple cultures view in different ways.

Since we do not have the know-how to accomplish such a task, it stands to reason that these cases must be counted in the "X-Files" if you will, and I theorize that such miracles, witnessed universally by man, suggest the possibility of a (many) hidden force(s) at work, which for all intensive purposes, may be called "God" (to simply denote theism in general).

I'm not entirely certain we don't have the wherewithal to ferret out the answers to these miracles, so I'm holding my judgment. Though I am (very) skeptical, I cannot with the information I have now, say it's not possible.

Well, apologies for being somewhat absent recently, but I've been rather bogged down with exams and such. I'll probably be back to my regularness on Friday.

I'd just like to notify you all that Dre's due to be back tomorrow. Prepare yourselves for the worst, people.

At 3/20/07 03:28 PM, Peter-II wrote: Well, apologies for being somewhat absent recently, but I've been rather bogged down with exams and such. I'll probably be back to my regularness on Friday.

I'd just like to notify you all that Dre's due to be back tomorrow. Prepare yourselves for the worst, people.

I had MCAS today.

Dre-mans coming back?

At 3/20/07 03:28 PM, Peter-II wrote: Well, apologies for being somewhat absent recently, but I've been rather bogged down with exams and such. I'll probably be back to my regularness on Friday.

Yup. School sucks.....

I'd just like to notify you all that Dre's due to be back tomorrow. Prepare yourselves for the worst, people.

Oh mother FUCKER! Sure was the quickest month I've ever experienced.....

I'm hoping that if I'm absent ever a few of you can step it up and make sure he doesn't corrupt the youth here.....

In any case, I've gotta go polish up my plummed helmet and dust off the ol' torques and phalerae to get ready.......

.........now where'd I leave my vine rod?

At 3/21/07 12:12 AM, Imperator wrote: .........now where'd I leave my vine rod?

Prolly just need the helmet for all the head vs wall that'll be going on...

At 3/21/07 12:12 AM, Imperator wrote:

At 3/20/07 03:28 PM, Peter-II wrote:

Oh mother FUCKER! Sure was the quickest month I've ever experienced.....

Who cares, the kids just going to get banned again in another week or two.

Relgion serves as a sense of morals and hopes so we all dont go mad with despair and kill each other randomly. Most governments/laws (including the US) are based upon some relgious ideals (no killing/stealing/etc.)

At 3/21/07 05:37 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Who cares, the kids just going to get banned again in another week or two.

its still a week or two of stupidity induced strokes.

At 3/22/07 06:20 PM, Nagneto wrote: Relgion serves as a sense of morals and hopes so we all dont go mad with despair and kill each other randomly. Most governments/laws (including the US) are based upon some relgious ideals (no killing/stealing/etc.)

There are more natural psychological processes going on that show we would be making those rules regardless of religion. A moral code is not the best example of religion's benefits. If anything, it is the RESULT of such naturally occuring brain wave patterns, not the cause.....

(why do I always sound like an atheist when I debate people like these? God, I think I've gotten so accustomed to these debates I could argue ANY side and be successful at it....theist, atheist, agnostic, BRING IT!!)

Hia, I might be joining this debate.

So, back to topic, Science VS Religion.

Question:

If you where really really hurt/dying. Let's say you have cancer. Would you rather go to a Hospital and have treatments there, or would you want to go to your church/holy place/whatever, and have people pray really hard for you?

I find it amusing when really conservative religious people trust the Science they often fight more than God when it comes to their life. I mean, wouldn't God save you if you are a good follower?

At 3/23/07 04:06 AM, Drakim wrote:
If you where really really hurt/dying. Let's say you have cancer. Would you rather go to a Hospital and have treatments there, or would you want to go to your church/holy place/whatever, and have people pray really hard for you?

And yet when science does not provide an answer, a very few amount of people still survive. Others die, and causes are opened in their names to find cures. Hence the meaning of "the Lord works in mysterious ways". It's that ability to take a seemingly negative situation and find a positive end to it that suggests something "divine" about the whole thing.

I find it amusing when really conservative religious people trust the Science they often fight more than God when it comes to their life. I mean, wouldn't God save you if you are a good follower?

I find it more amusing that people manage to live even when modern medicine has no clue what is going on......

I think what I've expressed here is that this is a little too simplistic to be truly accurate.

I can dig up an equal number of studies saying prayer does/does not help patients recover.
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/07010 4_cancer_prayer.html
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/ap_06033 0_prayer.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4681771.stm
"A study found those who were prayed for were as likely to have a setback in hospital, be re-admitted, or die within six months as those not prayed for. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1627662.stm
"Patients admitted to hospital with heart problems suffer fewer complications if someone prays for them, according to scientists in the US. "

I found these two sets of studies, showing BOTH sides of that debate. Clearly the issue isn't resolved, but I think the point is that it cannot be discounted either, especially considering studies HAVE found benefits....

So I dunno if I'd be so one sided about someone who holds faith in their well.....their faith over that of medical science.....cause clearly no one really knows for sure.....

At 3/23/07 04:06 AM, Drakim wrote: I find it amusing when really conservative religious people trust the Science they often fight more than God when it comes to their life. I mean, wouldn't God save you if you are a good follower?

Reminds me of the story of the man who lived by a river. One day he heard a weather report on the radio that strong rains were expected to cause flooding all along the river. He knew he was safe because he was a believer... God would keep him safe. Well, the rivers rose and soon were at his doorstep. Some neighbors rowed by in a boat and offered him a lift to higher ground. He declined saying that God would save him... he wasn't afraid. The waters continued to rise, and soon he is sitting on his roof. A Helicopter passes by and sees him, they send down a rescuer. the man shoos him away. "God will save me, I have faith, I have nothing to fear."

Well, the waters rise even more and the man drowns. Being the good man that he was, he goes to heaven. When he gets there, he asks God, "Why didn't you save me? Was I not worthy, have I not been a good man?"

God replies, "I sent you a weather report, a canoe and a helicopter... what were you waiting for?"

Faith is no reason for stupidity. God made doctors for a reason.

though I think respirators for the brain dead are cruel and inhumane, but that's just me.

At 3/23/07 01:54 AM, Imperator wrote: (why do I always sound like an atheist when I debate people like these? God, I think I've gotten so accustomed to these debates I could argue ANY side and be successful at it....theist, atheist, agnostic, BRING IT!!)

Heh... I could probably win a few converts TO Christianity myself. Now there's an intellectual exercise... wonder how many nubs I could convince that I was a devout fellow? (be hard to convince those already familiar with me, I would think)

if we came from something, where did that come from, and where did that come from, and so on. did we come from nothing?

I'm not a biologist, but we've proved you can grow RNA from ammonia and lightning. From these, you end up with DNA in certain conditions. DNA can become amoeba, and from that point on, survival of the fittest applies.

Nope, that was amino acids.

Explain evolution to me so that noone can say its not true. It is not FACT but a THEORY.

Yup its a theory... just like the theory of gravity. When do you suppose the Alabama fundementalist lobby will propose "Intelligent falling"?

Evolution has many serious problems that keep it from ever becoming a fact. I've had long debates on this before and I'm certain that another may just be a waste of time. For one thing,

#1. I'd reference the cell in biology, there is what is called 'irreducible complexity', basically, you have mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum, golgi bodies, Nucleus, DNA, RNA, Rhibosomes and many other components-- if ANY of these were missing (or not operating correctly right from the start) the WHOLE cell couldn't work. So, it is an all or nothing situation, either ALL of these parts are SIMULTANEOUSLY operational, or none of it works at all, and that kind of bunks the theory of such a complicated system 'gradually developing' (evolving). The amount of complexity we're talking about on a cellular level is staggering, each cell contains more information than 1 million pages of the Enciclopedia Britanica, and like a computer program, it all has to be IN ORDER.

#2. Arthur Conan Doyle (amongst others) easily proved 'spontaneus generation' to be mathematically impossible.

#3.In addition, there is no natural mechanism to explain species transitions. Take a virus, not cellular, but still contains DNA (or RNA)-- Virus DNA mutates at a speed greater than any other DNA, yet, 'amazingly', it never becomes anything uncharacteristic of a virus, it never 'evolves' to a higher form of life, actually, it just changes to exact its natural disposition as a virus to its fullest potential. Same reason that fish aren't observed near all coastal areas growing legs just waiting to make their break for land, because they are perfectly adapted to their given environment, and there is NO natural environmental mechanism causing the severe adaptation from sea based creature to land based creature (natural selection and survival of the fittest, though true, simply don't cut it to explain UNCHARACTERISTIC species changes).

#4. Spontaneous generation has NEVER been observed in the natural world (even when all of the factors that obviously support life are present NOW)-- every living thing has ALWAYS had a parent in the observable world. Nor has science, with all modern technological advancements been able to produce even the SIMPLEST life form (even when the surrounding environment is perfectly suited to support life)-- demonstrating the limitations of 'science'.

#5. Referencing cosmology, there is the 'Cosmological Constant', it is a fundamental law of the universe, an antigravity force present in space itself that is fine-tuned to 1 part in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion (10 trillions)-(not reasonable to think this is an accident)-- if it were SLIGHTLY different (1 part), we could NOT exist--- that and the fact that EVERY other natural law is 'fine-tuned' such as gravity, thermodynamics, and other factors like the earth's distance from the sun, the properties of all elements, and the enormously intricate workings of EVERYTHING both macroscopic and microscopic and it gets staggeringly complicated on the quantum level, even the 'multiverse' which may theoretically exist would need precise laws to dictate it.

So basically, all science, biology, cosmology, physics, chemistry, and EVERYTHING else, does NOT support that infinitely bunk THEORY of evolution. It points to a conscious entity specifically causing existence to be represented in the way that it is, i.e God.

I'm not talking about the Bible, Koran etc... these are just stupid books, written by a bunch of people, some of them with obvious mental problems.

Actually, the natural world demonstrates the existence of God as clear as day, and if you can't see it, you're blind.

Imperator:
I never said science is perfect and holds every answer to everything.

However, if you belive medical science does very little (your post had a negative tone to it), then I heavily suggest your reconsidure. In medics, we have thousands of diffrent medicines, we can swe back your finger if you manage to cut it off, we can even tranplant a heart if your old one fails. We know about blood types and why you can't just use anybodies blood. We can reconstruct your face if you get burned, we can even make you boobs bigger ^^.

Even if prayer does work (and as you can see on those studies, it isn've very reliable), it is still not even an ant complared to a mountain when it comes to actually helping people and making them healthy again, complared to medical science.

But, anway, back to your point:

And yet when science does not provide an answer, a very few amount of people still survive. Others die, and causes are opened in their names to find cures. Hence the meaning of "the Lord works in mysterious ways". It's that ability to take a seemingly negative situation and find a positive end to it that suggests something "divine" about the whole thing.

You seem to suggest that if it isn't medical science, it is God. I hope you are aware that there are several thousand diffrent reasons you can get healthy without taking some sort of medince? Just because we didn't do something directly doesn't mean that God had to do it. Even though we can cure a lot of things, our understanding of the workings of all kinds of ilnesses aren't perfect, especialy not when it comes to things like cancer.

I myself woudn't exactly call it divine when a "very few amount of people" survive. I would call it divine of everybody suddently because healthy, or if there was a pattern to why some people survive. But, there isn't. That suggest something more like random chance than a divine hand.

Ravariel:
I see your point. But surely, you cannot give credit to every single little thing that is done to God? If I decide to buy you an ice-cream, is it God acting though me then?

If yes, then do we have free will? and are we able to do ANYHTHING good? or is that just God always?

If no, then why should God get credit for human made decisions? God didn't make doctors into doctors. Maybe God made the soul for the person when he was born, but, it was the human who sat all those night studing to becomes a doctor. It was his decision to becomes a doctor at all.

I mean, the weather report you talked about. Did God write it? Did God control the guy reading it? If he can influence events that much, then why was he unable to make the man by the river do something? like escape?

At 3/23/07 07:35 AM, TheBigPicture wrote: #1. I'd reference the cell in biology, there is what is called 'irreducible complexity', basically, you have mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum, golgi bodies, Nucleus, DNA, RNA, Rhibosomes and many other components-- if ANY of these were missing (or not operating correctly right from the start) the WHOLE cell couldn't work. So, it is an all or nothing situation, either ALL of these parts are SIMULTANEOUSLY operational, or none of it works at all, and that kind of bunks the theory of such a complicated system 'gradually developing' (evolving). The amount of complexity we're talking about on a cellular level is staggering, each cell contains more information than 1 million pages of the Enciclopedia Britanica, and like a computer program, it all has to be IN ORDER.

That is a pretty old argument. (often called the mouse-trap argument). The problem is that you expect that things HAD to evolve in a line directly here how it works today. If we have a system that requires several parts to function, then most likely, those parts were used for diffrent things before.

Lets me make an example. Let's take fish coming out of the water. They would need lungs, and some way to get around (legs). Neither things a normal fish as, as it cannot breathe on land, and it cannot move on land. Now, your arugment is that since these two parts must have come at the exactly same time (as lungs wouldn't help unless you have some sort of legs, since you would just lie there and starve to death even if you could breathe, and legs won't help up on land if you can't breahte there), it proves that it couldn't have evolved litte and litte. But, what if fish having lungs/legs serparatly DID help, but for other uses? the fish with fins that was a little more like legs would be able to swim/drag itself just a little better in very shallow water to get the food where the non-leg fish could not.

In the same way, you don't know if cells used these parts in needs nowdays for something simpler when the cell wasn't so advanced. Perhaps it didn't fuction as it did today, and only needed ONE of these several parts, and over times, it has evolved more parts, and they have come to depend on each other because it is the most efffective way to work. All new fetures are based on a something older, it doesnt' suddetly spring out of nothing.

#2. Arthur Conan Doyle (amongst others) easily proved 'spontaneus generation' to be mathematically impossible.

That impliues that we know everything there is to know about the subject. You can't make a "this is impossible" or "this will always happen" statement unless you have all the data that is used in the process. Humanity is far from knowing everything. What if we discover a new kind of gravity? One that tends to drag non-life into life? Then suddently it would be very possible.

#3.In addition, there is no natural mechanism to explain species transitions. Take a virus, not cellular, but still contains DNA (or RNA)-- Virus DNA mutates at a speed greater than any other DNA, yet, 'amazingly', it never becomes anything uncharacteristic of a virus, it never 'evolves' to a higher form of life, actually, it just changes to exact its natural disposition as a virus to its fullest potential. Same reason that fish aren't observed near all coastal areas growing legs just waiting to make their break for land, because they are perfectly adapted to their given environment, and there is NO natural environmental mechanism causing the severe adaptation from sea based creature to land based creature (natural selection and survival of the fittest, though true, simply don't cut it to explain UNCHARACTERISTIC species changes).

Ofcouse not. You seem to think evolution is something that MUST happen all the time. For evolution to happen, natural selection is needed. So, when something is very good at what it does, and is plentiful, it tends to stay that way (or atleast evolve a lot slower). It is when a change is imposed that stuff happens.

For example. Lets imagen a thousand monkeys, all living in the jungle. Now, ever monkey is slightly diffrent, and has it's own personality. If fruit started being hard to come by, then the monkey with slightly better eyes would aways find just a little more fruit. Over some thousand years, monkeys with better eye sight would always just be a little better well feed, and survine better if something like a illness struck them. They would get slightly more kids due to being in better health, and of those kids would get the traist of the father. Later, the familty of the monkeys with better eyes will have become the largest group, and soon be all of the monkeys.

As you can see, it was the change (lack of fruit) that imposed this whole situation. Along with the better eye sight monkey long ago, there was a monkey with stronger arms than most. So, why didn't he get more kids too? Because, the situatuion of less fruit did not require stronger arms, so, it didn't give him as big advantage as the monkey with good eyes have. Infact, stronger arms even reqired him to eat more since he has a bigger body to feed.

Just like that, viruses won't change unless a situatuion causes it. And you know what? Viruses, as they are today, are pretty successful.

#4. Spontaneous generation has NEVER been observed in the natural world (even when all of the factors that obviously support life are present NOW)-- every living thing has ALWAYS had a parent in the observable world. Nor has science, with all modern technological advancements been able to produce even the SIMPLEST life form (even when the surrounding environment is perfectly suited to support life)-- demonstrating the limitations of 'science'.

Spontaneous generation isn't part of evolution, but abogenis (can't remember spelling). But, I'll answer you. limitations on science? so, you are saying because science can't do it right now, science must be flawed? Science didn't know about how to fly air-planes before either, nor how to land on the moon. But, it has becomes better, and it still is. Or are you suggesting we know everything there is to know right now?

#5. Referencing cosmology, there is the 'Cosmological Constant', it is a fundamental law of the universe, an antigravity force present in space itself that is fine-tuned to 1 part in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion (10 trillions)-(not reasonable to think this is an accident)-- if it were SLIGHTLY different (1 part), we could NOT exist--- that and the fact that EVERY other natural law is 'fine-tuned' such as gravity, thermodynamics, and other factors like the earth's distance from the sun, the properties of all elements, and the enormously intricate workings of EVERYTHING both macroscopic and microscopic and it gets staggeringly complicated on the quantum level, even the 'multiverse' which may theoretically exist would need precise laws to dictate it.

Very flawed argument. If non of the condicions you specified was true, you wouldn't even be here to post this. Think of all the thousands of thousands of planets out there that could have help life, yet they don't. Had we had two planets, you would have been talking about the chance that two planest being perfect for us. Besides,the planet holds a lot of flaws. Very little of our water is dinkable, so, we don't ahve perfect contitions. Just enough to survive and be where we are today.

Actually, the natural world demonstrates the existence of God as clear as day, and if you can't see it, you're blind.

Can you please point out to me why God must be true just because natures shows that evolution isn't true? God is just another theory, and you have to prove it to be true like any other theory.

At 3/23/07 08:46 AM, Drakim wrote: Can you please point out to me why God must be true just because natures shows that evolution isn't true? God is just another theory, and you have to prove it to be true like any other theory.

This is probably gonna be my last post in this topic, seing as though people don't like what I believe and don't care to hear about it. But, since this topic is entirely about belief, and the very basis of belief or faith is that what we believe in doesn't have any proof whatsoever included in the package, then why are you arguing about whether or not evolution, the big bang theories, or God are proven to exist? None of 'em are, you're asking the wrong questions. And bashing each other in the head with them for the wrong reasons.

At 3/23/07 07:35 AM, TheBigPicture wrote: Actually, the natural world demonstrates the existence of God as clear as day, and if you can't see it, you're blind.

Quite frankly it wouldn't be worth taking your post apart since every single one of your arguments bar one relied on the false presumption that an atheistic worldview entails a worldview that everything in the universe is generated by "chance", when in fact evolution driven by natural selection is not a random process; quite the opposite, in fact. Creationists love their strawmen, eh?

The other one of your arguments seemed to be something along the lines of there being no mechanism for speciation. This is also incorrect. Speciation would presumably (term used loosely) just happen as a result of continuous microevolution, which has been directly observed.

At 3/23/07 12:18 PM, Peter-II wrote:

At 3/23/07 07:35 AM, TheBigPicture wrote: Actually, the natural world demonstrates the existence of God as clear as day, and if you can't see it, you're blind.

Quite frankly it wouldn't be worth taking your post apart since every single one of your arguments bar one relied on the false presumption that an atheistic worldview entails a worldview that everything in the universe is generated by "chance", when in fact evolution driven by natural selection is not a random process; quite the opposite, in fact. Creationists love their strawmen, eh?

Great, if evolution, all the precise fundamental laws, and the unfolding universe were not products of chance, please tell me, what great mystical mechanism caused them to be manifested in their exact respective ways?

At 3/23/07 01:08 PM, TheBigPicture wrote: Great, if evolution, all the precise fundamental laws, and the unfolding universe were not products of chance, please tell me, what great mystical mechanism caused them to be manifested in their exact respective ways?

;
WHy does there have to be a 'great mystical mechanism' for any of this?
Isn't it possible that the 'laws' as it were, are determined by the make up of what exists, right from the molecular level.
As for the 'chance' in the 'products of chance' is it not feasable that say evolution is totally at the mercy of cause & effect on the habitat the organisms live in/on. Which in turn can cause a portion of a species affected to adapt/evolve or move away or just die off.
As well with some fundimental laws, like the speed of light & gravity. They are a constant through out the universe that has an effect on everything in the universe.
Perhaps everything just "is" this way in this universe.
That does not mean it could not be something completely different in another universe, if there is in fact another universe.

At 3/23/07 01:08 PM, TheBigPicture wrote:

At 3/23/07 12:18 PM, Peter-II wrote:

At 3/23/07 07:35 AM, TheBigPicture wrote: Actually, the natural world demonstrates the existence of God as clear as day, and if you can't see it, you're blind.

Quite frankly it wouldn't be worth taking your post apart since every single one of your arguments bar one relied on the false presumption that an atheistic worldview entails a worldview that everything in the universe is generated by "chance", when in fact evolution driven by natural selection is not a random process; quite the opposite, in fact. Creationists love their strawmen, eh?

Great, if evolution, all the precise fundamental laws, and the unfolding universe were not products of chance, please tell me, what great mystical mechanism caused them to be manifested in their exact respective ways?

....

Just think about it. Had the fundamental laws of nature been different, you would still be arguing about how they came to be just like THAT. It is like the lottery. Although the chance that THIS particular person won is 1:1000000000, then SOMEBODY still has to win, and that person could ask himself "Was it just random chance that I won?". Since he odds are very small, it might seem strange that it was.

Besides, the question can be turned. Why do we have THIS particular God? Was it just random chance we didn't get an evil one? What great mystical mechanism ensured we got a good God to create our that Christians claim?

At 3/23/07 01:08 PM, TheBigPicture wrote: Great, if evolution, all the precise fundamental laws, and the unfolding universe were not products of chance, please tell me, what great mystical mechanism caused them to be manifested in their exact respective ways?

Clearly the universe is not random, so I fail to see why faith is needed to explain its uniformity. Other than that, however, most of the universe's uniformity can be explained through the four fundamental laws of physics.

In other words, the distribution of stars throughout galaxies is a result of gravitation working between the stars as opposed to a supreme deity holding it together.

At 3/23/07 06:44 PM, Peter-II wrote:

In other words, the distribution of stars throughout galaxies is a result of gravitation working between the stars as opposed to a supreme deity holding it together.

Or the universe was created by a Deity, gravity being apart of the universe, so was created as being apart of it.

At 3/23/07 07:04 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Or the universe was created by a Deity, gravity being apart of the universe, so was created as being apart of it.

And that Deity was created by a gigantic Pink Unicorn.

At 3/23/07 07:08 PM, Togukawa wrote:

And that Deity was created by a gigantic Pink Unicorn.

I love you hypocrites.

Keep going, it's so entertaining.

At 3/23/07 07:12 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/23/07 07:08 PM, Togukawa wrote:

And that Deity was created by a gigantic Pink Unicorn.

I love you hypocrites.

Keep going, it's so entertaining.

Its bad enuf I had to deal with you one my thread, but you had to come here.

At 3/23/07 07:20 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

Its bad enuf I had to deal with you one my thread, but you had to come here.

I wasn't even talking to your stupid ass. Shut up.

At 3/23/07 07:21 PM, Memorize wrote:

I wasn't even talking to your stupid ass. Shut up.

I was here first.

Im not gonna name call back because im "being the bigger man" on this.

At 3/23/07 07:23 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

I was here first.

And yet, I still wasn't talking you.

Fascinating.