Do you believe in God? Simple question

[thesammy]

I think it's kinda hard not to.

There are so many intricate things about the world we live in and the things in it (along with the universe as well) that I think they had to be created by someone.

[bonezMTA]

I think it's kinda hard not to.

There are so many intricate things about the world we live in and the things in it (along with the universe as well) that I think they had to be created by someone.

Finally, someone who has thought about life. i thought i was the only one. everynight i lay in bed with my pitbull and i just thank God for this beautiful world and for a beautiful mom who came from another country to find a better life. She probably isn't living the life she wanted but she is living the life she can have. When you think about life, everything just fits in place and goes together. And i thank "HIM" for that.

[geoff]

hey sammy i see your kinda on the same page as i used to be on. if you have any questions about christianity or about Jesus then i would love to help. pm me any time you wish. God bless you

[BABY J]

^^

Saying that we had to have been created based on the stupifying statistical chance that we evolved the way we did is a simple logical fallacy. You can't look at a chain of events, after that chain of events has occurred, and determine whether or not it was possible based on the statistical probability of repeating it.

As an example, let's say you roll a set of dice 10 times. Your result is 10,2,5,6,6,4,9,11,2,8. You don't question the probability that you just randomly rolled that sequence...because you DID. The only thing you can do is calculate the probability of recreating the result....which, is pretty much statistically impossible.

Logic would dictate that we evolved the way we did because of our environmental conditions, those conditions weren't necessarily created specifically for us to evolve in a specific manner. Who's to say if the earth were 10* colder, we wouldn't simply have evolved with a lower required body temperature?

Use your head "God" (lol) put it up there for a reason.

[bu villain]

^^ you have no idea how many times I've tried explaining that reasoning to people. So many people just don't get it or maybe don't want to.

[ahabion]

^^

Saying that we had to have been created based on the stupifying statistical chance that we evolved the way we did is a simple logical fallacy. You can't look at a chain of events, after that chain of events has occurred, and determine whether or not it was possible based on the statistical probability of repeating it.

As an example, let's say you roll a set of dice 10 times. Your result is 10,2,5,6,6,4,9,11,2,8. You don't question the probability that you just randomly rolled that sequence...because you DID. The only thing you can do is calculate the probability of recreating the result....which, is pretty much statistically impossible.

Logic would dictate that we evolved the way we did because of our environmental conditions, those conditions weren't necessarily created specifically for us to evolve in a specific manner. Who's to say if the earth were 10* colder, we wouldn't simply have evolved with a lower required body temperature?

Use your head "God" (lol) put it up there for a reason.

So the probabilty is against us... hrm... so why do people play the lottery? Because logic would dictate that the odds of winning is "impossible" as you put it but yet... we all know people win all the time. Just because the numbers don't quite "add up" does not mean it is statistically impossible. There is always that nth of a chance that you could win... and if you win, you win big.

[BABY J]

So the probabilty is against us... hrm... so why do people play the lottery? Because logic would dictate that the odds of winning is "impossible" as you put it but yet... we all know people win all the time. Just because the numbers don't quite "add up" does not mean it is statistically impossible. There is always that nth of a chance that you could win... and if you win, you win big.

That was my point - LOL

[geoff]

adaptation is what your describing baby j. the odds of the world and every creature being the way they are with intracate systems is like a 1:10000000000000000000 chance. the odds of God creating everything the way it is 1:2 hmmmmmmmmmmm and we as believers have no logic?

[quickdodge®]

adaptation is what your describing baby j. the odds of the world and every creature being the way they are with intracate systems is like a 1:10000000000000000000 chance. the odds of God creating everything the way it is 1:2 hmmmmmmmmmmm and we as believers have no logic?

Who are you to determine what the odds are? A bookie of life? And it's funny how you put your FAITH into a better odds on situation there. What are the odds that God doesn't even exist? You won't answer that realistically because your FAITH won't let you. Not because you don't really know. Later, QD.

[BABY J]

That statement proves that you don't know what the fuck I just said - LOL.

[geoff]

make some sense bro lol.

[Starrfire]

^^^making sense to you would be some strange sick twist of my logic. To tell someone that thinks differently that their logic is wrong based upon a book you read with no outside proof would be nuts right...just like scientologists. Now they are nuts, but at least they don't kill people.

[TheChosenOne]

It said I already voted, but just in case you didnt get my tally, I'm on the non-believers side.

[geoff]

the odds that my God dont exist is 1:2, either He does or He doesnt. my faith leads me to believe that He does exist. what are the odds that everything we see here is chance? i believe its alot more

[EJ25RUN]

the odds that my God dont exist is 1:2, either He does or He doesnt. my faith leads me to believe that He does exist. what are the odds that everything we see here is chance? i believe its alot more

With your logic, i guess there is a 1:2 chance i am your god.

Either i am, or I'm not.


Good logic.

[bu villain]

adaptation is what your describing baby j. the odds of the world and every creature being the way they are with intracate systems is like a 1:10000000000000000000 chance. the odds of God creating everything the way it is 1:2 hmmmmmmmmmmm and we as believers have no logic?

I really hope this is a joke.

With your logic, i guess there is a 1:2 chance i am your god.

Either i am, or I'm not.


Good logic.

News flash!!! All Yes or No questions are now equally likely to be yes or no. Am I hungry? I dunno, I guess I could flip a coin and find out.

[quickdodge®]

what are the odds that everything we see here is chance? i believe its alot more

Key word in bold. As usual, nothing factual or substantial. And in that case, since there is no final proof that God did this or that it just happened another way...

...the odds are pretty much even. Not greater for God or greater for natural. Later, QD.

[BABY J]

LOL @ Geoff. He's like a mascot - I like him. Seems to be a nice enough guy - lol.

[geoff]

thanks baby j. just trying to point out that the notion of God is no more ridiculous than believing everything was by chance

[bu villain]

Just to let you know Geoff, most atheists don't believe things just happened by chance. It seems you are misinformed about what atheism entails. Atheism is not a religion so it doesn't answer any questions other than "Is there a God?". It doesn't say how the universe was created, how people should live their lives, or anything of that sort.

[geoff]

i fully understand that. but many atheists accept the notion of evolution or the big bang or any of these other theories that never explain the beggining.

[StreetHazard]

i fully understand that. but many atheists accept the notion of evolution or the big bang or any of these other theories that never explain the beggining.

Christianity certainly does not, it's notions of reality are so absurd they are not worth repeating. The big bang theory is the best guess we have so far that utilize objective reasoning and the scientific method and every meter or benchmark we have available that detects "bullshit" to have a better understanding of our world and universe. you don't have to accept it, but it is humanities "best guess" so far. Obviously we have observatories on this planet and in outer space, and facilities like CERN that make it their job and dedicate their lives to answer these questions, and offer things like "evidence" and "facts" to support their claims.

The men and women that engage in these sciences are heroes to us all, and their work should never be ignored. The individuals and groups that do are attempting to drag humanity back into the dark ages.

[bu villain]

^ exactly. People didn't just come up with the big bang because it sounded cool. They started off with evidence. Over time more evidence was discovered and the theory was changed to be consistant with that evidence. No one says the big bang is an absolute fact but there is a great amount of evidence for it. If someday we find evidence that is contradictory to the current theory, the theory will be changed or abandoned.

Some people say there is lots of evidence for God but atheist simply don't interpret that data in the same way. I would be very interested if anyone could give evidence for a single God as apposed to multiple Gods. (No the bible isn't considered evidence to us nonbelievers)

[Starrfire]

Evolution is true and happens every day. The big bang theory is a bit way too far out there for me. Its just stupid to think all matter was condensed within the area of a pin point. Just as far fetched as religion to me. Truth is no one knows and that is the way I like it.

[ahabion]

Evolution is true and happens every day...

False! Even by scientific standards. Evolution is theory, accepted as factual based on the empirical evidence found in biological studies.

As someone else put it on this forum, evolution is ever evolving. So to say evolution is true is actually a misnomer. Evolution is only as good as it is today until something better comes around to change the theory or to disprove it. So it is never actually true per se, because the moment something comes along that adds or takes away information, what use to be true today is no longer true tomorrow... it is now false and the new finds, data, and scientific information is thus the new accepted theory.

[geoff]

so starfire some sort of life after death doesnt matter to you?

[Starrfire]

so starfire some sort of life after death doesnt matter to you?

We'll see when I get there. There is no sense arguing about it since I don't believe in the current belief systems set in place. If there is some creator of sorts, maybe it will find that I lived a good one, or maybe not, maybe it will condemn me. Maybe there is nothing.

I'll see the way everyone else will.

[StreetHazard]

Evolution is as much a "theory" as gravity is. The law of gravity is the scientific fact that bodies of mass attract each other. But there are different theories of gravity that attempt to explain how bodies of mass are attracted to each other.

In this way, gravity is also both a scientific fact and a scientific theory. Evolution is also considered as such.

Creationism is NOT a "fact" as it's claims cannot be verified by the scientific method. Evolution AND Gravity have been tested tried and true against this method. In various forms, and in every way it can. I really do not understand how this is up for debate. The debate [among scientists] centers only on the finer details of how it took place.

[ahabion]

Evolution is as much a "theory" as gravity is. The law of gravity is the scientific fact that bodies of mass attract each other. But there are different theories of gravity that attempt to explain how bodies of mass are attracted to each other.

In this way, gravity is also both a scientific fact and a scientific theory. Evolution is also considered as such.

Creationism is NOT a "fact" as it's claims cannot be verified by the scientific method. Evolution AND Gravity have been tested tried and true against this method. In various forms, and in every way it can. I really do not understand how this is up for debate. The debate [among scientists] centers only on the finer details of how it took place.

You're comparing evolution (which is as much as a belief as any religion) and that of gravity? How absurd! That is like saying that there is a theory of oxygen in the air... *deep breath in* "Yea, I just don't know if there is oxygen in this air..."

That was my point - LOL

Hrm... that does sound a lot like evolution doesn't it... I'd say you just made an observation of your own evidence... and the FACTS are statistically impossible.

[StreetHazard]

You're comparing evolution (which is as much as a belief as any religion) and that of gravity? How absurd! That is like saying that there is a theory of oxygen in the air... *deep breath in* "Yea, I just don't know if there is oxygen in this air..."

The "fact of evolution" refers to the changes in the genetic material of a population of organisms over time, which are known to have occurred through scientific observations and experiments. The "theory of evolution" refers to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation of how these changes occur.

Misuse and misunderstanding of these terms have been used to construct arguments disputing the validity of the theory of evolution. The fact of evolution is beyond dispute....again. I am not sure how else to explain this to you. Go to any real school that does not teach theology as a core curriculum might be a suggestion. The FACT that you do not know this is very sad to me, it means you were not taught basic biology. Evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms through successive generations and can be verified through genes and traits. Early rudimentary experiments involved the English moth, and can be proven in plant life as well (like in high school lab....). Evolution was proven to be a fact even before Darwin, because without that FACT he would have never been able to write the Origin the Species and tie it together with natural selection. The term evolution is thrown around quite commonly right next to another basic phenomena of biology called "adaptation".

What you are arguing is modern evolutionary synthesis....NOT evolution, but if you do not even understand the basic terminology OR the definitions. I am not sure how you can argue either one.

And this would be be more absurd than what? the story of Genesis? Even if evolutionary synthesis is completely off-base, and research in other areas shows that the theory could never happen, it would still be more plausible than genesis. The ENTIRE book of Genesis is a relic from a forgotten time, it is simply no longer relevant. It's version of the creation of the known universe is a fantasy, and you cannot honestly expect anyone to accept it as truth. Science and education have put these silly notions to rest, it is just about time for the rest of the world to catch up.

[ahabion]

The "fact of evolution" refers to the changes in the genetic material of a population of organisms over time, which are known to have occurred through scientific observations and experiments. The "theory of evolution" refers to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation of how these changes occur.

Misuse and misunderstanding of these terms have been used to construct arguments disputing the validity of the theory of evolution. The fact of evolution is beyond dispute....again. I am not sure how else to explain this to you. Go to any real school that does not teach theology as a core curriculum might be a suggestion. The FACT that you do not know this is very sad to me, it means you were not taught basic biology. Evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms through successive generations and can be verified through genes and traits. Early rudimentary experiments involved the English moth, and can be proven in plant life as well (like in high school lab....). Evolution was proven to be a fact even before Darwin, because without that FACT he would have never been able to write the Origin the Species and tie it together with natural selection. The term evolution is thrown around quite commonly right next to another basic phenomena of biology called "adaptation".

What you are arguing is modern evolutionary synthesis....NOT evolution, but if you do not even understand the basic terminology OR the definitions. I am not sure how you can argue either one.

It is comedic that your assumption of what I know and don't know and then insulting my intelligence is your best representation of what evolution has to offer. It is also amusing that you speak of evolution like geoff speaks of his religion. Comparing the both of you can be seen as completely opposite poles of the same stick; both trying be the one who will be right and screaming, "Look at my evidence!"

Any real school? I don't know about you, but all my science classes were mandatory... and you can have science and education as your foundation in life... good for you. It really is a good starting point in living life... but I'll take wisdom and insight over science and education any day and in any lifetime.

And this would be be more absurd than what? the story of Genesis? Even if evolutionary synthesis is completely off-base, and research in other areas shows that the theory could never happen, it would still be more plausible than genesis. The ENTIRE book of Genesis is a relic from a forgotten time, it is simply no longer relevant. It's version of the creation of the known universe is a fantasy, and you cannot honestly expect anyone to accept it as truth. Science and education have put these silly notions to rest, it is just about time for the rest of the world to catch up.

Sure if you want to think of it that way but you don't seem quite so absolutely sure in your belief in evolution anymore... still be more plausible... basically what you're saying is... it would make more sense... So even if evolution was completely wrong... you would still believe in evolution because... it would just make more sense... hrm.. intersting observation.

[StreetHazard]

^ and hope that it will not be filled with evangelicals and born again chistians, because a terrible, endlessly boring place like that would fit my concept of hell.

[Starrfire]

^ and hope that it will not be filled with evangelicals and born again chistians, because a terrible, endlessly boring place like that would fit my concept of hell.

LOL that would suck. Eternity with all the boring people.

[StreetHazard]

Again for the 3rd time....for you and everyone else on this board, Christians, Satanists, Muslims, Atheists, Buddhists, Agnostics and everything in between alike. the term "Evolution" is not the same as "Evolutionary Synthesis" coined by the man Julian Huxley in his book (Evolution: The Modern Synthesis). For the avoidance of confusion and for the sake of any arguments on this page or any other conversation elsewhere. The scientific explanation of "how" life evolved on this planet should be termed as such. It has been (shortened) to just "Evolution" due to the idea's (and title) put forth in Julian Huxley's book, but they are not the same.

Yes I accept Evolutionary Synthesis as the most plausible explanation on "how" life evolved on this planet (so far) in the same way every rational human being has, and "working" biologists have as well according to the National Academy of Science. I would take their opinion over yours regarding these matters, whose members serve pro bono as advisers to the nation on science, engineering, and medicine. I will quote a chapter conclusion in that press release here.

"Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge."

There will never be wisdom or knowledge in the unknowable. Science does not hinge around belief, it does not even fit a definition of philosophy, it's pursuits are finding truth which shapes our perception of reality.

Exactly what wisdom and insight have you learned (besides what I have just taught you), when pursuing these outdated texts from an ancient culture that was originally written in a language you most likely do not understand? And what makes you think the religion you follow is the sole means to attain it? Humans do gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience (forgive my political correctness), and I will concede there is certainly some wisdom to impart from the teachings of the character Jesus Christ...If he even existed at all. His birth as depicted is an impossibility, his life undocumented as well as his death outside of the new testament, a cowardly suicide with dreams of martyrdom and an unknowable payoff in the afterlife as much as any Islamic extremist. But his teachings are commendable in his humanitarian efforts. But it's just a shame his imagined father is such a fucking asshole.


If you want to argue with someone about evolution or evolutionary synthesis , don't argue with me...argue with the scientists that reviewed and agreed with it's conclusions.




John Baldeschwieler

J. Stanley Johnson

Professor and Professor of Chemistry

Division of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering

California Institute of Technology

Pasadena, California

John E. Dowling

Maria Moors

Cabot Professor of Natural Science

The Biological Laboratories

Harvard University

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Marye Anne Fox

Chancellor

North Carolina State University

Raleigh, North Carolina

Wilford Gardner

Dean Emeritus

College of Natural Resources

University of California at Berkeley

Berkeley, California

Timothy Goldsmith

Professor of Biology

Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology

Yale University

New Haven, Connecticut

Avram Goldstein

Professor of Pharmacology, Emeritus

Stanford University

Stanford, California

Ursula Goodenough

Professor Department of Biology

Washington University

Saint Louis, Missouri

Robert Griffiths

Professor of Physics Carnegie

Mellon University

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Norman Horowitz

Professor Emeritus

Division of Biology

California Institute of Technology

Pasadena, California

Susan Kidwell

Professor

Department of Geophysical Sciences

University of Chicago

Chicago, Illinois

David Pilbeam

Henry Ford II

Professor of Social Sciences

Peabody Museum

Harvard University

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Luis Sequeira

J.C. Walker Professor Emeritus

Department of Plant Pathology

University of Wisconsin

Madison, Wisconsin

Phillip Tobias

Professor Emeritus

Department of Anatomical Sciences

University of Witwatersrand

Medical School

Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa

And other anonymous reviews.

While the individuals listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, responsibility for the final content of this report rests solely with the authoring committee and the National Academy of Sciences.


Council of the National Academy of Sciences

Bruce Alberts

President

National Academy of Sciences

Washington, DC

Mary Ellen Avery

Professor of Pediatrics

Harvard Medical School

Boston, Massachusetts

Lewis M. Branscomb

Professor Emeritus

John E Kennedy School of Government

Harvard University

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Ralph J. Cicerone

Chancellor

University of California, Irvine

Irvine, California

Marye Anne Fox

Chancellor

North Carolina State University

Raleigh, North Carolina

Ralph E. Gomory

President

Alfred P. Sloan

Foundation

New York, New York

Ronald L. Graham

Chief Scientist

AT&T Labs

Florham Park, New Jersey

Jack Halpern

Louis Block Distinguished Professor Emeritus

Department of Chemistry

The University of Chicago

Chicago, Illinois

David M. Kipnis

Distinguished University Professor

Washington University School of Medicine

Saint Louis, Missouri

Daniel E. Koshland Jr.

Professor in the Graduate School

Department of Molecular and Cellular

Biology University of California, Berkeley

Berkeley, California

Peter Raven

Director

Missouri Botanical Garden

Saint Louis, Missouri

Sherwood E Rowland

Donald Bren Research Professor of Chemistry and Earth System Science

Department of Chemistry

University of California, Irvine

Irvine, California

William J. Rutter

Chairman

Chiron Corporation

Emeryville, California

Luis Sequeira

J.C. Walker Professor Emeritus

Department of Plant Pathology

University of Wisconsin

Madison, Wisconsin

Carla J. Shatz

Investigator

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

Professor

Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology

University of California, Berkeley

Berkeley, California

Jean D. Wilson

Charles Cameron Sprague Distinguished

Chair in Biomedical Science

University of Texas Southwestern

Medical Center

Dallas, Texas

Robert H. Wurtz

Chief

Laboratory of Sensorimotor Research

National Institutes of Health

Bethesda, Maryland

[ahabion]

Again for the 3rd time....for you and everyone else on this board, Christians, Satanists, Muslims, Atheists, Buddhists, Agnostics and everything in between alike. the term "Evolution" is not the same as "Evolutionary Synthesis" coined by the man Julian Huxley in his book (Evolution: The Modern Synthesis). For the avoidance of confusion and for the sake of any arguments on this page or any other conversation elsewhere. The scientific explanation of "how" life evolved on this planet should be termed as such. It has been (shortened) to just "Evolution" due to the idea's (and title) put forth in Julian Huxley's book, but they are not the same.

Yes I accept Evolutionary Synthesis as the most plausible explanation on "how" life evolved on this planet (so far) in the same way every rational human being has, and "working" biologists have as well according to the National Academy of Science. I would take their opinion over yours regarding these matters, whose members serve pro bono as advisers to the nation on science, engineering, and medicine. I will quote a chapter conclusion in that press release here.

"Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge."




If you want to argue with someone about evolution or evolutionary synthesis , don't argue with me...argue with the scientists that reviewed and agreed with it's conclusions.




John Baldeschwieler

J. Stanley Johnson

Professor and Professor of Chemistry

Division of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering

California Institute of Technology

Pasadena, California

John E. Dowling

Maria Moors

Cabot Professor of Natural Science

The Biological Laboratories

Harvard University

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Marye Anne Fox

Chancellor

North Carolina State University

Raleigh, North Carolina

Wilford Gardner

Dean Emeritus

College of Natural Resources

University of California at Berkeley

Berkeley, California

Timothy Goldsmith

Professor of Biology

Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology

Yale University

New Haven, Connecticut

Avram Goldstein

Professor of Pharmacology, Emeritus

Stanford University

Stanford, California

Ursula Goodenough

Professor Department of Biology

Washington University

Saint Louis, Missouri

Robert Griffiths

Professor of Physics Carnegie

Mellon University

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Norman Horowitz

Professor Emeritus

Division of Biology

California Institute of Technology

Pasadena, California

Susan Kidwell

Professor

Department of Geophysical Sciences

University of Chicago

Chicago, Illinois

David Pilbeam

Henry Ford II

Professor of Social Sciences

Peabody Museum

Harvard University

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Luis Sequeira

J.C. Walker Professor Emeritus

Department of Plant Pathology

University of Wisconsin

Madison, Wisconsin

Phillip Tobias

Professor Emeritus

Department of Anatomical Sciences

University of Witwatersrand

Medical School

Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa

And other anonymous reviews.

While the individuals listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, responsibility for the final content of this report rests solely with the authoring committee and the National Academy of Sciences.


Council of the National Academy of Sciences

Bruce Alberts

President

National Academy of Sciences

Washington, DC

Mary Ellen Avery

Professor of Pediatrics

Harvard Medical School

Boston, Massachusetts

Lewis M. Branscomb

Professor Emeritus

John E Kennedy School of Government

Harvard University

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Ralph J. Cicerone

Chancellor

University of California, Irvine

Irvine, California

Marye Anne Fox

Chancellor

North Carolina State University

Raleigh, North Carolina

Ralph E. Gomory

President

Alfred P. Sloan

Foundation

New York, New York

Ronald L. Graham

Chief Scientist

AT&T Labs

Florham Park, New Jersey

Jack Halpern

Louis Block Distinguished Professor Emeritus

Department of Chemistry

The University of Chicago

Chicago, Illinois

David M. Kipnis

Distinguished University Professor

Washington University School of Medicine

Saint Louis, Missouri

Daniel E. Koshland Jr.

Professor in the Graduate School

Department of Molecular and Cellular

Biology University of California, Berkeley

Berkeley, California

Peter Raven

Director

Missouri Botanical Garden

Saint Louis, Missouri

Sherwood E Rowland

Donald Bren Research Professor of Chemistry and Earth System Science

Department of Chemistry

University of California, Irvine

Irvine, California

William J. Rutter

Chairman

Chiron Corporation

Emeryville, California

Luis Sequeira

J.C. Walker Professor Emeritus

Department of Plant Pathology

University of Wisconsin

Madison, Wisconsin

Carla J. Shatz

Investigator

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

Professor

Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology

University of California, Berkeley

Berkeley, California

Jean D. Wilson

Charles Cameron Sprague Distinguished

Chair in Biomedical Science

University of Texas Southwestern

Medical Center

Dallas, Texas

Robert H. Wurtz

Chief

Laboratory of Sensorimotor Research

National Institutes of Health

Bethesda, Maryland

Nice Copy/Paste, I'm glad you're free thinking mind has lead you to read and believe in the things written by man.

And yes, I'll make the generalization of evolution because you've already summed it up oh so nicely. Much like Christianity or any other denomination is termed religion for short, to include all generalization.

And yes you're exactly right... intelligent design and creationism isn't science. This isn't an argument that it is otherwise. I am a believer in science and scientific discovery. The argument at it's core is the belief of evolution. Evolution takes as many leaps and bounds to believe as does any religion... or if you want to compare apples to apples.... evolution to global warming. Even the scientific community can't come to grips with the "evidence" that is so "conclusive" but yet many believe it and that thinking has pushed thru the populace that Earth is warming and we're all going to die in 7 years if we don't minimize our carbon footprint. Speaking on those same terms, there are many more scientist and many biologist for that matter who believe in a religion of some sorts.

To emphasize the bold above... basically stating and further verifying a previous post: Science can never be REAL truth because what is true today may be tomorrow's false... and today's false may be tomorrow's truth. OR to put it in movie terms "...there is no spoon..." -kid in The Matrix- (I swear that movie is a perfect analogy of what we Christians term: faith)

There will never be wisdom or knowledge in the unknowable. Science does not hinge around belief, it does not even fit a definition of philosophy, it's pursuits are finding truth which shapes our perception of reality.

Exactly what wisdom and insight have you learned (besides what I have just taught you), when pursuing these outdated texts from an ancient culture that was originally written in a language you most likely do not understand? And what makes you think the religion you follow is the sole means to attain it? Humans do gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience (forgive my political correctness), and I will concede there is certainly some wisdom to impart from the teachings of the character Jesus Christ...If he even existed at all. His birth as depicted is an impossibility, his life undocumented as well as his death outside of the new testament, a cowardly suicide with dreams of martyrdom and an unknowable payoff in the afterlife as much as any Islamic extremist. But his teachings are commendable in his humanitarian efforts. But it's just a shame his imagined father is such a fucking asshole.

heh, the Bible is full of wisdom and insight. If you've read it, you'd discover it yourself. Especially if you read it with the intent of learning instead of trying to find the so called "flaws" that you've lead yourself to believe in. I read a biology book with the intent on learning and discovering something new I didn't know before... though I know it'd be twisting and arm and a leg to have you even pick up a Bible. And you're right, there are plenty of other places that you can experience wisdom and insight... but none like an all-knowing God has to offer.

But hey, not trying to be all spiritual and stuff... I figure based on your post, you're tired of defending evolution. It's ok. Here's to you Sir!

[BABY J]

heh, the Bible is full of wisdom and insight. If you've read it, you'd discover it yourself. Especially if you read it with the intent of learning instead of trying to find the so called "flaws" that you've lead yourself to believe in. I read a biology book with the intent on learning and discovering something new I didn't know before... though I know it'd be twisting and arm and a leg to have you even pick up a Bible. And you're right, there are plenty of other places that you can experience wisdom and insight... but none like an all-knowing God has to offer.

Some1 with a true desire for searching for truth or anything close to it will not approach the bible w/ the INTENT of learning anything. They will approach it with an arbitrary eye. You seem to be fairly intelligent on most days and I'm sure you'd agree.

If I were a Christian I'd LOVE for people to challenge it b/c if it rang true it'd only prove my view to be sound when they reached the same conclusion that I had reached. Asking questions means I am learning something - the people that followed Mr. Jones didn't ask enuff questions - neither did the people that followed Mr. Koresh and they paid with their lives.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence --- Christians have never been able to produce evidence or anything that resembles evidence. Jesus was no more important than any other common hero of humanity (i.e Martin Luther King, FDR, Ghandi, etc). There are ZERO 1st hand accounts of him rising from that grave --- and if there are, well... people still see Elvis too. LOL

[ahabion]

Some1 with a true desire for searching for truth or anything close to it will not approach the bible w/ the INTENT of learning anything. They will approach it with an arbitrary eye. You seem to be fairly intelligent on most days and I'm sure you'd agree.

If I were a Christian I'd LOVE for people to challenge it b/c if it rang true it'd only prove my view to be sound when they reached the same conclusion that I had reached. Asking questions means I am learning something - the people that followed Mr. Jones didn't ask enuff questions - neither did the people that followed Mr. Koresh and they paid with their lives.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence --- Christians have never been able to produce evidence or anything that resembles evidence. Jesus was no more important than any other common hero of humanity (i.e Martin Luther King, FDR, Ghandi, etc). There are ZERO 1st hand accounts of him rising from that grave --- and if there are, well... people still see Elvis too. LOL

It is already hard enough for many who call themselves Christians to even believe what they believe to be correct and absolute. Even if they thought it, do they live it, is the big question. Where Christians fail (as a people) and where the rest of society see them is that they're seen as being one of the same crowd and doing the same things everyone else does but "preach" a different thing. So they challenge the status quo never realizing that they only challenge themselves in front of the status quo. So to prove that they're right (to address the bold) only allows them to validate and vindicate themselves. Ask the tough questions and wrestle down truth.

And you are right that great claims require great evidence. Archeology provides sound evidence for events within the Bible and the same can be said of evolution as well... discover truth.

[geoff]

buvillian- there is no scientific proof or fact that there is one God or any God. there are theories though of why there would only be one creative being or entity that would be known as God. if your interested i could elaborate on the theory, since there is no tangible proof of a creator.

i find it interesting to say the least that you streethazard put a list about as long as my forearm of names that support or argue the THEORY of evolutionary synthesis. 50 years ago that list would of been full of different names supporting a different THEORY of evolution. as far as that goes my point is this, ANY form of evolution is still just a THEORY NOT FACT and along with what ahabion is saying will always change or be tweeked to match what new finds are made.

definition of SCIENTIFIC FACT: any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted

Example: The structure of a cell membrane is considered a scientific fact.

so in that sense the idea of ANY form of evolution is not scientific fact but theory because it will always be refuted due to a new observation or finding. so in all reality your accepted theories of the big bang and evolution are no more factual or truth than my own accepted theory of God. your trust and faith is in men that dedicate their lives to science whereas my faith and trust is in Jesus, His apostles, and my bible.

[StreetHazard]

buvillian- there is no scientific proof or fact that there is one God or any God. there are theories though of why there would only be one creative being or entity that would be known as God. if your interested i could elaborate on the theory, since there is no tangible proof of a creator.

i find it interesting to say the least that you streethazard put a list about as long as my forearm of names that support or argue the THEORY of evolutionary synthesis. 50 years ago that list would of been full of different names supporting a different THEORY of evolution. as far as that goes my point is this, ANY form of evolution is still just a THEORY NOT FACT and along with what ahabion is saying will always change or be tweeked to match what new finds are made.

definition of SCIENTIFIC FACT: any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted

Example: The structure of a cell membrane is considered a scientific fact.

so in that sense the idea of ANY form of evolution is not scientific fact but theory because it will always be refuted due to a new observation or finding. so in all reality your accepted theories of the big bang and evolution are no more factual or truth than my own accepted theory of God. your trust and faith is in men that dedicate their lives to science whereas my faith and trust is in Jesus, His apostles, and my bible.

Can you prove your theory of god in a court of law or utilizing the scientific method? I am sure the world would like to read it, and myself included, preferably written in "layman's terms" so to speak to avoid confusion.

again...for the 2nd time, you are almost as bad as (Ahabion)

I will quote a chapter conclusion in that press release here.

"Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge."

If the National Academy of Science found your data to be factually TRUE then they would have to revise their stance and theory, so far this has not happened. But I would very much like to see your theory and if you feel that it is iron clad you can email or call this man.

Jay Labov
Senior Advisor for Education and Communications
The National Academies

202-334-1458

[email protected]


Please do not disappoint me Geoff, here is your chance to shine and show the world the glory of God and prove that (it) is the sole mover of the universe. It would be so cool to be one of the 1st people to see it publicly!

[bu villain]

buvillian- there is no scientific proof or fact that there is one God or any God. there are theories though of why there would only be one creative being or entity that would be known as God. if your interested i could elaborate on the theory, since there is no tangible proof of a creator.

Not necessary, I completely agree with this. You just summed up why I am an atheist. In reality, atheists don't believe "it's impossible for a God to exist", we believe "there is not enough convincing evidence for a God so until there is, we see no reason to believe God exists."