Does God exist? (14 Viewers)

[darkliight]

Well, they try the opposite .. Hilter was/wasn't a christian!! Just as pointless imo.

 

[BradCube]

I personally am an atheist. I find it hard to believe in God when there are so many scientific arguments disputing his existence.

Could you share some of these arguments? I am yet to find an argument which positively affirms Gods non-existence. Certainly there are arguments about Gods character, but an argument which totally disputes Gods existence all together?

And to all of those who say that you should believe in God because there is a Heaven, and God will not be pleased when you do not believe, if there is a Heaven, I don't think I would like to worship a God who sends you to eternal damnation simply because you had a different faith or none at all.

This actually sums up some of my most recent thinking on this matter regarding a just/fair God and the damnation of the unsaved.

If God created some to be saved and love him, but created some to be damned and hate him then heaven and hell are both equally perfect places for these people. Not because the damned should be punished and the saved should be rewarded, but rather because the people in hell will be more happy in hell and vice' versa. I cannot imagine a person who has hated God and wanted nothing to do with His possibility to suddenly fall in love with him and want to be with him for the rest of eternity the instant they die. Coupled with my belief in the lack of free will, this is my current best compromise to reconcile a loving God with damnation of the unsaved.

 

[RohanZ]

STEPHEn

Colbert

that man is a fucking king among men.
don't watch his show often, but from what i've seen, it's bloody hilarious.

 

[Stevo.]

apology accepted.

Captain Needa.

 

[*TRUE*]

True, I would be more than happy if you did just one thing:

When somebody mentions something scientific which you feel goes against God's teachings, don't automatically dismiss it. Keep an open mind, do some research if you want, but don't come to a firm conclusion unless it conflicts with your FAITH in God (not in claims of what God does or how he did it).

For example: the theory of evolution has caused man to elevate his knowledge of medicine beyond anything we had before. Now whether or not you believe in evolution, the immense good medicine does for this world, and the improved living conditions it has provided (by things as simple as antibiotics), are far more in accord with your knowledge of God than in conflict, so it would make sense to assume for now that evolution may not be wrong, or at the very least, opposing it is opposing further advances in medicine; something which would prevent more good being fostered - which it's unlikely God would support. Could opposing evolution be akin to opposing God? Neither you or I could say for sure, but it would certainly seem like a logical conclusion.

Note we have said nothing about the validity or correctness of evolutionary theory, merely noted that opposing it would remove good from the world, which is extremely close to fostering evil.

intelligent post.
Im not disputing u here , but can u explain how you think evolutionary theory has helped further medicine? I'm interested.

 

[darkliight]

One of about 783,000 links when I typed "evolutionary theory medicine" into google: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_01

 

[HalcyonSky]

intelligent post.
Im not disputing u here , but can u explain how you think evolutionary theory has helped further medicine? I'm interested.

G

E

N

E

T

I

C

S

 

[HalcyonSky]

google "evolutionary theory genetics"? its really not that hard to find about things yourself

she has absolutely no understand of science nor any compulsion to research anything herself, just let her naively question every fact put forward.

it's funny, most of the atheists / agnostics on here have researched a fair bit into christianity, yet most of the christians are oblivious to any scientific theories. We're still the 'closed minded' ones, though.

 

[BradCube]

Go easy lads. I often find that even after I research something I will still bring it up here as its usually far easier to understand coming from the mouths of similarly aged people. As well as that, it's also good for discussion to have people outlining their knowledge and beliefs rather than just saying "go away and find out by yourself".

Having said all of this, a quick wikipedia search never goes astray and will generally find you an easy to read version of almost anything

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_medicine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_...upport_for_evolution_in_medicine_and_industry

 

[Sammy-Blue]

Go easy lads. I often find that even after I research something I will still bring it up here as its usually far easier to understand coming from the mouths of similarly aged people. As well as that, it's also good for discussion to have people outlining their knowledge and beliefs rather than just saying "go away and find out by yourself".

Having said all of this, a quick wikipedia search never goes astray and will generally find you an easy to read version of almost anything

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_medicine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Support_for_evolution_in_medicine_and_industry

Citing wikipedia is on the same level as saying "go away and find out by yourself", lol.

 

[BradCube]

Citing wikipedia is on the same level as saying "go away and find out by yourself", lol.

Ha ha,

Quite possibley, but it will at least give you a bit of an overview of what the topic is about and allow you to continue in discussion with a bit more understanding.

 

[HalcyonSky]

brad are ur still christian?

your the only one i liek

 

[BradCube]

brad are ur still christian?

your the only one i liek

Ha, yeah, I am still a christian although my views are very different to what they used to be. Good to hear that I have a friend though

To be honest, I thought you hated me...

 

[BradCube]

needs more posts...

Indeed, so I will bring something up we discussed a long time ago - The Cambrian Explosion.

When we originally looked at the issue, I was questioning how it was possible for such a large "explosion" of various lifeforms to evolve so rapidly. From memory the conclusion we both came to was that since skeletal structures weren't around before this period, evidence of changes through evolution were lost. Hence there were changes but these weren't able to be shown until a more resilient structure (ie skeleton) was fossilized. In short, there was no change in the rate of evolution, just a distortion in the evidence of it.

I have a problem with this theory however (one that I read only a few weeks after the discussion). It seems odd that organisms that were that were relatively "soft" (without such complex structures) were found both before and during the Cambrian period, yet none of these transitional creatures have been. With this in mind, how do we explain this sudden explosion in life forms?

Here, is a link to many current theories surrounding the problem (courtesy of wikipedia )

 

[Slidey]

It's more that it wasn't 'sudden' at all; the Cambrian explosion happened over millions of years. It's just that sudden (again, only relative to the entire time-frame of life) changes in environment drastically altered selective pressures in some niches, allowing evolution to act more powerfully for a short period of time (relatively).

Edit: upon reading your post I guess that's what you're trying to say. It might not even need an explanation: nobody knows how long it takes for multicellular organisms to diversify once they've formed, in fact 70 million years seems like an unsurprising number.

 

[darkliight]

It seems odd that organisms that were that were relatively "soft" (without such complex structures) were found both before and during the Cambrian period

First, can we be clear about what your problem is? Why is it odd that we found some "soft" creatures before and during the event?

yet none of these transitional creatures have been.

Can we have a reference or something that says this is true?

Ignoring for a second your lack of definition for "transitional creatures" (what exactly do you want?), I find myself asking, how do we know we haven't found any? It's clear that bone density/structure changes must have been gradual, so at what point do they become succeptible to 'usual' fossilisation? Suppose we found a creature whose skeleton was close to this limit, then we found an ancestor of it also fosilised - the fosilisation was likely very different to accomodate the "soft" creatures lack of skeleton. Could we ever really determine to any reasonable degree of accuracy how closely these creatures were related, given such different types of fosilisation?

 

[BradCube]

It's more that it wasn't 'sudden' at all; the Cambrian explosion happened over millions of years. It's just that sudden (again, only relative to the entire time-frame of life) changes in environment drastically altered selective pressures in some niches, allowing evolution to act more powerfully for a short period of time (relatively).

Edit: upon reading your post I guess that's what you're trying to say. It might not even need an explanation: nobody knows how long it takes for multicellular organisms to diversify once they've formed, in fact 70 million years seems like an unsurprising number.

Well, yes, certainly by sudden I don't mean within a few seconds or even days. In comparsion to time up until that point and life past that point though, I would still stick by "sudden".

Which environmental factors do you believe had this impact, and what caused those factors to arise as quickly as they did?

 

[Slidey]

Which environmental factors do you believe had this impact, and what caused those factors to arise as quickly as they did?

I don't really consider it was environmental factors so much as the rapid blooming of life once certain pre-requisite structures had formed. Exponential growth (or rather logistic growth) is not an uncommon phenomenon in biology; in fact it's one of the cornerstones, and it's interesting that it WAS logistic rather than exponential.

Edit: Let it be known that I usually don't subscribe to any one idea about biology (or anything) entirely. I'm a strong believer in equilibriums; that many competing variables and functions are operating at once, and that only by considering all parts at once can you understand the whole. This is why I highly recommend any books on complexity theory, especially Frontiers of Complexity, as it covers these issues in a thoroughly engaging and logical format. Considerations like this, whilst more like the real-world itself, also produce results which often eliminate the flaws of models that consider only the parts separately.

 

[BradCube]

First, can we be clear about what your problem is? Why is it odd that we found some "soft" creatures before and during the event?

It is odd because the explanation previously given to me of why none of these organisms had appeared up until the Cambrian period, was that they had no skeletal features that would help in their preservation. But clearly, if creatures that were "soft" (and therefore more easily eroded) were still found both before and during the period, then we should find a consistent transition and rise of new features in life forms leading up to the beginning of the cambrian period - rather than the "explosion" that is recorded.

Can we have a reference or something that says this is true?

If you mean, proof that these earlier creatures were found before and during the period, then unfortunately not. I originally read this from a book, so it's not something I can easily link. I would be more than happy to be proven wrong though.

Ignoring for a second your lack of definition for "transitional creatures" (what exactly do you want?), I find myself asking, how do we know we haven't found any? It's clear that bone density/structure changes must have been gradual, so at what point do they become succeptible to 'usual' fossilisation? Suppose we found a creature whose skeleton was close to this limit, then we found an ancestor of it also fosilised - the fosilisation was likely very different to accomodate the "soft" creatures lack of skeleton. Could we ever really determine to any reasonable degree of accuracy how closely these creatures were related, given such different types of fosilisation?

By transitional creatures, I simply mean creatures that demonstrate the changes between creatures before and then during the cambrian explosion. You've kind of answered this in the second part of your answer, although I wonder how we can rely on any fossilization dating method if you are essentially undermining the whole thing...

 

[Slidey]

It is odd because the explanation previously given to me of why none of these organisms had appeared up until the Cambrian period, was that they had no skeletal features that would help in their preservation. But clearly, if creatures that were "soft" (and therefore more easily eroded) were still found both before and during the period, then we should find a consistent transition and rise of new features in life forms leading up to the beginning of the cambrian period - rather than the "explosion" that is recorded.

Fossil preservation is very rare. Being hard doesn't mean it'll be preserved, but it makes it a damn sight more likely than being soft. I don't think your conclusions are completely correct based on the premise, though I'm not terribly interested in the matter right now... or ever (developmental biology and fossil record are usually two of the more dull areas of biology to me).

By transitional creatures, I simply mean creatures that demonstrate the changes between creatures before and then during the cambrian explosion. You've kind of answered this in the second part of your answer, although I wonder how we can rely on any fossilization dating method if you are essentially undermining the whole thing...

We're not relying on fossil dating alone, that's why. It is incomplete and thus cannot (or at least should not) be used on it's own as a verification of anything (again, whole greater than sum of parts). It provides extremely compelling data in many instances, however, and often points us to interesting evolutionary phenomenon we hadn't previously considered.