MedVision ad

Does God Exist? (1 Viewer)

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Then we get the muslims here who will simply tell us it is the word of god, it's not open to interpretation which is why it's so good...
Then we point out the sections about killing people etc, and they tell us that's taken 'out of context'...
 

Sophie777

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
415
Yes. I don't get how they can dismiss what we believe as inferior, yet claim the thing they despise the most is those who feel they "know better" than to believe. How is calling me ignorant not claiming to "know better"
 

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
The theists who.. basically aren't posting here... have moderate beliefs... live their lives probably the exact same way as me, just choose to believe in a god because it makes sense to them.. i don't want to argue with.
 

Lexicographer

Retired 13 May 2006
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
8,275
Location
Darnassus ftw
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
I admit I came into this thread without reading the preceding posts. This is because this thread is basically no differrent to any of the other religion vs atheism threads I participated in months ago.

I haven't discredited any scientific theories. After all, each of the great scientists of our time has acknowledged that science in no way debases religion, the more we understand of both the more frequently the complement one another. Don't forget that the biggest secret of evolution theory is how little evidence there really is to support it. I definitely am NOT saying that evolution theory is invalid, or that I don't believe in it, but it's just that - theory - with huge gaps in the evidence required to prove it.

Oh, yes, you'll probably guess I haven't read all the replies here either. It's plain that nobody in this thread is really interested in understanding one another, but rather proving themselves right. I started by sharing my own views, defending them when they were attacked (in the assumption that people were interested in understanding my opinions) but I don't feel the need to constantly battle discredit.

Have fun everyone. Dominus Vobiscum.
 

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Lexicographer said:
I admit I came into this thread without reading the preceding posts. This is because this thread is basically no differrent to any of the other religion vs atheism threads I participated in months ago.

I haven't discredited any scientific theories. After all, each of the great scientists of our time has acknowledged that science in no way debases religion, the more we understand of both the more frequently the complement one another. Don't forget that the biggest secret of evolution theory is how little evidence there really is to support it. I definitely am NOT saying that evolution theory is invalid, or that I don't believe in it, but it's just that - theory - with huge gaps in the evidence required to prove it.

Oh, yes, you'll probably guess I haven't read all the replies here either. It's plain that nobody in this thread is really interested in understanding one another, but rather proving themselves right. I started by sharing my own views, defending them when they were attacked (in the assumption that people were interested in understanding my opinions) but I don't feel the need to constantly battle discredit.

Have fun everyone. Dominus Vobiscum.
This misconception invariably arises out of plain ignorance. That is not to say that evolution deniers are generally ignorant people, but when it comes to the subject of evolution they usually have wild misunderstandings about pretty much everything to do with it. A bit of a sweeping generalisation, maybe, but fairly valid as anyone who has had to deal with creationists will tell you. (Many people do have a good depth of knowledge about it, but still choose not to accept it, mostly because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.) When it comes to, say, the history of Thailand, I am certainly ignorant - I know practically nothing about it whatsoever. If I then started sounding off about it, and explaining to someone what I thought about some issue to do with Thailand, my ignorance of the subject would be instantly obvious to anyone who had actually read up on the topic. This does not make me a stupid or ignorant person, but it does expose my misconceptions and lack of basic knowledge - the same applies to many of the people who say "Evolution is only a theory."
Fact

Life evolves. That is a fact. One of the simplest definitions of evolution is the change in the frequency of genes in a species over time.

For example, imagine if you will a rabbit farm high on a mountain. The farmer buys a thousand rabbits, some have longer fur and some have shorter fur - it's a quite mixed group of rabbits. The length of the fur on the rabbits is determined by their genetic makeup. Some have genes for long fur, some for shorter. Now, this farm (or ranch, if you prefer) is in an area that gets extremely cold for most of the year. The rabbits survival depends upon having enough fur to keep them warm. Those with short fur will freeze to death and die (our fictional farmer doesn't have much business sense).

Because of the situation these unfortunate creatures are in, they are subject to natural selection. There is a selection pressure for longer fur. More baby rabbits are born than can possibly survive in the environment. This is an important part of the process. Their genetic makeup is a determining factor in their survival. Rabbits that die of cold will not pass on their short-fur genes to their offspring (as they won't have any), whereas rabbits with long fur will be more resistant to the cold and therefore much more likely to reproduce, passing on their genes for long fur.

Over many generations, the farm will consist almost entirely of long-fur rabbits. The frequency of genes for short fur has decreased, and the frequency of genes for long fur has increased. Far fewer short-haired rabbits, and eventually none at all, will be born - their genes will have been lost from the gene-pool.

Some rabbits may have developed genetic mutations which further increase the length of their fur. These mutations will clearly give those rabbits an advantage in their environment, and those beneficial mutations will spread through the gene pool of the population. Mutations that are detrimental to the survival rate will clearly be lost quickly, as those unfortunate rabbits will have a reduced chance of surviving long enough to mate. In this way, useful mutations stay on in the population. It's a positive feedback loop - this is the second important thing to remember.

These rabbits have evolved. It's really that simple.

Evolution is a directly observable phenomenon. There is no debate among scientists as to whether or not evolution occurs, any more than there is debate about the Earth orbiting the Sun. Gene pools change - evolution happens. This is obviously a rather contrived example, but it serves to demonstrate some of the basic principles.

Now, objectors will say "Ah, but they're still rabbits, aren't they? That's not the same as amphibians turning into reptiles, and then mammals, is it? That still doesn't explain how a human can evolve from an ape-like ancestor, does it?"

Yes, it does. The change from mixed-fur rabbits to long-fur rabbits (in this example) is often referred to as micro-evolution - a minor change within a species. Larger changes are known as macro-evolution, and take far longer to occur, but the process involved is exactly the same - genes changing over time. It is a cumulative process - the minor changes build up over many generations into major changes. Given time, the descendants of these rabbits could become an entirely novel species of rabbit, and eventually a creature that can no longer be called a rabbit.

To say that you accept micro-evolution but not macro-evolution is akin to saying that it is possible to walk to the end of your street, but it is somehow impossible to walk to the next town. The process involved, putting one foot in front of the other, a single step at a time, is exactly the same although the end results may be completely different.

Evolution is a fact. This is not open to debate.

Theory

Darwin's Theory Of Evolution is not evolution. In the same way, the theory that the Earth orbits the Sun is not the Earth orbiting the Sun - it is a description and explanation of it.

The theory of evolution is an explanation of the facts of evolution.

If nobody had ever developed the theory, it would not change that fact that living things evolve over time - evolution happens whether there is a theory or not.

Furthermore, Darwin's theory of evolution may be totally, hopelessly and utterly wrong. Even if it were, and Darwin and every biologist who had contributed to the theory since were incorrect, evolution would still exist and continue. Evolution is totally independent of the theory of evolution. The theory is simply an attempt to explain the observed facts of nature that we call "evolution".

If another theory came along to replace the theory of evolution, it would have to explain the facts at least as well as Darwin's theory has done for the last 150 years. No such replacement has ever been produced.

If there is a debate or controversy within the scientific community about the theory of evolution, creationists see this as evidence that "evolution is in crisis". Nonsense - it is merely that scientists disagree (often bitterly) over details of the theory of evolution. That evolution actually happens is beyond question, but the theory of evolution is - and always should be, like every other scientific theory - probed, tested and scrutinised. Again, even if the theory were to collapse, that would still not magically disprove evolution or cause species to cease evolving.

What it is not
Evolution is not about the origins of life on Earth. Evolution is about the development of living things over time. The study of the origins of life is known as "abiogenesis" and any web search engine will find you many examples of current literature on the subject.

Evolution is not about the Big Bang theory, nor the formation of the Sun and Earth. These are subjects for cosmology, not biology. Some creationist websites like to put up list of supposedly tricky questions for evolutionists - if you read them carefully you often find lots of questions that actually have nothing at all to do with biological evolution.

Random. Evolution is often mistakenly compared to "a hurricane blowing through a junkyard and building a fully functional Boeing 747". This is incorrect, as evolution is a very slow, gradual process directed by the actions of natural selection (as shown above in the rabbit farm). Mutations may indeed be random events, but whether or not they remain in the gene pool is certainly not random, as it depends on how those genes affect the creature's survival in the environment. It works as a positive feedback loop.

Evolution is not about attempting to prove that the Bible, Qu'ran, or any other holy book is false. It is simply the study of living things and how they develop over time. Whether or not that conflicts with a particular interpretation of a particular scripture is not a consideration. There is no conspiracy amongst scientists to disprove the teachings of any of the thousands of religions who happen to make claims about the processes of life.

Evolution is not about monkeys turning into men, or showing that humans are "merely" animals. Evolution does show that humans developed from an ape-like ancestor, along with other modern apes such as the chimpanzee. We did not develop from apes, but alongside them, in the same way that different branches grow from the same trunk of a tree. The development of humans is one minor aspect of the study of evolution, but most biologists will find more interesting creatures to study.
please read my scientist friend..
 

superbird

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2004
Messages
774
Location
sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
u guys have ALOT of time on ur hands prooving your point. why bother tho? are u trying to convert us all or something.
in my opinion it shows that u guys are living in denial. afraid that u guys "might" be wrong in choosing not to believe in God hence the ridiculous amount of research u have conducted over the issue to try and proove it.
we get the point that u guys do not believe in God but u cant change neones opinion of the subject.
 

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
So it would be better for us to believe nothing and have done very little research?
I think that we have done heaps of research on the topic and come to the conclusion that god doesn't exist helps our case a fair bit actually...

When someone claiming to be a 'scientist' says that evolution doesn't occur, i feel i should step in maybe just a little?
 

Xayma

Lacking creativity
Joined
Sep 6, 2003
Messages
5,953
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
On a completly unrelated note, just because we are mentioning evolution. The big brains of dolphins occured in two spurts. Now no one can say that this didn't occur, but theories will have to be made as to how, or why it happened.

In such a way that if you came home and saw your house on fire, you would not debate the evidence of flames leaping out, but you might debate that the gas stove or the wood heater caused the blaze. *Yes you would immediately think what caused it instead of trying to rescue the family dog*

Well the evidence of the dolphins will probably be debated because it requires the earth being >30 million years old :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

bexta

New Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2004
Messages
20
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
OK.. heading a little off track here guys. The question is "Does God Exist?".
Not "Who has more right to debate religion?".


But I totally agree with Sophie. The Bible ask's more questions than it answers therefore I belive that Christians have no right to base a whole "religion" on something written by Monks a few hundred years back. After obvious points that i have stated from pages 45 - 49, it has too many errors. Some storys told in the Bible really are a crock of shit.

Sometimes I like to look at another person's perspective.
If i was a Christian, how would I argue that the Bible is REAL?
What Scientific points could I come up with?

Makes you think.. doesn't it?
 

superbird

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2004
Messages
774
Location
sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
bexta said:
"I believe that Christians have no right to base a whole religion on something Monks written..."
This is probably the most stupid statement I have heard from this thread. Christians have no right to believe in the Bible? What a fucked up stupid statement is that. You obviously dont have a brain.

bexta said:
Some storys told in the Bible really are a crock of shit.
The only crock of shit is you and your bullshit post

bexta said:
Makes you think.. doesn't it?
NO! and u are just as thick-headed as Sophie.
 

superbird

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2004
Messages
774
Location
sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Not-That-Bright said:
God Superbird if i met your posts like that i'm sure you'd be quite upset.
I am very passionate of the issue, even more so when people discredit the Bible publicly insulting those who believe in it.
Funny enough, I have yet to come across one Christian in this thread that insults and discredits those who have no religion
 

Sophie777

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
415
superbird said:
This is probably the most stupid statement I have heard from this thread. Christians have no right to believe in the Bible? What a fucked up stupid statement is that. You obviously dont have a brain.


The only crock of shit is you and your bullshit post


NO! and u are just as thick-headed as Sophie.
Haha, you really are a loser. In fact, you are a complete thick-head considering you have no argument at all. The only person on here who actually argues his point effectively is Not-That-Bright and I think maybe you should learn a little lesson from him on how to debate someones point. Instead of coming up with ideas, you call people thick-heads and say "you obviously don't have a brain." What evidence led you to the conclusion I was stupid? The fact I didn't believe in God and I didn't provide evidence? Hm.... lets think about this for a while. Oh my Gosh, I think you said you did believe in God... did you say why? No I don't think you did. You are just as bad as those you criticise. You are what you eat, loser.
 

Sophie777

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
415
superbird said:
I am very passionate of the issue, even more so when people discredit the Bible publicly insulting those who believe in it.
Funny enough, I have yet to come across one Christian in this thread that insults and discredits those who have no religion
You insulted and discredited me for having no religion. You are a christian.
 

superbird

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2004
Messages
774
Location
sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Sophie777 said:
You insulted and discredited me for having no religion. You are a christian.
Please show me some proof. I dont recall saying that your beliefs are totally wrong like YOU have said about Christians and their belief in the Bible.
All the evidence you need is in the Bible read it. If you dont believe in it then that's your problem but you have some balls to say publicly that its wrong and im sure there are laws against that. Anyways moving on...
If you bothered to read bexta's statement clearly you can see her statement on "Chrisitians having no rights to believing the Bible" is completely and utterly ridiculous.
Thats just like me saying you guys have no rights to believing in evolution and science. Stupid yes.
I respect your rights in choosing not to believe in God but its only because you guys have insulted my Christian beliefs that has led me to saying such comments in previous posts
 

Sophie777

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
415
Yes, you called me stupid just then. I never said anything that was stupid but that the bible was incorrect.

Can't you see that you can't say the bible is correct, if we can't plainly say it is? Nobody has the right to say a plain non-qualified statement without proof. That was my point. I don't know if it true.. how would I? You only believe it to be true but cannot possibly know this until you die.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top