What is the one true faith (or lack thereof)?

[wildcat69410]

Really funny, I guess I understand that you can't reply to my argument. You must not have the brains to understand it, or at least not to respond to it. Don't waste my time by throwing out {censored} at me, and then refusing to respond to what I say.

 

It's just pointless and immature.

[gwprod12]

Let me get this straight. You're saying that there have never been any fossils of creatures that are in a transition stage from one recognizable species to another?

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

 

Also, you're saying that evolution is rediculous because the fossil record shows evidence of more species than exist today? I dont understand how that makes any sense. Between the origin of humans and now, there have been more human beings than exist now.

 

Macroevolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

 

 

 

Your arguments are based on nonsense written by people who dont know anything about the subject they're attempting to criticize.

 

Oh yeah. And even if the first part (the gaps in the fossil record) were absolutely factual, a lack of supporting evidence of a theory isnt the same as evidence against it.

 

As to "proof". Please peruse the scientific method.

Here's a snippet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_proof

 

Proof is a logical construct, not a scientific one.

[wildcat69410]

Let me get this straight. You're saying that there have never been any fossils of creatures that are in a transition stage from one recognizable species to another?

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

 

If there are, which I obviously missed (I admit), even the article states that they are few and far between. When looking at fossil "evidence" of evolution, there are far more gaps than actual evidence. Of course all Darwinists just say that gaps don't equate proof against a theory, which is basically what you just said. Darwin himself said that the only way to disprove evolution was to show proof of an animal that did not evolve. There are so many species alive today that are "connected" to another older species by a group of undiscovered fossils.

 

When you look at the theory of evolution, there are so many more gaps than facts. Even if we ignore fossil evidence for a moment, how does evolution explain the eye. (Yes I know that's a very common argument, but still) What I think is humorous is how the evolutionists respond to the issue, "Just assume that there were hundreds of mutations linking these two species that we cannot find because fossil evidence isn't as good as it should be." I don't know about you, but evolution is asking a larger leap of faith to assume that gaps are just undiscovered than believing that an omniscent God created the Universe.

 

Also, you're saying that evolution is rediculous because the fossil record shows evidence of more species than exist today? I dont understand how that makes any sense. Between the origin of humans and now, there have been more human beings than exist now.

 

Not number of humans, number of species. The byproduct of evolution is the creation of another species. You'd think that after hundreds of millions of years of evolution, we'd have more species than we started with (even including the ones that humans have driven to extinction), but we don't. Rather the number of species is rapidly declining.

 

Your arguments are based on nonsense written by people who dont know anything about the subject they're attempting to criticize.

 

"Natural selection per se does not work to create new species. The pattern of change in so many examples in the fossil record is far more a reflection of the origin and differential survival (selection extinction) of species than the inexorable accumulation of minute changes within species through the agency of natural selection."

--Niles Eldridge Curator of Palentology at the American Museum of Natural History

 

And I suppose he has no idea what he's talking about either then. Creationsts aren't the only people opposing evolution, Scientists and Palentologists are as well.

[gwprod12]

Natural Selection doesnt create changes... again, please actually look at the theories of evolution.

 

I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea that Evolution has to be wrong, because otherwise, all species that have ever existed would exist now. It doesnt make any sense at all.

 

It's really hard to argue rationally with someone who's kinda ignorant about the theory and the evidence collected.

 

I'm not about insulting people directly to their face, you just havent come up with any sort of evidence or proof yet. I'm sorry.

 

 

 

http://kimallen.sheepdogdesign.net/Reviews/evolution.html

 

I'm confused, because you quote someone who writes books supporting and explaining the theories of evolution...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niles_Eldredge

[wildcat69410]

Natural Selection doesnt create changes... again, please actually look at the theories of evolution.

 

I have, and the only changes that have ever occured have been the simple modification of a Finch Beak. Natural Selection doesn't create changes, no, but it is part of the process that weeds out changes that don't work according to evolution. Natural Selection is the guide for the new species, ensuring that this species only gets the "mutations" that will work in order to survive.

 

I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea that Evolution has to be wrong, because otherwise, all species that have ever existed would exist now. It doesnt make any sense at all.

 

Of course that doesn't make sense, that's not what I'm saying. With or without evolution species can still be driven to extinction, whether from natural disasters or from man-made problems, species can be driven to extinction. My point is that if Evolution worked as it said, we should have a greater diversity of species alive today rather than a continually smaller amount.

 

It's really hard to argue rationally with someone who's kinda ignorant about the theory and the evidence collected.

 

I'm not ignorant, I've looked at the theory, I've looked at the evidence, and frankly I'm not exactly impressed. For something to have survived that long as a scientific theory, I would expect more concrete evidence by now.

 

I'm confused, because you quote someone who writes books supporting and explaining the theories of evolution...

 

Exactly my point, every person who doesn't agree with evolution always fits into the stereotypical Christian Creationist. Some of the people that disagree with Evolution are Scientists that have had years of experience in their field. And the person I mentioned isn't alone. R.H. Peters is an American Naturalist, and he believes that Evolution is based upon theories that are tautologies.

 

I'm not about insulting people directly to their face, you just havent come up with any sort of evidence or proof yet. I'm sorry.

 

And apparently, neither have you.

[gwprod12]

I guess I wasnt being clear... Niles Eldredge isnt an anti-evolutionist... you seem to think he is...

 

He doesnt disagree with the theory of evolution................. he developed the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium... which is part of the theory of evolution.

 

Speciation has been observed for at least a hundred years... "Finch Beaks" aren't "the only evidence of speciation", as you seem to suggest.

 

Anyways, I'm done.

[killbot1000]

You want to know how a structure like the eye can evolve, well its very simple, look at cellular life form, a few celled animal, or a single celled animal, they have the ability to respond to light, whether attracted to it or trying to get away from it, this is the very beginning building blocks of an eye, very very simple, only for light. Move up to insects, they have eyes, but compared to a human eye, theyre pretty crappy, but they are eyes anyway. once you have the general stucture, its not much to have it evolve from there, a structure like the eye evolving totally makes sense...I dont see why it wouldnt, its just recycled religious dogma {censored}...(the eye argument I mean)

 

 

I just dont understand how people can be rational about everything in life, but then when it comes to religion their mind suddenly shifts into a different paradigm, its freaky really...because whether you believe it or not, religion isnt rational, to make believe that it is is kind of stupid, who knows it may be right, but the evidence doesnt suggest that, thats all im saying

[wildcat69410]

You want to know how a structure like the eye can evolve, well its very simple, look at cellular life form, a few celled animal, or a single celled animal, they have the ability to respond to light, whether attracted to it or trying to get away from it, this is the very beginning building blocks of an eye, very very simple, only for light. Move up to insects, they have eyes, but compared to a human eye, theyre pretty crappy, but they are eyes anyway. once you have the general stucture, its not much to have it evolve from there, a structure like the eye evolving totally makes sense...I dont see why it wouldnt, its just recycled religious dogma {censored}...(the eye argument I mean)

 

Obviously different types of creatures respond to light in different ways, but just because we have different eyes from a fly or from some other creature doesn't mean that our eyes evolved from that point. Darwin hypothisized that Eyes evolved from light sensitive pits. There is a hell of a lot of difference between a cellular light sensitivity, to insect eyes, to animal eyes, to human eyes. I can't just assume that there were hundreds of perfect mutations that all created a perfectly working organ that eventually led to the human eye. It's not that simple, no scientist today has been able to explain the evolution of the eye. They'll try by explaining that this could have happened here, which could have caused this, but it just doesn't work.

 

Fossil evidence doesn't exactly support that theory either.

 

I just dont understand how people can be rational about everything in life, but then when it comes to religion their mind suddenly shifts into a different paradigm, its freaky really...because whether you believe it or not, religion isnt rational, to make believe that it is is kind of stupid, who knows it may be right, but the evidence doesnt suggest that, thats all im saying

 

You are 100% right, and I agree with you fully. At a certain level it becomes impossible to debate religion and science because they are based upon entirely different things. It's like arguing apples and oranges. It just doesn't work very well. Plus I don't really see what evolution has to do with the one true faith.

[james2mart]

Interesting quote from DARWIN HIMSELF in The Origin of Species:

 

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

 

So killbot1000, since you say the eye evolved, but DARWIN doesn't, please tell us EXACTLY how the eye evolved, because it certainly wasn't natural selection.

 

And while we're at it, show me ONCE in recorded history of science where life has been created from non-life. Theoretically, the big bang produced non-living matter. Where did the living matter come from? Hmm?

[killbot1000]

Interesting quote from DARWIN HIMSELF in The Origin of Species:

 

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

 

So killbot1000, since you say the eye evolved, but DARWIN doesn't, please tell us EXACTLY how the eye evolved, because it certainly wasn't natural selection.

 

And while we're at it, show me ONCE in recorded history of science where life has been created from non-life. Theoretically, the big bang produced non-living matter. Where did the living matter come from? Hmm?

 

 

science hasnt found the answer for making life from nonlife but that doesnt mean Im going to jump to conclusions, I simply dont know, and its ok to admit that.

 

The eye definately can evolve, youre thinking of going from nothing to fully formed eye, and it doesnt work like that, and I dont care what darwin said about the eye, he came up with evolution, but the theory has "evolved"(no pun intended) since darwins death.

 

Explain to me, other than "random god powers" on how the eye got formed, the reality is that niether one of us knows, and were wasting our time, all im saying is the natural explanation makes more sense than the religious one...

[Ouch]

I find it a bigger leap of faith to believe that the infinite number of variables required to produce life one day came together purely coincidently than to believe that an intelligent being intended and orchestrated it that way.

[killbot1000]

I find it a bigger leap of faith to believe that the infinite number of variables required to produce life one day came together purely coincidently than to believe that an intelligent being intended and orchestrated it that way.

 

 

well considering the universe is atleast 15 billion years old, thats a lot of time for things to come together, I find that more of likleyhood than...a god...popping into existance out of nowhere (or is eternal), and creating everything...it just doesnt make sense, I mean, who created the creator? How did the pieces that made the creator come together? I think its a valid question...

[wildcat69410]

well considering the universe is atleast 15 billion years old, thats a lot of time for things to come together, I find that more of likleyhood than...a god...popping into existance out of nowhere (or is eternal), and creating everything...it just doesnt make sense, I mean, who created the creator? How did the pieces that made the creator come together? I think its a valid question...

 

If scientists can assume that the Universe was always there, then why can't we assume that God was always there. Nobody created God, he was just there. And if we then know that there is a God, who has omnipotent powers, then the pieces of the Universe coming together would be pretty simple. I'm not saying that there wasn't a big bang or anything, but I believe in the least that there was a Godly hand upon the entire event, orchestrating it perfectly to create what we have today.

 

Even with having 15 billion years for the Universe to come together, for it to come together in the way it did, creating Earth and the Solar System with such perfection to allow earth to carry life, is one hell of an amazing thing to happen. The odds of which are unavoidably huge. I see it a much larger leap of faith that this all came together randomly rather than by the hand of God.

[killbot1000]

If scientists can assume that the Universe was always there, then why can't we assume that God was always there. Nobody created God, he was just there. And if we then know that there is a God, who has omnipotent powers, then the pieces of the Universe coming together would be pretty simple. I'm not saying that there wasn't a big bang or anything, but I believe in the least that there was a Godly hand upon the entire event, orchestrating it perfectly to create what we have today.

 

Even with having 15 billion years for the Universe to come together, for it to come together in the way it did, creating Earth and the Solar System with such perfection to allow earth to carry life, is one hell of an amazing thing to happen. The odds of which are unavoidably huge. I see it a much larger leap of faith that this all came together randomly rather than by the hand of God.

 

it really isnt a much larger leap of faith, there are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on all the beaches and deserts of earth, out of all those stars...theres got to be atleast one that everything turned out ok, and thats us, its simple probability. I dont know if god created the universe, or if there is a god, I simply dont know, but I think theres a scientific explanation for the universe, alot of new data is being uncovered on the subject, and, theres new data out there to suggest that our universe is actually much much older than 15 billion years, in all that time, the probability of something like earth coming up is actually likely, the problem with humans is that were geocentric, humancentric, whatever you want to call it, we think were the center of the universe, the center of the universes attention, but were not...we're just a piece of the big whole, and thats hard for a lot of people to grasp...

 

All im saying is I dont know, and I dont pretend to know, I dont make up and explanation, I wait, and try to figure out what the REAL answer is, theres no evidence to suggest god, therefore I dont belive it till I see evidence to support it

[Conroe Mac]

Whew. Did I step into a sauna?

[killbot1000]

Whew. Did I step into a sauna?

 

yes hahah

[killbot1000]

This is a beautiful topic, arguing the existence of god, having a friendly little chat, yknow, the works

[wildcat69410]

Yes indeedy.

[killbot1000]

Why dont we, as a society make a new set of laws, one crafted from human hands one that takes the best of what we have to offer, instead of relying on a dusty old book for guidance. I think that if we started focusing more on our own world, instead of the Maybe/maybe not after life, we could do alot of good. Just my opinion

[wildcat69410]

That could work, but I don't think we'd really be able to make a good judgement of what is right or wrong if we judge ourselves from the present and whatever fads that come out. Even considering the best we have to offer, I don't know if reorganizing our balance of right and wrong in today's world would work out okay.

 

But it is worth a shot, perhaps.

 

EDIT: james2mart has got it right there.

[james2mart]

Or why don't the atheists focus on that and leave the religious people be? I'm much more concerned about where I will be after I die - because that will be eternal. This world=bad. Heaven=good.

[gwprod12]

I knew james2mart and I could come to consensus. I get to have my life the way I want it in this bad world, and he can have his life the way he wants it in the next.

 

Perfect.

[james2mart]

Just keep in mind that it is my duty as a Christian to be a witness for Christ. As long as I do that, I'm content with myself. Whether or not people choose to listen is, well, their choice. I've put my 2 cents in, so I guess I'll leave this debate until it gets firey again.

 

Later.

[gwprod12]

I have a question about that actually.

 

If it's your duty to try to convert people, how do you feel about people trying to convert you?

[wildcat69410]

If it's your duty to try to convert people, how do you feel about people trying to convert you?

 

Being a witness to Christ isn't about running around with a Bible telling everyone to convert or you'll go to hell. Being a witness to Christ means living life as Christ would want you to. When you are a born-again Chrisitian Jesus Christ enters your soul, and whatever you do reflects him. If you're a jerk, you're giving that same impression of Jesus Christ to the people you meet. When people meet you, they are meeting Jesus Christ.

 

It isn't our duty to convert people, our duty is to spread the word of God. It is up to you to convert or not.

 

Now to answer your question, I personally don't care if people try to convert me, they're just testing my faith. I'll listen, and then I'll counterargument them with scripture or with logic or with science or whatever works best for the situation.