God, Aliens and Astronauts

[Jakke]

They are usually not too good with physical chemistry either, as chemical reactions are seen as "random" by these people.

Wasn't it Dawkins who coined evolution being the "nonrandom selection of randomly generated genetic mutations"?

 

[HaMMerHeD]

Sounds like Dawkins. I am going through The Greatest Show On Earth right now.

 

[Xaios]

^Also this, I have seen more heated debate on this forum on actives vs. passives or Axe-FX vs. proper amps (and the proper amps are of course the superior one).

I will fight you.

And while we're at that, I don't really see what is wrong with heated debate. Just because something gets heated doesn't mean we forgo all civility and get banned

Ideally, yes. However, there are simply people out there who can't have any kind of discussion without taking things personally, and who interpret any sort of debate as a challenge or attempt at a put-down. Then if things get at all heated, they take it as a personal attack.

Something I appreciate about this forum, being a Christian, is that I've never felt as though people thought less of me for it. I've certainly had numerous debates regarding the subject on this board, but there has always been an undertone of mutual respect.

 

[jl-austin]

I can respect where your coming from, but to say it is ridiculous that it is random makes me think you haven't taken any classes on statistics/probability/chemistry or considered the scope at all.

I enjoy your post the most. You seem to be approaching this from an intellectual point of view.

It is true that I have not taken any courses on statistics/probability/etc. However, from my point of view, they say there is no proof of God's existance, I say, I have not heard a number of the probability of the human race "just coming into being" either. If it is probable, then there should be a number, right? The number would be HUGE, I would say impossible. Thus my therory of there being an almighty God is just as probable as any other therory.

 

[HaMMerHeD]

I enjoy your post the most. You seem to be approaching this from an intellectual point of view.

It is true that I have not taken any courses on statistics/probability/etc. However, from my point of view, they say there is no proof of God's existance, I say, I have not heard a number of the probability of the human race "just coming into being" either. If it is probable, then there should be a number, right? The number would be HUGE, I would say impossible. Thus my therory of there being an almighty God is just as probable as any other therory.

Nope. Attempts have been made to quantify the odds of humans coming into being through evolution, and you are right that the odds are very small. However, it did happen, and all available evidence suggests that the theory of evolution explains how it happened. The thing is, it only had to happen once, and we can see that it did happen, so humans are a known quantity.

However, the likelihood for something like Yahweh existing is considerably smaller. Unlike humans and evolution, however, there is exactly NO evidence whatsoever to indicate that it does now or ever did exist. God is an unknown quantity, but the probability of that quantity being 0 is very, very large.

 

[bhakan]

I enjoy your post the most. You seem to be approaching this from an intellectual point of view.

It is true that I have not taken any courses on statistics/probability/etc. However, from my point of view, they say there is no proof of God's existance, I say, I have not heard a number of the probability of the human race "just coming into being" either. If it is probable, then there should be a number, right? The number would be HUGE, I would say impossible. Thus my therory of there being an almighty God is just as probable as any other therory.

As stated above, there is no theory of god. To be a theory, something must have been repeatedly tested with results that are in line with the hypothesis. God's existence is only a hypothesis. That is where the likeliness of evolution vs creation comes into play. Random selection, while it may seem far fetched, has been reinforced with evidence through genetics, small scale situations, and a bunch of other things.

Just out of curiosity, what is your view of evolution? Are you saying we didn't evolve, or we evolved but with the guidance of a creator?

 

[irondavidson]

Interesting thing, i´ve heard a little while ago: scientists explained the raising number of gays so, that mother nature is playing this game with human mind (most of the time since teen age) to stop the growing of population!

So all of you guys with Beckham hair, scarfs, goth makeup, etc.. you might not give your family name forth!
Was that little strong?? Hehe!

 

[jl-austin]

As stated above, there is no theory of god. To be a theory, something must have been repeatedly tested with results that are in line with the hypothesis. God's existence is only a hypothesis. That is where the likeliness of evolution vs creation comes into play. Random selection, while it may seem far fetched, has been reinforced with evidence through genetics, small scale situations, and a bunch of other things.

Just out of curiosity, what is your view of evolution? Are you saying we didn't evolve, or we evolved but with the guidance of a creator?

First part, seeing how the creation (or in your words, evolution) of man only happened once, how are you going to repeat that for that to be considered a theory (if in fact a therory has to be repeated)? My view of God creating man being a valid therory (if you want to call it a hypothesis, fine, whatever) still stands.

Second question. I believe there were 2 races of humanoids, modern man (descendants from Adam), and primitive man (which existed outside the Garden) while Adam was in the Garden of Eden. When Adam got kicked out of the Garden of Eden then the two species of humans mixed. Thus explains the missing link, between modern man, and primitive man. I do not believe in evolution, I do believe in adaptation though. Which by the way explains the missing link, something science cannot do, FYI.

An interesting tid bit for you. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We have recently discovered the chicken had to come first because the chicken uses protiens not found in nature to produce the egg. Thus the chicken came first, and if there was 1 chicken, there had to be 2 to reproduce. This agrees with what the Bible states in Genesis, and shoots down the evolution hypothesis.

Also we have recently discovered that the building blocks for life can be found in dirt, I believe it was amino acids which are used in DNA (I'm no chemist, I might have the terms wrong). Anyways, once again this goes along with what the Bible says, that God formed man from clay, and breathed life into him.

Then there is the passage in Pslams that talks about currents (paths) in the oceans (seas). No one knew about ocean currents back then. The guy that discovered them used the Bible, he reasoned if it is in the Bible it had to be true, and sure enough it was.

If you want to believe there are more than enough things that point to there being a God. If you don't want to believe there are more than enough things out there as well. It all depends on what you want to believe.

 

[The Omega Cluster]

It is very, very probable that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, and quite likely that there is life much, much more intelligent than we are

and it's quite likely that there is much much more non-(or less)-intelligent life.

 

[HaMMerHeD]

First part, seeing how the creation (or in your words, evolution) of man only happened once, how are you going to repeat that for that to be considered a theory (if in fact a therory has to be repeated)? My view of God creating man being a valid therory (if you want to call it a hypothesis, fine, whatever) still stands.

Second question. I believe there were 2 races of humanoids, modern man (descendants from Adam), and primitive man (which existed outside the Garden) while Adam was in the Garden of Eden. When Adam got kicked out of the Garden of Eden then the two species of humans mixed. Thus explains the missing link, between modern man, and primitive man. I do not believe in evolution, I do believe in adaptation though. Which by the way explains the missing link, something science cannot do, FYI.

An interesting tid bit for you. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We have recently discovered the chicken had to come first because the chicken uses protiens not found in nature to produce the egg. Thus the chicken came first, and if there was 1 chicken, there had to be 2 to reproduce. This agrees with what the Bible states in Genesis, and shoots down the evolution hypothesis.

Pray tell, to what missing link are you referring?

And no, the egg came first. Creatures were being born from eggs LONG before the chicken ever evolved.

 

[Jakke]

First part, seeing how the creation (or in your words, evolution) of man only happened once, how are you going to repeat that for that to be considered a theory (if in fact a therory has to be repeated)? My view of God creating man being a valid therory (if you want to call it a hypothesis, fine, whatever) still stands.

Evolution happens all the time (for example ring species), and can be tested under laboratory conditions, that is what makes it a theory. A hypothesis is what we would otherwise call a guess, or even an educated guess maybe. It's the mission of the scientific community to test hypothesis for validity.
Evolution is also today an integral part of computer programing, which is pretty interesting IMO

Second question. I believe there were 2 races of humanoids, modern man (descendants from Adam), and primitive man (which existed outside the Garden) while Adam was in the Garden of Eden. When Adam got kicked out of the Garden of Eden then the two species of humans mixed. Thus explains the missing link, between modern man, and primitive man. I do not believe in evolution, I do believe in adaptation though. Which by the way explains the missing link, something science cannot do, FYI.

There is no missing link, because that assumes that species barriers are static. This is simply not the case, there is no point where we can say "see, just about here was this animal halfway between a lizard and a bird". We find creatures with reptilian and birdlike traits to certain degrees, but to search for a "missing link" is mainly very uneducated.

"Adaptation" is the same as evolution, to say that you believe in adaptation but not evolution is like saying that you do believe that a man can walk 50m, but not 100m. Evolution is a series of small changes to an animal that piles up during the years, what may not look like a big change at one point can amount to major changes over a longer period of time.

An interesting tid bit for you. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We have recently discovered the chicken had to come first because the chicken uses protiens not found in nature to produce the egg. Thus the chicken came first, and if there was 1 chicken, there had to be 2 to reproduce. This agrees with what the Bible states in Genesis, and shoots down the evolution hypothesis.

The egg came first, but what laid it was not a chicken. Instead, it was a not-quite-a-chicken, an intermediate species between a primitive fowl and a modern chicken, however very close to a modern chicken.

And it's "the theory of evolution", thank you very much. There is currently more scientific support for evolution than there is for gravity, but I don't see you jumping out of tall buildings.

I will fight you.

I will cut you.. I grew up in an area with many immigrated finns, I know how to handle a blade

Ideally, yes. However, there are simply people out there who can't have any kind of discussion without taking things personally, and who interpret any sort of debate as a challenge or attempt at a put-down. Then if things get at all heated, they take it as a personal attack.

Something I appreciate about this forum, being a Christian, is that I've never felt as though people thought less of me for it. I've certainly had numerous debates regarding the subject on this board, but there has always been an undertone of mutual respect.

Yeah, far too many people fuse their beliefs and their ego together, making a challenge to those beliefs a personal insult. One of the greatest challenges in being a scientific skeptic is to be intellectually aware of that one might completely be wrong. But it is as Bertrand Russell said: "one should strive to believe as many true things as possible"

Well, I do enjoy a good sparring with you, because you actually know a lot about your own religion, which is rarer than one would imagine
And in line with my previously stated point, one does not chose one's beliefs, so it's ridiculous to claim how stoopid someone is for believing something, or not not believing something. I think the best approach is to take any debate as a learning opportunity... What am I saying? God forbids someone learns something on the internet!

 

[bhakan]

First part, seeing how the creation (or in your words, evolution) of man only happened once, how are you going to repeat that for that to be considered a theory (if in fact a therory has to be repeated)? My view of God creating man being a valid therory (if you want to call it a hypothesis, fine, whatever) still stands.

Second question. I believe there were 2 races of humanoids, modern man (descendants from Adam), and primitive man (which existed outside the Garden) while Adam was in the Garden of Eden. When Adam got kicked out of the Garden of Eden then the two species of humans mixed. Thus explains the missing link, between modern man, and primitive man. I do not believe in evolution, I do believe in adaptation though. Which by the way explains the missing link, something science cannot do, FYI.

Evolution did not only happen once. It does not explain the creation of humans, it explains the creation of all animals. The theory is proved by all organisms.

Also, just as a note, evolution isn't really all that random. Within a species, different specimens exhibit slightly different qualities. If one organism is taller and can more easily acquire food, it will live where a shorter organism may die. Over millions of years, all of those little changes add up to where we are now.

If you will allow me to bother you more, how do you think primitive man and other organism came into being, are they related to a common ancestor, or were they put on earth in their current form?

As far as the chicken, that protein which is found only in chickens was a mutation in the first chicken. It is relatively easy for an amino acid to get switched in replication, resulting in a unique protein. This protein probably happened to be superior to the previous protein and aided in survival of eggs, which allowed the modern chicken to pass on its genes (including this protein) better than the species before it.

And just to be clear, no hard feelings at all. I respect your opinions and I'm not trying to convince you of anything, just curious to hear your viewpoint.

 

[HaMMerHeD]

^ Yes.

The power of evolution lies in the accumulation of many small changes in a population of organisms over a very long period of time. Evolution is ongoing, even in humans. The DNA attributed to the formation of our neocortex is generally thought to have reformed quite drastically between 50,000 and 15,000 years ago.

 

[Jakke]

Not to mention the ability to digest lactose. That mutation came around when humans in Europe and east Africa started keeping cattle.

 

[jl-austin]

I hope you all can see that I am quite confident in my beliefs. I have tried to point out things to convince. I see that you all are equally confident in your beliefs.

Trying to use a play of words or try to explain away things that "might" have happened is not a good arguement in my opinion. This is how it goes typically. The person that does not believe in God typically has no real reason, just that they don't want to believe. I have been thru this sooooo many times, I have grown tired of it. Just for once, I would like for someone to have a point of their own, instead of trying to make a play on words, or use the "what if" excuse.

Just for once I would like someone to say, I don't believe because the Bible says "such and such". Then we could have a discussion. I'm sick of the "what ifs". Peace.

 

[HaMMerHeD]

I hope you all can see that I am quite confident in my beliefs. I have tried to point out things to convince. I see that you all are equally confident in your beliefs.

Trying to use a play of words or try to explain away things that "might" have happened is not a good arguement in my opinion. This is how it goes typically. The person that does not believe in God typically has no real reason, just that they don't want to believe. I have been thru this sooooo many times, I have grown tired of it. Just for once, I would like for someone to have a point of their own, instead of trying to make a play on words, or use the "what if" excuse.

Just for once I would like someone to say, I don't believe because the Bible says "such and such". Then we could have a discussion. I'm sick of the "what ifs". Peace.

Oh...so I'M supposed to come up with an original story to explain my apostasy, but YOU get to just rattle off misunderstandings of science and misquotations of bible verses?

If you really want to go through the bible, we can do that. But something tells me you won't like what I have to say about that either.

 

[Jakke]

I hope you all can see that I am quite confident in my beliefs. I have tried to point out things to convince. I see that you all are equally confident in your beliefs.

Trying to use a play of words or try to explain away things that "might" have happened is not a good arguement in my opinion. This is how it goes typically. The person that does not believe in God typically has no real reason, just that they don't want to believe. I have been thru this sooooo many times, I have grown tired of it. Just for once, I would like for someone to have a point of their own, instead of trying to make a play on words, or use the "what if" excuse.

Just for once I would like someone to say, I don't believe because the Bible says "such and such". Then we could have a discussion. I'm sick of the "what ifs". Peace.

But science doe not deal in certainties, that's the job of religions. What scientists can do is to pose what might have happened, do some research to confirm this, and the only thing they can do after that is to say "research seems to support that..." or "our findings seems to indicate...". Know why? Because they still might be wrong, and in that case another scientist will find out that they were wrong, and find the right answer instead. That's the beauty of science, it's a self-correcting process.

Do you know why people often have no real reason for not believing in god?
- Because there often is no reason. belief is something you have or don't have, and we do not choose if we want to believe or not, as I have said several times in this thread. Saying that "we do not want to believe" is wrong, because that implies that we are intellectually aware of a creator god, and that is nonsenical, because that would make us believers anyway.

The reason you have not been able to "convince" anyone is because atheists value evidence and logic before anything else, and you have provided neither evidence nor logic. Instead there have just been talking-points that probably came straight from your preacher, which he in turn pulled from a creationist website. The thing is that most of us are used to these points, they do not impress us, because we have had them debunked for us and debunked them ourselves several times.

I can even provida a couple more that you have not used yet:
-Hitler was an atheist
-A whirlwind through a scrapyard cannot assemble a Boeing 747
-Irreducible complexity
-The argument from design
-Setting of the physical constants
-The Kalam cosmological argument
-Evolution cannot create morals
-Different readings from different parts of the same mineral disproves radiometric dating

 

[jl-austin]

But science doe not deal in certainties, that's the job of religions. What scientists can do is to pose what might have happened, do some research to confirm this, and the only thing they can do after that is to say "research seems to support that..." or "our findings seems to indicate...". Know why? Because they still might be wrong, and in that case another scientist will find out that they were wrong, and find the right answer instead. That's the beauty of science, it's a self-correcting process.

Do you know why people often have no real reason for not believing in god?
- Because there often is no reason. belief is something you have or don't have, and we do not choose if we want to believe or not, as I have said several times in this thread.

Again your post are refreshing. That is the thing about religion. At some point a person realizes that they aren't gonna know every thing. I know enough to believe. I don't study the Bible to gain scientific knowledge.

Often times the reason to believe in God comes from a heavy loss at some point in ones life. Often times the more wealthy a person is (and just about everyone from a first world country is wealthy), the harder it is for that person to put their faith in God. We tend to put our faith in our jobs and our wealth. Go to a country like the Philippines and it is MUCH easier to talk about God.

Actually most of the scientific points I have tried to make have come from CNN. They unknowingly prove the Bible correct.

I have tried to say this along, the original poster asked what we believe, I responded. I knew all along that I would not convince anyone (if you want to say it is because I am inadequate, that's fine).

 

[Xaios]

I will cut you.. I grew up in an area with many immigrated finns, I know how to handle a blade

Dude, I'm Canadian. That means that I can summon an army of bears to my side at telepathic command to re-enact the battle of Pelennor Fields. Plus, you wanna talk about having rowdy neighbors?

Check and mate.

What am I saying? God forbids someone learns something on the internet!

I may believe in a space ghost with a zombie son who is the savior of all mankind, but even I'm not crazy enough to believe that.

 

[Jakke]

Again your post are refreshing. That is the thing about religion. At some point a person realizes that they aren't gonna know every thing. I know enough to believe. I don't study the Bible to gain scientific knowledge.

Even though it's mainly a muslim thing, there are actually christians who claim that most scientific discoveries and knowledge is present in the bible.

I am personally content with knowing that I don't know everything, that there are mysteries out there, but I am also fully comfortable with knowing that these mysteries are natural, and not supernatural

Often times the reason to believe in God comes from a heavy loss at some point in ones life. Often times the more wealthy a person is (and just about everyone from a first world country is wealthy), the harder it is for that person to put their faith in God. We tend to put our faith in our jobs and our wealth. Go to a country like the Philippines and it is MUCH easier to talk about God.

I know, and it's not my place to judge anyone's reasons for belief. I would however consider that the reason that poor people generally are more religious is the same reason that there are more poor people buying into lotteries etc. It's the reasoning that "today our lives might suck, but just wait until..."