your God
•
25 Feb 2011, 01:12
•
Journals
Where is he? What is it that makes you believe in God? What is it that milions of people believe in hippie that could turn water into wine? Religion is possibly most irrational thing ever and yet random Gods have milions of followers. Anyone care to explain? I just don't get it.
On top of that you have catholic priests, workers of God, going out there and hurting the innocent by sticking their dicks up kids asses. Is this how God works? John Paul II was covering up those sickos for years and now he's gonna become saint. Is that right? What the fuck is up with Church? Where's God in that? Where's God?
Serious answers plox.
On top of that you have catholic priests, workers of God, going out there and hurting the innocent by sticking their dicks up kids asses. Is this how God works? John Paul II was covering up those sickos for years and now he's gonna become saint. Is that right? What the fuck is up with Church? Where's God in that? Where's God?
Serious answers plox.
check that picture.
We are absolutely nothing our life means shit there is no reason we are here, no purpose i mean, its a mere coincidence theres humanity and humanity will go away aswell when some huge shit happends because the earth is absolutely nothing. your life means in the universe as much as your sperm when u cum, its alive for few secs then it dies.
the ones around u are sad for sometime then they die aswell and nothing happends.
what happends when a bacteria dies? because in scale u are even less than a bacteria in the universe.
stop overrating life we are nothing, 0 impact in the entire universe
human kind is weak amd they are affraid of facing shit, u are weak as fuck too and affraid. when u die nothing happends, for some reason u overrate ourselfs as if evrything in the universe was around us as if we were soemthing important or big while we are absoloutely nothing. as if we are going to last forever. what happends to some bacteria when it dies? nothing fuckign happends, whole human kind is like some tiny shit in the universe, we are some living shit that is living doing our thing in this lil place and thats it.
our life has no meaning we will just life evolve and eventually humankind will be gone.
and why bother living if ure so sure u mean totally nothing, ure life has no reason and everything ends anyway?
and why not bother living? yeh we are meaningless there is no purpose, all stuff we can do is in the earth and around it and thats NOTHNG when it comes to the universe, but why wouldnt u live? just live have fun stop caring.
lose whatever shame u have irl and do crazy shit because anyway this is nothing in comparission.
if the earth was the whole universe then yeah we definitely would be something but thats not the case.
i cudnt really explain what i think in words but u get what i mean about the god shit.
People always call me a pessimist when I tell them that the notion of 'purpose' is not something I believe in and that everything we do or don't is rather insignificant and useless with regards to the universe. It's a comforting thought to me to be honest.
A lot of people don't like thinking, so they follow religion in order to have an answer.
Those that are free of religion however, can fill in what they think is the purpose of life and what not.
What I'm saying is there is no higher purpose of life, but we are capable of giving it purpose on our own.
I lolled
Can you explain how that's wrong?
We are hear to pass on our genes and protect our offspring. We are here for the future generations.
Explain how this is wrong. Good luck, because it's right.
Mistakes were made, pretty big ones at that, but how is that different from any other day?
Does this mean we aren't trying to make the world a better place?
We didn't care about what fuel would actually do, result? You know it already.
We killed alot of animals, I dont mention the ones that will get in our plates, i'm talking about precious animals which are now gone. And that still happens. Indeed we're making the world better, but only for humankind, and that's still to be seen, since I wonder what will happen in 50 years :-)
They didn't know what it would do.
>We killed alot of animals, I dont mention the ones that will get in our plates, i'm talking about precious animals which are now gone. And that still happens.
Welcome to life, were animals kill other animals. Over 99% of all species are extinct by now. For a reason. Besides, humans > other animals in terms of who needs more help. Sure, it's sad when animals get pummeled and shit, but hey...we are in the lead of the evolutionary race... Also, if you can't even take care of yourself, you shouldn't try to take care of others either.
Bottom line: Some species were lost, yes, perhaps in large part due to humans... But how is that different from another species going lost at the hands of an other animal? Because we are more intelligent? Selfishness is what has gotten today's species to where they are. I'm not saying we should treat all animals as enemies, I'm just saying that they aren't allies.
Besides all that, there are more reasons to kill animals than just food. People need clothes because of our lack of hair, people need safety so dangerous animals get killed. People like clean houses, so they kill rats.
I don't mind you thinking that's unfair or bad, but if luck hadn't favored us anywhere along the road we took, then we wouldn't even be here right now.
In my opinion, we have earned this spot. It comes with a certain responsibility, yes. But imo.. evolution should be let its course, on the large part. Trying to artificially keep everything together and alive is cool. It's nice we have that ability, but that doesn't mean we should use it.
You worry about the future you say, before any major climate swap will happen though...overpopulation will be the problem of the world. Lack of food everywhere, lack of space. Some might think it's only fair, maybe so.. But our continuous effort to control nature by trying to keep everything alive, is in my eyes, more dangerous than a few species dying out every once in a while, just like they always have.
If it turns out that things take a turn for the worse this way, then we can fix it. We have the ability. But doing so because you have a hunch is not a good reason in my opinion. :)
Anyway u proved your point well, could'nt be bothered to read all that :D
If I look at the beauty of the nature, its complexity and harmony, I cant believe this emerged just from nothing only because of coincidence and natural Selection. And as long there ar two unproven alternatives, its up to us to decide what u find more convincing. And there is nothing wrong about it.
When thing could not be explained by the human knowledge, they had to find some kind of a responsible person (or so) because living in a world you don't know about (i.e what created it, why such things happen, why the death, why this here and not there) makes you feel uncomfortable. You need to explain as many things as possible, and poiting out God(s) was a great way to feel like there is someone above you taking care of you, responsible for your actions, waiting for you after the death, etc.
That's my point of view but if I remember correctly, philosophers (Nietzsche) and usually wise men proved that point and it is the one that seems to fit in perfectly.
God is for me a synonym for nature and creation.
But where did the proto-humans in Africa come from? His answer didn't make sense in that aspect and bore no explanation for that whatsoever.
I'll admit that I'm no biology major, and also that science isn't all knowing yet, but it's working on it and while it does it's at least not discriminating, patronizing or harmful.
now what i wrote to some other guy in the previous journal about this, he also thinks evolution explains things, quoted his arguments:
atheists only ignore either thinking or the facts, and refuse thinking and being logical. atheism is a religion :) and so is believing in evolution.
E: some random reasoning i wrote to some other journal considering kinda the same thing
And? Similarities between different organisms are most of the times because there aren't optional forms that would work as well as required. E.g. how the skeletons of different animals are so like each other, all basic structures differ only a little and so on.. because there aren't no other way them to function properly and to last tens of years of non-stop use. How to explain that the instructions for the motor were already there in the DNA. All the instructions were there before the motor could be built. And you need all the components of the motor to be ready before it will help the bacteria. Also, bacteriamotor is a system of 30 components. In TTS there is only 10. Where to get the missing 20, meaning the most of it? Even if flagellum came from T3SS, where did T3SS come from? There would need to be a huge amount of mutations within the same specific cell and the protein which would need to generate is approx 100 amino acids long. Won't go to the odds, you probably know it's practically more impossible than possible. Also the mutations should be neutral nor harmful, multiple proteins should be mutated simultaneously, etcetc. The probability to it to happen is approximately 10*10^-500. That would match 70 lottery wins in a row. Won't happen in a lifetime, huh? Summa summarum, it's impossible.
Actually, this discussion should be started from the primeval soup, I could list quite an amount of impossible things evolutionists howerever claim to be happened. Actually I would recommend you a book, because someone has already done the list for me..
Yes, true. System has to be complete to function and there couldn't have been a "building-phase", first there wasn't the system and puf, there was one. Natural selection and evolution itself keeps care that not-ready systems were cast out and therefore they were no more developed and new structures cannot be produced through mutations.
You talked about some single small gap in here? The whole evolutionstory is a one big gap. From the very beginning the synthesis scientists claim to be happened, has later practically proven impossible. The microevolution itself invalidates macroevolution. In practice, no new organs/organisms could've been evolved, because the optimisation of the evolution would cast the mutants out. Behe sure made conclusions, but from the present facts. The universe cannot been formed by evolution and there isn't other theory that would even try to explain it. However, people tend to want answers. You could only ask some of these unbiased scientists about how hopeless it seems to find a working theory to explain it. It seems so imcomprehendible and amazes everyone who gets into it. If you're logical in its real meaning, you might just realise that there isn't other logic option than intelligent design. ID (intelligent design) explains everything, but not in the terms of science.
Searching the answer is pretty much like pirates were searching for treasures. The pirates (scientists) had an island where they knew the treasure (answer) would be. However, there was a district where the pirates weren't allowed to go and search. No diggin there! So, the pirates dug the whole island thoroughly, except for the area they weren't allowed to go to. No treasure (answer) found :( Pirates started to think that the treasure could be on the district where there was no permission to go and search. Still they forced themselves to keep searching the same holes they've been over and over again. Now, scientists (pirates) are on a phase where they don't seem to find the answer (treasure), but won't give up the principles (won't go to the forbidden zone), won't give up the basic principle science has, empirical examination. I personally don't know how long they will keep digging, but one day they'll move to forbidden zone and accept the answer. It won't be scientifically valid in science terms of today. Science is not searching the truth However, science has almost a monopoly as a righteous truth definer.
And one thing, which is considerable as proof for ID, is e.g. peacock butterfly and the overwhelming beautiful and purposeful nature. Why would there be such a beautiful butterflies if evolution made them? The color and appearance would be strictly plain colored and the best disguise wouldn't be beautiful at all. There are many organisms whose appearance you can't explain by saying it's useful or vitally important surviving mechanism. Adolf Portman, anatomist and animal scientist said in 1976 that the greatest problem in biology is to find out purpose for the beautiful appearance. One other example of this is the singing of the birds, it's way more beautiful when the birds are not mating, when there's absolute no use for the bird to sing.
It's pretty much about how much you're interested in it. If you want an answer, intelligent design is for you. If you're not interested, you won't give damn nor you will accept facts, you'll reflect all the information. Or if you're a believer, evolution is made for you.
said Michael Ruse.
He was the leading anti-creationist philosopher whose (flawed) arguments seemed to convince the biased judge to rule against the Arkansas ‘balanced treatment’ (of creation and evolution in schools) bill in 1981/2. At the trial, he and the other the anti-creationists loftily dismissed the claim that evolution was an anti-god religion.
Some other proofs about ID:
Water. It's vital and its features are just made for life. The molecyle structure itself is just the right one, the components of water can move but also touch each other frequently enough. It's universal solvent, not too reactive, perfect viscosity for bloodstream and on the other hand to the capillar-effect, which enables large plants. The structure is simple: there is enough of it. It's crucial for the water to stay as liquid. It's own features help in that, unlike if there was no humans. All the physical features are just perfect (cba to list them here now) for life. Water is just right to adjust animal temperature and the temperature of the earth. Water makes efficient temperature regulation possible. It's also able to recycle all the nutrients. Water also absorbs harmful radiation and passes useful radiation through.
Light. Light is wave motion of fotons and sun happens to send just such energic light as molecyles can use. Still the atmosphere lets just the specific light wavelength through that the molecyles can use. Atmosphere prevents gamma-, x-ray and uv- radiation. The eyes of the organisms are just able to see to specific light the atmosphere lets through and the sun happens to produce. If the wavelenght of the foton motion was a bit smaller it would be difficult to focus, energy levels would be too high and cell size would be too large. On the other hand, too big wavelenght wouldnt be seen by us because the lens is too large, energylevels too low and cell size too small. What a coincidence!
There hasn't been much of evolution in the largest populations. E.g. malaria parasitizes. What evolution has occured is: some of them are Chloroquine-resistant. It needs two mutations to happen and the likelihood is 10*10^-20. Practically, no evolution occured within the largest population and long time.
About the universe. Electromagnetical force ratio to gravity is 10*10^36.
If gravity was 3000x stronger, stars wouldn't last long. If stronger, there would be short-aged stars, miniuniversums and planets width of a meter. Only a few organisms could handle the gravity. If gravity was weaker, there wouldnt be enough heat in stars to create fusion. Cosmological constant is very small, luckily only 1/10*10^120 of what it is expected to be. Otherwise, there wouldn't be galaxies nor stars. Mass has divided perfectly in universum: 1/100000 diffs. If it was too constantly divided, there wouldn't be no stars. Vica versa and there would be only black holes.
The ratio between electromagnetic force and strong interaction is approx. 1/137. If the ratio would be 1/60, the vital elements wouldn't be stable. Just a bit smaller change in the ratio would eliminate every element except for hydrogen. 0,5% change in the ratio would eliminate carbon and oxygen in the stars.
I don't have the time right now to look at the rest and give statements on that, but might later. But it's nice to hear solid, sound arguments from a creationist :)
But also it is okay to believe in god somehow. People need things to believe, because it makes them stronger. Unfortunately there is always a dark side :(
No religion doesn't mean no wars.
basically major reasons for wars
The armee needs huge amount of technic and fuel for tanks/cars/ships/planes/rockets ect... and alot of money in a war so the banks give credits to this countries. In 2nd WW i.e. too both sides and after the war they gave credits to build all up again what all must be paid back with tax.
I can tell you as an example that all the stuff US sent to Soviet is not even nearly paid back. And today, the US has a huge expenditure in their ongoing wars.
It was an answer to your question. To answer it simple: No.
infact, i can't remember any major war that happened due to religion
incorrect
The female creates life and the male tries everything to subjugate and kill.
Science disproved a lot of arguments stated in the bible and other ancient toiletpapers, that's why more and more people start to question things. The lucky ones get over it and start to become individuals.
Not saying that believing in something is a bad thing... but believing in a god that watches us from above while he's prolly playing with his balls is just... meh...
so god created the heaven and the earth in the dark.
gota respect him for that.
Also, if it took the lazy ass a whole day to create earth, how come he was able to create the countless amount of stars in just a day as well?
If I'll face burdens stronger than me I know chance or my lifestyle got me to them, not a higher force, and I will also know that death will release me from my earthly pains ending my existence once and for all.
Outside the space-time continuum. Imagine a 2-dimensional being in a 2-dimensional world asking "where is that 3-dimensional being that we occasionally perceive a cross-section of?" The answer here is same, as God can manifest in dimensions humans can not perceive, just like the 2d beings can't perceive 3d beings unless the 3d being happens to be partly on the surface where the 2d being is bound, and even then the 2d guy can only perceive a cross-section of the entity that has access to more dimensions than it does.
"What is it that makes you believe in God?"
Nothing, I find it logically impossible. I'm playing devils advocate here.
"What is it that milions of people believe in hippie that could turn water into wine?"
It says so in a popular book. Besides, Jesus was one of the earliest rebels to be portrayed in positive light in any works of literature. That's kinda cool and it's only logical he's got a large fanclub
"Religion is possibly most irrational thing ever and yet random Gods have milions of followers. Anyone care to explain? I just don't get it."
The human brain is in love with irrational things, such as unhealthy ways of life, drugs, uneconomical behaviour... Breaks from reality are mandatory for most people
"On top of that you have catholic priests, workers of God, going out there and hurting the innocent by sticking their dicks up kids asses. Is this how God works? John Paul II was covering up those sickos for years and now he's gonna become saint. Is that right? What the fuck is up with Church? Where's God in that? Where's God?"
Some brains find enjoyment from the most vile and disgusting acts. The church is a corporation, no more or less, not an authority of absolute ethics...
"Serious answers plox."
Done, where's my reward
I'll try to do the same (I'm a christian btw)
Well, what if there is no outside the space-time continuum? And if there is, that's some pretty serious shit. Because, since the 3-dimensional world contains an infinite number of 2-dimensional planes, then a 4-dimensional world would contain an infinte number of 3-dimensional world - MIND BLOWN.
Furthermore, I'm a fan of mathematical induction. So, if there's some dimension in which our 3 spacial dimensions are contained, why aren't there any two-dimensional worlds for us to be Gods in?
Well, can't really counter that, since, as my own devils advocate, I agree with that.
Dude, seriously. Jesus was either a complete retard, or he was actually the son of God. He wasn't a wise teacher, he wasn't a rebel, he was either who he said he was, or a raving lunatic. He went around claiming he was the son of God! Doesn't that really belong in a mental institution? Even the Apostle Paul says so! (I can look it up, but CBA right now)
Well, yep. Even our inclination toward religion can be explained by our nature. We feel a need to believe something, to think there's something bigger than us, even if we don't see it.
But, seeing as the Church is supposed to be Gods limbs on earth, how can he allow this?
There is, but not like we see it. But there has to be something there, even if it's nothing, otherwise the universe wouldn't be able to expand.
>Dude, seriously. Jesus was either a complete retard, or he was actually the son of God. He wasn't a wise teacher, he wasn't a rebel, he was either who he said he was, or a raving lunatic. He went around claiming he was the son of God! Doesn't that really belong in a mental institution? Even the Apostle Paul says so
The God-complex and Messiah-complex combined in one person. Not really crazy as much as deluded.
>Well, yep. Even our inclination toward religion can be explained by our nature. We feel a need to believe something, to think there's something bigger than us, even if we don't see it.
Not everyone... Besides I have a feeling it's more a kind of dominoes-effect. So many dominoes have fallen already, so the next domino thinks 'im gonna fall too'. A lot of people argue that God is likely to be real because billions believe in him. But if so many only believe because of others... then the 'need' they feel is just a longing to not miss out on anything, especially not this major. I hope you got my metaphor of dominoes :3
In a 2d plane, there's an infinite number of points. In a 3d cube, there's also an infinite number of points.
And ah, yeah, domino, "i believe because he believes, he believes becase that guy believes", and then you need only one troll to start it all off?
One or few at least. Kinda like how life began.
just watched the new movie with ashton kutcher
omfggggggggg natalie portman is soooo hawt <3<3<3<3 *_*
2nd the church forbids priests to get married and have sex, sex is one of the strongest needs the man has and the church just takes it away from them.
Thats the main reason why priests (mostly catholic) end up abusing children since they are closest to them.
Other bullshit. From logical point of view. There are some pedophile, but they become priests to have close contact with their target. End of story - genetics may very well have an impact.. but certainly the upbrining of the pedophile as a child has a great deal as to thier behaviors as an adult. Its not about "non-sex" job, religious rules.
Imagine you were Moses, leader of the Israelite tribe, guiding your folks back into the land of their origin, with no means of enforcing law over your people since their were a bunch of brutish nomads with varying professions. You logically take your closest confidants up to a sacred mountain top on which you encounter a revelation of God himself, giving you his holiest ten rules to live a peaceful life. Since none of your people knows how to run a government you threaten them with the most precious these people have: life after death and eternal punishment.
others may, like one guy said before, try to find hope in something, because believing in that there is nothing after dead is a quite sad thing, yet I didn't come to any other conclusion yet. cause I think, that even if there is a god, he wont care more about humans than he does for cats, dogs or ants.
and about the child abuse thing... I don't think that's only a problem of people from church. as far as I remember none of the austrian or belgian child rapist were priests ;)
still think that celibacy is a joke though - and I doubt its possbile to keep up to that.
well duh, obviously
as a matter of fact, he's never replied to me either :_(
extra info: I think he wrote from his mobile, as he used capital letters!!!!!!
It's called Vast Emptyness of Space and Time.
And that's just within our Universe, it's even worse outside it.
You came to me when I was at my lowest
You picked me up
Breathed the life in me
I owe my life to you
Thumbs up if you see the topic relation
People want someone to watch over their shoulders...They want to feel less alone and more significant. If they believe someone created them then they'll have purpose, purpose gives significance...and because someone created them, they got company along the road no matter what as well.
It's only those who are the mentally strongest can overcome the knowledge that there is nothing more, there is no creator and life has no higher purpose. When we die, that's it, you're dead...your body will decay and become biomass, rebooting the cycle once more. There is no heaven, there is no hell, there is no soul. There is only this. So we might as well make the best of it. We might as well try to make the world a better place because there will be future generations, descendants of ourselves even perhaps. Isn't it worth fighting for a better world for them? I say it is.
No religion will not mean no wars. But it will mean less wars. It removes a gigantic motivator. But we may not forget that some people are mentally incapable of accepting reality. The only purpose religion and God has is to make those people not go completely insane. Some would argue 'So what about them?' Sadly, they're the majority of people...
Also, fun facts: In the Bible, God kills thousands upon thousands, if not millions.
Satan kills 9 people.
Who's the bad guy eh?
Why else would people believe in some being which is not see-able?
There's sense in life, if there's God. + I read a nice text about the chance of the big bang to happen and the perfection of evolution. It's hard for me to believe that all this happened without an intelligent cause/root.
It just concludes to not care about "a god" good or bad or even a "non-god"(atheïsm) and then you come up with the argument of intelligent design? doesn't really make sense..
Bro...
1. Evolution is bound to happen
2. There's strong suspicion that there are multiple universes, which would mean a big bang happens more often than not. There is also a strong suspision that after a Universe gets to the Big Rip or Big Crunch stage that a new big bang occurs and basically everything happens all over again.
I dunno if you've noticed but our world is slowly dying cause of the lack of believing among the ppl, ppl who believe will make what those who dont belive think is impossible.
Ppl is weak and dishonest, only few years ago u did a 1on1 if two persons had a problem, now there is knifes, knuckle dusts, other weapons , 7 guys jumping one guy etc. If some person would start fighting for a dream his friends or ppl among him probably would say you will never make it, you cant do it.
dont ever say believing is a stupid thing
i'll just leave this here
I think I've heard ad hoc counter-arguments to all the other points, but not that one.
To consider a view certainly true, and contradicting views certainly false, with equal amount of evidence for both is just sheer intellectual dishonesty.
Being agnostical about all religions, but agnostically positive towards one (your own religion) and saying "I think this religion has the highest chance of being right", would be just fine (if a bit lame and lazy), but there's something terribly wrong with claiming to be certain about something which, by definition, is impossible to be certain of.
and by the way, where did we come from if nobody created us?
Either way, both are explained. There is no higher force necessary for it to have happened.
Le google is your ami.
Let's see... Big bang theory explains the Universe. The aftermath of the big bang explains our solar system... Abiogenesis explains beginning of life...evolution explains the lifeforms changing over time
Hmm yeah... it must be creation, science hasn't got a clue! :|
I seriously hope you were trolling.
you know science must have something for public, being clueless wouldnt look good now would it? evolution bigbang n stuff are a nice try, but they're still not explaining it.. evolution itself proves evolution wrong :s and if a scientist tried bringing his point of view about intelligent design on the spotlight too much he would be ignored and kicked out of his university u know. scientist are desperately trying to find answers by the means of science but no luck so far :p gotta add that if this topic is about believing, if u believe in evolution ur a tru believer, more than religious dudes out here
Tell me then, how is it wrong. Please do go on. Prove how the entire scientific community is wrong...
And please... Evolution is a fact and as such it takes no belief to accept it.
But I'm sorry... you were saying you have single handedly proven pretty much every scientist wrong? Go ahead then... A lot of more intelligent people tried to prove them wrong. Guess how many of them succeeded. It's very close to the number one. It's zero. And you were saying someone believing in ID gets kicked out of uni? Lol where do you keep on finding this bullshit? There are about 3 'scientists' who think ID is the real deal. 2 lunatics and one guy who is the laughing stock of the scientific community.
http://www.crossfire.nu/?x=journal&mode=item&id=123037#comment2740897
+
http://creationismunleashed.blogspot.com/2005/08/ten-major-flaws-of-evolution.html
E: somebody marketing ID for the public might get kicked out of the community
E2: how do you know if somebody succeeded in proving evolution wrong? it has been proven wrong, but public statement will be evolution unless somebody finds a better scientific explanation.
Evolution does not explain how life began because that's not part of the theory.
Abiogenesis does though, other than that there are other theories out there.
>If A1.0 gets a mutation it will be A1.01, never B, new organs nor new species won't be evolved. And even if newgeneration forms started evolving, it wouldn't happen in a generation so the guys with only half-liver in them would be cast out by natural selection. Half-livers wouldnt transmit to next generation either. Eschericia coli is a popular example, it's a moving device of a bacteria, needs 21 unrelated mutations to form, likelihood for the moving device to form is 10^-140 = impossible.
Not this argument AGAIN.
Ok, so you think micro-evolution does not lead to macro-evolution.
First of all, yes someone with half a liver would be thrown out by natural selection IF there were others with a WHOLE liver. Otherwise, he would survive as he would have means to process toxics others do not.
Secondly, it's not because someone has a mutation that is like you describe incomplete from our perspective that it automatically puts that person at a disadvantage. You have to look at it in its context to begin with. One can have a mutation that is so-called neutral at the time. But then the environment changes...and bam, that person suddenly has an advantage. That advantage gets passed on and gets nurtured. Tada, a new organ.
Now, about that link you posted. Those are probably the most-used arguments by creationists, but not one of them sticks.
It is possible to create DNA for example. Without any design whatsoever in mind, without any intelligence.
Argument nr 3 is complete hogwash... It requires a system of multiple cells in order to have an increased genome, for that reason the 'amoebe to man' is crap.
And yes, over time there has been an increase of information, but no we can't see that right now because there is no need. Human evolution is at an all time low. Mutations occur, but mutations do not mean an increase of information automatically. Sometimes losing information is better even.
Other than all that, how do they explain that less complicated and less inteligent creatures than ourselves have more chromosomes? That would mean they have more information right? ...
nr4 is also very popular and also very wrong. The second law of thermodynamics may only be applied on isolated systems. The Earth is not such a system, it has an external power source called the Sun, making life possible.
nr5...again? Seriously? Look guys, fossiles aren't the basis of evolution, they're a bonus. Other than that, a lot of 'missing links' have been found. Sure a lot of them haven't, but let's consider this fact: Dinosaurs roamed the Earth for hundreds of millions of years. We have found a couple of thousand skeletons. But there were probably billions upon billions dinosaurs during that time. The chances of one being fossilized were slim at best. Transitional creatures are rarely found because they didn't live for many generations, because they were transitional... Only further reducing chances of one being fossilized and found.
nr6...lol using pictures made by random artists to try and disprove evolution? And saying ape-men and whatever were never found? kk
nr7 >The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions.
No they are not. There are about 50 methods and each and every one of them gives about the same date for the Earth (at least it can't go beyond 4.5billion years because of other reasons, unrelated to the methods itself)
>Yet, research has shown that decay rates can change according to the chemical environment of the material being tested.
Wrong. Seriously... if that were the case then there would be no radioactive waste problem, they'd just add chemicals to speed up the process.
I was going to debate the rest as well, but since that page gives no sources, no studies whatsoever, I don't really see the need.
These are all theories pulled out of someone's ass because they know too little about evolution, abiogenesis, big bang theory, physics, radioactivity and so on.
I'd rather trust scientists who worked their entire lives studying this then some random guy on the internet making a list without any form of sources or studies to support it.
Besides all that, even if there was a flaw in it and someone would be able to prove it, then they would simply change the theory and it would all be good again. They have tinkered with it a bit already in the early 1900's, so claiming that scientists are afraid of being wrong is complete crap. They don't care, they'll just keep going till they're right. It's there were the ultimate difference between science and religion is drawn. Science does everything to try and get it right, religion does everything to stick to their first ideas even if it contradicts everything we know.
E: >E2: how do you know if somebody succeeded in proving evolution wrong? it has been proven wrong, but public statement will be evolution unless somebody finds a better scientific explanation.
Yay another conspiracy theory...
No, look, unless someone can actually PROVE it wrong, then of course the stance won't change. Would you change your stance if someone pulled a theory out of their ass and said : 'that's why you're wrong' but gave no study or evidence to prove it whatsoever?
nope, the others have no liver at all, having something with absolute no function wouldnt do any good.. not to talk about people wouldnt have liver nor any other organs unless somebody created them. and there are no DNA to build organs anyway, it would be 100% random and even if one man out of all would be evolved a liver, it wouldnt transmit to next generation = useless.
yes, most random mutations in us are completely neutral, but no new organs couldve evolved. you know differencies between macro and micro evolution right? microevolution is optimization, macroevolution is creating new. and there are no single mutations that would put us in advantage compared to others, ever. nor would environment change that drastically within one generation. in addition, the information for howtobuildyourorgans are in the DNA, organs made out of series of mutations are not in the DNA, they won't transmit to next generation.
This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or "the least energetic state").
mmh yeah even the slightest change would take like what, million years? thats quite a few generations
ive even talked to a guy who does these radiocarbon measurements and he admitted that you can pretty much get whatever result you like, as long as you can choose the right isotope
im not sure whether i should laugh or cry but guess this is always how this ends :p you know nothing about evolution and abiogenesis and you can not argue me. im also pretty sure you arent in the know with biology and such so you could determine what is possible even in theory and what is not. i actually doubt you believe that world was made by bigbang and evolution.. to me it sounds so freaking ridicilous if you know anything about how human being works or even that flagella bacteria tail >_> you can start studying this if youre interested about the truth and prove evolution right if you think youre able to do it. those "worked entire lives" scientists can't, if you point the things out i did, they're unable to answer that's for sure.
you dont know them, do you? evolution = flaw and they know it eventho you dont. nevertheless i hope you did! if they did decide to change the theory, they would have to either remove it or make up something entirely different because like i said, evolution nullifies itself atm. they will keep going till its right yeah probably, until the day comes when the realize there aint scientific solution or today's naturalistic science isn't that overcome anymore, accepts non-natural reasons. but in todays world science is not allowed to search everywhere and turn every stone, creation cant possibly be the answer even though it explains everything ehh..
if you knew some guys who have made research considering this, they agree with me. they have themselves proven them wrong if you know what i mean, theyve made endless research and still in a deadend, they dont seem to find solution. instead they find more and more obstacles and things they cant solve or explain. evolution theory today is very faulty and everybody knows it aint secret :d there are studies that prove evolution wrong, lots of them but what do you think they would do? just agree that ok evolution is not true? dont think soo.. theyre just gonna work on it endlessly until it's all good OR get a better theory. the better theory will probably be ID youll see.
A liver has no function? Excuse me? Do you even know anything about biology? And why wouldn't it transmit to the next generation? What exactly is your theory for this?
He has the mutated gene, he is more succesfull at surviving thanks to his partial liver => higher chance at reproduction => higher chance to pass on a liver.
You may think it's 100% random, but it's not. You just can't grasp the concept of such a long period of time. Remember 'Given an infinite number of monkeys and enough time, eventually, they'll have rewritten the entire works of Shakespeare'
Same with life, over 99% of all species that ever existed are extinct. If you could even grasp the amount of species there ever existed, perhaps then your insight in how it would be possible would increase.
>yes, most random mutations in us are completely neutral, but no new organs couldve evolved. you know differencies between macro and micro evolution right? microevolution is optimization, macroevolution is creating new. and there are no single mutations that would put us in advantage compared to others, ever. nor would environment change that drastically within one generation. in addition, the information for howtobuildyourorgans are in the DNA, organs made out of series of mutations are not in the DNA, they won't transmit to next generation.
Ehm, microevolution is mutations. Like, someone born with a 3rd arm or something (see, a mutation causing a new limb to sprout out)
Macroevolution on the other hand, is the transcension from one species to another. Not creating 'new'. If you think about it, given the right microevolution and enough time, macroevolution only makes sense.
>This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or "the least energetic state").
No it does not. They're wrong. Look it up if you must.
From wiki: "The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system"
>mmh yeah even the slightest change would take like what, million years? thats quite a few generations
No, evolution is usually a slow process yes, but given the right circumstances it can happen in just a few generations, there are even examples of such in this time, like that moth in England or those fish in the toxic lakes.
>ive even talked to a guy who does these radiocarbon measurements and he admitted that you can pretty much get whatever result you like, as long as you can choose the right isotope
Carbon...That's not what was discussed though. There is only one way to measure carbon decay and it's only accurate up to a certain number of years, cant' remember which, but it has a half-life of 6400 years if I remember correctly. At any rate, that's far too short to do measurements on the age of the Earth or to study dinosaurs. You need some sort of mineral isotope for that, like Si I believe.
Also, what I think he meant was that each method has certain limitations in its use and can only be accurate to a certain year, using a method that can only go back 100.000 years to study something from 10 million years ago is of course not going to work and in that sense you can become any number you want yes... However, we have plenty of methods as I said earlier and most of them can go back to 4billion years easily.
>im not sure whether i should laugh or cry but guess this is always how this ends :p you know nothing about evolution and abiogenesis and you can not argue me. im also pretty sure you arent in the know with biology and such so you could determine what is possible even in theory and what is not. i actually doubt you believe that world was made by bigbang and evolution.. to me it sounds so freaking ridicilous if you know anything about how human being works or even that flagella bacteria tail >_> you can start studying this if youre interested about the truth and prove evolution right if you think youre able to do it. those "worked entire lives" scientists can't, if you point the things out i did, they're unable to answer that's for sure.
That's odd, since I learned about it in school plenty of times, not to mention all the time I spent studying it in my free time. Not to mention all the other people who do this for a living who will point out your wrong if that's what it's going to take. Do you want me to
get such a person? It won't take long :)
Prove evolution right? How? It's already been proven countless of times... Seems rather pointless to try and confirm it once more. Mate, I have probably studied more biology than you have. I know this because you post a link with half-ass arguments that doesn't have anything to back it up.
If you truly believe evolution is wrong, then you should have no trouble finding evidence for that. If you do, please let me know. ;)
>you dont know them, do you? evolution = flaw and they know it eventho you dont. nevertheless i hope you did! if they did decide to change the theory, they would have to either remove it or make up something entirely different because like i said, evolution nullifies itself atm. they will keep going till its right yeah probably, until the day comes when the realize there aint scientific solution or today's naturalistic science isn't that overcome anymore, accepts non-natural reasons. but in todays world science is not allowed to search everywhere and turn every stone, creation cant possibly be the answer even though it explains everything ehh..
Ok...find me a respectable scientist that says evolution is flawed. Go on. How does evolution nullify itself? I asked you to explain this before, but you still haven't.
And you sir, are a 'God of the gaps' person. You see gaps so you say : God
It's not because certain things are unknown, unclear or difficult, that it's automatically some higher force. I said it countless of times before but I'll say it again. There is no need for a creator for this Universe and life to exist. If anything, if he exists then he is either cruel beyond measure, uncaring or dead.
>if you knew some guys who have made research considering this, they agree with me. they have themselves proven them wrong if you know what i mean, theyve made endless research and still in a deadend, they dont seem to find solution. instead they find more and more obstacles and things they cant solve or explain. evolution theory today is very faulty and everybody knows it aint secret :d there are studies that prove evolution wrong, lots of them but what do you think they would do? just agree that ok evolution is not true? dont think soo.. theyre just gonna work on it endlessly until it's all good OR get a better theory. the better theory will probably be ID youll see.
Go on, provide the source with the studies. It should be interesting.
And evolution is a scientific theory, which means it's supported by facts, whereas ID is just the latest version of Genesis. A random every day theory, trying to explain a gap. But why rely on ancient books when we have all this new technologies, new views, more geniuses than ever before, more communication, more resources... The scientists of today know a lot more than those of 2000 years ago and believing otherwise is just deluding yourself.
>
i cant resist saying a couple of things still: look up what is micro and what is macroevolution. you don't seem to fully comprehend that. also, i happen to know complete liver has function, but it doesnt go the way you think 'bam and there's liver'. the guys with only half-liver will be cast out and complete-livers will never exist, they cannot be evolved if every preliminary level of it is worked out by evolution.
and eh you seem evolution fanatic, be more critical towards things, even schoolbooks :E and you surely find out tons of information by just googling this. and evolution has never been proven, it has _always_ had major gaps no matter how you look at it sigh..
if some day you get into know with evolution you will find out im right
yea and evolution nullifies itself cos natural selection casts out the guy who had that partial liver made by mutations and likelihood next to nothing
plusplus even if there was zero proof about ID and we wouldnt care about gaps in evolution that makes it impossible, do you sincerely think all this we're surrounded by is made up randomly??????? please answer to that. if you study biology you know a bit about our complexity and even about that bacteria tail how freaking impossible that is to be product of complete randomness
What will you do when science has filled all the gaps?
tl;dr: If there are gaps that can't be filled it's due to other factors (eg impossible to retrieve evidence), however, you'll find that they're pretty much irrelevant. If anything they only confirm evolution :)
And you can't find fossiles if there aren't any... I mean, there are fossiles, but as said before, extremely rare, we're lucky to have those we have really.
I said that it's impossible to retrieve what isn't there. That's not the fault of science, that's just reality.
ID is a theory. Evolution is a scientific theory.
ID has a 2000 year old book supporting it. Evolution has several libraries supporting it.
People used to think heliocentrism couldn't be real either. You'll see the truth eventually and if not, it won't matter, the following generations will replace you anyway.
ID isnt impossible evolution is you will seeeeeeee im not trying to convert you or anything just you believe in wrong wrong things!! but i must say you have strong faith my friend, just dont ever turn muslimählämsähläm islam so you wont kill anybody!
Why do people think you have to be stupid to be religious?
Granted, there's a lot of narrowminded nutjobs out there, but there are surprisingly many very well-articulated religious people. I know a lot of very, very intelligent religious people, and you'd have a very hard time "framing" them with some inconcistency. Because, surprise, quite a lot of us actually think through what we believe in! And yes, I know I'm inclined towards religion because I grew up in a religious family. I know there's no way I can know I'm right. I know there's countless arguments as to why I'm wrong. But I guess we're getting too cowardy to stand up and respond, since we're supposed to be the lame ones for being religious. And we're not supposed to force it upon anyone. So we're supposed to take the shit and never respond. Those who do respond are the nutjobs, adding fuel to the fire.
TL;DR:
I'm sick and tired of pretentious douchebag-atheists who think they're intelligent saying all religious people are stupid. Saying this is actually a very narrow-minded, faulty generalization. And,if you are a non-douchey atheist, this rant wasn't about you.
No, just no. The ones standing on the barriers yelling appear to be. Average-religiousJoe is no more stupid than Average-nonreligiousJoe.
As for the rest, I agree. Your life is your life. And I'm not catholic, i don't care about popes.
Yes, I'm a protestant, and I guess I kinda go towards the evangelical branch ^^
How bout you?
Don't try to force your views (no matter what they are, religious or atheist) on others, that only brings bad blood. I really wonder why it's so hard for some people to just accept others as they are :x
Nerds still debating about one of the oldest trolling topic on teh interwebz!
I detest organised religions since they're yet another totalitarian way to oppress people. The most natural religious way is that of one's ancestors which doesn't mean we have to try to imitate these old ways but rather re-experience them ourselves. We shouldn't turn to "fancy" beliefs from half the world away which aren't made for us.
Man, especially Westerners, stopped believing in anything, may it be faith or ideals which is the reason why our world and morals are going down the drain.
Personally I'm mostly agnostic I think if I were religious I'd be most probably a pantheist though.
I wasn't necessarily connecting it to religious belief but rather in general believing into manners, morals and ideals which our society is certainly lacking. People, apart from a few selected ones, lack goals in life apart from mere materialism and consumerism, they care for themselves and nothing else.
if i believe in a god but not in the church for sure.
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=8286216943522272168&ei=IPrUSKzVFqGg2ALR0MXMBw&q=walther+veith#