Logic dictates that there is a God!

[AAFitz]

You yourself are a creationist if you believe He created the heavens and the earth and us even if you believe He used millions of years of pain and suffering and death to do it?

All life suffers and dies. It is the living that is important. Odd for a lover of God to not realize that Life is beautiful and worth suffering and dying for. Is it not more beautiful to have millions of years of life, than just six thousand years of it? Or do you feel that life is a curse and not the gift that it is?

[Lionz]

Has He ever needed to use violence and suffering and pain and death to create human beings even if life is worth suffering and dying for? And who's arguing that there will only be life for 6,000 years? There will be life forever maybe.

[jay_a2j]

To anyone who holds to the notion that evolution took place to give us the human being:


1) Science has said that life can not come from non-life

2) In the event that the direct descendant of X life form (we will use the ape as is widely accepted) is the human being you better start explaining how it is they learned to talk. Because SCIENCE has established that the ability to speak is a LEARNED behavior. So, who taught the first "ape" how to speak?

3)Species X has 20 chromosomes and species Y has 26 chromosomes. Science has said that matter can not be created nor destroyed. Here you need to explain how species X, through some hypothetical and insane miracle (without God mind you) gained 6 chromosomes?

4) If you need further explanation on where life came from, who created it, how we have so many languages upon the Earth and what it all means, I refer you to the Bible.

[beezer]

Jay, I think what you were talking about a couple of posts before is spontaneous generation. Yes, it is an obsolete theory.

[Snorri1234]

2) In the event that the direct descendant of X life form (we will use the ape as is widely accepted) is the human being you better start explaining how it is they learned to talk. Because SCIENCE has established that the ability to speak is a LEARNED behavior. So, who taught the first "ape" how to speak?

Who taught the first ape to use tools? Who taught the first animal to walk?


How come some people are able to learn themselves how to read? If anything, that's a learned behaviour we can actually trace through history.


(As an aside, the ability to speak is not a learned behaviour. It's an innate ability to produce sounds, language is the learned behaviour.)

[Baron Von PWN]

let's take a very simple creature, say a single cell creature, let's call it "jay". If we take all the atoms that make up Jay and arrange them in a very specific manner we would then have a copy of Jay would we not?

Your point fails when you are forced to consider that "jay" came about from mama jay and papa jay. Living beings. Not some rock laying on a beach. After you prove that life can be created from non-living things your next step will be to prove how life comes from nothing. Because in the beginning, before all life there was nothing. You have a full plate, I'll let you tend to it.

You apparently fail at reading. Did you happen to see the link where I point you towards an article discussing how scientists discovered a means to create life from chemicals? No mom no pop just a chemical slurry which created living life forms.

[Lionz]

A synthetic chromosome was inserted into a bacterium that was already alive in the first place? What would that have to do with life coming from non-life?

[jay_a2j]

2) In the event that the direct descendant of X life form (we will use the ape as is widely accepted) is the human being you better start explaining how it is they learned to talk. Because SCIENCE has established that the ability to speak is a LEARNED behavior. So, who taught the first "ape" how to speak?

Who taught the first ape to use tools? Who taught the first animal to walk?


How come some people are able to learn themselves how to read? If anything, that's a learned behaviour we can actually trace through history.


(As an aside, the ability to speak is not a learned behaviour. It's an innate ability to produce sounds, language is the learned behaviour.)

Producing sounds is NOT speech, it is communication. Speech is joining sounds to form words. And it is learned. I don't believe apes learned to use tools nor start fires nor walk nor SPEAK. Do an experiment Snorri, as soon as a newborn is born grab it, and NEVER subject it to any form of speech...... I will bet you $10,000 by the time the child is an adult it will only make sounds, it will not be able to speak. Now, explain how the Ape did it.

[jay_a2j]

A synthetic chromosome was inserted into a bacterium that was already alive in the first place? What would that have to do with life coming from non-life?

exactly

[Snorri1234]

Producing sounds is NOT speech, it is communication. Speech is joining sounds to form words. And it is learned.

Uh yes. What exactly are words if not sounds?

I don't believe apes learned to use tools

Wait? You don't?

Do an experiment Snorri, as soon as a newborn is born grab it, and NEVER subject it to any form of speech...... I will bet you $10,000 by the time the child is an adult it will only make sounds, it will not be able to speak. Now, explain how the Ape did it.

Well....I bet you he wouldn't be able to read either. So how did we learn to read?

[jonesthecurl]

Apes cannot use tools...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4296606.stm

oh no?

"We have now seen tool use in all the great apes in the wild," he said.

[PLAYER57832]

Do an experiment Snorri, as soon as a newborn is born grab it, and NEVER subject it to any form of speech...... I will bet you $10,000 by the time the child is an adult it will only make sounds, it will not be able to speak. Now, explain how the Ape did it.

This has been done and no, the child does not learn to speak. HOWEVER, they can communicate in some fashion.

There is an interesting set of thinking on this, looking at how langauge at all is translated. The theory is that it was children, not adults, who begin this. They look to the way immigrant groups adapt, that the kids learn language first and often actually create their "own" languages, a combination of the 2 (pigeon). One theory is that language evolved to allow hunting communication. But another is that it evolved so that parents, moms particularly, could communciate with children and vice-versa.

Anyway, jay... the thing is this happened, is happening, so to claim "it could not have happened" is another example of what you don't know.

[Lionz]

http://yahushua.net/scriptures/gen11.htm

[jonesthecurl]

Yes, god got scared that humans were becoming too smart. Convincing.

[Lionz]

That's at least kind of in response to Player perhaps, but...

http://creation.com/the-tower-of-babel- ... inguistics

Note: Removed earlier address from here for one or more reason that's not the easiest thing to explain maybe.

[PLAYER57832]

You apparently fail at reading. Did you happen to see the link where I point you towards an article discussing how scientists discovered a means to create life from chemicals? No mom no pop just a chemical slurry which created living life forms.

In fairness, this is still theoretical. Science is close, but not quite "there" yet.

[PLAYER57832]

That's at least kind of in response to Player perhaps, but...

http://www.mondovista.com/expo2002.html?e1acb7c0

http://creation.com/the-tower-of-babel- ... inguistics

Against my better judgement, I actually did read the second.

It begins by making all sorts of claims of what "must be true" or "is asserted by secular scientists" that simply are not true.
That said, what I mentioned is not proven or necessarily widely accepted. It is just a plausible idea I found interesting.

Sometimes we learn a lot by entertaining ideas, thinking about what the ramifications might be if they were true, whether we believe the idea or not.

[Lionz]

What specifically do you claim is not true?

And are you not essentially trying to argue against Genesis 11?

[jay_a2j]

Apes cannot use tools...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4296606.stm

oh no?

"We have now seen tool use in all the great apes in the wild," he said.

A gorilla putting a stick in the mud is your evidence? Get out of town. Seriously, you guys will cling to the most flimsy of foundation to remain defending evolution. It didn't happen. When any of you explain how language was developed, then you can at least believe in something that makes sense. Until then you are holding fast to something that is quite illogical. We were created by God WITH the ability to speak, use tools, start fires, walk, and think beyond an animal. The tower of Babel is when God dispersed the human race and gave them different "tongues". You can look to man for your answers (science) or you can look to God for them (the Bible).

[jonesthecurl]

You said "apes don't use tools". I showed that they all do.
Unless you expect 'em to get their tools from the jungle branch of Home Depot.

[Snorri1234]

Apes cannot use tools...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4296606.stm

oh no?

"We have now seen tool use in all the great apes in the wild," he said.

A gorilla putting a stick in the mud is your evidence? Get out of town. Seriously, you guys will cling to the most flimsy of foundation to remain defending evolution.

From simplicity arises complexity.

then you can at least believe in something that makes sense. Until then you are holding fast to something that is quite illogical. We were created by God WITH the ability to speak, use tools, start fires, walk, and think beyond an animal.

You missed build computers, build subways and write.

The tower of Babel is when God dispersed the human race and gave them different "tongues".

You know, the strangest thing about your crazy theory is that it means new languages can not be formed.

[icedagger]

As I said, I accept some people feel what they think is the presence of the abrahamic god. I accept some people feel just as strongly what they think is the presence of vishnu, or baron samedi, or thor. Or that elvis is still alive. You're just dismissing one claim fewer than me.

No, I dismiss the claim that there is no God. We dismiss the same number of claims, exactly.

Right. So how can you criticise athiests for dismissing christians' claims when you do the exact same thing to every other religion?

So, you have concrete evidence for your expertise in the form of the stability of your structures. Well done, I would accept you could indeed accurately predict "certain aspects of a stream".

Except, it is not something predictable, testable, etc. More than one engineer dismissed that knowledge, in real life. (not actually mine, that of my bosses).

It eminently is testable. Your structures would tend to be more stable than those designed by engineers. If you really wanted to, you and an engineer could design structures for similar streams, and the results compared. The religious' alleged expertise can't be tested empirically in this way- the two aren't analogous.

No concrete evidence for your expertise here though. I have no more reason to believe what you say is true than to listen to those who say elvis is alive.

You had to do it... Elvis, Tea pots.. same thing.
Concrete, testable evidence is not the only kind of evidence. If it were , no child would feel loved.

I don't understand what you're getting at here. Maybe I'm missing your point, but childrens' love of their parents isn't just based on an assessment of evidence- clearly it's evolutionarily useful for a child to unconditionally love their parent, and vice versa.

I'm pretty puzzled as to what you're suggesting here. Should science accept people's deepest-held beliefs as evidence? Should expeditions be sent to the moon in search of elvis? What scientific developments are being shackled roman catholic church-style by athiesm?

It is not scientific evidence. It is, however reason to move forward in certain areas of science.

Example?

As for scientific shackles. Right now, Christians still dominate. However, when you dismiss any alternative simply out of hand, then you, by its very nature, necessarily also omit many other things. For example, it is very likely that other universes exist. It is quite likely that many rules we consider "set" won't apply in that other universe. Just grasping those types of permeations, the possibilities means being able to look outside what you can prove, to consider the "other".

The "other" is what lead people to create machines that fly, it is what lead people to explore, it is what leads people to think and challenge anything that is "known" and accepted.

I don't have a lot of respect for flat earthers, there is just too much evidence contrary. However, we need folks, even folks like that who live on the "edge" to challenge us constantly. If you cannot understand that, without information, people could think the earth is flat, then you won't bother to take the time to make sure the true concepts are taught. If you don't understand that is is possible for people to think that way, then you cannot possibly communicate with whole groups of people.

I realize you consider belief in God to be equivalent to flat earthers, but the difference is that you cannot prove our beliefs wrong. We can prove that the earth is not flat.

I just don't understand how working from the premise that god exists can ever be helpful to science. It never provides an explanation more useful than "god did it". It encourages, if anything, a lack of enquiry.

I don't believe in god in the same way that you don't believe elvis is alive. By your logic, believing elvis is dead is no more or less valid than believing he is alive.

No, Elvis being dead is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of proof. My belief in God is also a matter of proof, just a proof that does not lend itself to be trotted out to others, particularly on the internet. And that is the whole point.

Once again, you take something which is known to be false.. not even a true matter of possible believe, and claim that it is somehow equivalent to belief in God, which has proof and evidence, evidence you might not see, but which is really and truly seen by many, many people. We believe in something that you cannot disprove. You just don't wish to believe it could be true.

Scientologists believe in something you can't disprove. Do you accept that your lack of belief in scientology "is no better or worse than a positive belief" in it?

I would love a benevolent god to exist by the way. I don't confuse what would be nice with what is true though- it's not a question of what I "wish to believe".

No, the only difference is that atheism is your belief. Else, there is no more evidence for your position or mine. In fact, I would suggest there is much more evidence for God. If I did not see it, I would not believe.

What would you accept as evidence that god does not exist?

That is the other distinction. I understand that you don't see any evidence. I understand that this is why you believe Atheistically. I also understand that that belief is very central to your core being, something that, if challenged would shake your world irrevocably. That is the nature of belief. Its just that you, and others here wish to assert it is not belief. That is just wrong. Just because you base your belief on a failure to see evidence, makes it no less a belief.

When I say my position doesn't take belief I mean it doesn't take a leap of faith. This is one of the distinctions between athiesm and religions. If by belief you just mean "something I think is true", then yes, athiesm is my belief. I wouldn't say my "belief" that the abrahamic god doesn't exist is any more central to my being than your "belief" that thor doesn't exist, though.

There are two alternatives. 1. proof that can be shared and tested, etc. That is the realm of science. 2. things that cannot yet be tested or proven. Those are the realm of belief.

Belief is not necessarily inferior to proof. Belief takes us places where absolute proof cannot possibly go. They take us into the realms of what make us human. Art, music, feelings, emotions, etc... and religion. ALL religion, including atheism.

I can just about accept your definition of belief, but your definition of religion would have to be pretty meaningless to encompass athiesm. I'd be interested to hear it. I don't see the link between what you call belief- something someone thinks is true- and art, music, feelings, and emotions.

[jay_a2j]

You know, the strangest thing about your crazy theory is that it means new languages can not be formed.

Um, no it doesn't.

[Snorri1234]

You know, the strangest thing about your crazy theory is that it means new languages can not be formed.

Um, no it doesn't.

But you can't form speech on your own. Speech is language.

[jay_a2j]

You know, the strangest thing about your crazy theory is that it means new languages can not be formed.

Um, no it doesn't.

But you can't form speech on your own. Speech is language.

You can form dialects from a known language.


Funny, something that would be so improbable, 100's of different languages and different races evolving from a common ancestor, when the Bible states how it came about. God "scattered" the human race all over the globe (this is why Asians came from one part of the globe -Asia-, Blacks from another-Africa-, Whites from another-Europe- and Indians from yet another-North and South America-) Giving each group a different tongue. Nothing in evolution can come close to explaining this. Yet, player insists it happened anyways!