sunshine17542
Well-Known Member
God created everything. There is God and there is nothing.
Why Must People Who Try To Dispute Evolution Use God As An Argument?
- Thread starter krustofskie
- Start date
towlie
Well-Known Member
Um... Not trying to pick on you here Fish, but a 5-second Wikipedia search might help when posting on topics in which you clearly have no interest.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html
Sgt. Floyd
Well-Known Member
I think someone beat you to it.
First off, I'm a believer, raised Catholic. Evolution does not disprove God and vice versa. If one believes that God is omniscient one must allow for the fact that God created evolution along with all the scientific laws that govern the universe.
P
PadawanBater
Guest
I think this is a weak position to take. What's the difference between someone saying "God did it" and someone else saying "God did it through evolution"? Both statements have exactly the same amount of evidence. I think people take this approach to sort of sit in a ''neutral'' zone, where they keep the people who don't believe in God happy as well as the people who do.
I really think it's a black/white kind of thing in this case. If not, then your statement "God did it through evolution" requires evidence to support it.
morgentaler
Well-Known Member
Wow, the claim made earlier that not accepting evolution is equal to not believing in "God" is ludicrous.
There is evidence for evolution in such staggering amounts, over 200,000 scientific research papers on it alone, backed by all branches of science that anyone who follows a rational approach, vis a vis the scientific method of collecting and interpreting data, would come to the conclusion that it is a certainty. (Don't get pedantic over the word certainty. You can be certain that if you drop a brick in Earth gravity it will fall to the ground as well.)
Meanwhile the evidence for "God" is...
well...
um...
There isn't any.
Some people may say "Well we don't know how the Universe started. Therefore... PROOF! GOD! TA DA!"
Well, we also didn't know how to light fires at some point in history. Sickness was attributed to demons/sin/etc.
Lack of sufficient information to make conjecture or form a hypothesis is not proof of anything. All of the traits that people assign to god to make him intangible to man can also be assigned to any number of imaginary creations. And in this information age many people are so far behind on what is known, they still attribute superstitious nonsense to things which science has understood for decades.
There is currently more evidence for the existence of Santa Claus than for the existence of "God". (Where did those milk and cookies go? Ooooh! Presents) The evidence can be proven false or true through observation, but that's the whole point. You can't prove or disprove an imaginary being.
There is evidence for evolution in such staggering amounts, over 200,000 scientific research papers on it alone, backed by all branches of science that anyone who follows a rational approach, vis a vis the scientific method of collecting and interpreting data, would come to the conclusion that it is a certainty. (Don't get pedantic over the word certainty. You can be certain that if you drop a brick in Earth gravity it will fall to the ground as well.)
Meanwhile the evidence for "God" is...
well...
um...
There isn't any.
Some people may say "Well we don't know how the Universe started. Therefore... PROOF! GOD! TA DA!"
Well, we also didn't know how to light fires at some point in history. Sickness was attributed to demons/sin/etc.
Lack of sufficient information to make conjecture or form a hypothesis is not proof of anything. All of the traits that people assign to god to make him intangible to man can also be assigned to any number of imaginary creations. And in this information age many people are so far behind on what is known, they still attribute superstitious nonsense to things which science has understood for decades.
There is currently more evidence for the existence of Santa Claus than for the existence of "God". (Where did those milk and cookies go? Ooooh! Presents) The evidence can be proven false or true through observation, but that's the whole point. You can't prove or disprove an imaginary being.
Sgt. Floyd
Well-Known Member
There is absolutely no difference in those statements. I'm not trying to argue the point in either direction. I'm definitely not trying to use that position to convince an atheist that there is a creator. I all said was that for some one who believes, the Theory of Evolution doesn't necessarily prove that there is no God. Point me to where in the Theory of Evolution it says "because x=y, there is absolutely no possibility for a creator."
In the end, its people with faith( people I see as having an undeniable urge to believe that there is something bigger than us) arguing against people that have none. Who knows, maybe faith is something that evolved out of some biological imperative. I accept that there are some things that we can't know with absolute certainty.
litteringand...
Member
I guess if you believe in God you can't lose. First it was God made us. Then it is God made us through evolution. Why is that? Religion can not dispute evolution therefore they put it into their principals and say we knew all along evolution existed but god got the ball rolling. If you thinks evolution has nothing to do with religion or god you are sadly mistaken imho. Religions have all taught for centuries we were put here as we are, and they were Wrong! To agree with evolution is to disagree with a fundamental teaching in just about every religion. Oh and fish you really aren't helping your cause we have found many of the "missing links" all over the world you just choose not to acknowledge them. None of you religious folks have ever shown me one piece of evidence that there is a higher power. I think we can agree there is at least one evidence that evolution happened. I also welcome someone to tell me about the flaws in carbon and radiation dating. Anyhow, I think they use god as an argument cause that is all they have besides the bible which proves nothing and never has. I used to be religious, and I don't regret it because it made me who I am today.
luckydog82
Active Member
I like the topic of this thread very interesting,I think of myself as an atheist.I was raised catholic made to believe that god sees everything so i would be good but believing in father christmas santa clause whatever you call him seems the same but when you get older you realise that he,s not real.You were told to be good for santa or no presents.I believe the same is said about God if you don't live a good life no presents i.e. no pass to heaven.
Think back before christianity,judaism and muslim(they all stem from the same stories just changed a little to suit the times)what did people believe in.Take the pagans for example they believed in the sun the moon the seasons which they worshipped.Now the Pagans used to celebrate 25 Dec before christianity I think its to do with a star rising in the sky.
I could go on and on but i won't.Now say you were a powerful king or chieftan and you wanted to control the masses of people what better way then to tell everybody that you are being watched from above what would you think with your limited knowledge of how things work.
All religions are all based on faith and belief thats all you need there is no proof all these books were written over long periods of time hundreds of years ago.They were stories that were told then written down and as any good writer the stories would exaggerated.Every religion are linked by one or more stories or miracles as they sometimes are called.
Religion has been used to control people,justify war,justify genocide etc,It used to be about land but now its money
Each to they own thats what i think if you wish to BELIEVE that is your choice but in the end we all end up dust
Think back before christianity,judaism and muslim(they all stem from the same stories just changed a little to suit the times)what did people believe in.Take the pagans for example they believed in the sun the moon the seasons which they worshipped.Now the Pagans used to celebrate 25 Dec before christianity I think its to do with a star rising in the sky.
I could go on and on but i won't.Now say you were a powerful king or chieftan and you wanted to control the masses of people what better way then to tell everybody that you are being watched from above what would you think with your limited knowledge of how things work.
All religions are all based on faith and belief thats all you need there is no proof all these books were written over long periods of time hundreds of years ago.They were stories that were told then written down and as any good writer the stories would exaggerated.Every religion are linked by one or more stories or miracles as they sometimes are called.
Religion has been used to control people,justify war,justify genocide etc,It used to be about land but now its money
Each to they own thats what i think if you wish to BELIEVE that is your choice but in the end we all end up dust
rofl thats comedyIf you really dig into Fish's post history, you'll see that he has repeatedly ignored the overwhelming amount of evidence that proves evolution. His lack of understanding has lead him to "fill in the blanks" with biased assumptions, whilst ignoring the documented facts.
We have millions of fossils in our museums today, and none of them are at odds with evolutionary theory. There are numerous documented "transitional fossils" (link), and a mountain of other evidence (genetics etc.).
As for you "really digging into the fossil record", that is a fucking joke. You have already proven that you simply skim articles looking for quotes that you can use. You don't even try to understand this stuff.
no comeback from that
morgentaler
Well-Known Member
A great quote:
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful - Seneca the Younger
The standard challenge religion has to science is "the god of the gaps".
Every time knew knowledge becomes available to us through science, religion steps up and announces "But we don't know how this works, and that is indisputable proof of God!"...
Until an explanation is found for that as well.
Then religion jumps on to another topic and uses that.
Evolution, abiogenesis, and the big bang / expansion are favorite targets for religion because they deal with the collection of vast amounts of abstracts data, and many religious groups are far, far, behind the curve in even interpreting what we do know about these topics. The top three sources quoted by creationists are Hovind, Comfort, and Behe.
Hovind is a convicted fraudster, serving time.
Ray Comfort is a showman who makes videos with Kirk Cameron, and it is painfully apparent when he speaks that he doesn't have the first clue about basic biology, let alone evolution.
Behe, on the other hand, is a man with a degree, and oddly the less quoted of the three. You would think the guy with the degree would be the first one quoted, wouldn't you? But he's just as batshit as the rest, even giving testimony in court that his concept of scientific theories could include astrology. (Sorry to break it to you horoscope readers, but that's a bunch of hooey too
)
Faith isn't just harmless. It is the suspension of critical thought. Whether it is religious faith or dogmatic faith, once you stop questioning the words or deeds of the people around you, you become part of the mob.
For example, the anti-vaccination movement has grown thanks to a bunch of desperate parents, looking for something to blame autism on other than heredity, jumped on a published report linking autism and vaccinations. The Wakefield study was later found to have had falsified data, and no study since has found a link between vaccines and autism. Yet this report is still waved around like a battle standard, and people rally to it. Because they have faith. They take the claims of the person that tells them what they want to hear at face value and that's where their investigations stop.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful - Seneca the Younger
The standard challenge religion has to science is "the god of the gaps".
Every time knew knowledge becomes available to us through science, religion steps up and announces "But we don't know how this works, and that is indisputable proof of God!"...
Until an explanation is found for that as well.
Then religion jumps on to another topic and uses that.
Evolution, abiogenesis, and the big bang / expansion are favorite targets for religion because they deal with the collection of vast amounts of abstracts data, and many religious groups are far, far, behind the curve in even interpreting what we do know about these topics. The top three sources quoted by creationists are Hovind, Comfort, and Behe.
Hovind is a convicted fraudster, serving time.
Ray Comfort is a showman who makes videos with Kirk Cameron, and it is painfully apparent when he speaks that he doesn't have the first clue about basic biology, let alone evolution.
Behe, on the other hand, is a man with a degree, and oddly the less quoted of the three. You would think the guy with the degree would be the first one quoted, wouldn't you? But he's just as batshit as the rest, even giving testimony in court that his concept of scientific theories could include astrology. (Sorry to break it to you horoscope readers, but that's a bunch of hooey too
)Faith isn't just harmless. It is the suspension of critical thought. Whether it is religious faith or dogmatic faith, once you stop questioning the words or deeds of the people around you, you become part of the mob.
For example, the anti-vaccination movement has grown thanks to a bunch of desperate parents, looking for something to blame autism on other than heredity, jumped on a published report linking autism and vaccinations. The Wakefield study was later found to have had falsified data, and no study since has found a link between vaccines and autism. Yet this report is still waved around like a battle standard, and people rally to it. Because they have faith. They take the claims of the person that tells them what they want to hear at face value and that's where their investigations stop.
Sgt. Floyd
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure most religions still try pretty damn hard to dispute evolution. I live in the Southern US and the dispute over teaching evolution vs creation is still a very touchy subject.
And since when is god an argument? You can argue for or against god but using god to argue a point is pointless. Someone tell me where I tried to do that. The only thing I'm trying to argue is that mans inability to know everything should make us keep and open mind and question everything.
The topic of the thread is "why do people use god to try and disprove evolution?" All I'm asking is "why do people use evolution to try and disprove god?" Does evolution disprove the doctrines of different denominations? Damn right it does. Does evolution absolutely deny the existence of a creator? No, it hasn't yet.
The way I see it god is just as unlikely as seemingly perfect chain of events that led to the evolution of man. The chances of either one are astronomical. Until we can test the theories with results that can be replicated, we can't truly know. I see the complex chemical and physical interactions that make life possible and hold the universe together as evidence for a creator. But evidence has to be interpreted and we don't know all the facts. Interpretations change as we learn more.
kindman
Active Member
there is fosil evidence of evolution!
By ROBERT S. BOYD
McClatchy Newspapers
More News
Move over, Lucy. A 4-foot-tall female nicknamed Ardi, who lived 4.4 million years ago in Africa, has replaced you as the earliest best known ancestor of the human species.
Ardi's nearly complete skeleton is 1 million years older than Lucy's, pushing back the point when hominids - pre-human primates - are known to have split from the evolutionary line that led to chimpanzees and gorillas, an international team of scientists announced Thursday.
"Ardi is not a chimp. It's not a human. It's what we used to be," said paleontologist Tim White, an authority on human evolution at the University of California, Berkeley.
White and his colleagues spent 15 years recovering and studying Ardi's bones before Thursday's announcement.
Ardi is "on our side of the family tree, not the chimpanzee side," White told a news conference in Washington sponsored by the journal Science.
Ardi is named for her genus and species, Ardipithecus ramidus, a distant cousin of Lucy's line, Australopithecus afarensis.
The discovery sheds new light on human evolution during a previously little known epoch. Scientists believe that humans and apes both descended from a "last common ancestor," an even more primitive primate that lived between 7 million and 9 million years ago.
Ardi isn't the last common ancestor, White said, but "it's the closest we've come to the last common ancestor."
A few older hominid skulls and teeth have been discovered, but nothing as complete as Ardi or Lucy.
The first of Ardi's bones, a single tooth, was discovered in 1992, not far from where Lucy's skeleton was buried in the fossil-rich Afar Rift of Ethiopia. Later, more than 100 other pieces, including bits of a skull, hand, foot and pelvis, were carefully eased out of the volcanic soil and reassembled.
The remains of 35 other individuals, plus birds, animals and plants, were also found there.
White called the project to assemble Ardi, which eventually involved 47 scientists from 10 different countries, "a scientific mission into the very deep past. ... It was like discovering a time capsule from a period and place we knew nothing about."
Owen Lovejoy, an evolutionary biologist at Ohio's Kent State University, said Ardi is "an image of what our early ancestors must have looked like."
Ardi's hands, feet, pelvis and teeth are more like the bones of modern humans than of chimpanzees or gorillas. For example, her pelvis is modified for walking upright on the ground, as well as climbing trees.
"Ardi was not a knuckle-walker (like apes)," Lovejoy said. But she probably couldn't have outrun the smaller, more advanced Lucy.
"If Ardi and Lucy had a race, Lucy would win handily," Lovejoy said.
Ardi was a woodland creature, with a small brain, long arms and short legs. Her discovery disproves the earlier theory that pre-humans learned to walk when they came down from trees to live on open savannas, White said.
She probably ate fruit, berries, mushrooms, birds, bats and mice and other small mammals, judging by her teeth and the remains found where she was discovered. Scientists can tell she was female because of the shape of her canine teeth and her pelvis.
The Afar Rift is a large basin created when the Arabian peninsula split off from Africa millions of years ago. The breakup also produced the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. Afar is often called "The Cradle of Humankind," because so many hominid remains have been found there.
Ardi was the subject of 11 scientific papers published in Friday's issue of the journal Science. It will be the subject of a two-hour program, "Discovering Ardis," on the Discovery channel at 9 p.m. EDT Sunday.
Posted on Thu, Oct. 01, 2009 04:21 PM
By ROBERT S. BOYD
McClatchy Newspapers
More News
- Senate leader wants answers on military's gay ban
- A look at health care plans in Congress
- Correction: Health Care Overhaul
- INSIDE WASHINGTON: Obama moving slowly on judges
- Spokesman says Obama-McChrystal meeting productive
- Obama extends condolences to Indonesian president
- Health overhaul closer than ever _ and yet far off
- DOL seeks exemption for Chrysler health care plan
- Biden: 'Less bad is not our measure of success'
- Clinton to visit Britain, Ireland, Russia
- Obama meets with Afghanistan commander in Denmark
- US targets banks in effort to restart NKorea talks
- Dems taunt GOP: Where's your health care plan?
- Sotomayor won't sell NY apartment in this economy
- Gibbs: Obama 'disappointed' at losing Olympics
- Task force created to combat al-Qaida in Afghan prisons
- Task force created to combat al-Qaida in Afghan prisons
- GOP Senate leader stays mum on Ensign's troubles
- Obama praises Gandhi on anniversary of his birth
- Senate panel backs amendment permitting state health-care plans
Move over, Lucy. A 4-foot-tall female nicknamed Ardi, who lived 4.4 million years ago in Africa, has replaced you as the earliest best known ancestor of the human species.
Ardi's nearly complete skeleton is 1 million years older than Lucy's, pushing back the point when hominids - pre-human primates - are known to have split from the evolutionary line that led to chimpanzees and gorillas, an international team of scientists announced Thursday.
"Ardi is not a chimp. It's not a human. It's what we used to be," said paleontologist Tim White, an authority on human evolution at the University of California, Berkeley.
White and his colleagues spent 15 years recovering and studying Ardi's bones before Thursday's announcement.
Ardi is "on our side of the family tree, not the chimpanzee side," White told a news conference in Washington sponsored by the journal Science.
Ardi is named for her genus and species, Ardipithecus ramidus, a distant cousin of Lucy's line, Australopithecus afarensis.
The discovery sheds new light on human evolution during a previously little known epoch. Scientists believe that humans and apes both descended from a "last common ancestor," an even more primitive primate that lived between 7 million and 9 million years ago.
Ardi isn't the last common ancestor, White said, but "it's the closest we've come to the last common ancestor."
A few older hominid skulls and teeth have been discovered, but nothing as complete as Ardi or Lucy.
The first of Ardi's bones, a single tooth, was discovered in 1992, not far from where Lucy's skeleton was buried in the fossil-rich Afar Rift of Ethiopia. Later, more than 100 other pieces, including bits of a skull, hand, foot and pelvis, were carefully eased out of the volcanic soil and reassembled.
The remains of 35 other individuals, plus birds, animals and plants, were also found there.
White called the project to assemble Ardi, which eventually involved 47 scientists from 10 different countries, "a scientific mission into the very deep past. ... It was like discovering a time capsule from a period and place we knew nothing about."
Owen Lovejoy, an evolutionary biologist at Ohio's Kent State University, said Ardi is "an image of what our early ancestors must have looked like."
Ardi's hands, feet, pelvis and teeth are more like the bones of modern humans than of chimpanzees or gorillas. For example, her pelvis is modified for walking upright on the ground, as well as climbing trees.
"Ardi was not a knuckle-walker (like apes)," Lovejoy said. But she probably couldn't have outrun the smaller, more advanced Lucy.
"If Ardi and Lucy had a race, Lucy would win handily," Lovejoy said.
Ardi was a woodland creature, with a small brain, long arms and short legs. Her discovery disproves the earlier theory that pre-humans learned to walk when they came down from trees to live on open savannas, White said.
She probably ate fruit, berries, mushrooms, birds, bats and mice and other small mammals, judging by her teeth and the remains found where she was discovered. Scientists can tell she was female because of the shape of her canine teeth and her pelvis.
The Afar Rift is a large basin created when the Arabian peninsula split off from Africa millions of years ago. The breakup also produced the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. Afar is often called "The Cradle of Humankind," because so many hominid remains have been found there.
Ardi was the subject of 11 scientific papers published in Friday's issue of the journal Science. It will be the subject of a two-hour program, "Discovering Ardis," on the Discovery channel at 9 p.m. EDT Sunday.
Posted on Thu, Oct. 01, 2009 04:21 PM
Mauihund
Active Member
I think the two sides contradict each other as far as either approach says it does. They are all just theories trying to explain our experiences and surroundings. Neither is worthy of "putting our faith in". Even Einstein can be full of shit. He just makes it sound good.
So, I guess I'm agreeing with you to a point. Just like many groups in the scientific community who interpret their experiences into the data they gather, so do religious groups. Then they just feed on each others opinions, as long as it supports what they already think they understand.
I think a Muslim or Christian would say it is both written and experienced. It supports your claim if it were true that a Formulation of understanding came from experience alone because there is no standard in which to judge, but it isn't.
P
PadawanBater
Guest
That's absurd!
There is a HUGE difference between what the churches do and what scientists do. It's not AT ALL interpretation of the data. It's independent, corroborative research that points in one direction. How do you suggest a scientist working in London would get the exact same result as a scientist working in Los Angeles in some random experiment? It's because they both look at the data that is given to them through the experiment and simply report it back to us as they see it. There is no interpretation involved. Sometimes they get it wrong and more data shows new evidence, that doesn't mean they interpreted it wrong, that means they didn't have all the pieces to the puzzle yet.
Mauihund
Active Member
All data needs interpretation. Interpretation comes when the data needs to be used for something. Otherwise, it's useless data. The reason these people can come up with the same conclusions is because the experiment was probably recreated the way the original experimenter set it up.....to draw the same conclusion. No one wants their life's work to be meaningless. Something personal is always at stake when a man is trying to prove something.
It don't beleive I can afford to be naive in this life. If someone told me "It's independent, corroborative research that points in one direction.", I'd have to wonder. It use to be that "the scientists" beleived the world was flat. Thank God they were wrong. How much else has "the scientific" community been wrong about?
cbtwohundread
Well-Known Member
I dont believe in the evolution of man from monkeys.,.,doesnt make sense to i.,.,its not like we are watching monkeys get more and more like us or sumthing.,.,people and our nature sometimes has us lo0k in the wrong place for answers to life.,.,science came round about the same time desruction of man did.,.,people tired of a simple life.,.,with a heart full of greed and vanity started tryna make sense the best way they could.,.,with lies.,.assumptions.,.,and materialism.,.,i dont care for science but iman love nature,.,.,.so u lo0k to science i wil,l lo0k 2 the trees ,sky,ocean,and dirt.,.,when i speak my enemies cry,when i shit they die
cbtwohundread
Well-Known Member
To the person that left i the rep.,.,thank u.,.,u asked i "out of wat?" i say othey helped us out of a life of fo0d and water,and love,and one blo0d,one community.,.,to seperation,materializm,vanity,and greed.its ashame that man to man we dont kno who to trust.,.,.,its ashmed that noone loves the trees., .,they love the guitar,the houses,ect.,.,they all come from the trees.,.,ini plan on moving to india to live with the sadhus for seven years of i life.,.,nothing could get i closer to the earth than that.,.,.,i say earth is the lord .,.,.and u cant take life to the life giver.,.,
Mauihund
Active Member
cbtwohundread
Well-Known Member
thank u m.h.,.,im glad u overstand where im coming from massive *rep