Now,some people might say that if you pray hard enough or long enough whatever the case,that,if someone's ill be it with cancer,flesh eating disease,or whatever (basically sick with a disease)and you pray for them to get well,and they 'somehow' get better,that that was an act of God.Well is it really? Or has science really interviened here.Personally,it's my belief that evrything has to do or is associated with science,fate,or destiny as it be.Like if your going through a real hardship,and you pray to God to help you out,and things eventually smooth out and seem to get better,is that really an act of "God",or has your decisions and choices helped you out,or your destiny or fate was involved and you overcame these hardships.No offence or anything I don't exactly want to start some religiouse war or anything,but do you really think there's someone out there sitting around (or floating I guess) wasting all his time answering millions and millions of prayers,to people who's destiny is already set in place.For evry action,there is a reaction,your destiny is set in motion by the choices you make and the actions you take.People think that 'God' created man,but really in my opinion,and many others,man has just been created by the science of evoloution,which is clearly and evidently a scientific fact that all beings large or small evolve to some point,and continue to do so.

now,you might say "well you just have to believe,or have faith" okay,well I peosonally dont believe in anything I cant see,toutch smell hear ect...So if your nieve enought to believe something that someone else told you but they clearly have no proof or anything and you still believe them,then if i told you,"in two years from now the earth will shrivel up to the size of a golf ball and evryone will die" you would have to believe me concidering that i have presented no proof of it what so ever.I think that believing or having faith in God is like praying to yourself,"me,i have faith in my big toe,i pray to my big toe and it brings me many great things"thiers really no difference in doing that than praying to God.If you look at it realistically it's true,instead of having faith in God why dont you have faith in a lamp pole,it'll do just as much for you!

Personally,religion is not the smartest thing to get into for it only causes war's and fights and shit.All these people thinking that if they are good and do the right thing all the time they will go to heaven,and are willing to fight for thier religion,well I think if there was a God he would say as has been said before "live and let live" which states that if someone believes in something or doesn't believe in something that that is thier own choice and to just let them be...but no,some fucking idiots are going around killing other people just for the sake of religions and "God",because they either dont believe in thier god or just dont care,or are calling them fuckin idiots for believing in something that clearly doesn't exist or make sence to them.I think god is just another thing that people look to for hope,and hope that this 'God' will help them in some way,or show them the right path to lead thier life in and shit like that,but if you really want hope,start thinking sensuosly and realize what might happen if you do certain things what the outcome might be and go from there....anyways..I could go on for hours about this nonsence...tell me what you think!

quote:Originally posted by KwOnLiE:

No offence or anything I don't exactly want to start some religiouse war or anything

Haha. KwOnLiE is the start of a religeous world war coz of his thread in totse.

Anyway, God/spirituality whatever and science do co-exist. God can be explained scientifically but I guess god is the only one with a mind powerful enough to explain himself.

Dude you don't know enough to form opinions.

Some people believe in god by knowing themselves.

KwOnLiE:

Now,some people might say that if you pray... ...Or has science really interviened here.

"Science" cannot intervene. Science, as a catch-all term, describes how things happen (I realize that this isn't the most accurate definition, I'm typing on the fly). It doesn't heal the sick in some mysterious way.

Personally,it's my belief that evrything has to do or is associated with science,fate,or destiny... ...and you overcame these hardships.

Why must a destiny be involved? Can one not overcome their problems without the intervention of fate?

No offence or anything I don't exactly want... ...to people who's destiny is already set in place.

To some people, yes, there is someone "floating" around, wasting time and answering prayers (as you put it). Also, how will you back up your statement that things are predestined?

For evry action,there is a reaction... ...a scientific fact that all beings large or small evolve to some point,and continue to do so.

Someone else can go for this section.

now,you might say "well you just have to believe,or have faith" okay,well I peosonally dont believe in anything I cant see,toutch smell hear ect...

And yet, evolution is fact? Care to tell me how to develop my "sense of evolution?"

So if your nieve enought to believe something that someone else told you... ...presented no proof of it what so ever.

Nope, just because one has faith involving a particular idea does not mean they must have faith in another.

I think that believing or having faith in God is like... ...tell me what you think!

First, you blame religion for causing wars, fights, et cetera. Then, you turn around and acknowledge that it's people, not the religion, that cause all of it. So, which is it?

[This message has been edited by ashesofzen (edited 03-26-2004).]

I guess AoZ and Beany have sort of hit this home already, but, what God does IS science.

God or Science?

Whoever said one must choose?

well many argue that god is your almighty creator, bla bla bla, but catholisism, at least, contradicts it self alot. one of my favorite is this: you don't beleive in god, you go to hell. now look at it in the human view: you don't think your dad is real, so he tosses you into a fire and makes you burn forever.

so i beleive that god is an imaginary friend. a guiding character that tells you what is right or wrong. god is your concience. god is your common sense. god, esentailly, is you. religon is just to keep the masses in line, or in some cases, out of line. science can prove just about anything, so science is my best source.

SCIENCE

vermont

...one of my favorite is this: you don't beleive in god, you go to hell. now look at it in the human view: you don't think your dad is real, so he tosses you into a fire and makes you burn forever...

How exactly does this qualify as a contradiction?

Did your earth father die for the sins of the world, if that is the case, than i guess your analogy is sort of acceptable.

well,i dont know what the hell your talking about with that sence of evoloution crap,but obviously evoloution is not a sence it's just something that occurs,things evolve naturally due to thier needs over a vast period of time,example (a giraff eats different sorts of vegitation,after a long period of time,(lets just say a verry long ass time)vegitation grows scarce on ground level and thus the giraff evolves to a point where it has an elongated neck to grasp vegitation at much greated hights...that's not the best example but im sure u get the point),evoloution is not a sence like smell,taste toutch ect ect ect,it just happens.Okay,lol i might have exagerated about the war thing it was kind of a joke,but anyway.science obviously doesn't heal people in 'mysterious' ways at all,just things involved with it,like cells,atoms you know,stuff like that,so when someone gets over an illness,it's not some invisable character(God) reaching down and just making shit right cause someone was verry good and durring prayers prayed for this individual to overcome an illness and 'poof' God responded and made a miracle and played around with cells atoms and all that crap and fixed the problem,im not saying that if this were the case no one would be dying and stuff,it's just that when a religious persons family member get over some sickness they say "it's the workings of God" and all that crap,why the hell would they even have any remote thought that something helped out in the process? it's just science and the way things work,the person's body got better due to treatment or something (something, being thier cells and shit reacting a certain way to stuff)i mean,if you dont understand what im trying to say here,then there's sumthing wrong with the way i said it or your just ignorant

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

Haha. KwOnLiE is the start of a religeous world war coz of his thread in totse.

Anyway, God/spirituality whatever and science do co-exist. God can be explained scientifically but I guess god is the only one with a mind powerful enough to explain himself.

Dude you don't know enough to form opinions.

Some people believe in god by knowing themselves.

dude that is EXACTLY how i see things but i never thought id be able to get it into words the way you have.dude i wish more people were like you.

I never said you have to choose between god and science,im just trying to lay the facts on the table and let people think about this shit for a minute,because personally,,,it makes sence to me.And can you tell me exactly in your opinion,what it is that god does that 'IS science'..i can't seem to think of anything?

Okay,it's people whom start the wars and shit,but the war is ABOUT some religious crap,religion being the basis of the war and people who created these religions to have some sort of explanation to shit they didn't understand.. E.G. (someone asks "why do awful things happen to good people?" and somone says "because God wants people to see that there is more to life than just pleasure")might be a bad example but u get the point..and my answer to that person in my opinion instead of all that God crap,,i'ed just be like "well,that's life,not evrything's great and just cause your good dont mean that shit wont happen to you"..even still,there's some stuff that cant be explained,but then again you must think..the mind is a powerful thing,even though shit happens that cant be explained it could be what some people call the power of thought best explained as telekinesis which involves mind power and does not involve a third person or second i guess,i'ed have to endulge in the explanation of faith and stuff like that which would take a while so i'll save it for another day.

i didn't think so....

everyone starts this

ok Vermont Catholosim does not say that if you dont believe in God you are going to hell. Catholics after vatican 2 feel that people from all religions can go to heaven but it is easier if ou are catholic. As long as you live a god life you can make it . You were thinking of evangelical protestants. Eductae yourself before you say somethign is a fact.

I think Catholics should read the bible every once in a while, but that's a topic for another day ;-).

You get both in Hermetics, and a little more. If I had to choose a religion to beleive, I think Hermetics would make the most sense.

I read something the other day saying that (to paraphrase off the top of my head) it is only through the Judeo-Christian tradition that modern science emerged. It did also mention the scientific contributions of both Islam and China but neither of them became what we had today.

I'll try and post the quote proper.

There are many ways you can look at this...



Did the sick guy heal because the doctor injected some kinda chemical which created a reaction and killed the sickness off?

Did he do something bad in his past and set off his karma to make him sick?

And now his good karma is healing him?

Did the tao finally ballance off for all his sick days by making him healthy again?

Did god hear his prays to get better?

Which answere can be true? Does it matter? They all good answeres to me.

none of this answeres are neither true or false.



[This message has been edited by IntelMajestic (edited 04-03-2004).]

How, praytell can a statement be neither true nor false? What other choices do you have? Opinion? meh.

you have this wrong people look at it this way

god CREATED science

Science EXPLAINS what god created

can you really explain someone by what they have created e.g. i created a paper aeroplane you can only establish two things from that 1.i EXIST 2.i was bored hehe

so its not a question of god or science its a question of can u have faith in god and trust him if so then you dont need an explanation if not then read the bible go to church talk to a pastor or chiristian if you want to go into it further

Actually, I could come to quite a lot more conclusions from your paper airplane. Actions indicate one's true knowledges and beliefs.

ok 3.i believe that for the while it will give me happiness 4.i have knowledge it will fly....

but can you understand someone s actual personality/who they are from what they do ..i know to a certain degree you can tell what kind of person they are but you can't go into it in great detail or can you i dunno really

Tell me, would you fold it neatly, or badly? Would you use a sophisticated design, or a relatively simple one? Would you take the time to add any decorations? There is much to be learned from the simplest actions, if one takes the time to examine them.

Granted, if I judged you solely on one paper airplane, many of my conclusions could be wrong. But, the more "paper airplanes" you give me to base my information on, the more accurate my information is going to become.

Anyway, God/spirituality whatever and science do co-exist. God can be explained scientifically but I guess god is the only one with a mind powerful enough to explain himself.

Dude you don't know enough to form opinions.

Some people believe in god by knowing themselves.[/B][/QUOTE]

What the fuck are you talking about, i hope you were stoned or pissed when you where writing this

can anybody here or reading this,show me one thing,one piece of evidence that god exists,and it cant be an experience or anything like that,im talking solid proof,evidence,something i can see,i mean something you can post a picture of,something that clearly proves the fact that god exists...in other words im saying basically,give me something to believe in,if you can show me hard evidence of god's existance then i will believe in god...otherwise it doesn't exist if you can't get me proof then right?

because it's obviouse that of course something can not exist or be,or be possible that you have no proof of or anything like that..

if i ever saw someone move something with thier mind like some telekinesis thing i would believe they moved it with the power of thier mind cause they just proved it,they said they could move things without toutching them and they did,right in front of my eyes,now i have never seen anything like that happen,so i don't believe in telekinesis..i have never seen any proof of god so i don't believe in god..so if someone can show me something that god does i will believe..

quote:Originally posted by KwOnLiE:

can anybody here or reading this,show me one thing,one piece of evidence that god exists,and it cant be an experience or anything like that,im talking solid proof,evidence,something i can see,i mean something you can post a picture of,something that clearly proves the fact that god exists...in other words im saying basically,give me something to believe in,if you can show me hard evidence of god's existance then i will believe in god...otherwise it doesn't exist if you can't get me proof then right?

because it's obviouse that of course something can not exist or be,or be possible that you have no proof of or anything like that..

if i ever saw someone move something with thier mind like some telekinesis thing i would believe they moved it with the power of thier mind cause they just proved it,they said they could move things without toutching them and they did,right in front of my eyes,now i have never seen anything like that happen,so i don't believe in telekinesis..i have never seen any proof of god so i don't believe in god..so if someone can show me something that god does i will believe..

You will never find ANY physical proof of God. God is a belief. However one could easily claim that theres millions of things in the universe we've never seen and never will, that we have no proof of and so forth. Thats doesn't mean they aren't there.

You're saying lack of proof proves non-existance of something. Not quite true. Lac of proof is nothing more then that. Physics is quite flawed in many ways. There are many problems in the universe that seem to contradtict themselves and physics when the basic rules are applied. Black holes being one example. Theories on how black holes work seem to contradtict laws of phsyics. As well we cannot see a black hole, because of the fact that light [and nothing else] can escape its gravitational pull. Would you dispute their existance?

Theres many thigns in our univers, and Im sure outside of it that don't make sen and never will to us. There are many thigns we will probably never see during our mortal existance, but once again that doesn't mean they aren't there. Hell, there are plants and animals on earth alone we have yet to discover. When soemone discovers a new species of flower, does that mean it just began existing? Before then we never saw it, heard about it and had no proof of it, but it was still there, wasn't it?

The point is, God is a belief. If you expect to ever find 'proof' of God you might as well stick to being an atheist because you never will. Most people find God as a conclusion when they search within themselves and research spirtuality and the universe. Nobody is expecting or asking you to believe, but honestly the way you're going about it is all wrong.

Don't expect to ever get any proof because you won't.

[This message has been edited by SEN D-F (edited 04-04-2004).]

In some ways I see "God's fingerprints" all over this earth and our history. But, seriously, what sort of evidence would you need to prove that a God/gods exist?



[This message has been edited by inquisitor_11 (edited 04-05-2004).]

Well I honestly think their is a balance between the two. That both are right in a sense. When I think of God, I picture him/her as the Formen and Science as the builders.

Science simply aims to proove what gone/going on. Its not trying to rebuild history in a way seen fit by the scientists or anything.

quote:Originally posted by SEN D-F:

You will never find ANY physical proof of God. God is a belief.

If it is impossible to find proof of God, then it must be that God has no effect on the universe.

If God has no effect on the universe, then for all intents and purposes, It does not exist.

well said craftian...

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

If it is impossible to find proof of God, then it must be that God has no effect on the universe.



He said physical proof. Not proof period.

What would be physical proof of God's existence (apart from stars being rearranged... i like that one)?

No scientific proof of God?

http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com/

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

He said physical proof. Not proof period.

The universe is a physical place. I'll consider it if you can define the metaphysical and give evidence that such a thing exists.

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

What would be physical proof of God's existence

Anything (that can be assumed to be miraculous) specific to people of one religion (accounting for other variables, as the fact that Christians have a better quality of life than Hindus has a lot to do with where they live, for example).

The Rapture.

Angels with flaming swords floating down from the heavens speaking ancient Hebrew.

There are a huge number of possibilities.

Incidentally, if God is omni{scient,potent} he knows what is proof of Its existence and is able to do it. Why he leaves us in the dark is beyond me.

As for that "Scientific Proof of God" thing, have you actually read it? It's meaningless gibberish to me.

If you understand it, I would appreciate an explanation.

It is alot easier to understand if you know about George Hammond's structural model of psychology. I am not about to spend three hours explaining it to everybody, so if you really want to know what he is talking about, study up on it.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

I think Catholics should read the bible every once in a while, but that's a topic for another day ;-).

That's FRIGGIN hilarious. LOL!!!!

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

If it is impossible to find proof of God, then it must be that God has no effect on the universe.

If God has no effect on the universe, then for all intents and purposes, It does not exist.

Maybe God has a plan, and interacting with the universe that He's set in motion will screw up His plan so He does not interfere.

Maybe the bible did happen and He's once again trying to prove to Satan the greatness of man. So He makes us and says to Satan:"Satan, this creature which I have placed in my universe, is great. As is all my creatures.

I've created a creature so great that with it's lack of proof and abilities it can still find its way to its one and true father who is I. The same great and true father that belongs to you.

And just because I make a new creature does not mean that I'll forget, or destroy those I've made in the past. For you are all Gods creatures and I love you all equally."

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

Maybe God has a plan, and interacting with the universe that He's set in motion will screw up His plan

Go ahead,have some more LSD...

Are you offering? http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Throughout my exhaustive studies, it has become exceedingly obvious that 'God' is neurological and a human construct to boot.

The first gods that people ever worshipped are widely heralded today to be false. If the first gods that humans worshipped were false, then they were human constructs. If they were human constructs, then that means that the entire concept of gods was designed, modified (over time), and implemented by humans.

A system by man, for man.

How can you get something real out of an artificial construct?

You can't. And the fact that there is nothing to indicate any god is mre real than massless undetectable dragons in my garage that don't leave footprints is very forthtelling.

Does anybody else see a problem with believing in a god that doesn't exist due to any evidenc of its own, but simply due to the inability to disprove it? I can invent any number of ridiculous entities on the fly right now that are defined in such a way that it is impossible to determine the difference between a reality in which they exist and one in which they do not.

"Ignorance, therefore God."

Such entities are superfluous and have no bearing on reality, so it really doesn;t matter wither way.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

If it is impossible to find proof of God, then it must be that God has no effect on the universe.

If God has no effect on the universe, then for all intents and purposes, It does not exist.

Well, just because there is no physical proof of a God does not mean he has no effect on the universe.

Assume for a second that a God does exist. Now, if this God were to create a hurricane what physical proof would you expect there to be? There wouldn't be any. His intervention would require no more then will, and in turn would leave no footprints of him having intervened. However despite the lack of footprints, the hurricane he created will still have effected the universe.

Obviously you may have a little difficulty with that if you don't believe in a God, but I think the essential point is clear; a God would not need to run around the universe doing things, it would require nothing more then his will to get soemthing done.

'If God has no effect on the universe, then for all intents and purposes, It does not exist.'

I disagree. Why is divine intervention required for God to exist? I know the first assumption people make is that if a God exists he must be 'running' the universe, but thats not necessarilly true. If a God exists he has every option to create a plane of existance and let it progress freely without every touching it. For all we know God create a blank slate; a plane of existance, and just let it do its own thing. Over time a ball of matter popped up, sat around a while until it exploded creating a vast universe complete with living creatures.

If a God is not required for the universe to exist why is it required that a God intervene on the universe if he does exist? If you believe the universe could have existed forever, or created itself [both which I feel are likely scenarios] and gotten to this point all on its own, why do you think that if a God did exist he would have to be up in the sky controlling things?

For all we know hes up there dealing with more important shit and has been since before the universe was created [if it had a beginning] and will be long after it ends [if it ends].

quote:Originally posted by Kw0nLiE:

Go ahead,have some more LSD...

Personally I find it irritating when people say thigns like this. If you have a logical counter argument prsent it, but don't just come back with useless comments that are pretty much saying, 'suuuure..... whatever you say , nut job!'. Obviously if you don't believe in a God a lot of the thigns and theories surrounding his existance won't seem valid to you, but like I said, come back with logical counter arguments not meaningless crap the shows your lack of anything smart to say.

There is plenty of crap Im sure everyone here believes in that I'd just roll my eyes at and think 'yeah, whatever you say buddy!' but if they go ahead and start discussing it I'd sooner point out my problems with what they're saying rather then post meaningless crap.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

Does anybody else see a problem with believing in a god that doesn't exist due to any evidenc of its own, but simply due to the inability to disprove it?

Anyone who simply believes in a God because it can't be disproven is a bit of an idiot. That seems quite silly an illogical to me.

I believe a God exists for personal reasons. It has nothing to do with proof or a lkac thereof. I know that no physical proof exists towards the existance of a God and my beliefs have come from a lot of searching and researching. Mainly its personal so a lot of it would be hard for me to explain. I actually spent most of my life an atheist and simply grew to believe somethign different.

But I see what you mean. A lot of people believe in a God for silly or illogical reasons. Theres no denying the fact that some people really have their shit tiwsted.

quote:Originally posted by SEN D-F:

Theres no denying the fact that some people really have their shit tiwsted.

Lol, was that intentional. And I'll be damned if I can work out how you accidently spelled lack lkac.

I know I keep coming back to this, but in the end its the basis of my faith in God. The reason I consider that he exists is because he revealed himself to us in Yeshu. For me this is the one thing that makes christianity stand out from all the other claims about God/gods or whatever.

The burden of proof is, i think, highly individual. For some it isn't at all intellectual, " I can see the sunset, and I believe". For others its very intellectual, "I can't refute the truth of x". There are others for whom nothing short of a direct revelation will do it. I've often that even that can be explained away if you want (although I get the impression that you probably wouldn't be able to..).

I doubt that there will ever be a scientific "proof" of God. Perhaps outcomes that will point to a creator (such as what has happened in the multiverse concept), but nothing that will empirically prove. The worst thing is when science doesn't have an explanation and people say "that's where god fits in" or something like that- which is just weak and would result in such a small and insignificant deity.

As for supernatural events, its dicey, those things that do happen, are always questionable and there always seems to be "some other explanation", you can apply that principle to pretty much any "miracle" that happens. I find it hard to think of something that would conclusive say "Yahweh" or "Allah" or "Inside you" or whatever.

As a christian, part of my theology is that there is a personal God who is very much intrested and involved in our world. So these sort of questions are particularly important to me. Even more so when we are told that we should ask of God and expect his response, and so often it appears that there isn't.

This has actually been a big issue in my thinking lately due to people with some seriously fucked up lives, and yet it would appear that God is either impotent, uncaring or something else.

At this stage I have come so far and seen so much that I have to rule out the first two. I think God's like that, and I think that is what faith is- trusting someone who's already proven themselves trustworthy even when it looks pointless.

If you don't believe in purposeful, intelligent creation (i.e. a Creator) then you're forced to believe in a whole load of miraculously fortunate events taking shape in utter chaos (add a paradox here) to form the incredibly detailed and designed organisms that we see existing today.

Ordered existence does not come naturally out of chaos without an intelligence behind what is happening. You can take apart your television set and leave it on the floor for a million billion years and it will never reassemble itself into a working television again - without some intelligent force putting it back together.

quote:Originally posted by The Crusader:

Ordered existence does not come naturally out of chaos without an intelligence behind what is happening.

I'll play along using this reasoning.

Complex Things That Could Only Have Been Designed

1. Cicada Killer wasps (http://homepages.culver.edu/faculty/jcoelho/sphecius.htm) (Sphecius speciosus). After mating, the female digs a fairly deep burrow by loosening some soil or sand with her front legs, then scooping it out with the other ones. She excavates several oval chambers at the deep end of the burrow. She then goes hunting for cicadas, stings them with a powerful paralyzing agent, and drags them back to her home. She lays an egg next to the cicada(s) and seals them up in the chamber. The venom, incredibly, actually preserves the cicada, keeping it alive for many days while the larva feasts on it (non-vital organs first, of course, to avoid killing it prematurely). How could that all just evolve??

2. Candiru fish (http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/animals1/catfish/candiru.html) (Vandellia cirrhosa). A small catfish that lives in the waters of South America. Voraciously hungry, they sometimes crawl up the urethra of unsuspecting human bathers. Once inside, they deploy specially built spines, located around their head, to draw blood and anchor themselves inside. They gorge, swell and get stuck. The spines are designed so well that only surgery (usually amputation) can get rid of them!

3. Wuchereria bancrofti (http://www.math.smith.edu/~sawlab/fgn/pnb/wuchban.html). The complex life cycle of this worm is simply a nail in the coffin for evolution! The third-stage larvae are transferred into the human bloodstream via mosquito bite, where they migrate to the nearest lymph gland. Several months to a year later, they emerge as adults. These can survive for many years, with the damage they cause to the lymphatic vessels and the subsequent immune response resulting in elephantiasis. Once the adults mate, they produce first-stage larvae, which collect in the lungs and emerge at night, you guessed it, when mosquitoes are most active! They then enter a mosquito host and penetrate the gut wall, moving to its thoracic muscles, where they mature, after a while, into third-stage, infective larvae to repeat this well-designed cycle.

4. Western Conenose (http://www.sdnhm.org/fieldguide/inverts/tria-pro.html), a.k.a. Kissing Bug (Triatoma protracta). This insect, which can be readily identified by a distinctive "X" shape its wings create when folded in, has such a fine biting mouthpart that the sleeping victim never even feels it piercing his lip, eyelids or ears to feed! Of course, to make up for it, the pain comes later, and some experience anaphylactic shock and death from its saliva. A finely-designed parasite which causes sleeping sickness also calls this bug its lovely (initial) home.

5. Xylocaris maculipennis (http://www.ichimusai.org/artiklar/bedbugs.html). Males of this particular species of bedbug were designed with a thoroughly unique aid to reproduction. They often rape other males, injecting their sperm into their body cavity. It subsequently migrates, through the bloodstream, to the victim's own reproductive system, where it later emerges during normal copulation and enters the female. In effect, the homosexual rapist's sperm displaces the victim's original and gets a free ride! Now how complex is that??

6. Male Lions (http://www.nature-wildlife.com/liontxt.htm) (Panthera leo). When adult males take over a rival pride's territory, they seek out and tear apart every cub of the losers. This results in their mothers coming into heat sooner, with the associated benefits to the males. It requires finding them, positively identifying them as not their own kids, and only then killing them. How could an entire complex instinct like that just... evolve?

7. Blow Fly (http://www.minnesotamalamuteclub.com/flystrik.htm) (Chrysomya rufifacies). This insect is attracted to damaged or soiled skin and coat and knows how to lay its eggs right in the affected area. When the maggots emerge, they burrow into the animal's flesh and feed there, resulting in a painful death if untreated. Needless to say, the number of complex systems, all working in unison, to make this possible, is practically mind-boggling. Eat that, evolution!

8. Tongue-eating isopod (http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Isopoda&contgroup=Peracarida) (Cymothoa exigua). This small crustacean feeds on the tongue of the rose snapper, its host fish. The tongue subsequently atrophies and degenerates from the constant stress. The isopod then uses advanced hook-like structures to attach itself to the decrepit remains in the fish's mouth, remaining there and acting as a replacement (while getting first shots at any incoming meals). This points out God's... interesting sense of humor, but is also a nasty problem for evolution.

9. Mycobacterium leprae (http://asylumeclectica.com/malady/archives/leprosy.htm). This bacterium, which causes leprosy, contains numerous complex systems designed to defeat the protection offered by the (also designed) immune system. This includes lipid disguises, using a discarded immune system protein to grab on to white blood cells, suppressing the immune response itself, and so on. Scientists should be baffled as more and more of these systems are described and require an evolutionary explanation.

10. Canine Tapeworm (http://www.microscopyu.com/galleries/smz1500/tapewormscolexsmall.html) (Taenia pisiformis). The head of the adult creature contains a complex series of barbed hooks and suckers lining the edges, which enable it to hold on to the intestine. It's able to produce hundreds of reproductive segments, each of which contain dozens of thousands of larvae. These segments pass thru the feces of the primary host, are left on grass, and get ingested by intermediate hosts. They then burrow thru the intestinal wall and lodge inside muscle tissue or some other organ. When the insides of an infested animal are eaten by a predator, the larvae emerge, travel to the animal's intestines and repeat the cycle. Surely, this is a lifecycle as magnificent and complex as the mind of He who designed it!

11. Hammer Orchid (http://www.westernpower.com.au/html/about_us/community/partnerships/endangered_plant_rescue.html) (Drakaea elastica). This unusual flower looks almost exactly like a female wasp, down to mimicking their scent. When a lonely male wasp tries to mate with one, a specialized organ called the labellum swings down and knocks the stuffing out of him, coating him with pollen to later pollinate other flowers with.

12. Dracula Ants (http://www.antcolony.org/news/adifferentkindofantfarm.htm) (Adetomyrma venatrix). Adults of this species of Madagascar ant have what could only be called unusual feeding habits. When hungry, they tear holes in the head of their own larvae and drink the blood, a.k.a. hemolymth, that flows out.

As the above examples well illustrate (and there are plenty more!), evos simply have no answer to the incredible complexity found in nature in terms of any unintelligent process. These features are unmistakably, intelligently and painstakingly designed for various ... specific purposes.

They can deny their maker all they want, but their "scientific" hand-waving rings hollow, for the evidence screams for itself (so to speak).

Which is more reasonable to believe, given the evidence? That all these incredibly complex, efficient, purposeful designs are the result of a blind, totally indifferent natural process, or the culmination of the master plans of the most brilliant (and inspired) engineer ever to exist?

To paraphrase Trillian Whaley, if you're walking on the beach and find a finely crafted Iron Maiden, with fresh blood stains on it, no less, do you suppose the ocean put it together by chance, or that a Designer did?

I'd just like to point out that while many agnostics/atheists are as dim as KwOnLiE, we're not all as bad at arguing as him and not to go thinking that religion makes more sense than atheism just because KwOnLiE doesn't know his arse from his elbow.



quote:ok Vermont Catholosim does not say that if you dont believe in God you are going to hell. Catholics after vatican 2 feel that people from all religions can go to heaven but it is easier if ou are catholic. As long as you live a god life you can make it . You were thinking of evangelical protestants. Eductae yourself before you say somethign is a fact.

This sort of thing has always interested me. So, when the vatican decides the order of the universe is different than before does this mean that the actual order of the universe changes and from this point foreward people who aren't Catholic can go to heaven, or is it more a case of "this is our best guess at the way things work, maybe we'll change it in the future", but the actual laws of religion are constant? Also, how do the differing rules between the different denominations apply? I mean, do some non-Christians go to heaven and some to hell in the proportion of the people that believe each?

quote:I read something the other day saying that (to paraphrase off the top of my head) it is only through the Judeo-Christian tradition that modern science emerged. It did also mention the scientific contributions of both Islam and China but neither of them became what we had today.

Oh, come on. The Chinese were waaay ahead of us up untill the industrial revolution, which actually coincided with a decline in Christian belief thanks to the practice of proper scientific method by scientists.

quote:Which answere can be true? Does it matter? They all good answeres to me.

While a positive attitude can do a great deal in the healing process, it all means nothing with out some actual physical healing. So only the first one can be true without the aid of the others.

quote:You're saying lack of proof proves non-existance of something. Not quite true. Lac of proof is nothing more then that. Physics is quite flawed in many ways. There are many problems in the universe that seem to contradtict themselves and physics when the basic rules are applied. Black holes being one example. Theories on how black holes work seem to contradtict laws of phsyics. As well we cannot see a black hole, because of the fact that light [and nothing else] can escape its gravitational pull. Would you dispute their existance?

Ok, now give us an example of somthing that can actually be observed where the laws of physics don't apply. I don't know much about the theory of relitivity, but I do know that knowledge it's relationship with black holes is precarious at best, and shouldn't be used in an argument.

Anyway, I can't be arsed to finish reading all the posts. Suffice to say, two contradictory 'beliefs' can't be mixed. It's like saying you're a Protestant Catholic or a Hindu Jew or somthing.

Oh wait, I was closer to the end than I thought.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

I'll play along using this reasoning.

Complex Things That Could Only Have Been Designed

1. Cicada Killer wasps (http://homepages.culver.edu/faculty/jcoelho/sphecius.htm) (Sphecius speciosus). After mating, the female digs a fairly deep burrow by loosening some soil or sand with her front legs, then scooping it out with the other ones. She excavates several oval chambers at the deep end of the burrow. She then goes hunting for cicadas, stings them with a powerful paralyzing agent, and drags them back to her home. She lays an egg next to the cicada(s) and seals them up in the chamber. The venom, incredibly, actually preserves the cicada, keeping it alive for many days while the larva feasts on it (non-vital organs first, of course, to avoid killing it prematurely). How could that all just evolve??

2. Candiru fish (http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/animals1/catfish/candiru.html) (Vandellia cirrhosa). A small catfish that lives in the waters of South America. Voraciously hungry, they sometimes crawl up the urethra of unsuspecting human bathers. Once inside, they deploy specially built spines, located around their head, to draw blood and anchor themselves inside. They gorge, swell and get stuck. The spines are designed so well that only surgery (usually amputation) can get rid of them!

3. Wuchereria bancrofti (http://www.math.smith.edu/~sawlab/fgn/pnb/wuchban.html). The complex life cycle of this worm is simply a nail in the coffin for evolution! The third-stage larvae are transferred into the human bloodstream via mosquito bite, where they migrate to the nearest lymph gland. Several months to a year later, they emerge as adults. These can survive for many years, with the damage they cause to the lymphatic vessels and the subsequent immune response resulting in elephantiasis. Once the adults mate, they produce first-stage larvae, which collect in the lungs and emerge at night, you guessed it, when mosquitoes are most active! They then enter a mosquito host and penetrate the gut wall, moving to its thoracic muscles, where they mature, after a while, into third-stage, infective larvae to repeat this well-designed cycle.

4. Western Conenose (http://www.sdnhm.org/fieldguide/inverts/tria-pro.html), a.k.a. Kissing Bug (Triatoma protracta). This insect, which can be readily identified by a distinctive "X" shape its wings create when folded in, has such a fine biting mouthpart that the sleeping victim never even feels it piercing his lip, eyelids or ears to feed! Of course, to make up for it, the pain comes later, and some experience anaphylactic shock and death from its saliva. A finely-designed parasite which causes sleeping sickness also calls this bug its lovely (initial) home.

5. Xylocaris maculipennis (http://www.ichimusai.org/artiklar/bedbugs.html). Males of this particular species of bedbug were designed with a thoroughly unique aid to reproduction. They often rape other males, injecting their sperm into their body cavity. It subsequently migrates, through the bloodstream, to the victim's own reproductive system, where it later emerges during normal copulation and enters the female. In effect, the homosexual rapist's sperm displaces the victim's original and gets a free ride! Now how complex is that??

6. Male Lions (http://www.nature-wildlife.com/liontxt.htm) (Panthera leo). When adult males take over a rival pride's territory, they seek out and tear apart every cub of the losers. This results in their mothers coming into heat sooner, with the associated benefits to the males. It requires finding them, positively identifying them as not their own kids, and only then killing them. How could an entire complex instinct like that just... evolve?

7. Blow Fly (http://www.minnesotamalamuteclub.com/flystrik.htm) (Chrysomya rufifacies). This insect is attracted to damaged or soiled skin and coat and knows how to lay its eggs right in the affected area. When the maggots emerge, they burrow into the animal's flesh and feed there, resulting in a painful death if untreated. Needless to say, the number of complex systems, all working in unison, to make this possible, is practically mind-boggling. Eat that, evolution!

8. Tongue-eating isopod (http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Isopoda&contgroup=Peracarida) (Cymothoa exigua). This small crustacean feeds on the tongue of the rose snapper, its host fish. The tongue subsequently atrophies and degenerates from the constant stress. The isopod then uses advanced hook-like structures to attach itself to the decrepit remains in the fish's mouth, remaining there and acting as a replacement (while getting first shots at any incoming meals). This points out God's... interesting sense of humor, but is also a nasty problem for evolution.

9. Mycobacterium leprae (http://asylumeclectica.com/malady/archives/leprosy.htm). This bacterium, which causes leprosy, contains numerous complex systems designed to defeat the protection offered by the (also designed) immune system. This includes lipid disguises, using a discarded immune system protein to grab on to white blood cells, suppressing the immune response itself, and so on. Scientists should be baffled as more and more of these systems are described and require an evolutionary explanation.

10. Canine Tapeworm (http://www.microscopyu.com/galleries/smz1500/tapewormscolexsmall.html) (Taenia pisiformis). The head of the adult creature contains a complex series of barbed hooks and suckers lining the edges, which enable it to hold on to the intestine. It's able to produce hundreds of reproductive segments, each of which contain dozens of thousands of larvae. These segments pass thru the feces of the primary host, are left on grass, and get ingested by intermediate hosts. They then burrow thru the intestinal wall and lodge inside muscle tissue or some other organ. When the insides of an infested animal are eaten by a predator, the larvae emerge, travel to the animal's intestines and repeat the cycle. Surely, this is a lifecycle as magnificent and complex as the mind of He who designed it!

11. Hammer Orchid (http://www.westernpower.com.au/html/about_us/community/partnerships/endangered_plant_rescue.html) (Drakaea elastica). This unusual flower looks almost exactly like a female wasp, down to mimicking their scent. When a lonely male wasp tries to mate with one, a specialized organ called the labellum swings down and knocks the stuffing out of him, coating him with pollen to later pollinate other flowers with.

12. Dracula Ants (http://www.antcolony.org/news/adifferentkindofantfarm.htm) (Adetomyrma venatrix). Adults of this species of Madagascar ant have what could only be called unusual feeding habits. When hungry, they tear holes in the head of their own larvae and drink the blood, a.k.a. hemolymth, that flows out.

As the above examples well illustrate (and there are plenty more!), evos simply have no answer to the incredible complexity found in nature in terms of any unintelligent process. These features are unmistakably, intelligently and painstakingly designed for various ... specific purposes.

They can deny their maker all they want, but their "scientific" hand-waving rings hollow, for the evidence screams for itself (so to speak).

Which is more reasonable to believe, given the evidence? That all these incredibly complex, efficient, purposeful designs are the result of a blind, totally indifferent natural process, or the culmination of the master plans of the most brilliant (and inspired) engineer ever to exist?

To paraphrase Trillian Whaley, if you're walking on the beach and find a finely crafted Iron Maiden, with fresh blood stains on it, no less, do you suppose the ocean put it together by chance, or that a Designer did?

To paraphrase myself, shut up. Trillian Whaley is an idiot - how can you liken evolution to an ocean creating an iron maiden? The point of evolution is that it's very, very slow and gradual.

An example - the eye - (*prepares to quote absolute shitloads from "the Science of Discworld" by Terry Pratchett [yes, atheists are allowed to quote their own, much less vague, 'holy books' too]):

quote:There are plenty of details of Darwinism that still aren't understood, as with all science, but most of the obvious ways of trying to shoot it down have been answered effectively. The classic example - still routinely trotted out by creationists and others even though Darwin himself had a pretty good answer- is the evolution of the eye. The human eye is a complex structure, and all of it's components have to fit together to a high degree of accuracy, or it won't work. If we claim that such a complex structure has evolved, we must accept that it evolved gradually. It can't all have come into being at once. But if so, then at every stage along the evolutinary track the still-evolving proto-eye must offer some kind of survival advantage to the creature that possesses it. How can this happen? The question is often asked in the form "what use is half an eye?" to which you are expected to conclude "nothing", followed by a rapid conversion to some religion or other. "nothing" is a reasonable answer - but to the wrong question. There are lots of ways to get to an eye gradually that do not require it to be assembled peice by peice like a jigsaw puzzle. Evolution does not build creatures peice by peice. Darwin himself pointed out that in creatures alive in his day you could find all kinds of light-sensitive organs - starting with patches of skin, then increasing in complexity, light-gathering power, and ability to detect fine detail, right up to structures as sophisticated as the human eye. There is a continuum of eyelike organs in the living world, and every creature gains and advantage by having it's own type of light-sensing device, in comparison to similar creatures that have a slightly less effective device of a similar kind.

In 1994 Daniel Nilsson and Susanne Palger used a computer to see what would happen to a mathematical model of a light-sensing surface if it was allowed to change in small, random, biologically feasible ways, with only those changes that improved it's sensitivity to light being retained. They found that within 400,000 generations - an evolutionary blink of an eye - that flat surface gradually changed into a recognizable eye, complete with a lens. The lens even bent light differently in different places, just like our eye and unlike normal spectacle lenses. At every tiny step along the way, a creature with the improved 'eye' would be better than those with the old version.

At no stage was there every 'half an eye'. There were just light sensing things that got better at it.

So there. Evolution isn't instant, it's continuous with each new stage bringing the creature in question a slightly bigger advantage over it's companions and therefore a higher chance of survival. Also I think it's a great blow to those who don't 'believe' in evolution that it happens the same as it did in the real world as it does in a computer program, with no possible concious, reasoned, godlike intervention.

I have another passage from the same book (even longer, but I can't find it anywhere on the web) which again shows how evolution can produce incredibly complex solutions to problems in an environment that has no concious input whatsoever, given enough time (for time read processing speed):

quote:Evolutionary processes do not always direct themselves along paths that are neatly comprehensible to humans. This doesn't mean Darwin was wrong: it means that even when he's right, there may be a surprising absence of narrativium (narrativium is a concept used in the book (and in the discworld novels) to describe the human need for things to have some logical 'story' behind them - things need a narrative imperative to happen, and narrativium is the semi-joke element that provides that on the discworld.), so that a 'story' that makes perfect sense to evolution may not make sense to humans. We suspect that a lot of what you find in living organisms is like that - offering a small advantage at every stage of it's evolution, but an advantage in such a complex game is that we can't tell a convincing story about why it's an advantage. To show just how bizarre evolutionary processes can be, even in comparatively simple circumstances, we must look not to animals or plants, but to electronic circuits.

Since 1993 an engineer named Adrian Thompson has been evolving circuits. The basic technique, known as 'genetic algorithms' is quite widely used in computer science. An algorithm is a specific program, or recpie to solve a given problem. One way to find algorithms for really tough problems is to 'cross-breed' them and apply natural selection. By 'cross-breed' we mean 'mix parts of one algorithm with parts of the other'. Biologists call this 'recombination' and each sexual organism - like you - recombines it's parents' chromosomes in just this manner. Such a technique, or it's result, is called a genetic algorithm. When the method works, it works brilliantly; it's main disadvantage is that you can't always give a sensible explaination of how the resulting algorithm accomplishes whatever it does. More of that in a moment: first we must discuss the electronics.

Thompson womdered what would happen if you used the genetic algorithm approach on an electronic circuit. Decide on some task, randomly cross- breed circuits that might or might not solve it, keeps the ones that do better than the rest, and repeat for as many generations as it takes.

Most electronic engineers, thinking about such a project, will quickly realize that it's silly to use genuine circuits. Instead, you can simulate the circuits on a computer (since you know exactly you know how a circuit behaves) and do the whole job more quickly and more cheaply in simulation. thompson mistrusted this line of argument though: maybe real circuits 'knew' somthing that a simulation would miss?

He decided on a task: to distinguish between two input signals of different frequencies, 1 kilohertz and 10 kilohertz.... (skipped a bit of very patronising explainatiom about frequencies)... For the high frequency, the circuit should output a steady zero volts - that is, no output at all - and for the low frequency, the circuit should output a steady five volts. It would take forever to build thousands of trial circuits by hand, so he employed a field-programmable gate array. This is a microchip that contains a number of very transistorized 'logic cells' - mildly intelligent switches, so to speak - whose connections can be changed by loading new instructions into the chip's configuration memory. Those instructions are analogous to an organism's DNA code, and can be cross-bred. That's what Thompson did. He started with an array of one hundred logic cells, and used a computer to randomly generate a population of fifty instruction codes. The computer loaded each set into the array, fed in the two frequencies, looked at the outputs, and tried to find some feature that might help in evolving a decent circuit. To begin with, that feature was anything that didn't look totally random. The 'fittest' individual in the first generation produced a steady five-volt output no matter which frequency was input. The least fit instruction codes were then killed off (deleted), the fit ones were bred (copied and recombined), and the process was repeated.

What's most interesting about the experiment is not the details, but how the system homed into a solution - and the remarkable nature of that solution. By the 220th generation, the fittest circuit produced outputs that were pretty much the same as the inputs, two waveforms of different frequencies. The same effect could have been obtained with no circuit at all! The desired steady output signals were not yet in prospect. By the 650th generation, the output for the low tone was steady, but the high tone still produced a variable output signal. It took untill generation 2800 for the circuit to give approximately steady, and different, signals for the two tones; only by generatino 4100 did the odd glitch get ironed out, after which point little further evolution occured.

he stragnest thing about the eventual solution was it's structure. No human engineer would have invented it. Indeed no human engineer would have been able to find a solution with a mere 100 logic cells. The human engineer's solution though, would have been comprehensible - we wold be able to tell a convincing 'story' about why it worked. For example, it would include a clock. That would give a baseline to compare other frequencies against. But you can't make a clock with 100 cells. The evolutionary solution didn't bother with a clock. Instead, it routed the signal through a complicated seris of loops. These presumably produced time-delayed and otherwise processed versions of the signals, which eventually were combined to produce the steady outputs. Thompson described the solution like this: "really, I don't have the faintest idea how it works".

Amazingly, further study of the final solution showed that only 32 of the 100 logic cells were actually needed. The rest could be removed from the circuit without affecting it's behaviour. At first it looked as if five other logic cells could be removed - they were not electronically connected to the rest , nor to the input of output. However, if these were removed, the circuit ceased to work. Presumably these cells reacted to the physical properties of the rest of the circuit other than electrical current -magnetic fields, say. Whatever the reason, Thompson's hunch that a real circuit would have more tricks up it's sleeve than a computer simulation was absolutely right. The technical justification for Thompson's work is the possibility of evolving highly effecient circuits. But the message for basic evolutionary theory is also important. In effect, it tells us that evolution has no need for narativium. An evolved solution may 'work' without being at all clear about how it does whatever it does. It may not follow any 'design principle' that makes sense to human beings. Instead, it can follow the simple emergent logic of Ant Country (a demonstration of chaos theory used earlier in the book - basically from some incredibly simple, seemingly random instructions a computer program came up with a repeating pattern after a very, very long time - Pratchett uses this to show how the prevelent, logical solution is often somthing humans will miss due to their narrativium-fueled minds) which can't be captured in a simple story.

I love that book. It's idiot proof, because it practically explains every single word to the point of being patronising.

[This message has been edited by sp0rkius (edited 04-11-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

This points out God's... interesting sense of humor, but is also a nasty problem for evolution.

Only if you believe in a personal God who has intention behind every living organism.

Discoveries in biology over the last half of the twentieth century showed all organisms were found to contain the same building blocks for the genetic code in DNA. All used the DNA to transcribe RNA and all used ribosomes to make protein from the RNA. Many proteins and RNA's were similar from one life form to another, even between bacteria and man. But this data can also support intelligent design by a single set of principles just as effectively.

A single set of principles to spark a succession of complexity...

To begin life as we know it, cells would need to have a genetic program of DNA or RNA. They would need to protect their genome from degradation from outside with a lipid membrane and they would need the machinery to transform chemical energy into metabolic energy to replicate. This machinery requires pre-existing proteins to catalyse the reactions of metabolism and replication. And the synthesis of proteins requires other pre-existing proteins and a small factory called the ribosome. Take away any of these components and life doesn't exist. All this complexity is required at the same time and place for the most simple and single-celled life to exist.

Here's a couple of very interesting links which look at Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design in a fairly impartial way;

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.html

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

give us an example of somthing that can actually be observed where the laws of physics don't apply.

Quantum Physics.

One of the basic (very basic) principles of Quantum Physics is the act of observing something happening which causes a change in the actual thing being observed. This is because the laws of physics do not apply at subatomic scales.

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

I have another passage from the same book (even longer, but I can't find it anywhere on the web) which again shows how evolution can produce incredibly complex solutions to problems in an environment that has no concious input whatsoever, given enough time

Its just spouting Darwin's theory that an unguided material process (random variation and natural selection) could account for the emergence of all biological complexity and order.

Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, so the existence in nature of irreducibly complex biological systems poses a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory.

quote:Originally posted by The Crusader:

Quantum Physics.

One of the basic (very basic) principles of Quantum Physics is the act of observing something happening which causes a change in the actual thing being observed. This is because the laws of physics do not apply at subatomic scales[/i]

Hmm, maybe this isn't totally related to the rest of the thread but I just had a quick thought.

Maybe we are ourselves the consciousness behind one sub atomic particle. We are the particle and we choose how to act (unaffected by physical laws), and our choices send a chain reaction through our brain and the rest of our body to govern what the body does.

Maybe each sub atomic particle has it's own soul (the whole makes god), and due to it being unaffected by physical laws we can never really view pure godness in this way.

I dunno I don't know much about quantum theory, but maybe the sub atomic particle is thinking "Fuck you mate you aint lookin at me".

quote:Originally posted by SEN D-F:

Assume for a second that a God does exist. Now, if this God were to create a hurricane what physical proof would you expect there to be? There wouldn't be any.

IE. it would look exactly the sameas if the hurricane had been naturally caused.

It's Occam's Razor - the hurricane could have been caused by Superman spinning really fast above the Earth, but if you have no evidence to that effect then it is more reasonable to assume a natural cause.

quote:I disagree. Why is divine intervention required for God to exist?

I said 'for all intents and purposes'. A universe without divine interation is indistinguishable from a universe without gods.

It's possible that they're up there watching us progress, but assuming it in the first place is a bit silly.

quote:If a God is not required for the universe to exist why is it required that a God intervene on the universe if he does exist?

That's not what my statement implied. If God did intervene with the universe, then it is required that It exist.

quote:Quantum Physics.

One of the basic (very basic) principles of Quantum Physics is the act of observing something happening which causes a change in the actual thing being observed. This is because the laws of physics do not apply at subatomic scales.

Subatomic particles don't disobey the laws of physics, it's just their exact nature isn't well known enough to apply the Newtonian laws that we can observe easily in far bigger objects. What you paraphrased was the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle "It is impossible to simultaneously know both the position and the momentum of any object to unlimited precision." The fact that they change when they are observed isn't because they obey some wierd laws, just because they're very small and it only takes a small force to move them, so if you reflect somthing off of them it changes their position.

quote:Its just spouting Darwin's theory that an unguided material process (random variation and natural selection) could account for the emergence of all biological complexity and order.

Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, so the existence in nature of irreducibly complex biological systems poses a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory.

It's not 'spouting' anything. It's offering evidence. What the hell do you mean "already working"? The systems in the circuit weren't working untill the 4100th generation. Unless you mean circuit-shaped, in which case I say that the first living creature was the original setup, and don't give me that "well, the first living creature can't have came about by accident" shit, because considering that there are considerably more galaxies than grains of sand on earth (cliché alert!) it's pretty unlikely that there wouldn't have been the right chemical conditions for life somewhere. Perhaps if Earth had indeed been the centre of the universe it would have seemed predetermined that it should harbour life, but considering it's a tiny planet in a boring solar system near the edge of an average galaxy it looks as if life was created by chance.

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

I love that book. It's idiot proof, because it practically explains every single word to the point of being patronising.

I like that.

And just FYI, that whole article of things that could only be designed is tongue-in-cheek. I thought the whole "if you're walking on the beach and find a finely crafted Iron Maiden, with fresh blood stains on it, no less, do you suppose the ocean put it together by chance, or that a Designer did?" made that apparent. It's done in a Monty Python's "All Things Dull and Ugly" fashion.

All things dull and ugly,

All creatures short and squat,

All things rude and nasty,

The Lord God made the lot.

Each little snake that poisons,

Each little wasp that stings,

He made their brutish venom.

He made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous,

All evil great and small,

All things foul and dangerous,

The Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,

Each beastly little squid--

Who made the spikey urchin?

Who made the sharks? He did!

All things scabbed and ulcerous,

All pox both great and small,

Putrid, foul and gangrenous,

The Lord God made them all.

Amen.

quote:Originally posted by The Crusader:

Here's a couple of very interesting links which look at Irreducible Complexity...

Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe: Do Biochemical Machines Show Intelligent Design? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html)

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

And I'll be damned if I can work out how you accidently spelled lack lkac.

Yeah, thats pretty fucked. I just type fast, and with some words [shorter words, like 'lack'] Ill press down all the keys very quickly, so sometimes my timing will be a little off and one letter will be thrown into the wrong place.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

Throughout my exhaustive studies, it has become exceedingly obvious that 'God' is neurological and a human construct to boot.

The first gods that people ever worshipped are widely heralded today to be false. If the first gods that humans worshipped were false, then they were human constructs. If they were human constructs, then that means that the entire concept of gods was designed, modified (over time), and implemented by humans.

A system by man, for man.

How can you get something real out of an artificial construct?

You can't. And the fact that there is nothing to indicate any god is mre real than massless undetectable dragons in my garage that don't leave footprints is very forthtelling.

Does anybody else see a problem with believing in a god that doesn't exist due to any evidenc of its own, but simply due to the inability to disprove it? I can invent any number of ridiculous entities on the fly right now that are defined in such a way that it is impossible to determine the difference between a reality in which they exist and one in which they do not.

"Ignorance, therefore God."

Such entities are superfluous and have no bearing on reality, so it really doesn;t matter wither way.

You are so close to the scientific truth. God is actually quite the opposite, yet the same as ignorance. I could not do Hammond's discovery justice in my explaination of the "4th dimension" or God, so I will just post the link to the simple explaination of his reasearch again:

http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com/

It is alot to grasp, and unless you are familiar with his structural model of psychology, it is very hard to understand.

That is it though, the first and only scientific proof of God.

Undoutably China was way ahead, as were the Muslims in the Dark Ages. However China experienced 1000 yr golden age of science and didn't result in the seperation of the divine from the material that occured in the west that allowed for the free exploration of science, primarily following the enlightenment.

i must say that there is no proof in FAVOR of evolution. Evolution like most religions requires FAITH. I myself believe in God and the Bible. Evolution is NOT science. Please check this site: http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/

theres is more proof that the bible and a true God exists than there is for evolution.

to be enlightened on the christian faith, go here: http://www.seekgod.org/newlife.html

Also some people assume that catholicism and christianity are the same thing. http://www.xlministries.org/resources/apologetics/roman/rframe.html

Rather biased website, isn't it?

The bible says god created man.

Science suggests man created god.

In a psychological sense, of course.

I mean, put it this way, can you really fully comprehend that after death there could be nothing? That your mind just 'turns off' so to speak?

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

Subatomic particles don't disobey the laws of physics, it's just their exact nature isn't well known enough to apply the Newtonian laws that we can observe easily in far bigger objects.

Classical physics (the science developed by Galileo, Isaac Newton, etc) is a flawed theory when dealing with the very small (atomic size) or the very fast (near the speed of light, where relativity takes over).

For instance, it was well known that electrons orbited the nucleus of an atom. However, if they did so in a manner which resembled the planets orbiting the sun (Newtonian law) classical physics predicted that the electrons would spiral in and crash into the nucleus within a fraction of a second. Obviously that doesn't happen, or life as we know it would not exist. (Chemistry depends upon the interaction of the electrons in atoms, and life depends upon chemistry). That incorrect prediction, along with some other experiments that classical physics could not explain, showed scientists that something new was needed to explain science at the atomic level.

You can not apply Newtonian laws to subatomic particles without a mass of contradictions arising.

Classical physics can not hope to explain such phenomena as the Discreteness of energy or The wave-particle duality of light and matter...

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

considering that there are considerably more galaxies than grains of sand on earth (cliché alert!) it's pretty unlikely that there wouldn't have been the right chemical conditions for life somewhere.

I've always liked Fred Hoyle's quotes;

The chance that even one protein appeared spontaneously is equal to the chance of a blindfolded person solving the Rubik cube.

The chance that the 2000 universal house-keeping enzymes originate from random processes is 1 : 1040000 (these enzymes are crucial for life)

Chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped.

the initial post was far too long to read, or even look at so ill just say

science

Just to be controversial: Neither

science all the way

Crusader, did you read when I said "it's just their exact nature isn't well known enough to apply the Newtonian laws that we can observe easily in far bigger objects.", or did you choose to skip over that part? Sure, newtonian physics can't be applied on a quantum scale, but that's because we don't know the nature of things that small. The wave/particle duality of light and matter is an example of this. It doesn't mean they don't obey the laws of physics, it just means the classical laws of physics are too simplistic.

quote:The chance that the 2000 universal house-keeping enzymes originate from random processes is 1 : 1040000 (these enzymes are crucial for life)

Well, considering there are around 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe, and two billion stars in the milky way alone, then there must be far more than 1,040,000 planets in the universe.

Ignoring inconveniant facts in order to mislead people becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of Religion, is not named but which is secretly worshipped.

i am an athiest i turned athiest when i was twelve and if i was smart enough to figure out that there just cant be a god or devil when i was that young why cant others? and why is it that every time i tell someone im an athiest they tell me im going to hell? i mean just because they cant control theyre lives and leave it up to fairy tale creature they ridicule me becuase im living just fine with a god in my life. and isnt wrong to do such things or is love thy niehbor just an optional "COMAND-MENT" and who the hell is anyone to say who go's where? im going to hell because i rejected religion im going to hell because i had sex befor marriage im going to hell because i masterbate "Constantly" i meen come on.

p.s.

Mormons are trying to take over the world!!

lol

[This message has been edited by awelch (edited 04-16-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by awelch:

i am an athiest i turned athiest when i was twelve and i was smart enough to figure out that there just cant be a god or devil

Use your intelligence to reach the next step, and stop presuming your at the top.

quote: im going to hell because i rejected religion

"Get smart and I'll fuck you over! - Sayeth the Lord." - Frank Zappa.

quote:Use your intelligence to reach the next step, and stop presuming your at the top.

Ditto.

[This message has been edited by sp0rkius (edited 04-16-2004).]

anyone care to summarize this for me?

Topic starter: Your arguments are out of date, because most Christians do not interpret their doctrine literally, nowadays. I doubt you'll find many Catholics (or whatever) who honestly feel that the Earth was created in a literal 7 days.

Therefore, it is possible to follow Christian doctrine (morals, values, etc.), and still believe in science. The only difference is that Christians believe that God started the universe, whereas Atheists don't believe that. It could then be said that everything that came after the creation of the universe is the result of God. This doesn't mean it has to be un-scientific; in fact, there are still some things that science can't explain (where do gravity and magnetism originate, to cite a fresh example [as opposed to the afterlife]).

Sorry if that was convoluted, here's a short one:

Christians (and all theistic religions) believe that god started the universe, and that everything is a result of God, including science. Most Chrisitians don't take their scriptures literally, so your argument is obsolete.

It takes quantum physics to try and explain the existance of god...well this should be interresting.I don't quite comprehend most of this discussion but I'll try to keep up..lol

quote:Originally posted by Kw0nLiE:

It takes quantum physics to try and explain the existance of god...well this should be interresting.I don't quite comprehend most of this discussion but I'll try to keep up..lol

Actually, it takes psychology and a little bit of Einstein's theroies.

God = Guv

If you beleive Hammond's proof of a link between gravity and brain growth deficet, then a comparison of the XYZt of Einstein's linear expansion of the spacetime metric and the ENPg of Thurstone's expansion of the psychometry matrix, then it clearly shows the aforementioned equation of God's existance.

God exists all right, just not in the way people like to beleive.

If that is right, then God exists in the way most atheists belief it does: In our fucking heads.

quote:Originally posted by BD w/ Kung-Fu Grip:

God = Guv



So if we simplify, od=uv ? It all makes perfect sense now!

Seriously though, that Scientific Proof of God site is on about the same level as [url=www.timecube.com]Time Cube[/url[ theory.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

So if we simplify, od=uv ? It all makes perfect sense now!

Seriously though, that Scientific Proof of God site is on about the same level as [url=www.timecube.com]Time Cube[/url[ theory.

Yeah, Hammond's theroies on god are a strecth, but he is a very respected person in the scientific community for his previous work. He kind of went a little crazy, as most brilliant minds do, and discovered the scientific proof of God.

It is, however, recognised as the first and only scientific proof of God's existence. It actualy makes alot of sense is you beleive gravity effects brain growth. This point has been so proven then disproven over the years, it is close to being just a matter of opinion anymore.

I don't care if he was respected, it's irrelevant to his current crazy theory.

quote:This discovery means that the metric of real space (spacetime) causes the metric of Psychometry space. Using this fact we are able to determine the relation between Gravity and Psychometry by comparing the two metrics.

It makes no sense! It's complete and utter gibberish.