Here's a simple little chat about why I believe in god.

Me: What made us?

You: Evolution.

Me: What made evolution?

You: The universe.

Me: What made the universe.

You: A bigger universe.

Me: What made that bigger universe?

You: Your mom.

That's an actual conversation I had with a friend of mine. My proof is "Who/What made everything?" There had to be a start. Only one thing. A friend of mine once said she would only have one thing to ask god, what came before him.

God as some sentient entity seperate form the universe is not the only possibility.

The most commonly supported ones are the following:

1.) The energy that is the basis of all matter existed in the beginning, and from it sprang all matter

2.) God created all matter, and is all-powerful and resides outside our universe

3.) God IS the universe in a sense. Some sort of cosmic conciousness that always was.

4.)We live in the matrix(lol)

A question: what is the difference between the logical problem with God always existing since the beginning and the energy that forms the universe always existing since the beginning? All your "argument" does is hoist the argument higher up on some outside, unobservable entity.

Also, evolution is irrelevant ot the origin of life. It merely states that it develops over time. The theory you are thinking of is called spontaneous generation.

What created God?

PS: God cannot live outside of a temporal dimension.

Your friend is stupid. Not that I have a problem with your belief, but he is still stupid.

quote:Originally posted by Linx:

Here's a simple little chat about why I believe in god.

Me: What made us?

You: Evolution.

Me: What made evolution?

You: The universe.

Me: What made the universe.

You: A bigger universe.

Me: What made that bigger universe?

You: Your mom.

That's an actual conversation I had with a friend of mine. My proof is "Who/What made everything?" There had to be a start. Only one thing. A friend of mine once said she would only have one thing to ask god, what came before him.

Ever heard of my concept?

quote:Originally posted by Linx:

Here's a simple little chat about why I believe in god.

Me: What made us?

You: Evolution.

Me: What made evolution?

You: Well Amino Acids (Building blocks of life) were created by electrical pulses going through combinations of gases found on early earth. Single celled organisms followed in suit and began to evolve into more complex creatures.

Me: Oh

quote:Originally posted by Linx:

Here's a simple little chat about why I believe in god.

Me: What made us?

You: Evolution.

Me: What made evolution?

You: The universe.

Me: What made the universe.

You: A bigger universe.

Me: What made that bigger universe?

You: Your mom.

That's an actual conversation I had with a friend of mine. My proof is "Who/What made everything?" There had to be a start. Only one thing. A friend of mine once said she would only have one thing to ask god, what came before him.

First of all evolution was not created.

Second off, if you think evolution was created by some higher power, i.e. god, then who created him/it/whatever the fuck?

Haha, ok well here is a question then, if there was energy what changed it? The laws of Nature are nothing unless there is an action to cause the laws of nature to act on it. Therefore there has to be an action in the beginning, God is an omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent being, that is the Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God is the maker, nothing had to make him, he has existed in eternity and will do so ever more.

Sketchy,

That definition of evolution is flawed. It simply does not work. Even single celled organisms are much more complicated then that. The amount of time that would have to be alloted for that to happen by random chance is rediculous. If you have another theory I would love to here it, or proof of what you said.

[This message has been edited by Truth is all (edited 08-04-2006).]

Truth is All, you know nothing about evolution. Go read the Origins and Civil Liberties thread, idiot. Evolution isn't random. Read up on natural selection, etc.

Also, evolution has nothing to do with how life came about, it has to do with life once it's here. It's about speciation, not the beginning of life. Abiogensis deals with the beginning of life.

Get a clue, man.

edit . . .

Also, please answer the question of what created god. He's so complex and magnificent, he just couldn't of come from nowhere!



[This message has been edited by Overman (edited 08-04-2006).]

Overman,

Again, you did not address the issue at hand, explain to me how a single celled organism originates from Amino acids and exactly how long that takes? It was random haha and I am talking about Abiogenesis, I have no problem with Microevolution, it is macro that is pointless and annoying, again God is the Creator of all things, eternal and infinite, He has no beginning nor does he haev an end, He IS the beginning and the end.

quote: I have no problem with Microevolution, it is macro that is pointless and annoying, again

Once again, you do not understand evolution. Microevolution is macroevolution, a series microevolutions over a period of time culminate in macroevolution. Do some proper research before spouting your mouth off, and if you read creationist site claims about evolution just stop, they’re lying. If you don’t believe me, once again read Origins and Civil Liberties.

quote: God is the Creator of all things, eternal and infinite, He has no beginning nor does he haev an end, He IS the beginning and the end.

You request evidence a lot, so, please show evidence that proves there is a god who has no beginning and no end. I can say the same about the universe, but if I did I expect you’d ask for evidence, so show some evidence.

As for abiogenesis, read the following three links: http://tinyurl.com/4jey3 , http://tinyurl.com/5pvpf , http://tinyurl.com/ffqpc .

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:

Haha, ok well here is a question then, if there was energy what changed it? The laws of Nature are nothing unless there is an action to cause the laws of nature to act on it. Therefore there has to be an action in the beginning, God is an omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent being, that is the Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God is the maker, nothing had to make him, he has existed in eternity and will do so ever more.

Sketchy,

That definition of evolution is flawed. It simply does not work. Even single celled organisms are much more complicated then that. The amount of time that would have to be alloted for that to happen by random chance is rediculous. If you have another theory I would love to here it, or proof of what you said.



I believe in god and jesus and the holy ghost. I dunno about evolution and truth is I couldn't care less. God made me and thats all I 'need'

GOOD linx haha I am very glad to hear that. BUT that doesnt mean that you should not continue to search for truth. Yes faith is all you and me and all other Christians need. But our faith is in the Ressurection of Christ. And that can be established by evidence to be true. So do not let yourself get dull and just hang onto faith, trust me there will always be attacks on our God, so as Peter says we must be prepared to give a defense. I am happy that I have a brother on these forums, or a sister, sorry i can never tell by the name.

quote:Originally posted by Linx:

Here's a simple little chat about why I believe in god.

Me: What made us?

You: Evolution.

Me: What made evolution?

You: The universe.

Me: What made the universe.

You: A bigger universe.

Me: What made that bigger universe?

You: Your mom.

That's an actual conversation I had with a friend of mine. My proof is "Who/What made everything?" There had to be a start. Only one thing. A friend of mine once said she would only have one thing to ask god, what came before him.

Your friend doesn't know what he's talking about. Nothing "made" evolution; it is a process, not a thing to be crafted. The universe was not made by a bigger universe in any theory that I know about. I'm sorry to say that I don't know much about the actual processes of evolution, but I could probably answer some questions about the Big Bang theory if you like.

As for your "proof", it is pretty illogical. Lack of knowledge isn't a proof of anything (i.e. "we don't know how the universe started, therefore there is a God"), and besides this you're just putting the question one step back: Who made the universe? God. Well then, who made God? It is the same question, just a different entity involved.

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:

GOOD linx haha I am very glad to hear that. BUT that doesnt mean that you should not continue to search for truth. Yes faith is all you and me and all other Christians need. But our faith is in the Ressurection of Christ. And that can be established by evidence to be true. So do not let yourself get dull and just hang onto faith, trust me there will always be attacks on our God, so as Peter says we must be prepared to give a defense. I am happy that I have a brother on these forums, or a sister, sorry i can never tell by the name.

Dude, you just ignored my post entirely. Seriously, have you ever thought the reason people ‘attack’ your god is because it has no evidence, is not logical, contradicts itself, causes stagnation, encourages ignorance, and teaches some pretty fucked up shit?

You do not need faith in a being that is not real more than you need food and water (which without you will truly die). Your faith, in the long run, means nothing but holding onto childish ideas to make the world a little more cushy for yourself.

Please, by all means, SHOW THE FREAKIN' EVIDENCE.

I truly am sorry Overman, I really did not see your second post. Honestly, you need to stop with the attacks. We are presenting arguements here. As for the evidence. You have presented none, you say things but do not back them up with fact. I can show you how the Bible is an accurate historical document and that the ressurection was a historical event. This would show that the God I am speaking of is the true God of all things. You should look more into it seeing as how it is the most important issue in life. As for "spouting my mouth off" there is a distinction between micro and macro evolutions. Species evolve over time, that is fine with me, but frogs do not become tigers and these huge leaps made from one animal to the next are highly improbable. The fossile record shows no intermediary stages, but why is this? If evolution takes so long then there would be plenty of fossils of the intermediates, again there is not, unless the fossil record has changed since I last looked. As for Abiogenesis. Have you ever considered YOUR sources to be wrong. I do not take my sources from creationists, I take it from modern Biology. The fact that ALL your info comes from one site and that the site makes such strong claims that arent very biologically sound, should be an indicator. All the same the site talks about how there were "simpler" organisms. Yet this is not really an issue, what does it matter if chemicals bond? They ALWAYS do, thus the laws of chemistry. The fact is that for these to naturally bond in a way that produces an organism is highly improbable as well. O but wait, your site neglects to mention that. As for the RNA, RNA is complicated and does not cause life, DNA is needed for life. Sooo give me solid evidence and I will believe it.

No, you retard, there is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution.

"However, microevolution and macroevolution both refer fundamentally to the same thing, changes in allele frequencies, and the scientific controversy is only about how those changes predominantly occur. Either way macroevolution uses the same mechanisms of change as those already observed in microevolution."

SOURCE (http://tinyurl.com/nzko8)

And talk.origins is not bias, it shows both creationist and evolutionist arguments.

Now please, present your evidence. Stop stating that you have evidence that shows yadda yadda yadda, and show it!

[This message has been edited by Overman (edited 08-04-2006).]

Overman, answer the problems i stated above. I gave you evidence of why it is unreasonable. Refute it.

Your entire argument is based on a all-encompassing negative, ie. that there are no transitional forms. An all-encompassing negative cannot be disproven, so there is very little one can do to refute your argument.

To clarify:

1.)If he names some transitional forms, you will point out some gaps

2.)If he points out the fossil record, you will merely state it is incomplete

The only way he could refute such a statement is one by one reciting the entire fossil record to make it very clear there IS evidence. That is putting way too much burden of proof on him.

Besides which, the validity of evolution is irrevlevant to the validity of God. You are not proving your god by posting that argument.

quote:As for "spouting my mouth off" there is a distinction between micro and macro evolutions. Species evolve over time, that is fine with me, but frogs do not become tigers and these huge leaps made from one animal to the next are highly improbable.

The fossil record shows no intermediary stages, but why is this? If evolution takes so long then there would be plenty of fossils of the intermediates, again there is not, unless the fossil record has changed since I last looked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Some of the reasons for the incompleteness of fossil records are:

•In general, the probability that an organism becomes fossilized after death is very low;

•Some species or groups are less likely to become fossils because they are soft-bodied;

•Some species or groups are less likely to become fossils because they live (and die) in conditions that are not favourable for fossilization to occur in;

•Many fossils have been destroyed by land movements and erosion;

•Some fossil remains are complete, but most are fragmentary;

•Some evolutionary change occurs in populations at the limits of a species' ecological range, and as these populations are likely to be small, the probability of fossilization is lower (see punctuated equilibrium);

•Similarly, when environmental conditions change, the population of a species is likely to be greatly reduced, such that any evolutionary change induced by these new conditions is less likely to be fossilized;

•Most fossils convey information about external form, but little about how the organism functioned;

•Using present-day biodiversity as a guide, this suggests that the fossils unearthed represent only a fraction of the large number of species of organisms that lived in the past. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution#Limitations

quote:As for Abiogenesis. Have you ever considered YOUR sources to be wrong? I do not take my sources from creationists; I take it from modern Biology. The fact that ALL your info comes from one site and that the site makes such strong claims that arent very biologically sound, should be an indicator.

Prove it; give us your sources that should be modern and objective. Who are you to claim it isn’t biologically sound if your claims aren’t biologically sound.

quote: All the same the site talks about how there were "simpler" organisms. Yet this is not really an issue, what does it matter if chemicals bond? They ALWAYS do, thus the laws of chemistry. The fact is that for these to naturally bond in a way that produces an organism is highly improbable as well. O but wait, your site neglects to mention that. As for the RNA, RNA is complicated and does not cause life, DNA is needed for life. Sooo give me solid evidence and I will believe it.

•Many other scientists have now repeated this, and just in case Miller's assumptions about the composition of the early atmosphere were wrong, they've tried many other gas mixtures and other sources of energy. They've found that such systems produce nearly every one of the 20 amino acid proteins are made of, all five of the bases that DNA and RNA are made of, and many other organics {16}. What has really impressed the chemists is how easily these organics form.

•To make an enzyme you'd need a genetic code like RNA, and to make the RNA you would need the enzyme, so which same first? The problem would be solved if proteins can behave genetically and direct their own synthesis, or if nucleic acids can behave enzymatically. Well, we now know that RNA can behave as a catalyst {19} and proteins can act as templates for their own synthesis {20}. So both these molecules. Now can we get from one of these primitive proteins to anything resembling a cell? Yes, we can. They organize themselves into microspheres which do have many of the metabolic properties of living cells {21}. Furthermore, when examined with the electron microscope they show a striking similarity to some of the most primitive unicellular fossils found by paleontologists. Possess both the necessary properties and the chicken-egg problem is solved. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/saladin1.html. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Life

•A particularly nice thing about evolutionary theory is that it would remain no less real even if there were no fossils at all. Even if some geological phenomenon assured that dead organisms were never preserved as fossils, there remains so much information to be gotten from living organisms evolution would still be obvious.

For example, neutral human DNA sequences are approximately 1.2% divergent (based on substitutions) from those of their nearest genetic relative, the chimpanzee, 1.6% from gorillas, and 6.6% from baboons.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution#Evidence_from_comparative_an atomyfor more.

As for your ignorant Dichtomy of microevolution and macroevolution.

"However, microevolution and macroevolution both refer fundamentally to the same thing, changes in allele frequencies, and the scientific controversy is only about how those changes predominantly occur. Either way macroevolution uses the same mechanisms of change as those already observed in microevolution." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

quote:I can show you how the Bible is an accurate historical document and that the ressurection was a historical event. This would show that the God I am speaking of is the true God of all things.

By the way Evolution has no correlation with the origin of life, much less the Bible. So this statement is diametrically different from the discussion.





[This message has been edited by hespeaks (edited 08-04-2006).]

Ok as for the fossil record have you ever heard of Darwin and his basing evolution on the finding of more fossils? And again with the cell thing. Honestly explain to me how a cell become somethign more then a cell and how it is that anything with any type of system caim about, seeing as how our systems are irreducible, you can not build up to a larger animal from a single cell especially with all of the specialized organs and processes, it is simply illogical. I am not saying this to prove God, I am saying this for the sake of science, so thta logic is not butchered in the process.

IMO, creatonism and evolution bot fail because they both have flaws (which i'm sure have been covered meticulouly in this thread already). Because of this you can't really aregue the two theories because you'll just end up going in a circle.

Since the beginning of time Man has tried to explain the environment around him. Ancient Greeks created Gods to explain happening such as the weather. Zeus for lightning etc. Well now I can make lighting in a lab so we know that that is not true. This can be applied to Christians as well. People need to know where they came from so its unstandable that religions would be fabricated. Modern science has begun to disprove many "truths" in the Bible. Religion was created because of the insecurity of Man. Religion is more of an easy way out.

I support evolution because it is based on scientific fact. It hasnt been perfect but who says we coulnd have a breakthrough in the near future.

all species have different genome sizes and this is not due to mutation alone. there are/is gene duplications, slippage, unequal crossing over and other replicating mistakes, plus chromosomal unequal distribution during meiosis.

quote:Ok as for the fossil record have you ever heard of Darwin and his basing evolution on the finding of more fossils?

Darwin's famous book, The Origin of Species, built the case for evolution almost entirely from evidence found in living organisms, not in the fossils. Out of 479 pages in that book, only 11 percent deal with the fossil evidence. One area of evidence from living species is developmental biology.

quote:And again with the cell thing. Honestly explain to me how a cell become somethign more then a cell and how it is that anything with any type of system caim about, seeing as how our systems are irreducible, you can not build up to a larger animal from a single cell especially with all of the specialized organs and processes, it is simply illogical.

First I quote from the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial "For example, it is incorrect to assume that a complex structure or biochemical process can function only if all its components are present and functioning as we see them today. Complex biochemical systems can

be built up from simpler systems through natural selection. And read the links and facts from scientists I posted for the answer to your question.

Theists refuse to be educated, but they insist on running the world. They should all be killed so as to prevent the further degradation of our species and our planet.

truth is all=antiintellectual

Okay you have trouble believing in evolution because it's evidence has gaps in it. So you leap to believe that a big old dude in the sky did it all. I mean you jump from something difficult to understand to something impossible. Explain....

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:

As for the evidence. You have presented none, you say things but do not back them up with fact. I can show you how the Bible is an accurate historical document and that the ressurection was a historical event. The fossile record shows no intermediary stages, but why is this? If evolution takes so long then there would be plenty of fossils of the intermediates, again there is not, unless the fossil record has changed since I last looked.

And you say things and back them up with fact? YOU say things and are backing them up with nothing. you say all of his evidence comes from one source while it seems like all of your evidence comes from one source as well seeing as how you keep saying bible, bible, bible. there are plenty of other source other than just one website, he was just using it as an example. you also say there are no intermediate fossils, this shows that you are obviously ignorant on the subject and therefore should not say anything to refute it until you have researched what has been found and evolution in general. there are some (but not many) fossils that show transitions in evolution. i believe someone already stated why there arent so i wont repeat what he said.

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:

Overman, answer the problems i stated above. I gave you evidence of why it is unreasonable. Refute it.

He asked you to show evidence that there is a god, which you have completely ignored. the bible isnt good enough, we need more than just an old, unreliable book. if you cannot give us any other source besides it then do not go around saying that everyone else is wrong and that there is a god that created everything if you cannot give credible evidence yourself.

there is no god morons

lol again with the unreliable book thing, give me proof of that, because I do have plenty of evidence to the contrary. As for the evolution thing, I will look into what you have given me, as for the personal insults, please, I have not insulted you, so lets not be elementry here. As soon as you start insulting your opponent you start to make his claims less then they are, I consider your claims, so please consider mine. Again, be a little more polite, I am not attacking you and I am sorry if I have in any way offended you.

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:

lol again with the unreliable book thing, give me proof of that, because I do have plenty of evidence to the contrary. As for the evolution thing, I will look into what you have given me, as for the personal insults, please, I have not insulted you, so lets not be elementry here. As soon as you start insulting your opponent you start to make his claims less then they are, I consider your claims, so please consider mine. Again, be a little more polite, I am not attacking you and I am sorry if I have in any way offended you.

I dont know if you were talking to me but i didnt mean to insult you if i did. i was advising more than anything, a little constructive criticism never hurt anyone. ok new testament with all the gospels were to have been dated back to 200-300 AD kind of blows the whole jesus did miracles because a lot of it seems to be a. rumors and gossip and tales of wonderous things or b. just copying miracles from past worshiped gods from before the time of jesus. umm the whole moses getting on top of a mountain so that he could talk to god with no witnesses to show that he did blow the credibility away. a talking bush that is on fire supposed to be god. adam and eve having children and because they were supposedly the only ones alive they would surely have relatives that were somewhat retarded along down the line. when moses takes the slaves from egypt they follow god who takes the form of a cloud? by day and fire by night. i dunno but i think ive heard things that were easier to believe in fairy tales than in the things that were in the bible.

If you think im a bit misguided in what i have put above feel free to give me some sources that i could look at that some how show evidence. i have looked at your claims though and it seems that you repeat obvious things over and over ask for more when you yourself give much less than your opponent.

please prove me wrong if you think i am.

Overman, I don't go to church because in a sense I don't like people judging others and laying down the "Laws of Jesus christ". I read my bible and study it and if you and everyone else looks close enough, the bible has mistakes but a good some of it is right up till now and the things it says are going to happen are looking like they will. This Overman, is my proof. Look at the Revelations and see where that this bible wrote back in 1611 was wrote by someone other than god but was translated the best it could be. War and stars, 666, its all coming. I know it is because i study both facts and what the bible says. They are an equal.

quote:Originally posted by Linx:

Overman, I don't go to church because in a sense I don't like people judging others and laying down the "Laws of Jesus christ". I read my bible and study it and if you and everyone else looks close enough, the bible has mistakes but a good some of it is right up till now and the things it says are going to happen are looking like they will. This Overman, is my proof. Look at the Revelations and see where that this bible wrote back in 1611 was wrote by someone other than god but was translated the best it could be. War and stars, 666, its all coming. I know it is because i study both facts and what the bible says. They are an equal.

Yep... they also predicted those revelations were going to happen in 1999 and many other dates because revelations is so vague... that's not proof.

quote:Originally posted by Overman:

Yep... they also predicted those revelations were going to happen in 1999 and many other dates because revelations is so vague... that's not proof.

Uh, many think they 'have' started. Iraq is a war of "Many to come"

quote:Originally posted by Linx:

Uh, many think they 'have' started. Iraq is a war of "Many to come"

Yes... we've had worse than the war on Iraq dude. And many are idiots, including you. It didn't happen in the past when many thought so. The bible 'predictions' are vague. Until Jesus actually comes down, I won't believe it's the second coming, because Jesus coming down will be the only proof of it being the second coming because the bible predictions are vague.

Seriously, you need better than that, dude.

[This message has been edited by Overman (edited 08-05-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Overman:

Yes... we've had worse than the war on Iraq dude. And many are idiots, including you. It didn't happen in the past when many thought so. The bible 'predictions' are vague. Until Jesus actually comes down, I won't believe it's the second coming, because Jesus coming down will be the only proof of it being the second coming because the bible predictions are vague.

Seriously, you need better than that, dude.



I'm not an idiot. I'm special http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Linx:

Uh, many think they 'have' started. Iraq is a war of "Many to come"

I dont know but i dont think iraq or anything was ever in piece. people say "it must be the end of the world because those dumb shits in iraq are fighting and people are dying." but there is always fighting and killing in iraq. its been happening for i have no clue at least a couple thousand years? i dont think that, just because its 2006 and america is in the war, that its the end of the world.

I think the God of the gaps argument is the weakest way to argue God's existance.

Not that any arguments are bulletproof.

OP, that's a completely illogical argument.

You are arguing that there must be a first cause.

You accept that the Universe exists, of course. However, you introduce a completely unnecessary layer of probability by introducing something before it.

You should accept that the Universe was the first point of non-contingence. Bringing God into the equation begs the question (a fallacy): what came before God?

Either you have to pick a point of non-contingence, in which case it should be the one with the least variables in it i.e. the Universe is the first cause, OR you could assume that there is an infinite string of Gods creating each other. Of course, the latter would be infinitely unlikely, as you are introducing an infinite layer of probabilities.

You have proven nothing other than that you don't understand basic statistical mathematics and Ockham's Razor.

quote:Originally posted by PerpetualBurn:

OP, that's a completely illogical argument.

You are arguing that there must be a first cause.

You accept that the Universe exists, of course. However, you introduce a completely unnecessary layer of probability by introducing something before it.

You should accept that the Universe was the first point of non-contingence. Bringing God into the equation begs the question (a fallacy): what came before God?

Either you have to pick a point of non-contingence, in which case it should be the one with the least variables in it i.e. the Universe is the first cause, OR you could assume that there is an infinite string of Gods creating each other. Of course, the latter would be infinitely unlikely, as you are introducing an infinite layer of probabilities.

You have proven nothing other than that you don't understand basic statistical mathematics and Ockham's Razor.

Doesn't the constant expansion of the universe suggest that there was a beginning?

Yes. Yes it does.

quote:Originally posted by PerpetualBurn:

Yes. Yes it does.

And a beginning doesn't require a first cause?

Linx, I have an educated guess here that you do not believe in the god you do for any logical reason. It's actually an accident. You were born into a religious family, it could have been any religion, but yours happened to be christian and thus you are a christian.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

And a beginning doesn't require a first cause?

Did you even read my post?

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

Linx, I have an educated guess here that you do not believe in the god you do for any logical reason. It's actually an accident. You were born into a religious family, it could have been any religion, but yours happened to be christian and thus you are a christian.

Other way around. I was born into a (non religious family) and I gained religion.

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

Linx, I have an educated guess here that you do not believe in the god you do for any logical reason. It's actually an accident. You were born into a religious family, it could have been any religion, but yours happened to be christian and thus you are a christian.

Oops!

because you are a moron.

[/thread]

lol but what if he is right? I will not insult you because if you are wrong then it is a much more serious matter. So again I do not think insults are needed in order to have a good arguement.

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:

lol but what if he is right? I will not insult you because if you are wrong then it is a much more serious matter. So again I do not think insults are needed in order to have a good arguement.

What if the Christians are right? What if the Muslims are right? What if Judaism is right? What if Buddhism is right? What if Hinduism is right? etc, etc.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

What if the Christians are right? What if the Muslims are right? What if Judaism is right? What if Buddhism is right? What if Hinduism is right? etc, etc.

I think they are all right actually but some have certain ways of explaining things that might be misleading.

I doubt any religion has hit "it" on the nose, but all religions have it a portion of "it".Are you really going to tell me that if I lived my life accordingly i'm going to go heaven and be rewarded 40 virgins?????

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Linx:

[B]Here's a simple little chat about why I believe in god.

Me: What made us?

You: Evolution.

Me: What made evolution?

You: The universe.

Me: What made the universe.

You: A bigger universe.

Me: What made that bigger universe?

You: Your mom.

ME: what created god...oooohhhh paradox

quote:Originally posted by COBHC:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Linx:

[B]Here's a simple little chat about why I believe in god.

Me: What made us?

You: Evolution.

Me: What made evolution?

You: The universe.

Me: What made the universe.

You: A bigger universe.

Me: What made that bigger universe?

You: Your mom.

ME: what created god...oooohhhh paradox



Your mom.

he got burned

me: what made my mom

quote:Originally posted by Fallen_3angel3:

I doubt any religion has hit "it" on the nose, but all religions have it a portion of "it".Are you really going to tell me that if I lived my life accordingly i'm going to go heaven and be rewarded 40 virgins?????

I reccomend you read the English Translation of the Hebrew Bible, the English Translation of the Christian Bible, the English translation of the Qur'an, the English Translation of Buddhist texts and the teachings of Buddha. Those are the big 4 these days.

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all

I can show you how the Bible is an accurate historical document and that the ressurection was a historical event.

No, you can't.

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all

there is a distinction between micro and macro evolutions

No, there isn't. Evolution is evolution. I would reccomend that you don't learn about science from religious propaganda sites or books. If you want a reference for good sites and books on evolution, let me know.

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all

Species evolve over time, that is fine with me, but frogs do not become tigers and these huge leaps made from one animal to the next are highly improbable.

That's right. Frogs don't become tigers. And if anyone had proof that they did, that would disprove evolution, because no one claims that evolution works that way.



quote:Originally posted by Truth is all

The fossile record shows no intermediary stages, but why is this?

Can you explain what kind of fossil would prove "macro" evolution for you? Would you like to see a fossil of frog giving birth to a tiger?

quote:Originally posted by ThePhoenix

IMO, creatonism and evolution bot fail because they both have flaws

There are no flaws in evolution.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

There are no flaws in evolution.



The frog tiger part made me laugh.

As for

"Ok as for the fossil record have you ever heard of Darwin and his basing evolution on the finding of more fossils? And again with the cell thing. Honestly explain to me how a cell become somethign more then a cell and how it is that anything with any type of system caim about, seeing as how our systems are irreducible, you can not build up to a larger animal from a single cell especially with all of the specialized organs and processes, it is simply illogical. I am not saying this to prove God, I am saying this for the sake of science, so thta logic is not butchered in the process"

They tried this before, they found an organism that couldnt live without everything it has today, they said it proved that it had to have been created as it was and as it still is now, however they kinda got a bit pissed when types of this anumal were found incomplete and living quite happilly in other parts of the world.

The bible alone as evidence of god is totally fucking stupid. It is riddled with contradiction upon contradiction, the text we have now isnt even all of it, things were missed out so they selected only the books that suited them. Also, why cant dragons exhist? or faries or gargoyles?...they are written about in books, Witches and worlocks....theyw ere written about in books yet a christian would laugh at the idea of that, yet their bible is just the same! a story book.

quote:Originally posted by Overman:

Yes... we've had worse than the war on Iraq dude. And many are idiots, including you. It didn't happen in the past when many thought so. The bible 'predictions' are vague. Until Jesus actually comes down, I won't believe it's the second coming, because Jesus coming down will be the only proof of it being the second coming because the bible predictions are vague.

Seriously, you need better than that, dude.

Overman, you have hurled insults in every single post in this thread. Weren't the you the one whining about me not being nice in Politics ? Weren't you the one asking me to ignore the stupid posts, and just answer the productive ones, so that Politics would be a better place ? And here you are, being a dickhead.

Hypocrite.

quote:The fossile record shows no intermediary stages, but why is this?

Hey, I hate to come across as arrogant (that's a lie, actually) but apparently you're scientifically ignorant.

What really pisses me off is that if evolution is false and God did create humans, why the hell did he do it so badly?

Why did he design humans with pelvises that would be better suited to walking on all fours? Did he not realise that this is the cause of so many back problems in people?

And why the hell do I have an appendix? They only serve to make trouble.

And the human eye...that fucks up in so many people it's untrue. How many people reading this use glasses or contact lenses?

I guess God must've been pretty wasted when he made humans. Welcome to Incompetent Design, soon to hit schools near you...

actually that is a stupid reason to believe in god. some one's ignorance on something is not a reason to believe in the opposite.