Alright, it's probably been done before, but bite me.

I'll start my argument......(it wont make any sense yet...)

Creationism is full of holes, how can something so complex(plants, animals, bacteria) be created in "7 days"? We struggle to stay alive each day(or so to say), yet this "almighty god" can magically create millions of different species, in 7 days.

And, as a side note, how come christians believe in adam and eve? Supposedly they were the first humans, yet they had 2 sons. How did it go from there? Did their kids mate with their own mother? then with any sisters they had? I mean come on.....doesnt the bible say something about incest being wrong? What if they eneded up with only male babies, and eve eventually died? Then human kind is doomed. Maybe they reproduced with a monkey.....

/end sidenote.

well this all comes down to your interpertation of the bible.

i say genesis is bs

my friend says the book of genesis is an ancient way of trying to explain where we originated, howeve the bible in essence is correct, on most things (leave out levidicus).

another might say that genesis is correct.

arguing that one side is correct is almost impossible for religion is like art. i see a child on meth's scribble, others see a masterpiece. i see someone who cant paint a head correctly, others see picasso.

making your view and then establishing it with evidence is the only was for you views to concidered and then the only thing left is another persons opinion.

im over arguing, theres free speech and the right to think what the hell u want. unless ur a muslim then we lock u up.

The bible is not meant to be taken literally. It is an allegorical story for civilization. Try not to take it literally wolfy_9005. If you want a discussion on evolution, you should head to the science forums.

Although it might not be as accepted in modern times I think its important for evolutionists to learn the Darwin went on to write more books after Origin.

He expanded his theory in Descent suggesting that the human mind changes the process, and when we developed complex minds and societies our evolution began to take a turn in a different direction. Although I believe you can look into this theory by reading Darwin's books, keep in mind the language has changed a little since then. It might be better to look into books like Darwin's Lost Theory of Love (http://www.partnershipway.org/html/subpages/darwin.htm):

Loye shows how, for over a century, the completing human half of one of the main theories underlying modern science, by one of the greatest scientists of all time, has been buried, ignored, or radically distorted by his successors.

Creation and evolution; not creation vs evolution.

I know believing in a supreme being is far fetched, but I do. I also believe that there is ample evidence for evolution. I do not see though, why I can't believe in both. The bible was put on paper by man and we have examples of alterations throughout time. If there is an all knowing, life creating entity out there, than why wouldn't it be capable of creating the universe and all of its complex life forms. Maybe there is a God and maybe the plan all along was to create creatures that could grow, develop and evolve. God knows good reality tv when he sees it.

Alright, it's probably been done before, but bite me.

I'll start my argument......(it wont make any sense yet...)

Creationism is full of holes, how can something so complex(plants, animals, bacteria) be created in "7 days"? We struggle to stay alive each day(or so to say), yet this "almighty god" can magically create millions of different species, in 7 days.

And, as a side note, how come christians believe in adam and eve? Supposedly they were the first humans, yet they had 2 sons. How did it go from there? Did their kids mate with their own mother? then with any sisters they had? I mean come on.....doesnt the bible say something about incest being wrong? What if they eneded up with only male babies, and eve eventually died? Then human kind is doomed. Maybe they reproduced with a monkey.....

/end sidenote.

Maybe you should of put "Evolution vs Christianity" for the title instead.

I know believing in a supreme being is far fetched, but I do. I also believe that there is ample evidence for evolution. I do not see though, why I can't believe in both. The bible was put on paper by man and we have examples of alterations throughout time. If there is an all knowing, life creating entity out there, than why wouldn't it be capable of creating the universe and all of its complex life forms. Maybe there is a God and maybe the plan all along was to create creatures that could grow, develop and evolve. God knows good reality tv when he sees it.

These aren't actually exclusive, of course. But, in the context that most mean it, "Creationism" usually means taking the bible literally. That is, yes god could've put everything into motion and evolution can be true as well, but the creation story of the bible and evolution are incompatible if taken literally. I think this is the real discussion taking place.

creationism and Christianity are the same thing....(atleast the bits we need)

Most of the religious people i know dont believe in evolution, but believe in creatism.....and im sure more then 1 religion believes the same aswell.

And leaving Christianity out of it, means im not selecting one specific religion to dis...

and i just realised i screwed the title anway.

Example of evolution, for those "hardcore" christians out there:

The wildlife surrounding chernobyl after the accident have developed an "immunity" to the radiation. The radiation stimulates their disease fighting cells, which helps fight any infections caused by the radiation/related injuries. Even birds have started to nest in the concrete structure, which stops the radiation leaking out(lol). The first generation of the animals probably suffered a 99% death rate, which steadily declined each generation until what it is now. They adapted to their environment, or so to say, they evolved to cope with the conditions.

Sad thing is, people on facebook who are pro-creationism, think it's just because they have lived with it for so long.....yet are obviously too ignorant to see that they have to evolve in order to survive.

These aren't actually exclusive, of course. But, in the context that most mean it, "Creationism" usually means taking the bible literally. That is, yes god could've put everything into motion and evolution can be true as well, but the creation story of the bible and evolution are incompatible if taken literally. I think this is the real discussion taking place.

If it is evolution vs the Bible story, than I think that evolution must win out. The fact that we can look out into space and see other stars and planets should show us that the Bible is an unfinished text. Creationism according to the bible doesn't explain enough. It did though explain enough for those alive at the time.

Adam and eve actually had 3 sons, but I see your point.

I still however am catholic. :)

I've always thought maybe Creationism was the answer to Why, and Evolution the answer to How.

^ How is something that has no evidence supporting it and that exists in countless contradictory versions, an "answer" to anything?

Language is not static. I do not think he meant to imply it is an objectively true answer that has evidence to support it is. I think that he meant that it could be that answer and there is no reason to believe it is not, so it shouldn't be outright rejected.

How is there no reason to believe that it is not an answer when it doesn't have any evidence supporting it and it contradicts itself?

How is there no reason to believe that it is not an answer when it doesn't have any evidence supporting it and it contradicts itself?

"No reason to believe that it is not ... when it doesn't ...." You sir are the king of doublespeak.

Language is not static. I think he's using "answer" as 'a possible explanation that may still be considered', not 'the only explanation, with evidence to support it'.

And I think he meant one of the variations, not all of them. :rolleyes:

"No reason to believe that it is not ... when it doesn't ...." You sir are the king of doublespeak.

In case you didn't notice, I was essentially repeating the same phrase because the same point remained intact. That's why it resulted in "doublespeak" (which isn't even a correct usage of that word).

The point was more than clear, so please spare me the childish insults.


Language is not static. I think he's using "answer" as 'a possible explanation that may still be considered', not 'the only explanation, with evidence to support it'.

And I think he meant one of the variations, not all of them. :rolleyes:1. What you "think" he meant is complete speculation on your part. I asked a question based on what he did say, and that question has yet to be answered - by you or anyone else.

2. You saying "there is no reason to believe it is not" is wrong since I just gave two very good reasons to think that it is not an answer: These "answers" repeatedly contradict each other and have no evidence supporting them. Is it proof that they aren't answers? No. I didn't claim that it was. It is, however, a good reason to doubt that they are.

P.S. Nobody said language was static, so why you keep making that useless comment is beyond me...

It's my answer, admittedly it might not be the right answer, but it is the answer that allows my faith to co-exist with the part of my brain that says "Okay, this isn't adding up." I don't think that some old guy with a big white beard just said "Hey turn on the fucking lights!" Just that a higher power set into motion a chain of events that explains our existence. I'm not trying to change your mind, Rust, just putting my two cents in.

The point I'm trying to make - i.e. my two cents - is that just because you like that scenario doesn't mean it's an answer to anything. If it's contradictory and has no evidence supporting it then it's hardly an answer. Is it something you would like to be true? It seems so. Great. That doesn't make it an answer.

I've always thought maybe Creationism was the answer to Why, and Evolution the answer to How.

Why would an all-powerful God who desires to ultimately create mankind, do so in an evolutionary fashion?

He could just poof us into existence, right?

Why use a method that suggests, random chemicals came together on their own and devolped the qualities of a single cell organism, which through trial and error and random mutation, would eventually lead to more complex organisms?

Evolution exists without a God. God needs evolution, and if theists want to tack God's name on the front of it and call it intelligent design, they can go fuck themselves. They will have to do what Darwin did, and put forth a scientific reason for this. Like Darwin's theory it will be reviewed, tested, reviewed, tested, critiqued and either allowed into scientific knowledge or cast off as unworthy.

So far Intelligent design and creationism (same thing) are both unworthy of holding any kind of place whatsoever in scientific knowledge. IF IT EVER DOES....it will cease to be the belief of frightened sheep, and become fact.

Good luck sheep.

Listen fellas, I'm not trying to pick a fight here. In fact I thought that this place was somewhere to share our thoughts, not bash the hell out of each other. I'm a grown man, so I'm not going to get into it with two people who are a million miles away and I will never meet, and what's more I'm not going to cheapen my own statement by backing it up with childish name calling. You can think differently than I do, that's okay with me. I'm going to think differently than you do, that's not going to change, let's just try to be civil and not make asses of ourselves in what should be a civil forum.

Listen fellas, I'm not trying to pick a fight here. In fact I thought that this place was somewhere to share our thoughts, not bash the hell out of each other. I'm a grown man, so I'm not going to get into it with two people who are a million miles away and I will never meet, and what's more I'm not going to cheapen my own statement by backing it up with childish name calling. You can think differently than I do, that's okay with me. I'm going to think differently than you do, that's not going to change, let's just try to be civil and not make asses of ourselves in what should be a civil forum.

That doesn't happen much around here. Respect for other opinions is a rarity in religious discussion. Why be civil when you can be right, ya know?

This debate needs some balance, and since I'm currently studying religion, morality and philosophy I will give you some unbiased arguments for either side.

Big Bang Theory
For: Presence of 'Red Shift' indicates objects moving away from us and background radiation which we assume is caused by the big bang but don not know.
Against: Presence of 'Blue Shift' indicates objects moving towards us contradicting the idea of an explosion, and also the counter-planetary movements of the planets does not support the Big Bang Theory.

That is basically the evidence for the Big Bang. The main argument. Not as detailed as I was expecting either...

Evolution
For: Similarities in DNA and occurence of micro-evolution(evolution WITHIN a species)
Against: No single piece of evidence for macro-evolution(evolution of one species into another) and irreducibly complex organisms. Also there is this quote from darwin:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species

Remember they thought cells were mere blobs of protoplasm when his theory was invented.

You have been fooled by the media into believing science has all the answers.

Science told us the world was flat, then it was circular, then it wasn't a proper sphere, then it was at the centre of the universe, then that it wasn't quite. Now it tells us to believe the Big Bang Theory and Evolution.

.
Against: Presence of 'Blue Shift' indicates objects moving towards us contradicting the idea of an explosion, and also the counter-planetary movements of the planets does not support the Big Bang Theory.

Wrong.

Neither of those things contradict the scientific theory of the Big Bang. In fact, we would expect to see both phenomenons, in at least some fashion, if the Big Bang were true.

For example, we observe some blue shift in the Andromeda Galaxy because we (Milky Way) are slowly being "pulled" together by gravity. This doesn't contradict the Big Bang.

As for "counter-planetary movements" that's also wrong. I'll leave this article to refute that assertion:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE260_1.html
Against: No single piece of evidence for macro-evolution(evolution of one species into another) and irreducibly complex organisms. Wrong.

There are plenty of evidences for macro-evolution. You might not know of them, which could be understandable, but what isn't understandable is making that ridiculous claim without first doing some research. You clearly didn't.

On macro evolution:

Linking to talkorigins is the easiest way to contradict this, and since you didn't do the courtesy of doing any work (like researching things before you say them) then why should I make my life more difficult either? In particular please notice where we have observed speciation (change from one species to another):


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html


On irreducible complexity:

The argument of Irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance, and thus logically vacuous. "We cannot currently explain how this system could form via the evolutionary process, therefore it couldn't is a logical fallacy. Not to mention just plain fucking wrong in the cases that Behe (the biggest proponent of such an argument) has claimed are "irreducibly complex":


Behe used it for the bacterial flagellum... he was showed how it could evolve through natural selection (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16953248?dopt=AbstractPlus). He used it for the immune system.... he was then showed how it could evolve through natural selection (http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/Evolving_Immunity.html).

He's been wrong in pretty much all of his examples.

Also there is this quote from darwin:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species1. Which fails to provide the following sentence which shows how Darwin saw of no such case. ("But I can find out no such case."). That remains true. We do not have any organ that we cannot explain the evolutionary process of currently, or at least have reasonable expectation of explaining in the future while the research provides more knowledge on the subject.

2. What Darwin says is not important anymore. The theory of evolution is much more an Darwin. If something Darwin said is wrong... then it's wrong. What's important is if the theory of evolution has any flaws today, and you've shown absolutely none.


Remember they thought cells were mere blobs of protoplasm when his theory was invented.

You have been fooled by the media into believing science has all the answers.

Science told us the world was flat, then it was circular, then it wasn't a proper sphere, then it was at the centre of the universe, then that it wasn't quite. Now it tells us to believe the Big Bang Theory and Evolution.Who the hell says Science has all the answers currently? I don't know any human being that says that at all.

That Science has been wrong in the past, does not mean it is wrong when it comes to the big bang and evolution. We would expect any methodology to be more wrong while the processes are in their infancy, and less wrong while the processes mature. To compare the scientific method millenniums ago to the Scientific method of today is silly. The methodology of the Scientific method has grown precisely in an effort to stop from making those mistakes.

Could it be wrong? Sure. Have you shown anything meaningful that suggest it is wrong?No.

this guy is pretty cool.
i'll just quote from him, because i probably can't explain it a better way.

At the University of Maine in Orono a student went running through the crowd crying out, "Science disproves the existence of God. Science disproves the existence of God." I asked, 'What are you talking about?" He said, 'You know, evolution. Evolution is a proven fact. Evolution disproves the existence of God."

Evolution as an explanation of the origin of life is not a proven fact; it is a philosophy, a theory. But evolution as a description of a certain natural process in nature has much evidence supporting it. There are many Christian scientists and professors who believe in evolution as an accurate account of how some animals adapt to radiation, climate and topography. But they do not accept it as an explanation of how life began.

The book of Genesis seeks to answer two questions concerning the origin of the world. The first is, Who created? The answer is clear in the opening verse of the book "In the beginning God" (Gen 1:1)-not "In the beginning hydrogen," not "In the beginning randomness."Rather, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The second question is, Why did God create? The Scriptures clearly reveal that God created human beings in his own image for the purpose of living in a deep love relationship with God and in deep love relationships with each other.

The book of Genesis does not seek to answer the question of how God created. I do not know how God created. No one does. It is entirely possible that God used the process of evolution to some extent to create life. Science is concerned about the observation and classification of facts. Science deals with natural processes. Genesis says nothing about these. I am grateful that the authors of the books in the Bible refrain from forcing into the text their scientific prejudice.

There is a story from The London Observer illustrates the frailty of our understanding. A family of mice lived in a grand piano. They enjoyed listening to the music that came from the great player who they never saw, but who they believed in, because they enjoyed the music that came from the piano. One day one of the little mice got especially brave. He climbed deep into the bowels of the piano. He made an astonishing discovery. The music did not come from a great player; rather, the music came from wires that reverberated back and forth. The little mouse returned to his family tremendously excited.He informed his family that there was no great player who made the piano music; rather, there were these little wires that reverberated back and forth. The family of mice abandoned their belief in a great piano player.Instead they had a totally mechanistic view.

One day another one of the little mice got especially brave. He climbed even further up into the bowels of the piano. To his amazement he found that indeed the music did not come from the reverberating wires, but rather from little hammers that struck the wires. It was those hammers that really made the music. He returned to his family with a new description of the source of the music. The family of mice rejoiced that they were so educated that they understood that there was no great piano player but that the music came from little hammers that struck the wires. The family of mice did not believe that there was a player playing the piano. Instead they believed that their mechanistic understanding of the universe explained all of reality. But the fact is that the player continued to play his music.

Modern science has done much to uncover the natural processes in the world. Daily we are learning more and more about how this world operates. But just because we understand how things work does not mean that there is not an intelligent mind behind the process. Albert Einstein expressed an awe and respect for the superior spirit or mind behind the universe. We should not make the mistake of getting so caught up with how things work that we ignore the Creator, the highly intelligent mind that is behind the intricate process.

this guy is pretty cool.
i'll just quote from him, because i probably can't explain it a better way.

That guy epically phailed when he said, "Evolution as an explanation of the origin of life is not a proven fact; it is a philosophy, a theory. But evolution as a description of a certain natural process in nature has much evidence supporting it."

Saying it's "a philosophy, a theory" does not accurately portray what a scientific theory is. It's not a philosophy or a guess or a grab bag of random observations. Briefly described, it is a systematized explanation of some natural phenomena. Scientific theories are very detailed, organized, and well-supported with experiments. They are testable and able to be falsified if sufficient evidence to the contrary exists. They can include mathematical statements of regularity (laws) and other formulas if they apply.

This person is using the word theory as it's used in common speech. He completely misses the point of what a scientific theory is and then bases the rest of the ramble on that misunderstanding.

It reminds me of the bullshit that some school districts tried to pass with their science textbooks. They wanted to include stickers that said "Evolution is just a theory." They, too, don't understand what a scientific theory is.

So this "why" and "how" stuff is just nonsense. If you want to believe that "God did it" then don't bother with science. Stick to your bible.

That guy epically phailed when he said, "Evolution as an explanation of the origin of life is not a proven fact; it is a philosophy, a theory. But evolution as a description of a certain natural process in nature has much evidence supporting it."

Saying it's "a philosophy, a theory" does not accurately portray what a scientific theory is. It's not a philosophy or a guess or a grab bag of random observations. Briefly described, it is a systematized explanation of some natural phenomena. Scientific theories are very detailed, organized, and well-supported with experiments. They are testable and able to be falsified if sufficient evidence to the contrary exists. They can include mathematical statements of regularity (laws) and other formulas if they apply.

This person is using the word theory as it's used in common speech. He completely misses the point of what a scientific theory is and then bases the rest of the ramble on that misunderstanding.

It reminds me of the bullshit that some school districts tried to pass with their science textbooks. They wanted to include stickers that said "Evolution is just a theory." They, too, don't understand what a scientific theory is.

So this "why" and "how" stuff is just nonsense. If you want to believe that "God did it" then don't bother with science. Stick to your bible.


i don't think he's talking to scientific people, just students.
hence the generalization of terms, and lack of appropriate scientific terminology.
so in the context, it isn't that inaccurate, even then, a scientific theory is still a philosophy, a theory in itself.

would it be reasonable to say that?

If you want to believe that "God did it" then don't bother with science.

I see no reason why someone cannot both believe in God/the infinite/an uncaused cause/an absolute existence, and also use the scientific process to learn stuff.

So this "why" and "how" stuff is just nonsense. If you want to believe that "God did it" then don't bother with science. Stick to your bible.

Albert Einstein said,

'the mathematical precision of the universe reveals the mathematical mind of God.

now im pretty sure Albert Einstein was a man of science.


Agnostic and internationally renown scientist Robert Jastrow once said "five independent lines of evidence, the motions of the galaxies, the discovery of the primordial fireball, the laws of thermodynamics, the abundance of helium in the Universe and the life story of the stars point to one conclusion, all indicate the universe had a beginning, now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to the biblical view of the origin of the world"

now he is not a theist, he's an agnostic. and he is also a man of science.

I see no reason why someone cannot both believe in God/the infinite/an uncaused cause/an absolute existence, and also use the scientific process to learn stuff.

Absolutely this.

I mean, I can see where the idea of a division between science and religion has come from; I don't see why it is neccesary for one to oppose the other though.

If my memory works rightly, I'm pretty sure that a lot of the people who made break throughs in science/scientific method were religious to some degree. At least in the past.

I see no reason why someone cannot both believe in God/the infinite/an uncaused cause/an absolute existence, and also use the scientific process to learn stuff.

Who said the oppossite?

"God did it" here is an explanation, an explanation that is not scientific. It requires the person to abandon Science at that instance. That'a the point.

It requires the person to abandon Science at that instance. That'a the point.

Did I say the opposite?

I see no reason why someone can't believe in god and still use the scientific process to learn about stuff.

I'm glad we agree Fanglekai's point stands.

I'm glad we agree Fanglekai's point stands.

You're assuming agreement. It would depend on what Fanglekai meant.

I see no reason why someone cannot believe "God did it" and also engage in a scientific pursuit.

Yet the point is: Did anyobody deny that someone who beleives "God did it" can also engage in a scientific pursuit in other instances? If so, please show me who. If not, you've just repeated a useless statement three times. Congratulations.

Albert Einstein said,

'the mathematical precision of the universe reveals the mathematical mind of God.

now im pretty sure Albert Einstein was a man of science.

Agnostic and internationally renown scientist Robert Jastrow once said "five independent lines of evidence, the motions of the galaxies, the discovery of the primordial fireball, the laws of thermodynamics, the abundance of helium in the Universe and the life story of the stars point to one conclusion, all indicate the universe had a beginning, now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to the biblical view of the origin of the world"

now he is not a theist, he's an agnostic. and he is also a man of science.

Normally I do not engage in someone's appeal to authority, but what the hell.

Einstein was agnostic, first and foremost. Since they are both agnostic, they would not assert "God did it". That just stands to simple reason.

IF they ever did, and put it forth as a scientific hypothesis, or theory, they would be completely WRONG and incorrect unless they have empirical evidence to back up the claim, and I don't care how brilliant they have been in other areas.

Another thing--creationists tend to have a rather primitive and unevolved conception of God.

IMHO, God created evolution because it was more interesting that way than just poofing everything all at once--as opposed to the Big Bang, in which everything did, supposedly, "poof" into existence.

Granted, it was a hell of big "poof", but still. . . . .

Normally I do not engage in someone's appeal to authority, but what the hell.

Einstein was agnostic, first and foremost. Since they are both agnostic, they would not assert "God did it". That just stands to simple reason.

IF they ever did, and put it forth as a scientific hypothesis, or theory, they would be completely WRONG and incorrect unless they have empirical evidence to back up the claim, and I don't care how brilliant they have been in other areas.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

yeah Einstein was a agnostic. however he had the intellectual integrity and the intellectual honesty to realise that there must be a God.

well i wouldn't say its a hypothesis,
but it's known as the
'The Kalam Cosmological Argument'


i think this bit of article is relevent as well.

Many people think that if they place their faith in Christ, they will have to commit intellectual suicide. They don't realize that Christ died to take away their sins, not their brains. Christians don't deposit their brains at the coat-check window and pick them back up on their way to heaven.

You can go to two extremes when it comes to the subjects of faith and reason.The first is to say that faith needs no reason: we just trust God without reservation then leap off the high board into the dark. But the fact is that Christianity does have a basis in history and in logic. There is evidence that Jesus was an actual historical person. The New Testament writings,the writings of Josephus and other first-century historians document this.

The second extreme is to say that if an idea is not logical, if it has no basis in rational thinking, then it has no place in my belief system. If you follow that thinking to its conclusion, then you have to throw out a lot of the miracles and healings in Scripture since logically people do not rise from the dead, logically the crust of leprosy does not fall off the body of its victim at the touch of a hand, and legs crippled for nearly forty years do not unhinge and become new because someone tells them to get up.

This is the balance people need to keep in mind when they say they are too rational to have faith, when they say they won't believe in something unless they can see it. Some have even said, "Cliffe, I wish I had your faith."Sometimes people mean this sincerely, but often they really mean, "Cliffe, I cannot be so stupid, so intellectually naive to believe all the superstition and garbage about God that you've apparently swallowed." In a way that issue is moot. All of us believe in things we can't see. All of us place our trust in things that are not plainly evident. We believe in team spirit, patriotism, love, and goodness. Although we can't reach out and grasp any of these values, and though we so often see them misused and flaunted for selfish gain, we still believe they exist and often believe they have value.

Every one of us has faith. Every one of us believes in someone or something that gives us direction in life, that gives us security. Peter Schaeffer wrote a play titled Equus. In the play a young boy begins to worship a picture of Jesus hanging over his bed. The boy's father, who is a devout atheist, rips the picture off the wall and replaces it with a photograph of a horse. The young boy, needing meaning and purpose, begins to worship the picture of the horse. The father gets more upset and sends the boy to a psychiatrist to have this fixation removed.

As the psychiatrist begins talking to the boy, he gains some understanding that was not apparent to the father. The boy does not have a fixation on Christ or a fixation on horses; the psychiatrist realizes that the picture gives the boy meaning, purpose and direction.

Schaeffer's point is clear. Whatever motivates us defines who we are. Live for pleasure-you are a hedonist. Live to amass wealth-you are a materialist. Live for personal happiness and fulfillment-you are a narcissist. Live to pursue knowledge-you are a rationalist.

The British writer G. K Chesterton said that when a person stops believing in God, he does not believe in nothing. He will believe in anything.

The question I put to those who tell me they won't believe unless it's rational is, "What is the object of your faith? Whom do you trust?" If the object of your faith is not trustworthy, it is not reliable. Real faith in something or someone that is trustworthy is not blind. Real faith will include the evidence to buttress it, and personal commitment. The faith of a Christian is based on the trustworthiness of Jesus Christ. Jesus stated, "The Son of man did not come to be served, but to serve,and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mt 20:28). Jesus gave us the evidence to back up his words; he consistently assumed the posture of a servant. Even at the very end of his public ministry, on the very night he was betrayed, he assumed the posture of the lowliest servant and washed his disciples' feet.

One day Peter asked Jesus, " 'Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?' Jesus answered,'I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times' " (Mt 18:21-22).He spoke of complete and utter forgiveness.

Jesus gave us the evidence to back up his words. As he was bleeding and dying on the cross, his enemies taunted him. His response? He prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." He proved his trustworthiness; he proved his evidence was sound, and he asks us to trust him on the basis of that evidence.

A few people carry their inquiry even further. They say, "I must know absolutely that Christ alone is the truth before I can believe in him."This can be intellectual arrogance carried to an extreme. It requires that God give enough evidence of his existence to satisfy an insatiable intellect.This kind of arrogance demands that God meet every one of my requirements before I believe in him.

Suppose I demanded that my wife, Sharon, risk her life for me repeatedly to prove her love for me. Once would never be enough. The insatiability of my desire to know absolutely would be cruel manipulation, not intellectual integrity.

Yet many of us do exactly the same thing with God. We continually deny his past trustworthiness and say, "Now, what have you done for me lately?"This kind of wheeling and dealing is not intellectual prowess. It is cowardly manipulation. It also separates the proud from the humble. The proud say,"God, you meet these requirements, then I'll decide whether or not I want to believe in you." The humble person will look for evidence, discover it, and trust that if God was true to his word yesterday, he will be true to it today.
Confronting what I feel is intellectual dishonesty is never easy. It means having the discernment to know whether or not the intellectual arguments people offer are sincere. All of us need help in this area. If I confess my own intellectual and moral insincerity before God, I will be one step closer to being the kind of authentic witness God wants me to be.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

yeah Einstein was a agnostic. however he had the intellectual integrity and the intellectual honesty to realise that there must be a God..

How can you be this contradictory? I am not going to explain your contradiction, I want to see if you can get it.

well i wouldn't say its a hypothesis,
but it's known as the
'The Kalam Cosmological Argument'.

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist.

Conclusion 1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

Premise 2 is supported by the notion that infinites cannot exist. It must say this b/c to question premise 2 all I have to do is suggest that the universe is infinite.

So....I will DESTROY premise 2....

Infinity is a valid, functional and real object by mainstream mathematics. The sets of natural numbers, rational numbers, and real numbers all contain an infinite number of elements and these number systems consistently find widespread use.

---

Even without mathematics destroying premise 2, premise 2 undoes the notion of a God, since God needs a creator b/c infinites do not exist.

---

It is not a hypothesis and is an utterly rejected argument.

mmm.
well he wasn't a theist.

i guess my point is that, even though Einstein was an extraordinary scientist, he did not base everything in science.
he believed in an existence of a deity, that is not proven by science.

Alright, it's probably been done before, but bite me.

I'll start my argument......(it wont make any sense yet...)

Creationism is full of holes, how can something so complex(plants, animals, bacteria) be created in "7 days"? We struggle to stay alive each day(or so to say), yet this "almighty god" can magically create millions of different species, in 7 days.

/end sidenote.

There's a lot of good arguments against Creationism, but why did you have to go and list a really fucking stupid one?

He's a God. Infinite Will and omnipotence would imply that he could have created the entire universe in a fraction of a second. The only reason it took Seven Days was because the Cast-Time (http://www.hakesdesign.com/WOW/mage01.jpg) was fucking extreme.

It seems to be the habit of badass" little 14 year old Atheists to read only Leviticus and genesis and then think they have all the qualifications to denigrate an entire complex religion.

Creationism is fucking stupid and unnecessary. Evolution does not disprove Gods existence; it simply goes someway to explaining how it could have happened without him.

Any rational person with an ounce of sense that Creationism is a crock of shit. Even the idea of "God" creating everything out of thin air is ridiculous. As a science student i'm pretty clear as to my feelings on the subject. I'm not saying that God doesn't exist i'm just saying i don't think he exists in that sense. Whatever it is that caused the big bang would not be interested in humans, with such a huge universe out there. To think that humans are anything special, worth investing that much time in is just plain arrogance:)

Oh yeah and that means rant over... For now............................................... ............

No wait one last thing remember in Family Guy, the church's alternative to evolution for Kansas. The "I Dream of Jeanie" music just about sums up Creationism. Bill Hicks makes a great point on this subject