SRL Archive - Discussions & Debates

Alright I am writing a research paper for my class about religion in school. So I know in the past we've had some bad ass debates over religion and god and whatsoever.



I just want your honest opinion about this issue, and please post why. Something intellectual.

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

would be good to discuss this entire court case and the arguments which went on during - how it came to be.. etc

Listen to Richard Dawkins for awhile (I assume you don't have time to read multiple books for this project). There you go.

Thanks for the replies, but guys I really want your views. Not other people.

I think it is pretty stupid for a school to force people to believe and learn about stuff like that.

Sure, offer it as a subject, but dont force the students to learn and study the subject. Let people who want to learn about it choose it. The school I went to forced students to learn about it from the start of prep to the end of year 10.

People like me who are not religious do not want to be forced to attend a class to learn about the bible and god.

From: cycrosism
I think it is pretty stupid for a school to force people to believe and learn about stuff like that.

Sure, offer it as a subject, but dont force the students to learn and study the subject. Let people who want to learn about it choose it. The school I went to forced students to learn about it from the start of prep to the end of year 10.

People like me who are not religious do not want to be forced to attend a class to learn about the bible and god.

Don't speak for everyone. :x I personally love going to church/talking to religious people, and I know plenty of other atheists do as well. I'd gladly take a religious-based class.

And I'd still recommend listening to Dawkins talk (and read his works), even if it's apart from school.

From: i luffs yeww
I personally love going to church/talking to religious people

Are you forced to go to church or do you choose to go to church?

From: cycrosism
Are you forced to go to church or do you choose to go to church?

I choose. It's either by myself or with a friend/family that go to church and I ask to join.

I think that creationism should be in school, but not in a way where it's deemed as "the one and only reason why we are here" type of way. I get into many debates because of my beliefs, and I usually get yelled and screamed at from the bible thumpers (No offense).

Here is why:

I believe that there is a higher power, probably a god (or God as he's referred to), or something that is greater than us mere humans.

Yes, our universe and vast and great, but that's because it has evolved over billions of years. Now, what caused all of this to happen? The answer is, the big bang, and through science we can come to milliseconds of it happening. The question I often think about is, well where did the matter come from that caused the big bang?

I personally believe that a higher power set in motion for the big bang. No one knows what was there before the big bang or where the matter came from. Extreme creationists say that God created everything, down to the very placement of atoms. I believe this is stupid, and can be disproven because science shows that our universe is spreading apart and moving outward. If God placed it there, why is it moving?

Here is my take on the creationism theory, tied with the big bang:

From: Bible
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

I believe a higher power did create space before the big bang, so this is plausible.

From: Bible
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep

The earth was formless and empty because it wasn't in existence yet, and there was no stars or galaxies in space so it was dark.

From: Bible
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

The light was caused by the big bang, and this is what set into motion the creation of our universe.

Now, these are only my opinions and beliefs, and to me the only logical way to explain how we got here. No one will never know the true answer, as it's a mystery.

Creationism is a theory, and I believe people should be taught both sides of the story. As long as neither one are pushed as the one and only way.

That's just my thoughts, and sorry if it went a little off topic, but like I said, I get into so many debates over this.

Don't care to quote the whole post, but regarding "No one will ever know," I disagree. I think that's a poor way to look at life, and why people move to religion in the first place. No, I don't know how/where/why/what started the universe or where everything came from, and I don't know if I'll know in my lifetime. But I'm sure that at some point someone will know. It may be something that we don't expect or that is part of a religious belief, but it's a bit foolish to say that since we don't know now, it's probably some sort of super natural "thing."

We've already explored the smallest of smalls, and continue to do so. It's an amazingly interesting and confusing and mind-boggling field. And so is space exploration, and it will continue to be. Just as the ocean will be, too. But that gives us no reason to just say "you know what? This is quite crazy and we may never find the answer. We might as well give up, and come to the conclusion that God just did it."

Come to Poland. You waste 3h per week each year on religion. Times 10 years of learning. For a little comparison - I had about 1h per week of history, that's logic right there ! Not important if you remember anything about the ancestors I guess.
And you don't learn about every religion there is, you just sit there and get ready to be made into a catholic, a true Pole as many right-wing parties tend to say. Guess I'm not a "real" nor "true" Pole then :<

I think you may be latching onto the wrong part of the post, I never said it was a religious or super natural "thing". I don't move to religion because I don't know why/how the universe first started. I'm all for figuring it out through research and scientific study.

Also, I agree that it's a confusing field, I often have to re-read many things before I even begin to grasp at what's going on, and even then I don't fully understand. I never said anything about "giving up and say God did it", my post was opposite really.

Maybe I shouldn't have said "No on will ever know", that was a bad choice of words, but I'm guessing it's going to be awhile before anyone knows. All I know is, that for whatever reason, God or higher power or not, something started the big bang, and that's what I want to know.

Absolutely against this being required to take in school. Whatever religion one chooses to believe in should be their own choice based on their own judgement. NEVER should it be taught mandatory. I know where that sort of teaching leads, the country I live in is ruined because of it. Absolutely against this.

It should be illegal to teach in school.

I believe you don't get the point Harry - teaching is not bad, but choosing what to teach , in religion for instance, is bad. It's like in math class - there are many other formulas to get the same result, but you should get to know them all so you could choose which suits you, which do you want to use.

From: Endzior
I believe you don't get the point Harry - teaching is not bad, but choosing what to teach , in religion for instance, is bad. It's like in math class - there are many other formulas to get the same result, but you should get to know them all so you could choose which suits you, which do you want to use.

[ADMIN] Image from Blastmagazine.com removed. Was throwing an malware warning in google. ~BraK[ADMIN]

From: Endzior
I believe you don't get the point Harry - teaching is not bad, but choosing what to teach , in religion for instance, is bad. It's like in math class - there are many other formulas to get the same result, but you should get to know them all so you could choose which suits you, which do you want to use.

But teaching stuff that is arguably false is bad. You can argue that evolution is false, sure, but at least it's not brought up by a religious group with no scientific backings.

Creationism should be taught in school as long as it's a choice, if it's going to be forced onto the students then it needs to go.

Just like I said in my original post.

In a better world, science teachers would teach creationism along with evolution as an exercise in critical thinking.

- Katha Pollitt (Weirding Out on Creationism," The Nation (September 20, 1999)

E: PS: This was yesterday's quote on my Atheist Block Calendar.

From: Harry
But teaching stuff that is arguably false is bad. You can argue that evolution is false, sure, but at least it's not brought up by a religious group with no scientific backings.

It may be, but I believe everyone should have the option. No one tells you not to laugh of it afterwards, right ?

edit : @Flight

You are thinking in the same way, as people ruling your country are : I think that "x", everyone must think like this !
But you do have a point - and there is one solution : no religion in school. That's something I would like as well. It's either all religions or none.

As much as I want to jump into this debate, I will not lol.
Thanks for the comments everyone, keep it going. Please keep in mind though the main topic is about creationism in school or not.

- I like the idea about an option to choose to learn it or not.
- I also like the idea about not forcing anything upon anyone.

Good quote Wizzy.

Just teach people about all the major religions, it's best so you can understand others. Now most of them think the Koran is all about murder.

From: masterBB
Just teach people about all the major religions, it's best so you can understand others. Now most of them think the Koran is all about murder.

No denying part of it is, just as in Bible or Torah.

Probably a bad idea. There are thousands of different creationist stories in the first place.
Second, the constitution has already been ignored enough already.

Not gonna get into religion…

My view on this is that you cant teach something and leave out the other side to it.

This is the first year that I learned that Christopher Colombus, while "discovering" the New World, also killed thousands if not cmillions of native americans. And, im glad i learned that… Now i see him in a different light.

Heres what you requested: i think that you should teach not only creationalism and evolution but the many other beliefs there are on the subject.

Interesting Fact: Creationalism can still be true if evolution is proven true.

From: Yago
Not gonna get into religion…

My view on this is that you cant teach something and leave out the other side to it.

This is the first year that I learned that Christopher Colombus, while "discovering" the New World, also killed thousands if not cmillions of native americans. And, im glad i learned that… Now i see him in a different light.

Heres what you requested: i think that you should teach not only creationalism and evolution but the many other beliefs there are on the subject.

Interesting Fact: Creationalism can still be true if evolution is proven true.

Let me fix this: Evolution is proven. Evolution is not a belief.


We have the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should tolerate even them whenever we can do so without running a great risk; but the risk may become so great that we cannot allow ourselves the luxury.

- Popper

(You can easily misinterpret the quote. If you're offended, you probably misinterpreted it…)

From: Wizzup?
Let me fix this: Evolution is proven. Evolution is not a belief.

Sorry I wasnt specific. I was referring to macroevolution, which I believe you already knew.

Edit: ReReading my post, i never said evloution was a belief.

I think Creationism should be taught in schools. I also think Evolution and the Big Bang theory should be taught in schools next to Creationism, along with Karma and Reincarnation. Give the kids the information and let them decide what's true for them.

I would like to think of it like a court room and you're part of the jury, "Leave your bias at the door. Evaluate the evidence and come to a verdict based on the preponderance of the evidence."

Rather being ignorant to other beliefs, learn them and learn why you believe what you believe.

I think that religion should be taught in schools for the simple purpose of showing the actual impacts that religion causes, good and bad. I am one hundred percent against teachers preaching religion or indicating that it is in any way factual to young developing minds. It should be in schools because it exists in the world, and without proper education about it and its impacts around the world, people have and will continue make bad decisions based upon it, either in the name of it or against it. We need to combat ignorance and spread tolerance. The only way that can happen is through education. Religion can be examined academically without getting preachy. It must be done in a way to bridge the gap between those who hold different beliefs, and by doing so we can hope to prevent all the bullshit done in the name of religion from repeating itself.

And what's to stop the teachers from favoring their religion in discussions, etc? With it being outlawed, there is no need for scrutiny that they won't slander their religious teachings. Kids can learn that elsewhere.

From: Harry
And what's to stop the teachers from favoring their religion in discussions, etc? With it being outlawed, there is no need for scrutiny that they won't slander their religious teachings. Kids can learn that elsewhere.

True, but its a matter of teaching about religion in general and how it is affecting us. If people are ignorant of the fact that many of the religions share similar beliefs, then it could promote further division between groups of people. Creationism itself should never be taught as a legitimate subject. But on the other hand i don't think Atheism should be taught as a subject either. I say, educate the facts, and it will allow people to form common ground between one another. The fact that the religious divide is preventing global progress is simply unacceptable in my opinion.

From: gerauchert
True, but its a matter of teaching about religion in general and how it is affecting us. If people are ignorant of the fact that many of the religions share similar beliefs, then it could promote further division between groups of people. Creationism itself should never be taught as a legitimate subject. But on the other hand i don't think Atheism should be taught as a subject either. I say, educate the facts, and it will allow people to form common ground between one another. The fact that the religious divide is preventing global progress is simply unacceptable in my opinion.

You do realize that if you're going to promote facts and science you'll end up with Atheism of Agnosticism right?

From: Wizzup?
You do realize that if you're going to promote facts and science you'll end up with Atheism of Agnosticism right?

Facts or theories?

From: Wizzup?
You do realize that if you're going to promote facts and science you'll end up with Atheism of Agnosticism right?

Sure, but does that mean Creationism doesn't exist? The point isn't to teach just the facts (not that I'm implying you should teach lies), but to teach beliefs that other people live their life's by, and if you want to live your life that way, it's fine too.

my thoughts: if u wanna learn about it, then they should teach u. if u dont, then dont. make it a class, but dont make it mandatory.

I think religious study should be mandatory in school. Not one single religion, but religious study. If you're a Buddhist, study Buddhism. If you're an athiest, study Immaneul Kant or some other philosopher. Morals and ethics are essential components of any society, secular or not. And if you're going to talk about morals and ethics, why ignore the fact that religion has provided the bulk of that framework for all of human history? Why ignore the fact that many students already have religious beliefs to use as a foundation?

As far as creationism goes, I don't think any "Origins" lectures belong in K-12 science curriculum. There are PLENTY of other topics to discuss that are worthwhile, so teach them instead.

Instead of explaining why creationism should be excluded, perhaps someone would like to explain why Origins should be included when the science backing it up is so "unscientific".

I'm honestly surprised I haven't jumped into these debates before. I'm going to agree with a few of the other people on here and say the classes should be elective, no one should be forced to learn something that they don't want to (goes against their beliefs).

I'm not saying people should remain ignorant, but most science classes today use only evolutionary theory (the big bang). Which is in a way forcing people to accept certain evolutionary concepts if they want to do well in the class. I actually believe a mix of these classes should be required, so that students aren't only given "one side of the story" so to speak. I'll probably have to come back and revise this later.

/rant/2 cents

Nothing to debate here.

Evolution is real.
Creationism is not.

Teach kids what's real.

From: matviy
Nothing to debate here.

Evolution is real.
Creationism is not.

Teach kids what's real.

And you sir, have proof of that?

From: KingKong
And you sir, have proof of that?

He is proof.

Scientist create new life forms every day. They mix and match genes from different species routinely. So there is overwhelming evidence that "creationism" is possible.

But despite culturing thousands of trillions of bacteria over decades, they've never yet observed a bacteria magically evolving into some fundamentally different, more advanced form of life. So the evidence for "evolution from bacteria" is overwhelmingly negative.

Overwhelming evidence dwarfed by logical reasoning… If anything, creationism is a sour evolution of the old religion to reflect the way we currently view the universe. Just by doing that, the entire idea of a supernatural being is not more valid than it was before. It's simply using the fact that we do not yet know what happened before the big bang. It's perhaps less invalid/silly, but don't call it ``overwhelming evidence''…

E:I suppose ``is possible'' is the keyword here. :)

Personally I think it comes down to what you believe. Someone could believe that "God" or a "Higher Power" put forth Evolution. In the bible it says God created man, it doesn't say he didn't take a tadpole, turn it into some crawling amphibian, then to an ape and then turned it into a man. Maybe time is quicker for God and it happened so fast he didn't feel like he needed to mention it and just skipped the boring stuff.

My family is extremely religious and I have been going to church since I can remember. In that time I have been to a few creationism museums and have seen a lot of videos on the subject. I have also taken biology and astronomy in public schools and have seen videos on evolution. I am not religious myself but to be honest, the videos and presentations I have seen on creationism have been more convincing and extremely informative from a scientific standpoint compared to those on evolution. At the same time, many similar points were mentioned in both and I feel that one day both creationism and atheistic scientists are going to agree that the science behind the making of the universe is the same, just that one is going to believe a higher power kick started it, and one is going to believe it was random chance. In some ways, I feel that is what is the conclusion today.

I do feel we can learn a lot from history and that people are always going to want to discover where we came from but personally, I'm not one of those people.

From: doublex8
Personally I think it comes down to what you believe. Someone could believe that "God" or a "Higher Power" put forth Evolution. In the bible it says God created man, it doesn't say he didn't take a tadpole, turn it into some crawling amphibian, then to an ape and then turned it into a man. Maybe time is quicker for God and it happened so fast he didn't feel like he needed to mention it and just skipped the boring stuff.

My family is extremely religious and I have been going to church since I can remember. In that time I have been to a few creationism museums and have seen a lot of videos on the subject. I have also taken biology and astronomy in public schools and have seen videos on evolution. I am not religious myself but to be honest, the videos and presentations I have seen on creationism have been more convincing and extremely informative from a scientific standpoint compared to those on evolution. At the same time, many similar points were mentioned in both and I feel that one day both creationism and atheistic scientists are going to agree that the science behind the making of the universe is the same, just that one is going to believe a higher power kick started it, and one is going to believe it was random chance. In some ways, I feel that is what is the conclusion today.

I do feel we can learn a lot from history and that people are always going to want to discover where we came from but personally, I'm not one of those people.

The big difference is that creationists do not say ``we don't know what exactly happened'' but they say ``it is Gods doing'' - for which is absolutely no proof, no more than a flying teapot - and then push people in a certain direction by stating what they believe is the truth. It's not the same as atheists + evolution; the only thing atheist/evolutionists and creationists share is the truth found (out) by evolutionists.

Everything else is not the same. Atheists do not believe that there is an omnipotent being that watches them whatever they do, where ever they go, they don't believe that by thinking of such a being they will go to a specific place after they die and they certainly don't believe such a being wrote a book that would dictate mankind until their destruction. I mean, I don't think that really fits in the picture of evolution.

tl;dr they only share the facts laid down by evolutionists/scientists, not all the uncertainties and doubt that creationism tries to hide and push in one general (quite ridiculous and completely unproven) direction.

From: KingKong
And you sir, have proof of that?

Yes.

We have proof that the earth is significantly older than a few thousand years. We have proof that certain species evolved from other species. We have actual experience with domesticating animals and plants which proves that external forces can cause species to change over time into new species that never existed before. With human selection, species can change drastically in a few generations. Even without human interference, we have observed natural disasters separating species and causing enormous change in a very short period of time.

Evolution is a fact, and has been for some time. It's actually INCREDIBLY concrete science. Evolution isn't debatable. It's a fact, proven millions of different ways.

What is debatable is how we use evolution to explain life on earth, and it's constantly being tweaked to include new evidence we discover. This doesn't mean that evolution might not be responsible for life on earth, it is. We just don't know the exact evolutionary path for each and every species. Because it's an enormous study.

"Creationism" isn't just something you can "choose to believe" as a "different option". It's not true. There is 0, not "little" but ZERO, evidence supporting Creationism. And nearly an infinite amount of evidence proving that it's not true.

From: doublex8
Personally I think it comes down to what you believe. Someone could believe that "God" or a "Higher Power" put forth Evolution. In the bible it says God created man, it doesn't say he didn't take a tadpole, turn it into some crawling amphibian, then to an ape and then turned it into a man. Maybe time is quicker for God and it happened so fast he didn't feel like he needed to mention it and just skipped the boring stuff.

Sure. But there is no evidence that it was YOUR god who started it. Christians, just like everybody else, don't have a monopoly on "higher power". If there is "something" else out there that kick started evolution, it almost certainly isn't your god or anybody else's god. If anything i would expect "it" to be incredibly pissed off at all you religious people for all the stuff you've pulled over the years.

If you want to suggest that there is something "higher" out there, go for it. You have a 50% chance of being correct. I believe there is. But as soon as you start giving this "higher power" some sort of attributes such as his ideas of morality, his kingdom, his actions, then you must have some evidence backing it up, or else you are certainly incorrect considering the infinite amount of attributes that this "higher" power could have.

From: doublex8

My family is extremely religious and I have been going to church since I can remember. In that time I have been to a few creationism museums and have seen a lot of videos on the subject. I have also taken biology and astronomy in public schools and have seen videos on evolution. I am not religious myself but to be honest, the videos and presentations I have seen on creationism have been more convincing and extremely informative from a scientific standpoint compared to those on evolution. At the same time, many similar points were mentioned in both and I feel that one day both creationism and atheistic scientists are going to agree that the science behind the making of the universe is the same, just that one is going to believe a higher power kick started it, and one is going to believe it was random chance. In some ways, I feel that is what is the conclusion today.

Then you didn't pay attention. There is nothing, zero, zip, nada, zilch that is "scientific" about creationism. You either do not understand evolution, or you do not properly understand creationism.

Creationism isn't a science. It's a blind belief. As soon as you apply even the remotest amount of rational thought (science) to the problem, creationism falls apart. You're trying hard to paint a picture as if creationism has a case to present that should be considered. It doesn't. It has absolutely nothing. It ignores everything.

It's incorrect to equate "scientists" with "atheists". Using the terms interchangeably is extremely misleading and wrong.

In fact, many if not most of history's greatest scientists were men of faith. Even today, a majority of all scientists believe in God.

Also, there is an enormous difference between "evolution" and what's being discussed here as the "scientific alternative to creationism".

There is absolutely no evidence that all life evolved from a common ancestor. There is absolutely no evidence that the first life form even arose here on this earth.

If someone is going to argue with such certainty that such a thing happened, using the generic principle of "evolution of existing species" is the wrong way to do it, because it's not even the same topic.

From: tarajunky
It's incorrect to equate "scientists" with "atheists". Using the terms interchangeably is extremely misleading and wrong.

In fact, many if not most of history's greatest scientists were men of faith. Even today, a majority of all scientists believe in God.

I never meant to use them interchangeably. When I said atheist I meant atheist. When I said scientist, I meant scientist.
And I don't think the latter statement holds. Perhaps in America. :)

From: tarajunky
In fact, many if not most of history's greatest scientists were men of faith. Even today, a majority of all scientists believe in God.

From: Wizzup?
And I don't think the latter statement holds. Perhaps in America. :)

To any scientist who truly believes in god, I would dismiss as a scientist (no offence to you, tara <3). The problem I have with scientists who believe in a deity is that they don't have a scientific approach to the whole religion thing. To me, a scientist should have a hypothesis and then attempt to figure out the problem until they get an answer. The only problem with that is it's quite difficult to prove there's a god, so what I would like to see from scientists is simply a hypothesis. One who says "Well I really can't and don't know for sure if there's a god, or if the one which I worship is correct over all other ideas of god, but it may be a possibility, and so I'll stick with it," is a much more logical and credible to me than one who simply says "my god is true."

Point of all that is just saying that just because many scientists may believe in a god, yet that doesn't necessarily mean too much. You could look back in history and see plenty of scientists who believed one thing yet it wasn't true.

From: matviy
Sure. But there is no evidence that it was YOUR god who started it. Christians, just like everybody else, don't have a monopoly on "higher power". If there is "something" else out there that kick started evolution, it almost certainly isn't your god or anybody else's god. If anything i would expect "it" to be incredibly pissed off at all you religious people for all the stuff you've pulled over the years.

Someone is butthurt. I certainly never said I was religious…in fact I'm pretty sure I specifically said I wasn't. I really didn't even think this was that touchy of a subject anymore. I guess some people have had really bad experience with religious types. Most Christians I meet are actually very nice and easy going people. I speaking of Non Denomination of course, I do think there are many faults in the Catholic Church. But really why get so mad about something that you claim is without a doubt 100% correct over something that you believe has no validity whatsoever? What if some people would rather believe that their God created the Universe? Who cares?

From: Wizzup?
Everything else is not the same. Atheists do not believe that there is an omnipotent being that watches them whatever they do, where ever they go, they don't believe that by thinking of such a being they will go to a specific place after they die and they certainly don't believe such a being wrote a book that would dictate mankind until their destruction. I mean, I don't think that really fits in the picture of evolution.

I know Atheists do not believe in an omnipotent being…I wasn't saying they did either. I know what an Atheist is. And that might not fit in the picture of atheism but I wasn't saying it would either.

From: i luffs yeww
To any scientist who truly believes in god, I would dismiss as a scientist (no offence to you, tara <3). The problem I have with scientists who believe in a deity is that they don't have a scientific approach to the whole religion thing. To me, a scientist should have a hypothesis and then attempt to figure out the problem until they get an answer. The only problem with that is it's quite difficult to prove there's a god, so what I would like to see from scientists is simply a hypothesis. One who says "Well I really can't and don't know for sure if there's a god, or if the one which I worship is correct over all other ideas of god, but it may be a possibility, and so I'll stick with it," is a much more logical and credible to me than one who simply says "my god is true."

I have never felt that any scientists that claims to believe in God or is a Christian has ever sought out to scientifically explain God or find 100% proof. If one has(which I am sure one has) he is either probably not a good scientist or Christian for that matter. Christianity is a faith, meaning one can't prove it's true. One believes it is true. Just because one believes it is true doesn't mean they feel that it needs to be sent to the lab in order to prove to the world that this is how it is. It means they feel it is the truth and don't mind telling other people what they believe. Any Christian trying to shove it down your throat is imo not a Christian. That being said I think it would be very easy to keep faith separated from scientific findings if you are a scientist. There is nothing in the Bible that specifically describes the exact way God made the universe, and the time that God took to create the universe is open to interpretation(i.e. 7 days for God might not be 7 days for man). There really isn't anything that I have read in the Bible that scientifically lays out how things were done, it just says that they were done. I don't see why there are so many Christians that feel they need to defend the Bible against evolution when I personally don't feel that there is anything in evolution that disproves anything in the Bible. I do believe in evolution. I also believe that there was a little bit of help in pushing all this into existence, and then whatever happened after that happened(i.e. evolution). Believing in intelligent design does not mean I am religious.

From: doublex8
What if some people would rather believe that their God created the Universe? Who cares?

I'm fine with people believing it, not with them preaching and teaching it.

From: doublex8
I know Atheists do not believe in an omnipotent being…I wasn't saying they did either. I know what an Atheist is. And that might not fit in the picture of atheism but I wasn't saying it would either.



I have never felt that any scientists that claims to believe in God or is a Christian has ever sought out to scientifically explain God or find 100% proof. If one has(which I am sure one has) he is either probably not a good scientist or Christian for that matter. Christianity is a faith, meaning one can't prove it's true. One believes it is true. Just because one believes it is true doesn't mean they feel that it needs to be sent to the lab in order to prove to the world that this is how it is. It means they feel it is the truth and don't mind telling other people what they believe. Any Christian trying to shove it down your throat is imo not a Christian. That being said I think it would be very easy to keep faith separated from scientific findings if you are a scientist. There is nothing in the Bible that specifically describes the exact way God made the universe, and the time that God took to create the universe is open to interpretation(i.e. 7 days for God might not be 7 days for man). There really isn't anything that I have read in the Bible that scientifically lays out how things were done, it just says that they were done. I don't see why there are so many Christians that feel they need to defend the Bible against evolution when I personally don't feel that there is anything in evolution that disproves anything in the Bible. I do believe in evolution. I also believe that there was a little bit of help in pushing all this into existence, and then whatever happened after that happened(i.e. evolution). Believing in intelligent design does not mean I am religious.

Intelligent Design is quite religious and perpendicular to Evolution. So if Evolution is proven on scientific grounds - which we all agree on I am sure - ID is completely invalid on scientific grounds.

From: Wizzup?
Intelligent Design is quite religious and perpendicular to Evolution. So if Evolution is proven on scientific grounds - which we all agree on I am sure - ID is completely invalid on scientific grounds.

There seems to be some specific part of evolution that trumps any chance that someone who believes in ID could say "maybe that is the way said God planned it out to be". What is it exactly that trumps ID? I've always found that when talking to someone who is an atheist about such matters, the only differences we have is that he feels that this is all random chance, I feel there was something that made that random chance happen. Other than that, we seem to agree on everything else.

From: doublex8
There seems to be some specific part of evolution that trumps any chance that someone who believes in ID could say "maybe that is the way said God planned it out to be". What is it exactly that trumps ID? I've always found that when talking to someone who is an atheist about such matters, the only differences we have is that he feels that this is all random chance, I feel there was something that made that random chance happen. Other than that, we seem to agree on everything else.

ID is perpendicular to Evolution, see the wikipedia article on it.

From: Wizzup?
ID is perpendicular to Evolution, see the wikipedia article on it.

To an extent but ID != Atheism cause there's a "designer" from what I have heard/read.

There are some who believe that evolution and religion go hand in hand though.

From: Yago
To an extent but ID != Atheism cause there's a "designer" from what I have heard/read.

There are some who believe that evolution and religion go hand in hand though.

In Islam we don't deny evolution. I don't think a lot of religions deny evolution… The only difference is we believe god created everything, and you atheists believe everything happened by chance.

So I don't see why creationism should not to be taught in school.

From: kingarabian
So I don't see why creationism should not to be taught in school.

Like I said, as a lesson in critical thinking.

Here is my opinion :)

We were created, crafted, molded to be the perfect beings we are today… Well almost.

Evolution makes a lot of sense, agreed?
Then here we have creation "God" Created us and every creature in the world.

Now here is how I think the two merge into one
In the bible sorry for those of you who already tuned out, it says God created everything in 6 days (7th was rest).

1) Day 1 light
2) Split between Water/Land
3) Grasses and trees were created
4) sun; moon and stars
5) fish, land creatures and fowl;
6) man, both male and female.

Now my opinion begins, who is to say God's 6 days of creation are "24 hours" but instead could be millenniums.

Day 1 light, we all agree light = life?
Day 2 we have bacteria in the water, when it splits we have bacteria on land!
Day 3 we have food (Plants) Food = growth
Day 4 we have Heat/cold/night (Variation)
Day 5 we have the bacteria evolving into creatures. The ones that were superior made it onto land and started to evolve differently (This explains the loss of gills on snakes etc..)
Day 6 The superior creatures on land slowly turned into us :)
Maybe with a little push from the all mighty hand

Sorry if that made no sense in my head it sounded better.

From: Wizzup?
Like I said, as a lesson in critical thinking.

Just a lesson? Maybe 3 chapters:
1. Creationism
2. Evolution
3. Creationism vs Evolution

Evolution in school ?

From: SubiN
Evolution in school ?

Madness! The system must be evolving.

Before engaging in the evolution side-debate, I want to clarify something: teaching someone about Creationism does not make them less ignorant. It takes a few seconds to inform someone: "Creationism is the belief that a higher power of some unfathomable kind made life as we know it." Once that is done, it reveals nothing new about the world or how the world works. It sheds no light on something that before was beyond imagination or explains why something is or does. Creationism is very much the end rather than the beginning. To say that a cow has four legs because God made it so tells us nothing about why the cow has four legs. For that reason, Creationism has no place in a school. There are other reasons that have already been mentioned that I agree with and some I don't, but I don't feel like they need to be addressed again.

With that done, onto evolution. First of all, I want to criticise the various mentions of "random chance" because that's very much not what evolution is. Let us separate evolution from natural selection. Evolution is focused on the changing of species into new species. Natural selection is the dynamic filtering of the gene pool where some chance is involved, but there is also bias, with genes that best build survival machines (ie animals) being more likely to survive and continue their existence in the pool.

Evolution is something that has been observed via selective breeding. There is no way to doubt that evolution can occur because selective breeding can produce animals that differ greatly from their ancestors in a small amount of generations. Natural selection is harder to directly observe, because it works on a longer time frame since it doesn't have an intelligence to decide what factors make good survival machines. So, if evidence is wanted, one must look at species that are similar yet in different environments and check if the differences between them match the differences in environment, such as Darwin's finches. I'll leave it at that without going onto the other evidence supporting as that's easily found at Wikipedia.

To address Tara's earlier point regarding the non-mutation of bacteria to a more advanced form of life, I feel like I can offer only layman possibilities as I'm not formerly educated in the area. The first suggestion is that bacteria bred by humans is in infinitely different conditions to those that gave rise to the complex ancestors. The second is that time frames for life before bones or hard substances in general is unknown and hard to estimate simply due to the lack of fossils or similar to date it, thus it is unknown how long ancestral bacteria had at their disposal to produce complexity - even saying this though, we have been growing bacteria for but a thousand years at a very generous estimate, while ancestral bacteria could easily have many millennia and the entire world as their Petri-dish. The third is that it may have been the case that a large supply of raw materials led to vast diversity and that diversity let different strains form mutually beneficial partnerships of sorts that eventually coalesced into a "single" life form that paved the way for more complex life. I could go on, but I feel like I'm already walking on thin academic ice.

Intelligent design is a very real possibility, but not for explaining life on earth. As Tara hinted at, gene splicing is possible and that can/will/may allow new life forms to be made to a specification. It may not be on the level of creating miniature cows that makes chocolate milk, but it fits the bill for a life form being produced by a conscious mind with a specific purpose or purposes.

What is the meaning of life?

Is there an experiment that can answer that question scientifically? No. Is there any possible way to approach such a question? Yes.

Philosophy and religion try to answer such questions that are beyond the scope of science. If you get a PhD in physics AND a PhD in Philosophy are you automatically a bad Philosopher because you have a larger scientific understanding? If you get a PhD in Chemistry AND a PhD in Theology are you automatically a bad Scientist because you have a larger Theological understanding? Ridiculous.

Science is a methodological approach that can be used to understand a limited sphere of existence. It should not be used as a cage to trap humanity in that limited sphere of understanding. There is a huge amount of truth to be found in other approaches as well which should not be arbitrarily dismissed.

The science of Abiogenesis (the scientific alternative to Creationism), is not rigorous science. It's a mix of philosophy, chemistry, and wishful thinking.

That's why I said "Origins" really doesn't belong in high school classes. Neither alternative has a solid scientific foundation. Are we teaching science, or are we teaching a secular philosophy course? Some schools in America asked that along with the Abiogenesis lectures, they merely include more information about the flaws and other unscientific parts. They just wanted a fuller, more complete discussion of the pros and cons of the ideas. That also led to lawsuits by those that want to parade it as fact.

The whole Piltdown Man hoax shows that there are people out there who fervently want to push a secular evolutionary philosophy onto society and are willing to fabricate "evidence" to do it.

Aliens.

From: matviy

Then you didn't pay attention. There is nothing, zero, zip, nada, zilch that is "scientific" about creationism. You either do not understand evolution, or you do not properly understand creationism.

Creationism isn't a science. It's a blind belief. As soon as you apply even the remotest amount of rational thought (science) to the problem, creationism falls apart. You're trying hard to paint a picture as if creationism has a case to present that should be considered. It doesn't. It has absolutely nothing. It ignores everything.

Okay, can your science explain to me what caused the big bang?
__
Thank you guys all for your comments. I may be using some of your posts as ideas for my paper. If you have a problem and don't want me to use your stuff PLEASE PM ME ASAP.

Well… This is a very touchy debate, i personally wouldn't prefer it, however i don't think it should be completely eliminated, it should be optional… although, i do FIRMLY believe religion of any kind has NO place in the public education system, if you're going to a religious school ok, but from my experience, religion allowed in school is bad i almost failed a class back in like 5th grade, because i stated i didn't believe in god. >_>

tl;dr
Make it optional, or don't have it at all.

From: kingarabian
Okay, can your science explain to me what caused the big bang?
__
Thank you guys all for your comments. I may be using some of your posts as ideas for my paper. If you have a problem and don't want me to use your stuff PLEASE PM ME ASAP.

I'd rather just like to know what stuff you are using, so we know how we helped you. :)

From: Wizzup?
I'd rather just like to know what stuff you are using, so we know how we helped you. :)

- I compared the Pros and Cons about creationism in school by using everyone's opinions that you all posted.
- I used your quotes and I also went on to say how creationism should be taught and used in school (critical thinking)
- I read a lot of Tara's posts and got some ideas on why Creationism should be a legit part of a students curriculum if a student chooses to learn about Creationism.

Basically used everyone's posts as ideas for my paper, like here and there I could find something to build on. Then I incorporated some research of mine and expanded it. It's 7 pages long so I was in desperate need.

There was just a programme on this on more4, I didn't watch personally but just pointing it out for people who are interested.(i'm british, so this probably won't apply to you all)

I'm a Catholic, but I don't think that school should teach creationism without giving a choice to kids/people. Evolution isn't a great concept either tbh…

Hmm.. I really don't know. I think that neither creationism nor evolution should be taught in schools as a base class; both should be elective classes and neither should be considered "true".

From: dweg
I'm a Catholic, but I don't think that school should teach creationism without giving a choice to kids/people. Evolution isn't a great concept either tbh…

Hmm.. I really don't know. I think that neither creationism nor evolution should be taught in schools as a base class; both should be elective classes and neither should be considered "true".

Relativity and gravity are still theories, so should they only be taught in elective classes and not be considered "true?"

I think teaching different theories is perfectly acceptable. The one thing that I love about most non-religious theories about the world is that they always have some degree of "I don't know." To a lot of people that may seem like a fault, but to me it's quite humble and makes it much more credible. Which is just another reason why I think teaching religion can be bad because it doesn't have that sense of doubt. It's (most) always "this is how it is because it is, and we know it is because God." That's horribly foolish in my mind. We can't really know a lot of things.

Anyway, good luck with your paper, king. :p

From: kingarabian
Okay, can your science explain to me what caused the big bang?
__
Thank you guys all for your comments. I may be using some of your posts as ideas for my paper. If you have a problem and don't want me to use your stuff PLEASE PM ME ASAP.

Just cite people. :)

But know, we are not experts here..

I also had no comment here, just commenting on the comment on the comment.

Comment-ception.

From: Nava2
Just cite people. :)

But know, we are not experts here..

I also had no comment here, just commenting on the comment on the comment.

Comment-ception.

Well I definitely would… but my professor won't see you guys as credible sources.

From: doublex8
Someone is butthurt. I certainly never said I was religious…in fact I'm pretty sure I specifically said I wasn't. I really didn't even think this was that touchy of a subject anymore. I guess some people have had really bad experience with religious types. Most Christians I meet are actually very nice and easy going people. I speaking of Non Denomination of course, I do think there are many faults in the Catholic Church. But really why get so mad about something that you claim is without a doubt 100% correct over something that you believe has no validity whatsoever? What if some people would rather believe that their God created the Universe? Who cares?

I'm not mad, but the more i think about it the more i realize that i probably should be.

I would love for this topic to be something that people can just "agree to disagree" on. But they can't. I have no problem with religious people just like i don't have a problem with schizophrenics, as long as their beliefs don't start affecting their actions. Unfortunately they do.

I have a problem when people with these delusions influence government policy. I have a problem when they try to squirm into schools and teach kids. I have a problem when they start actively resisting medical research and the overall intelligent progress of our society. And they do.

It annoys me when these kinds of debates emerge because they are based on the assumption that religious beliefs such as creationism have even a shred of credibility and are actually worth arguing over.

It's the equivalent of my creating a thread where i declare that i have developed a new mathematical theory where 1+1=7, and that i have empirical proof to back it up. Then when people ask me for my proof i present nothing more than a mess of flawed mathematical concepts, contradictions, and backwards logic. I then use my audiences dumbfounded silence or inability to refute all my bullshit in it's entirety as even further evidence of my genius, before i go off to rewrite all of science, threaten anyone who opposes me with violence, replace libraries with my own books, halt medical research if it isn't based on my theories, and force your children in school to spend an hour a day studying the ridiculous crap i came up with before making another thread here asking people why they're so mad and whey they even care what i believe in.

From: matviy
long quote

I know some atheistic/agnosticists who act in this same manner…

1+1 != 7…

MacroEvolution =? True… (Theory)

Lets teach our kids theories instead of what is not true… Problem solved

Oh wait… Creationism hasn't been proven either… hmm…

From: Yago
I know some atheistic/agnosticists who act in this same manner…

1+1 != 7…

MacroEvolution =? True… (Theory)

Lets teach our kids theories instead of what is not true… Problem solved

Oh wait… Creationism hasn't been proven either… hmm…

Except that Macro Evolution isn't just a "theory" that somebody came up with yesterday. It's wrong to group all theories together and claim that they should all be equally considered just because they haven't been proven. Instead you examine the evidence supporting each theory to consider which are most likely to be true.

The validity of macro evolution isn't debated by any scientists who know anything about biology. There is an endless amount of evidence supporting it, and more evidence appearing every day. Experiments can be made and their results accurately predicted. It not only stands the test of time, but we are more sure of it now than we have ever been before.

Creationism on the other hand, also a "theory", has a grand total of no evidence supporting it. A good amount of claims made creationism has been proven wrong and impossible, which supporters dismiss as "misinterpretation of what god meant". People who support it have a bias due to it being an integral part of their overall world view and belief system. Creationism doesn't have a case, not even remotely.

From: matviy
Except that Macro Evolution isn't just a "theory" that somebody came up with yesterday. It's wrong to group all theories together and claim that they should all be equally considered just because they haven't been proven. Instead you examine the evidence supporting each theory to consider which are most likely to be true.

The validity of macro evolution isn't debated by any scientists who know anything about biology. There is an endless amount of evidence supporting it, and more evidence appearing every day. Experiments can be made and their results accurately predicted. It not only stands the test of time, but we are more sure of it now than we have ever been before.

Creationism on the other hand, also a "theory", has a grand total of no evidence supporting it. A good amount of claims made creationism has been proven wrong and impossible, which supporters dismiss as "misinterpretation of what god meant". People who support it have a bias due to it being an integral part of their overall world view and belief system. Creationism doesn't have a case, not even remotely.

It seems like your claims against creationism are heavily against Christianity. See, if you even bothered to study Islam you would find countless proof that proves creationism. I think atheists are pretty good @ challenging Christianity, yes.

From: R4nd0m
Here is my opinion :)

We were created, crafted, molded to be the perfect beings we are today… Well almost.

Evolution makes a lot of sense, agreed?
Then here we have creation "God" Created us and every creature in the world.

Now here is how I think the two merge into one
In the bible sorry for those of you who already tuned out, it says God created everything in 6 days (7th was rest).

1) Day 1 light
2) Split between Water/Land
3) Grasses and trees were created
4) sun; moon and stars
5) fish, land creatures and fowl;
6) man, both male and female.

Now my opinion begins, who is to say God's 6 days of creation are "24 hours" but instead could be millenniums.

Day 1 light, we all agree light = life?
Day 2 we have bacteria in the water, when it splits we have bacteria on land!
Day 3 we have food (Plants) Food = growth
Day 4 we have Heat/cold/night (Variation)
Day 5 we have the bacteria evolving into creatures. The ones that were superior made it onto land and started to evolve differently (This explains the loss of gills on snakes etc..)
Day 6 The superior creatures on land slowly turned into us :)
Maybe with a little push from the all mighty hand

Sorry if that made no sense in my head it sounded better.

I stopped reading at your explanation in evolutionary terms for Day 4. So you're saying that stars and galaxies we have measured to be billions of years older than ours, is somehow younger?

From: kingarabian
It seems like your claims against creationism are heavily against Christianity. See, if you even bothered to study Islam you would find countless proof that proves creationism. I think atheists are pretty good @ challenging Christianity, yes.

And I'm sure if you were a Christian you could just as easily say atheists are pretty good at challenging Islam.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228404.300-life-began-with-a-planetary-megaorganism.html

Wow, a planetary macro-organism. So all the "evolutionists" believe that all life descended from a huge monster that completely filled the earth's ocean? This God-like planetary organism split into a holy trinity of bacterial life, eukaryotic life, and those oddball Archaea.

What did your imaginary planetary monster look like? Something like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FSM_Logo.svg

From: i luffs yeww
And I'm sure if you were a Christian you could just as easily say atheists are pretty good at challenging Islam.

Not really. Rarely do atheists challenge Islam. Actually Christians are the ones who mostly challenge Islam.

From: kingarabian
not really. Rarely do atheists challenge islam. Actually christians are the ones who mostly challenge islam.

From: tarajunky
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228404.300-life-began-with-a-planetary-megaorganism.html

wow, a planetary macro-organism. So all the "evolutionists" believe that all life descended from a huge monster that completely filled the earth's ocean? This god-like planetary organism split into a holy trinity of bacterial life, eukaryotic life, and those oddball archaea.

What did your imaginary planetary monster look like? Something like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/file:fsm_logo.svg

lmao

From: kingarabian
Not really. Rarely do atheists challenge Islam. Actually Christians are the ones who mostly challenge Islam.

What are nations with the publicly admitted atheists? Nations with free speech. And what are usually these nations prime religion? Christianity. And don't be stupid, there are several atheists that challenge Islam. Oh, and a wider event I remember where basically ALL atheists/agnostics challenged Islam was the "Draw Muhammed Day" in May (I think?).

From: matviy
Creationism on the other hand, also a "theory", has a grand total of no evidence supporting it. A good amount of claims made creationism has been proven wrong and impossible, which supporters dismiss as "misinterpretation of what god meant". People who support it have a bias due to it being an integral part of their overall world view and belief system. Creationism doesn't have a case, not even remotely.

I've heard evidence supporting Creationism… Evidence many atheist have been unable to answer to…

From: kingarabian
I think atheists are pretty good @ challenging Christianity, yes.

No

From: Yago
I've heard evidence supporting Creationism… Evidence many atheist have been unable to answer to…

Such as? I'm sure it will just be something along the lines of "Well how did everything get here," assuming we're talking about the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe. If so, we don't know. We have ideas, we just don't know for sure, and that's a vital difference between atheism/agnosticism and theism. I don't think we'll know in our (you and I, not humans in general) lifetime, either. But I do know that we're sure as hell try to figure it out the whole time.

From: Yago
No

Are you saying atheists can't debunk Christian ideas? If so, I don't think you've read/listened to enough information and evidence. ;)

From: i luffs yeww
Are you saying atheists can't debunk Christian ideas? If so, I don't think you've read/listened to enough information and evidence. ;)

I listen to many debates, podcasts, books both atheist and Theist… but since I don't want to hijack, feel free to send me some links via PM.

From: Daniel
What are nations with the publicly admitted atheists? Nations with free speech. And what are usually these nations prime religion? Christianity. And don't be stupid, there are several atheists that challenge Islam. Oh, and a wider event I remember where basically ALL atheists/agnostics challenged Islam was the "Draw Muhammed Day" in May (I think?).

Your implying that Muslim states don't permit other religions, and that Muslims are oppressors? Other than Iran, and Saudia Arabia, many many many Muslim states have multiple religions (Freedom of Speech). Morocco, a Muslim state contains many Jews and Christians. Syria, a Muslim state has many Christians and Jews. Palestine, a Muslim state is occupied by Israels Jews, but us Muslims, were are willing to live with them. Palestine also has MANY Christians. Honestly some of the best Palestinians I've met, were Christians. Indonesia? Malaysia? Afghanistan? The prophet Mohammad and his followers, permitted other people with their own religions to live with them. So no, America is not the only country that allows "free speech".

That "Draw Mohammad Day" unfortunately displays what most atheists really are. Instead of challenging Islam directly in a correct full and debatable manner, you guys choose to aggravate Muslims, and cause a provocation. It shows you guys hate Muslims. Ruins your credibility. Infact, I've seen a lot of cases where Atheists become angry and start throwing out insults. (But you could say the same about creationists)

And you Daniel, I remember how you used to search for articles targeting Islam and posting them on here, probably just to agitate me? But never have I seen you make a well sounded debate like Wizzup and the rest per-se. Educate yourself.

I think we need another religion thread…

Also, King didnt you say this:

From: kingarabian

THIS THREAD IS NOT HERE TO DEBATE IF GOD EXISTS OR IF GOD DOESN'T EXIST.

I know you're not debating this specifically, but I would for sure take part in a religion thread.

Charles Darwin himself argued that the theory of evolution of all life from an ocean-filling Flying Spaggheti Monster would be DISPROVEN if any sufficiently complex system of interdependent molecules could be found.

There are many, many examples of such systems, where every single part is integral to its functioning, and without all parts being in place simultaneously there would be no selective advantage to developing any of the parts individually.

Bacterial toxin-antitoxin (TA) systems are one example, and there are dozens of them that have been described. If you have the toxin without the antitoxin you're dead. If you have the antitoxin without the toxin, it does absolutely nothing beneficial. You need both to miraculously appear simultaneously.

Another example would be VDJ recombination in the adaptive immune system. For this system to work, you need two different recombinase proteins that are not similar, along with a very complex DNA locus with a very specific sequence for them to act on. These recombinase proteins have to be expressed only in a very specific subtype of cells and no others, or they could potentially scramble your germ cell DNA and make your species infertile.

There are multiple other examples that more than meet Charles Darwin's own stated requirements to refute his hypothesis. The "scientific" thing to do would be to ACCEPT that the hypothesis is refuted and devise another, not sweep such problems under the rug.

From: tarajunky
Charles Darwin himself argued that the theory of evolution of all life from an ocean-filling Flying Spaggheti Monster would be DISPROVEN if any sufficiently complex system of interdependent molecules could be found.

There are many, many examples of such systems, where every single part is integral to its functioning, and without all parts being in place simultaneously there would be no selective advantage to developing any of the parts individually.

Bacterial toxin-antitoxin (TA) systems are one example, and there are dozens of them that have been described. If you have the toxin without the antitoxin you're dead. If you have the antitoxin without the toxin, it does absolutely nothing beneficial. You need both to miraculously appear simultaneously.

Another example would be VDJ recombination in the adaptive immune system. For this system to work, you need two different recombinase proteins that are not similar, along with a very complex DNA locus with a very specific sequence for them to act on. These recombinase proteins have to be expressed only in a very specific subtype of cells and no others, or they could potentially scramble your germ cell DNA and make your species infertile.

There are multiple other examples that more than meet Charles Darwin's own stated requirements to refute his hypothesis. The "scientific" thing to do would be to ACCEPT that the hypothesis is refuted and devise another, not sweep such problems under the rug.

Very confident the quote is more along the lines of "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. But I can find out no such case."

The very key bit is the successive, slight modifications. The toxin and anti-toxin don't have to magically appear at the same time. If you'll permit me, it's unlikely that a super-deadly toxin was produced in a single mutation and is rather produced over successive mutations and gene shufflings. While the toxin becomes more deadly, other organisms have a survival advantage by producing the antitoxin. As with all genetic arms races, this continues until the cost of making a more deadly toxin becomes too great. I hope that I haven't made any flawed assumption that, when corrected, makes this explanation as a whole incorrect.

Having limited understanding in biology beyond UK highschool level, I can't make much of a comment about the VDJ recombination, but I'm very confident that it does have an evolutionary compatible explanation, even if it is one that is only fathomable by changing your mindset.

As to the whole disproving evolution, I think it apt to link to http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Disproving_evolution which does clearly state how to disprove evolution and is the source from which I got Darwin's quote.

Anyway, I just wanted to add on that no one has refuted my point about Creationism revealing nothing about the world. I would very much like to see how teaching someone about Creationism allows them to infer new things about the world or deduce why something is or really do anything other than believe that all the good and the bad in the world just is and we shouldn't worry about it.

From: Wizzup?
In a better world, science teachers would teach creationism along with evolution as an exercise in critical thinking.

- Katha Pollitt (Weirding Out on Creationism," The Nation (September 20, 1999)

I think they should both be taught unless the person chooses one.
Imo teaching ONLY evolution is just as TERRIBLE as teaching only creationism.

Creationism should be kept from public schools. Schooling is about teaching children about what is observable and what is backed by evidence. The existence of god and creationism have no evidence.

If there were an English class discussing numerous cultures and their stories, like the Greeks then id be fine with the idea of creationism being shown as an example.

From: Dosbag
Creationism should be kept from public schools. Schooling is about teaching children about what is observable and what is backed by evidence. The existence of god and creationism have no evidence

This is true. Evolution has been proven and has evidence backing it, while God and all the fairy tales in the bible are not proven as there is no evidence.

As I said before, according to Darwin's own criteria, it's been DISproven.

Whether you think God was involved or not, both Abiogenesis and Creationism have a whole lot of MAGIC happening.

Like when all biological proteins MAGICALLY formed exclusively from L-amino acids, when every principle of chemistry suggests this would be astronomically unlikely.

All living organisms produce exclusively L-amino acids, all biological processes involve exclusively L-amino acids, all proteases work exclusively on L-amino acids. But any chemical process would generate a 50/50 mixture of both D- and L- amino acids.

These amino acids are assembled into proteins by the ribosome, which is itself essential to all life as we know it, and is incredibly complex, and more than satisfies Darwin's criteria for DISproving his theory.

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/origins/2009/02/deconstructing-the-ribosome.html

If someone would like to cobble together their scientific PROOF that the ribosome magically assembled itself, then magically assembled L-exclusive proteins from a racemic mixture of 50/50 D and L amino acids, allowing an ocean-filling FSM to form that then split into the holy trinity of all life on the planet, I'm happy to reconsider my skepticism.

Everyone assumes that the more you learn about this stuff the more conclusive it is, but exactly the opposite is true. The Abiogenesis fairy tale that they teach in High School is not any more scientific or "proven" than creationism.

Damn Tara. I wish you were like someone I could cite you in my paper.

Dr. TaraJunky. Villavu.com December 1, 2011.

@Yago
I know I know. But I knew either way this will turn to those other countless "does god exist" threads lol.

From: footballjds
I think they should both be taught unless the person chooses one.
Imo teaching ONLY evolution is just as TERRIBLE as teaching only creationism.

Not if you're teaching science: The art of gathering knowledge through reasoning and proof. Don't you think that should be thought on schools? It's like arguing you shouldn't get Physics. If creationism would indeed be proven (perhaps if you strip the all knowing power from it), I'm sure schools would teach it in biology.

From: Wizzup?
Not if you're teaching science: The art of gathering knowledge through reasoning and proof. Don't you think that should be thought on schools? It's like arguing you shouldn't get Physics. If creationism would indeed be proven (perhaps if you strip the all knowing power from it), I'm sure schools would teach it in biology.

in an attempt to not argue with you(which i've never succeeded at b4… :( )
I don't think that anyone can say that Evolution has been proven.

Charles Darwin himself admitted that there are so many missing pieces.
I'm agnostic, I don't believe it can definitively be proven either way. In the end NO ONE can prove how the world began and how we evolved. We can go as far back as we'd like, say two things collided exploded catapulting our universe into existence. That's all well and good. Where the hell did those two things come from?

From: footballjds
in an attempt to not argue with you(which i've never succeeded at b4… :( )
I don't think that anyone can say that Evolution has been proven.

Charles Darwin himself admitted that there are so many missing pieces.
I'm agnostic, I don't believe it can definitively be proven either way. In the end NO ONE can prove how the world began and how we evolved.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution and note that this is simply natural selection, etc. Evolution does not explain the universe in it's entirety and never claimed to do so. As far as natural selection and others go, this is as proven as you can unofficially prove anything - it has not been disproven ever since it's existence and there have been countless of proofs over time to enforce the claim that it is indeed, true. As to how our world ``began'', there is less absolute proof as that all lies in the past now, but there are still some pretty good theories which are now generally accepted about how the Earth became what it is now.

From: footballjds

We can go as far back as we'd like, say two things collided exploded catapulting our universe into existence. That's all well and good. Where the hell did those two things come from?

You do realize that this could go for anything? Who created this ``God'', etc. Saying that he always was there is the same (if not worse) than saying that some other force just ``was there''.

From: footballjds
I don't think that anyone can say that Evolution has been proven.

http://i.imgur.com/XxpIu.png

From: i luffs yeww
http://i.imgur.com/XxpIu.png

Funny. Works Vice-versa as well ;)

From: kingarabian
Funny. Works Vice-versa as well ;)

I challenge you to show that to be true..

From: i luffs yeww
I challenge you to show that to be true..

For what? A creationist getting into a debate with a person that believes in Evolution, and then the creationist staying calm, and the Evolutionist becoming pissed off and starts saying "NO! SCIENCE SAYS THIS SO ITS TRUE IT HAS TO BE TRUE IT MUST BE TRUE!"? It happens ALL THE TIME. You act like we creationists put our foot down and start getting pissed off, when in reality a lot of atheist start throwing insults out and get agitated any time someone mentions god.

Your pictures are useless propaganda. When I hear an atheist going on about, I don't get mad at all, and I know many religious people who don't get mad - shit the majority don't even care.

From: kingarabian
For what? A creationist getting into a debate with a person that believes in Evolution, and then the creationist staying calm, and the Evolutionist becoming pissed off and starts saying "NO! SCIENCE SAYS THIS SO ITS TRUE IT HAS TO BE TRUE IT MUST BE TRUE!"? It happens ALL THE TIME. You act like we creationists put our foot down and start getting pissed off, when in reality a lot of atheist start throwing insults out and get agitated any time someone mentions god.

Your pictures are useless propaganda. When I hear an atheist going on about, I don't get mad at all, and I know many religious people who don't get mad - shit the majority don't even care.

The creationist in that comic being angry has absolutely nothing to do with anything. What I was trying to point out is that viruses evolve, and an easy way for people to understand that is that they have to get vaccinated yearly for the flu. Hard to refute that, really, and any scientist should back that up without question.

EDIT:

Same reason you can get the rhino virus all the time.. It evolves at a very rapid rate.

From: tarajunky
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228404.300-life-began-with-a-planetary-megaorganism.html

Wow, a planetary macro-organism. So all the "evolutionists" believe that all life descended from a huge monster that completely filled the earth's ocean? This God-like planetary organism split into a holy trinity of bacterial life, eukaryotic life, and those oddball Archaea.

What did your imaginary planetary monster look like? Something like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FSM_Logo.svg

No, generalizing all "evolutionists" based on an article in New Science isn't helping your case. In fact, the subsurface origin hypothesis explains the origin of LUCA based on the chemical reactions that occur when volcanic vents meet the cold ocean water. The primordial soup hypothesis, along the lines of the article you posted, does not account for the harsh conditions on earth's surface billions of years ago.

Besides, the article is trying to spark interest. It is not suggesting that there was some "huge monster filling the ocean", but rather it is saying that there was free exchange of nutrients, DNA, ect. between the LUCA cells. This could be interpreted as one large "macro organism" or as many LUCA organisms that were able to undergo free exchange.

~ in general ~

I don't understand how people can put so much trust into science and at the same time be so hypocritical with respect to evolution. Everyone here relies on science and its accomplishments, whether it is electricity, antibiotic drugs, or its breakthroughs in sanitation. The same methods of science, mathematics, and critical analysis that have been used to evidence evolution are the same used to to develop all the things we now take for granted. It is one thing to believe in God for personal reasons, but it is another to spread lies about how evolution is false. As of today, the theory may not be 100% perfect, but that's part of science. Each day more and more data is collected. Every day we learn something new we can use it to broaden, modify, and most importantly gain a better understanding of life and how it works. Over the past two decades we have sequenced thousands of genomes, with thousands more still waiting. Whether you like it or not, the already enormous amount of evidence is sure to grow.

From: Wizzup?
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

You do realize that this could go for anything? Who created this ``God'', etc. Saying that he always was there is the same (if not worse) than saying that some other force just ``was there''.

Thanks for the read.

I do realize what you're saying. No one can definitively explain HOW anything got here, be it "God", or matter for that matter(no pun intended).
I don't think it matters why were here or how we got here. We're here.
Honestly to me though, it seems likely that there's something smarter then us out there. So I guess you could say I lean more towards ID then other theories…

Also, just to throw it out there. If evolution is true someone must have destroyed every fossil that was a link(half fish half frog, or w/e u get my point). My opinion again. And yes, i've seen plenty pictures of what people claim to be that "link" and honestly i think they're full of crap

From: i luffs yeww
http://i.imgur.com/XxpIu.png

luffs, funny cartoon. But I really hope you don't think that proves anything.
That's just like me saying this about the big bang theory:
If I told you i dropped a box with glue, pieces of wood, and red stickers and when i open the box a perfectly fitted pine wood derby car was in there.
Anyone in there right mind would say bull shit.
Some odd billion years ago two particle collided and this extremely intricate thing we call the universe was created.
Many people would say you're not in your right mind if you don't believe this.

Kinda pathetic "proof". sure, it's funny. but proves nothing.

That's also like me proving creationism by saying:
Because the universe is constantly moving apart the earth could not be billions of years old because it would have gotten burnt instantly by the sun. Also the sun is constantly getting smaller. Billions of years ago it would have be so huge even if the earth wasn't closer it would have been burned.
You can't tell me what happened a billion, two billion, 10 billion, or 5 thousand years ago. I can't tell you either.

From: footballjds

You can't tell me what happened a billion, two billion, 10 billion, or 5 thousand years ago. I can't tell you either.

+1.
But we do know what happened @ 5 thousand years ago because man started writing history around that time.

From: kingarabian
+1.
But we do know what happened @ 5 thousand years ago because man started writing history around that time.

maybe i should have said 5,001 years ago… :P

From: footballjds
Thanks for the read.

I do realize what you're saying. No one can definitively explain HOW anything got here, be it "God", or matter for that matter(no pun intended).
I don't think it matters why were here or how we got here. We're here.
Honestly to me though, it seems likely that there's something smarter then us out there. So I guess you could say I lean more towards ID then other theories…

Also, just to throw it out there. If evolution is true someone must have destroyed every fossil that was a link(half fish half frog, or w/e u get my point). My opinion again. And yes, i've seen plenty pictures of what people claim to be that "link" and honestly i think they're full of crap



luffs, funny cartoon. But I really hope you don't think that proves anything.
That's just like me saying this about the big bang theory:
If I told you i dropped a box with glue, pieces of wood, and red stickers and when i open the box a perfectly fitted pine wood derby car was in there.
Anyone in there right mind would say bull shit.
Some odd billion years ago two particle collided and this extremely intricate thing we call the universe was created.
Many people would say you're not in your right mind if you don't believe this.

Kinda pathetic "proof". sure, it's funny. but proves nothing.

That's also like me proving creationism by saying:
Because the universe is constantly moving apart the earth could not be billions of years old because it would have gotten burnt instantly by the sun. Also the sun is constantly getting smaller. Billions of years ago it would have be so huge even if the earth wasn't closer it would have been burned.
You can't tell me what happened a billion, two billion, 10 billion, or 5 thousand years ago. I can't tell you either.

I'm pretty sure you're not trolling, so you must be stupid.

Can you explain to me, please, why you need to get vaccinated more than once in your life for the same thing? And why you get the rhinovirus tons of times, if those viruses aren't evolving? And if you think they're not evolving, then what are they doing?

Also, holy crap. I just read the last part of your nonsense (about creationism), and you should probably look into science a bit more..

Yet again, "half fish half frog" is not what evolution is. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

From: i luffs yeww
I'm pretty sure you're not trolling, so you must be stupid.

Can you explain to me, please, why you need to get vaccinated more than once in your life for the same thing? And why you get the rhinovirus tons of times, if those viruses aren't evolving? And if you think they're not evolving, then what are they doing?

Also, holy crap. I just read the last part of your nonsense (about creationism), and you should probably look into science a bit more..

Yet again, "half fish half frog" is not what evolution is. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Guess i'm stupid cause i try not to troll, unless it's on fb, i go HARD CORE TROLLING THERE. Don't get hung up on my EXAGGERATED examples please. Just because a virus evolves doesn't mean everything does. Nor does it mean that my ancestors were monkeys. That was my only point there.

about the half fish half frog… haha, you got hung up on that…
The point was, there's no fossilized links that show an animal evolving from 1 to another. Charles darwin himself said that. so chill.

go ahead and rant/rave/flame. I'll still wake up tomorrow feeling just as good about myself, even though Ian said i'm either stupid or a troll <3

From: footballjds
Guess i'm stupid cause i try not to troll, unless it's on fb, i go HARD CORE TROLLING THERE. Don't get hung up on my EXAGGERATED examples please. Just because a virus evolves doesn't mean everything does. Nor does it mean that my ancestors were monkeys. That was my only point there.

about the half fish half frog… haha, you got hung up on that…
The point was, there's no fossilized links that show an animal evolving from 1 to another. Charles darwin himself said that. so chill.

go ahead and rant/rave/flame. I'll still wake up tomorrow feeling just as good about myself, even though Ian said i'm either stupid or a troll <3

Can you show me where Charles Darwin said that there's no proof of evolution? Because I'd like to see that.

Wouldn't say I'm really ranting. Chillin' and vaping, yo. <3

From: i luffs yeww
Can you show me where Charles Darwin said that there's no proof of evolution? Because I'd like to see that.

Wouldn't say I'm really ranting. Chillin' and vaping, yo. <3

If i told you that charles darwin said there was no proof of evolution i'd feel compelled to prove it. However i did not say that. I was talking about missing links.

From: footballjds
If i told you that charles darwin said there was no proof of evolution i'd feel compelled to prove it. However i did not say that. I was talking about missing links.

Sorry, misread (new OS, got shit to install, got ssbm to play, and I'm high :3 just sayin', no hard feelings, hopefully).

Anyway, the missing links between species are often either not missing links (we have a pretty solid understanding and lineage of what happened between apes and modern humans), or they're just missing because of very explainable reasons, such as species simply not being in a place where they could become fossilized. Their remains could also be destroyed by natural disasters, or even humans ruining them without knowing (digging, clear cutting forests, etc.), which means that for some things there just can't be a record.

For the records we have, it's really quite amazing, in my opinion. We can look at certain times in the past and know what species of hominid was living and what their bone structure and even their diet was.

But that's only if you side with science, of course.

Animals don't evolve from one thing into another - they share a common ancestor and that ancestor gave rise to two offspring, one of which evolved into animal A and one into animal B. There was no half-frog, half-fish, but a frog and a fish do have an ancestor in common.

It's also the case that missing-link fossils aren't essential to the theory of evolution or natural selection or anything like that. They are consistently pieces of evidence that back up evolution by showing a gradual transition. Fossils are very nice, neat things because they're from the past - they show common ancestors. However, with the ability to analyse DNA and a very strong theoretical base, it is not essential and only beneficial so long as the dating of the fossils agrees with what evolution predicts: that is, a rabbit should not appear before what we believe its ancestor to be - if it does, we either got the wrong ancestor or we have one bit of evidence that conflicts with the mounds of existing evidence. The important part to notice is the mounds of existing evidence - a single piece won't invalidate the rest of it, but a large amount of conflicting evidence would start raising issues.

Now, what theoretical stuff am I suggesting? Game theory, or optimising how to "play" given a set of rules and situations, can adequately explain bizarre behaviour in animals that otherwise make no or little sense and can be used to show that animal behaviour is optimal given their constraints, so long as their environment is fairly constant.

Another area of interest is looking at how many flaws there are in nature and how they can be explained by assuming that that the evolutionary cost of correcting the flaw is too great (that is, the number of mutations that would have to coincide to fix the flaw is so high that the chance is virtually non-existent and, if it did occur, could even make the offspring responsible infertile.) One such example is the human eye's blind spot - I find it hard that an omniscient creator would be unable to give us correctly functioning eyes when other animals do not have them. Oh and before anyone decides to quote the eye as an unexplainably complex feature, there are a variety of different eyes in nature that are of differing complexity and give insight into how our own eyes could have evolved to their modern complexity by going through dozens/hundreds/thousands/millions of discrete steps.

Just to satisfy my own dissatisfaction, despite Tara quoting Darwin stating that evolution is disproved, I'm afraid to say Darwin did not. By removing the very important idea of "complexity through discrete steps" from the quote, it is very much changing the intended meaning of the quote.

As a final parting request, I would like someone to explain how evolution cannot arise, given the modern understanding of sexual reproduction - the shuffling of genes - and the modern understanding of how genes affect what they build - the phenotype or effect that a gene exerts on the world - and that the animals best suited to their environments - the faster or stronger etc - are more likely to survive than those that do not. How is it that genes that program animals that are better at surviving are not passed on to the next generation in greater amounts than genes that do not; how is it that a gene pool that favours genes that aid survival changes as mutations that aid survival enter and genes that diminish survival are lost; how is it that cows can be selectively bred to drastically change their appearance by an intelligent being yet nature cannot selectively breed animals to make them better at surviving.

From: footballjds
it seems likely that there's something smarter then us out there.

Ill assume you are talking about extra terrestrials and not a deity.

From: footballjds
The point was, there's no fossilized links that show an animal evolving from 1 to another. Charles darwin himself said that. so chill.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090519-missing-link-found.html

From: Dosbag
Ill assume you are talking about extra terrestrials and not a deity.

I didnt specify on purpose because some wouldnt differeniate the two.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090519-missing-link-found.html

Lol, seen that already…

From: kingarabian
It seems like your claims against creationism are heavily against Christianity. See, if you even bothered to study Islam you would find countless proof that proves creationism. I think atheists are pretty good @ challenging Christianity, yes.

No i wouldn't. Nobody can even manage to find evidence for creationism, let alone proof. Islam is just as wrong as Christianity.

From: kingarabian
It seems like your claims against creationism are heavily against Christianity. See, if you even bothered to study Islam you would find countless proof that proves creationism. I think atheists are pretty good @ challenging Christianity, yes.

You seem to have this incredibly flawed idea that atheists challenge Christianity more than Islam. We don't. Islam is just as wrong, ridiculous, and absurd as Christianity is. We just focus on Christianity because where most atheists come from the major religion tends to be Christianity. Where i come the overwhelming majority of people are Christian, as a result i focus on Christianity.

IF there is a reason why people like to focus on Christianity more than Islam, it's because most Muslims tend to be ridiculously hypersensitive about anybody challenging their beliefs and throw a huge pussyfit whenever it happens. Like already mentioned "Draw Muhammad day" proves that Muslims cannot peacefully tolerate ridicule of their religion like everybody else can, and will go out into the streets, burn things down, and threaten people's lives.

From: footballjds
Guess i'm stupid cause i try not to troll, unless it's on fb, i go HARD CORE TROLLING THERE. Don't get hung up on my EXAGGERATED examples please. Just because a virus evolves doesn't mean everything does. Nor does it mean that my ancestors were monkeys. That was my only point there.

LOL. This is like saying "don't point out my examples that clearly demonstrate my INCREDIBLY poor understanding of evolution". We're going to get hung up on your examples because they prove that you have no idea what you're talking about. You of course would like to dismiss it as "exaggerations".

Everything evolves for the exact same reason that viruses and bacteria evolve. Do you know where cats and dogs came from? Tabby cats and golden retrievers don't exist in the wild.

From: footballjds

The point was, there's no fossilized links that show an animal evolving from 1 to another. Charles darwin himself said that. so chill.

What Darwin said over 100 years ago isn't very (if at all) relevant today. Although he presented the general idea behind macro evolution, he contributed a very small percentage of all the information we have today.

What next, teaching that the Sun goes around the Earth?
teaching that storks deliver babies?
teaching astrology, that the motions of the planets affect our day-to-day lives?
teaching that the Earth is flat?
teaching that 'bad air' is the cause of all disease?
teaching that the holocaust never happened?
teaching that there's only 4 elements? earth, air, fire, water.
teaching that humans never went to the moon?

Sure, teach the controversy with all of those, let the students decide for themselves.

Our modern economies depend on scientifically trained students. We will all become poorer if our lessons are invaded by special religious interests teaching that personal faith is equal to publicly verifiable evidence.

From: footballjds
Lol, seen that already…

But you just ignore it I guess.

From: Yakman
What next, teaching that the Sun goes around the Earth?
teaching that storks deliver babies?
teaching astrology, that the motions of the planets affect our day-to-day lives?
teaching that the Earth is flat?
teaching that 'bad air' is the cause of all disease?
teaching that the holocaust never happened?
teaching that there's only 4 elements? earth, air, fire, water.
teaching that humans never went to the moon?

Sure, teach the controversy with all of those, let the students decide for themselves.

Our modern economies depend on scientifically trained students. We will all become poorer if our lessons are invaded by special religious interests teaching that personal faith is equal to publicly verifiable evidence.

All this has been done already it's called Wikipedia…..

As for the Question of Evolution or Creationism ….

Neither can be fully proved or disproved.

Bang -> dust gas etc -> us
God -> The Couple -> us

Might as well say… the Easter Bunny laid those funny eggs(Cadberry not excluded) then some fat guy in a red suit gave us to Marvin the Martian for delivery, cause guys in red suits only work 1 day a year and get PAID big time.

meh bah huh … what 's in your theory?

From: matviy
No i wouldn't. Nobody can even manage to find evidence for creationism, let alone proof. Islam is just as wrong as Christianity.



You seem to have this incredibly flawed idea that atheists challenge Christianity more than Islam. We don't. Islam is just as wrong, ridiculous, and absurd as Christianity is. We just focus on Christianity because where most atheists come from the major religion tends to be Christianity. Where i come the overwhelming majority of people are Christian, as a result i focus on Christianity.

IF there is a reason why people like to focus on Christianity more than Islam, it's because most Muslims tend to be ridiculously hypersensitive about anybody challenging their beliefs and throw a huge pussyfit whenever it happens. Like already mentioned "Draw Muhammad day" proves that Muslims cannot peacefully tolerate ridicule of their religion like everybody else can, and will go out into the streets, burn things down, and threaten people's lives.

See, you go ahead and make your media biased claims against Islam. Don't blame you. Uneducated.

So you expect us Muslims, to not say anything when our holy prophet gets his picture drawn? It's extremely sensitive and sinful in Islam to draw his picture, so you expect us to just let it happen? Same goes for Christians. Do you expect them to stand there and do nothing if someone tries to burn down their Bible?

Do YOU know anything about Islam? If so, go ahead, challenge me and amuse me.

Oh and by verifying that atheists leave Christianity more, just proves how strong and real Islam is.

From: kingarabian
So you expect us Muslims, to not say anything when our holy prophet gets his picture drawn? It's extremely sensitive and sinful in Islam to draw his picture, so you expect us to just let it happen? Same goes for Christians. Do you expect them to stand there and do nothing if someone tries to burn down their Bible?

So you are saying the death threats over the comic strip depicting the prophet are justified?

From: kingarabian
Oh and by verifying that atheists leave Christianity more, just proves how strong and real Islam is.

Only it doesn't.

From: Dosbag
So you are saying the death threats over the comic strip depicting the prophet are justified?


Only it doesn't.

No. But obviously there are extremists all over this world, its not only Muslims. What, did you think the author was unaware of what he was doing and that he won't enrage 1.5billion people? People do stuff for attention nowadays.

From: kingarabian
No. But obviously there are extremists all over this world, its not only Muslims. What, did you think the author was unaware of what he was doing and that he won't enrage 1.5billion people? People do stuff for attention nowadays.

He was aware of what he was doing and its within his rights to offend 1.5 billion people.

From: Dosbag
He was aware of what he was doing and its within his rights to offend 1.5 billion people.

Okay if you are aware of what your doing, and you have the right to offend 1.5billion people that contain a percentage of extremists then don't complain about receiving death threats. Because obviously you know what your doing and you are aware of the consequences.

Just want to add that the viruses don't evolve. When you get the cold once, then get it again. It was two completely different viruses. Same goes with the flu, its not the same virus, just very similar.

OT:
Creationism shouldn't be taught in schools, simply because it isn't factual.

From: kingarabian
Okay if you are aware of what your doing, and you have the right to offend 1.5billion people that contain a percentage of extremists then don't complain about receiving death threats. Because obviously you know what your doing and you are aware of the consequences.

Well honestly I said all this because of this post

From: kingarabian
So you expect us Muslims, to not say anything when our holy prophet gets his picture drawn? It's extremely sensitive and sinful in Islam to draw his picture, so you expect us to just let it happen? Same goes for Christians. Do you expect them to stand there and do nothing if someone tries to burn down their Bible?

You appeared to be extremely butt hurt for some reason.

Also I like how my reply to your bit about the atheists and how that makes Islam somehow right wasn't included when you quoted me.

From: Dosbag
Well honestly I said all this because of this post


You appeared to be extremely butt hurt for some reason.

Also I like how my reply to your bit about the atheists and how that makes Islam somehow right wasn't included when you quoted me.

From: kingarabian
You act like we creationists put our foot down and start getting pissed off, when in reality a lot of atheist start throwing insults out and get agitated any time someone mentions god.

A lot of creationists get pissed off and throw out insults and get agitated when someone mentions evolution.

You are coming off pretty biased with the whole discussion about the religious extreme minority then talking about how most atheists are like that.

Just sayin bro.

From: Dosbag
Allot of creationists get pissed off and throw out insults and get agitated when someone mentions evolution.

You are coming off pretty biased with the whole discussion about the religious extreme minority then talking about how most atheists are like that.

Just sayin bro.

Islam recognizes some aspects of Evolution. We just believe that man was not originated from Apes, instead we believe that Allah created us separately. I'm speaking mainly for Muslims, but all the Christians I know don't freak out over Evolutionism.

From: kingarabian
Okay if you are aware of what your doing, and you have the right to offend 1.5billion people that contain a percentage of extremists then don't complain about receiving death threats. Because obviously you know what your doing and you are aware of the consequences.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9HRLvfbauA

Not to drag stuff from other threads in here, but why do you feel qualified to preach about Islam when you (seemed to have) considered lesbianism okay, but male homosexually bad, just because one sexually appeals to you and the other one doesn't? Do you not feel that's pretty hypocritical, or were you just making a bad joke?

From: kingarabian
So you expect us Muslims, to not say anything when our holy prophet gets his picture drawn? It's extremely sensitive and sinful in Islam to draw his picture, so you expect us to just let it happen? Same goes for Christians. Do you expect them to stand there and do nothing if someone tries to burn down their Bible?

I want to know why people not of the Islam religion should be constrained by Islams teachings - is it not enough to "know" that a person who disobeys the teachings will suffer an eternity in hell? I believe the Koran states or implies that Allah is the judge of all humans (maybe including Mohammed in the judging,) so I honestly don't see how that means that it is right or correct to hold non-believers to scripture. I would say that it would be sufficient to know that they face damnation. Of course, if you're a particularly benevolent person, you may feel it your personal duty to help convert people to Islam and encourage them to abide by its teachings, but one cannot do that when the object of your attention is dead or afraid for his life.

If you think this is unfair of me, I'd like to point out the abortion debate that wages, with the "pro"-abortion crowd generally being atheists and anti-abortion crowd generally being Catholics and other, more stringent religious people. That some extremists (in this debate) go as far as to kill abortion doctors shows that these are even on a greater level of individual evil than the rioting and death threats of the Mohammed controversy.

To bring this back to the topic of Creationism in school, the Holy Books state that God made everything, but what more is there to the topic? How can you turn Creationism in to more than one sentence? What scientifically rigorous evidence is there to support it or logical arguments that exist without flawed reasoning? Is there something that can only exist because of an intelligent designer and that cannot be explained by a series of slightly different modifications or mutations? If Creationism is a scientifically valid hypothesis, what evidence is there that can disprove it? If Creationism is a faith-based hypothesis, why should it be taught to children as anything other than a faith-based hypothesis rather than claiming there to be flaws in evolution that don't exist? Why is Creationism the only alternative to evolution - is it impossible that an advanced alien civilisation designed us and all life on the planet as something like a giant Petri-dish?

From: kingarabian
Islam recognizes some aspects of Evolution. We just believe that man was not originated from Apes, instead we believe that Allah created us separately. I'm speaking mainly for Muslims, but all the Christians I know don't freak out over Evolutionism.

How is it that you can recognize "some aspects" of evolution? To me, that means you are saying well… microorganisms, insects, plants, and animals can evolve, but I didn't. It is just as logical to say, well I only believe in some aspects of gravity… maybe you would care to elaborate?

From: matviy
some stuff

I'm pretty sure saying somethings wrong/something didn't happen doesn't prove anything at all…

From: gerauchert
How is it that you can recognize "some aspects" of evolution? To me, that means you are saying well… microorganisms, insects, plants, and animals can evolve, but I didn't. It is just as logical to say, well I only believe in some aspects of gravity… maybe you would care to elaborate?

Do you mean micro-evolution? Or macro? I'd honestly never heard of this so I'd appreciate if you were specific.

From: Yago
I'm pretty sure saying somethings wrong/something didn't happen doesn't prove anything at all…



Do you mean micro-evolution? Or macro? I'd honestly never heard of this so I'd appreciate if you were specific.

There is no difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. They both work by the same mechanism. Think about meiosis, think about genetic mutations, deletions, additions, and think about how these variations in genomes allow for differentiation of microorganism species. These are things that us "macro organisms" go through as well, but the key difference is the rate of reproduction. Bacteria can evolve much quicker as they reproduce at an extremely fast rate, which could lead to one falsely thinking that only small microscopic organisms evolve. Scale the time frame to millions and billions of years instead of mere days, and you can have an enormous array of genetic diversity. Evolution is evolution. The exact lineage pathways can be debated, but as I said earlier in the thread, the genomic data is growing and at an exponential rate.

From: Harry
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9HRLvfbauA

Not to drag stuff from other threads in here, but why do you feel qualified to preach about Islam when you (seemed to have) considered lesbianism okay, but male homosexually bad, just because one sexually appeals to you and the other one doesn't? Do you not feel that's pretty hypocritical, or were you just making a bad joke?

Yeah, of course in Islam being gay is 100% haram (forbidden). Be it male to male or female to female. I was just making a "bad" joke.

From: mixster
I want to know why people not of the Islam religion should be constrained by Islams teachings - is it not enough to "know" that a person who disobeys the teachings will suffer an eternity in hell? I believe the Koran states or implies that Allah is the judge of all humans (maybe including Mohammed in the judging,) so I honestly don't see how that means that it is right or correct to hold non-believers to scripture. I would say that it would be sufficient to know that they face damnation. Of course, if you're a particularly benevolent person, you may feel it your personal duty to help convert people to Islam and encourage them to abide by its teachings, but one cannot do that when the object of your attention is dead or afraid for his life.

If you think this is unfair of me, I'd like to point out the abortion debate that wages, with the "pro"-abortion crowd generally being atheists and anti-abortion crowd generally being Catholics and other, more stringent religious people. That some extremists (in this debate) go as far as to kill abortion doctors shows that these are even on a greater level of individual evil than the rioting and death threats of the Mohammed controversy.

Every religion feels it should be the religion of all Humanity. All atheists feel everyone should be atheist, all Christians feel that everyone should be a Christian, and of course all Muslims believe that Mohammad's message (Islam) was the final message of God after Jesus and it should be followed by everyone.
No Muslim should put a gun to someones head and say "YOU MUST BE A MUSLIM AND YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW EVERYTHING THE QURAN SAYS". You want to draw the prophet Mohammad? That is your decisin, but don't expect people to welcome it. If you want to achieve world peace, dissing other religions is not a start. Especially when stability is at a stake.

When we make dawa (preaching Islam to other people) to other people we do it because we want to send our message out. We are not afraid for you life, because in the end we Muslims believe that it's gods decision to choose who goes to hell and who doesn't. Its the persons decision to make that choice to become a Muslims or not. It's not up to Muslims to say "IF YOUR NOT A MUSLIM YOUR GOING TO HELL" Heck, I know many non-Muslims who are better than Muslims.

From: gerauchert
How is it that you can recognize "some aspects" of evolution? To me, that means you are saying well… microorganisms, insects, plants, and animals can evolve, but I didn't. It is just as logical to say, well I only believe in some aspects of gravity… maybe you would care to elaborate?

We believe in the big bang or something similar to it. We believe that somethings did infact originate from micro-orgasms. Basically we believe everything that is stated in the Quran, and everything about Evolution is indeed in the Quran. But we believe man was created separately. We don't believe he evolved from a specific species.

To bring this back to the topic of Creationism in school, the Holy Books state that God made everything, but what more is there to the topic? How can you turn Creationism in to more than one sentence? What scientifically rigorous evidence is there to support it or logical arguments that exist without flawed reasoning? Is there something that can only exist because of an intelligent designer and that cannot be explained by a series of slightly different modifications or mutations? If Creationism is a scientifically valid hypothesis, what evidence is there that can disprove it? If Creationism is a faith-based hypothesis, why should it be taught to children as anything other than a faith-based hypothesis rather than claiming there to be flaws in evolution that don't exist? Why is Creationism the only alternative to evolution - is it impossible that an advanced alien civilisation designed us and all life on the planet as something like a giant Petri-dish?

Interesting argument you have there mixster. I shall talk about it in my paper if you don't mind.

From: kingarabian
We believe in the big bang or something similar to it. We believe that somethings did infact originate from micro-orgasms. Basically we believe everything that is stated in the Quran, and everything about Evolution is indeed in the Quran. But we believe man was created separately. We don't believe he evolved from a specific species.

Hmm, still doesn't seem to account for the genetic similarity between humans and apes. You are entitled to believe what you wish, but I still think the evidence is too strong in favor of evolution.

Let's talk about meiosis. It is again one of the great mysteries of science.

Let's say that you magically create a ribosome, magically create exclusively L-type proteins, and magically create an ocean filling planetary macro-organism that can pass around genetic information.

One problem with that model is that for every "good" gene that could randomly pop into existence there would be hundreds, thousands, or millions of "bad" genes. These would contain information that would counteract the processes necessary for life, either by actively interfering with them, or simply by exhausting all the resources without creating something of value.

So, there must be a mechanism in place to keep and enrich good genes while excluding bad or non-productive ones. If you're a giant planetary macro-organism with leaky membranes, how do you ever overcome the million to one problem?

But let's say you wave your magic wand and a bacterium pops into existence. It has enriched enough good genes while excluding bad genes to be able to survive, grow, and replicate itself.

So now, after going through all of that "purifying selection", where every selective pressure is pushing you to keep your genes intact, what would then make any such early organism go through meiosis and voluntarily throw away 50% of their precious genome?

It's another puzzle that doesn't "fit" into the whole evolutionary philosophy. More magical mystery that most "evolutionists" don't even know they don't know.

I think evolution happened for sure.
I am Christian.

I believe that evolution and creationism do not collide with each other.

I am not going to try to impose my specific religious beliefs, but I feel the need to say one thing.

We do not know the origin of the universe. In my opinion, it must have been some sort of higher power. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. If you can come up with an explanation of the origin of the universe that makes sense, then please do so. It's the age-old question we'll never have an answer for.

From: kingarabian
Every religion feels it should be the religion of all Humanity. All atheists feel everyone should be atheist

Atheism isn't a religion, and the goal of atheism isn't to convert people. I find it horrendously offensive that you said that.

From: kingarabian
Faith is an oasis in the heart which will never be reached by the caravan of thinking.

I have absolute faith that I am a pineapple, nothing you can say or think will ever change this.

How about they just teach us the truth: We don't know. :)

Since I have an extre few minutes before next class I'd also like to add that in Norway we are forced to learn about several religions, including all the directions of christianity, islam, and … I don't know the english word for the name of jews' religion, but that too. Also we can choose a religion of our choice to learn about. I'm going for buddhism! (Even tho' many say it's not a religion).

I think it's an excellent system which allows every person to decide for themselves which religion, if any, they want to follow.

From: tarajunky
Let's talk about meiosis. It is again one of the great mysteries of science.

Let's say that you magically create a ribosome, magically create exclusively L-type proteins, and magically create an ocean filling planetary macro-organism that can pass around genetic information.

One problem with that model is that for every "good" gene that could randomly pop into existence there would be hundreds, thousands, or millions of "bad" genes. These would contain information that would counteract the processes necessary for life, either by actively interfering with them, or simply by exhausting all the resources without creating something of value.

So, there must be a mechanism in place to keep and enrich good genes while excluding bad or non-productive ones. If you're a giant planetary macro-organism with leaky membranes, how do you ever overcome the million to one problem?

But let's say you wave your magic wand and a bacterium pops into existence. It has enriched enough good genes while excluding bad genes to be able to survive, grow, and replicate itself.

So now, after going through all of that "purifying selection", where every selective pressure is pushing you to keep your genes intact, what would then make any such early organism go through meiosis and voluntarily throw away 50% of their precious genome?

It's another puzzle that doesn't "fit" into the whole evolutionary philosophy. More magical mystery that most "evolutionists" don't even know they don't know.

Okay, let's talk your own inability to imagine how something can be feasible in terms of propagating genes makes an entire field of science incorrect.

First of all, LUCA was still composed of cells which replicate. Genes that inhibited its ability to replicate would lead to the death of the cell and death of the genes, including those that led to its death. So, that magic purifying selection you were talking about was good old natural selection at its purest. Problem one, solved.

Second of all, meiosis isn't really that complicated of a thing. Once you understand that meiosis is a requirement for sexual reproduction, then you can understand that the shuffling of genes allows there to be a gene pool and a larger gene pool is much more resilient and can produce much "fitter" offspring than the small gene pool of a single organism. If my word on this topic isn't good enough, go have a look at the wikipedia page on Evolution of sexual reproduction or, if wikipedia isn't good enough, go look at what it references under further reading: many scientists with their theories of why its valuable.

Of course, that doesn't directly address the origin, but assuming evolution then the production of "fitter" offspring would lead to sexual reproduction becoming widespread.

If we wish to start asking the other side to explain things though, could someone tell me why the human eye is flawed (the blind spot) if we have an omniscient and omnipotent creator? It seems to me that He could very well have not given us a blind spot since other creatures don't have one and I can't really think of any kind of advantage for it. Before anyone cries evolution, I'd like to say that the evolutionary cost of fixing the eye exceeds the evolutionary cost of the blind spot imparts on us, so that's why evolution hasn't fixed it for us.

From: mixster
Okay, let's talk your own inability to imagine how something can be feasible in terms of propagating genes makes an entire field of science incorrect.

First of all, LUCA was still composed of cells which replicate. Genes that inhibited its ability to replicate would lead to the death of the cell and death of the genes, including those that led to its death. So, that magic purifying selection you were talking about was good old natural selection at its purest. Problem one, solved.

Second of all, meiosis isn't really that complicated of a thing. Once you understand that meiosis is a requirement for sexual reproduction, then you can understand that the shuffling of genes allows there to be a gene pool and a larger gene pool is much more resilient and can produce much "fitter" offspring than the small gene pool of a single organism. If my word on this topic isn't good enough, go have a look at the wikipedia page on Evolution of sexual reproduction or, if wikipedia isn't good enough, go look at what it references under further reading: many scientists with their theories of why its valuable.

Of course, that doesn't directly address the origin, but assuming evolution then the production of "fitter" offspring would lead to sexual reproduction becoming widespread.

If we wish to start asking the other side to explain things though, could someone tell me why the human eye is flawed (the blind spot) if we have an omniscient and omnipotent creator? It seems to me that He could very well have not given us a blind spot since other creatures don't have one and I can't really think of any kind of advantage for it. Before anyone cries evolution, I'd like to say that the evolutionary cost of fixing the eye exceeds the evolutionary cost of the blind spot imparts on us, so that's why evolution hasn't fixed it for us.

^This.

Additionally, tara, we must consider that meiosis itself is a product of evolution. Mitosis was the original means of cellular replication, and as mixter said, genetic variation is beneficial to the species. No set of DNA is perfect for every environment, and therefore diversity is selected for. As to your point about losing 50% of genetic variation and it being a waste, I can see the logic of what you are trying to say, but the very fact that the organism survived to reproduce means that it was not a waste. Think of it more like a beneficial swapping of genetic information. The other 50% of genetic information is extremely important, which is why I think animals have developed such complex ways to choose mates.

On a side note, I think that your choice of including the word "magically" in:

Let's say that you magically create a ribosome, magically create exclusively L-type proteins, and magically create an ocean filling planetary macro-organism that can pass around genetic information.

does not help your credibility at all. On the contrary, it just shows the lack of knowledge you have for organic and bio-chemistry. If you would care to point out what sort of biblical magic you need to create ribosomes, L-type proteins, or phospholipid bilayer membranes, then by all means do.
i

The evolutionary philosophy has a hard and fast rule that you cannot work toward a goal. There is no evolutionary intent. There's no long-term strategy. Every step along an evolutionary progression must have a selective advantage in its own right.

It might be very beneficial over the long term to develop sexual reproduction, but unless you can explain it in the context of those rules, it's not an argument for evolution at all.

These sorts of questions are things that evolutionary scientists grapple with. In a way, evolutionary science is doomed to fail, because of the nature of science.

Science is not able to explain random, one-off, "miraculous" events. It's good at describing and explaining common, reproducible events. But the entire premise of Abiogenesis is that crazy, miraculous-seeming events must have happened thousands of times over billions of years. Asking science to explain that is like asking a physicist why a certain photon of light in a quantum mechanics experiment hit one plate instead of another.

There simply may be no scientific answer to the question, because some things just happen randomly, and science isn't designed to explain it. Embracing science means a willingness to embrace the limits of science as well.

It's natural for people to develop faith in science. You see for yourself that A, B, and C are true, so you are more willing to accept that X, Y, and Z are also true even though you haven't studied it for yourself. You see and believe that evolution is true, so you accept that Abiogenesis is true, without a full understanding of it.

Developing faith in God is ultimately the same process. You learn for yourself that A, B, and C are true, so you are more likely to accept that X, Y, and Z are also true, without a full and complete understanding.

When someone asks why you believe in X, Y, or Z, or even starts mocking that belief, it's natural to be defensive. Perhaps you respond by explaining A, B, and C instead. That's true for both Creationism and Abiogenesis, as we've seen in this very thread.

Perhaps we should all stop mocking each others' beliefs and stop arguing over "unknowable" questions, which exist both in science and religion. And we should certainly stop teaching kids in public school that science is "infallible", or pushing the Abiogenesis fairy tale as fact.

From: kingarabian
See, you go ahead and make your media biased claims against Islam. Don't blame you. Uneducated.

Biased would imply i have something against Islam and have nothing against other religions. I don't. Islam is equally as worthless as all other religions.

From: kingarabian

So you expect us Muslims, to not say anything when our holy prophet gets his picture drawn? It's extremely sensitive and sinful in Islam to draw his picture, so you expect us to just let it happen?

Yes. Offense is taken, not given. Nobody is directly hurting or taking away any of your rights. You don't have a "right" not to be offended by what somebody else says or does. If i want to sit at home and draw pictures of your prophet i can do so as much as i want, and if i want to exchange these pictures with my friends i can do that as much as i want as well.

You do not have the right to try to stop me, or threaten my life for doing so. Which many Muslims do or have done.

From: kingarabian
Same goes for Christians. Do you expect them to stand there and do nothing if someone tries to burn down their Bible?

Yes. For all the same reasons stated above. And Christians do a much better job of staying calm about these kinds of things than Muslims do.

From: kingarabian

Do YOU know anything about Islam? If so, go ahead, challenge me and amuse me.

I know enough to know that it is as harmful to the human race as most other religions, has a higher percentage of fundamentalists and extremists than other religions, and to this day oppresses what any modern country considers to be basic unalienable human rights.

Religion is a mental plague, an extremely powerful and effective chain-letter that takes advantage of and exploits many flaws and instabilities in the human psyche. By giving people false (and dangerous) feelings of security, belonging, and above all, enlightenment.

From: kingarabian

Oh and by verifying that atheists leave Christianity more, just proves how strong and real Islam is.

When did anybody "verify" such thing?

You don't seem to understand. What Islam is currently going through is what Christianity already went through over the past few hundred years. Islam is no "stronger" than any other religion, it's just more primitive and so are it's followers who are less tolerant of other people's beliefs and actions.

There are many things that cause people to turn to religion. But as time passes it becomes pleasantly clear that rational thought and fact-based beliefs consistently return better results than blind faith-based belief. To this day people who resort to such blind beliefs are people who are uneducated and don't see or feel any immediate benefit from rational thought.

People's lives are improving. Slowly but gradually the world is getting better. And the better the world is the less people need to rely on the cesspool that is all abrahamic religions. Islam, Judaism, or Christianity.

From: tarajunky
Perhaps we should all stop mocking each others' beliefs and stop arguing over "unknowable" questions, which exist both in science and religion. And we should certainly stop teaching kids in public school that science is "infallible", or pushing the Abiogenesis fairy tale as fact.

If i find a 3x3foot black box on the ground, there is no way i can know for certain what is inside of it. But i can know for certain what is not inside of it. Such as an elephant or giraffe. We don't have to know what's in the box to know whats not in the box. We don't have to know how life started to know how life didn't start.

We don't know how life started, but we DO know with certainty is that it did not happen 5000 years ago, and that evolution was involved.

It is one thing for people to believe in various things that have no evidence behind them and all have the same chances of being true. But it's another thing for people to believe in things that we know are not true and claim that those beliefs are equal to every body else's.

Furthermore, compromise isn't a universally correct way of solving all problems, and should only be applied when both sides have at least some merit.

Compromising with creationism is the equivalent of someone breaking into your home and declaring that they now own your entire house. And after you resist they then suggest a "compromise" of them only owning one bedroom.

They want the entire house, you want the entire house, so a valid compromise is them only getting part of the house. Am i doing it right?

From: Dosbag
Atheism isn't a religion, and the goal of atheism isn't to convert people. I find it horrendously offensive that you said that.




I have absolute faith that I am a pineapple, nothing you can say or think will ever change this.

Oh okay. So all the ads I saw in Seattle and in New York that are pro atheism, coincidently happened to be there for decoration.

Okay, congratulations on being a pineapple.

From: matviy
We don't know how life started, but we DO know with certainty is that it did not happen 5000 years ago, and that evolution was involved.

:duh:
lmfao, you can't say with certainty that life was not started 5000 years ago.
You just can't. To compare it to something like a 3x3 foot box, thus giving it the appearance of a "no brainer" is not only ridiculous it is a pretty over-reaching statement that you CANNOT backup with infallible evidence.
You can be pretty certain. You cannot, however, be certain.

From: footballjds
:duh:
lmfao, you can't say with certainty that life was not started 5000 years ago.
You just can't. To compare it to something like a 3x3 foot box, thus giving it the appearance of a "no brainer" is not only ridiculous it is a pretty over-reaching statement that you CANNOT backup with infallible evidence.
You can be pretty certain. You cannot, however, be certain.

Yes you can know that.

We know, with the same scientific certainty that got people to the moon, that the earth is SIGNIFICANTLY older than 5000 years, and there were life forms over 5000 years ago.

Using your logic we can never be certain of anything. Earth might not even exist. You might be hooked up to the matrix right now.

All of geometry for instance is based on a handful of axioms that we cannot prove and thus cannot know for "certain". Yet we teach geometry to kids, and apply it to practically everything we have ever built.

From: matviy
Yes you can know that.

We know, with the same scientific certainty that got people to the moon, that the earth is SIGNIFICANTLY older than 5000 years, and there were life forms over 5000 years ago.

Using your logic we can never be certain of anything. Earth might not even exist. You might be hooked up to the matrix right now.

All of geometry for instance is based on a handful of axioms that we cannot prove and thus cannot know for "certain". Yet we teach geometry to kids, and apply it to practically everything we have ever built.

No scientist with any self-dignity will tell you they can scientifically prove that the earth is older then 5,000 years.
point in case.

Just keep an open mind. say your opinion. Don't say you know things, it makes you look really unintelligent.

From: footballjds
No scientist with any self-dignity will tell you they can scientifically prove that the earth is older then 5,000 years.
point in case.

Just keep an open mind. say your opinion. Don't say you know things, it makes you look really unintelligent.

LOL WHAT? Yes they will. No scientist will self-dignity will tell you ANYTHING contrary to that. There is a near infinite amount of possible ways to prove that the earth is over 5,000 years old.

This isn't even remotely debatable in any scientific community. Hell, there are organisms alive at this moment that are over 5000 years old.

The only rebuttal that can refute the overwhelming amounts of evidence proving the fact that the earth is much older than 5 or even 10 thousand years is to claim that god deliberately planted that evidence all over the world to try to lead us astray.

From: matviy
LOL WHAT? Yes they will. No scientist will self-dignity will tell you ANYTHING contrary to that. There is a near infinite amount of possible ways to prove that the earth is over 5,000 years old.

This isn't even remotely debatable in any scientific community. Hell, there are organisms alive at this moment that are over 5000 years old.

The only rebuttal that can refute the overwhelming amounts of evidence proving the fact that the earth is much older than 5 or even 10 thousand years is to claim that god deliberately planted that evidence all over the world to try to lead us astray.

You don't deny any history right?

From: kingarabian
You don't deny any history right?

Only fictional history.

From: matviy
Only fictional history.

Okay.

There is no question among scientists that they all agree that our Universe emerged from smoke.

1400 years ago the prophet Mohammad received the Quran. In the Quran, in chapter 41, verses 10-11 god says:

"He placed firmly embedded mountains on it, towering over it, and blessed it and measured out its nourishment in it, laid out for those who seek it-all in four days. Then He turned to heaven when it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, "Come willingly or unwillingly." They both said, "We come willingly.""

But the weird thing is… only in the 20th century have scientists discovered that the universe emerged from a hot gas in the form of smoke. So can you tell me how Mohammad somehow knew this 1400 years ago, unless God revealed it to him?

Mohammad was a proven illiterate man.

From: kingarabian
Okay.

There is no question among scientists that they all agree that our Universe emerged from smoke.

The universe did not emerge from smoke, and no scientist anywhere has ever claimed that the universe emerged from smoke. You will not find one instance of anybody who studies any kind of science making that claim. Ever. It doesn't make sense.

There was no smoke either before or immediately after the event that created the universe. All evidence suggest that the first basic element that existed was hydrogen, and no smoke was possible until after this hydrogen already fused into heavier particles. This was all a good deal of time after the universe "emerged".

So no, even in the broadest definition of "smoke", that statement is not true.

From: kingarabian

1400 years ago the prophet Mohammad received the Quran. In the Quran, in chapter 41, verses 10-11 god says:

"He placed firmly embedded mountains on it, towering over it, and blessed it and measured out its nourishment in it, laid out for those who seek it-all in four days. Then He turned to heaven when it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, "Come willingly or unwillingly." They both said, "We come willingly.""

Cool. 1400 years ago people were aware of smoke.

From: kingarabian

But the weird thing is… only in the 20th century have scientists discovered that the universe emerged from a hot gas in the form of smoke. So can you tell me how Mohammad somehow knew this 1400 years ago, unless God revealed it to him?

Except that's not what scientists discovered at all. You have a very poor understanding of what "smoke", "gas", or even "universe" is. The universe didn't "emerge" from any smoke or hot gas, that doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense if you know the definitions of those words. Smoke isn't even a form of "hot gas". You can have cold smoke as well as smoke composed of very small solid particles, not gasses.

Smoke and hot gas are composed of particles. Particles are parts of the universe. The universe can't come from "hot gas" or "smoke" because if those things existed the universe would already exist by the very definition of "universe". Just Google the terms listed above and you'll understand why everything you just said makes absolutely no sense.

I STRONGLY suggest you take at least some kind of extremely basic scientific course to understand the terms you are talking about. And if this is the best argument for a young earth you have then i am very very deeply sorry for you because i was expecting something good but this turned out to be the worst thing I've ever heard.

Oh please. Please stop contradicting your self.

The science of modern cosmology, observational and theoretical, clearly indicates that, at one point in time, the whole universe was nothing but a cloud of &#8216;smoke&#8217; (i.e. an opaque highly dense and hot gaseous composition).

- The First Three Minutes, a Modern View of the Origin of the Universe, Weinberg, pp. 94-105.
It wasn&#8217;t until centuries later when sophisticated theories like the Big Bang Theory emerged that we discovered that the universe was made up of hot gaseous smoke.
So unless you are greater than the science of cosmology prove them wrong.

Smoke is not gas?
Smoke is a collection of airborne solid and liquid particulates and gases. It's on Wikipedia.

Cool. 1400 years ago people were aware of smoke.

I know right? They somehow knew it was part of our universes origin as well.

Oh that's not all. I have many many more.

It wasn't till the 17th century when people finnally understood that the earth is round and NOT flat.

However 1400 years ago the prophet Mohammad received the Quran. In the Quran, in chapter 39, verse 5 god says:

"He has created the Heavens and the Earth for Truth. He wraps the night up in the day, and wraps the day up in the night." The Arabic word which is translated as "to wrap" in the above verse is "takwir." "takwir" in Arabic also means to make an object ROUND. Specifically in this verse god is saying the Earth was created round.

So you want to tell me how Mohammad knew the earth was round, when at the same time till centuries later the belief was thought that the world was a flat plane and all scientific calculations and explanations were based on this belief?

From: kingarabian
Oh okay. So all the ads I saw in Seattle and in New York that are pro atheism, coincidently happened to be there for decoration..

That is a small percentage of atheists. I could very well say that the goal for every Muslim is to become a suicide bomber and kill the infidel right?

I mean all those news channels cant just be there for no reason.


You are talking along those lines.

From: Dosbag
That is a small percentage of atheists. I could very well say that the goal for every Muslim is to become a suicide bomber and kill the infidel right?

I mean all those news channels cant just be there for no reason.


You are talking along those lines.

Sure. You are entitled to say what you please.

From: kingarabian
Oh please. Please stop contradicting your self.

Nowhere have i contradicted myself.

From: kingarabian

The science of modern cosmology, observational and theoretical, clearly indicates that, at one point in time, the whole universe was nothing but a cloud of ‘smoke’ (i.e. an opaque highly dense and hot gaseous composition).

Wrong. In no scientific book anywhere does it "clearly indicate" that "the whole universe was nothing but a cloud of ‘smoke’", on top of that your definition of "smoke" is wrong and again demonstrates your complete lack of understanding.

From: kingarabian

Smoke is not gas?
Smoke is a collection of airborne solid and liquid particulates and gases. It's on Wikipedia.

Smoke is not a gas. There is no element called "smoke". It's the other way around. In certain conditions, gas can be smoke. More on that below.

You'd like clouds of hydrogen to be considered as "smoke" because it fits your argument, but it's not smoke. Had you actually read the full definition of "smoke" from wikipedia you would know this:

From: Wikipedia
Smoke is a collection of airborne solid and liquid particulates and gases[1] emitted when a material undergoes combustion or pyrolysis, together with the quantity of air that is entrained or otherwise mixed into the mass.

The definition you poorly attempted to cite proves you wrong, and had you read it you would have made less of a fool of yourself and saved yourself some embarrassment. Not only is a mixture of air required to create smoke, but the "collection of airborne solid and liquid particulates and gases" have to be a product of either combustion or pyrolysis, neither of which is possible in a state of pure hydrogen.

And if that isn't proof enough, the paper Wikipedia cited for it's definition states in the very first paragraph:

The term “smoke” is defined in this chapter as the smoke aerosol or condensed phase component of the products of combustion. This differs from the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) definition of smoke, which includes the evolved gases as well.

And then the ASTM definition of smoke

ASTM terminology relating to fire Standards (E 176) defines "smoke" as the "airborne solid and liquid particles and gasses evolved when a material undergoes pyrolysis or combustion"

Sorry but again everything points against you. Good job trying to make up evidence to support your position tho. That's the only kind of evidence you'll have.

From: kingarabian

- The First Three Minutes, a Modern View of the Origin of the Universe, Weinberg, pp. 94-105.
It wasn’t until centuries later when sophisticated theories like the Big Bang Theory emerged that we discovered that the universe was made up of hot gaseous smoke.
So unless you are greater than the science of cosmology prove them wrong.

This is completely true, except you took it a few million (if not billion) years out of context. At some point the universe was partly smoke, and it still partly is. Except that before that it took MANY years for stars to form and create oxygen that allowed for smoke to even exist in the first place.

See, you (well not you, the people who you're copy/pasting these arguments from) are trying to use this poorly worded sentence as some sort of evidence to back up your religious claims. All it says that at some point the universe had smoke in it, it doesn't say that the universe started this way like you're trying to twist it into saying. Universe is still made up of smoke. It's also made up of water, rocks, and other things.

From: kingarabian

I know right? They somehow knew it was part of our universes origin as well.

Like already said, smoke has nothing to do with the "origin" of the universe. And you would understand why that doesn't make sense if you understood what those terms meant.

A much more likely scenario, they used smoke because of it's resemblance to the clouds in the sky as well as it's symbolic and "mystic" properties. That's it.

From: kingarabian

It wasn't till the 17th century when people finnally understood that the earth is round and NOT flat.

However 1400 years ago the prophet Mohammad received the Quran. In the Quran, in chapter 39, verse 5 god says:

"He has created the Heavens and the Earth for Truth. He wraps the night up in the day, and wraps the day up in the night." The Arabic word which is translated as "to wrap" in the above verse is "takwir." "takwir" in Arabic also means to make an object ROUND. Specifically in this verse god is saying the Earth was created round.

So you want to tell me how Mohammad knew the earth was round, when at the same time till centuries later the belief was thought that the world was a flat plane and all scientific calculations and explanations were based on this belief?

Except that's not what hes saying at all, and you'll have to try much harder than that to twist words into suiting your purposes.

"He wraps the night up in the day, and wraps the day up in the night."
Translated: "To make night round up in the day, and day round up in the night"

Doesn't in anyway imply that he had even the slightest clue that the earth was round and not flat. He could have been talking about the round shape of the sun or the moon, or the "round" repeating day-night cycle. Hell, i quote random verses and interpret them to suit my needs too:

Sura Al-Kahf 18:47 And (remember) the Day We shall cause the mountains to pass away (like clouds of dust), and you will see the earth as a levelled plain, and we shall gather them all together so as to leave not one of them behind.

Sura Taha 20:53 Who has made earth for you like a bed (spread out); and has opened roads (ways and paths etc.) for you therein; and has sent down water (rain) from the sky. And We have brought forth with it various kinds of vegetation.

Sura Az-Zukhruf 43:10 Who has made for you the earth like a bed, and has made for you roads therein, in order that you may find your way.

Sura An-Naba 78:6 Have We not made the earth as a bed,

Last i checked beds and plains were flat. Each one of these verses is much stronger evidence suggesting that the Quran thought that the earth was flat, than your single verse where you tried hard to twist some translated words into meaning something they weren't intended to mean.

Try again tho.

Let's say for instance the universe did indeed come from "smoke"…

Where did the smoke come from?

Go!

Sura Al-Kahf 18:47 And (remember) the Day We shall cause the mountains to pass away (like clouds of dust), and you will see the earth as a levelled plain, and we shall gather them all together so as to leave not one of them behind.

Sura Taha 20:53 Who has made earth for you like a bed (spread out); and has opened roads (ways and paths etc.) for you therein; and has sent down water (rain) from the sky. And We have brought forth with it various kinds of vegetation.

Sura Az-Zukhruf 43:10 Who has made for you the earth like a bed, and has made for you roads therein, in order that you may find your way.

Sura An-Naba 78:6 Have We not made the earth as a bed,

Sura Al-Kahf 18:47: Allah is talking about the day of judgement when he will turn the world flat. He is not saying the Earth is flat.

Sura Taha 20:53: Earth is like a bed. We live on Earth, we need Earth to survive. Allah is not saying the Earth is flat. Hence why he said LIKE. Clearly a bed is a place of nurture, and the comparison to mother Earth.

Sura Az-Zukhruf 43:10 ^ see above

Sura An-Naba 78:6 ^ see above

Wrong. In no scientific book anywhere does it "clearly indicate" that "the whole universe was nothing but a cloud of &#8216;smoke&#8217;", on top of that your definition of "smoke" is wrong and again demonstrates your complete lack of understanding.

Oh. Really? I guess you are correct and this book, written by legit scientists is wrong.

- The First Three Minutes, a Modern View of the Origin of the Universe, Weinberg, pp. 94-105.

Except that's not what hes saying at all, and you'll have to try much harder than that to twist words into suiting your purposes.

"He wraps the night up in the day, and wraps the day up in the night."
Translated: "To make night round up in the day, and day round up in the night"

Doesn't in anyway imply that he had even the slightest clue that the earth was round and not flat. He could have been talking about the round shape of the sun or the moon, or the "round" repeating day-night cycle. Hell, i quote random verses and interpret them to suit my needs too:

Okay lets look at another verse:

And He (i.e., Allah) it is Who created the night and the day, the sun and the moon. They float, each in a falak (The Noble Quran, Chpater 21: verse: 33)
A falaka like that of a spinning wheel. The word falak in Arabic means that which is a round/sphere. It also means orbit. So again Mohammad, 1400 years ago knew the Earth was round AND he knew that Earth orbited.



http://translate.google.com/#auto|ar|%D9%81%D9%84%D9%83

The paradigm of a spherical Earth was developed in Greek astronomy, beginning with Pythagoras (6th century BC), although most Pre-Socratics retained the flat Earth model. Aristotle accepted the spherical shape of the Earth on empirical grounds around 330 BC, and knowledge of the spherical Earth gradually began to spread beyond the Hellenistic world from then on.

I cite wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth#cite_note-1
which sites this claim with 4 sources.

From: tdug
The paradigm of a spherical Earth was developed in Greek astronomy, beginning with Pythagoras (6th century BC), although most Pre-Socratics retained the flat Earth model. Aristotle accepted the spherical shape of the Earth on empirical grounds around 330 BC, and knowledge of the spherical Earth gradually began to spread beyond the Hellenistic world from then on.

I cite wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth#cite_note-1
which sites this claim with 4 sources.

Ah okay. Mohammad must have talked with them. Did they also tell him about how the Earth orbited around the Sun?

From: kingarabian
Ah okay. Mohammad must have talked with them. Did they also tell him about how the Earth orbited around the Sun?

Your claim seems a little irrational because of the time frames.

However, the model of the Earth orbiting the Sun was also extremely old. There were groups of people that had the solar system model forbidden, but it was there.

Someone told someone told someone etc.

I'm not saying Islam is the *wrong* religion. I am just saying Mohammad cannot be given credit for innate knowledge of the workings of the solar system, especially given the ambiguities of the passages stated.

My opinions on this contradict each other so bear with me because honestly I haven't fully developed my personal view on this aside from being mostly atheist (if a "mostly" kinda thing makes sense). Also, I am not very familiar with religious texts.

King, you've made me think harder than I have outside of class in some time as well as question myself.

1. As said way earlier on, how was the big bang started? Some force must have acted upon it.

2. He knew the earth was spherical? We "knew" it was flat. Someone had to be right. I don't know about the orbit bit though.

3. Before I get elevated feelings over this one, it is somewhat unrelated but it's my opinion on religion. I personally feel that religion is not really well concrete if you will. Sure almost everything lines up and what not as well as gives answers but well gives answers (I know I repeated myself). Humans are undeniably fearful and logical people. Being logical we seek answers for just about EVERYTHING. Without religion and before evolution theories, what would people have to look to and at for answers? People are religious (this is not a everyone kind of statement, even though it sounds like it) because people are scared and want to know what what happened and how to fix it.

From: kingarabian
Sura Al-Kahf 18:47: Allah is talking about the day of judgement when he will turn the world flat. He is not saying the world is flat.

Yes he is. He's saying that on judgement day when he makes the mountains disappear we'll all see that the world is flat. Doesn't say anywhere that he's making the earth flat. Sorry but your own book proves you wrong.

From: kingarabian

Sura Taha 20:53: Earth is like a bed. We live on Earth, we need Earth to survive. Allah is not saying the Earth is flat. Hence why he said LIKE. Clearly a bed is a place of nurture, and the comparison to mother Earth.

Yes he is. He is comparing the flat characteristics of earth to the flat characteristics of a bed.

From: kingarabian

Sura Az-Zukhruf 43:10 ^ see above

Sura An-Naba 78:6 ^ see above

Yup, see above. Apparently i understand your own book better than you do.

From: kingarabian

Oh. Really? I guess you are correct and this book, written by legit scientists is wrong.

- The First Three Minutes, a Modern View of the Origin of the Universe, Weinberg, pp. 94-105.

One scientist (or even a handful of scientists) do not represent all scientific knowledge gathered by human beings. So even if they were wrong, it wouldn't mean much. Scientists are wrong very often. What matters is that they work to correct their mistakes, and push knowledge further.

But it doesn't matter anyway because the book isn't wrong. Your reading comprehension just fails. Like i already said, at no part does it say that the universe was created "from smoke".:duh:

From: kingarabian

Okay lets look at another verse:

And He (i.e., Allah) it is Who created the night and the day, the sun and the moon. They float, each in a falak (The Noble Quran, Chpater 21: verse: 33)
A falaka like that of a spinning wheel.

The word falak in Arabic means that which is a round/sphere. It also means orbit. So again Mohammad, 1400 years ago knew the Earth was round AND he knew that Earth orbited.

Cool. So he thought that the sun and the moon moved in orbit around the earth. Something that's easily observable by everyone, and is also completely wrong. You seem very eager to keep diving into things that constantly further discredit Islam, thanks.

http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Geocentric_Qur%27an

Anyway, most people who believed that the earth was flat believed that it was a flat round disc, wheel, plate, or whatever. So any references to the earth being "round" clearly are talking about that.

This one was too easy. Keep em coming.

We humans have toenails, appendixes, tail bones, wisdom teeth or ear muscles which most people cant control, and many other organs which are useless at best and positively harmful at worst.
A perfect designer suggests perfect designs. Yet life on our planet is not perfect, far from it. How do creationists explain these? So-called vestigial organs.

When you feel cold you may get goosebumps, which is the hair standing up on your skin. In our evolutionary history when we had thick fur, this would help keep in heat, yet we humans have thin, useless hair, so goosebumps today are pointless.

The evidence for evolution is written into our bodies. It completely blows away creationism.

http://villavu.com/forum/showpost.php?p=855526&postcount=154

@kingarabian - I see where you are coming from. There have been numerous documents discovered showing ancient people understanding many of the concepts 'modern science' has only discovered recently. I find it hard to believe 'God' showed them. It just doesnt make sense. In all honesty, have you read into the Ancient Alien theory. It explains some of the points you've made in your post I linked to.

Disclaimer: I haven't read all through this thread, as well as most of the posts on this page.

From: kingarabian
Okay.

There is no question among scientists that they all agree that our Universe emerged from smoke.

1400 years ago the prophet Mohammad received the Quran. In the Quran, in chapter 41, verses 10-11 god says:

"He placed firmly embedded mountains on it, towering over it, and blessed it and measured out its nourishment in it, laid out for those who seek it-all in four days. Then He turned to heaven when it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, "Come willingly or unwillingly." They both said, "We come willingly.""

But the weird thing is… only in the 20th century have scientists discovered that the universe emerged from a hot gas in the form of smoke. So can you tell me how Mohammad somehow knew this 1400 years ago, unless God revealed it to him?

Mohammad was a proven illiterate man.

I'm going back to this post, because I think it's where the Quran was basically brought in as support for the possibility of intelligent design due to some other, irrelevant part being "true". That is, if a higher power created the world, it does not follow that the higher power created the creatures that now populate it. This is very much the case in science: there are theories for how planets are formed and for how complex organisms can result from humble beginnings if you are willing to accept the proof by induction of sorts that fills in the gaps we have no physical evidence for.

So, now I have highlighted that the 'fact' of the formation of the planet according to the Quran implies the 'fact' that the creatures of the world are as the Quran describes, I wish to highlight that the inverse must also be true. That is, anything that the Quran claims is 'fact' that is actually wrong must count against the idea of intelligent design of the sort the Quran describes (that man was made in Allah's image or whatever the exact nature of it is.)

To that extent, I'd like to point out google is a wonderful resource. There are sites such as this one and this one. The latter one is a much softer look at inconsistencies, offering reasons why they do not mean the Quran is wrong and, likewise, I am not saying that the errors in the Quran mean that the Quran is wrong. Rather, I am saying that if you are saying that something is correct because it is in the Quran and because other things that are in the Quran are correct, then you are making a logical mistake.

From: Yakman
We humans have toenails, appendixes, tail bones, wisdom teeth or ear muscles which most people cant control, and many other organs which are useless at best and positively harmful at worst.
A perfect designer suggests perfect designs. Yet life on our planet is not perfect, far from it. How do creationists explain these? So-called vestigial organs.

When you feel cold you may get goosebumps, which is the hair standing up on your skin. In our evolutionary history when we had thick fur, this would help keep in heat, yet we humans have thin, useless hair, so goosebumps today are pointless.

The evidence for evolution is written into our bodies. It completely blows away creationism.

So I take it that when you sit down to write a script, you don't use the SRL include. You just start with a blank page and start writing, until it's finished. Every new creation is unique from all others, and they share no commonalities. You don't re-use code that has been written before.

That's certainly POSSIBLE for someone to do, but would you call that approach INTELLIGENT? Or would it be more intelligent to create code that works and re-use that in many different scripts?

Yes he is. He's saying that on judgement day when he makes the mountains disappear we'll all see that the world is flat. Doesn't say anywhere that he's making the earth flat. Sorry but your own book proves you wrong.

Okay what is world and Earth to you? They are the same. I meant that the world will be flat. E.g no mountains/buildings Etc.


Yes he is. He is comparing the flat characteristics of earth to the flat characteristics of a bed.
Uh no you are wrong. All the translations of the Quran in Arabic AND English do not have Allah comparing the flat characteristics of earth to the flat characteristics of a bed. I should know. I speak read write and undestand Arabic. I've studied the Quran all my life. I know what each verse means and the full translations of each verse that are narrated by all the Muslim scholars.

Yup, see above. Apparently i understand your own book better than you do.

You assume. To understand the Quran you need to know to be able to read and Arabic. You lack oth.

Cool. So he thought that the sun and the moon moved in orbit around the earth. Something that's easily observable by everyone, and is also completely wrong. You seem very eager to keep diving into things that constantly further discredit Islam, thanks.

^See above. In no way does that verse say the moon and sun orbited around the Earth. Keep jumping to conclusions its really hysterical.


Anyway, most people who believed that the earth was flat believed that it was a flat round disc, wheel, plate, or whatever. So any references to the earth being "round" clearly are talking about that.

This one was too easy. Keep em coming.
Alright let's keep the ball rolling.
We made the sky a preserved and protected roof yet still they turn away from Our Signs. (Qur'an, 21:32)
This above verse revealed to Mohammad 1400 years ago factually states that our sky (Atmosphere) acts as a protection and preserves us from danger.

The atmosphere surrounding our Earth serves crucial functions for the continuity of life. While destroying many meteors-big and small-as they approach the Earth, it prevents them from falling to Earth and harming living things.
In addition, the atmosphere filters the light rays coming from space that are harmful to living creatures.

So care to explain to me HOW Mohammad knew that the sky (atmosphere) protects us from danger (e.g meteorites, ultra violet rays etc). 1400 years ago? How was he informed?

From: mixster

To that extent, I'd like to point out google is a wonderful resource. There are sites such as this one and this one. The latter one is a much softer look at inconsistencies, offering reasons why they do not mean the Quran is wrong and, likewise, I am not saying that the errors in the Quran mean that the Quran is wrong. Rather, I am saying that if you are saying that something is correct because it is in the Quran and because other things that are in the Quran are correct, then you are making a logical mistake.

I did stumble upon that latter site.

The reason why I am bringing up the Quran in this debate, is because it clearly does show facts and scientific clues. The significance to this, is that Mohammad knew this 1400 years ago. Before all the scientific discoveries.
Yes I am saying whatever the Quran states scientifically it is correct. When the Quran says the Earth is round, logically that makes sense to me. When the Quran says the earth orbits, logically it makes sense to me.

-Allah Almighty in one Word said that the Universe is expanding and in another term said it will shrink back again. Science confirmed that today through the big bang and the cosmic crunch theories.

-Allah Almighty in two Words mentioned the layers of waves and darkness inside the vast oceans. Science today, again, confirmed that.

-Allah Almighty in one Word said that He made the earth as an egg. We all know today that earth is spherical and science did confirm that the earth is indeed egg-shaped.

-Allah Almighty in few terms in several Noble Verses said that mountains prevent the earth from shaking. Science today did indeed confirm that mountains stabilize the earth and prevent it from constantly shaking while it is rotating around its own axle.

-Allah Almighty in one term talked about the earth's 7 properties. Science today confirmed that the earth has 7 inner layers and 7 atmospheric layers.

-Allah Almighty in one term talked about the region inside the human-brain that controls the movements. Science today confirmed that.

Source
There is A LOT more
Again, the SIGNIFICANT part of all this, is that this was all revealed 1400 years ago. If you guys prefer, i'll post all the verses and break them down one by one. In Arabic and English.

From: kingarabian
Okay what is world and Earth to you? They are the same. I meant that the world will be flat. E.g no mountains/buildings Etc.

The Quaran is saying that the world is already flat. Not that it will be flattened out.

Uh no you are wrong. All the translations of the Quran in Arabic AND English do not have Allah comparing the flat characteristics of earth to the flat characteristics of a bed. I should know. I speak read write and undestand Arabic. I've studied the Quran all my life. I know what each verse means and the full translations of each verse that are narrated by all the Muslim scholars.

Yes they do. I proved it with those quotes right there.

Also, i feel sorry that you claim to be able to read and write and understand Arabic, yet you still aren't able to understand your own book correctly. Maybe you should study it more.

You assume. To understand the Quran you need to know to be able to read and Arabic. You lack oth.

No you don't? There are millions of muslims all over the world who cannot read Arabic, yet they believe in Islam and read the Quaran. You just denounced millions of your own followers and stated that they don't understand their own holy book. Not only that, but you just discredited all translated versions of the quran because what they actually say doesn't agree with what you want them to say.

^See above. In no way does that verse say the moon and sun orbited around the Earth. Keep jumping to conclusions its really hysterical.

That's exactly what it says.

Alright let's keep the ball rolling.
We made the sky a preserved and protected roof yet still they turn away from Our Signs. (Qur'an, 21:32)
This above verse revealed to Mohammad 1400 years ago factually states that our sky (Atmosphere) acts as a protection and preserves us from danger.

The atmosphere surrounding our Earth serves crucial functions for the continuity of life. While destroying many meteors-big and small-as they approach the Earth, it prevents them from falling to Earth and harming living things.
In addition, the atmosphere filters the light rays coming from space that are harmful to living creatures.

So care to explain to me HOW Mohammad knew that the sky (atmosphere) protects us from danger (e.g meteorites, ultra violet rays etc). 1400 years ago? How was he informed?

Simple. He wasn't. Generic verses like these can be interpreted to mean virtually anything, especially after they've been translated many times since the original text and each translation was under a new context of scientific knowledge.

The Quran was clearly talking about all elements in the sky that serve a purpose of helping us in our daily lives. The Sun that gives us life and "protects" us from cold and predators, the moon that lets us see at night, the clouds that drop rain and water our farms, and the stars which are the old gods watching over and protecting us.

There are many examples of these kinds of verses that supposedly "prove" advanced scientific knowledge in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Yet they all share the common property of being vague and open to a near-infinite amount of interpretations. It would have been incredibly easy for the book to just go into a bit more detail on the subject of this "roof" protecting us. 2-3 more verses on the subject explaining this "roof" in detail would have forever removed all doubt that Islam was the true religion. Yet conveniently enough for Islam (as well as all religions claiming advance scientific knowledge) they're always vague and cut out when it starts to matter.

The reason why I am bringing up the Quran in this debate, is because it clearly does show facts and scientific clues. The significance to this, is that Mohammad knew this 1400 years ago. Before all the scientific discoveries.
Yes I am saying whatever the Quran states scientifically it is correct. When the Quran says the Earth is round, logically that makes sense to me. When the Quran says the earth orbits, logically it makes sense to me.

It clearly doesn't. So far all you've shown is that as soon as the Quran even attempts to go into detail about anything scientific (smoke, shape of the earth, or orbits) it instantly gets it horribly wrong, and all other times it attempts to be as vague as possible to cover nearly any kind of scenario.

Smoke? False.
Flat earth? False
Geocentric model? False
"Roof"? Incredibly vague.

If this were baseball you'd have been out a while ago. Luckily for you I'll let you have all the strikes you want.

-Allah Almighty in one Word said that the Universe is expanding and in another term said it will shrink back again. Science confirmed that today through the big bang and the cosmic crunch theories.

Nope, post some evidence of this. Also, scientists have no idea if the universe will at some point shrink back again. It's a theory, one that hasn't been doing so well since we found out the universe is expanding faster.

-Allah Almighty in two Words mentioned the layers of waves and darkness inside the vast oceans. Science today, again, confirmed that.

Nope, post some evidence of this.

Also, how is this even impressive? A 5 year old can tell you that water gets darker as it goes down. Layers in waves is also easily observable.

-Allah Almighty in one Word said that He made the earth as an egg. We all know today that earth is spherical and science did confirm that the earth is indeed egg-shaped.

Don't even need evidence for this. Because it's wrong. The earth is not egg shaped. It's very far from. The earth is more of a squished ball, whereas an egg is absolutely nothing like that.

I can post proof to support myself tho: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth

-Allah Almighty in few terms in several Noble Verses said that mountains prevent the earth from shaking. Science today did indeed confirm that mountains stabilize the earth and prevent it from constantly shaking while it is rotating around its own axle.

Nope, post some evidence of this.
Also post some evidence of where scientists said that mountains "stabilize the earth and prevent it from constantly shaking while it is rotating around its own axle". Sounds interesting.

-Allah Almighty in one term talked about the earth's 7 properties. Science today confirmed that the earth has 7 inner layers and 7 atmospheric layers.

Nope, post some evidence of this.

Also, the earth doesn't have "atmospheric layers". The atmosphere is a gradient, not a layer. How many "atmospheres" the earth has depends on how detailed you want to be defining this gradient, and some atmospheres are considered to be "part" or "extensions" of other atmospheres. Nowhere does science actually recognize the earth having "7" atmospheres, and depending on how closely you need to look the earth can have anywhere from 5-15 "atmospheres", if not more.

Same thing for the earths layers. Even similar layers depending on their depth can behave differently, and thus be considered (and usually are) different layers. There is no scientific declaration that there are 7 layers, simply depends on how you want to count them and how specific you want to be.

-Allah Almighty in one term talked about the region inside the human-brain that controls the movements. Science today confirmed that.

Nope, post some evidence of this.

Also, "region" is a very broad term. And there is no single part of the brain responsible for movements. Contraction of muscles is actually controlled by multiple parts of your brain working together.

Funny how easy it is to disprove parts of the quran without any evidence of anything you claimed to be in the quran of actually being there, never mind the fact that you're probably just interpreting it the way you want to. I can't wait to see how easy it will be once you actually post some verses to support all of this.

Source
There is A LOT more

I hope so because so far you haven't scored a single point, and i would hate for you to come out of this entire ordeal without one. (and we're not even counting negative points you have for how many errors in the quran you've already pointed out).

Again, the SIGNIFICANT part of all this, is that this was all revealed 1400 years ago. If you guys prefer, i'll post all the verses and break them down one by one. In Arabic and English.

Please break them down.

From: Yakman
We humans have toenails, appendixes, tail bones, wisdom teeth or ear muscles which most people cant control, and many other organs which are useless at best and positively harmful at worst.
A perfect designer suggests perfect designs. Yet life on our planet is not perfect, far from it. How do creationists explain these? So-called vestigial organs.

When you feel cold you may get goosebumps, which is the hair standing up on your skin. In our evolutionary history when we had thick fur, this would help keep in heat, yet we humans have thin, useless hair, so goosebumps today are pointless.

The evidence for evolution is written into our bodies. It completely blows away creationism.

I would not say goosebumps are pointless. There are many more reasons why humans experience piloerection aside from the cold. Also, piloerection is more than just your hair standing on end.

If you were suggesting toenails are useless, then try losing a toenail and not having one for a few months, TRUST me when i say that toenails protect your toes from a LOT of serious pain.

If there was, and by no means am i saying or suggesting that there was, a creator and he was perfect we would have no reason to say that how this entity did things was not "perfect". This entity could create and destroy at will. Any "laws" or "rules" of this universe like gravity, etc. could be invented. If you're agnostic towards a creator you can not possibly place that creator in a box and say how they should have done things. If you're atheist then your opinion on what a creator could/should have done is kinda pointless.

I wouldn't say the appendix is useless just yet. We didn't discover the use for tonsils till semi recently.(within the past couple of decades)

Just because we don't understand something yet, we should not deem it "useless at best". With that mindset we'll never make progress.

From: tarajunky
So I take it that when you sit down to write a script, you don't use the SRL include. You just start with a blank page and start writing, until it's finished. Every new creation is unique from all others, and they share no commonalities. You don't re-use code that has been written before.

That's certainly POSSIBLE for someone to do, but would you call that approach INTELLIGENT? Or would it be more intelligent to create code that works and re-use that in many different scripts?

Simba scripts are not created by an all-powerful all-knowing designer.
Life, according to creationism, was created this way. So why do we see such obvious mistakes and compromises?

From: footballjds
I would not say goosebumps are pointless. There are many more reasons why humans experience piloerection aside from the cold. Also, piloerection is more than just your hair standing on end.

You sometimes get goosebumps also when you're under stress, angry or afraid. It makes your fur stand on end so you appear bigger to an enemy.
Except humans don't have fur. Oops! :)

From: footballjds

If you were suggesting toenails are useless, then try losing a toenail and not having one for a few months, TRUST me when i say that toenails protect your toes from a LOT of serious pain.

I'm not talking about being born with toenails then having them ripped off, I'm talking about not being born with toenails at all.

From: footballjds

I wouldn't say the appendix is useless just yet. We didn't discover the use for tonsils till semi recently.(within the past couple of decades)

Just because we don't understand something yet, we should not deem it "useless at best". With that mindset we'll never make progress.

Tell me what the use of an appendix is. Go on.
There are hundreds of millions of people today who live rich and full lives without an appendix. It should be pretty clear that as far as we can tell, the appendix does nothing except randomly kill you. It's a leftover organ from when we ate grass.


I notice you've skipped over my other examples. Tail bones, wisdom teeth or ear muscles which most people cant control.

What's the point of wisdom teeth? People chew food fine up for years only to have to undergo an operation to take them out.

Never fear, there's a long wikipedia page with hundreds of examples of human evolutionary relics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality


Wisdom teeth were not harmful when we had small brains, but evolution then made us grow massive brains and there was no more space left for wisdom teeth.

It all points to one thing: Our bodies are the products of evolution. Results of historical circumstance and deep time.

From: footballjds

If there was, and by no means am i saying or suggesting that there was, a creator and he was perfect we would have no reason to say that how this entity did things was not "perfect". This entity could create and destroy at will. Any "laws" or "rules" of this universe like gravity, etc. could be invented. If you're agnostic towards a creator you can not possibly place that creator in a box and say how they should have done things. If you're atheist then your opinion on what a creator could/should have done is kinda pointless.

Yes we do have that right.
We see human doctors fixing God's mistakes by taking out appendixes and removing wisdom teeth. By the fact that we're removing them, it shows these organs are more harmful than the risks of surgery.

From: Yakman
I'm not talking about being born with toenails then having them ripped off, I'm talking about not being born with toenails at all.

I'm pretty sure your toes would be significantly more sensitive. Fingernails definitely protect my fingers. They're also extremely useful.

From: Yakman

Tell me what the use of an appendix is. Go on.
There are hundreds of millions of people today who live rich and full lives without an appendix. It should be pretty clear that as far as we can tell, the appendix does nothing except randomly kill you. It's a leftover organ from when we ate grass.

Yakman, just because you do not know the use if it does not mean it's useless. People said the EXACT same thing about tonsils. Tonsils are removed in a similar manner and for similar reasons(infected).

From: Yakman

I notice you've skipped over my other examples. Tail bones, wisdom teeth or ear muscles which most people cant control.

I can control my ear muscles :) and my nostrils as well :P
Yakman, again, just because something doesn't make sense to YOU does not make it an auxiliary useless thing… You can only say something is useless if you created it!

From: Yakman

What's the point of wisdom teeth? People chew food fine up for years only to have to undergo an operation to take them out.

Not everyone needs their wisdom teeth removed. I know plenty people whose still have their wisdom teeth.

From: Yakman

Yes we do have that right.
We see human doctors fixing God's mistakes by taking out appendixes and removing wisdom teeth. By the fact that we're removing them, it shows these organs are more harmful than the risks of surgery.

If by "God" you're referring to God as portrayed in the Bible then saying Doctor's fix God's mistakes is erroneous. The Bible very clearly says that the earth was created perfectly until the fall of man. This is all in Genesis and should be a familiar story even to you. Therefore any imperfections would be the result of man's fall(sinning). If you're referring to another god please explain how you came to this conclusion.

I'm not saying one thing is right or wrong. All i'm saying you people need to be WAY more open minded and at least think when they say things. ALL these FULLY inclusive statements are sickening… :/

From: footballjds
Not everyone needs their wisdom teeth removed. I know plenty people whose still have their wisdom teeth.

I didn't mean to post, but what is your point? That only some people have it? You're only proving his points.

From: footballjds
I'm pretty sure your toes would be significantly more sensitive. Fingernails definitely protect my fingers. They're also extremely useful.

Yakman, just because you do not know the use if it does not mean it's useless. People said the EXACT same thing about tonsils. Tonsils are removed in a similar manner and for similar reasons(infected).

I can control my ear muscles :) and my nostrils as well :P
Yakman, again, just because something doesn't make sense to YOU does not make it an auxiliary useless thing… You can only say something is useless if you created it!

Not everyone needs their wisdom teeth removed. I know plenty people whose still have their wisdom teeth.

This is getting a little beside the point. How on earth can you possibly think that your own ability to control your ear muscles means that my point is invalid?

The fact is there are hundreds of vestigial organs. Evolution explains them simply by saying they were once useful in our biological history, but are no longer useful.
Creationism lacks an explanation.

From: footballjds

If by "God" you're referring to God as portrayed in the Bible then saying Doctor's fix God's mistakes is erroneous. The Bible very clearly says that the earth was created perfectly until the fall of man. This is all in Genesis and should be a familiar story even to you. Therefore any imperfections would be the result of man's fall(sinning). If you're referring to another god please explain how you came to this conclusion.

I'm not saying one thing is right or wrong. All i'm saying you people need to be WAY more open minded and at least think when they say things. ALL these FULLY inclusive statements are sickening… :/

People can't be so open-minded that their brains fall out. :)
You gotta always ask for evidence.

Fully inclusive statements eh?
All electrons have a charge of -1.6 x 10^-19 Coulombs. Does this fully inclusive statement about every electron in the universe make you sick? Of course it doesn't, what makes you sick is realising your worldview has been demonstrated wrong by the evidence.

The Quaran is saying that the world is already flat. Not that it will be flattened out.

No it doesn't. See your making statements without a formal base. Nowhere in the Quran does Allah say the Earth is flat. Go ahead and prove it to me.

Also, i feel sorry that you claim to be able to read and write and understand Arabic, yet you still aren't able to understand your own book correctly. Maybe you should study it more.

Yes they do. I proved it with those quotes right there.

You didn't prove anything. You can't prove anything because all your claims are without basis. You just say a couple of lines "no obviously allah meant this" when you admitted that you don't have much knowledge about Islam. Clearly you can't understand Arabic, Google is your only source. You know nothing of Arabic grammar, or the language. So for you to tell me I don't understand my book is because you are in obvious denial.

No you don't? There are millions of muslims all over the world who cannot read Arabic, yet they believe in Islam and read the Quaran. You just denounced millions of your own followers and stated that they don't understand their own holy book. Not only that, but you just discredited all translated versions of the quran because what they actually say doesn't agree with what you want them to say.

You can't read the Quran if you don't know Arabic. I'm not dissing them, but its obvious the knowledge of an African American who can READ the Quran is obviously inferior to an Arab who can READ the Quran. Why? Because Arabs understand the FULL Arabic grammar. We know what each word means and how to break it down accordingly. I'm not discrediting any Muslim. Your just making false statements.

It clearly doesn't. So far all you've shown is that as soon as the Quran even attempts to go into detail about anything scientific (smoke, shape of the earth, or orbits) it instantly gets it horribly wrong, and all other times it attempts to be as vague as possible to cover nearly any kind of scenario.

Smoke? False.
Flat earth? False
Geocentric model? False
"Roof"? Incredibly vague.

Smoke has gaseous origins. There is no question that before the universe came to be, there was hot gas. Put 1 and 1 together and you will understand. But you also take the literal meaning. In Arabic "dukhan" can be also used to say gas.
Flat earth - don't get me started again. No where in the Quran does Allah say the world is flat. Absolutely not. You have not proven anything.
Geocentric model - That verse CLEARLY says the Earth orbits around the Sun.
Roof - I consider the sky as a roof to me, and so do other billions of people. The roof under your house provides you protection, no? Well so does the sky (atmosphere).

So now you are saying everything else is vague. Congratulations you are stepping closer to denial. You also say "it doesn't" "it doesn't mean that" "he didn't mean it that way".

If this were baseball you'd have been out a while ago. Luckily for you I'll let you have all the strikes you want.

Vice-versa.

Nope, post some evidence of this. Also, scientists have no idea if the universe will at some point shrink back again. It's a theory, one that hasn't been doing so well since we found out the universe is expanding faster.

Alright thank you. So Mohammad had this "theory" 1400 years ago? How? He must have guessed this. Oh and it's a "theory" right? Well it is a theory that humans evolved form apes. I can play this game really well.

Nope, post some evidence of this.

Also, how is this even impressive? A 5 year old can tell you that water gets darker as it goes down. Layers in waves is also easily observable.

Again you say "nope". Oh it's not impressive? Well considering Mohammad lived in the middle of the desert he some how knew that the Ocean is very dark on the bottom floor.

Don't even need evidence for this. Because it's wrong. The earth is not egg shaped. It's very far from. The earth is more of a squished ball, whereas an egg is absolutely nothing like that.

I can post proof to support myself tho: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth

Yep, but it's not a round ball. You took the literal meaning. A dawha in Arabic has two meanings.
1. An egg.
2. A round figure, but not in perfect round form.

The Earth is round, but not in a perfectly round form.
The earth with a bulge. This picture is pretty similar to the one in your wikipedia link.
An Ostrich egg.

Nope, post some evidence of this.
Also post some evidence of where scientists said that mountains "stabilize the earth and prevent it from constantly shaking while it is rotating around its own axle". Sounds interesting.

Mountains have pegs that extend deep beneath the Earth's crust. These pegs stabilize the earth.

Scientists say that the mountains contribute significantly in fixing the earth crust it has a shape like a peg, so they work on balancing the earth. Their roots are deep in the ground. Geologists discovered that for every curved object' height that is above the earth's surface (such as mountains and hills) it is expanded 10 to 15 times more inside earth.

Nope, post some evidence of this.

Also, the earth doesn't have "atmospheric layers". The atmosphere is a gradient, not a layer. How many "atmospheres" the earth has depends on how detailed you want to be defining this gradient, and some atmospheres are considered to be "part" or "extensions" of other atmospheres. Nowhere does science actually recognize the earth having "7" atmospheres, and depending on how closely you need to look the earth can have anywhere from 5-15 "atmospheres", if not more.

Same thing for the earths layers. Even similar layers depending on their depth can behave differently, and thus be considered (and usually are) different layers. There is no scientific declaration that there are 7 layers, simply depends on how you want to count them and how specific you want to be.

That fact that Mohammad even knew there were 7 layers of the atmosphere and that the land beneath him has layers is astonishing. 1400 years ago.

Also, "region" is a very broad term. And there is no single part of the brain responsible for movements. Contraction of muscles is actually controlled by multiple parts of your brain working together.

Funny how easy it is to disprove parts of the quran without any evidence of anything you claimed to be in the quran of actually being there, never mind the fact that you're probably just interpreting it the way you want to. I can't wait to see how easy it will be once you actually post some verses to support all of this.

You need to stop contradicting yourself. I translate these verses from the full Arabic meaning. You on the other hand CLEARLY have been interpreting each verse with the way you want to. You are here trying to tell me what each verse really means. Remember how you brought up that adding two numbers together analogy? Well clearly thats what your doing now. The way you tell me what these verses mean is comparable to you telling a math teacher that 1+1 is not 2.

I hope so because so far you haven't scored a single point, and i would hate for you to come out of this entire ordeal without one. (and we're not even counting negative points you have for how many errors in the quran you've already pointed out).

C'mon man, points? Really? When scholars debate they go "YUP +1 FOR ME, HAHA TAKE THAT"? I am proving my side, and you are on the defensive side, trying to disapprove them desperately.

I have proven the fact that the Quran says the world is not flat, but round.
The Quran has already factually stated that the Earth orbits. That the Earth is not perfectly round. That the Earth is round. The Quran has also said about how mountains help to stabilize the Earth. It talks about the darkness on the Ocean floor. 1400 years ago.

Please break them down.

I will. I also am dedicating my time to debate with you. If you choose to begin insulting me by calling the Quran, "Qauran" then you are letting all your feelings and emotions out. I don't have time to deal with your emotions and feelings. I am willing to even record myself and explaining every single verse with precise translations. But right now, I have some papers to write, so I will reply tomorrow.

So when you .include SRL, every bit of code is useful and used in every script?

Wouldn't it be better to go through the SRL include and remove all the "vestigial code" for every script you write? Wouldn't that demonstrate how intelligent you were as the designer of the scripts? Or does the fact that you don't do this suggest that having flawless code isn't the purpose of writing a script in the first place?

This argument assumes that everything must have a physical purpose (that we understand right now with our limited knowledge), or God made a "mistake". But I don't recall anyone suggesting that "perfection" was the purpose of creation. It's pretty arrogant to tell God how things should be if you don't even understand the why behind it.

There are many examples where two or more completely unrelated organisms have nearly identical anatomy or behavior. This is hand-waved away as "convergent evolution", which is a nonsensical term when you realize that evolution can't work toward a goal.

Another problem for Abiogenesis is the idea of quasi-species. The key tenet of "natural selection" assumes that any new trait that gives an individual a selective advantage is likely to grow in prevalence within a population. This is also called "survival of the fittest". But the abiogenesis fairy tale suggests that during the very early stages of life, genetic replication must have been highly error-prone. In this case, even if a new mutation confers a selective advantage, it is unlikely to be propagated forward without itself being mutated. So, for any such population of organisms, it's not the individual characteristics that "natural selection" works on, it's the population as a whole.

This concept is most readily observed in RNA viruses, because they experience more rapid mutations than most other organisms. In that case, the population of individual viruses is diverse, and more fit that a uniform population. But in this scenario, a core set of characteristics must be maintained in the population, or the population undergoes "error catastrophe" and its fitness collapses.

This acts like a leash on a population that prevents individual and their progeny from evolving away into something new and exciting. It's a much more complicated view than some would have us believe.

Which sounds more correct?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHex9GDQ2S0

From: Hockeypanda32
Which sounds more correct?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHex9GDQ2S0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxEkwUMyDUc

Also, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL5yplRHE9g

From: kingarabian
No it doesn't. See your making statements without a formal base. Nowhere in the Quran does Allah say the Earth is flat. Go ahead and prove it to me.

Even if it did, who cares? The book is fiction, same with the bible. Everything written in the Quran and the Bible are made up of events and people that were made up themselves so PLEASE do not use anything from either of those books as "evidence"

From: kingarabian
No it doesn't. See your making statements without a formal base. Nowhere in the Quran does Allah say the Earth is flat. Go ahead and prove it to me.

I just did. I posted those verses above that proves that the quran says that the earth is flat. Try to keep up.

From: kingarabian

You didn't prove anything. You can't prove anything because all your claims are without basis. You just say a couple of lines "no obviously allah meant this" when you admitted that you don't have much knowledge about Islam. Clearly you can't understand Arabic, Google is your only source. You know nothing of Arabic grammar, or the language. So for you to tell me I don't understand my book is because you are in obvious denial.

Yes I did. All my claims have basis, unlike yours. And best of all, i find the basis for most of my claims from your own book. I'm arguing from your side assuming that quran has at least some credibility (it doesn't) and i still am able to prove you wrong.

Also, i never "admitted that i don't have much knowledge about Islam". I've show that what knowledge i have is correct, while what knowledge you claim to have so far has been completely wrong.

From: kingarabian

You can't read the Quran if you don't know Arabic. I'm not dissing them, but its obvious the knowledge of an African American who can READ the Quran is obviously inferior to an Arab who can READ the Quran. Why? Because Arabs understand the FULL Arabic grammar. We know what each word means and how to break it down accordingly. I'm not discrediting any Muslim. Your just making false statements.

Yes you can. Millions of people do. Millions of Muslims can't read Arabic and still read the quran, and you're calling them all "inferior" because they don't speak the language you want them to speak.

Translations of books aren't done verbatim, they're done so that the ideas and meanings are carried over accurately. You either have to discredit ALL Muslims who cannot speak arabic, or you have to admit that you're trying very hard to twist the words of your own book to support your ideas.

Take your pick.

Smoke has gaseous origins. There is no question that before the universe came to be, there was hot gas.

Wrong. Smoke doesn't have "gaseous" origins as smoke can be composed of solid particles. And whatever hot gas there is, can only be considered "smoke" after certain conditions are met that aren't possible either before, or during the very beginning of the universe.

Also, there was no "hot gas" of any sort before the universe. You clearly don't understand what "universe" is and means. I told you to at least make an attempt to figure out the meanings of words before you throw them around. You seem to want to skip the part where you have to learn the meanings of words before you use them.

Again we've been over all of this, keep up.

Put 1 and 1 together and you will understand. But you also take the literal meaning. In Arabic "dukhan" can be also used to say gas.

And now that you're proven wrong, you immediately go on to attempt to change the meaning of the the word. Gas and smoke are not synonyms, and mean completely different things. When you try to force one meaning of the word and figure out that it makes no sense, then you just keep trying other meanings ad nauseam until you find one that makes more sense than the others.

Not that it matters anyway. The universe didn't "emerge" from gas either. You don't seem to understand that gas is part of the universe, do you someone to draw a venn diagram for you?

Flat earth - don't get me started again. No where in the Quran does Allah say the world is flat. Absolutely not. You have not proven anything.

Yes it does, and it says it in multiple parts, clear as day. No language-twisting and blaming translations necessary like you have to constantly rely on.

Geocentric model - That verse CLEARLY says the Earth orbits around the Sun.

Nope. Clearly says the opposite. Please consider studying your own book more if someone like me understands it better than you.

Roof - I consider the sky as a roof to me, and so do other billions of people. The roof under your house provides you protection, no? Well so does the sky (atmosphere).

Sure. But the roof under my house doesn't pour water on the floor every once in a while. There are clear differences between physical roofs and the sky.

The "sky" is composed of many things. Had the quran mentioned specifically what it was talking about, there would be no need for any of this. But unfortunately it's as vague as it always is in these kinds of matters. Luckily though it's clearly obvious that it's talking about the sun, the rain, the moon, and the clouds. And mentions absolutely nothing about any atmosphere, sun rays, or meteors.

So now you are saying everything else is vague. Congratulations you are stepping closer to denial. You also say "it doesn't" "it doesn't mean that" "he didn't mean it that way".

Because it is incredibly vague. You just won't admit it because the quran having accurate scientific knowledge thousands of years ago is an integral part of your belief system.

Unfortunately for you, even if you went back in time and rewrote the quran to actually say the things you want it to say, and removed all the parts about the flat earth and the geocentric model, that still would mean absolutely nothing as it doesn't prove that the rest of the quran is true

If it write a book where i make thousands of random baseless claims, and one or two of them turn out to be true, that doesn't mean that the rest of my claims are true. If the quran somehow got it right and the earth actually was flat and actually was the unmovable center of the universe, allah still wouldn't exist.

Alright thank you. So Mohammad had this "theory" 1400 years ago? How? He must have guessed this.

He didn't. You still haven't shown me the part where he said this. And if he did actually somehow specifically describe how the universe would be unable to grow and eventually collapse in in itself due to its mass, then yeah I'd say he got a lucky guess. Or maybe aliens told him. Who knows.

Oh and it's a "theory" right? Well it is a theory that humans evolved form apes. I can play this game really well.

Yes. Those are both theories. Good job.

Again you say "nope". Oh it's not impressive? Well considering Mohammad lived in the middle of the desert he some how knew that the Ocean is very dark on the bottom floor.

No he didn't. You seem to know as little about Mohammad as you know about the quran. Mecca is about ~50 miles away from the red sea. Hardly the "middle of the desert", making it more than easy for him to have observed how water gets darker as it goes deeper.

I don't understand why you're even arguing this. Even if he was far away from any large body of water, you can literally just stick your face in a pond and make this observation.

Yep, but it's not a round ball. You took the literal meaning. A dawha in Arabic has two meanings.
1. An egg.
2. A round figure, but not in perfect round form.

Here you go again changing your interpretation of your own book. First you used the word "egg", something that can only mean one thing. Then it turns out that that's completely wrong and you change your interpretation to now being "a round figure, but not in perfect round form".

Anyway, like i said, most people believed the earth to be a flat round disk, never had to be perfectly round. So regardless of which interpretation of the word you want to pick, you're still wrong.

But you're just going to go and change the meaning of the word again. And you still refuse to post any part of the quran that actually says this.

Mountains have pegs that extend deep beneath the Earth's crust. These pegs stabilize the earth.

You still haven't posted the part of the quran that actually says this, nor have you cited any scientific source that says that "Science today did indeed confirm that mountains stabilize the earth and prevent it from constantly shaking while it is rotating around its own axle."

Still waiting on both of those.

That fact that Mohammad even knew there were 7 layers of the atmosphere and that the land beneath him has layers is astonishing. 1400 years ago.

That's the thing, there aren't. If he said this he was wrong.

And you still haven't posted the part of the quran that says this. Still waiting on this.

You need to stop contradicting yourself. I translate these verses from the full Arabic meaning. You on the other hand CLEARLY have been interpreting each verse with the way you want to. You are here trying to tell me what each verse really means. Remember how you brought up that adding two numbers together analogy? Well clearly thats what your doing now. The way you tell me what these verses mean is comparable to you telling a math teacher that 1+1 is not 2.

No I'm not. I'm simply correcting your misinterpretations of your own book. It's funny really how in one part you claim to have studied the book so well, yet you're still getting everything wrong. I'm going to make the assumption that you're not deliberately lying and making things up due to your bias. So I'm just here to correct your mistakes. Consider it a service.

C'mon man, points? Really? When scholars debate they go "YUP +1 FOR ME, HAHA TAKE THAT"? I am proving my side, and you are on the defensive side, trying to disapprove them desperately.

Yup. Really really. Since you seem to want to rely on rhetoric instead of practical evidence to support your position, for your sake we need a more primitive way to gauge your failure. So points it is.

I have proven the fact that the Quran says the world is not flat, but round.
The Quran has already factually stated that the Earth orbits. That the Earth is not perfectly round. That the Earth is round. The Quran has also said about how mountains help to stabilize the Earth. It talks about the darkness on the Ocean floor. 1400 years ago.

Where have you proved that? Bold the parts where you previously showed me each verse supporting the things you just claimed to prove. I already asked you to do this and you didn't. Again. Post them.

You've simply made a bunch of claims about things that are either self-evident or simply wrong. And refused to post any evidence for half of that. Then you claim that science said "so and so" without providing any evidence to support any of that either. You seem to be determined to not only rewrite the entire quran to match your ideas, but to rewrite all of science as well.

I will. I also am dedicating my time to debate with you. If you choose to begin insulting me by calling the Quran, "Qauran" then you are letting all your feelings and emotions out. I don't have time to deal with your emotions and feelings. I am willing to even record myself and explaining every single verse with precise translations. But right now, I have some papers to write, so I will reply tomorrow.

Go for it. You keep claiming that "you will" and so far you haven't. If you think I'm misspelling Quran as "Qauran" deliberately to insult Islam then again you are mistaken. I simply can't remember all this religious terminology. Sometimes i get it right, sometimes i don't.

Again, i asked you last time and gave you the opportunity to post the verses from the quran making all the claims you says it makes, as well as post scientific evidence supporting all the scientific claims you made. I gave you no time limit, i never said you had to do it today, and you still failed to do, and instead choose to rely on ad hominem and rhetoric about my "emotions".

I'm waiting.

From: cycrosism
Even if it did, who cares? The book is fiction, same with the bible. Everything written in the Quran and the Bible are made up of events and people that were made up themselves so PLEASE do not use anything from either of those books as "evidence"

No I can. See that's the miracle that proves a divine being. If Mohammad, 1400 years ago, knew all these facts that only recently science discovered, then the case for a divine higher being is just getting stronger and stronger.

As for the Bible, I agree. No longer is the Bible god's words. It's all man made. Over 150 Bibles have been made up to this date. But, the Bible that Jesus had was god's words. Unfortunately it's long gone now.

Mativy do you have skype? I'll prove everything to you, through sound, because obviously every word I write you say "NOPE", god meant this, "nope", Kingarabian you meant this.

We will record our conversation and post it on here.

But I do concede, my intellectuality is not as high as yours when writing posts so I'm willing to debate over microphone. I do understand the way you debate however. You do your best in flipping words around and taking them to your advantage. The fact that you keep saying "Nope", "he didn't mean this", "he clearly meant this", proves that you willingly are in denial and you don't want to understand a thing. If you said "I don't agree", then I would take you more seriously. But obviously your choosing to agitate me. So if you wish to continue, i'll be on skype or MSN and we will do a live chat. Then will post it on here.

Kingabrian: Do you believe in evolution?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/12/07/mommy-why-is-that-man-covered-with-penises/

From: kingarabian
No I can. See that's the miracle that proves a divine being. If Mohammad, 1400 years ago, knew all these facts that only recently science discovered, then the case for a divine higher being is just getting stronger and stronger.

Except he didn't. So far you haven't demonstrated a single thing that the quran said that has only recently been discovered by science.

From: kingarabian
Mativy do you have skype? I'll prove everything to you, through sound, because obviously every word I write you say "NOPE", god meant this, "nope", Kingarabian you meant this.

I have skype, but i will not use it to debate with you. There is absolutely no need.

A text-based medium of communication allows both parties to maximize the amount of thought put into each response, as well as quote and cite various sources more accurately (not that you do it anyway). On top of that both parties are able to write their responses during their own time, whenever they wish, and as long as they wish. Text-based debates are neater, and can be done in a orderly civilized manner which avoid the many pitfalls of verbal debates.

From: kingarabian

But I do concede, my intellectuality is not as high as yours when writing posts so I'm willing to debate over microphone. I do understand the way you debate however. You do your best in flipping words around and taking them to your advantage. The fact that you keep saying "Nope", "he didn't mean this", "he clearly meant this", proves that you willingly are in denial…

So far the only person who's done all the word flipping is you. You want everything to be defined and interpreted the way you want it to, so that it supports your views. To accomplish this you even go as far as claiming that nobody can possibly understand the Quran as well as you do if they don't speak arabic, even Muslims themselves.

Even after i give you the advantage by assuming that your interpretation of certain claims is correct, those claims still end up being completely not true (see the egg). But you hop over that obstacle easily by changing the definition of a word. "oh well that word can also mean this and that" until it means what you need it to mean.

But it doesn't end there, at some points you were just making up your own definitions for scientific terms, such as "smoke".

Must end there right? Nooope. So far I've been pretty quiet about the fact that you've practically been copy&pasting all your arguments from external sources, mostly pro-Islamic websites. From someone who claims to "study" the quran and have such a superior understanding of it, you've embarrassingly enough not been able to come up with a single original argument for your own religion in this thread. I've been able to find all your arguments already neatly laid out on other sites. And you still failed.

And then, even after this horrendous track record of inconsistencies, you come out to claim that it is ME who is "flipping words" and that I'm in denial or whatever. :wowzers:

From: kingarabian

and you don't want to understand a thing. If you said "I don't agree", then I would take you more seriously. But obviously your choosing to agitate me. So if you wish to continue, i'll be on skype or MSN and we will do a live chat. Then will post it on here.

There's nothing to understand. So far Islam does the same thing Christianity and Judaism do: Make an enormous load of baseless claims, and then try to back them up by pointing out a small handful that, even if true, would be nothing more than "lucky guesses" that are actually statistically probable considering the monstrous amounts of claims about our world religions tend to make.

But we haven't even gotten that far. So far you don't even have a handful. As of this moment you have none. Even with your made up definitions and scientific studies that I've asked you to cite sources for not once, but TWICE, which you have STILL failed to do.

So far you've been fighting tooth and nail for some bread crumbs, you're not even remotely close to having the whole loaf.

From: cycrosism
Even if it did, who cares? The book is fiction, same with the bible. Everything written in the Quran and the Bible are made up of events and people that were made up themselves so PLEASE do not use anything from either of those books as "evidence"

Please, explain to me the predictions/prophecies in the old testament that 100's even thousand years later came true. (need a hint? i'm talking about wars/sieges on cities or similar) If you don't know what any of these were then you obviously have absolutely NO GROUNDS to make ANY statements involving the Bible. If you can tell me what they are, also try to disprove them. Ever heard of the "dead sea scrolls"? It was hundreds of copies of different books from the Bible in scrolls, hidden away for centuries.

You don't have to be Christian to read the Bible. But you do have to read the Bible to make statements like, "the book is fiction", or "Everything written in the Quran and the Bible are made up of events and people that were made up themselves".

Unless you're saying the Bible was written recently which that would be foolish as there's tons of evidence proving otherwise(dead sea scrolls for instance).
You seem to have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
Granted, the Bible and the Quran are religious books. So if you have no knowledge about them admit you are not into religion and stop talking about them. Your nonsensical "the book is fiction same with the bible", makes you look immature. Even the most secular scientist would admit that the bible is one of the most scientifically sound historical books.

What does it take for a book to "gain" this?
Here are but a few factors:
How old the book is
How many copies of the book
How many times the book contradicts itself
How many OTHER historical books back it up

I'm not a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or a Rastafarian(even though i smoke weed ALL DAY LONG). But you'll never find me talking about shit when i have NO FUCKING CLUE what i'm talking about.

<3 you cycrosism

Just a little titbit from me. The age of books and things like that is estimated using the same technique that is used for dating the age of the planet to much older than the Bible implies through its creation story - the analysing of proportions of isotopes in conjunction with their half-lives - for books, specifically comparing against the expected content upon "formation" (the time when the tree is killed to make the book.)

As far as the bible being scientifically sound is concerned, I think very few secular scientists agree that the world was made in a day some five thousand or so years ago or that an intelligent designer made all life. It is also the case that the scientific method involves forming a hypothesis and performing experiments with the aim to then explain it using current theories or to form a new theory to do so; one cannot simply state something about the physical laws and hope it turns out to be true. It is also important to not mistake knowledge placed in a holy book for knowledge of the community at large at the time rather than supernatural knowledge given by a non-terrestrial being. There were major and advanced civilisations before Christianity and their Gods were dismissed as false when the people progressed.

Mixter, I'm sorry. I did not mean that scientist's would agree with what the Bible says. But rather that it is a historical book and that using what scientist's use to determine the validity of a book one would be able to say it's significantly more then "complete fiction".

I realize i did a terrible job at saying that. sorry, i'm sick and i'm at work :/

From: tarajunky
So when you .include SRL, every bit of code is useful and used in every script?

Wouldn't it be better to go through the SRL include and remove all the "vestigial code" for every script you write? Wouldn't that demonstrate how intelligent you were as the designer of the scripts? Or does the fact that you don't do this suggest that having flawless code isn't the purpose of writing a script in the first place?

Yes but scripters are not all-powerful all-knowing.
Scripters are human and thus we can expect slight mistakes and inefficiencies. Our computers have enough resources so that using SRL to cheat on Runescape works fine. Its not perfect but good enough, but that's okay because scripters never claimed to be perfect in every possible way. Religious people claim exactly that for their God.
The analogy is false.

From: tarajunky

This argument assumes that everything must have a physical purpose (that we understand right now with our limited knowledge), or God made a "mistake". But I don't recall anyone suggesting that "perfection" was the purpose of creation. It's pretty arrogant to tell God how things should be if you don't even understand the why behind it.

The assumption that everything must have a purpose is not flawed. Organs, even useless ones, cost food and energy to create.
In many examples we see evolution reducing the size and cost of vestigial organs until the benefits of reduced cost aren't large enough to make enough selection pressure. There's that great example of what appears to be a nerve in the human leg, but turns out is actually a muscle that evolution made small because we stand upright now.

I don't know what theists claim the purpose of creation is. But I do know they perfection for their God, which means we can expect perfect creations, not pointless organs that cost us precious resources. (Food is plentiful now of course, but that's because of science and the agricultural revolution, not anything that God supposedly did)


So far we've not seen any explanation for why a perfect designer might create imperfect bodies in such a way that seems to provide such good evidence for evolution.

From: tarajunky

There are many examples where two or more completely unrelated organisms have nearly identical anatomy or behavior. This is hand-waved away as "convergent evolution", which is a nonsensical term when you realize that evolution can't work toward a goal.

Not exactly, evolution can work towards a goal provided there's a gradual improvement between every step.

An example of convergent evolution is wings. We can see insects, birds and certain kinds of mammals (bats) can fly. However if you look at these wings you'll find they are fundamentally different enough in a way that supports evolution.
Bird wings have flesh covered in feathers. Bat wings are made by skin stretched between digits with no feathers. Insect wings are membranes grown from their thorax.
Bird have their equivalent of fingers at the end at the wing, we know them as talons. Bats have stretched long webbed fingers. Insects wings are not made from arms or legs.

All are called wings and are superficially the same, but in detail they are quite different and actually provide evidence for evolution because you never see the wrong wing design in another family. All the hundreds of thousands of bird species have the same basic design and all the roughly thousand bat species have the same basic design.

From: tarajunky

Another problem for Abiogenesis is the idea of quasi-species. The key tenet of "natural selection" assumes that any new trait that gives an individual a selective advantage is likely to grow in prevalence within a population. This is also called "survival of the fittest". But the abiogenesis fairy tale suggests that during the very early stages of life, genetic replication must have been highly error-prone. In this case, even if a new mutation confers a selective advantage, it is unlikely to be propagated forward without itself being mutated. So, for any such population of organisms, it's not the individual characteristics that "natural selection" works on, it's the population as a whole.

This concept is most readily observed in RNA viruses, because they experience more rapid mutations than most other organisms. In that case, the population of individual viruses is diverse, and more fit that a uniform population. But in this scenario, a core set of characteristics must be maintained in the population, or the population undergoes "error catastrophe" and its fitness collapses.

This acts like a leash on a population that prevents individual and their progeny from evolving away into something new and exciting. It's a much more complicated view than some would have us believe.

This thread is about evolution not abiogenesis. There are plenty of theistic evolutionists who believe God started life and let evolution go on from there. These theistic evolutionists would also react with horror at the thought of someone preaching creationist lies to children.

From: Yakman


Bird have their equivalent of fingers at the end at the wing, we know them as talons.

Talon's are not at the end of the wing…

I believe you should research slightly more, i thought this was common knowledge. If you didn't mean at the end of the wing, idk what you meant…

I think you guys are missing the point that the existence of God and the existence of evolution are not mutually exclusive.

The debate from the OP is not whether or not Creationism is real, it is about whether it should be taught in schools.

From: tdug
I think you guys are missing the point that the existence of God and the existence of evolution are not mutually exclusive.

The debate from the OP is not whether or not Creationism is real, it is about whether it should be taught in schools.

The problem is you can't set a "right or wrong" judgement on this without being biased on creationism's authenticity.

Though:
Suppose God is All Powerful, All Knowing, and Good.
How does God let innocent/pure infants burn to death in house fires. Supposing that every single act of his has to be good. Not supposing some Story Arc where his doing causes good(Ex. infant burns to death and Mommy gets off cocaine.) AND supposing heaven just isn't because there is no proof either way.
So if our God is All Knowing would we consider him to be bad for willingly let an infant suffer when he had the power to save the infant So He could not be Good.
OR is God not All Knowing and if so how can he judge our worth when we die.
Otherwise God is Not all Powerful, If this is the case how could he create the universe and all matter in it.


Another Argument:
Suppose everything that has a purpose has a Creator. Ex. Shovels have a purpose to Dig. Ex. Trees have a purpose, for wood, for shade, and possibly food. We have a purpose to thrive and submit to Gods will. So what is the purpose of God? To rule over man or to guide man? If so than God too has a purpose and must have been created, but if this is the case God is no longer the most powerful being, and we should worship this other being. If this is the case this being now has a purpose, and thus also must have a creator. And So on.

From: footballjds
Please, explain to me the predictions/prophecies in the old testament that 100's even thousand years later came true. (need a hint? i'm talking about wars/sieges on cities or similar) If you don't know what any of these were then you obviously have absolutely NO GROUNDS to make ANY statements involving the Bible.

This is when I stop reading what a religious person writes. "You cannot disprove that something is there, so therefore it is there." That logic is aweful and I dont feel smart while trying to argue with someone to show them that it is wrong.

This picture has been posted a few times I believe.

If you can tell me what they are, also try to disprove them. Ever heard of the "dead sea scrolls"? It was hundreds of copies of different books from the Bible in scrolls, hidden away for centuries.

Once again, "You cannot disprove that something is there, so therefore it is there."

You don't have to be Christian to read the Bible. But you do have to read the Bible to make statements like, "the book is fiction", or "Everything written in the Quran and the Bible are made up of events and people that were made up themselves".

The book itself is fiction and not non fiction. The definition of fiction is: "Fiction is the form of any narrative or informative work that deals, in part or in whole, with information or events that are not factual, but rather, imaginary—that is, invented by the author."

That is the only reason I am saying the Bible and Quran are "made up of events and people that were made up themselves""

You seem to have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
Granted, the Bible and the Quran are religious books. So if you have no knowledge about them admit you are not into religion and stop talking about them.

Actually I was forced to learn about Christianity and the bible for 10 years at school, so I do know about it, and have read parts of it. I was cease talking about them from now on.

<3 you cycrosism

I love you too <3

From: cycrosism
This is when I stop reading what a religious person writes. "You cannot disprove that something is there, so therefore it is there." That logic is aweful and I dont feel smart while trying to argue with someone to show them that it is wrong.

I'd like to say if you cannot disprove something and you cannot prove it, it MIGHT be there. Agnostic…
And for the record, although i may argue the devil's advocate i am in no way a religious person…

The book itself is fiction and not non fiction. The definition of fiction is: "Fiction is the form of any narrative or informative work that deals, in part or in whole, with information or events that are not factual, but rather, imaginary—that is, invented by the author."

There are hundreds of historical events that the bible speaks of that can be lined up with other histories we have from the same time period. I wouldn't say it's complete fiction. As far as the supernatural encounters the bible speaks of. You definitely need faith to believe in them… haha

That is the only reason I am saying the Bible and Quran are "made up of events and people that were made up themselves""

again, many things narrated in the bible are factual and can be backed up with other history.

Actually I was forced to learn about Christianity and the bible for 10 years at school, so I do know about it, and have read parts of it. I was cease talking about them from now on.

I'm sorry you were forced. I think that's the worst thing anyone can do. Force religion down your throat. I also was forced until i turned about 12 at which point i just refused to read the bible. I had read it at least 5-7 time front to back by then and memorized entire books of the bible. When i was 14 i regained some interest and read many books concerning atheism, Christianity, agnosticism, and "other".

One of my favorite books although it's not secular was "Evidence that demands a verdict". It's a 800 page book that is written with as little bias as a Christian author could possibly muster… haha. It presents a ton of evidence.
I try to remain open minded and read past peoples religious talk and look at the evidence.

I love you too <3

<3

There are hundreds of historical events that the bible speaks of that can be lined up with other histories we have from the same time period. I wouldn't say it's complete fiction.

Can you cite sources? I would be interested to know what actually lines up.

From: mixster
As far as the bible being scientifically sound is concerned, I think very few secular scientists agree that the world was made in a day some five thousand or so years ago or that an intelligent designer made all life.

Besides the intelligent designer part at the end, very few Christians believe in the Young Earth Theory, at least the ones I meet don't. It really depends on how you interpret the Bible. The Bible is the most reliable historic reference for the history of Israel, so if you take out parables and focus on historical events then a lot of it lines up. Although, I have been reading more about the King David debate as no evidence of his existence would be a huge blow to the historical relevance of the Bible.

From: gerauchert
Can you cite sources? I would be interested to know what actually lines up.

can you torrent an 800 page book? :D

Here are examples of arguments against the "How can a good God allow bad things X/Y to happen?".

1. The "Puppeteer" theory as I will call it. If you had to continuously prove yourself to your friends/lovers that you are as you say, would you consider them your friends/lovers? If your spouse is not perfect, do you make a big deal out of it? What if God simply wants his creations to love him out of choice, and out of faith? It is no longer faith if it is based on science.

2. I never stated evidence that God was necessarily "All" Powerful. I personally believe it is true, but it is not an argument that I have a basis to defend in the terms of science. However, I will say there must have been some sort of higher power to create the universe, or at least to create the aforementioned "smoke" that some people people the universe came from. Matter cannot spawn from nothing, and science has shown that. There had to be some quantifiable amount of matter when the universe was created that was unequal to the amount (zero) an instant before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU&HD=1

And interesting video, but I disagree with some of its points. There are still no theories as to how the ribosome could have evolved. No other variants exist in nature, it's all or none.

Instead, scientists are planning to forcibly break it up into smaller components and see if any of them have residual activity. This is the equivalent of scientists creating a synthetic genome, injecting it into an enucleated cell, then if it works assuming that God must have done the same thing to jump-start life. Even if scientists could find some sub-component of the ribosome that retains minimal function, that says absolutely nothing about whether such a thing ever existed or served as a stepping stone to the ribosome that exists today.

Also, the example of the stone arch / venus flytrap isn't very convincing to me. If the venus flytrap has a slow-closing mechanism along with sticky goo to keep prey in place, there is NO benefit or selective pressure to developing a faster closing mechanism. A faster closing mechanism plus goo would be no better than a slow one, so why would it be selected for? They demand that Behe and others prove their assertions with absolute certainty and clarity, but wilt under the same level of scrutiny.

The argument that ID doesn't have many published scientific papers is fallacious, just like similar arguments about global warming. Back when Gallileo was telling the church that the earth revolved around the sun, do you think they were publishing a lot of his papers? No, the "peers" of the time were so biased that he was tried as a heretic. Now you see the same thing happening with "heretical" people like Behe and Global Warming skeptics. It's a very poor argument based on biases and clannish scientific behavior, not on truth.

From: tarajunky
The argument that ID doesn't have many published scientific papers is fallacious, just like similar arguments about global warming. Back when Gallileo was telling the church that the earth revolved around the sun, do you think they were publishing a lot of his papers? No, the "peers" of the time were so biased that he was tried as a heretic. Now you see the same thing happening with "heretical" people like Behe and Global Warming skeptics. It's a very poor argument based on biases and clannish scientific behavior, not on truth.

I believe you could say this about pretty much everything that doesn't gain traction, that doesn't mean it's ultimately true. But I don't think Gallileo was scientifically disproven? I'm pretty sure he was just opressed / surpressed because it was in conflict with whatever the current powerful religion was. (they seem to change a lot)

From: tarajunky
And interesting video, but I disagree with some of its points. There are still no theories as to how the ribosome could have evolved. No other variants exist in nature, it's all or none.

Well I'm no scientist, but I disagree that there are "still no therories" as to how the ribosome could have evolved. I know this is just from a quick Google search, but I have found at least on peer-reviewed paper about the origin and evolution of the ribosome. (http://www.biology-direct.com/content/3/1/16) I don't have time to read it all right this minute, but just from my small knowledge of the ribosome, I could imagine how it could evolve, which I suppose is a theory (LSU and SSU could've been separate, possibly used in the evolution of RNA and DNA (again, a bit off the wall, but I'm trying to say that it's a problem that could be solved one way or another)). I also disagree about the last sentence. As stated in the video, it's not always addition in evolution, one step to the other. For one, the LSU and the SSU could've had two different functions and then been pushed together and worked better (again, the RNA/DNA 'theory' doesn't seem too farfetched to me, but I'm just a 17 year old kid). There are theories about things.

And, again, just because we don't know everything right now, and just because it seems like something so complicated it couldn't be doesn't mean it was made by something supernatural. There are natural reasons for everything in the natural world (or at least there should be, and we've yet to find anything that can only be explained by supernatural ways).

From: tarajunky
Instead, scientists are planning to forcibly break it up into smaller components and see if any of them have residual activity. This is the equivalent of scientists creating a synthetic genome, injecting it into an enucleated cell, then if it works assuming that God must have done the same thing to jump-start life. Even if scientists could find some sub-component of the ribosome that retains minimal function, that says absolutely nothing about whether such a thing ever existed or served as a stepping stone to the ribosome that exists today.

I'm not sure how you can even say that, to be honest. We can quite accurately show the evolution of the eye, and I hope you can agree on that. Are you saying that each of those minimally functioning 'eyes' aren't proof that they're stepping stones to the eyes we have now? If so, I'm not quite sure what to tell you.

From: tarajunky
Also, the example of the stone arch / venus flytrap isn't very convincing to me. If the venus flytrap has a slow-closing mechanism along with sticky goo to keep prey in place, there is NO benefit or selective pressure to developing a faster closing mechanism. A faster closing mechanism plus goo would be no better than a slow one, so why would it be selected for? They demand that Behe and others prove their assertions with absolute certainty and clarity, but wilt under the same level of scrutiny.

The venus flytrap example to me is a case of coevolution (I think that's the correct term.. again, just a 17 year old high school dropout). I'm going out on a limb here, but I assume the sticky 'goo' would be some sort of sugar or mucus of some sort (not quite sure what it could be, but anything that could be sticky in nature, it doesn't particularly matter), in which it may be hydrophobic (I know quite a lot of sticky substances that become not so sticky when they come in contact with water). Water is something that's all around us, as anyone can tell you, which could make a sticky substance allow insects to escape when it rains, if they excrete some sort of liquid (I suppose it wouldn't necessarily have to be 100% water), or a number of other things could happen to cause the goo to become an inefficient way of capturing prey. It is a bit peculiar on the surface that the goo would be abandoned entirely, as it is something that would (theoretically) always at least slow down the prey a bit, but you also have to assume that making that mucus comes from somewhere, in the same way spiders' silk isn't magically made from nothing. So if we can assume they would have to consume something to make that goo, it would be more energy efficient if they could move a few inches every so often to get the same amount of food, than if they had to produce that mucus as well.

From: tarajunky
The argument that ID doesn't have many published scientific papers is fallacious, just like similar arguments about global warming. Back when Gallileo was telling the church that the earth revolved around the sun, do you think they were publishing a lot of his papers? No, the "peers" of the time were so biased that he was tried as a heretic. Now you see the same thing happening with "heretical" people like Behe and Global Warming skeptics. It's a very poor argument based on biases and clannish scientific behavior, not on truth.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, sorry.

Now religion is just an excuse, it&#8217;s a reason to go to phoney wars, which somehow a 'set few' make profit from. We are made to believe that certain religions aren&#8217;t &#8216;right&#8217;, how can one particular religion not be right? We are made to believe this so a gap is drove between the religions, causing hate, causing distractions.

I believe religion was simply made as something to rely on, when all hope is lost. Think of all great wars, even now it happens, both sides more often than not believe God is on their side, or even more extreme, this is Gods will!

Religion occupies peoples minds, gives them hope, after all, who wouldn't want life after death?

I'd like to open by saying everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I don't claim to know everything lol

Personally, I am a Christian. Now that being said, "Christianity" has been the basis for much corruption (ex. Catholic Church) in the past and even today, and yes I do dislike a lot of people who claim to be christian due to their "I art holier than thou" attitude. Most of my close friends, however, are Christians and are totally chill and do not just throw "Jesus love you and if you don't accept him you will burn in hell" at everyone they pass. They love to debate and are open to new ideas. Also, a lot of wars have been fought supposedly due to different religions, but this was mostly due to corruption.

Personally, I am amazed at how there are no contradictions in the Bible (as far as I can find (feel free to prove me wrong)). I do not claim to be all-knowing though and would welcome being proved wrong (I love debating).

As far as other religions go, I have not found any other religions that do not have some serious loopholes or contradictions in their texts/extremely questionable formations.

As far as Evolution, I view it as a theory, but is definitely is much more plausible than any other opinions i have seen. My main question is why there have not been some "missing link" fossils that have been found, when there are tons of dinosaur fossils.


As far as 'religion' in school goes, I do not believe that it should be a required subject, but should be offered. I believe that creationism has a very plausible case and should be addressed as a possibility in school. School, in my opinion, should be a place of open debate, where students can develop their own conclusions based on the facts that we know.

From: bab22


Personally, I am amazed at how there are no contradictions in the Bible (as far as I can find (feel free to prove me wrong)). I do not claim to be all-knowing though and would welcome being proved wrong (I love debating).

As far as other religions go, I have not found any other religions that do not have some serious loopholes or contradictions in their texts/extremely questionable formations.

Personally I am a Catholic, but the bible contradicts itself, exactly like the Qu'ran does. They preach about peace constantly, but there are sections of both books that contain violent quotes, and do make war seen okay?

From: bab22
I'd like to open by saying everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I don't claim to know everything lol

Personally, I am a Christian. Now that being said, "Christianity" has been the basis for much corruption (ex. Catholic Church) in the past and even today, and yes I do dislike a lot of people who claim to be christian due to their "I art holier than thou" attitude. Most of my close friends, however, are Christians and are totally chill and do not just throw "Jesus love you and if you don't accept him you will burn in hell" at everyone they pass. They love to debate and are open to new ideas. Also, a lot of wars have been fought supposedly due to different religions, but this was mostly due to corruption.

Personally, I am amazed at how there are no contradictions in the Bible (as far as I can find (feel free to prove me wrong)). I do not claim to be all-knowing though and would welcome being proved wrong (I love debating).

As far as other religions go, I have not found any other religions that do not have some serious loopholes or contradictions in their texts/extremely questionable formations.

As far as Evolution, I view it as a theory, but is definitely is much more plausible than any other opinions i have seen. My main question is why there have not been some "missing link" fossils that have been found, when there are tons of dinosaur fossils.


As far as 'religion' in school goes, I do not believe that it should be a required subject, but should be offered. I believe that creationism has a very plausible case and should be addressed as a possibility in school. School, in my opinion, should be a place of open debate, where students can develop their own conclusions based on the facts that we know.

Glad to see that you are at least open minded enough to debate, so here's some food for thought:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

http://www.evolutionfaq.com/

I apologize for not taking the time to synthesize the ideas from these two links, but the big thing I would suggest that you read about is the "evolution is just a theory" section on the second link. "Theory" in the way you used it, is colloquial and is not the scientific definition.

The "missing links" are understandable due to the specific conditions required for fossilization to occur. It would be impossible for every species down the evolutionary line to be fossilized due to the differences in habitat and conditions of the earth over so many million years. The evidence, at least from what I have studied during my undergrad, is primarily genetic. Genomic sequencing and analysis have given MASSIVE evidence for evolution. Once my finals are over I can post some good sources ;)

Look into Joseph Campbell, specifically "The Power of Myth" and "Myths to Live By." He briefly explains (and I formulated an entire thesis on this) that myths such as the flood or the Garden of Eden reoccur and that they could be naturally implanted in the subconscious, almost a Jungian collective conscious, and that these stories are NOT true, but the fact that they reoccur in parts of the world where contact was impossible suggests that maybe these stories if interpreted and dissected right could lead us to act how naturally we should. If you actually want to look into those books I can find the page numbers for you where he touches on that.

Oops, sorry, read the "no other people's views" post right after I suggested Campbell. Personally, I think it is alright to teach religion as long as all or the bulk of them are taught. Depending on what you major in it can help. I'm a literature/philosophy major and even though I'm not religious by any means I find it useful to know as much as I can. The Bible is one of the most read books, it makes sense that it is also one of the most referenced. If you know it, reading things like Milton's Paradise Lost or Dante's Inferno, Pergatorio, and Paradisio is a lot easier.

Nietszche, please use the edit button rather then double posting.

From: footballjds
Nietszche, please use the edit button rather then double posting.

My apologies, I'm new to forums and still learning forum etiquette. Thank you!

http://villavu.com/forum/showthread.php?t=69186
Somewhat related to this topic ^

From: matviy
LOL. This is like saying "don't point out my examples that clearly demonstrate my INCREDIBLY poor understanding of evolution". We're going to get hung up on your examples because they prove that you have no idea what you're talking about. You of course would like to dismiss it as "exaggerations".

actually, it's kinda like saying exactly what i said.

What type of school do you go to? My school is was forbidden to talk about religion in the classroom and there was a religion class but no debates. All you did was learn about every religion. But for my views, I think religion should stay out of school.

I kinda don't really care lol, I'm an atheist but religions have never bothered me. Honestly if it bothers you I think you're over reacting just a bit.

If it were the other way around making a religious person study and answer questions about how god does not exist that would be a little messed up. But if you're atheist then does it really matter other then fact that it's an easy grade…

I'm super religious, but I'm inwardly religious, not outwardly religious. I believe people that are outwardly religious are super annoying, and are showing off.
Unless a religious debate, like this one, is going on, I usually keep my ideas to myself, and I'm not one to randomly interject religion into every single thing. I don't give a damn about your views, religious or not, like a person for who they are, not what religion they are.
Also- sorry if I'm interrupting a sub discussion. I read the OP, the first few posts, and now I've decided to post.

Now to address the OP. There are many kids who don't like math. There are many who don't like english. People have their strengths and weaknesses, hates and likes. I've always been one to enjoy most intellectual topics, and being part of the Sikh religion, I have always enjoyed studying Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and many other religions of this world. I have read bits and pieces of the Christian bible, and found it interesting, etc. Do I agree with all the elements in these religions, including mine? Not at all. I disagree and question many aspects of religion all the time. But there is one key thing, that I, and all the religions agree with: there is a God.

God, a supreme higher being that controls our universe. To me, there is no difference between God and science. One might say that there have been arguments between religion and science. For example, Copernicus and his heliocentric theory, which challenged the church's geocentric theory. But was that really an argument between God and science, or the people who controlled the religion and science? Did God write the bible, or did people? I mean no offence to people of the Christian faith by the way. Wherever you look, there will be corruption, guaranteed, and once again, I mean no offence, but guys really, the pope is more of a celebrity than a religious figure. I don't mean to just target the Christian faith, so I will come out and say that the Sikh faith also has a ton of corruption, on local levels as well as larger ones. This is because of the nature of humans, and nothing more.


As someone posted on the first page, what was there before the big bang? Why did the big bang happen? Why is there a universe at all? Just think of all and any questions that fuck with your mind. There has to be some reason. The reason is science, which for people is the supreme answer, aka God!

But I'm not here to preach. I'm here to answer the op lmao. Got a bit carried away :P

Yes, I think it should be taught because people shouldn't be stubborn, and instead broaden their minds and learn to accept more ideas. Intellectual thinking is what will help progress the world, not being an over-protective parent who always hides things away from his/her child.

To respond to the original topic at hand, I think our (those who live in the US) constitution is fairly clear on this topic and It's blowing my mind that anyone would disagree. "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

There really is no grounds to teach something that hasn't stood the test of hundreds of years of science while saying that you can't teach (in SCIENCE class, mind you) something that has mountains of evidence and is backed but the majority of the scientific community. What you believe shouldn't be an issue but belief is not enough, there is no justification to teach one specific religion's view on the earth's creation. Keep god out of school. Government funds shouldn't be used to pay for things that don't represent the entirety of the united states.

There is supposed to be a separation of church and state, public school is government run. Thus teaching creationism in school should be illegal.

It's not just about separation of church and state, it's just common sense. School isn't there to teach about things we don't know, it's there to teach about things that are knowns. Science represent knowledge. God represent ignorance (AKA God of the gap)

For example, we KNOWN that the earth is round, thanks to many theories that confirm this as well as observation. We don't known that (if) there is a God.

God = Supernatural.
Supernatural = an unknown
So god = Unknown, hence why I said it represent ignorance.

Teaching about God in schools is basicaly telling "Hey kids, we don't known if this is true, we have no proof what so ever, never been observed, and we have over a thousand conflicting religion, but yeah lets pretend someone made this kthxbye".

Who would want their kid to "learn" this in school?

I have no problem with people believing it. You can believe the moon is made of dog crap and I won't care. I just don't want you to go to the congress and try to make it so that every children "learns" that the moon is made of dog crap.

From: Joe308watson
There is supposed to be a separation of church and state, public school is government run. Thus teaching creationism in school should be illegal.

The idea of the separation of church and state is referring to keeping it out of politics and laws that would be enforced by the (FEDERAL) government. In the sense that you're using it, it should also be illegal to tax Religious buildings and foundations, and the list goes on about how religion is tied into government the way you're referring to it and thus should be illegal but instead is promoted.

But then again, is Creationism/Intelligent Design really a religious bound thought or idea? There are so many religious people in the USA (for example) that it's a common belief among casual people, why should schools not be allowed to teach a widely accepted idea?

"Well because church and state and science is true and infallible!" Darwin's theory of evolution that's currently being taught in schools is almost outdated according to a lot of current scientists and philosophers, along with the supporting evidence behind it. Not only that but teachers are not even allowed to teach anything that opposes Darwin's theory or that isn't from the text-book out of fear that it could be labeled as "pro-creationism" or deciding that the information was fabricated in order to confuse students rather than teach them.

But the problem I have is that schools don't teach the whole story, and that they teach Evolution as fact and that all other theories are scientifically disproven. They tell the kids what to think, not how to think for themselves or critical thinking skills, which is what is most important, IMO.

What other scientific theories do they have to teach along side evolution? I didn't knew that there was another one?

What is "the whole story"?

From: sir eska eau
Teaching about God in schools is basicaly telling "Hey kids, we don't known if this is true, we have no proof what so ever, never been observed, and we have over a thousand conflicting religion, but yeah lets pretend someone made this kthxbye".

Who would want their kid to "learn" this in school?

Quote of the day. Good post :)

From: sir eska eau
What other scientific theories do they have to teach along side evolution? I didn't knew that there was another one?

Well there's Neo-Darwinism, Classical Darwinism, and Punctuated Equilibrium. Also there's some theory that Darwin's tree of life is actually backwards in the sense that we started out as many species and are slowly going to end up as bacteria before dying out, this idea came from China. (also would like to point out China is Communist).

Along with Creationism is a widely accepted belief, so why should students not be allowed to learn about the world and what other people believe? That is true ignorance, not knowing both sides of the argument.

Teaching about Evolutionary theory in schools is basicaly telling "Hey kids, we don't known if this is true, we have no proof what so ever, never been observed, and we have over a few billion years that we have never observed, but yeah lets pretend it's actually measurable by science, kthnxbai".

Who would want their kid to "learn" this in school?

(just sayin')

Well, I'd say at least over 90% of all biologists around the whole world will agree on that Darwin's theory is a correct, hell maybe they'd agree on it being a fact.

Whereas Creationism I'd say about 1% of all biologists would agree on it, and only in the christian areas of the world.

Also, Religion is some sort of bullshit created by man because they know no better. God is God for those that believe in him; for the other part, he's just a word and an entity.

All those theory are basicaly division of evolution. None of them deny that we evolved.

I don't say you can't talk about religion in school. You can talk about the diversity of religion in moral class, philosphy or whatever they call it in your country. It just shouldn't propose it as a alternative to evolution in science class, because evolution is science, and religion is, well, religion.

Religion isn't meant to be taught in science class just like evolution isn't meant to be taught in church.

From: Zyt3x
Well, I'd say at least over 90% of all biologists around the whole world will agree on that Darwin's theory is a correct, hell maybe they'd agree on it being a fact.

Whereas Creationism I'd say about 1% of all biologists would agree on it, and only in the christian areas of the world.

YOU would say? But what do they say? Also, they can not say it's fact because they feel like it's the best theory, it has to actually been proved to be considered fact. I'd also like to point out that scientists are supposed to conduct researches from an unbiased view, like a judge or jury, and called to only see the facts which are presented.

While the number of scientists that don't believe in evolution may be the minority, that does not prove it as a false belief.

From: Zyt3x
Also, Religion is some sort of bullshit created by man because they know no better. God is God for those that believe in him; for the other part, he's just a word and an entity.

The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic. - Charles Darwin

Those God believers sure are idiots! Can't disagree with you there!

[sarcasm] Also, Evolutionary theory is some sort of bullshit created by an old man because he was rebellious and didn't want to listen to mommy and daddy. Evolution is for those that want to be hardcore rebellious kids and weak religious people aren't allowed. [/sarcasm] (please refrain from using ad-hominems, they don't help your case, thank you)

From: josh81193
YOU would say? But what do they say? Also, they can not say it's fact because they feel like it's the best theory, it has to actually been proved to be considered fact. I'd also like to point out that scientists are supposed to conduct researches from an unbiased view, like a judge or jury, and called to only see the facts which are presented.

While the number of scientists that don't believe in evolution may be the minority, that does not prove it as a false belief.

Those God believers sure are idiots! Can't disagree with you there!

In reality, everything is theories.

You might say it's a fact that if you drop a ball, it's going to fall towards the earth; I'd say it's the best theory that mankind has though of for that specific phenomenon. Same goes with evolution; I'd say it's the best theory for that specific phenomenon, whereas others might call it a fact.

Also, at what point did I say God believers are idiots?

From: Zyt3x
In reality, everything is theories.

You might say it's a fact that if you drop a ball, it's going to fall towards the earth; I'd say it's the best theory that mankind has though of for that specific phenomenon. Same goes with evolution; I'd say it's the best theory for that specific phenomenon, whereas others might call it a fact.

Also, at what point did I say God believers are idiots?

Are you saying that you can never be sure of anything? You can't know anything for a fact?

From: Yago
Are you saying that you can never be sure of anything? You can't know anything for a fact?

No, that was not what I was saying, but yeah, good point. I guess one can not.

Everything you sense is just electric stuff doing stuff in your brain. How do you know the stuff you think you see, hear, smell, feel, taste and sense in any other way is real or even there (Watch the movie The Matrix if you haven't. Great movie)

Now, this though is a bit weird and you shouldn't really think too much about it, but really, "facts" are just theories that has been tested so many times, and not failed, that people believe there is no way it can fail..

From: Zyt3x
No, that was not what I was saying, but yeah, good point. I guess one can not.

Everything you sense is just electric stuff doing stuff in your brain. How do you know the stuff you think you see, hear, smell, feel, taste and sense in any other way is real or even there (Watch the movie The Matrix if you haven't. Great movie)

Now, this though is a bit weird and you shouldn't really think too much about it, but really, "facts" are just theories that has been tested so many times, and not failed, that people believe there is no way it can fail..

How do you know that you can't know anything for sure? Is that a theory too?

Also, if all there is is just electricity pulsing through our brains, then how can you account for general ideas such as numbers? If all humanity died and there was no life at all, would numbers still exist?

From: Zyt3x
You might say it's a fact that if you drop a ball, it's going to fall towards the earth; I'd say it's the best theory that mankind has though of for that specific phenomenon. Same goes with evolution; I'd say it's the best theory for that specific phenomenon, whereas others might call it a fact.

Yes, but you can observe gravity actively happening. Evolution is on such a grand scale that it is impossible to observe until we build a time machine, or if these same ideas are still being debated a million years in the future, then we will know for sure.

But if you're going to go off on that tangent, you could say everything is limited by our words and our definitions, language. What really makes the color red, 'red'?

From: Yago
How do you know that you can't know anything for sure? Is that a theory too?

Of course it is, what else could it be?

From: Yago
Also, if all there is is just electricity pulsing through our brains, then how can you account for general ideas such as numbers? If all humanity died and there was no life at all, would numbers still exist?

What are you even talking about, lol

Numbers are just symbols humans have created to make it easier to show or write about a specific amount of whatever, without humans, there wouldn't be an idea of numbers.

This works kind of like the economy and our money works; If one believes it works then it does work. Without humans to believe money has a value, it wouldn't have a value. Show a million dollars to an alien and he will say "What a big pile of paper and metal".

From: josh81193
Yes, but you can observe gravity actively happening. Evolution is on such a grand scale that it is impossible to observe until we build a time machine, or if these same ideas are still being debated a million years in the future, then we will know for sure.

Wrong, scientists can actually see this happening every day.
In animals with a short life span, like banana flies, one can make an environment where the flies with better genomes for surviving in X degrees and Y moisture will have a better chance of surviving, and then when they change the environment, they watch as evolution happens and those flies with the better genomes for that environment are being reproduced more.

From: josh81193
But if you're going to go off on that tangent, you could say everything is limited by our words and our definitions, language. What really makes the color red, 'red'?

True. Perhaps the color "red" for me is the color "purple" for you, or maybe even a color outside of my span of colors?

From: Zyt3x
Of course it is, what else could it be?

What are you even talking about, lol

I'm saying that the belief that you can't prove things and that everything is a theory is not true. That belief is circular.

For example:
–Fact #1: There is no such things as facts. Everything is a theory!
–Is Fact #1 also a theory?

Numbers are just symbols humans have created to make it easier to show or write about a specific amount of whatever, without humans, there wouldn't be an idea of numbers.

This works kind of like the economy and our money works; If one believes it works then it does work. Without humans to believe money has a value, it wouldn't have a value. Show a million dollars to an alien and he will say "What a big pile of paper and metal"

Wait, I may have misunderstood you? Are you saying that everything you know is based on your sense or that you cannot trust your senses?

Wrong, scientists can actually see this happening every day.
In animals with a short life span, like banana flies, one can make an environment where the flies with better genomes for surviving in X degrees and Y moisture will have a better chance of surviving, and then when they change the environment, they watch as evolution happens and those flies with the better genomes for that environment are being reproduced more.

That's micro-evolution. Is josh referring to macro or micro?

From: Zyt3x
Wrong, scientists can actually see this happening every day.
In animals with a short life span, like banana flies, one can make an environment where the flies with better genomes for surviving in X degrees and Y moisture will have a better chance of surviving, and then when they change the environment, they watch as evolution happens and those flies with the better genomes for that environment are being reproduced more.

Maybe I should specify I'm talking about the evolution of species, not natural selection. Macro-evolution.

From: Yago
I'm saying that the belief that you can't prove things and that everything is a theory is not true. That belief is circular.

For example:
–Fact #1: There is no such things as facts. Everything is a theory!
–Is Fact #1 also a theory?

Wait, I may have misunderstood you? Are you saying that everything you know is based on your sense or that you cannot trust your senses?

Is it really that hard to understand that everything you think/sense/whatever is just your brain "doing it's thing"? :p
Sorry to be harsh, but you do know you're a human, right? How do humans work? They sense, think and does other stuff with their body.

From: Yago
That's micro-evolution. Is josh referring to macro or micro?

From: josh81193
Maybe I should specify I'm talking about the evolution of species, not natural selection. Macro-evolution.

Ah, right, well, that *is* a bit hard to test, so I guess it'll take some time, if it hasn't been tested yet..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLpjlZlc2_c <- Watch this (and some of his others videos if you want to). Fast forward to 4:00 if you want to.

From: Zyt3x
Is it really that hard to understand that everything you think/sense/whatever is just your brain "doing it's thing"? :p
Sorry to be harsh, but you do know you're a human, right? How do humans work? They sense, think and does other stuff with their body.

It is difficult but I need substantiation for those claims ;) I like to test all possibilities. And that line ideology brings tons of problems…

From: Yago
It is difficult but I need substantiation for those claims ;) I like to test all possibilities. And that line ideology brings tons of problems…

What kind of problems? :)
Unpleasantness? If so then I'd suggest a religion, they're full of reassuring and satisfying delusions

From: Zyt3x
What kind of problems? :)
Unpleasantness? If so then I'd suggest a religion, they're full of reassuring and satisfying delusions

lol funny.
Well, if all we are is "matter in motion" then how do you explain society's structures and concepts such as morals? If all humans do is interpret things through our senses and react based on chemicals in our brain, then we don't have free will. We are forcefully controlled by these chemicals and nature. How can you explain people's ethics and morals?

The only diference between micro and macro evolution is time.

Micro evolution: Small change
Macro evolution: A collection of small changes.

Accepting micro evolution but denying macro evolution is like saying that you it is possible to walk 10 meters but that walking 1km even if given enough time is impossible.

From: sir eska eau
The only diference between micro and macro evolution is time.

Accepting micro evolution but denying macro evolution is like saying that you it is possible to walk 10 meters but that walking 1km even if given enough time is impossible.

Incorrect. They are two totally different things. One is change withing a species. More people have blue eyes and less people have brown eyes. As opposed to change to another species. Humans turn into sharks.

Will the world ever know?

From: Yago
Incorrect. They are two totally different things. One is change withing a species. More people have blue eyes and less people have brown eyes. As opposed to change to another species. Humans turn into sharks.

Will the world ever know?

What is a species. What makes a horse a horse.
Are zebra horse? Are they the same species?

The problem with your rebutal is that "species" are dynamic. It's hard to say when something change enough to become a new species.

For example.. lets take color.
-White——————gray——————black-

Where EXACLY did the white turn into black? That's exacly the problem we got when talking about evolution "within a species".

From: sir eska eau
What is a species. What makes a horse a horse.
Are zebra horse? Are they the same species?

The problem with your rebutal is that "species" are dynamic. It's hard to say when something change enough to become a new species.

For example.. lets take color.
-White——————gray——————black-

Where EXACLY did the white turn into black? That's exacly the problem we got when talking about evolution "within a species".

The problem is that they turn into a new species.

White can't turn into black out of nowhere. There had to have been an organism withing that species that had those specific alleles in their DNA. They don't develop those alleles out of nowhere.

From: Yago
The problem is that they turn into a new species.

White can't turn into black out of nowhere. There had to have been an organism withing that species that had those specific alleles in their DNA. They don't develop those alleles out of nowhere.

Species can't turn into another species out of nowhere. It's a collection of gradual small changes and isolation, AKA macro evolution.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean when you say that to organism withing that species had those specific alleles in their DNA. Do you mean that because that this new species came out of that previous species, it is therfore not a new species and the same thing?

From: sir eska eau
Species can't turn into another species out of nowhere. It's a collection of gradual small changes and isolation, AKA macro evolution.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean when you say that to organism withing that species had those specific alleles in their DNA. Do you mean that because that this new species came out of that previous species, it is therfore not a new species and the same thing?

No i'm saying species change withing themselves. White can slowly turn to black through survival of the fittest. But there have to have been previous genetic traits of black in those white "sheep" (I guess)? The sheep is still a sheep no matter what. No you say, but what if there was thousands of more changes? Its not like a sheep is going to grow wings or a third set of feet out of nowhere.

From: Endzior
Come to Poland. You waste 3h per week each year on religion. Times 10 years of learning. For a little comparison - I had about 1h per week of history, that's logic right there ! Not important if you remember anything about the ancestors I guess.
And you don't learn about every religion there is, you just sit there and get ready to be made into a catholic, a true Pole as many right-wing parties tend to say. Guess I'm not a "real" nor "true" Pole then :<

No true Pole would have used the word "waste". Going back to Poland this year.
Plus, those classes/meeting were a great place to meet girls and chill with friends. Just to refresh my mind, how long are your school classes per day (varies 2-5 hours right)?

From: Yago
No i'm saying species change withing themselves. White can slowly turn to black through survival of the fittest. But there have to have been previous genetic traits of black in those white "sheep" (I guess)? The sheep is still a sheep no matter what. No you say, but what if there was thousands of more changes? Its not like a sheep is going to grow wings or a third set of feet out of nowhere.

Well, take zebra for example. They are part of the horse family, just like we are part of the hominids familly (which include gorillas and chimpanzees). Now I'm pretty sure you would agree that chimpanzees and human are different species even if they are in the same familly.

Donkeys, zebra are all part of the horse familly. Now here is a wierd thing, zebras are so close related to donkeys and horse that they can actually breed together. However the gap between those three species is too big, and therfore the offspring is sterile.

This means that the zebra is doomed to separate itself more and more from modern horse and donkeys.

Is this micro evolution or macro evolution? There is no doubt that Zebra aren't the same species as donkey and horses so this is macro evolution.

evolution and creation can both be believed in its only the fact that some people have no idea what the other sides are talking about

creationist often dont realise that alot of religious quotes are metaphors
and evolutionist often do not know who or what god is

No one knows who or what god is, if it even exist.

However some people think they do. They even think that they know the one true God personnaly, and the funniest thing is that they all contradict each others.

From: sir eska eau
No one knows who or what god is, if it even exist.

How do you know that no one knows?

I love to take Creationism Class for an easy A.
1. Everything was created 6000 years ago
2. God created everything, the "God of Gaps"
3. No explanation what so ever, all final answer is "Faith"

Class over final exam in 2 mins.

From: Yago
How do you know that no one knows?

You are not making any point by replying to a argument like this.
I could ask you the same, how do you know that someone knows?
The problem with your question is that there is no answer, and this is precisely why you ask it.

What I meant is that there is no clear consensus on the nature of God, including if it really exist. It's impossible to prove that God exist OR that it doesn't exist. The only way to prove the existance of God is if it reveal itself in a way that can be mesured scientificaly instead of playing hide n seek on a cosmic scale.

Anyway I'm done here I don't really like getting in big arguments.

From: shanghai88
I love to take Creationism Class for an easy A.
1. Everything was created 6000 years ago
2. God created everything, the "God of Gaps"
3. No explanation what so ever, all final answer is "Faith"

Class over final exam in 2 mins.

I'd say it takes more faith to believe in evolution than Intelligent Design. I choose to not take either side because of this.

From: sir eska eau
You are not making any point by replying to a argument like this.
I could ask you the same, how do you know that someone knows?
The problem with your question is that there is no answer, and this is precisely why you ask it.

What I meant is that there is no clear consensus on the nature of God, including if it really exist. It's impossible to prove that God exist OR that it doesn't exist. The only way to prove the existance of God is if it reveal itself in a way that can be mesured scientificaly instead of playing hide n seek on a cosmic scale.

Anyway I'm done here I don't really like getting in big arguments.

Wait, I'm confused, are you saying that the only way you can know if God exists is if you prove him scientifically (through experiments or something)? Or are you saying that the only way you can know anything at all is by proving it scientifically?

From: josh81193
I'd say it takes more faith to believe in evolution than Intelligent Design. I choose to not take either side because of this.

It depends on one's analytical Cognitive Logical abilities and critical thinking based on evidence. On the other hand, all you need is a leap of Faith and fill all the Gaps with God.. much easier.

From: shanghai88
It depends on one's analytical Cognitive Logical abilities and critical thinking based on evidence. On the other hand, all you need is a leap of Faith and fill all the Gaps with God.. much easier.

Let me ask you, what is evidence of anything? For example, something simple like gravity?

From: Yago
Let me ask you, what is evidence of anything? For example, something simple like gravity?

Just like I said, it's much easier to fill in that gap with one word "GOD"

:duh:

From: shanghai88
Just like I said, it's much easier to fill in that gap with one word "GOD"

:duh:

So you believe in God? Or my question is left unanswered?

From: Yago
So you believe in God? Or my question is left unanswered?

One's faith in God is irreverent to the answer you seek, your question will remain unanswered for a long long time. Besides, the answer will only create more questions.

From: shanghai88
One's faith in God is irreverent to the answer you seek, your question will remain unanswered for a long long time. Besides, the answer will only create more questions.

Its a simple question: What do you believe constitutes as evidence of anything? For example, something simple like gravity?

From: Yago
Its a simple question: What do you believe constitutes as evidence of anything? For example, something simple like gravity?

The proof of function in gravity could consider simple once is answered after a life time of research with passage of time. We simply know it exists yet it's still a gap in human knowledge of "how". Not so long ago people begged the question of why there is a night and a day, was it really Hemera and Nyx? The simple answer to that question only created more questions like to the ones you are asking. If people just settle for "god of gaps" to every unexplained (yet) than we will never have a better tomorrow, instead we burn witches.

From: shanghai88
The proof of function in gravity could consider simple once is answered after a life time of research with passage of time. We simply know it exists yet it's still a gap in human knowledge of "how". Not so long ago people begged the question of why there is a night and a day, was it really Hemera and Nyx? The simple answer to that question only created more questions like to the ones you are asking. If people just settle for "god of gaps" to every unexplained (yet) than we will never have a better tomorrow, instead we burn witches.

So you ask me we just shouldn't ask questions?

From: Yago
lol funny.
Well, if all we are is "matter in motion" then how do you explain society's structures and concepts such as morals? If all humans do is interpret things through our senses and react based on chemicals in our brain, then we don't have free will. We are forcefully controlled by these chemicals and nature. How can you explain people's ethics and morals?

How come you think of ethnics as something outside of your brain?

I don't think of ethnics and morals as elementary particles if that's what you think

From: Zyt3x
How come you think of ethnics as something outside of your brain?

I don't think of ethnics and morals as elementary particles if that's what you think

Then what do you think of them? How do people decide what is right and wrong?

From: Yago
So you ask me we just shouldn't ask questions?

You are asking a question which you already decided how it should be answered, so what's the point of answering a question that you know can't be answered (Yet), just to strengthening your own conviction?

Questions should always be asked if you are honestly seeking the true answer, but sometimes the truth could take generations to answer. For now fill in the Gaps with God if it comforts you, please respect the fact that "God of Gaps" is just not enough to answer the unknown for other people.

From: shanghai88
You are asking a question which you already decided how it should be answered, so what's the point of answering a question that you know can't be answered (Yet), just to strengthening your own conviction?

Questions should always be asked if you are honestly seeking the true answer, but sometimes the truth could take generations to answer. For now fill in the Gaps with God if it comforts you, please respect the fact that "God of Gaps" is just not enough to answer the unknown for other people.

I asked you for your personal opinion of: What do you believe constitutes as evidence of anything?

How does that strengthen my convictions?

But ok.

From: Yago
Then what do you think of them? How do people decide what is right and wrong?

Just like most predators today don't cannibalize their own species or eat their young, why? survival as a whole.

"right or wrong" is a human concept which we invented to keep order to ensure survival of our own species. A method to avoid destructive cause and effect chain reactions that would eventually lead to extinction. We acquired the concept of "right and wrong" through experiences of humanity as a species, and for some, enforced it with "God".

From: Yago
Then what do you think of them? How do people decide what is right and wrong?

By using their brain? The human brain uses i.e defense mechanisms like regression "to cope with reality and to maintain self-image." (coping with what is right/wrong). You should read some more about the psychoanalytic theory, it's a very interesting topic and covers this exact topic that we're talking about (human brain and ethnics and stuff like that).

I don't think you understand what the human brain is made of, if you think of ethnics and morals as a separate entity that we humans hold.. The human brain is basically just a bunch of nerves and stuff that send electric impulses to other nerves and stuff that sends other electric impulses to other nerves and stuff and so on and so on.. Sort of like a CPU, just bigger and organic.

From: Yago
Its a simple question: What do you believe constitutes as evidence of anything? For example, something simple like gravity?

I've already answered your question by implying opinions aren't evidence. Therefore my Opinion is Irrelevant.

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.

Many issues surround evidence, making it the subject of much discussion and disagreement. In addition to its subtlety, evidence plays an important role in many academic disciplines, including science and law, adding to the discourse surrounding it.

An important distinction in the field of evidence is that some circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, or evidence that suggests truth as opposed to evidence that directly proves truth. Many have seen this line to be less-than-clear and significant arguments have arisen over the difference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

From: Zyt3x
By using their brain? The human brain uses i.e defense mechanisms like regression "to cope with reality and to maintain self-image." (coping with what is right/wrong). You should read some more about the psychoanalytic theory, it's a very interesting topic and covers this exact topic that we're talking about (human brain and ethnics and stuff like that).

Thats basically saying that people learn what is right/wrong from their experiences(defense mechanisms). However, in the end, you find yourself with moral values that differ from person to person. Lets say that "someone copes with reality" by murder. Is this right? They believe its right…

From: Yago
Thats basically saying that people learn what is right/wrong from their experiences(defense mechanisms). However, in the end, you find yourself with moral values that differ from person to person. Lets say that "someone copes with reality" by murder. Is this right? They believe its right…

If they murder someone and think it's the right thing to do, then they're insane, my friend.

Also, you do learn from your experiences. How else are you going to learn? Do you think knowledge magically flies from the world of knowledge and into your brain or something?

From: Zyt3x
If they murder someone and think it's the right thing to do, then they're insane, my friend.

Also, you do learn from your experiences. How else are you going to learn? Do you think knowledge magically flies from the world of knowledge and into your brain or something?

They are insane according to what moral standards?

You can't "prove" gravity, its a law. It was observed and that is the name we gave.

From: Yago
They are insane according to what moral standards?

"Moral standard" is set by the general consensuses of the public, which is driven by human experiences acquired through passage of time. The standard is set to ensure survival of the human spices as a whole, our basic primal instincts of survival is at the root of our "moral standard".

In your above example of Murdering, if it's a common accepted behavior, you will create chaos among our species. After a series of negative chain reactions, humans will eventually become extinct.

Religion is often used as an "enforcer" based on consequential positive and negative reinforcement (i.e. Heaven & Hell), nothing more.

From: shanghai88
"Moral standard" is set by the general consensuses of the public, which is driven by human experiences acquired through passage of time. The standard is set to ensure survival of the human spices as a whole, our basic primal instincts of survival is at the root of our "moral standard".

In your above example of Murdering, if it's a common accepted behavior, you will create chaos among our species. After a series of negative chain reactions, humans will eventually become extinct.

Your telling me that during World War 2, the Holocaust was morally acceptable and that Hitler was a good man, because it was the general consensus of the Germans to kill those they deemed not part of the "master race."

From: Yago
Your telling me that during World War 2, the Holocaust was morally acceptable and that Hitler was a good man, because it was the general consensus of the Germans to kill those they deemed not part of the "master race."

No, it's the general consensus of Hitler and his fascist's regime. The Germans were Brain washed by propaganda. As I recall, the rest of the humanity despite their differences banded together and end that threat pretty quickly.

My point is, Nazi Germany wasn't the epitome of humanity, it's actually the reason why we humans need moral reinforcement in the first place.:duh:

From: shanghai88
No, it's the general consensus of Hitler and his fascist's regime. The Germans were Brain washed by propaganda. As I recall, the rest of the humanity despite their differences banded together and end that threat pretty quickly.

My point is, Nazi Germany wasn't the epitome of humanity, it's actually the reason why we humans need moral reinforcement in the first place.:duh:

If that is then I can easily claim that the whole world is brainwashed. Do you personally think that those against homosexuality are brainwashed and equally those for homosexuality are brainwashed?

From: Yago
If that is then I can easily claim that the whole world is brainwashed. Do you personally think that those against homosexuality are brainwashed and equally those for homosexuality are brainwashed?

If the world was like Hitler wanted it to be, then he would not have been looked at like a mad man, but he is, so ergo he was a mad man. Isn't that obvious?

People are judged by other people; Back in the days African Americans were slaves, and people were thinking it was right. Nowadays, we look at those times with disgust, because nowadays, the people think that is wrong.
People define morality, people define insanity, people define ethnics.

From: Zyt3x
If the world was like Hitler wanted it to be, then he would not have been looked at like a mad man, but he is, so ergo he was a mad man. Isn't that obvious?

People are judged by other people; Back in the days African Americans were slaves, and people were thinking it was right. Nowadays, we look at those times with disgust, because nowadays, the people think that is wrong.
People define morality, people define insanity, people define ethnics.

So who is to say who is ultimately right or wrong? The majority? Those with power? In that case, ethics is opinionated and subject to change. Everyone has their own opinion on how society should be run? Therefore, morals and ethics are ultimately based on the subjective views of society's members. Everyone just gives their opinion on what is right and wrong. Overall, morality in that case wouldn't be absolute, meaning that say now abusing children is wrong (or some other act deemed "wrong") but in 100 years it may be "right" because its accepted and a social norm. Would you agree with that?

From: Yago
So who is to say who is ultimately right or wrong? The majority? Those with power? In that case, ethics is opinionated and subject to change. Everyone has their own opinion on how society should be run? Therefore, morals and ethics are ultimately based on the subjective views of society's members. Everyone just gives their opinion on what is right and wrong. Overall, morality in that case wouldn't be absolute, meaning that say now abusing children is wrong (or some other act deemed "wrong") but in 100 years it may be "right" because its accepted and a social norm. Would you agree with that?

Yes

From: Zyt3x
Yes

Would I be considered wrong if I went against society's standard? I mean, you agreed yourself that this standard was based on people's opinion… Why would my opinion be wrong?

Edit: Also, how did you find out that morals were based on society's majority view?

From: Yago
Would I be considered wrong if I went against society's standard? I mean, you agreed yourself that this standard was based on people's opinion… Why would my opinion be wrong?

Well, there is a big difference between going against society's standard and being insane.
Hearing voices isn't considered insanity, but hearing voices telling you (supernatural things) that there is a big pink fluffy dragon waiting to be petted in your backyard, would be considered unnatural behavior.

The borders of "society's standards" are pretty wide. For example; just because one doesn't shower for months, doesn't mean one's insane, even though it's a bit weird not to shower for months in today's society.


I think there's even a job designed to judge people's sanity. Psychologist or something :rolleyes:

From: Yago
Edit: Also, how did you find out that morals were based on society's majority view?

Isn't that obvious? It's even in the word: Unnatural behavior. Un-natural..

From: Zyt3x
The borders of "society's standards" are pretty wide. For example; just because one doesn't shower for months, doesn't mean one's insane, even though it's a bit weird not to shower for months in today's society.

Would I be considered immoral if I went against societies standard of murder or rape?

From: Zyt3x

Isn't that obvious? It's even in the word: Unnatural behavior. Un-natural..

You going to have to define what you mean by unnatural… I wouldn't want to misinterpret anything. If you say anything that is against human nature than, what does human nature consist of? Do humans consist of a mind or of a brain or both? I would just like some clarification as to what you believe specifically…

From: Yago
I would just like some clarification as to what you believe specifically…

Prepare for a long read…


The universe, as we know it, is a gigantic ever-expanding space, filled with stuff. We, the humans and our society, our planet, our planetary system, hell even our galaxy fills near to 0% of that space.

This "space" that I am talking about, is a collective term I use for the elementary particles and the wast amount of nothingness that fills the universe.

You have probably heard of atoms and molecules and those small particles like that, right? We call them the "building blocks" of our world.
These small particles can be broken into smaller particles; protons and neutrons and electrons. These particles can be broken into even smaller particles like quarks. (I believe) These quarks can be broken into even smaller parts, strings, which in turn can be broken into even smaller parts (maybe). These strings aren't confirmed yet, but there seems to be a lot of projects and experiments that support the string theory.

One of these small particles (these quark-sized particles), is named photon. You may have heard of it before by another name. It is what we see; "light-particles".

We have figured out photons can "vibrate" (or something) in different kinds of frequencies. Different kind of frequencies means different kind of light (or more specifically; different kinds of electromagnetic waves). We have i.e X-Rays, visible light, Microwaves and so on.

What actually causes this "Vibration" or waves, is unknown. Some physicists had a theory that there were some extremely tiny particles, even smaller than quarks, that made the space "bumpy" of sorts that waves traveled through. I don't know what happened to this theory exactly, but AFAIK, the Fermi project rendered this theory false IIRC.

Now back to us humans. You may know of cells and so on, yes? These cells make up our blood, flesh, muscles, nerves and so on; basically they make us. These cells are made up of molecules (So basically, we are made up of molecules and atoms).

Inside our head there is a web of nerves and cells (and other stuff, like water, caffeine and so on) that makes up our brain. Electric impulses travel through these nerves (Ionization of atoms in nerve-branches which makes them either negative or positive IIRC) and that is what makes us think, feel, see, hear and sense.

Everything is just basically just a chain-reaction of elementary particles reacting with each-other and "something" that makes waves.

And this is just "our" universe, and what we can *see* of our universe. The real size of our universe will perhaps forever be unknown, and if this is the only universe that exists, is merely a philosophical question.

I don't think you have heard about them, but quite a lot of people believe in 10 dimensions. Here's a video if you are interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ca4miMMaCE

Religious fanatics couldn't afford to view the universe in a grand Marco perspective, because it would contradict most of their "teachings". Fanatics view the world in Micro terms. I.E. The bible 's vague explaining of the universe is simple, "Gold created everything in 6 days, Women came out of the rib of a man 6000 years ago PERIOD". In Dark Ages, Wasn't it heresy to claim Earth wasn't the center of the universe? Now days it's evolution. I wonder what other new propaganda the church is going to use in another 2 hundred years.

From: shanghai88
Religious fanatics couldn't afford to view the universe in a grand Marco perspective, because it would contradict most of their "teachings". Fanatics view the world in Micro terms. I.E. The bible 's vague explaining of the universe is simple, "Gold created everything in 6 days, Women came out of the rib of a man 6000 years ago PERIOD". In Dark Ages, Wasn't it heresy to claim Earth wasn't the center of the universe? Now days it's evolution. I wonder what other new propaganda the church is going to use in another 2 hundred years.

Alas, the dark shadows of religion..

From: Zyt3x
Prepare for a long read…

OK, here's what I don't understand (and I say all of this politely)… And correct me if I misunderstood anyone of your statements.

(Excuse any spelling/grammar mistakes)

1. You believe that we (humans/humanity in general) have "electric stuff doing stuff in your brain" and that everything we see, hear, smell, feel, taste and sense is our brain's response to our environment.

2. Secondly, you state that "facts" are just "theories that have been tested so many times, and not failed, that people believe there is no way it can fail.. "However, you also agree with the fact that "you can't know anything for a fact." My question to you, – Do you know for a fact that you can't know anything for a fact?… The contradiction.

3. Returning back to point one (is it even a fact?), you state that all we are is matter and "everything you think/sense/whatever is just your brain 'doing it's thing.'" What I get from this is that inside our brain there are "electric stuff" and chemical reactions going on that dictate, like you said, how we respond to our environment. Also, you stated that this brain of our controls how we think and sense. If its just my brain doing its thing, then how can I be sure that my brain isn't tricking me?

4. Furthermore, if your brain controls how you act or "think/sense" based on your environment and based on your brain's interpretation of this environment, then technically, we have no free will and are subject to nature (Nature being the environment from which our brain interprets and reacts by thinking/sensing/doing things). So, according to this view, even if I were right and true, you would still be subject to choose what your brains chooses(based on the environment)… Thus destroying any possibility for truth. Is there really truth, or are people blindly accepting what their brains tells them without question?

5. In the end, since there is no truth, you are left with moral values decided upon by society. Therefore, these values differ from one person to another and are based on how the person or should I say how the person's brain thinks people should act. You yourself said, its possible for people that in 100 years, "abusing children" or any other bad act may be considered good and right or a social norm. As you can see, these moral values are based on a person's opinion and are subject to change. Why should I listen to what others consider right or wrong? Is their view just another opinion? As a matter of fact, if this was the case then there would be no point in discussing or arguing anything. One person would believe they are undoubtedly right as well as the next… Again, back to the first point, how do I even know any of this for a fact?

Those are just a few points and contradictions that I don't understand about what you are saying….

From: Yago
1. You believe that we (humans/humanity in general) have "electric stuff doing stuff in your brain" and that everything we see, hear, smell, feel, taste and sense is our brain's response to our environment.

Yes (plus all the atoms, molecules and whatnot that's up there), but this is of course a much more advanced task than what you're suggesting.

Tomorrow when you wake up, drink a glass of milk instead of a glass of juice. You may not think about it, but what you just did will have a great impact on the world. Watch the movie "Mr. Nobody", it's a great movie where the subject is just that; small changes to life, changes the world in great ways. I'll give you an example taken from the movie; There's this boy, who has a father that eats a waffle. In that waffle there is a tiny bit of egg-shell. Being fascinated about this egg-shell, he doesn't notice the car is not safely parked, and the car starts to roll downhill, crashing into a mother and her child… A young baby died at that moment; why? Because of one of the fabric workers or machines that cracks these eggs did a tiny mistake and one off the shell pieces fell into the dough. Why did they make that mistake? If it was a human, then maybe the reason for that was i.e because their finger-nail length was exactly Xmm (if they were a bit longer, then there's a chance the egg wouldn't have broken and fallen into the dough), and why was his/her fingernail so long? Well, he/she drank a glass of milk instead of apple juice one day, which contained less proteines that made the fingernails grow slower.

Basically, tracing this backwards and backwards, one could find that it was not the father who killed that baby, but an apple-picker located in Europa who just found out he wanted to pick one last apple before leaving for home, which led to a tiny amount of more apple-juice for the company who sells it, which led to more juice to sell, which led to a worker buying juice instead of milk.

From: Yago
2. Secondly, you state that "facts" are just "theories that have been tested so many times, and not failed, that people believe there is no way it can fail.. "However, you also agree with the fact that "you can't know anything for a fact." My question to you, – Do you know for a fact that you can't know anything for a fact?… The contradiction.

There are theories like the circumference on a circle is pi * diameter that you can know is a fact. This type of facts are different from the other "facts" we were talking about earlier. Fact: 2 + 2 is 4, Theory: The gravity will pull a ball towards the earth. The 2 + 2 = 4 fact is a fact because that one is only about abstract stuff (numbers in our case), but the theory of the ball is not a fact because (according to quantum physics) the ball will eventually go up.

From: Yago
3. Returning back to point one (is it even a fact?), you state that all we are is matter and "everything you think/sense/whatever is just your brain 'doing it's thing.'" What I get from this is that inside our brain there are "electric stuff" and chemical reactions going on that dictate, like you said, how we respond to our environment. Also, you stated that this brain of our controls how we think and sense. If its just my brain doing its thing, then how can I be sure that my brain isn't tricking me?

What do you mean "be sure that my brain isn't tricking me?"? You are your brain

From: Yago
4. Furthermore, if your brain controls how you act or "think/sense" based on your environment and based on your brain's interpretation of this environment, then technically, we have no free will and are subject to nature (Nature being the environment from which our brain interprets and reacts by thinking/sensing/doing things). So, according to this view, even if I were right and true, you would still be subject to choose what your brains chooses(based on the environment)… Thus destroying any possibility for truth. Is there really truth, or are people blindly accepting what their brains tells them without question?

What you don't get about this one is that you are your brain, not something that has "to accept what your brain is telling you" or something like that.
The body is just a tool to help the brain, really.

And yes, correct. We are a subject to nature.

Imagine we have a supercomputer so powerful it's able to track *all* elementary particles in the universe (even those we cannot see) and *all* the waves in the universe and *all* whatever is out there in the universe. Using this machine, one could predict the future by just simulating the world and calculate what would happen next just a tiny bit faster than the universe does it. Such a machine would be impossible to create (in theory). There is no way to track all particles, waves and whatnot and it would be impossible to keep track of all the relationships each and every elementary particle has to each other (According to the general relativity theory, the gravitational pull of everything (even your fingernail) is actually pulling on everything else (like the Andromeda galaxy)).

From: Yago
5. In the end, since there is no truth, you are left with moral values decided upon by society. Therefore, these values differ from one person to another and are based on how the person or should I say how the person's brain thinks people should act. You yourself said, its possible for people that in 100 years, "abusing children" or any other bad act may be considered good and right or a social norm. As you can see, these moral values are based on a person's opinion and are subject to change. Why should I listen to what others consider right or wrong? Is their view just another opinion? As a matter of fact, if this was the case then there would be no point in discussing or arguing anything. One person would believe they are undoubtedly right as well as the next… Again, back to the first point, how do I even know any of this for a fact?

"Why should I listen to what others consider right or wrong?" Because acting in a way that pleases others makes you feel better about yourself. "Is their view just another opinion?" Well, what else? "As a matter of fact, if this was the case then there would be no point in discussing or arguing anything." So you haven't heard about a person changing opinions?

One could think "Why should I care about feeling better about myself?", well.. This is a question of meaning of life and (as you can read from my signature) "I don't think there is a meaning of life".
NOTE: There is a big difference about "Meaning of life" and "Meaning in life".



Do you believe the universe would exist without life / humans?

From: Zyt3x
Tomorrow when you wake up, drink a glass of milk instead of a glass of juice….

Where did it all begin?

From: Zyt3x
Fact: 2 + 2 is 4, Theory: The gravity will pull a ball towards the earth. The 2 + 2 = 4 fact is a fact because that one is only about abstract stuff (numbers in our case), but the theory of the ball is not a fact because (according to quantum physics) the ball will eventually go up.

What do you mean "be sure that my brain isn't tricking me?"? You are your brain

And yes, correct. We are a subject to nature.

This is what I meant: You stated that you are your brain >>> your brain (you) react based on chemical reactions, electricity, atoms, molecules, whatever you'd like to call this >>> those reactions are based on previous reactions (the apple example) and so on … Basically, humanity and nature is subject to nature itself and the laws of physics…

Two Questions:
1. How do you know this is how it all works?
2. You claimed that 2 + 2 = 4… If what you stated is true, then what if "a chemical reaction" or the whole natural process occurs in my brain and my brain(which is myself according to your own beliefs) is telling me that no, 2 + 2 = 5. What if I have some sort of chemical problem or malfunction in my brain. How can 2 + 2 = 4 be a fact to you but not true to me? As a matter of fact its the total opposite in that case. You'd be wrong and I'd be right.

Remember, you yourself stated that we are subject to nature. "A chemical reaction or something resulting from nature" just occurred in my brain and made me write all of this.

I technically have no free will because my every deed is governed by my environment and the force or nature in my brain and around me. Like I stated, "even if I were right and true, you would still be subject to choose what your brains chooses(what nature and the environment and everything else that affects your brain imposes on it)… There would be no such thing as truth, because even if something were true, my brain would believe it was false( because of the effect of its surroundings or nature)…

From: Zyt3x
"As a matter of fact, if this was the case then there would be no point in discussing or arguing anything." So you haven't heard about a person changing opinions?

Yes, but your change in opinions wouldn't be because something was really true or not, it would be due to the fact that somehow, one event in nature led to another and that forced your brain(you) to change its mind.

What is truth then?

From: Zyt3x
Do you believe the universe would exist without life / humans?

What do you mean? Do you mean would or could?

well, i was thinking about posting on the thread about op's question but apparently it has changed a bit and went on this page alone from hitlers facist view to morals and ethics and how everything came to be and how we think. That's quite interesting :P i wonder what all those other pages have to offer me :D
Please continue this debate i would love seeing more about it!

I go to a Christian school, so my point is extremely biased as I have had God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit shoved down my throat since Day 1. I think God did create the earth and man, and animal, and everything we see, do, and feel. We are here for a short time so that later on we can experience the euphoria of being with God. I believe that a big bang is not possible to create such a likeness of what we live in.
Does a grenade make a house with people in it? NO.
Does a big bang make a planet and organisms? NO.
Does a Creator carefully craft us in His image? YES.

Once again this is extremely biased but it is my belief and religion- which I am entitled to.

Even if the big bang occured, it may still be compatible with the Bible's account of creation. It's just more contrived.

From: Yago
Even if the big bang occured, it may still be compatible with the Bible's account of creation. It's just more contrived.

Throw an explosive devise at me. I will die.
Make an enormous explosion. Everything will die.
How are you creating a sustainable environment with explosion?
Hiroshima? Did anything organic come from that?

From: JOEbot
Does a Creator carefully craft us in His image? YES.

I can't wrap my head around creation, or maybe my head is in the way?
- C.S Lewis

Maybe?

Edit: You posted a meme… they are intended as jokes.

From: JOEbot
Throw an explosive devise at me. I will die.
Make an enormous explosion. Everything will die.
How are you creating a sustainable environment with explosion?
Hiroshima? Did anything organic come from that?

The Big Bang isn't an explosion to begin with, it was an expansion of matter from a singularity at an unknown point in pre-spacetime. Your analogy is irrelevant.

Study up on the Old Earth Creationists vs. New Earth Creationists. If you were an ancient writing about the creation of the universe and you had no clue about any of the laws or scientific rules that we know today, then what would you write if you some how had a sudden revelation on how the universe began. Not saying it happened that way, but if we are to believe what the bible says.

From: emperor_nero
The Big Bang isn't an explosion to begin with, it was an expansion of matter from a singularity at an unknown point in pre-spacetime. Your analogy is irrelevant.

Study up on the Old Earth Creationists vs. New Earth Creationists. If you were an ancient writing about the creation of the universe and you had no clue about any of the laws or scientific rules that we know today, then what would you write if you some how had a sudden revelation on how the universe began. Not saying it happened that way, but if we are to believe what the bible says.

So tell me where the singularity came from? I'm intrigued

I already told you, an unknown point in pre-spacetime. We cannot see before the big bang because at the exact occurance of big bang spacetime as we know it was created and as a result the laws of physics. Before that we currently don't know because the laws of physics breaks down and there was no relative time or space before that point.


Edit: Clarification of a point, referenced time as both an abstract concept and a physical part of the universe which leads to confusing results.

From: JOEbot
Throw an explosive devise at me. I will die.
Make an enormous explosion. Everything will die.
How are you creating a sustainable environment with explosion?
Hiroshima? Did anything organic come from that?

Your point. From a Biblical perspective, God could of used the Big Bang to create the universe and would fit perfectly into the Biblical account

From: JOEbot
Maybe?

Edit: You posted a meme… they are intended as jokes.

Perhaps the Bible was intended as a joke as well?

From: Yago
Your point. From a Biblical perspective, God could of used the Big Bang to create the universe and would fit perfectly into the Biblical account

Then why isn't it stated in the Bible… have you even read the Bible. It states in 6 days (7th rested) that God created all things and was pleased with them. Nowhere, under any circumstance does the Bible mention the big bang.. so in what way does it fit into Biblical account? you arguing biblical perspectives is redundant on this topic.

EDIT: @Echo
Because a 1800 page book is a joke? Miracles and prophecies that cannot be reproduced is a joke? That is quite a sick joke in which I find NO humor

From: JOEbot
Then why isn't it stated in the Bible… have you even read the Bible. It states in 6 days (7th rested) that God created all things and was pleased with them. Nowhere, under any circumstance does the Bible mention the big bang.. so in what way does it fit into Biblical account? you arguing biblical perspectives is redundant on this topic.

EDIT: @Echo
Because a 1800 page book is a joke? Miracles and prophecies that cannot be reproduced is a joke? That is quite a sick joke in which I find NO humor

I read the Bible alot.. There's a part that says (and I'm paraphrasing) a day is like a thousand years to God. Why can't those six days mean thousands(or millions) of years?

From: Yago
I read the Bible alot.. There's a part that says (and I'm paraphrasing) a day is like a thousand years to God. Why can't those six days mean thousands(or millions) of years?

"How many needless assumptions must be made, and how much contortion is required, to receive every new insight of science and manipulate it so as to 'fit' with the revealed words of ancient man-made deities?"

From: Yago
I read the Bible alot.. There's a part that says (and I'm paraphrasing) a day is like a thousand years to God. Why can't those six days mean thousands(or millions) of years?

I'm not a Bible maniac… not like the baptists, so I don't have that etched in my brain like barmistva. But it says in Genesis 1:1 "In the BEGINNING, God made the Heavens and the Earth." I know that much.
Beginning- The point in time or space at which something starts.
Google first result.

From: JOEbot
I'm not a Bible maniac… not like the baptists, so I don't have that etched in my brain like barmistva. But it says in Genesis 1:1 "In the BEGINNING, God made the Heavens and the Earth." I know that much.
Beginning- The point in time or space at which something starts.
Google first result.

Does it tell you exactly how God made the Earth? Every single detail? According to the Bible, isnt it possible that God could have created the heaven and the earth (universe) through a Big Bang?

From: Yago
Does it tell you exactly how God made the Earth? Every single detail? According to the Bible, isnt it possible that God could have created the heaven and the earth (universe) through a Big Bang?

It says somewhere else in the Bible, and I too am paraphrasing, "Through the work of His hands he created…" don't remember the rest.
You honestly believe a blast… or as you say, matter expansion created the Earth? So the same matter that makes up dirt is the building blocks of human beings? Most certainly women are not.. as God hand crafted women "He took a rib from Adam and created woman" So then how do you seperate the fact that God created us in His image… that would mean that women are more Godlike as men are just expanding matter and women are hand crafted? The intricate anatomy of a human being is much more complicated than expanding matter, and then why isn't that matter still expanding today? So how do we differ from animals… how do we get plants, animals, humans, metals, chemicals (to expand on chemicals- think about the whole chart of elements).
The big bang is absolutely impossible and if it were important in the role of creation, wouldn't it be in the Bible… I've even read the non-canonized books and there is no MENTION of big bang, explosions- at the very most there is fire! You have quite a lot of maybes and ifs and possibilities to base your theory of evolution on, and I respect that.
I find this argument quite edifying.

From: JOEbot
It says somewhere else in the Bible, and I too am paraphrasing, "Through the work of His hands he created…" don't remember the rest.

So you are interpretting it literally and saying that He (with His hands) sculpted us in His image?
With the work of His hands could mean anything. It could mean He existed physically and literally took His hands to make us or it could mean that he himself created us and no one else(His hands) or it could mean something else.

From: JOEbot
You honestly believe a blast… or as you say, matter expansion created the Earth? So the same matter that makes up dirt is the building blocks of human beings?

I never said I believed in it, first of all.

Secondly, the Bible explains that God is all powerful and that leads me to believe that God could have created two particles (I'm not at all familiar with the specifics of the particles) and intelligently designed their collision so that the universe could be formed over x amount of years. If you deny that then you are going against the Bible's statement of God's omnipotence.

From: JOEbot
Most certainly women are not..

Read above.

From: JOEbot

You have quite a lot of maybes and ifs and possibilities to base your theory of evolution on, and I respect that.
I find this argument quite edifying.

Thank-you and I respect that in you too. However, I never claimed to have believed in or against Evolution or the Big Bang (Two different things)…

But in the Bible it says he created the Earth in 6 days… with different things on different days. He wasn't just observing it happen as these particle(s?) expanded- it says on the 7th day he rested and saw it was good. Nothing is expanding today… I'm not familiar with particles either, but wouldn't the cell cycle be continuing on today? Like Telephase and Metaphase and such? I would be interested to hear some phrase that mentions or describes the big bang or expansion.

Wow you guys are still going at it.

I'll come back in a month see if someone made any progress in their arguments lol.

From: sir eska eau
Wow you guys are still going at it.

I'll come back in a month see if someone made any progress in their arguments lol.

Did this guy get enough info on his paper yet?

From: JOEbot
Did this guy get enough info on his paper yet?

He probably turned that in months ago

These discussions never end up in good places but I'll throw my two cents in here anyway as it's 2:30am and I cant sleep.

It is impossible to use logical, reasoned arguments supported by facts as a means to convince people of anything. If convincing is needed in the first place then the possibility of 'winning' any such argument is impossible. Any whim of imagination or heresay can be used by people who have no understanding of logic to refute anything, no matter how well argued, presented or grounded in fact the answer may be.

I'd have to first take these people back to grade school and explain the definition of a fact. From there on, everything stemming from an understanding of reality would have to be taught to these people to finally arrive at an explination of the stupidity embedded in all religious faith. I don't have that kind of time. Even if I did have that kind of time I stand to gain nothing in doing so; so why bother?

There are enough intelligent people around to insulate me from the latter, which affords me a brilliant luxury.

I don't want to turn this into ad hominen attack spam, so please don't take this personally Yago.
I find these comment pretty hilarious:

From: Yago

My view on this is that you cant teach something and leave out the other side to it.

In that case schools should teach Greek mythology as a fervent beleif rather than as history, that the Sun revolves around the Earth in a perfect circle, that heaven is above us, hell is below us and filled with all the evil people of history and guarded by Cerberus and that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real. How about teaching kids Old Testemate God instead of New Testimate, less asshole God? Or even teaching them about all of the chapters not included in modern day Bibles? Or the physical, historical inaccuracies in the Bible? Teach the Koran while you're at it too.

I'm pretty sure I just pissed off a lot of people on these boards but I'm sure they're used to it as we're on the internet after all.

And with that; it's bed time for me!

There's really no point really to argue about religion. It's a lost cause.

As long as there is more than one person in the world ready to believe something without evidence and for no valid reason, religion will exist. It doesn't matter how much you argue with them, they will stick to it no matter what.

From: sir eska eau
There's really no point really to argue about religion. It's a lost cause.

As long as there is more than one person in the world ready to believe something without evidence and for no valid reason, religion will exist. It doesn't matter how much you argue with them, they will stick to it no matter what.

Everyone has a breaking point. Everyone.

From: JOEbot
But in the Bible it says he created the Earth in 6 days… with different things on different days. He wasn't just observing it happen

According to the old-earth view, then where the Bible records that he created the things, then those days are just marking time. Or he created the heavens and the earth first(via Big Bang), then once that whole process was done, he created everthing else(non Big Bang). I'm not to familiar, but the possibility is open. My point is that it is possible and it fits in with Biblical accounts.

From: JOEbot

as these particle(s?) expanded- it says on the 7th day he rested and saw it was good. Nothing is expanding today… I'm not familiar with particles either, but wouldn't the cell cycle be continuing on today? Like Telephase and Metaphase and such? I would be interested to hear some phrase that mentions or describes the big bang or expansion.

A while ago I think I read somewhere that the laws of thermodynamics(maybe the second law or something) describes entropy or that the universe is currently expanding, but I don't know specifics… Again I'm not to sure and I'm also confused as to what you mean by the cell cycle. As for phrases that mention or describe the big bang, if it really did occur then the Bible will not explicitly outline the term the Big Bang. Again the Bible doesn't really give a detailed account into creation other that what was created first/second… and who created it. The Bible does say (paraphrasing) that there are things not known to man and that man shall not know….

From: rife
These discussions never end up in good places but I'll throw my two cents in here anyway as it's 2:30am and I cant sleep.

It is impossible to use logical, reasoned arguments supported by facts as a means to convince people of anything. If convincing is needed in the first place then the possibility of 'winning' any such argument is impossible. Any whim of imagination or heresay can be used by people who have no understanding of logic to refute anything, no matter how well argued, presented or grounded in fact the answer may be.

Well then, convince me to believe this.

From: rife

In that case schools should teach Greek mythology …

Do you read every book published in the world in a literature class or only major authors/publications? In the same way, the referred to school classes should be held.

In my school bunch of people are doing intelligent design for their bio project which could be like any theory. I personally believe in creationism but I really dont care what other people believe when it comes to this. Its not one of the important things about Christianity