RE: God Is Real
October 20, 2011 at 3:09 pm
(This post was last modified: October 20, 2011 at 3:35 pm by Mister Agenda.)
I know it's been done, but on the off-chance my contribution may offer something new:
Welcome. I hope you enjoy it here. I'm looking forward to seeing something new regarding the probability of God being real.
I don't see how debunking evolution relates to showing God is real. Me being wrong about something doesn't make you right about something else. You are off to a bad start with evolution in any case, since biologists think it took about half-a-billion years for the first cell to appear after the earth settled down enough for life to be possible. You seem to be mixing up the initial rapid expansion of the universe with abiogenesis.
If you were a scientist, you'd understand that science deals in evidence, not proof. Proofs are for mathematics and whiskey. The evidence is the fossil record, DNA, observed speciation, and so forth, the theory of evolution is what neatly explains the evidence and is useful for predicting new discoveries (like where to find Tiktaalik). Your 'explanation' doesn't explain ANY of the evidence. If everything was created by God, why is there a fossil record that shows how organisms changed over millions of years? If everything was created by God, why is all life based on DNA and why does genetic similarity follow what we would expect from the fossil record being interpreted correctly, for instance that humans are more genetically similar to chimps than baboons and hyenas are more genetically similar to civets than to dogs? If God created everything, why do organisms have the capacity to change over generations to become more adapted to their environment, like mosquitoes developing resistance to pesticides?
It's kind of funny, if you could get a banana out of an orange tree without human intervention, the theory of evolution might not recover from the shock. It's interesting that you bring up lack of examples that would be against evolution as evidence against evolution. And an argument from incredulity will never lead you to a logical conclusion, at best it can lead you to one that's right by accident.
Darwin's book was 'On the Origin of Species'. How organisms become different is what the theory of evolution elegantly explains, and it happens to explain why they are not all the same. It's over a 150 years out of date, and your pardon, but you would benefit from catching up to it. Short answer: an organism's descendants that are better adapted to a particular environment are more likely to survive, and different environments favor different adaptations.
Finally! This nearly correct. You are, of course, aware that there are unfortunate exceptions to this rule. More relevantly, there are numerous slight exceptions to a dog having no characteristics that are not shared by both of its parents. Over thousands of generations, such slight differences can accumulate to the point that the descendants of a dog thousands of years ago may no longer be the same species, although in that short a time they would still be dog-like.
Early one-celled organisms lived in water, and the air back then contained little oxygen. Our current high-oxygen atmosphere depends on photosynthesis to keep most of the oxygen from being lost due to combination with other elements like carbon. The environment the first cells evolved in was very different from the current environment, so your argument doesn't apply to them.
Again with the mass explosion and thinking science is on your side. However the first cells came about, it was a protracted process, unless you are correct about a God 'poofing' them into existence.
Evolution isn't necessary, it's just what happens when some organisms are more likely to survive to reproduce than others are based on how well adapted they are to the environment.
OK. The 'explosion' isn't what created life, at least not directly. The initial expansion resulted in a universe with stars and planets, and at least one of those planets had conditions that weren't so hostile to life that it couldn't exist there (although most modern life couldn't survive the environment in which life initially developed). Since not all planets are the same, there is no reason to expect them all to have life. Since we have no other examples of life outside of our own planet so far, it is impossible to estimate the odds of a planet similar to ours when life first started having life develop on it. It could happen almost every time or almost never, there's no way to know for sure. I have no idea where you're pulling multiple Big Bangs from or how it is relevant. Why would a skilled supernatural being create a whole universe and not put life on any other planets in range of our instruments? Having life on every planet regardless of suitability for its development would be very convincing evidence of intelligent design.
If there is a supernatural designer of life, we can deduce certain things about it from the characteristics of its work: It is wasteful (99% of all the species that have ever existed are extinct), it operates under constraints (all life conforms to the natural laws of the universe), it is uncreative or doesn't want us to know it exists (all life is based on the same molecules, basing human life on something besides DNA would have clearly shown we are not related biologically to other earthly life), and its skills are highly variable (or perhaps there are multiple designers, of varying levels of skill, competence, and intent; which would explain things like why we have a blind spot in our eyes and squids don't and why pandas are herbivores with the digestive system of an omnivore).
People can convince themselves of pretty much anything if they try hard enough. A Hindu could make exactly the same point, substituting their own gods and scriptures for yours.
Very, very wrong on the first count. I hope you will undertake some learning on the matter...on your own time, it isn't reasonable to expect strangers on an internet forum to provide you with a basic education in biology. You are correct on the second point, you have not given me the slightest reason to think there is a higher probability that any sort of deity is real, let alone the specific one you are proposing.
It's your claim, it really is your job to give us convincing reasons to believe it is true if you want us to accept it. If there is a God, it hasn't seen fit to make itself known to us, all we have to go on is what people who say there is one tell us. It could as easily be that you have shut yourself off from the simple fact of letting Vishnu enter your life. Maybe all you people who think there's a God should get sorted on which one it is before coming to us.
Very preachy, and it boils down to 'trust me, everything I'm saying is true, even though I can't support any of it with convincing evidence.'
No offense taken. I hope you learn something here. I know it's a lot of pressure to feel people have to agree with you or they'll go to hell, I was there myself once upon a time.
Variation between generations has a large element of chance. What natural selection does, is very non-randomly, eliminate the variations that give an organism a poorer chance of survival and conserve the variations that give a better chance. In a stable environment, natural selection is actually most often an effect that keeps a species from changing too much. The better adapted an organism is to it's environment, the less selection pressure to change, so environments that are stable over long periods of time tend to foster organisms that change very slowly. In the Galapagos, the environment may favor large beaks for finches one year and small ones the next, so on average the finches stay the same, although they vary with each generation depending on whether big, hard seeds or small, soft seeds are more available. Should a permanent shift in the environment occur on a particular island, say to favor big seed eaters, the population of finches on that island would change to mostly the big-beaked type. Over thousands of generations, this could lead to speciation if the finches on that island were isolated enough from other finches to allow for genetic drift.
(October 20, 2011 at 12:44 am)KdThaKing Wrote: For this discussion i dont intend to bash anyones beliefs and i dont intend to discredit anyone for what they believe or for what they do not believe simply because just as I have a right to belief so do others.The main point that im trying to establish is that God exists and that any other conclusion is to me very illogical in a logical sense.Please read carefully and follow along,Im not perfect so everything might not be right but again I am trying to break it down in human wisdom.
Welcome. I hope you enjoy it here. I'm looking forward to seeing something new regarding the probability of God being real.
(October 20, 2011 at 12:44 am)KdThaKing Wrote: The theory of evolution seems to be hinged on the assumption that life came from a single cell organism that was suddenly created by this mass bang effect which has evolved over time to our present awareness and situation that we are currently involved.
I don't see how debunking evolution relates to showing God is real. Me being wrong about something doesn't make you right about something else. You are off to a bad start with evolution in any case, since biologists think it took about half-a-billion years for the first cell to appear after the earth settled down enough for life to be possible. You seem to be mixing up the initial rapid expansion of the universe with abiogenesis.
(October 20, 2011 at 12:44 am)KdThaKing Wrote: If i was a scientist i would still have an objection to this theory because first there is no proof that a sequence of gasses and materials could create an intellectual evolving organism that has transformed from a single cell into having completely different variations of nature and living capabilities.
If you were a scientist, you'd understand that science deals in evidence, not proof. Proofs are for mathematics and whiskey. The evidence is the fossil record, DNA, observed speciation, and so forth, the theory of evolution is what neatly explains the evidence and is useful for predicting new discoveries (like where to find Tiktaalik). Your 'explanation' doesn't explain ANY of the evidence. If everything was created by God, why is there a fossil record that shows how organisms changed over millions of years? If everything was created by God, why is all life based on DNA and why does genetic similarity follow what we would expect from the fossil record being interpreted correctly, for instance that humans are more genetically similar to chimps than baboons and hyenas are more genetically similar to civets than to dogs? If God created everything, why do organisms have the capacity to change over generations to become more adapted to their environment, like mosquitoes developing resistance to pesticides?
(October 20, 2011 at 12:44 am)KdThaKing Wrote: Science also proves that you cant get a bananna out of an orange tree so therefore logically i can conclude that you cant get the different variety of life that we see today from the one and the same single organism.Thats just science.
It's kind of funny, if you could get a banana out of an orange tree without human intervention, the theory of evolution might not recover from the shock. It's interesting that you bring up lack of examples that would be against evolution as evidence against evolution. And an argument from incredulity will never lead you to a logical conclusion, at best it can lead you to one that's right by accident.
(October 20, 2011 at 12:44 am)KdThaKing Wrote: If thats not enough then the simple fact of why we are not the same in nature can not be explained either.If we all came from the same "organism" then why dont we have the same capabilities or the same intellectual power or even the same viewpoints about life?What makes anyone different in regards to life if we all came from the same source?
Darwin's book was 'On the Origin of Species'. How organisms become different is what the theory of evolution elegantly explains, and it happens to explain why they are not all the same. It's over a 150 years out of date, and your pardon, but you would benefit from catching up to it. Short answer: an organism's descendants that are better adapted to a particular environment are more likely to survive, and different environments favor different adaptations.
(October 20, 2011 at 12:44 am)KdThaKing Wrote: From my understanding of science if a dog gives birth it can only produce another dog,which has the same external features like 4 legs,2 eyes,2 ears,1 tongue and so on.
Finally! This nearly correct. You are, of course, aware that there are unfortunate exceptions to this rule. More relevantly, there are numerous slight exceptions to a dog having no characteristics that are not shared by both of its parents. Over thousands of generations, such slight differences can accumulate to the point that the descendants of a dog thousands of years ago may no longer be the same species, although in that short a time they would still be dog-like.
(October 20, 2011 at 12:44 am)KdThaKing Wrote: To my knowledge of "cells" there is no external feature except a plasma wall and if a cell gets exposed to the outside realm of "air" for to long,the growth process and the endurance process of that "cell" or "organism" in this case actually has a negative effect that produces DEGENERATION instead of REGENERATION in which is necessary for evolution.To prove my point,if you cut yourself then the blood which is comprised of cells drys up rather quickly and after a time is unregenable.
Early one-celled organisms lived in water, and the air back then contained little oxygen. Our current high-oxygen atmosphere depends on photosynthesis to keep most of the oxygen from being lost due to combination with other elements like carbon. The environment the first cells evolved in was very different from the current environment, so your argument doesn't apply to them.
(October 20, 2011 at 12:44 am)KdThaKing Wrote: I think that right there proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that science actually disproves the assumption that we all came from "cells" which were created by this mass explosion of gasses and materials.
Again with the mass explosion and thinking science is on your side. However the first cells came about, it was a protracted process, unless you are correct about a God 'poofing' them into existence.
(October 20, 2011 at 12:44 am)KdThaKing Wrote: Note if we were already made into an acceptable living organism then what is the use of evolving and why would it be necessary to evolve?
Evolution isn't necessary, it's just what happens when some organisms are more likely to survive to reproduce than others are based on how well adapted they are to the environment.
(October 20, 2011 at 12:44 am)KdThaKing Wrote: Assuming a major explosion did create all life then you would have to agree that the major explosion also created the fine structure and the nature laws that we live by and also this big bang would have had to create all of the other planets,suns,moons,and universes.If in fact the same big bang capable of creating life on this planet,then why wouldnt there be life on all planets?So either there were multiple differing big bangs,which is HIGHLY Unlikely or there was no Big Bang at all and it is the craftmanship of a skilled supernatural being.
OK. The 'explosion' isn't what created life, at least not directly. The initial expansion resulted in a universe with stars and planets, and at least one of those planets had conditions that weren't so hostile to life that it couldn't exist there (although most modern life couldn't survive the environment in which life initially developed). Since not all planets are the same, there is no reason to expect them all to have life. Since we have no other examples of life outside of our own planet so far, it is impossible to estimate the odds of a planet similar to ours when life first started having life develop on it. It could happen almost every time or almost never, there's no way to know for sure. I have no idea where you're pulling multiple Big Bangs from or how it is relevant. Why would a skilled supernatural being create a whole universe and not put life on any other planets in range of our instruments? Having life on every planet regardless of suitability for its development would be very convincing evidence of intelligent design.
(October 20, 2011 at 12:44 am)KdThaKing Wrote: If in fact you get to the conclusion that there is a supernatural being then you would have to discover who that supernatural being is.BUT in order to discover who that supernatural being is that would mean you would have to first off,believe that there is one,then you would have to search diligently in order to discover that being which is higher than yourself,then you would have to pay attention to if that being is revealing itself to you all along but you have chosen to not see it because of your strong beliefs in your own assumptions about life.
If there is a supernatural designer of life, we can deduce certain things about it from the characteristics of its work: It is wasteful (99% of all the species that have ever existed are extinct), it operates under constraints (all life conforms to the natural laws of the universe), it is uncreative or doesn't want us to know it exists (all life is based on the same molecules, basing human life on something besides DNA would have clearly shown we are not related biologically to other earthly life), and its skills are highly variable (or perhaps there are multiple designers, of varying levels of skill, competence, and intent; which would explain things like why we have a blind spot in our eyes and squids don't and why pandas are herbivores with the digestive system of an omnivore).
(October 20, 2011 at 12:44 am)KdThaKing Wrote: The thing that made me become a christian is that God through His Choice revealed Himself to me through the Holy Bible and Jesus Christ,But the only reason i obtained the confirmation is because I chose to believe In a God and I made the choice to believe in Jesus Christ,Its that simple folks...after you make that whole hearted decision it will be between you and God to progress further in your knowledge,wisdom,and understanding of life.Even in ths Bible it says in proverbs chapter 1 that the fear of God is the BEGINNING of Wisdom.
People can convince themselves of pretty much anything if they try hard enough. A Hindu could make exactly the same point, substituting their own gods and scriptures for yours.
(October 20, 2011 at 12:44 am)KdThaKing Wrote: To you it may seem that the only thing i have proven is that the evolution theory is not scientifically logical or correct and that I havent proved that the God of the bible is the one and true God.
Very, very wrong on the first count. I hope you will undertake some learning on the matter...on your own time, it isn't reasonable to expect strangers on an internet forum to provide you with a basic education in biology. You are correct on the second point, you have not given me the slightest reason to think there is a higher probability that any sort of deity is real, let alone the specific one you are proposing.
(October 20, 2011 at 12:44 am)KdThaKing Wrote: Well folks, it is not my job to prove to you that God is who He says He is,it is up to you to believe God is who He says He is.He doesnt wish you to be ignorant of Him but He gives everyone free will and by your own choice of disbelief you have shut yourself off from even the simple fact of letting God enter into your life.
It's your claim, it really is your job to give us convincing reasons to believe it is true if you want us to accept it. If there is a God, it hasn't seen fit to make itself known to us, all we have to go on is what people who say there is one tell us. It could as easily be that you have shut yourself off from the simple fact of letting Vishnu enter your life. Maybe all you people who think there's a God should get sorted on which one it is before coming to us.
(October 20, 2011 at 12:44 am)KdThaKing Wrote: The point is that He has given you life and He wants to be a part of it,He gave you free will so you can choose if you want HIM to be a part of it or if you want to remain without Him.There is nothing injust about the GOD that i serve and know is true.
Very preachy, and it boils down to 'trust me, everything I'm saying is true, even though I can't support any of it with convincing evidence.'
(October 20, 2011 at 12:44 am)KdThaKing Wrote: Please dont be offended by anything that i have said.This is not an indirect assault on anyones prefferable opinion because who am I to try to force anything on you when my GOD doesnt force anything on ME.Feel Free To Respond we can talk about this.
Out of Love My neighbors,
KD
No offense taken. I hope you learn something here. I know it's a lot of pressure to feel people have to agree with you or they'll go to hell, I was there myself once upon a time.
(October 20, 2011 at 1:50 am)KdThaKing Wrote:(October 20, 2011 at 1:46 am)aleialoura Wrote:(October 20, 2011 at 1:37 am)aleialoura Wrote: Jesus waved his hand, and here we are. Duh! It says so right in the bible.
Quote:whats your theory?
The fact of EVOLUTION by natural selection.
So nature just by chance happened the way it is?
Variation between generations has a large element of chance. What natural selection does, is very non-randomly, eliminate the variations that give an organism a poorer chance of survival and conserve the variations that give a better chance. In a stable environment, natural selection is actually most often an effect that keeps a species from changing too much. The better adapted an organism is to it's environment, the less selection pressure to change, so environments that are stable over long periods of time tend to foster organisms that change very slowly. In the Galapagos, the environment may favor large beaks for finches one year and small ones the next, so on average the finches stay the same, although they vary with each generation depending on whether big, hard seeds or small, soft seeds are more available. Should a permanent shift in the environment occur on a particular island, say to favor big seed eaters, the population of finches on that island would change to mostly the big-beaked type. Over thousands of generations, this could lead to speciation if the finches on that island were isolated enough from other finches to allow for genetic drift.
![[Image: Untitled2_zpswaosccbr.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1140.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn569%2Fthesummerqueen%2FUntitled2_zpswaosccbr.png)
