Is God real post your thoughts!

[Defender2516]

If there was a all loving God.. why would he allow such hate, proverty, crime, disease, death, and despair?

 

 

 

So I would choose not to believe in God and say he does not exist because of that.

 

 

 

But wait.. if God doesn't exist.. then who's fault is it for all the hate, proverty, crime, disease, death and despair?

 

 

 

Ours, if you believe in no God.

 

 

 

Therefor, God can still exist and be all loving, while we would like to say "you don't love us because you don't protect us from ourselfs".

 

 

 

Its not God at all.. its always us.

[Rebdragon]

If there was a all loving God.. why would he allow such hate, proverty, crime, disease, death, and despair?

 

 

 

So I would choose not to believe in God and say he does not exist because of that.

 

 

 

But wait.. if God doesn't exist.. then who's fault is it for all the hate, proverty, crime, disease, death and despair?

 

 

 

Ours, if you believe in no God.

 

 

 

Therefor, God can still exist and be all loving, while we would like to say "you don't love us because you don't protect us from ourselfs".

 

 

 

Its not God at all.. its always us.

 

Well said.

 

 

 

Guys, don't act like it's impossible for god to exist just because everything isn't perfect in the world. Free will has it's prices, but it'd be pretty hard for us to be able to have souls without it.

[Zealot]

Since my post is aimed mostly at the below quote I would like to pose a question to everybody beforehand: why do you suppose that religion is such a hot-button topic for many people?

 

 

 

I think that the answer has to do with the centeral role that theology plays in most people's epistomology, though beyond that rather vague notion I really dunno.

 

 

 

I don't believe in god...

 

I believe in a certain force that created the whole universe but *sorry if this is offending* it is just [developmentally delayed] to believe that the earth is only 4000 years old, there is a guy in the sky who created us and earth in 7 days(one planet out of the billion billion ones out there), he had a 'magical' son who performed miracles (not to mention most of chrisitian symbols like the crusification, resurrection, miracles, 12 disciples, ... all were taken from other religions, it's because they are astrological and not metaphysical symbols), ... People should see the bible as a collection of stories that indeed sometimes have a good lesson to learn but it needs to be placed in it's context: the prosecution of chrisitans over 2000 thousand years ago... it can't be taken literarlly specially because of the huge amount of translation errors, because of the limited knowledge of foreign languages over 500 years ago, who limits the common reader to see the deeper (astrological) message.

 

 

 

If there in fact was a guy living happily ever after in the sky with all the billions of 'good' dead people then I'm sure he wouldn't allow this sick world we live in: every second children are dying because of lack of clean water, food or medicines. 90% of the world's wealth is in the hands of only 1% of the total world population.

 

There is enough food to feed everyone yet there still are thousands of people dying because of hunger every hour, it isn't a matter of lack of money or it's just the awefull greed of people!

 

 

 

The fact we are alive all depends on the charge of electrons, the speed of light and the gravitational constants. This is God!

 

 

 

I don't agree, though I do understand where you are coming from I believe. However I would urge you to consider that perhaps you do not know as much about the Bible (and more importantly the God who wrote it) as you may believe...

 

 

 

Creation is a difficult question regardless of your theological bias. On the one hand if you believe in an atheistic form of Evolution then you are forced to say that both life comes from non-life and life can not come from non-life. This is a clear violation of the principle of non-contradiction (which Aristotle argues is the single most important principle to our capacity to reason... denying it denies the ability to learn anything and effectively tells me that attempting to convey information to you is meaningless. See Metaphysics IV, chapter 3 for further reference)

 

 

 

On the other hand to say that the Earth is probably not 4.6 Ga old, (That's 4.6 billion years for those who aren't familiar with Geological time suffixes) is to say that the majority of evidence is either invalid or else improperly interpreted.

 

 

 

So far as I can tell the later is the lesser logical sin, however the truth is probably neither of the above since both seem to in some way or another deny the possibility of having real knowledge. Though I really want to expound I do not believe that it would be appropriate. (Besides I am already becoming too long-winded)

 

 

 

I will make a challange to you: go and read the Bible and some good commentary on it for yourself. You will probably be surprised how little you really know about it. Don't just trust what other people have told you about it because regardless of whether they agree or not everybody is biased one way or another toward such a famed work.

 

 

 

Yes, there are a lot of things that Christianity borrows from other religions and that other religions borrow from it. Ideas tend to flow that way from one person to another. It doesn't make them wrong... Truth is to say of what is that it is or to say of what is not that it is not (Aristotle in Metaphysics). To the extent that they are true every world religion will conform in some way to what is actually true. For example, if it is true that it is wrong to commit murder, every world-religion that condemns murder is true in that respect, and if it is wrong to steal then every world-religion that condemns stealing is true in that respect. If it is not possible for man to earn reconciliation with God then every world-religion that says so is in that respect true. (This idea, coupled with the notion that since we couldn't get to Him God came to us instead, is the true distinction between Christianity as the Bible portrays it and every other world-religion, so if these ideas are true, that is why Christianity will always be closer to the absolute truth about God and the human condition then other world religion could hope. If on the other hand this coupling of ideas are false then we Christians are more hopeless then all people.)

 

 

 

I would also suggest that you google the name "World Vision" along with "Red Cross" and "Salvation Army." It turns out that Christian organizations are working toward the goal of making a better world. This is not to minimize the efforts of others, only to demonstrate that this is something that is important to the Church--precisely because it is something that is important to the God we serve. I would also ask you the intraspective question: what do you do to remidy these problems that you so readilly site as counterevidence of a loving God?

[warri0r45]

Creation is a difficult question regardless of your theological bias. On the one hand if you believe in an atheistic form of Evolution then you are forced to say that both life comes from non-life and life can not come from non-life. This is a clear violation of the principle of non-contradiction (which Aristotle argues is the single most important principle to our capacity to reason... denying it denies the ability to learn anything and effectively tells me that attempting to convey information to you is meaningless. See Metaphysics IV, chapter 3 for further reference)

 

 

 

I think you're misconstruing things. In general life only comes from life. This is the law of biogenesis, yet biologists recognise that this law would break down if there was a favourable environment where life may be able to arise from non-life (namely in an earth with no life where all the right chemicals aren't being ingested and recycled by microorganisms). In general biogenesis seems to be the one and only way it rolls, hence why it's referred to as a law I suppose. I don't think anyone seriously believes in a contradiction. Added to this if you believe in evolution, you don't have to believe in abiogenesis; they are different concepts. Do you demand to know where the first human came from when reconstructing your family tree?

[Plectrum]

Creation is a difficult question regardless of your theological bias. On the one hand if you believe in an atheistic form of Evolution then you are forced to say that both life comes from non-life and life can not come from non-life. This is a clear violation of the principle of non-contradiction (which Aristotle argues is the single most important principle to our capacity to reason... denying it denies the ability to learn anything and effectively tells me that attempting to convey information to you is meaningless. See Metaphysics IV, chapter 3 for further reference)

 

 

 

I think you're misconstruing things. In general life only comes from life. This is the law of biogenesis, yet biologists recognise that this law would break down if there was a favourable environment where life may be able to arise from non-life (namely in an earth with no life where all the right chemicals aren't being ingested and recycled by microorganisms). In general biogenesis seems to be the one and only way it rolls, hence why it's referred to as a law I suppose. I don't think anyone seriously believes in a contradiction. Added to this if you believe in evolution, you don't have to believe in abiogenesis; they are different concepts. Do you demand to know where the first human came from when reconstructing your family tree?

Why not?

[Rebdragon]

Do you demand to know where the first human came from when reconstructing your family tree?

Why not?

 

Because, for all intensive purposes, it's completely unrelated and useless to the task at hand. It's a different topic all together- real family trees don't go back that far, ever.

 

 

 

If you don't get the parallel warri0r's making, just think about it for a second, it'll come to you :| .

[Plectrum]

Do you demand to know where the first human came from when reconstructing your family tree?

Why not?

 

Because, for all intenstive purposes, it's completely unrelated and useless to the task at hand. It's a different topic all together- real family trees don't go back that far, ever.

 

 

 

If you don't get the parallel warri0r's making, just think about it for a second, it'll come to you :| .

Why do you think that real family trees don't go back that far?

[warri0r45]

Do you demand to know where the first human came from when reconstructing your family tree?

Why not?

 

Because, for all intenstive purposes, it's completely unrelated and useless to the task at hand. It's a different topic all together- real family trees don't go back that far, ever.

 

 

 

If you don't get the parallel warri0r's making, just think about it for a second, it'll come to you :| .

 

 

 

Yeah, basically.

 

 

 

It's all about putting things in context, unless you're into chatting about your chosen tree and it's evolutionary lineage, the origin of plants and all other life, the origin of earth, the solar system, the galaxy and the universe when chatting about origami.

 

 

 

Either way the conclusions of evolution don't rely on the possibilities of abiogenesis just as the conclusions of family relatedness (DNA tests, etc) don't rely on knowing the origins of the first human. Hopefully this clears things up. Evolution traces life back to the universal last common ancestor, max.

 

 

 

Why do you think that real family trees don't go back that far?

 

It's because it's not relevant to the task at hand. What exactly is the gripe you have? What are you finding difficult here?

[Plectrum]

 

Why do you think that real family trees don't go back that far?

 

It's because it's not relevant to the task at hand. What exactly is the gripe you have? What are you finding difficult here?

Actually it is relevant. You are disregarding the possibility of a lineage tracing back to the first man in support of your argument, but you provide no evidence.

[Rebdragon]

 

Why do you think that real family trees don't go back that far?

 

It's because it's not relevant to the task at hand. What exactly is the gripe you have? What are you finding difficult here?

Actually it is relevant. You are disregarding the possibility of a lineage tracing back to the first man in support of your argument, but you provide no evidence.

 

:wall:

 

 

 

... :wall:

 

 

 

Stop arguing semantics, for just a moment if you will. Think- is the origin of the human race something you need to know for a family tree? Is there a single family tree and existence that goes back to the origin of our species?

 

 

 

If you can't figure it out, then keep it to yourself please. Find something actually important to argue about for God's sake: your trying to debate about a simple, cursory analogy, for reasons I have yet to understand. You're not even responding to warri0r's real point, you're just attacking an analogy.

[warri0r45]

 

Why do you think that real family trees don't go back that far?

 

It's because it's not relevant to the task at hand. What exactly is the gripe you have? What are you finding difficult here?

Actually it is relevant. You are disregarding the possibility of a lineage tracing back to the first man in support of your argument, but you provide no evidence.

 

 

 

I disregarded nor asserted any possibility. I said it was irrelevant to the purposes of the task.

 

 

 

Anything else not regarding my point you want to argue?

[Plectrum]

 

Why do you think that real family trees don't go back that far?

 

It's because it's not relevant to the task at hand. What exactly is the gripe you have? What are you finding difficult here?

Actually it is relevant. You are disregarding the possibility of a lineage tracing back to the first man in support of your argument, but you provide no evidence.

 

 

 

I disregarded nor asserted any possibility. I said it was irrelevant to the purposes of the task.

 

 

 

Anything else not regarding my point you want to argue?

Anything stated in your argument in support of your argument is up for discussion.

 

 

 

Actually I was just wondering how your thoughts on biogenesis relate to the topic at hand: "Is God real or not". Clearly it is an epistemological question, philosophical in nature. But if we ever find God in a biology I'm sure what you have to say would be relevant.

[warri0r45]

 

Why do you think that real family trees don't go back that far?

 

It's because it's not relevant to the task at hand. What exactly is the gripe you have? What are you finding difficult here?

Actually it is relevant. You are disregarding the possibility of a lineage tracing back to the first man in support of your argument, but you provide no evidence.

 

 

 

I disregarded nor asserted any possibility. I said it was irrelevant to the purposes of the task.

 

 

 

Anything else not regarding my point you want to argue?

Anything stated in your argument in support of your argument is up for discussion.

 

 

 

Actually I was just wondering how your thoughts on biogenesis relate to the topic at hand: "Is God real or not". Clearly it is an epistemological question, philosophical in nature. But if we ever find God in a biology I'm sure what you have to say would be relevant.

 

 

 

 

Either way the conclusions of evolution don't rely on the possibilities of abiogenesis just as the conclusions of family relatedness (DNA tests, etc) don't rely on knowing the origins of the first human.

 

 

 

:wall:

 

 

 

This dosen't change the fact that I disregarded nor asserted any possibility as you wrongly claimed. I said the possibility of abiogenesis is irrelevant to the purposes of the task of concluding evolution. If you want to argue a point I made at least make sure I made the point!

 

 

 

Anything else not regarding my point you want to argue?

 

 

 

I don't understand what you mean in your second paragraph about 'finding god in biology' making 'what I have to say relevant'. I don't think biogenesis has anything to do with god. I think it has to do with DNA and it's replication.

[Plectrum]

 

Why do you think that real family trees don't go back that far?

 

It's because it's not relevant to the task at hand. What exactly is the gripe you have? What are you finding difficult here?

Actually it is relevant. You are disregarding the possibility of a lineage tracing back to the first man in support of your argument, but you provide no evidence.

 

 

 

I disregarded nor asserted any possibility. I said it was irrelevant to the purposes of the task.

 

 

 

Anything else not regarding my point you want to argue?

Anything stated in your argument in support of your argument is up for discussion.

 

 

 

Actually I was just wondering how your thoughts on biogenesis relate to the topic at hand: "Is God real or not". Clearly it is an epistemological question, philosophical in nature. But if we ever find God in a biology I'm sure what you have to say would be relevant.

 

 

 

 

Either way the conclusions of evolution don't rely on the possibilities of abiogenesis just as the conclusions of family relatedness (DNA tests, etc) don't rely on knowing the origins of the first human.

 

 

 

:wall:

 

 

 

This dosen't change the fact that I disregarded nor asserted any possibility as you wrongly claimed. I said the possibility of abiogenesis is irrelevant to the purposes of the task of concluding evolution. If you want to argue a point I made at least make sure I made the point!

 

 

 

Anything else not regarding my point you want to argue?

 

 

 

I don't understand what you mean in your second paragraph about 'finding god in biology' making 'what I have to say relevant'. I don't think biogenesis has anything to do with god. I think it has to do with DNA and it's replication.

I wasn't trying to argue a point you did or didn't make. I was just wondering why you were ruling out possibilities. By saying my interest in what you said is irrelevant is proof enough that what you said was irrelevant.

 

 

 

Truthfully, I find everything you say increasingly interesting every time I hear about it. Biology is probably the most fascinating sciences. But the conclusions that biologist jump to are based on observation, which isn't alway scientific.

 

 

 

For example, in my Biology class the teacher was explaining how birds evolved from reptiles. On the basis that birds have scaled feet doesn't seem to be enough evidence to support that. I'm wondering if you can share any knowledge you have about this topic?

 

 

 

The thing about biology is that a lot of stuff has to be assumed. Assumption doesn't really cut it for me. There are too many missing links in biology.

[venomai]

The thing about biology is that a lot of stuff has to be assumed. Assumption doesn't really cut it for me. There are too many missing links in biology.

 

Hah, that's funny. I feel the same way when it comes to accepting the Big Bang, various religions (notably Christianity) and monotheism. :P

[Zealot]

Warri0r45,

 

 

 

I am no Biologist. However, it does seem to me that either life can rise from non-life or else life can not rise from non-life. It can not be both ways and there is no middle ground. However I don't really care to argue the point because I have insufficient information irregardless of the truth.

 

 

 

It is however an important question from this perspective: if it is possible to demonstrate that the bio-diversity that we see on earth could be generated in the absence of God then it is possible to be intellectually honest and not believe in God. Or more accurately that is one of the prerequisites for an intellectually honest atheism or nontheism.

 

 

 

Did you notice that even if it is possible to exclude God from creation that does not do anything to necessitate the exclusion of God from creation? The two statements, "There is a God" and "There is not a god" are in and of themselves equilly basic... Neither assumes more then the other, and there really isn't a middle ground position. If your intention is to demonstrate that it is not possible to be intellectually honest and believe in God then you are approaching the question from entirely the wrong angle. If you are merely attempting to defend your own beliefs then very well. I did not mean to attack them so much as explore them so please don't misconstrue my intentions.

[warri0r45]

Warri0r45,

 

 

 

I am no Biologist. However, it does seem to me that either life can rise from non-life or else life can not rise from non-life. It can not be both ways and there is no middle ground. However I don't really care to argue the point because I have insufficient information irregardless of the truth.

 

 

 

It is however an important question from this perspective: if it is possible to demonstrate that the bio-diversity that we see on earth could be generated in the absence of God then it is possible to be intellectually honest and not believe in God. Or more accurately that is one of the prerequisites for an intellectually honest atheism or nontheism.

 

 

 

Did you notice that even if it is possible to exclude God from creation that does not do anything to necessitate the exclusion of God from creation? The two statements, "There is a God" and "There is not a god" are in and of themselves equilly basic... Neither assumes more then the other, and there really isn't a middle ground position. If your intention is to demonstrate that it is not possible to be intellectually honest and believe in God then you are approaching the question from entirely the wrong angle. If you are merely attempting to defend your own beliefs then very well. I did not mean to attack them so much as explore them so please don't misconstrue my intentions.

 

 

 

Zealot,

 

 

 

I agree wholeheartedly with pretty much all you've said. :wink:

 

 

 

- Correct, either life can arise from non-life or not. The key point here I feel is the environment the attempt occurs in. Earth's current biosphere is rich in bacteria which would, I'd presume, stop any abiogenesis from occuring by ingesting any potential chemicals (say RNA and autocatalytic proteins, for example) before it gets going.

 

- I don't personally believe that it's necessary to have a godless answer to everything to lack belief in god. Personally, I'm not to keen on supernatural explanations nor am I keen on accepting natural explanations I don't understand or for which there is scant evidence.

 

- Correct, god may very well have guided evolution by imparting the natural laws to make it go. You never know, ey? :wink: Point being that belief in god is completely compromisable with a non-biblical creation, from my perspective.

 

- I don't believe being intellectually honest necessarily includes being a non-believer at all. Francis Collins - a leader of the human genome project, for example, is a Christian and a very smart guy. Another example would be a guy called Ken Miller. He's a Christian and anti Intelligent Design etc. He's written many school text books on biology and is a researcher on cell membranes. I'm sure there would be many millions more.

[warri0r45]

I wasn't trying to argue a point you did or didn't make. I was just wondering why you were ruling out possibilities. By saying my interest in what you said is irrelevant is proof enough that what you said was irrelevant.

 

 

 

Truthfully, I find everything you say increasingly interesting every time I hear about it. Biology is probably the most fascinating sciences. But the conclusions that biologist jump to are based on observation, which isn't alway scientific.

 

 

 

For example, in my Biology class the teacher was explaining how birds evolved from reptiles. On the basis that birds have scaled feet doesn't seem to be enough evidence to support that. I'm wondering if you can share any knowledge you have about this topic?

 

 

 

The thing about biology is that a lot of stuff has to be assumed. Assumption doesn't really cut it for me. There are too many missing links in biology.

 

 

 

You're still doing it, mate. I did not rule out any possibility as you claim, for christ sake. Bloody hell. Quote where I did or any other bumbling point you make about this will be ignored. Either way it's completely irrelevant to the point I was making nor have you countered the point I made, if that was even your intention. :?

 

 

 

Getting over that nonsense, I'll respond to the rest of your post.

 

 

 

I too share a passion for biology. Glad you get some joy out of it. :wink: You say observation isn't always scientific yet it is the basis of all science. It begins with observing some aspect of nature, say as Darwin did on the Galapagos Islands with the finches. Then comes the hypothesis, say how Darwin postulated the finches with different beak shapes and sizes share a common ancestry and each beak is an adaptation to a given food source through the mechanism of natural selection.

 

 

 

Eventually this line of thought lead Darwin to postulate that all life on earth shares a common ancestry, as some other thinkers have done in the past. This is the core hypothesis which some religious people will often take opposition to in favor of belief in their creation stories. At this stage, we're up to the proposed hypothesis that life on earth shares relationship by common descent. To be a true scientific endeavor, this hypothesis must be tested against the data. We must now make predictions as to what the data ought to say if common descent were true.

 

 

 

Three of these simple predictions may be, for example, that the geological record must show a gradual inclusion of 'newer' and more complex life forms as per phylogenetic estimates over geological time; that we, having 46 chromosomes, must have a fused homologous pair of chromosomes with either side of the fusion lining up with two independent chimp chromosomes (as a basis for comparison) as they and the other great apes have 48; and perhaps that whales, for example, may show atavistic traits akin to legs (google: atavism) and show leg buds in embryonic development in much the same way that other tetrapods that develop proper legs do.

 

 

 

All of these predictions were verified by the data.

 

 

 

As for your specific birds from reptiles lineage, I'm not familiar on the specific data supporting that link. I agree, the basis of scaled feet doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t seem enough evidence for me at all. I'll research it. I'm sure there's probably some biochemical indications of the bird's evolutionary history.

 

 

 

As for the assumption point, what assumptions do you feel make the biological explanation of life inadequate? The missing links are there, yet from the data we do have, evolution fits the bill perfectly. Consider it kind of like having a puzzle and there being pieces missing. The good thing about this scenario is that we can predict what the pieces ought to be given the proposed hypothesis of common descent!

 

 

 

A good example of such predictions of the fossil record coming to the fore would perhaps be the evolution of the cetaceans - whales and dolphins. According to evolution, they came from land mammals and as a result we should be able to find intermediates in the fossil record which adapt the organism to more and more aquatic environments. Also, there ought to be a complete remodeling of the inner ear structure of these fossils as to account for going from air hearing to underwater hearing. These predictions came true when a number of intermediates were found in recent times in a valley in Pakistan. When the first fossil was found, we knew where to look and the rest of the fossils fit the progression of morphology both in general terms and in middle ear structure perfectly.

 

 

 

Anyway IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ll source these claims if anyone requests. No sweat.

[Plectrum]

 

 

 

 

 

A good example of such predictions of the fossil record coming to the fore would perhaps be the evolution of the cetaceans - whales and dolphins. According to evolution, they came from land mammals and as a result we should be able to find intermediates in the fossil record which adapt the organism to more and more aquatic environments. Also, there ought to be a complete remodeling of the inner ear structure of these fossils as to account for going from air hearing to underwater hearing. These predictions came true when a number of intermediates were found in recent times in a valley in Pakistan. When the first fossil was found, we knew where to look and the rest of the fossils fit the progression of morphology both in general terms and in middle ear structure perfectly.

 

 

 

Anyway IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ll source these claims if anyone requests. No sweat.

How do they know its not the other way? My hypothesis is that land mammals came from the cetaceans and not the other way around.

 

 

 

They are only assuming that cetaceans evolved from land mammals. I'm assuming the opposite. Who's wrong?

 

 

 

Still irrelevant to the topic.

[warri0r45]

 

 

 

 

 

A good example of such predictions of the fossil record coming to the fore would perhaps be the evolution of the cetaceans - whales and dolphins. According to evolution, they came from land mammals and as a result we should be able to find intermediates in the fossil record which adapt the organism to more and more aquatic environments. Also, there ought to be a complete remodeling of the inner ear structure of these fossils as to account for going from air hearing to underwater hearing. These predictions came true when a number of intermediates were found in recent times in a valley in Pakistan. When the first fossil was found, we knew where to look and the rest of the fossils fit the progression of morphology both in general terms and in middle ear structure perfectly.

 

 

 

Anyway IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ll source these claims if anyone requests. No sweat.

How do they know its not the other way? My hypothesis is that land mammals came from the cetaceans and not the other way around.

 

 

 

They are only assuming that cetaceans evolved from land mammals. I'm assuming the opposite. Who's wrong?

 

 

 

Still irrelevant to the topic.

 

 

 

The fatal flaw with that hypothesis is probably that cetaceans come after the major land tetrapods in the fossil record (and thus chronologically). Your hypothesis must predict cetaceans come before all land tatrapods and thus would be falsified. There are probably other hiccups to that hypothesis. You'd just need to think about it more and predict exactly what the data should say, embryonically, biochemically and in terms of the fossil evidence.

 

 

 

Another drawback with your hypothesis would be that the cetaceans should show no embryonic leg buds nor any atavistic legs as legs should come after the cetaceans. So yeah, major flaws.

 

 

 

Biologists don't assume when there is evidence of a given evolutionary link and the alternative, your hypothesis, is basically falsified by that same evidence.

[Plectrum]

 

 

 

 

 

A good example of such predictions of the fossil record coming to the fore would perhaps be the evolution of the cetaceans - whales and dolphins. According to evolution, they came from land mammals and as a result we should be able to find intermediates in the fossil record which adapt the organism to more and more aquatic environments. Also, there ought to be a complete remodeling of the inner ear structure of these fossils as to account for going from air hearing to underwater hearing. These predictions came true when a number of intermediates were found in recent times in a valley in Pakistan. When the first fossil was found, we knew where to look and the rest of the fossils fit the progression of morphology both in general terms and in middle ear structure perfectly.

 

 

 

Anyway IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ll source these claims if anyone requests. No sweat.

How do they know its not the other way? My hypothesis is that land mammals came from the cetaceans and not the other way around.

 

 

 

They are only assuming that cetaceans evolved from land mammals. I'm assuming the opposite. Who's wrong?

 

 

 

Still irrelevant to the topic.

 

 

 

The fatal flaw with that hypothesis is probably that cetaceans come after the major land tetrapods in the fossil record (and thus chronologically). Your hypothesis must predict cetaceans come before all land tatrapods and thus would be falsified. There are probably other hiccups to that hypothesis. You'd just need to think about it more and predict exactly what the data should say, embryonically, biochemically and in terms of the fossil evidence.

 

 

 

Another drawback with your hypothesis would be that the cetaceans should show no embryonic leg buds nor any atavistic legs as legs should come after the cetaceans. So yeah, major flaws.

 

 

 

Biologists don't assume when there is evidence of a given evolutionary link and the alternative, your hypothesis, is basically falsified by that same evidence.

What if those embryonic leg buds having been slowly evolving over the past 10,000 years so eventually they can evolve into land mammals. You are only assuming that the embryonic leg buds are leftovers from land mammals.

 

 

 

This still has nothing to do with the topic. :wall:

[Lunar_Drifter]

To all those people who argue that God would not create a world with violence, hate, destruction, drugs, rape, murder, prostitution, terrorism, or whatever else that is viewed as bad; I would like to say that you are 100% right. No doubt about it, God would not create a world like that. We did.

 

 

 

God made the world. He put me on it, he put you on it; He put Osama Bin Laden, George Bush, Marilyn Manson, your family, Martin Luther King Jr. He put the founders of the KKK and the founders of the Red Cross. He put the preacher at the local church on this earth, as well as the homeless man sitting at the intersection.

 

 

 

Why would he put them on the earth only to suffer? The fact is that he didn't.

 

 

 

Every person is created with an equal opportunity; to be with God or against Him. There is no "middle ground" here. He did not create Hitler to persecute thousands of Jews; he didn't create Martin Luther King Jr. to lead blacks to civil freedom. These choices were made by the individual person.

 

 

 

We created the world of hate, racism, suffering, and every other ailment that we live with. We have the power to change things, but we don't. It's not God holding us down telling us "Don't feed that hungry person", it's us. We decide not too. Some might say they didn't choose, but after seeing that commercial on the TV, that article in the paper or online, you made a choice to act or not act on it.

 

 

 

God did not create the suffering in this world; we did.

 

 

 

 

 

~~

 

 

 

And also to whoever tries to put a statistic on evidence that God exists. There is no way to apply a hard science to a soft science. You're looking at Religion through those "hard science" goggles. You want to know a percentage. But how do you put a percent on a feeling? On a divine act? You can't (using "you" in a general sense). God is something that you feel in you, that you see going on around you, that is undeniably real to you. There is no statistic to that. If you believe in God, then the "statistic" is 100% in favor of divine intervention, because God is in everything that you do. To those who don't believe, how are you going to judge if God was in that situation or not in that situation? There's no way.

 

 

 

 

 

God is real. He is real to me. He created you, He created me. You chose not to believe in it, I chose to. I wish you could see the light, but some people need help opening their eyes. Some people's eyes are shut tightly to not let any light in. Some are scared shut, some stubbornly.

[venomai]

To all those people who argue that God would not create a world with violence, hate, destruction, drugs, rape, murder, prostitution, terrorism, or whatever else that is viewed as bad; I would like to say that you are 100% right. No doubt about it, God would not create a world like that. We did.

 

 

 

God made the world. He put me on it, he put you on it; He put Osama Bin Laden, George Bush, Marilyn Manson, your family, Martin Luther King Jr. He put the founders of the KKK and the founders of the Red Cross. He put the preacher at the local church on this earth, as well as the homeless man sitting at the intersection.

 

I think the argument here is that God, being omniscient, knew the exact results of creating Hitler, founders of the KKK, etc. Essentially, the argument is that God turns a blind eye to the horrors and suffering that exists on Earth. He has the power to smite evil at any time and save lives and make people happier, yet he chooses not to.

 

 

 

For example -- say you create extremely intelligent robots for a living. Each robot is equipped with a "Shut Down" button that only you hold. Now, say a few of these robots "turned evil" and began to kill innocent lives and makes others suffer. Would you press the button to stop the robots-gone-bad? Or would you let them destroy innocent lives simply because the robots have made that choice? You, as the creator, are ultimately responsible for the robots.

 

 

 

Now imagine the same scenario, but this time you know (in advance) exactly which robots would "turn evil". Would you still create those particular robots, even though you are well aware of the consequences?

 

 

 

I wish you could see the light, but some people need help opening their eyes. Some people's eyes are shut tightly to not let any light in. Some are scared shut, some stubbornly.

 

That's a huge (false) generalization to say that the reason most atheists don't believe is because they are scared and/or stubborn. :-k

[Lunar_Drifter]

I think the argument here is that God, being omniscient, knew the exact results of creating Hitler, founders of the KKK, etc. Essentially, the argument is that God turns a blind eye to the horrors and suffering that exists on Earth. He has the power to smite evil at any time and save lives and make people happier, yet he chooses not to.

 

 

 

For example -- say you create extremely intelligent robots for a living. Each robot is equipped with a "Shut Down" button that only you hold. Now, say a few of these robots "turned evil" and began to kill innocent lives and makes others suffer. Would you press the button to stop the robots-gone-bad? Or would you let them destroy innocent lives simply because the robots have made that choice? You, as the creator, are ultimately responsible for the robots.

 

 

 

Now imagine the same scenario, but this time you know (in advance) exactly which robots would "turn evil". Would you still create those particular robots, even though you are well aware of the consequences?

 

 

 

 

Well here is my view (Note that I said my view. I don't want to speak for any other Christians).

 

 

 

I believe that God created us all for some reason. I don't know the reason; nobody does except God. This is all like a big "playground", and he's looking over us. I don't want you to get the idea that he's a kid with a magnifying glass pointed at an anthill called Earth, which I'm sure some of you thought of. He's just overseeing things. He has the power to intervene, of course. But he chooses not to. He does not interfere with our free will. He wants us to figure things out on our own. Of course, He'll give us nudges here and there in the right direction, but he won't reveal his metaphorical "shut down" button to us. No, he wants us to make our own.

 

 

 

It's not that he's an evil, maniacal kid on the anthill. God cringes at the things that go on in this world. God wants things to be perfect, and he has the power to make it so. But again, he wants us to do it on our own free will.

 

 

 

Hope that addressed what you were talking about.

 

 

 

That's a huge (false) generalization to say that the reason most atheists don't believe is because they are scared and/or stubborn. :-k

 

 

 

I wish you could see the light, but some people need help opening their eyes. Some people's eyes are shut tightly to not let any light in. Some are scared shut, some stubbornly.

 

 

 

You skipped that part; some people don't want to believe in God, some people just don't. Maybe I should have added "Some people wear their Atheist tinted sunglasses."

[Plectrum]

To all those people who argue that God would not create a world with violence, hate, destruction, drugs, rape, murder, prostitution, terrorism, or whatever else that is viewed as bad; I would like to say that you are 100% right. No doubt about it, God would not create a world like that. We did.

 

 

 

God made the world. He put me on it, he put you on it; He put Osama Bin Laden, George Bush, Marilyn Manson, your family, Martin Luther King Jr. He put the founders of the KKK and the founders of the Red Cross. He put the preacher at the local church on this earth, as well as the homeless man sitting at the intersection.

 

I think the argument here is that God, being omniscient, knew the exact results of creating Hitler, founders of the KKK, etc. Essentially, the argument is that God turns a blind eye to the horrors and suffering that exists on Earth. He has the power to smite evil at any time and save lives and make people happier, yet he chooses not to.

 

 

 

For example -- say you create extremely intelligent robots for a living. Each robot is equipped with a "Shut Down" button that only you hold. Now, say a few of these robots "turned evil" and began to kill innocent lives and makes others suffer. Would you press the button to stop the robots-gone-bad? Or would you let them destroy innocent lives simply because the robots have made that choice? You, as the creator, are ultimately responsible for the robots.

 

 

 

Now imagine the same scenario, but this time you know (in advance) exactly which robots would "turn evil". Would you still create those particular robots, even though you are well aware of the consequences?

 

 

 

I wish you could see the light, but some people need help opening their eyes. Some people's eyes are shut tightly to not let any light in. Some are scared shut, some stubbornly.

 

That's a huge (false) generalization to say that the reason most atheists don't believe is because they are scared and/or stubborn. :-k

The thing is we aren't omniscient. Let's say God does shutdown Hitler if he starts doing evil things. Is that a good or bad thing? It can be argued either way. And eventually Hitler did die. Did he not die soon enough? Should he have died before he even had a chance to do evil things? Where is the line? Are we even able to comprehend when someone's time is? Some argue for the death penalty, others against it. Who is right?