[quote]forlife wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Yes, because a creator created the universe setting in motion.
Why is it so hard for you to admit that the universe might always have existed, without needing to be created?[/quote]
Because it’s false, does not follow logic.
Hey, we found something in common after all. Dallas rocks 
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Because it’s false, does not follow logic.[/quote]
Why is it illogical that the universe has always existed?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Because it’s false, does not follow logic.
Why is it illogical that the universe has always existed?[/quote]
Well if we did not exist and nothing of living matter lived, then I guess we can conclude logically that the universe existed always. If that was the case we would not be having this discussion, however. We already established that I do not see how logically we were created by dirt.
So you’re fine with the idea that the universe has always existed. Your hangup is the idea that in an infinite universe, humans could have come into being through a natural process?
[quote]forlife wrote:
So you’re fine with the idea that the universe has always existed. Your hangup is the idea that in an infinite universe, humans could have come into being through a natural process?[/quote]
Natural process, how? There are human parts that have to exist as a whole, they can not transition into it? Unless you know somewhere on this planet that pops out humans from a spring or something.
Are you saying that you consider evolution to be an impossibility?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Are you saying that you consider evolution to be an impossibility?[/quote]
That would be correct, sir.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
That would be correct, sir.[/quote]
And you KNOW that evolution is impossible, how exactly?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
That would be correct, sir.
And you KNOW that evolution is impossible, how exactly?[/quote]
Well it matters what strain of evolution you believe in how I’ll have to describe my belief.
Evidence Against Evolution:
Since I was the one that said most people claim scientific theories as truth with no idea how or where they were originated I looked some stuff up and found the following evidence against evolution:
Complexity of creatures- According to evolution only the fittest species survive, however, also according to evolution as organisms evolve they become more complex. Complexity makes a species more vulnerable to dying off. For instance an amoeba which is a simple one celled creature can live in or out of water and reproduce asexually. Humans are far more complex needing much more energy and resources and thus are a weaker organism
Speech- speech is unique only to humans. If humans evolved from a subhuman prototype similar to apes it would make sense that at least apes would evolve to the point of having speech.
Bi pedalism- humans evolved from quadripeds to bipeds because they had to in order to survive. It would only make sense that other quadripeds would have also evolved into bipeds when faced with such a situation yet no other animal on Earth has ever abandoned four legs for two
Fossils- the earliest fossils show that organisms that exist today have only undergone minor changes such as size or appearance. Birds are said to have evolved from reptiles yet their lung systems are completely different and no fossils have ever been found showing the gradual change of scales to feathers. Similarly one of the earliest human like creatures, Neanderthal, was an evolutionary “dead end.” They may have married with Cro Magnon, but their DNA did not continue.
Intelligence- humans are the only species on the planet that possess an intelligent brain. No other organism has become fully aware of its surroundings. Brains that existed in Cro Magnons were only minimally smaller than ones today, because Cro Magnons were smaller in general therefore their heads were smaller. If brain size doesn’t determine brain function then it would only make sense that smaller animals could eventually develop thinking brains. My cat is evidence enough that it will never happen.
It’s strange because I have always supported evolution, but as I said if you are going to say you believe in something make sure you have all the facts. I’m not saying that I wholeheartedly dismiss evolution, but facts like these sure make you think.
As well stuff like the knee, has sixteen parts that are needed for it to function. These sixteen parts need 1000’s of lines in DNA, without one of these parts the knee does not work. So going from an one cell organism and supposedly progressing to humans, explain how we survived and where these straight legs and wobbly molly’s are in the fossils?
I’m not taking sides on the topic of whether prayer works or not because honestly I don’t know for certain. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t in my experience.
But,
[quote]BBriere wrote:
Evidence Against Evolution:
Since I was the one that said most people claim scientific theories as truth with no idea how or where they were originated I looked some stuff up and found the following evidence against evolution:
Complexity of creatures- According to evolution only the fittest species survive, however, also according to evolution as organisms evolve they become more complex. Complexity makes a species more vulnerable to dying off.
For instance an amoeba which is a simple one celled creature can live in or out of water and reproduce asexually. Humans are far more complex needing much more energy and resources and thus are a weaker organism
[/quote]
The species that survive are not necessarily only the “fittest” or least complex (though clearly many of those have survived), but moreso those who’s adaptations best fit the demands of their environment. Homosapiens were better suited to surviving in their environment than say neandrethals, and thus homosapiens survived while neandrethals did not.
Your argument is too simplistic and definitely not “evidence” against the theory (and yes, it’s a theory) of evolution.
Not true, dogs, cats, humpback whales, apes, heck pretty much all mammals have forms of speech (communication via sound). Parrots are actually capable of speaking english (and I’d assume other human languages as well).
Perhaps you meant language, which still could be argued is performed by other animals (it just sounds different), not as complex of course, but other animals (like the aforementioned humpback, or elephants) are capable of communicating over large distances with each other through sound.
The need to become bipedal in order to survive is just one possible reason. It also could have been the result of sexual selection, or just a random mutation which wound up being advantageous as it freed up early human’s front limbs to be used for manipulating tools.
Also, birds have abandoned four legs for two (since their ancestors were reptiles which walked on all four legs).
There are actually fossils of some species of Dinosaurs with feathers that have been found recently, adding further evidence to the idea that birds evolved from the same ancestor to dinosaurs. Thus making dinosaurs cousins to modern day birds, not ancestors.
Are you saying that your cat doesn’t think? Mine does. She’s not capable of solving a calculus problem or of abstract thought, but she thinks. Neandrethals had larger brains than homo sapiens by volume, yet were not as “intelligent”. It’s not just the size of the brain that matters, but what parts are developed.
As far as other intelligent species:
-octopus are thought to be highly intelligent. They are capable of problem solving and observational learning skills. Their short life spans however somewhat limit how much they can learn though.
-dolphins are also thought to be highly intelligent. They are capable of understanding concepts like “more” or “less” (numerical quantity), and recognize “self”
-elephants are also highly intelligent. They will drastically change behavior to meet the demands of their environment, are good problem solvers, capable of recognizing “self”, capable of using tools (with their trunk) and are among a very small group of animals (along with only humans and neandrethals) who participate in a death ritual
[quote]
It’s strange because I have always supported evolution, but as I said if you are going to say you believe in something make sure you have all the facts. I’m not saying that I wholeheartedly dismiss evolution, but facts like these sure make you think.[/quote]
None of the things you posted were “facts”. The thing about the feathers on birds and the scales on their ancestors would be the closest thing.
The point of discussing the possibility of an infinite universe, of the evolution of species, etc. is simply that you don’t need to resort to a supernatural explanation in order to account for the natural universe. If people were 100% honest, they would admit that the universe doesn’t REQUIRE a magical explanation for its existence.
Not to say the universe isn’t the figment of some divine being’s imagination, but honesty requires admitting that these other possibilities are viable and cannot be dismissed out of hand.
Why is it so hard for people to have an open mind, and simply admit that we don’t know all the answers? Why are believers so rigidly black and white in their thinking, and so unwilling to admit that they could be wrong?
I admit that I could be wrong. It’s possible that there is a god, or a multitude of gods, out there. Is it so frightening to admit that you might be wrong too? If nothing else, the very fact that you are so unwilling to admit that you might be wrong is a giant waving red flag on the validity of your search for truth.
[quote]forlife wrote:
The point of discussing the possibility of an infinite universe, of the evolution of species, etc. is simply that you don’t need to resort to a supernatural explanation in order to account for the natural universe. If people were 100% honest, they would admit that the universe doesn’t REQUIRE a magical explanation for its existence.
Not to say the universe isn’t the figment of some divine being’s imagination, but honesty requires admitting that these other possibilities are viable and cannot be dismissed out of hand.
Why is it so hard for people to have an open mind, and simply admit that we don’t know all the answers? Why are believers so rigidly black and white in their thinking, and so unwilling to admit that they could be wrong?
I admit that I could be wrong. It’s possible that there is a god, or a multitude of gods, out there. Is it so frightening to admit that you might be wrong too? If nothing else, the very fact that you are so unwilling to admit that you might be wrong is a giant waving red flag on the validity of your search for truth.[/quote]
Sorry, I am not afraid that I am wrong, and I do not suppose to that I am wrong that there needs to be a creator of the Universe to exist, just like your parents needed to create you, not the Universe.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Sorry, I am not afraid that I am wrong, and I do not suppose to that I am wrong that there needs to be a creator of the Universe to exist, just like your parents needed to create you, not the Universe.[/quote]
That you refuse to consider any possibility outside the sandbox of your current beliefs says volumes. There is a negative correlation between dogmatism and intelligence.
According to Helmuth Nyborg’s research, published in the scientific journal Intelligence last year:
Don’t take that as a blanket condemnation though…people can get smarter as they get older. I was a fundamentalist myself for a long time
[quote]forlife wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Sorry, I am not afraid that I am wrong, and I do not suppose to that I am wrong that there needs to be a creator of the Universe to exist, just like your parents needed to create you, not the Universe.
That you refuse to consider any possibility outside the sandbox of your current beliefs says volumes. There is a negative correlation between dogmatism and intelligence.
According to Helmuth Nyborg’s research, published in the scientific journal Intelligence last year:
I’m not saying that believing in God makes you dumber. My hypothesis is that people with a low intelligence are more easily drawn toward religions, which give answers that are certain, while people with a high intelligence are more skeptical.
Don’t take that as a blanket condemnation though…people can get smarter as they get older. I was a fundamentalist myself for a long time :)[/quote]
This is one thing I dislike about some atheists and agnostics, they can not accept that someone with intelligence would believe in God. They either out right call us ignorant, or try to mislead the the rest (with ‘science’) in hopes that their own wishes will become established custom among the non-believers and layman.
I personally believe that even though some atheists and agnostics (luke warm cannot make a decision, light in the pants, pansies) are intelligent people that, most atheists and agnostics just fancy themselves as intelligent. Some likely read more than the average Christian in order to educate themselves, but they miss the underlying reasoning of establishing between fact and fiction. Even though, forlife, thinks he has established that I and other Christian’s cannot establish between the two (it may go for other Christian’s), that is not entirely true.
I have done my reading on both sides of the subject, and even though you wish your philosophies and theories were logical they are not. The reason that many Christian’s have trouble debating against an atheist or agnostics arguments is because of the vast arguments against Christianity.
P.S. I guess when you are at the top, you have more problems, as I do not see Muslims standing here on stage to have to defend their beliefs so stringently from atheists and agnostics, and I doubt they will ever see the day.
I will never again doubt the existence of God again, but I’m not asking you to admit you are wrong. When I was a kid they used to teach us a saying: “If you are right I have nothing to be afraid of, but if I am right you have everything to be afraid of.” Fear is hardly a reason for driving someone’s beliefs. I actually used to know a guy that said he was an atheist but went to church “just in case.” Unfortunately, it doesn’t really work that way. If you are afraid of the possibility that there could be a higher power that points to the fact that you may not be as much as an atheist as you might think. Plato once said “No one ever dies an atheist.” However true that may be I think that even the staunchest of non believers struggle with the thought of there being no God at all. I’m still not saying that you should repent or you’re going to Hell because I’m not the one that ultimately will judge anyone not even myself.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
This is one thing I dislike about some atheists and agnostics, they can not accept that someone with intelligence would believe in God.[/quote]
Intelligent people can believe in god(s), but statistically, people who don’t believe in god(s) are more likely to be score high on standard measures of intelligence compared with people who do believe in god(s). It’s not surprising, really. The less intelligent you are, the less capable you are of differentiating facts from fiction.
Christianity (which includes Mormons in the statistics, btw) is only 33%, compared with Muslims at 21%. I have no beef with Christians that live and let live, it’s the judgmental assholes that irk me.
[quote]BBriere wrote:
I will never again doubt the existence of God again, but I’m not asking you to admit you are wrong. [/quote]
I don’t see it as a question of admitting you are wrong, it’s more about admitting that you could be wrong. I’m very willing to admit that I could be wrong, but how many fundamentalist Christians can say the same? They are so rigidly entrenched in their beliefs, that it is impossible for them to objectively consider any evidence that might contradict those beliefs.