Poll: Is it Possible to Believe in God and Darwin's Theory of Evolution?

I disagree. There is no evidence of a god, while there is quite a bit of evidence for the theory of evolution. Therefore, I think you have it backwards. evolution is a theory, and god is a myth, but we are not 100% sure if either are correct.

Fellow NoName,

Look in the mirror sometime. You will see evidence of God.
Of course, you don't have to accept any evidence for anything.

In common usage "theory" is taken to mean something hypothetical. In science, a theory is a model or system of belief. Theories survive, evolve, or die based on experiment and observation, but no matter how much evidence there is to support a concept it remains a "theory" in the lexicon of science. I suspect that nobody on this thread would argue that disease cannot be caused by microorganisms because "germ theory" (or, more properly the pathogenic theory of medicine") is just a theory.
"Theory" has a different a different meaning in common usage and in science. Darwin's theory of evolution has evolved as we learned about inheritance of traits, DNA, gene transfer, and other phenomena, but the basic concept that species arise through natural section and that this process is sufficient in itself to explain the origin of species has survived essentially intact for more than century despite continuous and vigorous challenge by scientists and the lay community, and particularly the religious among these.
As to the basic question, whether is it possible to believe in God and evolution – the answer is obviously yes – many people do. The more fundamental question is whether the evidence for evolution is evidence against the origin theories of the world's religions. I believe it does. Clearly, the fanciful origin theories (like the one in Genesis) are at odds with data from the natural world. That does not, however, preclude belief in supernatural entities (a god, gods, spirits, demons, ghosts etc.) or even the acceptance of origin theories as metaphorical or inspirational rather than literal.

jpark,

I tried your experiment, and the results were inconclusive at best. I've concluded that god doesn't like to shave everyday, but is still pretty damn good looking!

I concluded that He's really buff fore such a young-looking God...

Look in the mirror sometime. You will see evidence of God.

I was going to let this silly, vacuous statement go, but your arguments below indicate that you know better, jpark. Looking in a mirror doesn't give you the kind of evidence for God's existence that would mean anything to a scientist (or even a detective or lawyer).

jpark;

I don't invest belief in a theory -- do you?

Galilleo did....and he was on a first-name basis with the pope....such audacity, only because the 'church' went out on a limb a long time before, proclaiming the earth the center of the universe....jpark, they in the church had to 'evlove', because Truth trumps belief....

I find it sad the leadership in the Catholic faith has held onto the premise that the pope's word is infallable...(without flaw in judgement) ...they lost me there....

you think Einstein, Sir Issac Newton, or any man of astute vision would have dared to persevere in their life-long searches had they believed that their god would be offended? I say God forbid the day come when we're no longer allowed the fruits of our own perceptions, regardless of what a bully pulpit would advise....

Seostrus; nailed it, man...you've evolved to a level that requires quite a lot of synapses and neurons, but the comment you made here is built on the foundation that it is far more enlightening to keep one's mind open than ...otherwise....

.... to own a man's will is a powerful thing, and, sadly, the conduit to owning such power is connected to our dogmatic belief systems...be careful, and mindful, should you find yourself locked into an exclusive social system where others decide for you what to believe. If that goal of the church is to create Heaven here on earth, then, I'm in....simple as that...but..you had better mean it, Mr. Church Guy....

kelvins273,

Look in the mirror sometime. You will see evidence of God.

I was going to let this silly, vacuous statement go, but your arguments below indicate that you know better, jpark. Looking in a mirror doesn't give you the kind of evidence for God's existence that would mean anything to a scientist (or even a detective or lawyer).

Strange you would say that. You cannot see your heritage from God by looking at yourself, but you can see your heritage from primate ancestors?

Gravity is a theory, don't invest belief in it.

The Vatican doesn't have a problem with evolution *LINK*, but you do. Guess you know how God creates life better than the pope. You go.

MarkD-555,

Gravity is a theory, don't invest belief in it.

No. Gravity is an observable fact. We do have theories to describe some aspects of gravity, but gravity, whatever it is, is real.

The Vatican doesn't have a problem with evolution *LINK*, but you do.

I don't have a problem with the theory of evolution. It is a fine theory.

Don't care at all what the Pope thinks.

To quote Lewis Black

"Fossils! Fossils! Fossils! I WIN!!!"

PS Evolution is a fact and a theory

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

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

Oh boy, another symantic cluster@!$%# with jpark.

Adventures in obtuseness

Strange you would say that. You cannot see your heritage from God by looking at yourself, but you can see your heritage from primate ancestors?

Yes.

There are plenty of measurable similarities between us and primates: body structure, DNA, etc.

As far as comparing yourself to God, I don't even know how you could begin to measure comparisons. All you have to go on is an old book that says we were created in his image. I'm sure it makes sense to you. But to me, I can't understand how you could be confident in this comparison.

Look in the mirror sometime. You will see evidence of God.

Ah, yes. The teleological argument: complexity implies a designer. Humans are complex. Therefore humans were designed.

Too bad it is also a logical fallacy.

"Look in the mirror sometime. You will see evidence of God."

I tried this experiment and it didn't work for me?

In the mirror I saw a 46 year old guy, a little pudgier than he use to be, slightly more wrinkles around the eyes and in need of a shave looking back, not some old man with white flowing hair sitting on a gold throne.

Oh well...maybe I'll try again tomorrow. Or maybe it's like "Candyman", I need to repeat something 3 times?

Any ideas?

I saw my parents and grandparents. That supports evolution in my book. I, also, saw elements of my siblings and cousins.

Jimster, how was what jpark said a "symantic cluster%$#$" ?

Gravity is indeed an observable force, and not some threory or platitude. Don't believe it? Drop something off your desk and watch gravity take it straight down, and nowhere else.

Gravity, a magnetic force, is generated from the mass of our planet's spinning, white hot, molten iron/nickel core. It's a huge magnet essentially that pulls on everything on or around the Earth's surface. It pulls everything towards the Earth's core. The only reason wer're not part of the Earth's core right now, is the thousands of miles of Earth's crust between our feet and the core. We experience gravity everyday, and it's real.

I can't say the same for God though, the only evidence of this being is a man-made book, subject to interpretation. The Vatican is a useless bunch of pageantry, unless you're a devout Catholic.

Gravity, a magnetic force, is generated from the mass of our planet's spinning, white hot, molten iron/nickel core. It's a huge magnet essentially that pulls on everything on or around the Earth's surface. It pulls everything towards the Earth's core. The only reason wer're not part of the Earth's core right now, is the thousands of miles of Earth's crust between our feet and the core. We experience gravity everyday, and it's real.

No. No no no. Gravity and magnetism are not the same thing. They are completely separate forces.

Gravity is a force dealing with the interaction of all bodies of mass with one another. Magnetism is the force resulting from the field generated by the motion of charged particles.

Josh,

It always amazes me how people can get things so wrong. Especially, when they could open another tab or window and lookup the term.

And then there is jpark who refuses to understand what a theory is. He seems to think a theory appears out of nothing like his god. That can not be further from the truth. A theory is the consolidation of many hypothesis each of which attempts to understand a give observed fact. When these hypotheses become broad enough to describe all the observed facts and predict behavior of yet unobserved events does it get the prestige of a theory. He must be very religious to have closed his mind so tight against reality. Only one of great faith is capable of that level of intentional ignorance.

He must be very religious to have closed his mind so tight against reality. Only one of great faith is capable of that level of intentional ignorance.

Meh... cuts both ways. Although I am not a person of faith myself, I understand and respect someone who is.

Faith is a lot like love. You know you love someone, and that love is absolutely a priori in nature and at the same time absolutely true -- but only to the person experiencing it. But love can't be empirically tested, love can't be imposed onto someone else. But it is still valid.

Faith, like love, can exist in conjunction with testable concepts. Where faith becomes a problem is when one tries to impose it on others or adjust their worldview to believe it has to be one or the other: faith or science.

Tim S.-560036,

And then there is jpark who refuses to understand what a theory is.

No, I know precisely what a theory is. It is a model constructed from observations.

Newtons equations of gravitation and Einstein's of relativity both model gravity. Both are theories.

Evolution is a theory which attempts to model a process for the diversification of life. It is a theory.

---

BTW, my faith or lack there of is irrelevant to a discussion of the nature of a theory.

Josh,

I didn't mean to imply that all that have faith are closed minded. But, I do hold to the observation that those with faith in any thing are capable of more cetainty in that faith and thereby, more able to close their minds to alternatives and information that is contradictory. I know many people, some of whom I respect the most highly, that have faith. The difference is that they don't let that faith interfer with their desire to learn. Their faith is solid, but they are able to separate their faith from dogma and human interpretation.

jpark--#2.22

well NO it is a fact and a theory.

First I could list new species that have evolved, I could point out fossils, I could point out the progression of viruses and diseases that mutatt and evolve.

However you just defined theory and yet are not acknoweldging the observations. Well we could talk about the anatomy and physiology of such things between vastly different animals species according to ecosystems.

The point being Evolution is a FACT AND A THEORY.

Evolution had happened and still happened, how can you deny it.

You mean I actually have to put /sarcasm before "Gravity is a theory, don't invest belief in it"??? I was responding to a earlier comment stating people should not invest "belief" in theories.

Gravity is INFACT a theory. Yes we know how it works, have major evidence of it, we just don't know minor details of it. Much like evolution. Heck I would venture to say we know LESS about gravity. We don't know if it is a particle emitted by any phyisical mass, a warping of time/space, or another more familiar force streched through theoretical higher stringspace dimensions.

jpark: Well, I have to give you credit for creativity. I assumed your little comment about looking in the mirror was an attempt to say that everything that exists is somehow "proof" of God's existence.

So now, on to your response: Of course I can see my connection to apes by looking in the mirror. You see, I've actually seen apes (at the zoo, on TV, in photographs). Given that database, I can see certain physical resemblences. Now, since I've never seen God, and all images of God produced by humans are projections of the human imagination, looking in the mirror doesn't tell me anything about how much I resemble God (assuming God exists). Therefore, it can offer me no proof that I am "created in God's image," and thus no proof of the assertion that God exists.

Kshark,

well NO it is a fact and a theory.

No. If something is a fact, it ceases to be a theory.

What you are really doing when you make such a statement is saying that the word "evolution" means two different things every time you use it simultaneously. Or you mean that the meaning of the word is whatever you want it to be whenever you are questioned about it.

Evolution is a theory which attempts to explain the diversity of life through natural selection.

When you use the term as a fact, you are saying that change is evolution. But change is just change. Sufficient change may result in new creatures (evolution) and it may not.

If you really want to argue that the theory of evolution is now a fact, you will need to point to the generation of a new creature through evolutionary process which has been observed and is reproducible.

And no, so called "micro evolution" is just breeding (or selection). It is not evolution because the end result is the same creature you started with.

MarkD-555,

In almost every discussion of evolution, someone conflates gravity (a fact) with the theories about gravity which we have developed. By conflating fact with a theory, the reverse, conflating a theory with fact seems somehow more proper.

Gravity is the observed tendency of masses to move toward each other. It is a fact -- observable and reproducible. No one knows what the underlying cause of gravity is, but gravity is a fact. The theories about how gravity works, Newtons and Einstein's, are both models describing our observation of gravity and useful in predicting trajectories, etc. Neither of our models is anything but a theory. Neither model predicts the movement of stars, galaxies and galaxy clusters. Dark Matter is science's admission that our current theories describing gravity are definitely not fact.

If you want to argue that the theory of evolution is a fact, you need to point to an instance where the emergence of a new creature from selection processes has been observed and is reproducible. You cannot do that. Evolution remains a theory.

---
Nothing wrong with the theory of evolution. Calling it a fact is, however, wrong.

jpark--So you are actually going to argue with scientists, real scientists that STUDY the subject?

Welcome to science 101

The "fact of evolution" refers to the changes in populations of biological organisms over time, which are known to have occurred through scientific observations and experiments. The "theory of evolution" refers to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation of how these changes occur. Misuse and misunderstanding of these terms have been used to construct arguments disputing the validity of the theory of evolution.
The distinction between fact and theory is not limited to the study of evolution. The law of gravity is a scientific fact that bodies of mass attract each other, but there are different theories of gravity that attempt to explain how bodies of mass are attracted to each other. In this way, gravity is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory.

Good luck disputing this

jpark--

Further try and dispute this

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different
things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data.
Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go
away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of
gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air,
pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they
did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

and this

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from
the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we
are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution
(fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two
great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and
proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution.

http://www.godslasteraar.org/assets/ebooks/Gould_Evolution_as_Fact_and_Theory.pdf

Stephen Jay Gould was a paleontologist, evolution biologist and a historian of science.

What are your credentials in the scientific field? For you to argue against the experts is absolutely mindboggling and a true error on your part.

Ah, the logical fallacy known as the appeal to authority.

In a discussion group, the expectation is that the participants will discuss issues, presenting arguments for their position.

Saying someone else said something like you said is not an argument for what you said. You actually have to say why your statement is a valid statement.

And lastly jpark

If you really want to argue that the theory of evolution is now a fact, you will need to point to the generation of a new creature through evolutionary process which has been observed and is reproducible.

Fine perfect example for you hooved land animals (specifically Artiodactyls) evolved into cetaceans aka dolphins, whales, and porpoises. Observing evolution, well people are not alive long enough and DNA have proved the connection.

For further observation of evolution

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18424765.700-observing-evolution-in-test-tubes-.html

As for reproducing, that is callled sexual reproduction look at the ungulates now and the cetaceans as well still alive.

However it is also breeding. Scientists were able to reproduce a new butterfly species they found in the wild in South America

http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2006/06/060614-butterfly.html

Also look at diseases.

We also have a species of lizard, and this can be said for pest species dumped into a completely new area that is not their natural habitat, they evolve to adapt to their new surroundings.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

These are only a few examples, it would take a long time to go through absolutely everything.

jpark--HE IS A PROFESSIONAL

WHAT is your scientific background to have the audacity to disagree?

Fine you want to deny evolution SHOW ME GOD. You take your cues from the bible, I am presuming and from church. No one has seen Jesus, no one has seen god. Mary what had immaculate conception please PLEASE tell me another human that accomplished that fallacy.

You are in absolute denial when even experts that were or are in that scientific world and did it for a living completely rip your argument apart.

So seriously jpark tell us all right now what is your background? What is your career? What is your background in science?

Tell us your credentials to where you have the ability to actuallly argue this debate

Kshark re.: comment 2.31:
Your examples, of course, do not show evolution. Change, but not evolution.

Kshark re.: comment 2.32:

Fine you want to deny evolution SHOW ME GOD.

I have not denied evolution. I merely pointed out that it is a theory -- not a fact.

The rest of your comment is, of course, a personal attack on me instead of an argument about the subject under discussion.

Always, it is easier to attack a person than defend a position.

---
You cannot defend your position. Evolution is and remains a theory.

jpark--Excuse me?

Your examples, of course, do not show evolution. Change, but not evolution.

What in heck do you think evolution is? Evolution is CHANGE IN GENETIC MATERIAL

You cannot even defend your own position at all.

I asked what your credentials were as it is a perfect basis for the debate at hand since you seem to think you know more than these scientists.

So what are your credentials in the scientific field?

Since you seem that religiously grounded Oh I can argue religion with you if you want.

Shall we begin where is your proof God existed? You say God is real, where is he/she/it? What gender is God? What does God look like? Has God spoken to you? What has it said? Where was God born? Is God black, white, asian, arab.....?

Kshark,

Evolution is CHANGE IN GENETIC MATERIAL

No, it is not. Evolution is the emergence of new creatures through selection processes.

Do you call genetic defects evolution?

Do you know that changes can be effected with no genetic changes (epigenetics)?

Why the continuation of personal attacks? I am not making an argument from authority. You are. I am only saying that your assertion that evolution is a fact is unfounded and you cannot defend that assertion.

You have not defended that assertion.

You cannot present arguments for your assertions and now you want to argue about God?

jpark-- Wow this is just...I feel like my braincells are depleting.

American Heritage Dictionary of English language

ev·o·lu·tion

(v-lshn, v-)n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.

3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny

Collins Essential English Dictionary

evolution
Noun
1. Biol a gradual change in the characteristics of a population of animals or plants over successive generations
2. a gradual development, esp. to a more complex form [Latin evolutio an unrolling]

American Heritage Science Dictionary

evolution

(v-lshn)

1. The process by which species of organisms arise from earlier life forms and undergo change over time through natural selection. The modern understanding of the origins of species is based on the theories of Charles Darwin combined with a modern knowledge of genetics based on the work of Gregor Mendel. Darwin observed there is a certain amount of variation of traits or characteristics among the different individuals belonging to a population. Some of these traits confer fitnessthey allow the individual organism that possesses them to survive in their environment better than other individuals who do not possess them and to leave more offspring. The offspring then inherit the beneficial traits, and over time the adaptive trait spreads through the population. In twentieth century, the development of the the science of genetics helped explain the origin of the variation of the traits between individual organisms and the way in which they are passed from generation to generation. This basic model of evolution has since been further refined, and the role of genetic drift and sexual selection in the evolution of populations has been recognized. See also natural selectionsexual selection See Notes at adaptationDarwin Charles Robert
2. A process of development and change from one state to another, as of the universe in its development through time.

A Closer Look Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection assumed that tiny adaptations occur in organisms constantly over millions of years. Gradually, a new species develops that is distinct from its ancestors. In the 1970s, however, biologists Niles Eldridge and Stephen Jay Gould proposed that evolution by natural selection may not have been such a smooth and consistent process. Based on fossils from around the world that showed the abrupt appearance of new species, Eldridge and Gould suggested that evolution is better described through punctuated equilibrium. That is, for long periods of time species remain virtually unchanged, not even gradually adapting. They are in equilibrium, in balance with the environment. But when confronted with environmental challengessudden climate change, for exampleorganisms adapt quite quickly, perhaps in only a few thousand years. These active periods are punctuations, after which a new equilibrium exists and species remain stable until the next punctuation.

Genetic DISORDERS are gene mutations and adnormalities
Do you even know what Cellular Differentiation is that is the best example of epigenetics? Do you even really know what epigenetics is?

I asked you questions of your scientific background how is that a personal attack? It is perfectly connected to the debate at hand since you believe to be the authority and are disagreeing with everything I have presented to you. So I have to ask what is your background for the basis of your assertions.

You haven't even made an argument at all. You have made no argument and are actually insulting me since my educational background is in the science field.

I asked you questions about religion you cannot even assert youe words as you said God is real. I am asking you questions to back up your statement, but you are trying to turn it around saying I cannot assert my own argument, when I have and everyone has seen it.

So go right ahead answer my questions.

Thanks, I guess, for the multiple definitions of evolution. As I said, the changes which produce new creatures are the basis for the theory of evolution. Your definitions say the same thing.

Random change which does not result in the development of a new creature is just change -- it is not evolution.

Genetic DISORDERS are gene mutations and adnormalities

Right. They represent change but do not represent evolution.
Evolution is not just change, it is change which results in the development of diverse creatures.

I have had university level training in chemistry, anatomy, physiology, biology, etc. That has no bearing on any argument I may make. Neither does your training -- whatever that may be -- have any bearing on any argument you may present or fail to present.

So go right ahead answer my questions.

Why don't you support your assertions or admit that you cannot support your assertions?

Repeating assertions multiple times and finding someone else to repeat those assertions does not magically transform those assertions into fact.

Evolution is a theory -- plain and simple.

Change may result in evolution, but change per se is not evolution.

You have blatantly insulted me, you have blatantly insulted all the experts of the scientific world.

You have absolutely brought nothing of value at all to this whole entire seed.

I have given you assertion upon assertion upon assertion to where you are profoundly in denial and fanatically religious as we can all see now.

I have asked you questions you refuse to answer so you cannot even support your own claims but you continue to insult me as your own assertions.

I can see why others have ceased discussing this further with you as you talk in circles, overtalk yourself and only want to be right.

You don't want assertions unless they are conforming to your own which is against science.

You can't even prove God is real but you will say it. When asked to prove to turn the tables and blame me. That is extremely poor debating skills.

Cheers

I have given you assertion upon assertion upon assertion ...

Correct. You have made multiple assertions. You have failed repeatedly to support your assertion with anything other than continued assertion.

If you assert you can fly, I will ask you to demonstrate your flying ability. Saying I have insulted you in questioning your assertion does not validate your assertion. Asserting it again does not validate your assertion.

If you make an assertion, you need to be prepared to provide evidence for that assertion.

@Tim

I didn't mean to imply that all that have faith are closed minded. But, I do hold to the observation that those with faith in any thing are capable of more cetainty in that faith and thereby, more able to close their minds to alternatives and information that is contradictory. I know many people, some of whom I respect the most highly, that have faith. The difference is that they don't let that faith interfer with their desire to learn. Their faith is solid, but they are able to separate their faith from dogma and human interpretation.

Yeah. I get what you are saying and can't say I disagree on a lot of levels. But the other side of the same coin you are leveling criticism at can be said for the scientific community as well.

To wit, the scientific community is also guilty of a certain level of hypocrisy and closed-mindedness in that they preach everything is a theory and open to interpretation but draw the line at giving equal interpretation to things that can't be empirically tested.

I do not believe in God, participate in a religion, or subscribe to spirituality. But I do believe in equal consideration of opinions. Until something can be proven unequivocally as fact, even the John Frum Cargo Cult has equal claim to "Truth-with-a-capital-T."

To wit, the scientific community is also guilty of a certain level of hypocrisy and closed-mindedness in that they preach everything is a theory and open to interpretation but draw the line at giving equal interpretation to things that can't be empirically tested.

I'd love to see examples of this drawing of the line.

As for preaching that every theory is a theory? Well, s---, honesty's just a b----, ain't it?

jpark--

Are those the only words you know, assert and assertion? That is the level of your intellect and debating skills? I guess so.

Ya know I would be willing to bet you are using those words to make yourself look smart. It failed you. I'd also be willing to bet you don't have much of an education, and I am not saying that in an attacking manner, pure analytical assessment given you have provided absolutely NOTHING in any of your posts and everyone has seen that.

keep talking in circles we are all getting a really good laugh.

Quoting you directly

God is real.

Prove it. Assert your argument. Looking in the mirror is not an assertion. So assert your argument.

And from you again

Newtons equations of gravitation and Einstein's of relativity both model gravity. Both are theories.

Where did you learn that? I'm just really curious where you learned it OR did you appeal to authority. Yup I would say that you did.

I think I can get a pretty good idea precisely what your response will be. This is just too funny and predictable now.

Kshark,

You ate at least consistent. When unable to support your assertions, you attack someone.

"God is real" is a statement of belief. I made no assertion that I could prove God's existence. I will not get into such an argument with you.

You have repeatedly asserted that evolution is a fact. To be a fact, it must be observable and repeatable. I challenged you to support your assertion that evolution is a fact instead of a theory. You have provided no argument in support for your position except appeals to authority and personal attack.

Obviously, you cannot support your position.

Newtons equations of gravitation and Einstein's of relativity both model gravity. Both are theories.

Where did you learn that? I'm just really curious where you learned it OR did you appeal to authority. Yup I would say that you did.

Do you ever actually present an argument or is every exchange either a baseless assertion or a personal attack?

jpark--

Awww you lived up to my predictable expectations.

See now only when someone completely lacks an argument, such as your case, are you then going off accusing me of attacks, all because I asked questions you cannot answer. So asking questions is personally attacking you? You have a warped sense of yourself and life.

I am so proud of you for using asserted or the derivative 4 times. You are on a role.

"God is real" is a statement of belief. I made no assertion that I could prove God's existence

Oh oh so now it is statement belief?

So you have said God is real, but can't assert your argument.

And to quote you again

Look in the mirror sometime. You will see evidence of God.

So what a minute, didn't you just contradict yourself. Yeah ya did.

So then you said this yet again

Choose Darwin if you want. He is definitely dead. God is not.

So we are all still waiting for you to prove god is real.

Then you said this about gravity

No. Gravity is an observable fact. We do have theories to describe some aspects of gravity, but gravity, whatever it is, is real.

So now gravity, while a theory is an observable fact, and then you say we ave theories, but wait a minute theories, according to you, cannot be proved, so how can gravity be real?

but then you said this

Newtons equations of gravitation and Einstein's of relativity both model gravity. Both are theories.

But then right below you said this

Newton's theory of gravitation

You cannot even keep your own argument straight.

And now you say this

To be a fact, it must be observable and repeatable. I challenged you to support your assertion that evolution is a fact instead of a theory.

So now you are saying gravity is a theory, but then it is a fact, but then it is theory, but a fact, but you can't prove theories, but gravity has been proved so it is a fact, but you call it a theory. You have repeatedly contradicted yourself this is fun to watch.

Oh I did show you proof all right, you denied it. You said I didn't assert my argument and then said oh the inevitable appeal to authority bulls***. When you have used that exact same argument over and over and over when talking about Einstein, and Newton and even God. You say God is real, then say it is a belief, then said he wasn't dead now where on earth would you collect this bit of info, from the Bible or church? You exhibited your ever so loving appeal to authority excuse, when I am sure you have not even read all about it.

You do realize you haven't made one single argument at all. You continually contradict yourself. You make junk up to try and support, oh wait sorry YOUR word assert your argument, then deny deny deny and accuse me in return.

This proves to me, and this is not a theory but an observable fact, that you have a minimal background in education, that you have no skills for debate, that you have absolutely no ability to argue, you have no information to add that is any different from the same old song you are singing out of tune, you run around in circles, and then cry foul when something is presented to you in a crystal clear manner, and then throw in the old wahhhhh attack and victimization when I actually ask questions that you cannot answer.

You are going around and around in a circle.

This is actually becoming quite hilarious to the point where one is shaking their heads to how sad it is in the long run.

Thank you for turning my theory into a fact. I go write that paper up now and have it published.

Kshark,

You lack perception or are being intentionally obtuse.

I said gravity is an observable fact. It is an observable fact.

I said we have theories about the way gravity works. We do, they are Newton's and Einstien's. Both of their theories are just theories.

I said I won't get into an argument with you trying to prove that God exists. Why would I or anyone attempt to prove something which cannot be proved?

You said that evolution was not just a theory, that evolution was a fact. I challenged you to a single instance where evolution was observed to happen. You have not supported your statement once.

I have no problem saying I cannot prove that God exists.

Why are you unwilling to state that you cannot prove that evolution is a fact? You cannot show your statement to be true but you will not admit that it is not.

Discussing anything with you is like discussing it with nothing at all -- never a rational response.

jpark--

Oh I think I am vastly more perceptive than you.

No no I posted all of your notes about it. You ran in circles chasing your tail.

*laughing*

So let me see an observable fact, but still a theory. *laughing* So let me see Newton's theory is only a theory but gravity is an observable fact.

Yeah see I pointed that about about evolution, and you said no. So that basically means you have to be right and everyone else is completely wrong.

Ah yes NOW you won't talk about God but you already said he was real. You said he was alive, while Darwin is dead. Why are you so afraid to talk about God abd ASSERT your argument he is real? See so now you can say God is real buut you cannot prove it? Isn't this absolutely fascinating.

Oh see if you look back to one of the national geographic links I posted about a butterfly species found in South America to where the scientists then reproduced the news species in a lab, you denied it. You said I was wrong.

I told you about diseases you said that was wrong.

I told you about bacteria you said that was wrong.

So in truth EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE are completely wrong unless they conform to your own beliefs. Well that is a bit egotisitcal of you isn't it.

I have no problem saying I cannot prove that God exists.

But hang on you said he was real and alive. So contradicting yourself YET again.

Why am I unwilling, because DNA can prove it. Tis the beautiful thing about science that lovely DNA. But wait a minute as absolutely predictable as you are you will use epigenetics as your excuse. We went through that little game of ping pong too. I countered with cellular differentiation and you used your favorite phrase of lack of assertion. I could through out morphogeneis as well, you will deny that and go your tried and untrue lack of assertion argument.

Why are you unwilling to state that you cannot prove that evolution is a fact? You cannot show your statement to be true but you will not admit that it is not.

I have 4 times now. Your ego is getting too much in the way.

Discussing anything with you is like discussing it with nothing at all -- never a rational response.

Well that is the pot calling the kettle black all right. *laughing*

Here is something for ya, prove that evolution is JUST a theory and that it has not happened since that is your flailing argument. So go ahead and prove evolution has not happened.

Delusional. Continue laughing. It fits your delusion.

Bye. No reason to discuss anything with someone who is delusional.

jpark--

So because again I ripped apart your post now I am delusional.

Resorting to Personal attacks now.

I guess all the other comments towards you by people here or even the lack of comments towards all of your ridiculous posts speaks volumes to all of us, but you.

I'm not the delusional on here.

Kshark,

No, you are delusional because you claim to have supported your statement that evolution is a fact, but you have not supported it.

Give a single argument in answer to this comment to support your contention that evolution is a fact.

I really want to see you make an argument.

Note: To be a fact, you must be able to demonstrate it. Point to a single instance of a new creature evolving any time in human history.

Jpark,

I hope you do not mind but I thought I would answer for Kshark. Here are a few creatures that have evolved according to scientists:

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/33329/new_creatures_found_in_ethiopian_fossil_deposits/index.html

Also I found that these modern day animals have evolved:

elephant

turtle

penguin

eohippus

owls

deer

giraffe

almost all desert animals

Forgot to add:

Round-tailed Ground Squirrel

Desert Toads

fairy shrimps and brine shrimps

Poorwills

nighthawks

jackrabbits

Turkey

black vultures

JanayB--

Be prepared you will be told that you are wrong by jpark.

But thank you from me.

jpark--

My my still continuing with the personal attacks eh.

So now you are making demands when you refuse to answer my own questions.

Note: To be a fact, you must be able to demonstrate it. Point to a single instance of a new creature evolving any time in human history.

And I did that ALREADY.

This was my argument to which you then turned right around and hailed as bulls*** using your crap a** appeal to authority nonsense which you did not real all that properly but ya know what I will appeal to Gould before I would ever listen to s*** from you

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."

Thus Darwin acknowledged the provisional nature of natural selection while affirming the fact of evolution.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

I posted this same thing earlier and you s*** on it.

And since you like wikipedia

The "fact of evolution" refers to the changes in populations of biological organisms over time, which are known to have occurred through scientific observations and experiments. The "theory of evolution" refers to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation of how these changes occur. Misuse and misunderstanding of these terms have been used to construct arguments disputing the validity of the theory of evolution.

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

This is no bloody well different than gravity.

So spare me your delusional crap. I am still waiting for you prove God is real and alive as YOU said he/she/it was. So now it is your turn, make the argument.

Kshark,

Again, you have not provided a single instance of a new creature evolving.

You can't, of course. But you keep saying you did when you have not.

JanayB,

You choose to answer for Kshark (thanks, he needs some one to answer), and you list animals.
You have not listed as single instance where anyone observed the emergence of a new creature in the whole history of mankind.

I believe that evolution is a fine theory. I believe that the diversity of life we find on earth is a direct result of evolution. But that is a belief in a theory. The theory is not a fact because not a single instance of evolution has ever been observed.

Neither you nor Kshark can point to a single instance.

Evolution is not a fact.

You want to observe evolution?

Look at humanity itself. We have changed much since the earliest humans. As a matter of fact, in the 300 years since the founding of the USA, humanity hs changed a great deal. At 5''11, I would've been a giant to the founding fathers - yet now I'm only just above average.

During the Westward Expansion Era, human pinky fingers were almost as long as current day ring or middle fingers! Yet today they are the shortest digit, next the the thumb.

Our teeth have changed a great deal too. Our canines are no longer as pronounced and large. We've lost the need for our rearmost set of teeth.

All this and more can be proven by simply looking at pictures of humanity during these periods of time, or looking at remains of human beings from across the world and time.

The same is true of animals. The dogs of today are nothing like the dogs of years past. Neither are cats. Evolution is readily observable - you ust have to be, ya, know, observant.

Paragon Fury,
Thanks for playing.
All dogs are dogs.
All cats are cats.
All human beings are human beings.

Kshark,

Thanks for the heads up :) Also, your argument was very nicely written!

Jpark,

There is an animal called the Tuatara whom scientists have been studying for decades, that has evolved almost right before their eyes. I am sure that there are many others like this animal.

What about the evolution of man, and the transition from Homo Ergastar to Homo Erectus to Homo neanderthals to Homo sapians? We have not witnessed this yet we have all the evidence to support this evolution. The same goes for all other animals.

I respect your opinion; but we have an enormous amount of evidence that confirms this theory. So we can finally lay down the theory hat and proudly put on the fact hat.

(evolution need not be a whole new creature, just a change in the old one).

?

I'm not quite sure that you meean by that....but evolution doesn't mean changing in to something different - it simply means changing and adapting over time.

A cat is still a cat. But if a certain kind of cat (say, a Maine Coon) survives better than another kind (say, a Ragdoll), it becomes the dominant kind of cat. Its still a cat per-say, but its not the same thing as if the other kind came out on top. Evolution through natural slection.

Past humans are still humans. But they aren't the exact same thing as humans today. Evolution through gradual change.

JanayB & Paragon Fury,

Darwin proposed that new creatures develop due to selection pressures. He used the term evolution to denote that proposal which became a theory.

Man has been breeding all sorts of plants and animals throughout human history. We have never created a new creature through selection pressures.

Evolution, to be a fact, must produce a new creature. Breeding for traits is just breeding. Man has done it throughout his history.

If you want to dumb down the word evolution to just mean "change" and dispense with years of work on evolution, do so. I don't believe the scientific community will agree with you that evolution just means change.

We have never observed the emergence of a new creature through selection. Ever.

That prevents the theory of evolution from being a fact.

Paragon Fury

You correct.

Lactose intolerance is incontrovertible evidence of natural selection, Two separate adaptations parallel evolutionary adaptations, with totally different gens pairs solving the same problem of digesting the lactose proten. All those who can digest lactose today beyond puberty can trace this ability to one of those populations in, Europe or Africa.

Eventually the deniers of these facts will be selected out as well.

Dan Hallo, aka, Zoilus,
Selection indeed happens. Man does it and nature does it.
Breeding is not evolution.
Evolution results (eventually -- if the theory is correct) in a new creature.

A human being capable of drinking milk into adulthood is a human being.
A human being incapable of drinking milk into adulthood is a human being.

Wow, your deductive and critical reasoning skills suck. Lets add the reality of 200,000 years into the equation... Mankind has only been in existence for around that long.... Oh right... magic is the main ingredient involved with your analysis, not time..

Dan Hallo, aka, Zoilus,

No Dan. It is simple observation that all human beings are human beings.

Doesn't require rocket science.

well Jpark we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

Thanks for the discussion.

Of course it's not rocket science, It's the evolutinary sciences that are envoled.

Guess what you do when you bake a cake? Is that Rocket science or chemistry?

And where did you say mankind came from, you've said it before, abracadabra, that ol' black Magic called creation?

Dan Hallo, aka, Zoilus,

And where did you say mankind came from, you've said it before, abracadabra, that ol' black Magic called creation?

I don't see a problem with creation and evolution both being true. I have already said that.
You are trying to conflate change, per se, with evolution. Won't work. Evolution predicts the emergence of new creatures.

All human beings are human beings, regardless of skin color, hair color (or lack of hair), height, weight, gender, etc. A change in pigment, ability to digest milk, etc. does not represent the emergence of a new creature. The result is still a human being.

I don't see a problem with creation and evolution both being true.

You say that out of one side of your mouth, and out of the other side, you dispute all the evadance for evoloution and rely on the magic.

You are really a incredible man.

Dan Hallo, aka, Zoilus,

Not once have I disputed evolution. I have always said it is a fine theory.

You want to declare it a fact. Something which is not evident.

In your own words, Describe the what math theory is.

Why? Redirect?

Neither of us are disputing that evolution is a scientific theory.

You have your very own definitions for words jpark. answer the question.

I don't care to argue with you about the meaning of a theory.

Besides, such a discussion is very off topic for this thread.

I thought you'd say this.

I'm prettty sure Homo Sapiens (us) are not the same thing as Homo Erectus (our earliest bipedal ancestor).

Thus, we have a new creatures, within humanity's own timeline.

Paragon Fury,

Why "pretty sure". Homo Sapiens is not Homo Erectus.
Homo Sapiens is not Homo Habilis, etc.

Meaningless. When has a human being (homo sapiens) observed the emergence of a new creature in response to natural (or even human mediated) selection? Never.

JanayB-- LOL I told ya so didn't I. LOL

To everyone else in this thread excluding jpark--

You all are wasting your precious and valuable braincells in jpark. jpark THINKS they know what evolution is and the whole concept behind the fact and the theory but they haven't a f-ing clue about evolution and what it all entails.

See jpark says god is real and alive, but won't talk about it. When asked to prove his/her argument they won't. They will avoid.

They then will tell you you are wrong in everything you say no matter what. It is the predictable cycle of someone that hasn't one flipping clue about the world or science.

So unless you are ass kissing God, jpark won't hear you.

As you can see with every single post they make, jpark is rather delusional and that is putting it mildly. The ego talks and jpark cannot prove anything at all.

Save your breath you will be happier.

Have a conversation with someone that posseses a functioning braincell and is actaully reasonable.

Regarding the discussion about whether gravity and/or evolution are theories, facts, or both:

A predictable, observable phenomenon (i.e., fact) is used to formulate a scientific law, which simply describes what will or does happen. A theory is our best scientific explanation for how it happens.

Both gravity and evolution are observable phenomena. But the theories of each delve into the mechanisms that drive the phenomena. Hence the term "Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection".

I have a theory as to why this is a problem with most people of Faith, but not all, while atheist and agnostics have no problem understanding these nuances that exists in our language,

But there is no way it can be explained that won't be interpreted as being insulting or at best condescending by some. And Just saying that the sciences use it's own lexicon would be meaningless talking to a "Joe the Plumber." Even though plumbers have their own lexicon as well, they just don't all know it.. And that's just one word.

Lkessler,

No, the theory of relativity has not been proven. Theories are never proven. They are working models used to make predictions. For example, the theory of relativity has not been reconciled with quantum mechanics. Suns, galaxies and galaxy clusters do not move in accordance with either Newton's theory of gravitation nor do they move in accordance with relativity.

Relativity is a good theory which provides the tools to do many things. It falls far short of being proven.

You haven't seen God and you haven't seen a new creature evolve.

Choose Darwin if you want. He is definitely dead. God is not.

Evolution and gravity are complex scientific theories. God is simply a concept.

The theory of relativity hasn't been proven because no theory can ever be proven to the point where one contrary result can't discredit it. Now, it has passed every test it's been put to so far. So has quantum mechanics. Fortunately, the only real area of overlap for these two theories is gravity, since QM only applies on the subatomic scale.

And it's true that nobody has seen a new creature evolve, but experiments have shown that natural selection works on creatures in the wild.

"Theories are never proven. They are working models used to make predictions."

There is no theory or model to show or predict that God exists.

"You haven't seen God"

Neither have you nor anyone else, much less see any evidence, observations, or measurable effects of God's existence.

"haven't seen a new creature evolve."

We haven't seen a creature in the midst of the evolutionary process (hard to do given the timescales required). But we know animals and humans evolved and will continue to do so.

"Choose Darwin if you want. He is definitely dead."

At least I know for a FACT he existed and his contributions to science and knowledge are immeasurable and tangible. God is not.

"Look in the mirror sometime. You will see evidence of God."

That's about as logical as looking out a window on a rainy day and 'concluding' that rain is evidence of angels crying.

But we know animals and humans evolved and will continue to do so.

Strong, your faith is.

"Strong, your faith is."

No Yoda, strong my knowledge and logic is.

Lkessler,

You are mistaken in your understanding of a scientific theory. In science a theory can never be 'proven' only disproven. All the evidence that is consistent with a theory is merely supportive and adds to the confidence in the theory. It only takes one piece of data that does not fit the theory to disprove the theory. In fact, Relativity has been proven to be incomplete, as has quantum theory. This does not diminish their usefulness. It exemplifies the strength of science. The merging of the ultra small with the ultra large and fast has prompted the expansion of our knowledge. This is the advantage of science over religion. Religion espouses the lie that we have the answers and that we don't need to look further. The answer is GOD. All done, everyone can go home. What a lousy philosophy to live by, IMHO.

Show me dark matter and I'll show you God. It's kind of funny how those who "know" that God doesn't exist because they haven't seen him also "know" that the theoretical dark matter exists because if it doesn't, everything they understand about the structure of the universe is thrown into doubt. Funny how we're ridiculed for believing in God with no proof of existance, while the belief that some mysterious, undetectable substance exists to make everything fit into the rules one man laid out is a-ok.

angryirish,

Would you mind naming the one man that laid out the rules. I am unfamiliar with this individual. I am not saying I believe in dark matter or that the name is representative of the phenomenon if it exists. I would like to know the one man that laid out the rules though.

I wonder what you think of gravity and electromagnetism. At one time they were refered to as some mysterious undetectable force. Then we learned how to detect them and over centuries, the rules that describe their behavior. Is this the same man that you are referring to?

angryirish: The difference is that things like dark matter are posited to explain specific anomolies in the observed universe. Religious people evoke God as an invisible explanation for everything we don't understand. Thus, the goalposts are always moving. They say, "You don't understand X; therefore X is the work of God." Then when science discovers an explanation for X, they say, "Yeah, but you still don't understand Y." Now, one day we will be able to conduct experiments to test whether or not dark matter exists. The incredible shifting goalposts of the God hypothesis mean that it's almost impossible to ever disprove it. One day, we will either be able to discount the existence of dark matter or have greater evidence that dark matter exists. Thanks to the shifting goalposts and the presence of lots of things we don't understand in a vast universe, it is likely impossible to refute the God hypothesis with experimental evidence. That's what makes the idea of dark matter different from the idea of God.

angryirish--#3.8

Well I would say have a chat with Swiss Astronomer Fritz Zwicky, but he is dead. He was the first to use Virial Theorem, though first thought up in the 1800's by Clausius ust not used. Dark matter was accepted by Zwicky's original idea, though not for some 40 years later, but thus you were then introduced to:

gravitational lensing and cosmological expansion rates

I will even go ANOTHER step further CERN (European Organization of Nuclear Research) located in Geneva have developed antimatter.

That wasn't just a made up substance mentioned in the book Angels and Demons, they really developed antimatter

http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases1996/PR01.96EAntiHydrogen.html

"while the belief that some mysterious, undetectable substance exists to make everything fit into the rules one man laid out is a-ok"

Angryirish, Dark Matter has been observed and is known to exist. Space based observatories even captured a false color image of Dark Matter. Scientists can also observe and measure its effects on cosmological bodies. Besides, gravity is a mysterious, undetectable force. Does it exist?

God is both undetectable and unobservable, complete with a total lack of supporting evidence for His existence. He is just invoked to fill in gaps of our knowlwdge. But that doesn't mean He is real or using Him as an answer to anything is true.

Show me dark matter and I'll show you God. It's kind of funny how those who "know" that God doesn't exist because they haven't seen him also "know" that the theoretical dark matter exists because if it doesn't, everything they understand about the structure of the universe is thrown into doubt.

No one absolutely knows that dark matter exists. Don't lower the scientific community to your dogmatic intellectual level. It's rude.

I like your style. I'll agree completely here, because I can't find it anywhere else.

The Old Testament was pretty cool - those were some awesome stories!

The key is to be able to distinguish between God and that favorite work of fiction known as the Bible.

Well said SG

I've always thought of the bible as a book of conduct, lessons on leading a good life, with enough truth and facts to be believable. Obviously they're not all relevant anymore, and some are downright barbaric, but it was written at a time when people were just barely civilized.

Of course it's possible to believe in God and evolution. Even the most religious have to realize that Adam & Eve didn't just pop up one day. I was always taught that the 'days' mentioned in the creation aren't the days of the week. God has been around since before time and will be around after. One day could be millions of our years. This, to me, means evolution. He provided a starting point for all things and pretty much let it fly, giving things a nudge every once in a while.

To me, this is just as plausible as the big bang theory, and may be the same thing. Those who are anti-creation ridicule those who believe in creation, but the starting point of both are equally vague. "In the beginning there was God" vs. "In the beginning there was a singularity". When asked "where did God come from" I always answer He just always was. I'll then ask "where did the singularity come from" and the usual response is a shrug. There's no answer to either.

Who knows. There are theories that an infinite number of universes exist in and infinite number of dimensions. Maybe our God is of a race older than can be imagined, beings that are pure thought with no physical substance, and maybe each of the infinite universes is rules by one of these being. It's something well never know, and that's where faith comes in.

Adam & Eve didn't just pop up one day

Adam's did. That's supposed to be the problem, right?

And it still gets us in trouble.

angryirish,

but the starting point of both are equally vague. "In the beginning there was God" vs. "In the beginning there was a singularity".

To me the difference is one is a fundamental construct of the universe that exists today in blackholes. It is the most basic form of everything, the least differentiated. The other is the most complex, intelligent being. Which do you think is most likely to exist at the beginning, the most elementary or the most complex?

To me, this is just as plausible as the big bang theory, and may be the same thing. Those who are anti-creation ridicule those who believe in creation, but the starting point of both are equally vague. "In the beginning there was God" vs. "In the beginning there was a singularity". When asked "where did God come from" I always answer He just always was. I'll then ask "where did the singularity come from" and the usual response is a shrug. There's no answer to either.

Bare creationism, as in the idea that some conscious entity created the universe in some way, is, of course, a viable possibility. However, two points:

1. Bare creationism does not have the explanatory power nor the evidentiary support that the Big Bang theory has.

2. "Creationism" typically refers to a level of Biblical literalism that is far removed from the bare idea of a creator entity doing mysterious stuff in the beginning.

Angryirish

Who knows. There are theories that an infinite number of universes exist in and infinite number of dimensions. Maybe our God is of a race older than can be imagined, beings that are pure thought with no physical substance, and maybe each of the infinite universes is rules by one of these being. It's something well never know, and that's where faith comes in.

Science and evolution still do not have a problem with this. The question we are asking is where did life come from and how did we get the fauna and flora we observe today? Even if life was created in this universe, how did the creating life form come in to existence? If it was from an older universe, how did it come to be in that universe? Or the one before that? All the way back to the very first if there is one. That concept may just be a shortcoming of the current human brain. We can not concieve of "no time". It is beyond our experience and primitive minds. So we create a creator because we can't deal with our ignorance and limitations. That is arrogance. We have to have an answer. That is a mental illness or lack of mental development and the human species is mentally ill or vastly immature. All children want concrete answers. Adults, supposedly, can deal with uncertainty. As a species we are children and 'need' the security blanket of a 'god'. Some day we will grow up and realise it is okay to know we don't know and overcome our collective fear. In this way we can create the rules needed for the species to live civilized lives that better the species as well as the individual. Instead, we live in a world society that is selfish and self defeating.

>Even the most religious have to realize that Adam & Eve didn't just pop up one day.<

Ask a Jehovah's Witness about that and you'll get an answer even Ug the caveman would be proud of.

I agree here, wholeheartedly!

Mick, that's like asking what happened before time existed - It's an invalid question; there was no "before/after" before time existed. Without time, one thing cannot come before another, or be created by another thing, and this is a real conundrum whatever your beliefs may be.

And who created that god of yours?

That's like asking where the singularity that exploded in what's known as the big bang came from. Explain that and you may have the answer to both questions.

explain that and you own the world....

I'd love to see Flava Flav's user icon. Would it be a big gold tooth or a clock?

You're not the only one with random thoughts! Shutting down the brain is good sometimes; it help you think.

I'd hate to try and decypher his idiot ebonics in printed form.

I'm with ya on that, buddy!

rixar

I only believe in Scientific Proof. Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see.

Can you see gravity?

Darryl,

Yes indirectly. Drop a ball and watch it fall. You observed gravity.

Drop a ball and watch it fall. You observed gravity.

Well no, you don't, respectfully.

What is observed is the effect. In this case, gravity is acting on an object.

My point is, simply, that like wind & gravity, there are elements that act in/on our world every day that cannot be seen and still have a direct effect. Belief and faith are the same for millions of people

Darryl,

Wind and gravity and electromagnetism and other forces of nature have the same effect on all observers and inanimate objects. These effects are measurable and reproducible. Faith and belief are individual. Their effects can not be measured, are not reproducible, and do not apply equally to all. They are a placebo, the power of suggestion. At worst a parlor trick.

tim

Wind and gravity and electromagnetism and other forces of nature have the same effect on all observers and inanimate objects. These effects are measurable and reproducible.

Agreed, and well said

Faith and belief are individual.

Just as faith and belief are individual, they are "measured" by each individual as just that, an individual experience.

Their effects can not be measured, are not reproducible, and do not apply equally to all.

We can both see the same magnificent sunrise and both take away something different from the "same" experience.

They are a placebo, the power of suggestion. At worst a parlor trick.

I couldn't disagree more.

Again, they are very real experience(s)

The reproductability that science relys on/demands to "prove" a theory as fact is called faith with respect to religion, and again, is "measured" by the indivdule experience

Darryl,

The reproductability that science relys on/demands to "prove" a theory as fact is called faith with respect to religion, and again, is "measured" by the indivdule experience

I, respectfully, have to say wrong, not disagree but wrong. Science relies on the fact that other scientists are driven to 'disprove' a theory. It is absolutely the opposite of faith. Every scientist is motivated to find the exception that disproves the theory and advances our knowledge.

If faith were the same as science, everyone of faith would be working to disprove the existence of god. They would be looking for any explaination "other than" god.

You have faith that god exists and is unquestionable. I believe evolution is the best idea and explanation of how life came to exist in its varied forms on this planet 'that we have at this moment'. I do not have faith that it is THE explanation, just the best at the moment. You believe in undeniable certainty and I think our theories are approximations that will develop and mature over time. The extreme of your outlook promotes a stagnation of thought (god did it we don't need to look any further). Mine promotes a curiosity to expand our knowledge of the workings of the universe.

If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of Giants. ~ Isaac Newton.

Tim,

Science relies on the fact that other scientists are driven to 'disprove' a theory.

As well as the "testing" methodology must be repeatable

It is absolutely the opposite of faith.

Exactly.

And also one of the primary reasons they can both exist in the same time and space.

I believe evolution is the best idea and explanation of how life came to exist in its varied forms on this planet 'that we have at this moment'.

Again, agreed. As I stated in #8, my very first comment to this thread

Both exist and are both relevant to in the same discussion.

God created all things and evolution is a simple part of our natural world. All things evolve over time.

Mine promotes a curiosity to expand our knowledge of the workings of the universe.

Again, agreed.

Because I believe in God does not mean that I do not believe in the application of all the tools and gifts we have been endowed with, quite the contrary.

We are all on a wonderful journey of discovery and understanding, (provided we don't all kill each other first) but that is a different subject.

Science relies on the fact that other scientists are driven to 'disprove' a theory. It is absolutely the opposite of faith. Every scientist is motivated to find the exception that disproves the theory and advances our knowledge.
If faith were the same as science, everyone of faith would be working to disprove the existence of god. They would be looking for any explaination "other than" god.

You have faith that god exists and is unquestionable. I believe evolution is the best idea and explanation of how life came to exist in its varied forms on this planet 'that we have at this moment'. I do not have faith that it is THE explanation, just the best at the moment. You believe in undeniable certainty and I think our theories are approximations that will develop and mature over time. The extreme of your outlook promotes a stagnation of thought (god did it we don't need to look any further). Mine promotes a curiosity to expand our knowledge of the workings of the universe.

Who requires you to believe in order to understand?

Belief is based on evidence. You do, however, have to seek the truth to find it.

lazz;

Where the god theory breaks down is that you are required to believe in order to understand, rather than the other way 'round

...agree.......funny thing, one comes upon that belief in a supreme being quite independently...just being here as a child and given time to explore the world about...

....then come the dogmas....where everything is 'thought out' for you...

..at least, that's what happened with me, and, thank God I was allowed to freely explore, in the spirit of a Deist. The evidence, I don't need it pointed out...I'm not lost...I'm exploring...fear not, for me...

"Belief is based on evidence."

No, belief is based on the absence of evidence, i.e. God. Truth must be based on fact.

Yes, jpark, I was a Christian for many years; you must first have faith. Did you miss that day of Sunday School?

And there is no evidence of God. Men have been seeking it since civilization began and have found not a scrap.

"Men have been seeking it since civilization began and have found not a scrap."

Especially since our caveman days when 'gods' was used to explain all unknown phenomenon down through all civilizations and cultures throughout the world, each with their own belief systems and gods and mythologies, ect.. Despite all that and the thousands of years of known religious practices, no one has been able to show much less prove God is real or that there is any god of any kind. How long will it take before that realization finally sinks in?

Ahh, I love logic late in the evening. Very meditative.

US Citizen-658112

Yes. Evolution clearly exists. And no one can say when evolution started.

Therefore there is no valid reason to discount either belief.

Exactly. Where is it stated that god - if god exists - couldn't start the universe through evolution?

Nowhere!

Isn't that awesome?

this is an amazing time....

Still, one of the most harmful delusions that exists in our time and keeps us from advancing and coming to terms with the Human condition, finding working solutions to the social problems of a growing population and coexist peacefully together, is the lack of recognition that mankind is just anther animal like any other, and that morals for the most part beside the culture memes, are the instinct that allows us to live as a group, like all animals that are socially inclined. Just more advanced.

This is why religion and science will never be compatible unless this is acknowledged. All written ideologies are just variations that exist on a curve between the two extremes of egotism and altruism. Mankind is not draw to these intellectually, but have innate predilections for them, birds of a feather. Call them Fascism or Liberalism and the variations between, fear and survival, caring for the safety of our young, and then nurturing and social bonds, all of these are influenced and triggered by the needs of these two opposing factors. And some of us are born without any innate social traits, bad seeds, ASPD, on the extreme of the the social instinct scale. base animal survival traits and impulses, enhanced with the higher human intellect,

The terms used are arbitrary and don't matter, these are the driving forces behind all political and socila conflicts, not religions, and can only be understood by science. Not some fantasies of any supernatural source outside of the human condition of good and evil..

hey, Dan....good to see you, man....the 'socialogical/scientific aspect we're currently exploring, I'd suggest it is but another evolutionary 'gear' that is now engaged in the process of making for that provoibial 'Heaven on earth' scenario....thanks, for the astute reference....hang in there...

Yes I used to believe that, 10 years ago when I studied to be a priest, and before I was an atheist ( the mark of a man will be seen on his forehead or his hand, i.e. what we think and what we do) and now with the advances in fMRI technology mapping the thought processes of the brain, seeing how when a person thinks, "screwdriver", "blue" or "Love " the same patterns emerge in everyone, a mind reading machine will be perfected in as little as 5 years with the help of supercomputers and once the patterns are deciphered it will just be a comparatively small task of making a portable reader/decoder. No one will be able to lie, and we could have a gestalt level of communication in less then ten years.. thought communication devises carried around like iPods...

What will that do to society? I'd write a book but I'm to lazy.

Here is a discussion and segment of a recent "60 Minute" episode on this subject, with video.

Evolution began, like Mick Smit says, right after life did. Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the origins of life. It is a set of rules and predictions about how life changes over time. Clearly people all over the world manage to stuff their religious beliefs into the spaces around evolutionary theory, just as they do with any other scientific discoveries (disease comes from demons? really, Jesus? let's just make that part "allegorical.") I am sure that once some of the new breakthroughs in abiogenesis start unfolding (home-made ribonucleotides, anyone?), most believers will find a way to accomodate that, too. People like their religion.

The nice thing about reality is that it doesn't require apologetics. The mountains around my house look the same whether or not I am actively appreciating their beauty or not. Those unconsciously acting glaciers did a great job! And that rush of "wow! that's awesome!" that I get when I look at the sun setting behind them is not "evidence" of them having been made just for me. That's just sentience, this wonderful happenstance of natural selection. Breathtaking! And so far no one has taken home that shiny nobel prize for disproving evolution (oh wait...I forgot about the global science conspiracy where all scientists have agreed that deluding everyone in the world was just too funny. way too funny to give up for all that renown and cash.), and until someone does, it's just going to keep on being true. I really don't understand what is so upsetting about being the most successful species of ape, anyway.

This discussion reminds me of Douglas Adams' analogy of us being like a puddle waking up to sentience and deciding that the hole it is in must have been made just for it. It fits it so perfectly!

Bu then why atheists like Richard Dawkins who simply do not believe that life emerged out ot nothing and created by GOD, hold on to the theory of evolution so desperately. Of course the two are related. Your comment might be correct if evolution were scientific but it is not. It is a misbelief, a big deceit that blinds the public with fancy articles and forged fossils. There is no single evidence that proves the theory right. You should check the Atlas of Creation by Harun Yahya for detailed information

Fossils are forged? Please do subject a few to some independent tests and get right back to us on that one please. I'm sure you will approach the subject with a clear non-judgmental open minded clinical perspective. You could write a "fancy article" about it.

no comfort in lies;

This discussion reminds me of Douglas Adams' analogy of us being like a puddle waking up to sentience and deciding that the hole it is in must have been made just for it. It fits it so perfectly!

...and....for a moment...the puddle owns a vision of that perfection, with itself included.....poifect!!! brilliant!!!......ah, but then the sun comes out, stirrs it's molecules.... the wind blows..the passers-by step into it....and soon it realizes the destiny of its substance, and joins the others of its kind, up into the stratosphere....

...poifect....that's an attitude one should keep in mind...and, only with sentience could you have a 'good' one anyways....and, only with time can one come to see it a 'good' thing as opposed to a percieved 'destruction' of 'perfection....where the sentience is lost to the emotions of chaos, willing itself to never become a 'puddle' again.....listening to the other puddles, dealing with their 'chaos' ...that can be dangerous, should one be so prideful that one cannot see the bigger picture....one can never see the

...point in 'being' anything.....

Exactly. Where is it stated that god - if god exists - couldn't start the universe through evolution?

Erm... I think "evolution" here is referring to biological evolution, not the colloquial idea of "things change."

There is no single evidence that proves the theory right.

You're right. There's a preponderance of evidence that demonstrates the theory as one of the most credible in human history.

I don't know about you, but I already think this universe is amazing, especially when I get away from the city and can really see the stars!

It's no surprise to me, that there is religion....it seems our own inspirations, triggered by Mother Nature....I mean, just having the time to appreciate a redwood forest, let alone the stars....I mean, the inspiration to dare to believe we somehow live forever is right here for us to bear witness to...to imagine....it is such a great element... to be able to convey what is within to others with language....

I would like to convey from the gospel of John, vs. 1, chapt. 1.....''In the beginning was the WORD..'' what a concept, huh?? I really like....does it stand up to scientific scrutiny?? ...of course not....but, somehow we got there...here...what a miracle....to insist there be an after life???.... that kinna says this one is somehow not enough, and, I goin' bitchin' to God about it... it's a gift, is it not? ...love life....pass it on...

Yep, this is an amazing universe and science (and evolution!) only makes me more amazed by it!!!

There's little time to try visualising the Creator when to visualise and comprehend Creation is a full-time job.

Nasty, that's so true.

Good stuff PDeuth!

I don't think it's wise to conclude one way or the other, the existence of God, and an 'afterlife' ......this is unknowable territory...I do understand why y'all choose not to believe, and I'm not offended....there is no divine patent on wisdom, brought on by the 'theory' of cause and effect either...

I believe our evolution was sped-up with our evolution to share knowledge....stagnance has only happened when religion has stepped in with absolutes, commanding it's subjects come unwillingly into the fold, and they either lived or died (sometimes they died anyways) at the hand of the church....

Evolution was sped up when humanity realized the concept of the 'WORD'...language, then it evolved to the written word, then it evolved further by the inclusion of the common man...each step, bringing more momentum into the equation....

You know that saying, 'Hope springs eternal'?? let's hope it does....We just might be in line to witness to that proverbial 'heaven on earth' that has inspired the 'least of us' to great things...make it so, #one....

Nipdoc...you're rambling, but let's try to address some of your claims.

1) You totally misconstrue the concept of evolution. It operates in all environments at all times because no environment is ever truly static. To posit the idea that humans who left Africa continued to evolve while humans who remained in Africa somehow stopped evolving is total nonsense.

2) Archeologists have a pretty good idea as to how and why ancient Egyptians built the pyramids. It was a long, arduous process that required large numbers of workers laboring most of the year for twenty years or more. When the pharaoh died, he was buried inside the pyramid. During the Old Kingdom era anyway.

3) The idea that crop circles are created by aliens is a hoax. Creative people with too much free time on their hands create crop circles.

4) Machu Picchu may have been a secluded religious complex during Inca times. It was remote enough that the Spanish never reached it. Nonetheless, because the Inca civilization that built Machu Picchu unraveled, the site was abandoned and quickly engulfed by jungle. Over the centuries, a few Peruvian Indians remembered its location. This knowledge helped Hiram Bingham locate Machu Picchu in 1911.

The last paragraph made no sense at all aside from noting that Africa lays south of the Middle East.

I agree. It is important to realize that the scientific method can never disprove the existence of God because there is not empirical experiment that could do that.

"that the scientific method can never disprove the existence of God"

But it is impossible to prove a negative. Science never claimed a god of any kind exist. The theists do and the burden of proving that claim is on them.

But it is impossible to prove a negative.

It is not impossible to prove something does not exist. Proving Fermat's Last Theorem shows something doesn't exist. You're thinking about an empirical proof, not an analytical one.

Prove a negative? What does that mean? My net worth is negative, does that mean you can't prove it?

There is no empirical evidence of God's existence.

"Prove a negative? What does that mean?"

It means you cannot prove something exists when it doesn't.

There is no empirical evidence of God's existence.

And there is no empirical evidence of that God doesn't exist...what's your point?

It means you cannot prove something exists when it doesn't.

And you also cannot prove something doesn't exist when it does.

"And there is no empirical evidence of that God doesn't exist...what's your point?"

The point is, if you say God exists, then it is up to you to prove it. It is not up to me to disprove it, although I can give you evidence to support God's non-existence with a degree of certainty. So don't say "God exists, period" then try to pass that off as a fact when you have none.

"And you also cannot prove something doesn't exist when it does."

True, but I never said God exists. If He does exist, then prove it!

The point is, if you say God exists, then it is up to you to prove it. It is not up to me to disprove it, although I can give you evidence to support God's non-existence with a degree of certainty.

Holy crap! You have definite evidence to support God's non-existence? Why is this not making the headlines? You'd be able to collapse all of the world's religions in one fell swoop! We can finally make everything right with the planet, once people stop believing in a silly concept like "God" after seeing conclusive proof that, in fact, there is no "God." Rejoice!

...although I can give you evidence to support God's non-existence with a degree of certainty.

I would like to see your evidence.

So don't say "God exists, period" then try to pass that off as a fact when you have none.

I never said God exists. If it is possible to construct an analytical proof that God exists then it is also possible to constuct an analytical proof that he doesn't. I suppose it's also possibe to prove God does and doesn't exist at the same time just like Schoedinger's Cat. So I don't see how it is "impossible to prove a negative."

Hippo,

If it is possible to construct an analytical proof that God exists then it is also possible to constuct an analytical proof that he doesn't.

No. You can not construct a proof that something doesn't exist. Just because one has not found the thing is not proof. One can only prove the existence of something by finding it. All other evidence is just supportive not proof. The atom is an example. We have evidence of its existence, but the actual form is still in question and actively researched.

No. You can not construct a proof that something doesn't exist.

I can construct a proof a fraction equal to the square root of two does not exist. A counter example is sufficient to disprove your conjecture.

"You have definite evidence to support God's non-existence?"

I didn't say I have definite evidence. I said I can give you evidence to provide a greater possibility of a lack of God. I wish I had definite, smoking-gun evidence.

"You'd be able to collapse all of the world's religions in one fell swoop!"

I can dream, can't I, lol. Of course, if there was any definite proof of God's existence, that would certainly make headlines and put lots of doubt (and some scientific theories) to rest.

"We can finally make everything right with the planet, once people stop believing in a silly concept like "God" after seeing conclusive proof that, in fact, there is no "God."

I think in fact that would happen, but it's not very likely to.

" I never said God exists."

My apologies. I interpreted the tone of your responses to imply that you believe (if not actually said) that God exists.

"I would like to see your evidence."

As you wish: First, let's start with empirical evidence. There is NONE. There is no physical evidence, no observations, nothing tangible, no signs of any interaction whatsoever between God (or His realm) to our own physical reality, and no tests developed to actually study or observe God in any way, shape, or form.

Second, God (or some form of deity or higher power) has been the centerpiece of religious belief and/or societies for thousands of years. Ancient Egypt, Greeks, and Romans are a few examples. In all those thousands of years across a multitude of cultures, not one has been able to positively identify a god/s. They function only on beliefs. The Abrahamic religions are more recent additions to the religion list being only 2-3000 yrs old. They are the current theological flavor of the millenium.

Third, God or gods is an abstract notion or a philisophical concept. It is analogous to a child's imaginary friend-you might think it's real and even interact on that level, but in reality, no one is actually there. God as a concept is also indoctrinated into most people, usually when they are children, by their parents. Once religious beliefs become entrenched (which is easier to do when you're young), it becomes very difficult to change or remove them. Children and even some adults are susceptible or gullible to following such notions.

Fourth, God is used to fill in the gaps of our knowledge. There are things mankind cannot or has not been able to explain-yet. So we invoke God as an answer: "God did it" or "It's because of God," ect... God/s has been used to explain things such as why the sun rose and fell everyday or why it rains and thunder/lightning, ect.. This sometimes resulted in whole mythologies being created, i.e. the aforementioned Greeks and Romans, who positively believed in the realness of their gods. What makes our current religious beliefs and ideas about God any different?

Finally, God is used as a comfort mechanism. Man is probably the only animal that knows it is going to die. That notion can be frightening. So we invent a heavenly paradise which God created and rules over and awaits us when we die. Suddenly, death doesn't seem too bad a thing. We use God for comfort when we or a loved one is sick, injured, dying, or whatever. It's a psychological comfort mechanism to help us cope with stress or something traumatic. He is also used to exert control through fear or rewards by offering heavenly rewards for compliance to religious rules and hellish punishment if those rules are broken.

So, that's my 'evidence' for God's nonexistence. Now, where is your 'evidence' to support His existence?

God by definition is the source of all existence. All which exists, is of God. Hence: God does not exist.

God by definition is the source of all existence. All which exists, is of God. Hence: God does not exist.

Sound's like Russell's Paradox to me.

It's funny, gordy327, I agree with your five valid, well-spoken points (well, the first one can be twisted into a matter of interpretation), but it doesn't really change any of my beliefs. (If you couldn't tell, my earlier comments were sarcastic; I have an unshakable belief in God). But I guess that's what faith is; belief in something you can't prove. I don't expect to find scientific evidence to "prove" God. But I don't see a belief in God and acceptance of scientific facts as incompatible. I couldn't imagine a god creating a world with rules he refused to work within (talk about admission of fallibility!), so any "divine" or "supernatural" occurences would be perfectly explainable under scientific laws and theories, assuming we know all of the laws and theories. Belief in God won't come out of science, but from the individual. If you don't believe, you don't believe.

"God created all".... Says who ?

It ends the debate. "Who" says anything?

seems there may be plausible argument for an evolutionary 'shortcut', provided by aliens from ...beyond....nothing about 'gawwd' unless you wanna worship some alien ideology that might have transmuted into the human pool.....creation is no more resolved, should your theory be proven correct, you'd only be deifying other humans....

Please. The whole notion that advanced extraterrestrials galavant around the universe so primitive species (e.g. humans) can worship them by constructing pyramids and Nazca lines is demented.

If advanced aliens do exist (quite possible), do you think they care one iota about species like ours taking baby steps? It's the equivalent of us watching mice figure out a maze. It's neat for a minute or two. But not worth the trip across trillions of miles of interstellar space...

BJK,

If advanced aliens do exist (quite possible), do you think they care one iota about species like ours taking baby steps?

Yes I think they might have, when they had to evacuate their home planet between Mars and Jupiter. :-)

In the beginning there was a void of knowledge. To satisfy his courisity and quest for answers to questions like 'where did we come from, how did this all start, where are we going', Man create the gods.

Still are no answers in your statement.

"Why would anyone choose to believe they came from a monkey."

Why would anybody choose to believe there is a God or that we are somehow divinely special (sometimes we're indoctrinated into believing)? Perhaps you need something to make yourself feel good? Of course, we know we didn't come from a monkey. Creationists never seem to get that one right. We and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor. Even if we did come from monkeys, so what? We can take pride on being higher up on the evolutionary ladder over our "ancestors". That kind of makes us like gods to the lower lifeforms.

gordy,

We and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor.

I respectfully disagree. While the similarities are undeniable as well as striking, especially when DNA is considered. The ability to reason is one of our endowments as well as free will.

I truly believe that we are Gods creation and we can all look to the natural world we enjoy as a tutor/teacher when we employ our minds, the aforementioned endowments as well as science. As with most things we study, typically, when we start to "peel back the layers", we sometimes find more similarities than not.

"I truly believe that we are Gods creation"

Darryl, that is just your belief and you're entitled to it. But you have no evidence or proof to back that claim up. There is more evidence to support our evolutionary origins and common ancestors with other primates, DNA being one example. You acknowledge there are similarities but completely ignore them in favor of unproven religious dogma.

"when we start to "peel back the layers", we sometimes find more similarities than not."

You also find similarities as you go back down the evolutionary tree, verified by fossils, geographical location, geological strata, and timelines as well.

Your right, monkeys are too smart to be associated with stupid Humans.

You can believe in evolution and not believe we came from monkey's - gasp!

gordy,

we agree more than not. we certainly can & do find cause & effect in all science (hence the designation). We also confirm it to be truth, just as our creator intended. i think the one piece you overlook is faith.

Personally, I struggled for years in accepting the Bible for the book it is, with my main "argument" being a document so old, with literally centuries of differing interpretations, how can we see the truth of the teachings?

At least for me, a large part of this was shown directly and in no uncertain terms with respect to how "I" was managing my life, but I digress away from topic.

We all have physical substance and exist (for now) in a physical dimension. Given this elementary foundation, it holds true that we find and identify with our physical surroundings past & present and recognize, just as Darwin did, that time and evolution are inextricably connected.

As for our creation, personally , I will worship my God. The "Big Bang" is about as big as one can get, and has to come from someone bigger.

"i think the one piece you overlook is faith."

Faith is a belief in something in the absence of proof. In a scientific sense, "faith" is a theory at best and certainly cannot be passed off as factual. Theologically, faith is the belief in a higher power and is a personal nature which cannot be quantified. But it doesn't mean that something is real or exists, as there is no evidence to support such an idea.

"The "Big Bang" is about as big as one can get, and has to come from someone bigger."

How do you know the Big Bang came from someone or something? You're just injecting your own faith or beliefsa into a scientific theory. By your logic, if there is a God, who created the universe or the Big Bang, then who created God? God would have to come from someone bigger than Him, right?

We all have physical substance and exist (for now) in a physical dimension.

I disagree. We exist in the mind. And while the complexity of the human brain is possibly one of the greatest marvels in the universe, it is still flawed. Science is an attempt to free ourselves from our primordially driven emotional perspective of the universe, but it fails because it too is created by humans.

The "Big Bang" is about as big as one can get, and has to come from someone bigger.

Where is your evidence for this statement? Does it come from your very limited experience in this universe and existance? This is not meant as a derogatory comment. The fact is we all have very limited experience. It is an integral part of what it means to be human. I object to your use of this limitation as an argument for your position. Ignorance is not a justification or evidence. That our experience limits us to a cause for every effect does not make it valid in all cases. This is fallacy created by the extemely primitive human brain.

Gordy

God would have to come from someone bigger than Him, right?

Not so much. He is, to quote, "The beginning and the end".

And thank you for recognizing the personal nature of faith, for it is very much a personal relationship we each have with God.

"He is, to quote, "The beginning and the end"."

That remains to be seen.

" for it is very much a personal relationship we each have with God. "

It begs the question: Does God exist? Can you prove it?

The origin of any species, even humans, is a drop in the bucket in the grand pagaent of life. That is the radical, awesome claim that Darwin made - that all living things today are the descendants of simple life forms (unicellular bacteria) that lived billions of years ago. Essentially, all life is related because all living things have a common ancestor.

The "proof" is undeniable. 1) Cells are the basic unit of all life forms. 2) Even the simplest bacteria use DNA as their genetic material. 3) With minor exceptions (mitochondrial DNA, certain archaebacteria), the genetic code is universal.

In my mind, evolution is God's ultimate miracle.

Blasphemer! Heretic! Someone build a pile and feed him to the flame!

"cue the angry mob sounds"

gordy

Does God exist? Can you prove it?

Does gravity exist? does wind exist? can you see them?

Yes they exists and you can test them and see it, and use the results.

Plus...No one prays to gravity and wind any more and base their life decisons on which way the wind blows..

Yes they exists and you can test them and see it, and use the results.

Exactly. Just as people test religion and see results everday.

"Does gravity exist? does wind exist? can you see them?"

Yes, they do because we can observe its effects. Also, what Dan Hallo said!

"Just as people test religion and see results everday."

What tests? What results? Religion has been studied and tested with no results out of the ordinary being reported. An example is the great prayer experiment done in England where surgical patients who underwent similar heart surgeries were studied. A group recieved prayers, one group didn't, and one was a control group. The results: prayer had No effect. And that's just one study.

People can pray for something to happen. If there is a statisical possibility of the desired results occurring, then it can happen. When it does, people attribute it to having "their prayers answered". If it doesn't, then it's chalked up as "God's Will." But it doesn't mean religion had any effect in reality.

gordy

Yes, they do because we can observe its effects

As I said, I observe these effects in people every day as well.

But God has not been observed, seen, or measured.

But God has not been observed, seen, or measured.

As I said "Faith"

Observed, you bet!

Much like gravity and wind, maybe the source is not observable or seen, but certainly the direct effect, are seen and measured by millions of people every day.

NOnononono... No one, ever, anywhere, has seen "proof" or "the effects" or "the evidence" of god, or a god, or gods, or aliens, or angels, or faeries. People see life, they see beauty, they see people doing terrible things, they see puppies, they see people recovering from illnesses from which there is a very low (but not zero) statistical chance of recovery, they see coincidences. EVERYONE SEES THESE THINGS!

The difference is that if you start out wearing your god glasses, then you will attribute these things to god. Just pointing at a sunset and saying "there's your evidence of god" just because it's beautiful is not actually presenting evidence of anything (with the possible exception of refraction). If I have a one in a million chance of recovering from cancer, and I recover, that is not a miracle (even if someone prayed for me). That's just statistics. That's why there's a 1 in that ratio. Because sometimes it happens. You make a choice to see these as evidence for your deity. That doesn't make them evidence.

So I guess when you say people "see" evidence of the divine every day you are correct on a technicality. But you must understand that this is not what is actually meant by the word "evidence."

Right?

I mean, the ancient egyptians thought the pharoah made the sun rise every day. Would you call the fact that the sun rose every day evidence of Pharoah's divine status? If not, can you explain the difference to me?

"As I said "Faith"

Not good enough and totally unsubstantiated.

"the source is not observable or seen, but certainly the direct effect, are seen and measured by millions of people every day."

What effects? If they are seen, thay can be recorded and reviewed. I have yet to see anything.

Exactly. Just as people test religion and see results everday.

You mean like, the tooth fairy test?

Or the pray the War is over and I can go home test.

Or the pray she likes me test?

Or the pray that god saves my brother after he gets hit by the car test.

Tell me oh pious one?

Name a repeatable demonstrable Test that works every time, and that proofs the existence god, that is not the result predicting natural occurrences by deductive reasoning, the result of random chance or the whims of mans

I know with absolute certainty the gist of your answer.

"The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason."~ Benjamin Franklin

DH

Tell me oh pious one?

Can you have a discussion without the sarcasm? If not then go away

Name a repeatable demonstrable Test that works every time, and that proofs the existence god,

Literally billions of people on our planet do everyday. If this does no fit into a classification that suits you, then one would have to say that is either your issue or that the majority of mankind is wrong/different........... that your opinion

that is not the result predicting natural occurrences by deductive reasoning, the result of random chance or the whims of mans

I think your point here is that belief/faith do not fit into the strictest sense of scientific analysis, inasmuch as they cannot be manipulated at will to perform a specific set of predetermined/expected results. This is the very nature/core of the term, that is then in play, you either have belief/faith or not. If one does, the scientific analog is proven out and if not the transverse is found.

I know with absolute certainty the gist of your answer.

"The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason."~ Benjamin Franklin

Again, I disagree, you do not have to need to close/shut anything.

Even more to the opposite. When you open your eyes & mind to each faith and reason, in/at the same time you can actually see a little more, with more clarity, and all at the same time/level.

"Literally billions of people on our planet do everyday"

Such as? If there is nothing observable or verifiable, then it's just wishful thinking and completely subjective.

"the majority of mankind is wrong/different"

If the majority believe a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing. It doesn't matter how many people believe in something, it doesn't chang the fact that it doesn't exist to begin with.

"When you open your eyes & mind to each faith and reason, in/at the same time you can actually see a little more, with more clarity, and all at the same time/level."

I agreee with Ben Franklin.

The ability to reason is one of our endowments as well as free will.

I respectfully disagree. Chimpanzees have been observed to wage war and help total strangers, dolphins have helped the wounded of other species and arbitrarily killed the same just for fun.

If this does not demonstrate a level of free will commensurate with ours, I'd like to hear why not.

Further, dolphins, chimps, and orangutans actively make tools, and preponderance of other animals use tools. Now, dolphins may not be able to solve first-order differential equations, but the capacity for reasoning is clearly present.

Does gravity exist? does wind exist? can you see them?

Gravity and wind can both be mreasured. Can you measure God?

Just as people test religion and see results everday.

How?

Literally billions of people on our planet do everyday.

Well, if so many people perform this test, it must be very easy for you to describe it. :-)

If this does no fit into a classification that suits you, then one would have to say that is either your issue or that the majority of mankind is wrong/different........... that your opinion

The majority of the world's civilizations once thought weather was nothing more concrete than the will of deities. The majority is, typically, stupid.

"The majority is, typically, stupid."

Jack, you have a gift for understatement. lol

Darryl, you have yet to reference these "tests" of religious validity you mentioned.

Piety; a belief or point of view that is accepted with unthinking conventional reverence <

p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 12px;">DH

Tell me oh pious one?

Can you have a discussion without the sarcasm? If not then go away

It's not sarcasm, It's ridicule of your blatant ignorance. Is this all you can do is use this tactic to tell me to go away? Why can't you address my post like an honest man?

Prayer and praying is nothing more then a form of mental masturbation that makes the person praying feel better about not doing enough to make the world a better place. 

Shut your Eyes---and pray. Never stand up to the inhumanity to man by man, but weep for the victim and ask for salvation.. worthless pathetic.

The same as putting your head in a hole in the ground and covering it in.

...people test religion and see results everday.

Test?

Billions upon Billions of people praying, makes less of a difference on the world then a fart in a hurricane.

The Pious ones have been praying for millennia and  this has not saved one baby from being swung by its heels into a wall in Africa just because it was born in the wrong village, or has a prayer prevented one rape of a little boy by a priest. 

Why can't you address my post like an honest man?

I have been. can you respond without prejudice, or demeaning name calling like a child?

Back to the seeded subject, as I stated in #8

Both exist and are both relevant to in the same discussion.

God created all things and evolution is a simple part of our natural world. All things evolve over time.

Prejudice? How @!$%#ing dare you!

And you think you are not Pious? i.e: making a hypocritical display of virtue!

Look up a word that is not in you 3,000+ year old book called a dictionary and ask who is callling who names and what is the justafaction for it based on?

Prejudice is a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience- You describe yourself and your Faith in spirits and ghost that guide you.

So you think being Ignorant and having someone point this out is calling you a name?

It just proves how incredulous to reality you are. Everyone is ignorant, wisdom can only begin by recognizing this as fact. Faith is OK if it is based on proven trustworthiness. But Doubt always gives you a better education.

You are Pious.. you prove this with every post you make. "The Divine Right of Kings" is dead, and the arrogant attitude of the Rule by the Church died with it. If you carry this dead mentality as a shield to hide behind, don't blame me for rubbing your nose in your own smell of death.

You are Pious.. you prove this with every post you make. "The Divine Right of Kings" is dead, and the arrogant attitude of the Rule by the Church died with it. If you carry this dead mentality as a shield to hide behind, don't blame me for rubbing your nose in your own smell of death.

"talking" to you is useless.

Furthermore, as preveiously stated,

Back to the seeded subject, as I stated in #8

Both exist and are both relevant to in the same discussion.

God created all things and evolution is a simple part of our natural world. All things evolve over time.

If you cannot stay within the subject and act like an adult, good luck. you have however been sent to the ignore file where children that cannot act like adults get sent.

Good luck, your going to need it

Dan Hallo

you might want to read this, just in case you haven't seen it, it is the CoH

Report CoH Violation

Above all else, respect others. Address issues and arguments and refrain from making personal attacks. If you see something disrespectful or inappropriate, report it - rather than further inflaming the situation. More +

All Ignorance begins with "Ignoring".. But What are you Ignoring? Me, or what i'm saying? You can not address intelligently anything I presented, as a response to what YOU said! Saying it is off subject. Tests of Faith" Scientific test? BS. You said this. Billions every day you said! And now, because you know this is BS, you IGNORE me.

Pathetic.

Yes, go away.

gordy

Darryl, you have yet to reference these "tests" of religious validity you mentioned.

Millions of people across the planet believe in God and faith. It is employed every day, to believe ones does not "need" to test.

If you do not believe, such is your choice, as with the rest of mankind we all enjoy free will.

I believe the subject of this seed is,

Is it Possible to Believe in God and Darwin's Theory of Evolution?
to which I will repeat my statement in post #8,

Both exist and are both relevant to in the same discussion.

God created all things and evolution is a simple part of our natural world. All things evolve over time.

"Millions of people across the planet believe in God and faith. It is employed every day, to believe ones does not "need" to test."

That's a non-answer and a total cop out. You said "people test religion everyday", yet there is no test or results. Just because people belive in God or faith does not make it any more real or true. Belief is just belief, nothing more.

"God created all things"

Prove it! Present evidence! Belief is not good enough.

"evolution is a simple part of our natural world. All things evolve over time."

Now that part is true, or at the very least, highly plausible.

Millions of people across the planet believe in God and faith. It is employed every day, to believe ones does not "need" to test.

Translation: All my talk about "tests" of faith was just empty bulls---.

Duly noted.

One last time, for dan gordy and now jack,

More than 75% of this county's population is recorded to "believe in God" and or display "faith" regularly

Apparently that small figure is not enough "evidence" for you, apparently, unless the overwhelming masses of this country and , oh yea, the rest of the planet, think like you, then were all wrong and your minority is correct.

I will respond to a reasonable discussion on subject, in this case, in case you've forgotten, it is

Poll: Is it Possible to Believe in God and Darwin's Theory of Evolution?
One thing that could help your discussion "skills" is to try and keep some of the anger, venom and hate out of the conversation, you'll probably find your self refreshingly "listed to" rather than ranting.

100% of the world used to believe the world was flat.

When was this hypothetical period of widespread ignorance and how did you determine it?

The Greeks knew the earth was a sphere. Eratosthenes even computed its circumference.

Anyone standing on the shore of the sea or a large lake can plainly see that the earth is not flat.

Tell us jpark.. or are you ignorant?

Dan Hallo, aka, Zoilus,

You said:

100% of the world used to believe the world was flat.

I asked:

When was this hypothetical period of widespread ignorance and how did you determine it?

Now you ask:

Tell us jpark.. or are you ignorant?

Do you lack reading skills? You made a statement that 100% of the world believed the world was flat.

When did 100% of the world believe the world was flat?
What makes you think there was ever a time when this was true?

In fact, you have no evidence whatsoever for such a statement.

More than 75% of this county's population is recorded to "believe in God" and or display "faith" regularly

Apparently that small figure is not enough "evidence" for you, apparently, unless the overwhelming masses of this country and , oh yea, the rest of the planet, think like you, then were all wrong and your minority is correct.

Nice dodge. However, you were the one to first bring up "tests" of faith as a widespread phenomenon: Much like gravity and wind, maybe the source is not observable or seen, but certainly the direct effect, are seen and measured by millions of people every day.

Sorry, but simply believing in God does not mean one sees and measures his effects every day.

Further, a large proportion of American children believe in Santa Claus. Does this constitute "evidence" for Santa?

You've dodged calls for justifying your own statement, and seem to have fallen back on a sad, sad "belief in God is popular, so God must exist" line.

Argumentatum ad populum isn't valid because, like I said, the majority is typically stupid.

Sorry jpark, I know you are sensitive, but asked..

When was this hypothetical period of widespread ignorance and how did you determine it?

Not hypothetical, no, not at all. When everyone, even me, and don't be shocked... even you, and if you don't admit it then, especial you, are ignorant... Now, just as we always have been. no matter how much we learn. Sadly, some of us don't even suspect how ignorant they are. Hmmm. What is the word for that?

Sorry, I'm not in the mood to waste another thousand words playing your games today, so I will not be drawn into another one of your pathetic, juvenile and totally pointless pissing contests that you use like mental masturbation to build up your flaccid ego about simple common sense statement, easy for most people to grasp and that you pretend you can't seem to ever get a grip on, and seem over your head anyway.

Dan Hallo, aka, Zoilus,

Right. There was no time in recorded history when your statement that "100% of the world used to believe the world was flat." was true.

"More than 75% of this county's population is recorded to "believe in God" and or display "faith" regularly"

Darryl, you don't seem to get it. "Belief" is not proof of anything. Scientists don't say "I believe in the Big Bang so therefore, it must be true." What's needed is empirical evidence to support your claim. Just because 75% of people here believe in God or faith does not make them right. Stupid maybe, but not right. You're avoiding the argument and question and thereby ruining any credibility you have.

Darryl,

If this does no fit into a classification that suits you, then one would have to say that is either your issue or that the majority of mankind is wrong/different..

History is littered with examples of the majority of people believing in an error or incorrect interpretations. This is not helping your position. Mankind believed we were the center of the universe, solar system, that the milkyway galaxy was the entire universe, that the world was flat, that blacks were sub-human, that asians were sub-human, that europeans were sub-human, that the continents always existed as they appear today, that the moon was made of cheese, that disease was caused by supernatural demons and spirits, etc. All have been proven wrong.

Yet you choose to hold on to an idea developed at the same time of human development as these other concepts. After example after example that shows the errors in the dogmas associated with this concept. Is this not part of the definition of insanity, clinging to the same beliefs or actions and expecting different results?

wild;

Why would anyone want to believe in Darwin when you have God

Darwin says something tangible...you can excuse yourself from further scrutiny by taking up the call to follow among those insisting someone lead them... it's a cop-out.... you cannot but fear for the challenge of recognizing new things that come from new discoveries...an evolution in itself...but you'll not explore for yourself what you claim must come from within...

"Why would anyone want to believe in Darwin when you have God "

Because Darwin was real and God is not. Because Darwin proved his work and made people understand nature a little better. God did not. Because Darwin's works and studies are tangible and observable. God's is not. Why would anyone want to believe in God, especially when there is no proof of one?

"he had no evidence other than observation and imagination."

Observation is the cornerstone of the scientific method. It's what allows us to prove scientific theories. Imagination is believing in an invisible deity without proof or evidence. There is far more evidence to support evolution than to deny it and it's a far more plausible explanation than "God did it". our statement just reflects religious bias and ignorance to scientific facts, as well as some paranoia if you think this is all and "atheist conspiracy."

I'm sorry... are you saying you doubt the existance of Darwin? He's quite clearly a real historical figure.

Isn't there a Passage in Genesis that says : "A Day of Man is a Age in God's eye's". O.K. , So HOW LONG is God's "DAY"(AGE) ??? This could account for Geologic periods(Including the theory of Evolution,Dinosaurs,Neanderthals,etc !!!