APP - 82 million year old fossil being excavated

Oh really? Well, I am glad we have you here to straighten me all out! Let's begin...



Fairly obvious, but a little ubiquitous. Where did it all come from and what was here before? How did all these miraculous life-building elements know to coalesce here and start evolving? Chance? Fluke? Luck? Wow!



Are you sure about that? Could it be 14 billion instead? A billion years is a pretty significant amount of time to be off by. But again, where did it come from? All of this Earth with it's magical life-building elements just mystically formed out of the void of nothingness?



It's a pretty amazing chain of events to have "just happened" with nothing but chance guiding the way. I would think the scientist in you would balk at the sheer number of things which had to happen in specific order at specific times, to make all of this possible. What are the odds that we just so happened to end up with every single element needed to form itself into billions of life forms, many of them interdependent on each other to exist? Yet, with no explanation whatsoever for this, it's what you believe. It seems you are no different than the "God did it" people, you just replace "God" with "Science." Either way, it comes down to a matter of faith.



And you are sure of this, because? Seems like, if you could be off by a billion years on the age of Earth, you might also be off on 120 million years as well. But still... all the elements needed for dinosaurs just happened to coalesce here in this one spot of the universe, with no explanation or reason, but just because that's what happened, because that's what you say happened? No particular reason why, it just did... that sounds a lot like faith, again. I thought you believed in Science? Oh that's right, science doesn't explain everything, does it?



The problem is, you just don't have any evidence of cross-genus speciation, and you can't reproduce this theory in a lab environment. Nevertheless, this must have happened without divine intervention, even though you can't explain why or how exactly. Maybe whatever magic chance fairy bestowed the planet with life-teaming elements, also had a hand in this process of cross-genus evolution, and no longer is needed? Science is really a baffling thing sometimes, isn't it?



So all of the living things that chimps and apes needed to sustain life, weren't aware they exited or needed to exist? Again, it is fascinating this all happened by fluke or chance, without any guiding force whatsoever.



Right... from this magical cross-genus evolution you have no proof of and can't replicate in a lab environment... gotchya!



I don't know, you tell me? Chance? Fluke? Luck? If the notion that things "just happened" will suffice today, why wouldn't this have sufficed years ago as well? Surely we didn't invent God to have faith in because we didn't know how to invent science to have faith in.



And again, you KNOW this, because... ?



Not really, spiritual belief FAR out-dates Science. And why are you interjecting "theism" here? No one mentioned theistic belief, so you must just automatically assume "God" can ONLY be a theistic concept, and all other possibility is impossible. I thought science was all about keeping the doors of possibility open and not drawing conclusion? It seems you are drawing a LOT of conclusions for a person who believes in Science.



Ahh, so the God-deniers can accept life as it is and strive to answer questions it can't answer, believing that Science can explain the things it can't explain, and that kind of faith is okay, but faith in a supernatural force is off the table? It's been my experience that God-believers don't have to ask questions, they have the same general answer as you have. The difference is, they believe an intelligent supernatural force is responsible, and you believe it all just happened by chance and circumstance. Considering the trillions of possibilities and countless unlikely events, it's a bit preposterous to believe it all just happened by chance. Even IF this is what you have faith in, it's pretty remarkable to imagine all the events and things happening without explanation, culminating in what we have today.



Which begs the question, why would we have needed to invent God? IF we are fine as we are, and science can explain it all, then why hasn't human spiritual belief fizzled out with the advent of science? Could it be that even though science is useful at explaining how many things happen, it is not equipped to explain WHY? Why do two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule make water? We know they do, science tells us they do, but WHY? We know how sunlight provides the energy for photosynthesis, but WHY? We can even theorize on how the universe was formed from a Big Bang, but WHY?



When you say "imaginary figure" it denotes a tone of sarcastic disbelief in a physical presence that doesn't exist. God is not a "figure" of any kind, in the physical sense. God-deniers often make the mistake of attributing physical characteristic to God, because this is how they can use physical science to deny God exists. If God existed in a physical sense, we could prove God's existence with physical science, or this would at least be a possibility. And again, IF God were invented to fill the gaps, why hasn't belief in God dwindled with the advent of Science? We find instead, that just as many people have faith in something greater than self as they ever have. Some have even placed their faith in Science itself, like you.



Of course! You always have the convenient crutch that Science can't explain all! We must simply have FAITH in Science. You see, your FAITH is not much different than the God-believers, you simply call your God by another name. The problem is, your "God" was created by man and is admittedly fallible and inadequate to explain all kinds of things. My God is an ever-present energy force which has always been here, which made science and the laws of the universe possible. My God doesn't have a physical existence, just as a dream or thought doesn't have a physical existence. Do dreams and thoughts exist?

There are trillions of galaxies. In each there are trillions of star systems. Why should it not have been a fluke? If life was a one in a billion chance (1,000,000,000,000 not your little yank billion) there would still be millions of possible life supporting environments. (you might have to take your shoes and socks off to come to terms with the numbers)

But seriously I suggest you read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. It is not a particularly 'atheist' tome but it propounds sensible thories about early evolution. It gives plenty of opportunities to agree, disagree or question.

Most of your points are not worth considering (oh, they might be, but I couldn't be bothered reading them) because they all start from a belief that god (or a god, or a higher something) exists. You think you are smart with your caps 'KNOW' but really it illustrates the fact that you are undecided whether to trust the stories in which you have been marinated for much of your life or to switch on your brain. You KNOW only what you have experienced or what you are experiencing now. KNOW suggests an end to learning. e.g. I KNOW that my redeemer liveth.... etc. Science produces evidence. It's not faith, Dixie. I really don't think you understand.
There is no reason for any supernatural entity to exist except to satisfy man, who as I stated, is a relative newcomer.
 
There are trillions of galaxies. In each there are trillions of star systems. Why should it not have been a fluke? If life was a one in a billion chance (1,000,000,000,000 not your little yank billion) there would still be millions of possible life supporting environments. (you might have to take your shoes and socks off to come to terms with the numbers)

But seriously I suggest you read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. It is not a particularly 'atheist' tome but it propounds sensible thories about early evolution. It gives plenty of opportunities to agree, disagree or question.

Most of your points are not worth considering (oh, they might be, but I couldn't be bothered reading them) because they all start from a belief that god (or a god, or a higher something) exists. You think you are smart with your caps 'KNOW' but really it illustrates the fact that you are undecided whether to trust the stories in which you have been marinated for much of your life or to switch on your brain. You KNOW only what you have experienced or what you are experiencing now. KNOW suggests an end to learning. e.g. I KNOW that my redeemer liveth.... etc. Science produces evidence. It's not faith, Dixie. I really don't think you understand.
There is no reason for any supernatural entity to exist except to satisfy man, who as I stated, is a relative newcomer.

I personally think that evolution would be the tool that an intelligent God used to create divergent life forms. Way easier than starting from scratch each time.

It's that first spark that seems problematic. The rest seems to be logical and supported by evidence.
 
There are trillions of galaxies. In each there are trillions of star systems. Why should it not have been a fluke? If life was a one in a billion chance (1,000,000,000,000 not your little yank billion) there would still be millions of possible life supporting environments. (you might have to take your shoes and socks off to come to terms with the numbers)

Which only expounds on the question WHY?

But seriously I suggest you read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. It is not a particularly 'atheist' tome but it propounds sensible thories about early evolution. It gives plenty of opportunities to agree, disagree or question.

I have actually read Dawkins. I find him to be a bit of a bore, and rather closed-minded, as he seeks to destroy faith in God.

Most of your points are not worth considering (oh, they might be, but I couldn't be bothered reading them) because they all start from a belief that god (or a god, or a higher something) exists.

No, as I pointed out, we must first define what "EXISTS" means. If you mean in a physical sense, I do not believe there is a physical God. No physical evidence of God exists, but no physical evidence exists for anything that isn't part of the physical universe. And roughly 95% of the world population believes in something greater than self. You, for instance, believe in Science, that is where your faith resides.
 
absense of evidence is jsut that.

with no evidence claiming something exsists is merely speculation.

I prefer evidence to speculation

Again, are we talking evidence of a physical existence? If so, I doubt you'll find many people who literally believe in a physical God. Is it mere speculation that your imagination and thoughts exist? You obviously know you have them, and can tell me about them, but where is the physical evidence to support their 'existence' or do they not really 'exist' as physical things that can be defined in a physical sense? I have a blank canvas and some oil paints, can science determine or predict what I may choose to paint? Can it physically explain the inspiration behind great works of Mozart or Picasso? Did this inspiration actually 'exist' or is it mere speculation?
 
Ten thousand years ago there was more 'gap' than knowledge. Two thousand years ago there was more 'gap' than knowledge, but today that ratio has been reversed. There are very few (comparitively) gaps and we now know that with man's evolved intellect those gaps will be steadily reduced, never reaching 100% of course.

I wanted to return to this for a moment and make another irrefutable point. You seem to want me to accept that in a timespan of just over 600 years, mankind has created science which has explained virtually everything, and there is little we don't know. I'm not sure what percentage 600 years is, of the 4 billion years Earth has existed, but I know it's not a significant percentage of time. Just 600 years ago, the "science" of the times argued the world was flat and the sun revolved around it. We've gone from that to filling in most all the gaps, according to you. I maintain there are gaps we don't even yet comprehend, much less have the capacity to explain.
 
Lowaicue said:
People who accept life as it is and strive to answer the questions life poses are not 'god deniers' any more than they are 'fairy deniers' or magic deniers. Denial doesn't come into it. The status quo is evolved existence. God believers need to ask themselves the questions
.

Fuck yeah. Well said.
 
Not to get into a "Biblical" debate here, but I happen to know some Christians believe the Bible's account of creation in Genesis a little differently than you neanderthals are interpreting it. For instance, Genesis speaks of God "creating man in his own image" but it doesn't really state what was here before this happened. Later, he specifically instructs Adam and Eve (the original two people he created in his image) to go out at "replenish" the Earth. To "replenish" something, means something existed before and you are making it plentiful again. One particular reverend I know, explained this to me once. There may have indeed been "men" on Earth before the creation of Adam and Eve, but they weren't in God's image. Perhaps the "creation" of man was merely God interjecting his image into whatever existed before? Bestowing "man" with a spiritual enlightenment and understanding he was lacking previously.

Digging up old fossils doesn't negate creationism, and it certainly wouldn't negate the theory I just articulated. However, it is important to note, once again you are running to science and discovery in an attempt to refute a possibility which science doesn't and can't refute. This is the antithesis of the Scientific Method, and very much similar to religious faith and acceptance of spiritual beliefs. You have abandoned science in order to have faith in a belief or conclusion... science doesn't draw these conclusions, you do.

Of course there were other people. Cain married a woman in the land of Nod.

But the creation story in the bible was a simple explanation for a simple people. The Bible is not meant to be a literal history or biology text. God tried to reach out to us and, of course, some jackass "holy" men used it to control people and warped it.
 
Of course there were other people. Cain married a woman in the land of Nod.

But the creation story in the bible was a simple explanation for a simple people. The Bible is not meant to be a literal history or biology text. God tried to reach out to us and, of course, some jackass "holy" men used it to control people and warped it.

Well I don't know that "God tried to reach out to us" because, why would an omnipotent God need to "try" to do anything? If God "tried" but jackass holy men thwarted his efforts, doesn't speak too highly of his omnipotent powers, does it? I happen to believe a little deeper than most Christians like to go, and see God as something beyond our realm of comprehending. This thing we call "God" is a power or force so strong, that we, as humans, are humbled in its presence. There is no need want or desire by this force, it doesn't love or hate, it doesn't need to forgive or show compassion. Those are attributes shown and felt by humans. Likewise, it doesn't need or care if you worship it. This is entirely your choice, or "free will" as it were.

Christian dogma, as well as all other religious dogma, is the product of man's inability to comprehend or understand God. It is merely our somewhat inferior human attempts to grasp it, to claim understanding of something we can never understand. That doesn't mean we can throw all religion in the trashcan and say it's worthless, because it does serve a vital purpose to provide man with at least a gateway to spirituality. It is through this connecting point of prayer and meditation, that we come to have a relationship with our spiritual Creator. How that relationship may manifest itself in our personal beliefs is reflected in our actions and decisions. It has little to do with actual God.
 
I personally think that evolution would be the tool that an intelligent God used to create divergent life forms. Way easier than starting from scratch each time.

It's that first spark that seems problematic. The rest seems to be logical and supported by evidence.

Who's to say that the way we are now, is the final step in this long line of creation?
Maybe we're just a small part of who we're intended to be.
 
absense of evidence is jsut that.

with no evidence claiming something exsists is merely speculation.

I prefer evidence to speculation

Prove you exist.
You could just be an imaginary figure that I created, on an imaginary Political board, and in truth I'm a Martian locked away in a Martian insane asylum. :chewsh:
 
I personally think that evolution would be the tool that an intelligent God used to create divergent life forms. Way easier than starting from scratch each time.

It's that first spark that seems problematic. The rest seems to be logical and supported by evidence.

So if one does not KNOW about how we got to replication then your logic is that god did it? Then he went home andeft the rest to the various life forms that evolved?
You have always struck me as a logical person, Damo, what you lack in humour you make up for in grey logic. Yet you say the 'first spark' is problematic for you.
 
Which only expounds on the question WHY?



I have actually read Dawkins. I find him to be a bit of a bore, and rather closed-minded, as he seeks to destroy faith in God.



No, as I pointed out, we must first define what "EXISTS" means. If you mean in a physical sense, I do not believe there is a physical God. No physical evidence of God exists, but no physical evidence exists for anything that isn't part of the physical universe. And roughly 95% of the world population believes in something greater than self. You, for instance, believe in Science, that is where your faith resides.

Why is the wrong question. There doesn't need to be a why. How might be better. Why suggests a cause. Evolution had/has no 'cause'. Therein lies your confusion, I think.

So, you read 'Dawkins'. Which of his books did you read? (Don't google now.... from memory, huh?

Again, your final point makes no sense. I do not 'believe' in science. Science is not s belief system any more than mathematics or physics or music or philately are belief systems. Science is simply the study of the physical and natural world. They, to touch on one of your earlier points, have always been there.The word 'science' certainly has a datable beginning in the English language, but study has always been.
 
I wanted to return to this for a moment and make another irrefutable point. You seem to want me to accept that in a timespan of just over 600 years, mankind has created science which has explained virtually everything, and there is little we don't know. I'm not sure what percentage 600 years is, of the 4 billion years Earth has existed, but I know it's not a significant percentage of time. Just 600 years ago, the "science" of the times argued the world was flat and the sun revolved around it. We've gone from that to filling in most all the gaps, according to you. I maintain there are gaps we don't even yet comprehend, much less have the capacity to explain.

But where is the logic that suggests that those gaps be filled with 'god did it'? (accepting that the word 'god' might mean different things to different people)

You say man 'created' science. Think about that - just for one nano second.

Og: How many toes do you have?
Ug: Can't answer that, Og, they haven't created science yet.
 
Back
Top