The Existence of God

there’s no proof for evolution, simply supporting evidence.

If you don’t call that a proof, at least admit there is tons of evidence. When evolutionist predict they would found a whale with legs, they did found it ! And that is not just an anecdotal evidence !

@EmuGod:

Well, if I recall correctly, the part where the king argues with the Jews is the longest part of the book. He manages to beat the atheist in his arguement with him.

I think it’s very hard to beat an atheist in a formal debate (…but not the kind of atheist that worship his own ego, or atheist like Sartre, that belief god does not exist because if he did humans would not have absolute freedom).

However, there is not one thing that cancels out evolution with any proof besides ancient myth

Right, but evolution is complex, most people don’t like that aspect of science.

Denying evolution just puts our understanding of history and science back a few hundred years.

Several dogmas slowed down science.

there’s not really any overwhelming evidence. most dates are found by carbon dating, which is nothing short of unreliable.
creationism can be applied to crime as well. Creationism involves God. The first two humans (Adam and Eve) did not obey His only restriction, and that is why they were cast out of the Garden of Eden. after that first act of disobedience people did wrong. (of course if you don’t believe in absolute truth there is no wrong).
what can i say? i don’t think that i alone will be able to convince you to change your mind, but these online debates sharpen my mind. i don’t have many opportunities to be involved in these “conversations” at my school or even where i work (since i don’t have a job).
and in response to:

When evolutionist predict they would found a whale with legs, they did found it !
they also found younger species below “older” species, but they prefer not to publicize that, right?
and evolution can be refuted, and 6000 year old earth supported. if the earth/universe was millions of years old, the moon would be miles of dust deep. the volcanic deposits would be greater on the earth as well. to say that a young earth cannot be supported is, in my opinion of course, is like saying evolution cannot be supported. neither can be absolutely proved, but a young earth is better supported.

@FinsterniS:

there’s no proof for evolution, simply supporting evidence.

If you don’t call that a proof, at least admit there is tons of evidence. When evolutionist predict they would found a whale with legs, they did found it ! And that is not just an anecdotal evidence !

@EmuGod:

Well, if I recall correctly, the part where the king argues with the Jews is the longest part of the book. He manages to beat the atheist in his arguement with him.

I think it’s very hard to beat an atheist in a formal debate (…but not the kind of atheist that worship his own ego, or atheist like Sartre, that belief god does not exist because if he did humans would not have absolute freedom).

However, there is not one thing that cancels out evolution with any proof besides ancient myth

Right, but evolution is complex, most people don’t like that aspect of science.

Denying evolution just puts our understanding of history and science back a few hundred years.

Several dogmas slowed down science.

so did several scientists!! :evil:

How is the “young earth theory” supported? Why would the moon need to be several miles of dust thick if it were millions of years old? Volcanic deposits on the earth are subjected to the effects of erosion. How does your theories counter plate tectonics? Errors for carbon dating run into the tens of thousands of years. More than sufficient for dating within a million years. I’ll agree carbon dating should be skeptically employed for the last million years of earth’s history. Beyond that it’s error offsets are irrelevant…

there’s not really any overwhelming evidence. most dates are found by carbon dating, which is nothing short of unreliable.

Only deeply religious people don’t believe in evolution, you are making abstraction of so much facts;

• 1; there is not only carbon 14 dating, there’s light dating. Sure some creationist claim that the “Speed Of Light is Decreasing” (but now since 1960), but there is NOT A SINGLE EVIDENCE outside the bible. Supernova 1987A prove us the speed of the light was constant for “at least” 170,000 years.

• 2; Carbon 14 is maybe not perfect, it’s still not THAT bad.

• 3; Why can we make coherent chains of ancestor (like with us or the horse) ?

• 4; What about dinosaurs ?

• 5; Why does Basilosaurus and Dorudon have these little ridiculous legs ? God was drunk ?

• 6; Why does we have useless organ, like our appendice.

• 7; How can you explain we found a species, oooops it dissapear then an other one, with very lille difference, suddently appear ? It’s a miracle ?

… and so on. Also another problem is that the tool of “evolution” is working very well, we can explain lots of things with the concept of evolution, creationists can only say it’s “god will”.

creationism can be applied to crime as well. Creationism involves God. The first two humans (Adam and Eve) did not obey His only restriction, and that is why they were cast out of the Garden of Eden. after that first act of disobedience people did wrong. (of course if you don’t believe in absolute truth there is no wrong).

“God” is not a good exemple himself anyway…

what can i say? i don’t think that i alone will be able to convince you to change your mind, but these online debates sharpen my mind.

If you have logical evidence you can, but you’re not starting well with your creationist belief.

they also found younger species below “older” species, but they prefer not to publicize that, right?

It does’nt explain why they have legs ! About finding younger species below; i don’t know why, but this does’nt constitute an argument good enough to refute the fact that there were whales with legs.

Have you reference for your claim ?

and evolution can be refuted, and 6000 year old earth supported.

Probably as much as a flat earth. I am sure young earth creationist would be very ambarrasing for the christians in 2 or 3 centurie, just like geocentrism is ambarassing for christians now.

if the earth/universe was millions of years old, the moon would be miles of dust deep. the volcanic deposits would be greater on the earth as well.

Based on what ?

but a young earth is better supported.

Better supported by faith.

@FinsterniS:

there’s not really any overwhelming evidence. most dates are found by carbon dating, which is nothing short of unreliable.

Only deeply religious people don’t believe in evolution, you are making abstraction of so much facts;

false. many non-religious people contend that there is not enough proof to pull evolution from theory into law. Also many deeply religious people buy into some form of evolution

• 3; Why can we make coherent chains of ancestor (like with us or the horse) ?

• 4; What about dinosaurs ?

• 5; Why does Basilosaurus and Dorudon have these little ridiculous legs ? God was drunk ?

• 6; Why does we have useless organ, like our appendice.

• 7; How can you explain we found a species, oooops it dissapear then an other one, with very lille difference, suddently appear ? It’s a miracle ?.

3 - this is evidence of evolution, not proof against creation. both may support this. why? because it was a rational way to create things in God’s mind?
4 - what about them? no proof that we did not share the earth. The bible makes references to a number of dinasaur-like creatures . . . maybe they had the fossil record back then too tho’ . . . .
5 - this is evidence for evolution/vs. creation how? (aside from an attempted mocking of our creator)
6 - scientists do not know this yet. surgeons contend that the removal of these is a very useful process in the purchases of nicer houses etc. the appendix does secrete material - enzymes, etc. and may be useful for some absorption
7 - much of this is micro-evolution, verifiable in a lab. Does not go against creation at all.

what can i say? i don’t think that i alone will be able to convince you to change your mind, but these online debates sharpen my mind.

If you have logical evidence you can, but you’re not starting well with your creationist belief…

this is French for “a person who believes in creationism can not be considered logical”.

they also found younger species below “older” species, but they prefer not to publicize that, right?

It does’nt explain why they have legs ! About finding younger species below; i don’t know why, but this does’nt constitute an argument good enough to refute the fact that there were whales with legs…

it is enough to make us consider that there is too much mystery shrouding evolution to make us consider it to be an absolute.

and evolution can be refuted, and 6000 year old earth supported.

Probably as much as a flat earth. I am sure young earth creationist would be very ambarrasing for the christians in 2 or 3 centurie, just like geocentrism is ambarassing for christians now.

amazingly, i’m not embarrassed about it. we do the best we can with what we have. in science this happens all of the time. we are constantly earning nobel prizes for disproving previous nobel prize laureates. As mentioned, i’m not a young earth creationist, but there are many plausable theories that support it.

PETA has already explained where the dinosaurs went, even though they didn’t mean to. They constantly whine so that the next species won’t be made extinct by hunting.

Wa, What was that? Hunting? Are you saying that humans and their weapons were more powerful than giant beasts? Of course! We are taught as children that most dinosaurs had brains the size of an acorn, so why couldn’t we have simply killed them through over-hunting? The elephant would be dead today, too, if we didn’t care enough to protect it…

“God” is not a good exemple [sic] himself anyway…

since this is actually a debate about the existence of God, you just acknowledged Him. if not, you should find a better way to express yourself without contradicting yourself. just a heads up. more mature Christians than I could go farther with this. and God is a good example, but people make Him a scapegoat. He never has, or will ever make a mistake. the problem lies with us. but if you don’t believe you make mistakes, there’s no need for God. our very basic difference comes down to this: I believe the Bible is God’s word, you don’t. There is no way you can convince me that the Bible is not true, or that the King James Version has fallacies. So proving the existence of God would not change your mind anyway. You still wouldn’t believe because you don’t believe the Bible is God’s word.
btw, i do believe that dinosaurs existed, and that after the Flood they were unable to survive. weather conditions and the fact that people started hunting.

Several dogmas slowed down science.

so did several scientists!!

Scientific are not immune to dogmas.

amazingly, i’m not embarrassed about it. we do the best we can with what we have. in science this happens all of the time. we are constantly earning nobel prizes for disproving previous nobel prize laureates.

Agree, but there’s a difference between promoting science by refuting an old discoverie, and promoting religion by using deformation of science. Like the argument about Light and Thermodynamic, there is nothing consistant in these pseudo-theory; it’s just make-up to caution the bible. I don’t say “all religious people” are against science, but some are making very strange dogmas that goes against science and logic.

As mentioned, i’m not a young earth creationist, but there are many plausable theories that support it.

Like what ?

it is enough to make us consider that there is too much mystery shrouding evolution to make us consider it to be an absolute.

It’s not about evolution, it’s about geology. Anyway i never said our conception of evolution was perfect, i think we should work to perfect it, as always religion will only slow us down.

3 - this is evidence of evolution, not proof against creation. both may support this. why? because it was a rational way to create things in God’s mind?

It’s a proof (at least a strong argument) against young earth creationist, not old earth creationist i admit, but anyway old earth creationist are just religious evolutionist. They are not blinded by faith, maybe they’ll even point out interesting problems from our conception of evolution (not that i think god is the answer…).

6 - scientists do not know this yet. surgeons contend that the removal of these is a very useful process in the purchases of nicer houses etc. the appendix does secrete material - enzymes, etc. and may be useful for some absorption

hmmmm… our appendice is’nt the vestige of the caecum ?

7 - much of this is micro-evolution, verifiable in a lab. Does not go against creation at all.

When you take fossils, the tree of animals, dna and micro-evolution; you get a pretty solid argument for evolution, and against young earth creationist (again, not against old earth creationist, you can only refute their claim by refuting god). Also when you take radioactive, carbone 14 and light dating, you get another good argument against young earth creationist.

since this is actually a debate about the existence of God, you just acknowledged Him. if not, you should find a better way to express yourself without contradicting yourself.

? I never acknowledged him, but i think “god” (the conception of god) is’nt a good exemple, like i think Zeus is’nt a good exemple, but i don’t believe in zeus.

and God is a good example, but people make Him a scapegoat. He never has, or will ever make a mistake.

I don’t make him a scapegoat, i don’t believe he exist, i don’t say “hey, there’s suffering it’s god’s fault”, but the way the bible speak of him; he is far from being all-loving. Like when “he” kill the Madianites.

@yourbuttocks:

Fisternis/Falk/Yanny?GeZe, why does evolution contradict creationism?

It contradict only young earth creationism.

@FinsterniS:

amazingly, i’m not embarrassed about it. we do the best we can with what we have. in science this happens all of the time. we are constantly earning nobel prizes for disproving previous nobel prize laureates.

Agree, but there’s a difference between promoting science by refuting an old discoverie, and promoting religion by using deformation of science. Like the argument about Light and Thermodynamic, there is nothing consistant in these pseudo-theory; it’s just make-up to caution the bible. I don’t say “all religious people” are against science, but some are making very strange dogmas that goes against science and logic.

many non-religious people do to. as do many scientists. W/ respect to the arguements about light and thermodynamics they are not so “illogical” or even misguided as they use some inappropriate assumptions and omissions. Happens in science all the time. Two wrongs often have made a “right” forming the basis for some scientific theory.

As mentioned, i’m not a young earth creationist, but there are many plausable theories that support it.

Like what ? .

no time or incentive.

[quote[quote]]it is enough to make us consider that there is too much mystery shrouding evolution to make us consider it to be an absolute.

It’s not about evolution, it’s about geology. Anyway i never said our conception of evolution was perfect, i think we should work to perfect it, as always religion will only slow us down.

as it bloody well should. so should science. Health Canada has some of the strictest drug laws in the world - they slow down the acceptance of pharmaceutical products intentionally - why? To make certain that all the studies are in. So that no one makes a mistake, a poor assumption. Just b/c a product will work well in lab rats does not make it safe for people etc. This goes for ethics boards, etc. Does ethics slow down science? You betcha’. Is that bad? Hopefully not.

3 - this is evidence of evolution, not proof against creation. both may support this. why? because it was a rational way to create things in God’s mind?

It’s a proof (at least a strong argument) against young earth creationist, not old earth creationist i admit, but anyway old earth creationist are just religious evolutionist. They are not blinded by faith, maybe they’ll even point out interesting problems from our conception of evolution (not that i think god is the answer…).

wow. I hope you didn’t hurt yourself :lol:

6 - scientists do not know this yet. surgeons contend that the removal of these is a very useful process in the purchases of nicer houses etc. the appendix does secrete material - enzymes, etc. and may be useful for some absorption

hmmmm… our appendice is’nt the vestige of the caecum ??

so it would appear. Are the tonsils not simply vestigial parts of the oropharynx? well, yes and no. No one ever really knows.

7 - much of this is micro-evolution, verifiable in a lab. Does not go against creation at all.

When you take fossils, the tree of animals, dna and micro-evolution; you get a pretty solid argument for evolution, and against young earth creationist (again, not against old earth creationist, you can only refute their claim by refuting god). Also when you take radioactive, carbone 14 and light dating, you get another good argument against young earth creationist.

well, wrt light dating and carbon14 dating, the young earth creationists can always pull out evidence of the flood, with special attention drawn to the fact that it says in the bible that the earth was covered in a canopy of water until the flood. The rest of your statement might also be dealt with by The Flood theory. DNA and micro-evolution do not argue vs. young earth either - they suggest that things may evolve, and the illustrate one of the possible ways for things to happen, but there are many ways to bake a cake my friend.

(and don’t ask why i’m supporting young earth theorists . . . blame it on my father . . . .)

@F_alk:

@city:

PETA has already explained where the dinosaurs went, even though they didn’t mean to. They constantly whine so that the next species won’t be made extinct by hunting.

Wa, What was that? Hunting? Are you saying that humans and their weapons were more powerful than giant beasts? Of course! We are taught as children that most dinosaurs had brains the size of an acorn, so why couldn’t we have simply killed them through over-hunting? The elephant would be dead today, too, if we didn’t care enough to protect it…

How comes that i can’t stay serious after reading city on a hills post?

be nice.
we all sounded like that when we were young.
some of us still do to some degree . . . .

@F_alk:

@EmuGod:

Well, if I recall correctly, the part where the king argues with the Jews is the longest part of the book. He manages to beat the atheist in his arguement with him.

Well, if written by a Rabbi, both of the above don’t surprise me!

The story was very well known before he wrote it down, he just did so. There were even expeditions to discover if it had actually happened and if the kingdom really existed but I have not read anything about whether they found anything or not.

You should read it F_alk, I think you might like it and the logical arguements would certainly be nice to read.

When you take fossils, the tree of animals, dna and micro-evolution; you get a pretty solid argument for evolution, and against young earth creationist (again, not against old earth creationist, you can only refute their claim by refuting god).

Microevolution does support my claim. Take the laws of thermodynamics. One of which says that everything is degenerating. Micro-evolution comes from mutations. Mutations in these bacteria lead to more virile forms of diseases, which is a degeneration of bacteria. How can millions of years of mutations not lead to complete degeneration, or close to it? How did the mutations keep forming better, more intelligent species? I still hold up the fact that older fossils were found under “younger” fossils. BTW, I’m looking for the info I had on that. Believe or not, I never thought I would be involved with debating like this, so I didn’t write down every reference I ever had. But I haven’t forgotten whoever’s request it was for a reference of where I got this info. As for the animal tree, all I can say is that someone’s mind was pretty creative. And since I know you’re expecting this, I’ll say it. “Maybe God just wanted to use similar parts on all His creations.” :) Hey, I don’t have answers for everything yet.
Oh, science is based on observation, right? Just clarifying.

A “Young Earth” is a sorry excuse for a theory. Via Half-life (Carbon 14) dating, we can easily show fossils to be 100+ Million years old. We know that the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, almost to the dot. The reason that we do not have the complete and total fossil record of all pre-humans is simple. Fossils are not easy to come by. 99.9% of remains are simply destroyed. The others are hidden. It takes time and money to uncover these remains. Had the Christian church not been a roadblock in the 19th Century, our understanding of Human evolution would have increased tenfold.

@Yanny:

A “Young Earth” is a sorry excuse for a theory. Via Half-life (Carbon 14) dating, we can easily show fossils to be 100+ Million years old. We know that the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, almost to the dot. The reason that we do not have the complete and total fossil record of all pre-humans is simple. Fossils are not easy to come by. 99.9% of remains are simply destroyed. The others are hidden. It takes time and money to uncover these remains. Had the Christian church not been a roadblock in the 19th Century, our understanding of Human evolution would have increased tenfold.

please. it was not just the Christian church, however other scientists at the time as well.
w.r.t. the fossil record - could it not be covered by layers of sediment as a result from the flood? Carbon 14 was considered unreliable prior to 6000 years ago by the one who developed the testing.

Carbon 14 was considered unreliable within 6,000 years ago (probably more like 10,000) because the minute differences in radioactive decay are very hard to measure in the quanities that are required.

You should read it F_alk, I think you might like it and the logical arguements would certainly be nice to read.

I don’t know if it’s the case with that book, but most argument by Theist are based on the same pattern; first cause, morale, need a designer or the good old “believe or burn”.

@F_alk:

@dIfrenT:

Microevolution does support my claim. Take the laws of thermodynamics. One of which says that everything is degenerating.

It does not say that.

How can millions of years of mutations not lead to complete degeneration, or close to it? How did the mutations keep forming better, more intelligent species?

Because the earth is not a closed system and the sun provides the energy that is needed for a non-closed system to decrease its entropy on cost of the sun.

Wow ! We got this deformation very often, i wonder… is the Evolutions vs Creations debate still going on in north america ? I don’t know about f_alk but i never heard about that here, the debate is finish. And if i consider how often we heard about deformation of thermodynamic here, i can only wonder how much money christians are putting into propaganda. Anyway, when i child is growing, he is’nt violating the law of thermodynamic ? (By Creanist standards)

Is their a scientist promoting this… thing ? I would gladly take a look to his mathematical proof (i doupt he have one).

@FinsterniS:

Wow ! We got this deformation very often, i wonder… is the Evolutions vs Creations debate still going on in north america ? I don’t know about f_alk but i never heard about that here, the debate is finish. And if i consider how often we heard about deformation of thermodynamic here, i can only wonder how much money christians are putting into propaganda. Anyway, when i child is growing, he is’nt violating the law of thermodynamic ? (By Creanist standards)

Is their a scientist promoting this… thing ? I would gladly take a look to his mathematical proof (i doupt he have one).

do they debate things in Europe? Do they consider all sides to an issue before going about with the latest “fad” in any respect? Is one study enough? Is some evidence law?
And this is not so much a deformation of thermodynamics rather than simply forgetting that we are not in a closed system. We do not try to “prove” creation by intentionally violating Newtonian laws, so much as test evolution by means and tools at our disposal. But i guess that since Europeans feel that there is no need to test and debate new theories once an arbitrarily determined amount of evidence has been revealled, then they are obviously more scientific than us, and obviously not as subjected to nearly as much “Christian propaganda”.
(naturally i feel the opposite - that we - at least in my circles - are extremely scientific in nearly all respects - particularly with regards to physics, chemistry and biological sciences, as well as their real-life applications, particularly in aerospace and medicine. Mind you, what do we know?)

@cystic:

do they debate things in Europe? Do they consider all sides to an issue before going about with the latest “fad” in any respect? Is one study enough? Is some evidence law?
And this is not so much a deformation of thermodynamics rather than simply forgetting that we are not in a closed system. We do not try to “prove” creation by intentionally violating Newtonian laws, so much as test evolution by means and tools at our disposal. But i guess that since Europeans feel that there is no need to test and debate new theories once an arbitrarily determined amount of evidence has been revealled, then they are obviously more scientific than us, and obviously not as subjected to nearly as much “Christian propaganda”.
(naturally i feel the opposite - that we - at least in my circles - are extremely scientific in nearly all respects - particularly with regards to physics, chemistry and biological sciences, as well as their real-life applications, particularly in aerospace and medicine. Mind you, what do we know?)

do they debate things in Europe ?

Sure we have debates, but no, I’ve never heard debate Evolutionism vs Creationism, nor debates about geocentrism vs heliocentrism, maybe those debates exist but I’m just not in the “right” place. I’ve heard debate about blacks holes, about how evolution occur (movement in the theory of complexity), the number 0, well, about lots of things, but about the flood or creationism ? wow ! But maybe as the bible said the earth is flat we should question that too, we could invite the President of the Flat Earth Society to a conference, no ? You said YOURSELF the bible was not a science book, religion and science should never cooperate as long as religion cannot make a solid argument for the existance of god, and not a little anthropomorphic argument, a deep and logical argument. Otherwise we have no reason to listen to every religious people, and their story about a virgin having a child, a god raping another god, zombie walking in the street or shaman casting curse. Fanatics that believe the bible is true because it’s true will probably not help science a lots by making “omissions” and deformation. Even in a science as far as religion as math I can give you exemple were christians and dogmatic people like Pythagoras (he think he was the son of a god, sound familiar) slow down science.