Do You Believe In God?

[DiscostewSM]

Well, many of us have a belief that aliens do exist, if only because of how expansive the universe is, that the Earth can't possibly be the only planet in it that has sentient life as we perceive it. If aliens do exist, and a species of them are superior to us (as we believe we are the superior species on the Earth), then there could be some superior to them, and again, and again, until we reach the pinnacle of superiority, which may very well be God who created all, but instead of just us and God, there's be numerous others in between.

I'm just kinda blabbing off here, lol.

 

[spotanjo3]

I didn't say I have the answer. I just said that not everybody believes what you believe. As for evolution, read this then come back and tell me it doesn't make sense.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Origin-Species-Charles-Darwin/dp/1533362955/

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


No disrespect intended, but that's absolutely ridiculous.

@azoreseuropa. Gravity is not a theory. Nor is electromagnetism, nor are the laws of thermodynamics. Nor is atomic force. Evolution can be proved genetically. If in fact if "Science" was false, you wouldn't be posting here on this forum, you'd probably be dead before you turned 40, and nuclear weapons would have never been invented.

I suggest you take a very critical look at what you just said.

Anyways, exiting this thread now. It's gone on long enough, and nobody is discussing rationally at this point.

No, you are not correct. By the way, I am over 40 years old.


I understand. No disrespect intended as well. As for Evolution, it's so ridiculous too. Believe what you want.
Evolution is a theory developed one hundred and forty years ago, before science had the evidence available to prove the theory false.

Kids and adults are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support.

They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President's Abraham Address. This is nonsense.

 

[FAST6191]

And electricity is a theory that developed even further back, possibly thousands of years depending upon how you view the Baghdad Battery. Does not mean electricity does not exist.

Regarding evolution they did not stop right there after Darwin cooked it up, far from it. Science is not one and done, you do more, refine it further, you may disprove something, you may find out something even greater and you may just generate a bunch more evidence to help things along. Darwin got a bunch of things wrong, mainly as the mechanisms of DNA were yet to be discovered and a bunch of other stuff.
There are a bunch of theories of the time that have since been discredited, some will be of historic interest and logical interest (if you study chemistry for instance the history of the theories behind arene rings, which is the main part of benzene and toluene and a whole host of drugs and important biological chemicals, will be taught) but nobody will use them unless they are a useful simplification (Newton's laws of motion for instance do not work on the very small or very fast but you will still see people using them as they work just fine on the human sized and greater and things that are not nipping at light's heels).

" Kids and adults are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support."
The increasing complexity and refinement of life to suit its surroundings, aka evolution, is not the origin of life which has a variety of things people are looking into but if you want to go looking then abiogenesis is the term in question. They are often studied by the same people and those looking into abiogenesis will almost certainly be highly versed in evolution science.
Evolution itself has a load of evidence going for it, much of which has been covered in the topic already. We could go there again if you want (retroviruses, bacteria, more complex life that has a shorter lifespan, observed environmental stressors, fossils, animals/humans living in harsh conditions, basic extrapolation from laws of inheritance and the list goes on for a while....) but you seem to have made up your mind which is unfortunate.

"They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President's Abraham Address. This is nonsense."
How is it nonsense? A very large amount of trials, very large numbers and the fact it is possible (the monkey has the dexterity to hit the keys, repeatedly so) means it is quite possible, and if you are throwing infinity into the mix then basically a certainty.

 

[spotanjo3]

Sighing... Evolutionists try to form these individual species into a link according to similar major features such as wings or four legs, but this simply proves the Theory of Evolution to be a fraud. Darwin was hopeful that future fossils would prove his theory correct, but instead, the lack of transitional links has proven his theory to be wrong.

The presence of individual species actually proves they were not developed by an evolutionary process. If evolution were true, all plants, animals, and insects would be in a continual state of change. No two creatures would be identical, because they would not be separate species.

This is a pointless thread. By the way, I respect you and you respect me, Ok? I am done.

 

[FAST6191]

If it is a pointless thread it is only because the forum itself has no point, as that is probably not true there is some debate.

Respect? That seems to be a thing with you (it came up before when we discussed Jehovah's witnesses) but is not for me. Your point of view would be that of a cretin as far as I am concerned, does not make you an invalid person but respect is far from happening here. It is the old free speech thing -- you can spout whatever drivel you like, I would happily fight for the right for said drivel to be spouted but I in no way have to agree with/respect the drivel.

Anyway back to biology I am not sure where you are going. Taxonomy/classification of... everything is what science aims for, biology tending to be about the classification of life. Speciation comes into that but it is not the same thing by any means, it usually goes off the back of chromosomes but there can be more to it. Equally I am not sure how species existing and being created is supposed to disprove evolution when it is usually a nice example of the opposite and the creation of new species being one of the easier to grasp thought experiments for it.

Lack of transitional links? There are loads of them. There is a bit of a gap for humans right now for some periods (still plenty of human fossils showing the development of traits over time) but there are loads for all sorts of animals.

"If evolution were true, all plants, animals, and insects would be in a continual state of change. No two creatures would be identical,"
All things are in a continual state of change, doubly so if you want to consider epigenetics, as meiosis (the reproductive method by which an awful lot of complex life procreates/reproduces) is all about that. Barring twins (though again epigenetics) and clones and some methods of plant reproduction no two creatures are identical (we assume, it is not a statistical impossibility but extraordinarily unlikely), that is how DNA works.

 

[spotanjo3]

I said I am done, thanks.

 

[Flame]

I love people who are born in to a religion and act like that religion is the right one and best one out of 10,000 religions.

and everything that religion says is right, without question.

okay.

I rise you this :

North Korean people think they are best richest most advanced nation on earth...lol.

 

[mashers]

Evolution is a theory developed one hundred and forty years ago, before science had the evidence available to prove the theory false.

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand how science works. Science never claims to prove anything false. One of the basic tenets of science is that you cannot prove a negative. You can only formulate a hypothesis and then look for evidence which supports it. 'Proving evolution wrong' is impossible; you have to instead find evidence for a competing theory. Do you have any?

Kids and adults are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support.

Turtles on the Galápagos Islands. Explain the changes in their neck length by any means other than evolution or 'god did it'.

They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President's Abraham Address. This is nonsense.

What does that have to do with evolution? The monkey at a typewriter theorem is about infinitesimal probabilities of events occurring over enormous periods of time. It's a mathematical theory which has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

 

[Lacius]

@azoreseuropa
You could disprove evolution, common descent, the big bang, etc. tomorrow, and that would be no reason to believe a god exists. Absence of an explanation is never evidence for another. As I've pointed out earlier in this thread, if I find a dead body in the woods but cannot find a cause of death, the absence of an explanation does not mean I can rationally believe fairies killed him. If you're going to argue that the belief in God is a rational position, you need to provide evidence, and as far as I'm aware, this is a task no one has accomplished.

In reality, however, there is overwhelming evidence for the above scientific theories and none that contradicts them. Things like evolution, common descent, and the big bang are facts as well as scientific theories. To say these substantiated scientific theories are untrue is to say you care more about a presupposed belief than whether or not your beliefs are actually true.

wrong it's DNA is pig the closest, in looks and built however we're close to the chimps

No, our closest living DNA relatives are bonobos and chimpanzees.

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

@Lacius The explanation will always be absent. With Muslims, Christians, Jews, you name it, they'll tell you to look at the scientific miracles in their books rather than to try and prove god through scientific means since its basically impossible. E.g in the Quran god calls worker bees with a feminine pretext , or when god says let there be light in the bible in the beginning of creation. Unless the writer got insanely lucky. I agree that @azoreseuropa is wrong in saying that those scientific theories are wrong.

 

[richardparker]

non believers,quote my post and gather!

 

[Deleted User]

I dont believe anymore.
once I had a feeling that I talk and he answers me, until I realised I was talking to myself and making excuses for it...
I dont need no god in my personal life and I am agnostic- IDK if he exists or not, therefor I disbelieve as the default choice. In my opinion he isn't what the religions say he is, they overpower or underpower him if he do exist. If they arent lying and he is just as religions say- he's an asshole and dont deserve my belief.
(Sorry for bad english)

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

I dont believe anymore.
once I had a feeling that I talk and he answers me, until I realised I was talking to myself and making excuses for it...
I dont need no god in my personal life and I am agnostic- IDK if he exists or not, therefor I disbelieve as the default choice. In my opinion he isn't what the religions say he is, they overpower or underpower him if he do exist. If they arent lying and he is just as religions say- he's an asshole and dont deserve my belief.
(Sorry for bad english)

an asshole?

 

[Lacius]

an asshole?

The god of the Bible, for example, is an immoral being.

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

The god of the Bible, for example, is an immoral being.

immoral? im not to well versed in the bible seeing as im muslim, But could you give me a breather?

 

[Lacius]

immoral? im not to well versed in the bible seeing as im muslim, But could you give me a breather?

The god of the Bible condones slavery, for starters. The god of the Quran also condones slavery and even raping one's slaves, so neither god is particularly moral.

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

The god of the Bible condones slavery, for starters. The god of the Quran also condones slavery and even raping one's slaves, so neither god is particularly moral.

The Quran allows slavery but still provides them with rights as a human being. Even paying them. I'd like to find out where you saw they were allowed to be raped.
I think this can better summarise it than i can:http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml

 

[Lacius]

The Quran allows slavery but still provides them with rights as a human being. Even paying them. I'd like to find out where you saw they were allowed to be raped.

The ownership of another human being is immoral, regardless. As for raping one's slaves, that's outlined in Surah 4:24.

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

The ownership of another human being is immoral, regardless. As for raping one's slaves, that's outlined in Surah 4:24.

I've always had this thing about morals. Where do humans get them from? We don't get them from an instinct, of course, so where? Your morals are different to other peoples morals, what you consider evil/bad/disgusting like underage sex/rape/adultery is all based on your thoughts and how you were brought up. What I'm trying to get at is that what you think is bad might be okay elsewhere and that you should look at things with an open mind. about the raping slave girls, even though it allows you to have sex with them, its still haraam to rape someone whether they are a slave or not as they have the basic human rights as I had said earlier

 

[Lacius]

I've always had this thing about morals. Where do humans get them from? We don't get them from an instinct, of course, so where? Your morals are different to other peoples morals, what you consider evil/bad/disgusting like underage sex/rape/adultery is all based on your thoughts and how you were brought up. What I'm trying to get at is that what you think is bad might be okay elsewhere and that you should look at things with an open mind. about the raping slave girls, even though it allows you to have sex with them, its still haraam to rape someone whether they are a slave or not as they have the basic human rights as I had said earlier

Morality is not actually a complicated issue. Morality comes from:

1. Our ability to reason what's conducive to well being (this is objective, not subjective)
2. Our biological predispositions to behaviors and feelings that evolved when we became a social species

Religion likes to pretend it has a monopoly on morality, but it doesn't even have a claim on it. Religious proclamations of morality are not actually where morality comes from, and secular morality is in fact the only kind of morality. This is evidenced by the fact that your moral position on a person having the open ability to have sex with a slave because she's one's property differs from the Quran's position. Many, if not most, religious people have moral positions that differ from their holy book, which is evidence for secular morality as the only morality. Morality also cannot come from a god without morality being completely arbitrary.