Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Stradlater · Feb 27, 2005, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Science has evidence of what? Evolution??? Not really.

See my post, directly above (last one on page 4).

Originally posted by ebuddy:
It has evidence of adaptation, not one species evolving to another. i.e. fish to reptile to bird to wolf to whale to bat to bear to monkey to man. There's no evidence of all matter coming from one common ancestor. none. You're willing to embrace this concept no doubt, but not because there's any sound scientific evidence of it.

I'm sorry, but you made me laugh here. You do realize what different species are, right?

OH, and you never answered most of this post of mine:
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...24#post2413815

zerostar · Feb 27, 2005, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by ebuddy:
links to evidence of this because no doubt, no one else will question you.

Evidence of what? I was expressing my theory, I have no evidence except what I observe.

The universe may expand forever, because the gravitational force is not strong enough to halt the expansion. This is called an open universe and is judged the most likely possibility by observational evidence.

Its not quite that simple, but as the model goes infinite expansion results in a collapsed universe, I will look for a better explanation (better that I can type out here) but really this is not important to what we are talking about.

Of course evolution has had a part in all we see today, but this doesn't mean matter could've all stemmed from one common ancestor.

It dosen't mean it didn't either.

Does your field of study involve the plausibility of organisms having come from one common ancestor or is it more or less the study of how organisms have adapted? In what way???

Right now I work in genetics, genetic engineering and genetic development. As I have said I work at the miami metro zoo and right now we are doing research on the Pan troglodytes and Homo-* ancestry, so yes our study and testing pretty much rely on common decent. We have been granted a genome mapping simulator and several models are currently being rendered. The results should be interesting

Are you atheist, agnostic, or do you believe in a god?

If I was to classify myself I would have to say an agnostic, I don't, however like the Idea that I need to 'pick' a label. I have always only looked at the evidence and what I see is evolution in action, life stemming from common decent and if there is a deity, it is one who is not involved in our, or other animals lives. That is all IMO of course. Perhaps I should call myself a deitest?

Nicko · Feb 28, 2005, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by BRussell:

It could be that God exists and sends us messages to believe. But for the purpose of this thread, let's not assume that's what's going on. Let's assume that God doesn't exist. Why then do people believe? Is there a God gene? Is it just taught to everyone?

Collectively induced delusion.

Its simply easier for most people to 'believe' in a supernatural deity, rather than confront reality.

Study Archaeology and/or Paleontology and go back far enough in time and it is apparent that the concept of god is a human invention.

budster101 · Mar 7, 2005, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Nicko:
Collectively induced delusion.

Its simply easier for most people to 'believe' in a supernatural deity, rather than confront reality.

Study Archaeology and/or Paleontology and go back far enough in time and it is apparent that the concept of god is a human invention.

Please explain "reality" to me.

At what point do you fall apart when delving into the realms of quantum theory?
(Supernatural, eh?)

Explain this too:

"The study of Archaeology and / or Paleontology go back far enough in 'time' and it is apparent that the concept of God is a human invention."

If God transcends 'time' itself, something we humans have little grasp of, then your assertion of 'time' is irrelevent. We already surmize that 'time' and 'space' can be bent and contorted to circumvent our own belief that 'time' is linear. Why is it so hard for some to understand and realize that if this simple truth can be proved, that God's existence is easily plausible?

(i.e., wormholes, black holes, faster than the speed of light is possible, and as such, time reverses for the object traveling faster than the speed of light.)

Duh.

Xeo · Mar 7, 2005, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Let me ask you since you've ignored my questions. Are scientists human? Do humans appreciate wealth, success, and affluence?

I just have to chime in and ask, what does this have to do with anything? An equally appropriate response is: "Are priests human? Is the Pope human? Were the people who wrote the Bible human?" Face it, everyone who has talked about religion in the last 2000 years can be agreed upon by all that they were human. Now, ask your question again.

deej5871 · Mar 8, 2005, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by Xeo:
I just have to chime in and ask, what does this have to do with anything? An equally appropriate response is: "Are priests human? Is the Pope human? Were the people who wrote the Bible human?" Face it, everyone who has talked about religion in the last 2000 years can be agreed upon by all that they were human. Now, ask your question again.

I believe the point he was trying to make is that science is supposed to be based completely on facts and evidence (as has always been assumed through this thread's "Evolution is based on evidence, ID/creationism/whatever has no proof" and similar statements), while religion is not. So since scientists are human, they most likely desire things like wealth, success, and affluence. Therefore, not all things in science are based solely on evidence.

Xeo · Mar 8, 2005, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by deej5871:
I believe the point he was trying to make is that science is supposed to be based completely on facts and evidence (as has always been assumed through this thread's "Evolution is based on evidence, ID/creationism/whatever has no proof" and similar statements), while religion is not. So since scientists are human, they most likely desire things like wealth, success, and affluence. Therefore, not all things in science are based solely on evidence.

And the response to that is: "So since christians are human, they most likely desire things like wealth, success, and affluence. Therefore, not all things in Christianity are based solely on divinity."

It's the same thing. People are people no matter where you go or what you think.

BRussell · Mar 8, 2005, 01:25 AM

Originally posted by deej5871:
I believe the point he was trying to make is that science is supposed to be based completely on facts and evidence (as has always been assumed through this thread's "Evolution is based on evidence, ID/creationism/whatever has no proof" and similar statements), while religion is not. So since scientists are human, they most likely desire things like wealth, success, and affluence. Therefore, not all things in science are based solely on evidence.

Ebuddy is right that scientists are "only human" and motivated by greed and selfishness and all that. But there are checks and balances to those nasty human failings - publication, peer review, replication.

That's why I always say to ebuddy that, for biological evolution to really rest on as flimsy evidence as he suggests, it must be a conspiracy. I don't see how something so fundamental to every natural science can be so universally accepted, and yet be such a crock that anyone with a web site and no scientific background could so utterly destroy it with a few choice paragraphs. It couldn't get past the checks and balances of peer review and replication.

The only way that could happen, as I see it, is if it's a big cover-up, something like a moon-landing hoax, but much larger in scale. All the folks in biology, geology, botany, chemistry, genetics, anatomy, and on and on, must be having secret meetings where they say "hey we're all atheists, let's convince the world that the Bible is wrong on this one! Mwuahahahahaha!"

deej5871 · Mar 8, 2005, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Xeo:
And the response to that is: "So since christians are human, they most likely desire things like wealth, success, and affluence. Therefore, not all things in Christianity are based solely on divinity."

It's the same thing. People are people no matter where you go or what you think.

True, but no one expects all things in Christianity be based solely on divinity (i.e. Church policies don't come straight from God, but rather the Church). In science, however, everything is supposed to be based on evidence.

But, as BRussell points out, there is a system of checks in the scientific community that help prevent these human failings, so I think this is a moot point.

Surly Dwarf · Nov 9, 2005, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by Sherwin

Impossible logic.
How can one ask why people believe if you assume them to be believing in something which doesn't exist? You discount any answers based on the truth of the matter.

Your question is like asking:
"Ford doesn't exist. Why then do so many people buy F150s?"

Not quite. Perhaps more like "If Ford doesn't exist, then why do so many people believe that Ford does exist?" Not quite the same meaning when you apply it to tangible objects. It is easy to prove a statement that something does not exist by simply presenting the something. Not so easy when you can't just invite God to a cocktail party.

Moderator · Nov 10, 2005, 09:15 AM

I can understand the believe in..a god. You need to make sense of what is infinitley irrational...with or without science. What astounds me is how people feel so comfortable claiming this or that god is THE God.

THE God. Oh the all those other Gods that billions of other people claim is THE God...no no no..there wrong. My God is THE God, see? I'm sure of it.

Wonder which God's will have popular support 4000 years from now...something tells me both the Christians and Muslims of today would be disappointed to find out.

acadian · Nov 10, 2005, 11:18 AM

Simple answer. Because it makes it easier to face one's own mortality. For some people, not all.

Taliesin · Nov 10, 2005, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by Moderator

I can understand the believe in..a god. You need to make sense of what is infinitley irrational...with or without science. What astounds me is how people feel so comfortable claiming this or that god is THE God.

THE God. Oh the all those other Gods that billions of other people claim is THE God...no no no..there wrong. My God is THE God, see? I'm sure of it.

Wonder which God's will have popular support 4000 years from now...something tells me both the Christians and Muslims of today would be disappointed to find out.

Why not also including jews? The God of jews, christians and muslims is exactly the same one and only God there actually is, imho.

What I find surprising is that pro-evolution scientists think evolution is possible without God! At every step of life, in every molecule and in every space of time God is active in creating life, enabling life, developing life, so what's all the fuss about?

Taliesin

Wiskedjak · Nov 10, 2005, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Taliesin

The God of jews, christians and muslims is exactly the same one and only God there actually is, imho.

Not necessarily from their individual perspectives.

Monique · Nov 10, 2005, 12:54 PM

God is there to explain things that cannot be explained right now. Also, the people who believed that God is reponsible for everything and men for nothing just like being blind.

Uncle Skeleton · Nov 10, 2005, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Why not also including jews?

Because unlike Xtians and Muslims, Jews don't believe that being the chosen people and worshipping the correct God entitles us to take over the world. Therefore Jews have no reason to be disappointed when the polls in the God Popularity Contest (or GPC) shift one way or the other.

Taliesin · Nov 11, 2005, 06:10 AM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Not necessarily from their individual perspectives.

Well the christians think it's the same God as the God of the jews that they are worshipping, they just believe on top of that that he also visited the earth in a human form, and the muslims believe it's the same God as the previous two ones, but just believe that christians misinterpreted Jesus' role and scriptures, and that the jews rejected a legitimate prophet, the one to be anointed, and not the only one.

But that was just a side-comment, the bigger and imore important, that even if evolution is a theory to be true, it still wouldn't work without God making it possible at every corner and step, so again what's up with all the fuss?

Taliesin