-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Do you believe in God?
- Thread starter Deleted member 23212
- Start date
They make no attempt to explain how they first appeared.
You wasted my time.
A High and Mighty Deity.
Scripture.
Logic.
Inference
Revelation
Yeah I posted a better video about evoution, becasue I fear you don't believe in that.
This is a great vid too
I prefer the Dara O'Briain offshoot: "'I'm staunchly atheist, I simply don't believe in God, even if he believes in me. But I'm still Catholic, of course. Catholicism has a much broader reach than just the religion. I'm technically Catholic, it's the box you have to tick on the census form: 'Don't believe in God, but I do still hate Rangers' "
But seriously if God exists as a sentient being, He's an absolute monster by any concept of human morality.
They evolved to be somethings we call a tree.
And they will continue to evolve, just like everything else.
If we stay still and listen, we can hear them say 'This is not even my final form' as a wind gently ruffles the shrubbery.
The Universe is the final science project of the teen God.
It placed second, then throw it away somewhere and didn't care anymore.
It placed second, then throw it away somewhere and didn't care anymore.
Yeah, I didn't say that at all. I'm just going to give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk that up to a simple misunderstanding, but please try not to strawman me or put words into my mouth. There's no point in interacting if that's the case.
I'm saying that there are scientific explanations for, say, the emergence of life and so on. If you want to know where the trees came from you can find the scientific explanations for that. I'm sure there are posters here that are far more knowledgeable than I am that can help you there.
Can science (as in the scientific method) explain everything we want to know with absolute certainty? No. At least not at this point. Maybe never.
But, and this is my point, the scientific method is by far the most reliable method of providing us with knowledge, and even if science were 100% wrong 100% of the time (it's not) then it still wouldn't help your case in any way. If you want to prove that a god created this world and the trees in it, it's up to you to provide us with evidence for that.
Too boring and smug. It's a whole bunch of glittery language that does't amount to much.
Darwin had an Axe to grind. He lost a beloved daughter.
Given enough time, you can snazzify the postulate into something that sounds dazzling but is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, and if you poke at it, it whiffs away like smoke. Given enough time a human mind can come up with an supporting argument, or rebuttal to a debate point that sounds kosher. Or they just deride and hand wave and act smugly.
If all species share a common origin, being all interrelated, and all variations of pond scum, why can they not intermingle and procreate with each other?
How do you trust your senses that what you are perceiving is proof of god?
Because they evolved so much that they are now too different ? It's like Windows and macOS, they started from the same base, but evolved so much along the years than a program made to work on one will need several modifications to run on the other. Same idea, more or less.
All of you atheistis always demure to read the science books. Everytime i encounter a scientist getting to the nitty gritty expanation, it boils down to we don't know - yet.
Try explaining it too me - yourself.
The World it's arrangement, the heavenly alignments - all are proof of God. A million fingers, all pointing the way to religion.
If you believe the world, and life came to be as a result of a never ending series of happenstance - so be it.
Logic?
Sorry, but I'm laughing my ass off.
Reads like an answer you would get from a 6 years old after asking him about Santa Claus' existence.
This is due to speciation. As groups of the same species accrue mutations, their chromosomes become so different they can no longer match up. This is an actual observation we see in the world. You should check out ring species, if you're curious about this.
Because that's literally one of the defining characteristics of speciation. What makes you think that genetic variance would even allow interbreeding, despite common descent?
And pond scum? Seriously?
This is the age of information. you have literally the sum total of human knowledge at your fingertips, and if you're looking for evidence that leads to a conclusion (as opposed to starting with the conclusion and trying to make the evidence fit), you can find it.
Start here. it'll require reading, they use a lot of "boring" language and there's little in the way of illustrations, but this provides pertinent data with citations. You'll have to do some work. You know... like all investigators do.
Make note of the sections under evidence of human evolution and the index of creationist claims. This stuff is so thorough, that even Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis agrees that creationists shouldn't use some of them.
Congrats. You're an agnostic atheist like most of us.
Throughout the fossil record there is no, none, never an example of a mid-step. There is no bog mummy found that is half cat half dog. There is no bird in the middle of becoming a frog.
If evolution were true, and it took a very long time, it would stand to reason that you would find some creature, at least one, in the middle stage of becomming another. But after a millenia of digging around, archeologists have never found such an example.
All we find throughout the fossil record are variations of specific species.
There has never been found any creature midway.
That truth should be enough to undermine evolution theory forever.
OP
OP
You know, it's OK to admit you don't know something. We may not know all of nature's mysteries, but why do we have to infer something else? Just admit we don't know.
Me anytime I read an Atisha post.
This dude is 100% serious.
A mind is closed - for now.
Every church I ever went to does not believe that. My dad is a minister and doesn't believe that. I think this is a very American/evangelical-centric idea. I even went to a Christian academy for a year and they didn't teach this.
I do know. A creator Diety laid the foundations. Another deity made this and that. Another deity is charged with upkeep.
OP
OP
I'm gettin a lot of replies...
Uh. Which point of proof are you refering to?
Just here to say this channel is one of the best new things out there, very relaxing/teaching/entertaining. Everyone should watch the entire series.
(now back to eating popcorn! This thread is something... still convinced he is just a troll)
OP
OP
It's quoted in the post you just took this from.
How do you trust your senses that what you are perceiving is proof of god?
You do realize that an evolution is not a finger snap right ? It's just very small changes after very small changes. There's no fossil that is half-cat or half-dog because such creature never existed. There was thousands of variations of creatures that where neither, that branched out and after thousands and thousands of small variations ended up as different species.
You know there are Christians who believe in evolution, right? It's not exclusive to atheism.
THe world is ordered arranged and interdependent. This speaks to an intellect being behind it's order, arrangement and harmony.
Order, arrangement, harmony, interdependenece, function, duty, does not point towards happenstance.
If its not a finger snap surely there must be a midstep in the fossile record?
We simply haven't found it right? Not yet?
Yet withiout this crucial evidence, or any evidence for that matter - evolution is true and lets play backgammon and anyone who says otherwise is a idiot.
*sigh*"
And seriously, my dude, half cat half dog? You do know that evolution would be disproven if we found a fossil that was transitional between two wildly differing taxonomic clades, right? No offspring outgrows it's ancestors and all offspring resemble their parents.
You're ticking all the boxes on the list of bad creationist arguments. Please read the links I've provided.
Archaeopteryx is what you are describing. It has a bony tail; no modern birds have tails. It has claws; with the exception of Hoatzin hatchlings, bird fingers have fused into a single bone. It lacks the large sternum birds have for their large pectoral muscles used for flying. It has teeth, not a beak. Yet it has wings and feathers, features not shared by every therapod dinosaur.
And this is not the only transitional specimen we have found. There are hundreds.
Have fun. It's not like it's hard to browse wikipedia.
Thats what you say, how do you know? If true, which it's not, how did the first plants get here.