Is there a god?

[Fourbanger]

Of course there is a God, I'd like to see someone even come close to proving the Father, Son and Holy spirit don't exist!

And as far as evolution goes, the Bible never said organisms didn't do some of there progression that scientist have proven correct,which people call "evolution"(which is fin), But if your talking about Humans coming from some kind of aps, which didn't happen because the first humans were sent from God, Found in Genesis, I dont agree. If so why aren't monkeys having human babies today, or the other way around.

Genesis says so, so it must be true. Solid.

Evolution has no end goal and monkeys aren't trying to evolve into humans. We simply evolved from a common ancestor. We're separate species, meaning we aren't similar enough to have viable offspring with one another. You know, if you're into that kind of stuff.

[Jean]

Of course there is a God, I'd like to see someone even come close to proving the Father, Son and Holy spirit don't exist!

And as far as evolution goes, the Bible never said organisms didn't do some of there progression that scientist have proven correct,which people call "evolution"(which is fin), But if your talking about Humans coming from some kind of aps, which didn't happen because the first humans were sent from God, Found in Genesis, I dont agree. If so why aren't monkeys having human babies today, or the other way around.

Ugh.... not sure if SRS.

[Jean]

fucking lol @ Farbin's post

[Farbin Kaiber]

He isn't looking "afther all of us..."

[Kvasi]

Of course there is a God, I'd like to see someone even come close to proving the Father, Son and Holy spirit don't exist!

And Id like to see you prove they exist.. Feel free to choose from explaining war, terror and hunger happening if theres a god looking afther all of us..

[yeaseth]

Of course there is a God, I'd like to see someone even come close to proving the Father, Son and Holy spirit don't exist!

And as far as evolution goes, the Bible never said organisms didn't do some of there progression that scientist have proven correct,which people call "evolution"(which is fin), But if your talking about Humans coming from some kind of aps, which didn't happen because the first humans were sent from God, Found in Genesis, I dont agree. If so why aren't monkeys having human babies today, or the other way around.

[Cliche Guevara]

1. There is a difference between life, and the complex life forms such as humans, and even premodern humans. There is a large step from a simple plant, to say, the process in which a plant stays alive, to the vast amount of systems and processes that keep humans/ animals/ etc alive.

Life has been evolving for three billion years, and we have an astonishing fossil record that shows a clear progression from simple to more complex organisms. Those large steps have had millions upon millions of generation to develop.

2. It seems a lot to leave on "chance", wouldn't you say? Chance that we suddenly developed the way we are, chance that molecules all alined perfectly to create the wonderful world we live in(well, are intended to) today.

Evolution through natural selection is not simple chance. It is not chance that moths that have a coloration that better camouflages them has a better chance to reproduce, nor is it chance that the bird with the better eyesight to spot the moth is better of either.

Let me put it this way; Say you have a 3000 piece(or whatever you'd like to imagine it) watch. There are small screws that need to be fully tightened, hands, pins, springs needing to be wound, etc etc. Now, you place all this in a bag and shake, trying to put it together. What are the odds of everything falling perfectly into place, and screws somehow tightening and such? Now, given, I understand the vast amount of time we can be dealing with when it comes to the world and universe, but I'd be willing to bet you could shake that bag for thousands of years, and it would never happen.

This is a classic intelligent design/creationist argument that is completely nonsensical when put under scrutiny. Of course the watch couldn't assemble itself, it has no means to do so. Conversely, organisms do have a means to develop into more and more complex forms. Reproduction, mutation, and the activation of different genes are the key aspect of evolution, all of which are missing in the watch analogy.

3. This is more just to say this; I am neither trying to argue, nor impose/ convince you of my beliefs. So please, try not to simply insult me when I ask or impose a question on you, I am simply here to learn, consider, and question/ test my views.

This attitude is 100% welcome here. Feel free to ask any and all questions about evolution, I love discussing it and I'll do my best to give satisfactory answers. I'll also try not to come off like a condescending prick ;)

[cale]

1. There is a difference between life, and the complex life forms such as humans, and even premodern humans. There is a large step from a simple plant, to say, the process in which a plant stays alive, to the vast amount of systems and processes that keep humans/ animals/ etc alive.

You're right, it is a big difference. But there's also a reason life brewed in the oceans in its simplest forms for billions of years, with only the last few hundred showing signs of life on land let alone complex species such as humans.

2. It seems a lot to leave on "chance", wouldn't you say? Chance that we suddenly developed the way we are, chance that molecules all alined perfectly to create the wonderful world we live in(well, are intended to) today. Let me put it this way; Say you have a 3000 piece(or whatever you'd like to imagine it) watch. There are small screws that need to be fully tightened, hands, pins, springs needing to be wound, etc etc. Now, you place all this in a bag and shake, trying to put it together. What are the odds of everything falling perfectly into place, and screws somehow tightening and such? Now, given, I understand the vast amount of time we can be dealing with when it comes to the world and universe, but I'd be willing to bet you could shake that bag for thousands of years, and it would never happen.

Do you have any idea how vast the universe is? We already know Earth-like planets exist in relatively life friendly orientations elsewhere in the universe, we've seen them and we've only recently been finding exoplanets. Planets are the norm elsewhere in the universe, and given the proper circumstances needed for carbon based life it is likely that life will be the norm as well.

Your analogy falls short in that you inherently think life to be unlikely, you are not able to make that claim. It also is terrible in the fact that you know shaking that bag won't produce a watch, the screws aren't going to tighten themselves. Your watch is essentially a human, an extremely complex arrangement of molecules. Life started off extremely simple for that reason and evolve from there....but you're of the belief evolution doesn't make sense right? Based on what accreditations are you able to make that claim?

[FunfGan]

It's not perfect. No law or regulation is perfect. But like I said previously, more people are going to get medical care and less people are going to die. That outweighs all the other concerns. I hold that in higher regard than my personal beliefs in free market capitalism. Regardless, there is still plenty of room for the free market to breathe.

You're crazy if you believe that in 10-20 years people are going to be saying "gee, I wish my health insurance company could still deny me and my friends for our preexisting medical conditions. We had it so good before 2012." Give me a break Sleeve. The core provisions of this law will be a given from here on out. They won't be questioned.

OT, but so our government has money for not only free healthcare, but hiring those who will provide it? :)

[FunfGan]

That is true, but it is entirely irrelevant when discussion evolution itself.
It depends if you're talking purely about evolutionary concepts, or evolutionary ideas and thoughts as a whole, in my opinion.

There is zero sense in "creationist evolution" (which would be a type of intelligent design). You're merely stating that because science cannot explain a certain phenomena then there must be some sort of all powerful god that exists and was responsible for said phenomena. That is a truly massive leap in logic with absolutely no supporting evidence. What's more, in bestowing the origin of life onto an act of god, you are saying that not only is there no one alive that is intelligent to explain it today, there will never by anyone smart enough ever. That is not a claim that one should make lightly, especially considering the historical precedent of similar claims.

Regarding the actual origin of life, I would be quite surprised if a means for abiogenesis isn't discovered in the next few decades. We've known for quite some time that complex, organic molecules and arise naturally and it is also very interesting to note that the most common elements in the universe are also the most common elements in life. They're even in the same order (1:23:15 in the video. Watch the whole thing, anything by Tyson, really, if you get a chance) And we're based on carbon, which is far and away the most reactive element. Life is built in the best way possible for it to arise naturally.

I will watch the video when I'm awake enough to fully(or at least try) to understand it and get the whole effect, but I do have to preliminary questions/ concerns/ whatever.


1. There is a difference between life, and the complex life forms such as humans, and even premodern humans. There is a large step from a simple plant, to say, the process in which a plant stays alive, to the vast amount of systems and processes that keep humans/ animals/ etc alive.

2. It seems a lot to leave on "chance", wouldn't you say? Chance that we suddenly developed the way we are, chance that molecules all alined perfectly to create the wonderful world we live in(well, are intended to) today. Let me put it this way; Say you have a 3000 piece(or whatever you'd like to imagine it) watch. There are small screws that need to be fully tightened, hands, pins, springs needing to be wound, etc etc. Now, you place all this in a bag and shake, trying to put it together. What are the odds of everything falling perfectly into place, and screws somehow tightening and such? Now, given, I understand the vast amount of time we can be dealing with when it comes to the world and universe, but I'd be willing to bet you could shake that bag for thousands of years, and it would never happen.

3. This is more just to say this; I am neither trying to argue, nor impose/ convince you of my beliefs. So please, try not to simply insult me when I ask or impose a question on you, I am simply here to learn, consider, and question/ test my views.

[ian e30 318is]

Best part: I do believe in God.

Hahah that's classic

[Cliche Guevara]

I've looked into evolution, and will continue to do so, but it just doesn't make sense.

I can certainly understand that perspective, but your incredulity is completely irrelevant when evaluating the validity of a scientific theory. Calculus doesn't make sense to me, but I take no issue with NASA using calculus to determine the route of their spacecraft.

There are no middle ground species etc etc

That's just patently false. Archaeologists have discovered a myriad of transitional fossils, as seen here.

and there had to be SOMETHING to start evolution.

That is true, but it is entirely irrelevant when discussion evolution itself.

Ie, I can see the sense in creationist evolution, and I also agree that at the very least, creatures had adapted and evolved to their surroundings, but not the extent of total evolution. But to each his own.

There is zero sense in "creationist evolution" (which would be a type of intelligent design). You're merely stating that because science cannot explain a certain phenomena then there must be some sort of all powerful god that exists and was responsible for said phenomena. That is a truly massive leap in logic with absolutely no supporting evidence. What's more, in bestowing the origin of life onto an act of god, you are saying that not only is there no one alive that is intelligent to explain it today, there will never by anyone smart enough ever. That is not a claim that one should make lightly, especially considering the historical precedent of similar claims.

Regarding the actual origin of life, I would be quite surprised if a means for abiogenesis isn't discovered in the next few decades. We've known for quite some time that complex, organic molecules and arise naturally and it is also very interesting to note that the most common elements in the universe are also the most common elements in life. They're even in the same order (1:23:15 in the video. Watch the whole thing, anything by Tyson, really, if you get a chance) And we're based on carbon, which is far and away the most reactive element. Life is built in the best way possible for it to arise naturally.

[Cliche Guevara]

Who cares?

I'm confused...

[tjts1]

Walker
Walker Exhaust 35352 Hardware-Insulator

Who cares?

[MAXELHOFF]

check it.