Prove No God!

[-Cp]

This call is going out to all the DP Atheists out there....

For years, we hear from the likes of ya'll saying "Prove there is a God!" - I say, please Prove that there is NOT one! I'm all ears as I'm highly interested in any proof you can dig up!

[Hagbard Celine]

This call is going out to all the DP Atheists out there....

For years, we hear from the likes of ya'll saying "Prove there is a God!" - I say, please Prove that there is NOT one! I'm all ears as I'm highly interested in any proof you can dig up!

That's the point -Cp. You can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God because he/she/it has left absolutely no proof of its existence. The only things we have to go on are our wits and the physical world around us. So far, our wits and the physical world around us have revealed that our planet is somewhere around 4 billion years old, Our universe is expanding so it must have begun in a big bang, and the fossil record reveals that life on our planet gradually evolved into the state we find it in today--and it continues to adapt and evolve. There is room for God in this equation, but allowing him in is something that is a personal decision as well as something that is left completely up to faith.

[diuretic]

Jeez in I come like the tide :laugh2:

-Cp - no-one can prove there is no God just like no-one can prove there is a God.

Speaking personally, I can't remember ever demanding that someone prove to me that there is a God. They have their faith and far be it from me to attempt to dissuade someone from their faith.

[darin]

That's the point -Cp. You can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God because he/she/it has left absolutely no proof of its existence. The only things we have to go on are our wits and the physical world around us. So far, our wits and the physical world around us have revealed that our planet is somewhere around 4 billion years old, Our universe is expanding so it must have begun in a big bang, and the fossil record reveals that life on our planet gradually evolved into the state we find it in today--and it continues to adapt and evolve. There is room for God in this equation, but allowing him in is something that is a personal decision as well as something that is left completely up to faith.

Leaps and bounds and fallacy fill your reply.

There is no 'Proof' of our world being 4 billion years old - only 'evidence'. There is no 'Proof' life gradually evolved - only (VERY WEAK) evidence. There IS also evidence of divine design in world - in our universe; it's just that some people don't like to study that evidence because they are absolutely against the 'logical conclusion' one can reach while doing so.

:)

Re: Expanding Universe -


If the universe came from a big bang, then matter should be evenly distributed. However, the universe contains an extremely uneven distribution of mass. This means that matter is concentrated into zones and planes around relatively empty regions. Two astronomers, Geller and Huchra, embarked on a measuring program expecting to find evidence to support the big bang model. By compiling large star maps, they hoped to demonstrate that matter is uniformly distributed throughout the cosmos (when a large enough scale is considered).

The more progress they made with their cartographic overview of space, the clearer it became that distant galaxies are clustered like cosmic continents beyond nearly empty reaches of space. The big bang model was strongly shaken by this discovery.

It should be added that the visible galaxies do not contain enough mass to explain the existence and distribution of these structures. But the big bang model was not discarded. Instead, the existence of a mysterious, unknown, and unseen form of matter (‘dark matter’) was postulated. Without any direct evidence for its existence, this ‘dark matter’ is supposed to be 10 times the amount of visibly observed mass.

A critic of the big bang theory, Ernst Peter Fischer, a physicist and biologist of Constance, Germany, reflects on its popularity. He refers to the:

‘… warning given by [physicist and philosopher] Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker … namely that a society which accepts the idea that the origin of the cosmos could be explained in terms of an explosion, reveals more about the society itself than about the universe. Nevertheless, the many observations made during the past 25 years or so which contradict the standard model, are simply ignored. When fact and theory contradict each other, one of them has to yield.’6


............................Professor Hans Jörg Fahr of the Institute for Astrophysics at Bonn University, Germany, writes of the demise of the big bang theory in his book, Der Urknall kommt zu Fall (The Demise of the Big Bang).

‘The universe originated about 20 thousand million years ago in a cosmic explosion (the big bang), it has been expanding ever since, and it will continue to do so until the end of time … This sounds convincing, and it is accepted by all present-day mainstream “natural philosophers.” But it should be obvious that a doctrine which is acclaimed noisily, is not necessarily close to the truth. In the field of cosmology the widely supported big bang theory is not more convincing than other alternatives. In fact, there are surprisingly many alternatives.’9



The following is a partial list of important, unanswered questions in secular astronomy today. Although the popular media may state otherwise, these remain current issues:

1. What is the true value of the Hubble constant?
2. Why is the solar neutrino flux less than half its expected value?
3. Why has extraterrestrial life not been detected in many other places in space?
4. What was the origin of the assumed Big Bang ‘kernel’ of mass-energy, and why did it ‘explode’?
5. How did the first stars and galaxies spontaneously form?
6. Are there actual planets circling other stars?
7. Is the red-shift of starlight actually due to universe expansion, or could there be another cause?
8. What is the origin of the moon?
9. How far away are the quasars, and what actually are they?
10. Do galaxies evolve with time?
11. Where is the missing mass required by the Big Bang? This is also variously called hidden, dark, cold or exotic matter.
12. What is the origin of cosmic radiation?

[diuretic]

Leaps and bounds and fallacy fill your reply.

There is no 'Proof' of our world being 4 billion years old - only 'evidence'. There is no 'Proof' life gradually evolved - only (VERY WEAK) evidence. There IS also evidence of divine design in world - in our universe; it's just that some people don't like to study that evidence because they are absolutely against the 'logical conclusion' one can reach while doing so.

:)



What evidence of "divine design"?

[-Cp]

What evidence of "divine design"?

This video helps illustrate dmp's point:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VpHNal57ix0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VpHNal57ix0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[darin]

What evidence of "divine design"?

Would it matter? Would ANYTHING I post do more than serve you with an opportunity to ridicule? :)

Are you seriously asking, or just looking for something to arbitrarily dismiss?

[JohnDoe]

I wouldn't be toooooo quick to turn away from the actual age of the Earth because of what we, as man, have made of the Creation story in the Bible.

God has mentioned in the Bible that a day to Him is like a thousand years to us.

This does not mean that one day to him IS 1 thousand years to us, but like with everything....numbers have underlying meanings in the Bible...numbers are important in describing things....

One of the Apostles asked Jesus, how often should I forgive someone who has sinned against me? 7 years Lord?

And Christ answered 70 times 7, should be the times you forgive him....Christ did not mean 490 times, it is known that He meant, continue forever to have the mindset and heart, to forgive him.

So, God's time of one day being like a thousand years to us, in man's time, was a figure of speech symbolizing that God's time is not the same as ours, and leave it at that....

The progression of how the Earth was made and man is however very accurate in Scripture imo....paraphrased, the earth and then gathering all the water in our Universe and depositing it on Earth, and then life with whatnots and animals etc and then us...we were the last things made, and then he rested. :D

[Hagbard Celine]

Leaps and bounds and fallacy fill your reply.

There is no 'Proof' of our world being 4 billion years old - only 'evidence'. There is no 'Proof' life gradually evolved - only (VERY WEAK) evidence. There IS also evidence of divine design in world - in our universe; it's just that some people don't like to study that evidence because they are absolutely against the 'logical conclusion' one can reach while doing so.

:)

Re: Expanding Universe -

:rolleyes: So now you're splitting hairs with me over use of the words "proof" and "evidence?" In your own words, there is no "evidence" of a divine creator. None. If the Bible had never been written, where would even your idea of a divine creator come from? Every culture on Earth, even the little pygmy people (made smaller through genetic adaptation, which is evolution) have creation myths. The idea that the world was created by a creator is a philosophical idea that blossomed out of a world based in scientific ignorance. If ancient people had known about atomic physics, do you think they would've wasted their time sacrificing to idols? Hell, if they'd know what thunder and lightning was, they probably wouldn't have wasted their time.

As for evolution--get used to it. It's a scientific principle based in fact, evidence, proof, whatever word you want to use and it is accepted by every modern culture on Earth, except for some reason, a majority of conservative Republicans in the United States. Believe whatever you want about religion, that's your right, but choosing to ignore physical evidence based solely on your own stubborn refusal to depart from your traditional ideology is the worst way to stick your head in the sand.

[diuretic]

Would it matter? Would ANYTHING I post do more than serve you with an opportunity to ridicule? :)

Are you seriously asking, or just looking for something to arbitrarily dismiss?

Ridicule is something I do, yes, but it's usually when something is presented in such a partisan fashion that it's verging on flame bait. Now being an opinionated so-and-so, which I freely admit, it might look like I'm ridiculing when it's not intended. When it comes to these sorts of discussions I find that sometimes merely disputing the point can look like ridicule. It's not meant to be. Yes I am seriously asking. I may well dispute the alleged evidence, but I'm not setting things up merely to "trap" someone, that's just plain nasty ("nasty" as in "bad" - word meanings shift so often I find it hard to keep up).

I can't view the video -Cp, I will have to have a look a bit later.

If we're going to go down the Intelligent Design path I'll just make a pre-emptive point. The theory of evolution shouldn't detract from anyone's faith. How do any of us know that evolution isn't part of a deity's Grand Design? I tell you what does get up my nose though, spurious attacks on evolutionary theory, not from a scientific point of view but from a religious point of view. No need for it, as I just pointed out.

Faith needs no proof so why bother trying to provide it? <--- rhetorical question only

[darin]

The theory of evolution shouldn't detract from anyone's faith.

And likewise, 'not-buying' into the theory of macro-evolution does NOT mean I don't-buy-it ONLY because of my faith. I bet there are MANY MANY atheists who don't buy-it. :)

[Hagbard Celine]

And likewise, 'not-buying' into the theory of macro-evolution does NOT mean I don't-buy-it ONLY because of my faith. I bet there are MANY MANY atheists who don't buy-it. :)

Is it just the fact that macro-evo hasn't been replicated in a lab? Because leading bio-chemists are coming very close these days. Mathematical Pattern theory predicts the spontaneous ordering of nature--it's a phenomenon that can be mapped and seen digitally in bird flight formations and even the way crowds of humans behave. It can also be seen in the microscopic, cellular and atomic worlds. Plus, I saw an experiment on PBS where a scientist put elements into a capsule, applied pressure and heat to the capsule and the elements began to encapsulate themselves into a structure resembling a cell. It's incredible the stuff we as humans are learning through science. Have you chosen to dismiss the search for knowledge through scientific inquiry?

[diuretic]

And likewise, 'not-buying' into the theory of macro-evolution does NOT mean I don't-buy-it ONLY because of my faith. I bet there are MANY MANY atheists who don't buy-it. :)

Fair point - personally I still think Lamarck might be proven right :laugh2:

[Black Lance]

That's the point -Cp. You can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God because he/she/it has left absolutely no proof of its existence. The only things we have to go on are our wits and the physical world around us. So far, our wits and the physical world around us have revealed that our planet is somewhere around 4 billion years old, Our universe is expanding so it must have begun in a big bang, and the fossil record reveals that life on our planet gradually evolved into the state we find it in today--and it continues to adapt and evolve. There is room for God in this equation, but allowing him in is something that is a personal decision as well as something that is left completely up to faith.

You assume that we would have found such evidence if it existed. That's just an assumption, really. A thousand years ago who could have provided evidence for the existence of ultraviolet light, or gamma radiation rays?

Besides, your statement is not really true. History provides us with evidence for the existence of God in the form of testimony from people who claim to have interacted with such an entity. Witness testimony is far from indisputable proof, but it is certainly admissible as evidence, and given that we are discussing a metaphysical entity who cannot be observed by human senses, such evidence is the only kind of evidence we would expect to become available to us.

[Gunny]

Would it matter? Would ANYTHING I post do more than serve you with an opportunity to ridicule? :)

Are you seriously asking, or just looking for something to arbitrarily dismiss?

No, it doesn't ever matter. The more you post, the more words they have to screw with.

[Missileman]

we are discussing a metaphysical entity who cannot be observed by human senses.

And yet you would have us believe that there are these special people "who claim to have interacted with such an entity" whose testimony should be taken as reliable evidence?

[Gunny]

And yet you would have us believe that there are these special people "who claim to have interacted with such an entity" whose testimony should be taken as reliable evidence?

He states clearly that it is "far from indisputable proof."

[Missileman]

This call is going out to all the DP Atheists out there....

For years, we hear from the likes of ya'll saying "Prove there is a God!" - I say, please Prove that there is NOT one! I'm all ears as I'm highly interested in any proof you can dig up!

With all of the miserably failed attempts to provide even a shred of evidence of your god's existence, I can understand your motivation to shift the burden of proof to us. It's intellectually dishonest to do so though. You might just as well have said, "There is a frozen fluffernutter at the center of the core of this planet, prove there isn't."

[Missileman]

He states clearly that it is "far from indisputable proof."

I would go further and say that it is far from reliable evidence, let alone proof.

He apparently considers it reliable evidence. I can't imagine he'd present what he considers unreliable evidence to support his argument.

Where is it written that it's not possible for God to communicate with us through our normal five human senses?

[Black Lance]

And yet you would have us believe that there are these special people "who claim to have interacted with such an entity" whose testimony should be taken as reliable evidence?

Obviously the deity would have to manifest itself in such a way as to enable people to interact with it.

[Missileman]

Obviously the deity would have to manifest itself in such a way as to enable people to interact with it.


we are discussing a metaphysical entity who cannot be observed by human senses.

So which is it, can or cannot or when convenient?

[Black Lance]

I would go further and say that it is far from reliable evidence, let alone proof.

He apparently considers it reliable evidence. I can't imagine he'd present what he considers unreliable evidence to support his argument.

Where is it written that it's not possible for God to communicate with us through our normal five human senses?

I mean only that God, as a metaphysical entity, cannot be observed by human senses except when he chooses to manifest himself in such a way as to enable this.

Eyewitness testimony is unreliable, but it is still evidence, and given the metaphysical nature of the entity we are discussing, this is the only type of evidence we could expect to find if such a deity existed.

[Black Lance]

So which is it, can or cannot or when convenient?

Can be when convenient. My point was that a supernatural entity could, by definition, not be detected by the scientific methods that atheists dogmatically insist we rely upon.

[darin]

So which is it, can or cannot or when convenient?


So - are you missing the eyes that see, or the brain that works? ;)

:D

:poke:

[avatar4321]

That's the point -Cp. You can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God because he/she/it has left absolutely no proof of its existence. The only things we have to go on are our wits and the physical world around us. So far, our wits and the physical world around us have revealed that our planet is somewhere around 4 billion years old, Our universe is expanding so it must have begun in a big bang, and the fossil record reveals that life on our planet gradually evolved into the state we find it in today--and it continues to adapt and evolve. There is room for God in this equation, but allowing him in is something that is a personal decision as well as something that is left completely up to faith.

yeah. no evidence at all. Just everything in life. Witnesses called to testify. the universe. countless written records... yeah nothing at all.

[-Cp]

And still nobody can produce a shred of evidence for there being "no God"....

What a shock...

[-Cp]

That's the point -Cp. You can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God because he/she/it has left absolutely no proof of its existence. The only things we have to go on are our wits and the physical world around us. So far, our wits and the physical world around us have revealed that our planet is somewhere around 4 billion years old, Our universe is expanding so it must have begun in a big bang

If the universe came from a big bang, then matter should be evenly distributed. However, the universe contains an extremely uneven distribution of mass. This means that matter is concentrated into zones and planes around relatively empty regions. Two astronomers, Geller and Huchra, embarked on a measuring program expecting to find evidence to support the big bang model. By compiling large star maps, they hoped to demonstrate that matter is uniformly distributed throughout the cosmos (when a large enough scale is considered).

The more progress they made with their cartographic overview of space, the clearer it became that distant galaxies are clustered like cosmic continents beyond nearly empty reaches of space. The big bang model was strongly shaken by this discovery.

It should be added that the visible galaxies do not contain enough mass to explain the existence and distribution of these structures. But the big bang model was not discarded. Instead, the existence of a mysterious, unknown, and unseen form of matter (‘dark matter’) was postulated. Without any direct evidence for its existence, this ‘dark matter’ is supposed to be 10 times the amount of visibly observed mass.

A critic of the big bang theory, Ernst Peter Fischer, a physicist and biologist of Constance, Germany, reflects on its popularity. He refers to the:

‘… warning given by [physicist and philosopher] Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker … namely that a society which accepts the idea that the origin of the cosmos could be explained in terms of an explosion, reveals more about the society itself than about the universe. Nevertheless, the many observations made during the past 25 years or so which contradict the standard model, are simply ignored. When fact and theory contradict each other, one of them has to yield.’6

Another critic of the big bang theory, Halton C. Arp, was attached to the world-famous Mount Wilson Observatory near Pasadena, USA, and to the Las Campanas Observatories in California. He explains the reasons for rejecting the big bang model in a notable article, ‘Der kontinuierlicher Kosmos’ (The continuous cosmos).

‘Since antiquity, ideas of the universe have varied widely, depending on assumptions about factual observations. The current idea of a big bang has been the standard model for about 60 years. But, in the mean time, the number of observations that negate the assumption that the red shift of the light of distant galaxies can be explained by recessive motions, is increasing.’7

In other words, even the idea that the universe is expanding is under attack by some astronomers.

Arp continues his criticism of the big bang theory and calls for it to be rejected by the scientific community.

‘In my opinion the observations speak a different language; they call for a different view of the universe. I believe that the big bang theory should be replaced, because it is no longer a valid theory.’8

Professor Hans Jörg Fahr of the Institute for Astrophysics at Bonn University, Germany, writes of the demise of the big bang theory in his book, Der Urknall kommt zu Fall (The Demise of the Big Bang).

‘The universe originated about 20 thousand million years ago in a cosmic explosion (the big bang), it has been expanding ever since, and it will continue to do so until the end of time … This sounds convincing, and it is accepted by all present-day mainstream “natural philosophers.” But it should be obvious that a doctrine which is acclaimed noisily, is not necessarily close to the truth. In the field of cosmology the widely supported big bang theory is not more convincing than other alternatives. In fact, there are surprisingly many alternatives.’9

Dr James Trefil, professor of physics at Mason University, Virginia, accepts the big bang model, but he concedes that a state of emergency exists regarding fundamental aspects of explaining why the universe exists.

‘There shouldn’t be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn’t be grouped together the way they are.’ He later continues: ‘The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be there, yet there they sit. It’s hard to convey the depth of the frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists.’10

My considered opinion is that as long as we try to explain the universe apart from the Creator and without regard to biblical affirmations given by him, we will continue to be dazzled by a succession of ingenious cosmological ideas, none of which will remotely resemble the truth. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/big_bang.asp)11

[diuretic]

You assume that we would have found such evidence if it existed. That's just an assumption, really. A thousand years ago who could have provided evidence for the existence of ultraviolet light, or gamma radiation rays?

Besides, your statement is not really true. History provides us with evidence for the existence of God in the form of testimony from people who claim to have interacted with such an entity. Witness testimony is far from indisputable proof, but it is certainly admissible as evidence, and given that we are discussing a metaphysical entity who cannot be observed by human senses, such evidence is the only kind of evidence we would expect to become available to us.

Witness testimony is indeed evidence, but it has to be examined closely. However I'm not inclined to do so. A good friend of mine found God some time ago. He was, not to put too fine a point on it, a bit of a lad when he was younger. He told me one day that he was out jogging on a football field here and God spoke to him. He's now an evangelical pastor. Am I going to cross-examine him and suggest that it was a delusion? No way. There's a limit even to my scepticism, I'm not going to attack my friend's testimony, nor his faith. Besides, he's a much better man now than he was then, so - without a hint of patronisation - I am not going to dispute his faith.

[diuretic]

No, it doesn't ever matter. The more you post, the more words they have to screw with.

Not at all. The more ideas posted, the better the discussion.

[diuretic]

yeah. no evidence at all. Just everything in life. Witnesses called to testify. the universe. countless written records... yeah nothing at all.

You mean inference from design?

[diuretic]

And still nobody can produce a shred of evidence for there being "no God"....

What a shock...

I'm still working through the thread so if this is a duplicate of someone else's point, I'm sorry for that. But -Cp it's difficult to prove a negative. I'll keep reading.

[PostmodernProphet]

Our universe is expanding so it must have begun in a big bang

of course there was a big bang.....we even know what it sounded like......it sounded like "Let there be....."

[GW in Ohio]

I'm a civilian in this little war between the atheists and the believers. But I will make an observation.....

If you believe in God, and have religion, what do you care if Hagbard or anyone else says there is no God. You've got your faith; isn't that enough?

(For the record, I know there is a God, but I can't prove it. Neither can any of you.)

[Missileman]

Can be when convenient. My point was that a supernatural entity could, by definition, not be detected by the scientific methods that atheists dogmatically insist we rely upon.

Which is the more reasonable position...insistance of belief based on unreliable evidence or disbelief based on the lack of reliable evidence?

[Black Lance]

Which is the more reasonable position...insistance of belief based on unreliable evidence or disbelief based on the lack of reliable evidence?

The absence of scientific evidence should not exclude anyone from concluding that something exists, particularly when the nature of the entity in question is such that scientific evidence could not be found for the entity if it did indeed exist, as is the case anything metaphysical due to science being limited to the study of material objects.

[GW in Ohio]

Which is the more reasonable position...insistance of belief based on unreliable evidence or disbelief based on the lack of reliable evidence?

missileman: Reason and rationality have very little to do with religion. While it seems reasonable to me to acknowledge a higher power (How else do you explain where all this came from?*), I know that everyone doesn't think like me.

Vive la difference!

* The answer to that question might well be, "It just is."

[truthmatters]

where did god come from?

[PostmodernProphet]

why do you assume he had to come from anywhere.....Christianity teaches that he has always 'been'......

[GW in Ohio]

where did god come from?

Why does God have to "come from" somewhere?

If it's more palatable to you, substitute "supreme power" for "God."

[Black Lance]

where did god come from?

Invalid question. As an entity that exists outside of space, God also exists outside of time (see recent science regarding fourth dimensional space-time). Consequentially, questions about God that relate to time are simply misnomers.

[Missileman]

The absence of scientific evidence should not exclude anyone from concluding that something exists, particularly when the nature of the entity in question is such that scientific evidence could not be found for the entity if it did indeed exist, as is the case anything metaphysical due to science being limited to the study of material objects.

I didn't specify scientific, I said reliable. Scientific evidence is arguably the most reliable, but there are other types that are reliable too. As you take faith in the "testimony" of others, let me ask...do you really believe that God told Oral Roberts to raise more cash or die? With what you know about human beings, are you really willing to accept everything you're told simply on the basis that they're linked to Christianity?

[Black Lance]

I didn't specify scientific, I said reliable. Scientific evidence is arguably the most reliable, but there are other types that are reliable too. As you take faith in the "testimony" of others, let me ask...do you really believe that God told Oral Roberts to raise more cash or die? With what you know about human beings, are you really willing to accept everything you're told simply on the basis that they're linked to Christianity?

What evidence, besides scientific evidence, do you consider to be reliable?

Just because I believe some testimonies to be true doesn't mean that I have to conclude that all of them must be true. When some person tells me that he is the spiritual ancestor of St. Peter, and that God has made him infallible, I am perfectly capable of applying reasoning skills to his claim.

[Missileman]

What evidence, besides scientific evidence, do you consider to be reliable?

I would consider a recording more reliable than testimony, not that there's any available.


Just because I believe some testimonies to be true doesn't mean that I have to conclude that all of them must be true. When some person tells me that he is the spiritual ancestor of St. Peter, and that God has made him infallible, I am perfectly capable of applying reasoning skills to his claim.

What if the claim isn't as blatantly ridiculous? If I were going to try to pass a lie off as truth, I would disguise it in a blanket of plausibility.

[Black Lance]

I would consider a recording more reliable than testimony, not that there's any available.

A record left by whom? Written or verbal records are no more reliable than live human testimony.



What if the claim isn't as blatantly ridiculous? If I were going to try to pass a lie off as truth, I would disguise it in a blanket of plausibility.

Then it gets more complex. Besides checking the claim against any evidence available in the material world, you can also check such claims for internal consistency, and examine the speaker for bias or alterior motives. That last is not a conclusive method of examination, as the other two are, but naturally we should subject claimants with alterior motives to more scrutiny.

[Missileman]

A record left by whom? Written or verbal records are no more reliable than live human testimony.

I wasn't necessarily talking about evidence of a biblical event when I said recording. I was thinking more along the lines of surveillance camera recordings that I don't consider scientific evidence or testimony. I only mentioned it as an acknowledgement that it exists as another form of reliable evidence.



Then it gets more complex. Besides checking the claim against any evidence available in the material world, you can also check such claims for internal consistency, and examine the speaker for bias or alterior motives. That last is not a conclusive method of examination, as the other two are, but naturally we should subject claimants with alterior motives to more scrutiny.

Call me a cynic, but when humans are involved, more often than not, you'll find an ulterior motive, especially when a claim is being made where you are being asked to take their word for it.

[emmett]

where did god come from?

I have it on good information that he is from Cleveland, Georgia. I think he lives somewhere off Testnatee Gap Rd. Near the Loudermilks. He plays cards on Fridays at Station 6 with the fireman and bingo at the ladies auxiliary on Tuesdays. He drinks Ginger Ale, likes Harley Davidsons and eats at Huddle House. Good Gracious y'all.

[manu1959]

This call is going out to all the DP Atheists out there....

For years, we hear from the likes of ya'll saying "Prove there is a God!" - I say, please Prove that there is NOT one! I'm all ears as I'm highly interested in any proof you can dig up!

easy...there is no god.....

[Ruby]

The problem with the notion that if we cant prove it DOSENT exist means we must give some credence to the possiblity it exists sounds reasonable enough but it isnt really. If we are to do that then we must also consider it reasonable to believe there is a full set of cutlery in space far beyond where we can see it that has an affect on our daily lives, we would have to consider there really are fairies, a tooth fairy, pasta monsters etc.

I dont think its more credible cause we create up things that we would LIKE to exist and fit neatly into our own desires (for immortality), I think that is probably at the very heart of the motivation to uphold somthing without any actual evidence it exists. Obviously it also includes concepts of safety (to have some all powerful being love you and give you immortality), and concepts of control (it has been used quite effectively for people to gain control over other people). Lastly another concept that plays a key role is human curiosity and we do attempt to fill in answers where we have questions and some of those are not answered, but simply inserting one isnt a proper avenue to take.

The onus is on those who assert there is a creator to give compelling evidence of his existence and it cannot be a "god of the gaps" answer which is just an answer where you plug a god in where we have an un-answered questions. A un-answered question is just that, a blank we are working on and it cant be passed off as god.

[PostmodernProphet]

eats at Huddle House

aha!....proof he's an imposter....nobody omniscient would eat at a Huddle House.....

[diuretic]

aha!....proof he's an imposter....nobody omniscient would eat at a Huddle House.....

On the bright side, I know I'm not God because I haven't a clue what a Huddle House is.

On the other hand..............*not now Josephine, can't you see I'm busy?*

[PostmodernProphet]

Waffle House....Huddle House....one or the other, or both can be found at every interstate exit south of the mason-dixon line.....picture a McDonalds with slow service and worse food.....

[diuretic]

Waffle House....Huddle House....one or the other, or both can be found at every interstate exit south of the mason-dixon line.....picture a McDonalds with slow service and worse food.....

Hmmm.....furthest south I got by car was Va and then I did a hard right into WVa and Ky (don't get me started on dry counties!) and back up to Ind and points north. I was lucky enough to visit New Orleans (I remember going into Pat O'Brien's but I'm buggered if I remember leaving) and went for a bit of a tour of the bayoux but - to my everlasting chagrin - didn't get to Lafayette, La. and me loving zydeco...next time I hope.

[Black Lance]

I wasn't necessarily talking about evidence of a biblical event when I said recording. I was thinking more along the lines of surveillance camera recordings that I don't consider scientific evidence or testimony. I only mentioned it as an acknowledgement that it exists as another form of reliable evidence.

Why would you consider video footage reliable? I'm not knowledgeable on the topic, but I understand it to be very easy to tamper with. In any case, until someone invents a type of surveillance camera that can detect metaphysical objects, the same problem applies here as applies to demands for physical evidence of metaphysical entities: the demand is rendered impossible by the definition of the entity/entities in question.



Call me a cynic, but when humans are involved, more often than not, you'll find an ulterior motive, especially when a claim is being made where you are being asked to take their word for it.

I would agree with that, but only when it is possible for a person to provide proof of a claim, but he or she is unwilling to do so for some reason. The matter is different when it is impossible for the person to provide proof of a claim, because the lack of proof is no longer indicative of insincerity on the part of the claimant.

[JohnDoe]

I don't think it is meant to be proven, it is meant to be KNOWN. It is not a known because of the physical, it is a known because of the Spiritual, thus, unprovable in the physical, but still, none the less, to those of us that do believe in God, a KNOWN FACT of His existence.

Just like you KNOW, when you love someone.

[truthmatters]

Why does God have to "come from" somewhere?

If it's more palatable to you, substitute "supreme power" for "God."

If something like a supreme power can just Always exsist then why cant matter just have always exsisted then you dont need God to be there to make anything?

[PostmodernProphet]

If something like a supreme power can just Always exsist then why cant matter just have always exsisted then you dont need God to be there to make anything?

because by studying the measurable characteristics of the universe we have been able to conclude there was in fact a starting point for that which is material.....an identifiable beginning from which all that we can touch, taste, see and hear moved.....

God, not being a material 'thing', is not subject to those physical laws or suspectible to those measurements.....

[truthmatters]

Its the origin of the big bang not the origin of matter.

All the matter may cluster in one place and then explode only to recluster and start again.


No matter how you try there was something that always exsisted.

Its a hard concept for people to wrap their minds arround so they invented God to explain all the things they couldnt explain.

[Kathianne]

Its the origin of the big bang not the origin of matter.

All the matter may cluster in one place and then explode only to recluster and start again.


No matter how you try there was something that always exsisted.

Its a hard concept for people to wrap their minds arround so they invented God to explain all the things they couldnt explain.

Sorta like the Mesopotamians, Greeks, Chinese, Israelis, etc?

[PostmodernProphet]

No matter how you try there was something that always exsisted

no, not necessarily....

[Yurt]

no, not necessarily....

so "nothing" existed? and from "nothing" came "something?"

[PostmodernProphet]

that which always existed, does not need to be a 'thing'.....

[-Cp]

that which always existed, does not need to be a 'thing'.....

Isn't it funny that the same folks who can't somehow have the faith to believe in an everlasting God have Faith that the Universe is endless?

[truthmatters]

Sorta like the Mesopotamians, Greeks, Chinese, Israelis, etc?

Exactly all higher power beliefs were attempts to explain the unknown.

Man is curious and thoughtful and needs to understand the world arround him and has always been this way.

Man needed God(and or Gods) to explain and put his mind at rest so that he could attend to the task of living.

I have nothing against anyones belief in a higher power but I also put no more creadence in the popular modern beliefs than any of the beliefs man has used until these ones developed.

God is mans creation not the other way arround.


Its what I believe and deserves just as much respect as anyone elses beliefs.

[-Cp]

God is mans creation not the other way arround.


Its what I believe and deserves just as much respect as anyone elses beliefs.

It may be your belief, but you have shown no evidence that could pursuade others to believe it as well..

[truthmatters]

People who believe in a God dont want proof they want comfort.

Why should I attempt to take comfort from them?

[-Cp]

People who believe in a God dont want proof they want comfort.

Why should I attempt to take comfort from them?

No.. really... I'm asking you.. please provide me some evidence into your enlightened view...

[manu1959]

People who believe in a God dont want proof they want comfort.

Why should I attempt to take comfort from them?

people who don't believe in a god seek comfort that their actions will not be judged and that their are no boundries other than those they set for themselves .....

it is simple fear.....

[truthmatters]

Since people who believe in god have been known to commit every crime that exsists I do not see why people who dont always have to be maligned as criminals by christains.

I treat people better than the vast majority of people I have met in my life.

I commit no crimes and am completetly faithful to my spouse.

I dont partake in gossip and try to help all the people I know be kind ad understandig to each other.

To assume that people who dont believe in God would do ANYTHING is more of a reflection on you than it is me.

You obviously need the "eyes' of God on you to keep you from hurting others, I dont.

[truthmatters]

No.. really... I'm asking you.. please provide me some evidence into your enlightened view...

Give me evidence God exsists?

I dont believe in things that I have no proof they exsist.



If I wanted to believe in things without proof I would pick something far more kind and fair then the God I have had described to me by most of any religion I have come accrossed.

[-Cp]

Give me evidence God exsists?

I dont believe in things that I have no proof they exsist.



If I wanted to believe in things without proof I would pick something far more kind and fair then the God I have had described to me by most of any religion I have come accrossed.

BUt you are believing in something without proof - your assertion that there is no God needs proof - so please provide me with evidence of your belief so that I may be as enlightened as you are..

[truthmatters]

aAe you really this stupid?

I dont believe in bigfoot until someone gives me evidence which is undeniable.

Do you believe in bigfoot?

Tell us why you do or dont believe in bigfoot?

[manu1959]

Since people who believe in god have been known to commit every crime that exsists I do not see why people who dont always have to be maligned as criminals by christains.

I treat people better than the vast majority of people I have met in my life.

I commit no crimes and am completetly faithful to my spouse.

I dont partake in gossip and try to help all the people I know be kind ad understandig to each other.

To assume that people who dont believe in God would do ANYTHING is more of a reflection on you than it is me.

You obviously need the "eyes' of God on you to keep you from hurting others, I dont.

people that don't belive are no better....

in your opinion

never stolen a pen from work? completey faithful is realative

you gossip here....and are far from kind here

huh?

the eyes of god are on you whetehr you like it or not...do you think your words here don't hurt people

[-Cp]

aAe you really this stupid?

I dont believe in bigfoot until someone gives me evidence which is undeniable.

Do you believe in bigfoot?

Tell us why you do or dont believe in bigfoot?

That's off topic and not what at's hand here...

You say you don't believe in God - I'm asking you to prove there isn't one...

[truthmatters]

To prove there is no god is the same as proving Big foot so you just saying they are not related is just wrong.

To prove anything in this world takes evidence.

I beleive there is no God because I have never seen evidence that there is god.

The same with Bigfoot.

I have never said you should NOT beleive in God so why do you take such offense at my beliefs?

Maybe you should realise you are attacking me for not believing something I have no proof exsists?

I dont believe in the pastafarian God of a flying spagetti monster either because there is no proof it exsists.

Should I have to believe in anything people say without proof?

Proove to me a flying spagetti monster is not god?

[Said1]

Give me evidence God exsists?

I dont believe in things that I have no proof they exsist.



If I wanted to believe in things without proof I would pick something far more kind and fair then the God I have had described to me by most of any religion I have come accrossed.

So who, created the universe? Not earth, not us, but all the other stuff. Who created space and all the other junk?

[5stringJeff]

While I certainly do believe in God, the OP commits the fallacy of negative proof.

[-Cp]

To prove there is no god is the same as proving Big foot so you just saying they are not related is just wrong.


[QUOTE=truthmatters;103550]
I have never said you should NOT beleive in God so why do you take such offense at my beliefs?[quote]

Did I ever say I was offended by your lack of belief?

[QUOTE=truthmatters;103550]Maybe you should realise you are attacking me for not believing something I have no proof exsists?


Really? How are YOU being attacked? LOL



To prove anything in this world takes evidence.

I beleive there is no God because I have never seen evidence that there is god.

Should I have to believe in anything people say without proof?

There's certainly more evidence that points to a divine creator than anything else.

[-Cp]

While I certainly do believe in God, the OP commits the fallacy of negative proof.

what's an OP?

[Mr. P]

While I certainly do believe in God, the OP commits the fallacy of negative proof.

Yep, and has gone on for 6 pages.

[Ruby]

So who, created the universe? Not earth, not us, but all the other stuff. Who created space and all the other junk?

You seem to be hovering on the "god of the gaps" reasoning. If we dont know somthing then its ok to assume or proclaim it must be god.

We have lots of questions that we have no answers for, that dosent mean its evidence of a god or creator though, it just means we dont know the answer.

[truthmatters]

So who, created the universe? Not earth, not us, but all the other stuff. Who created space and all the other junk?

who creeated God?

[truthmatters]

[QUOTE=truthmatters;103550]To prove there is no god is the same as proving Big foot so you just saying they are not related is just wrong.


[QUOTE=truthmatters;103550]
I have never said you should NOT beleive in God so why do you take such offense at my beliefs?[quote]

Did I ever say I was offended by your lack of belief?



Really? How are YOU being attacked? LOL



There's certainly more evidence that points to a divine creator than anything else.

How does this prove anything?

[5stringJeff]

what's an OP?

OP = Original Post

[-Cp]

who creeated God?

This has already been covered - he always was and is....

If someone or something created him then he wouldn't be God - now would he?


Do you believe the Universe goes on forever?

[truthmatters]

This has already been covered - he always was and is....

If someone or something created him then he wouldn't be God - now would he?


Do you believe the Universe goes on forever?

If you can accept God has always exsisted and you have no proof he does exsist then why is it hard for you to believe the universe has always exsisted when you have proof it does exsist?

[JohnDoe]

who creeated God?We are told that God is the Alpha and the Omega....He is the Beginning and the End....

Also the bible, long before this Generation of scientist's claims the universe is EXPANDING and I believe this is something being discussed now, though thousands of years ago, before the telescope, and modern science, we were told such in the Bible in many verses of scripture!!!! this should not be ignored, no?

This is what God the LORD says, he who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it... Isaiah 42:5


"This is what the LORD says--your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself... Isaiah 42:44


It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts. Isaiah 45:12


that you forget the LORD your Maker, who stretched out the heavens and laid the foundations of the earth... Isaiah 51:13


But God made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding. Jeremiah 10:12


"He made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding. Jeremiah 51:15


This is the word of the LORD concerning Israel. The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the spirit of man within him. Zechariah 12:1

[truthmatters]

JD I appreciate you believe in God and feel you have every right to but to quote scripture is not an answer to the questions Im asking.

You see I think the people who wrote the scriptures you believe in are no more correct than the people who wrote the texts of the worlds other great religions.

They were just people like any others.

[Black Lance]

exsists.

Should I have to believe in anything people say without proof?

Proove to me a flying spagetti monster is not god?

Should you HAVE to? No. But should you, in order to discover the truth when inquiring into cases where physical evidence for the dispute has ceased to exist, or never existed? Yes, I would suggest you should.

Let me put a hypothetical to you truthmatters. Suppose for a moment that, as part of a criminal trial, you were asked to establish what I had for dinner two months ago. By this point whatever I ate is fully digested, so no physical evidence survives. The only evidence you have is the testimony of myself and my waiter, both of whom state that I had a hamburger. Under these circumstances, would you conclude, based on the lack of physical evidence, that I definetly did not eat a hamburger for dinner two months ago?

[Black Lance]

We are told that God is the Alpha and the Omega....He is the Beginning and the End....

Also the bible, long before this Generation of scientist's claims the universe is EXPANDING and I believe this is something being discussed now, though thousands of years ago, before the telescope, and modern science, we were told such in the Bible in many verses of scripture!!!! this should not be ignored, no?

This is what God the LORD says, he who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it... Isaiah 42:5

...



"Stretched" is a past tense verb, so although I am a Christian, those verses don't neccesarily imply that God is still stretching out the universe in the present.

[truthmatters]

It is some evidence you had a hamburger but that would be two people who actually witnessed the act.

I have no such evidence of God.

All we have is people who believe in God.

Now if I had someone who said they had contact with the pastifarian god personally would you believe them?

[JohnDoe]

JD I appreciate you believe in God and feel you have every right to but to quote scripture is not an answer to the questions Im asking.

You see I think the people who wrote the scriptures you believe in are no more correct than the people who wrote the texts of the worlds other great religions.

They were just people like any others.
My point is, that Science and God can and do mix. Man, on both sides of this issue seem to imply that there can be only one or the other, and the truth of the matter is that "something" told these people to write down these words....there is NO WAY ON EARTH that these people way back then knew that the Universe was expanding, stretching, came from a big bang kind of thing....but someone or something made them aware of this.... there IS NO OTHER explanation.

It is man of today that has fought off Science and have taken God's words out of context and fought Science instead of rejoicing in it, in the name of the Lord! ;)

If the Words of the Bible regarding this, turned out not to be true TM, then I would say those words did come from man 5000 plus years ago, but since the words are proven to be insightful beyond the times and TRUE, then to me, as a Believer, those would be words from God....because God is TRUTH.

The universe itself could not create itself TM, but God could have created the Universe. And what I was saying is that you keep noting that if God was there always then why couldn't the Universe have been there always? The Universe is NOT a constant, it is stretching out every second, it is expanding and NOT just something that is there, (via God's hands so to speak, if you are a Believer.) and it seems that "some" action had to start this reaction?

God being the Creator, is part of nearly all differing religions out there and fighting on this with people that believe this through their FAITH could become a real insult to many....

Does your non belief in God rely on this argument? If not, and it is not that important to you one way or the other, then I would consider dropping this tm....

There is probably hundreds of different Scripture just for Christians that tells us that God is the instigater, the initiator in the expanding universe, in it's creation... and for a Christian or any other religion out there that also believes in God the Creator to change their stance on this is near impossible, it is a foundation of their beliefs, and it takes Faith to believe it, not physical proof, even though the proof in the physical may come about someday. :D

jd

[Black Lance]

It is some evidence you had a hamburger but that would be two people who actually witnessed the act.

Precisely, and this is the same kind of evidence we have for God. People like Peter, Paul and the four evangelists claimed to be direct witnesses to real events, just like the waiter in the dinner example above.



I have no such evidence of God.

All we have is people who believe in God.

See above.



Now if I had someone who said they had contact with the pastifarian god personally would you believe them?

Not neccesarily. I can still subject their claims to critical scrutiny: is there bias created by predisposition, a history of drugs or psychological disorder, an ulterior motive, so on.

[Missileman]

Should you HAVE to? No. But should you, in order to discover the truth when inquiring into cases where physical evidence for the dispute has ceased to exist, or never existed? Yes, I would suggest you should.

Let me put a hypothetical to you truthmatters. Suppose for a moment that, as part of a criminal trial, you were asked to establish what I had for dinner two months ago. By this point whatever I ate is fully digested, so no physical evidence survives. The only evidence you have is the testimony of myself and my waiter, both of whom state that I had a hamburger. Under these circumstances, would you conclude, based on the lack of physical evidence, that I definetly did not eat a hamburger for dinner two months ago?

The eating of a hamburger is hardly extraordinary. If you and a waiter testified that you ate a whole cow between two slices of bread, I'd recommend a drug test. It's not just a matter of no evidence, it's also a matter of what is being asked to believe.

[Said1]

who creeated God?

How would I know? And how does that attempt to answer my question?

[Said1]

You seem to be hovering on the "god of the gaps" reasoning. If we dont know somthing then its ok to assume or proclaim it must be god.

You seem to be assuming too much this time. I haven't associated any form of creation with God in this thread.


We have lots of questions that we have no answers for, that dosent mean its evidence of a god or creator though, it just means we dont know the answer.

Then that'sall they have to say. I image they can articulate that much without too much trouble or assistance, if they feel like it that is. You know, free will? :laugh2:

[Black Lance]

The eating of a hamburger is hardly extraordinary. If you and a waiter testified that you ate a whole cow between two slices of bread, I'd recommend a drug test. It's not just a matter of no evidence, it's also a matter of what is being asked to believe.

True, but I would dispute the suggestion that there is something "extraordinary" about the idea that realms of existence not composed of matter and energy exist. The mechanics of such realms may be difficult, if not impossible for us to imagine (we lack any frame of reference , but the fact that it is difficult for us to imagine such dimensions of reality does not make them any less likely to be real. It's just one of the limitations of the mind of human beings.

[Missileman]

The mechanics of such realms may be difficult, if not impossible for us to imagine

As any and all supernatural abilities have been assigned to gods BY man, I would say that it's well within the limits of our imagination.

[Black Lance]

As any and all supernatural abilities have been assigned to gods BY man, I would say that it's well within the limits of our imagination.

First, the idea that these are man-made ideas is just an assumption on your part. Secondly, most of the supernatural abilities attributed to deities have nothing to do with any spiritual world, but rather involve the ability to manipulate physical world. Even the spiritual world is usually described to us in terms of comparison to the physical one. "The fires of hell", for example.

[Ruby]

You seem to be assuming too much this time. I haven't associated any form of creation with God in this thread.



Then that'sall they have to say. I image they can articulate that much without too much trouble or assistance, if they feel like it that is. You know, free will? :laugh2:

Thats why I said you seem to be hovering in the area of "god of the gaps". Its been done many many times already. When people question or deny the existence of "god" the response becomes to ask questions on where things came from and other questions we just dont have answers to, maybe we never will.

The not knowing the answers seems to affirm many peoples belief that it must be a god. There is a difference between a question asked to seek knowledge and question that is more a challenge to bolster ones own point.

It seemed to me that your post was in the latter category, but maybe it wasnt, maybe you were really hoping someone could give you an answer and increase your knowledge. Or maybe you really were being coy and trying to introduce the god of the gaps argument, only you know for sure.

I also noticed that your question was "WHO created the earth and space and junk", not HOW was it created. That question ASSUMES a sentient creator. Certainly another reason why I suspected god of the gaps arguement.

[Said1]

Thats why I said you seem to be hovering in the area of "god of the gaps". Its been done many many times already. When people question or deny the existence of "god" the response becomes to ask questions on where things came from and other questions we just dont have answers to, maybe we never will.

The not knowing the answers seems to affirm many peoples belief that it must be a god. There is a difference between a question asked to seek knowledge and question that is more a challenge to bolster ones own point.

It seemed to me that your post was in the latter category, but maybe it wasnt, maybe you were really hoping someone could give you an answer and increase your knowledge. Or maybe you really were being coy and trying to introduce the god of the gaps argument, only you know for sure.

I also noticed that your question was "WHO created the earth and space and junk", not HOW was it created. That question ASSUMES a sentient creator. Certainly another reason why I suspected god of the gaps arguement.
Blah, blah.

Good grief. I notice lots about you too, but don't nit-pick.

Next time I'll choose my wording more carefully, although I have a tendancy to think you seriously misjudged and catagorized moi. It's ok, you don't have to admit it.

Either way, I would have enjoyed reading Truthmatter's answer, but they have you, right? Or at least that's how it seems, to me.

[glockmail]

That's the point -Cp. You can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God because he/she/it has left absolutely no proof of its existence. The only things we have to go on are our wits and the physical world around us. So far, our wits and the physical world around us have revealed that our planet is somewhere around 4 billion years old, Our universe is expanding so it must have begun in a big bang, and the fossil record reveals that life on our planet gradually evolved into the state we find it in today--and it continues to adapt and evolve. There is room for God in this equation, but allowing him in is something that is a personal decision as well as something that is left completely up to faith.

Bullshit.
1. Who lit the fuse on the Big Bang?
2. How do you explain the gaps in the fossile record? If life evolved, where are the fossiles of creatures "in-between" species?

[JohnDoe]

Bullshit.
1. Who lit the fuse on the Big Bang?
2. How do you explain the gaps in the fossile record? If life evolved, where are the fossiles of creatures "in-between" species?


that's a good point on the fossils of the inbetween or midrange evolved....i

[PostmodernProphet]

2. How do you explain the gaps in the fossile record? If life evolved, where are the fossiles of creatures "in-between" species?


and 3. explain butterflies.....was it a crawling creature evolving into a flying creature or a flying creature evolving into a crawling creature.....why would a creature which was the 'fittest survivor' as a flying creature go BACK to being a crawling creature....

[glockmail]

and 3. explain butterflies.....was it a crawling creature evolving into a flying creature or a flying creature evolving into a crawling creature.....why would a creature which was the 'fittest survivor' as a flying creature go BACK to being a crawling creature.... Isn't it just part of its life cycle?

4. The unusual propery of water, the fact that it reaches its maximum density at 4°C, allowing a pond to freeze over, and insulate the water below. Otherwise ponds would freeze from the bottom on up, killing all life in the pond.

[PostmodernProphet]

Isn't it just part of its life cycle?


but why would any creature evolve such a life cycle?.....stop and think about it.....if a creature was better fit to survive by being a flying creature, it is supposed to evolve into a flying creature....but a butterfly 'evolved' into a flying creature which produces offspring that are crawling creatures, those creatures less likely to survive.....

[glockmail]

but why would any creature evolve such a life cycle?.....stop and think about it.....if a creature was better fit to survive by being a flying creature, it is supposed to evolve into a flying creature....but a butterfly 'evolved' into a flying creature which produces offspring that are crawling creatures, those creatures less likely to survive.....

Evolution can't explain that.

[Ruby]

Blah, blah.

Good grief. I notice lots about you too, but don't nit-pick.

Next time I'll choose my wording more carefully, although I have a tendancy to think you seriously misjudged and catagorized moi. It's ok, you don't have to admit it.

Either way, I would have enjoyed reading Truthmatter's answer, but they have you, right? Or at least that's how it seems, to me.


Misjudged you how? I didnt even realize there was any major judgement going on. What is my sopposed verdict? It appeared to me you were making a "god of the gaps" argument so I said so and pointed out this out.

I havent stopped Truthmatters from answering anything and I only speak for myself. If you wanted no one else but Truthmatters to respond to your post then why did you put in the thread instead of PM's? Dont blame me cause you were looking forward to Truthmatters answer and she didnt answer you.

[Missileman]

but why would any creature evolve such a life cycle?.....stop and think about it.....if a creature was better fit to survive by being a flying creature, it is supposed to evolve into a flying creature....but a butterfly 'evolved' into a flying creature which produces offspring that are crawling creatures, those creatures less likely to survive.....

I can't think of a single flying species that is born ready for flight. For the offspring to be able to attain the growth and development necessary for flight independent of the parent would have obvious advantages. A caterpillar changing into a butterfly is not an example of evolution. A butterfly that lays eggs that hatch into caterpillars is not an example of de-evolution either.

[PostmodernProphet]

A caterpillar changing into a butterfly is not an example of evolution.

I competely agree....it's an example of intelligent design.....

[glockmail]

I can't think of a single flying species that is born ready for flight. For the offspring to be able to attain the growth and development necessary for flight independent of the parent would have obvious advantages. A caterpillar changing into a butterfly is not an example of evolution. A butterfly that lays eggs that hatch into caterpillars is not an example of de-evolution either. And your proof of no God is, where?

[Hagbard Celine]

I competely agree....it's an example of intelligent design.....

No it isn't. It's still evolution. What's intelligent about a flying creature that spends half or more of its lifecycle as a caterpillar? It's just one branch on the EVOLUTIONARY tree of insects. All holometabolous insects begin as embryos, hatch into larvas and metamorphosize during their pupal stage into their final, insect form. Bees do it. Ants do it. Beetles, butterflies, dragonflies, mosquitos, etc.

[PostmodernProphet]

All holometabolous insects begin as embryos, hatch into larvas and metamorphosize during their pupal stage into their final, insect form. Bees do it. Ants do it. Beetles, butterflies, dragonflies, mosquitos, etc.

lol, how many of them get up and walk around for half their lifetime.......be that as it may, why did any of them evolve into metamorphosing creatures?

[Hagbard Celine]

lol, how many of them get up and walk around for half their lifetime.......be that as it may, why did any of them evolve into metamorphosing creatures?

Well, I'm not a time traveler, but since primitive flying insects first appear in the fossil record around the same time and since all insects came from aquatic ancestors, the most likely explanation is that flight-capable wings are simply adaptations on organs that served some aquaeous function such as surface-skimming. If arthropod ancestors came up from the water and then went airborne, it's logical that the in-between time was spent on the surface of the water, "skimming" it if you will.

[PostmodernProphet]

but since primitive flying insects first appear in the fossil record around the same time

do they?......do we have a lot of fossil evidence about flying insects?

[PostmodernProphet]

since all insects came from aquatic ancestors

again, are you sure?.....could not some have evolved from landbased ancestors?

[PostmodernProphet]

If arthropod ancestors came up from the water and then went airborne, it's logical that the in-between time was spent on the surface of the water, "skimming" it if you will.

it might appear 'logical' for a skimming creature to eventually become a flying creature......but what is logical about a skimming creature becoming a flying creature that goes BACK to being a crawling creature?

[Hagbard Celine]

do they?......do we have a lot of fossil evidence about flying insects?

Yes, tons actually.http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/conservation/reveal/graphics/large/fossil_dragonfly.jpg


again, are you sure?.....could not some have evolved from landbased ancestors?
Some modern species of insects probably evolved from other land-based insects, but even those landbased insects' origins can be traced back to an aquatic ancestor. So the definitive answer to your question is "no."


it might appear 'logical' for a skimming creature to eventually become a flying creature......but what is logical about a skimming creature becoming a flying creature that goes BACK to being a crawling creature?If you found a food source that was easy to get without flying or if you figured out a way to avoid predation without flying, why fly?

[PostmodernProphet]

why fly?


exactly....why not be a caterpillar.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Some modern species of insects probably evolved from other land-based insects, but even those landbased insects' origins can be traced back to an aquatic ancestor. So the definitive answer to your question is "no."

actually, butterflies seem to be a contant irritant for evolutionists.....

metalmark butterflies found in amber dated 65 million years ago are CLOSE genetic relatives of metalmark butterflies that currently exist in Mexico....thus the fragile butterfly seems to have survived unchanged, those environmental forces which wiped out the dinosaur and all other life and paved the way for the development of mammals.....

http://www.crystalinks.com/fossilbutterfly.html

[diuretic]

actually, butterflies seem to be a contant irritant for evolutionists.....

metalmark butterflies found in amber dated 65 million years ago are CLOSE genetic relatives of metalmark butterflies that currently exist in Mexico....thus the fragile butterfly seems to have survived unchanged, those environmental forces which wiped out the dinosaur and all other life and paved the way for the development of mammals.....

http://www.crystalinks.com/fossilbutterfly.html

Why are butterflies an irritant for "evolutionists"? There are animals that have remained more or less constant over probably millions of years. I believe the crocodile is one (although not being informed at anything above "average awareness" I'll stand corrected on that one). There are also plants that have similarly remained in their original form. The cycads of Palm Valley in Australia's Northern Territory - http://www.tourismnt.com.au/nt/nttc/news/travel_stories/ps/ps_palmvalley.html and the Wollemi Pine in New South Wales, Australia - http://www.wollemipine.com/index.php - are but two.

I would think that a life form that didn't evolve is further proof of evolution as a valid theory, it didn't change much because it didn't need to, it was doing fine and kept on doing fine.

[PostmodernProphet]

I would think that a life form that didn't evolve is further proof of evolution as a valid theory, it didn't change much because it didn't need to, it was doing fine and kept on doing fine.


I raise the question because butterflies are not a very resiliant species....how is it they didn't need to evolve when all the creatures around them were wiped out by a rapidly changing environment?

[Missileman]

butterflies are not a very resiliant species

Based on what?

[PostmodernProphet]

Based on what?


??....their inability to arm wrestle elephants?

seriously, there are more varieties of insects than anything else in the animal kingdom.....among insects butterflies are second only to beetles for the largest number of species......there are something like 140k species of butterflies and moths......

the explanation given for this is that they are the most susceptible and adaptable to environmental changes......yet a species of butterfly that existed at the time of the dinosaurs and experienced the same environmental changes that wiped out the dinosaurs and brought about the development of mammals supposedly had no effect on the butterflies that existed at the time?.......

[diuretic]

I raise the question because butterflies are not a very resiliant species....how is it they didn't need to evolve when all the creatures around them were wiped out by a rapidly changing environment?

The individual butterfly may or may not be resilient, but how many eggs does a butterfly lay? And could it be that the butterfly was somehow able to either adapt to (in micro ways) or not affected by the "rapidly changing environment"?
I don't know, I'm just asking.

[PostmodernProphet]

And could it be that the butterfly was somehow able to either adapt to (in micro ways) or not affected by the "rapidly changing environment"?

does it seem likely to you that an environmental change that supposedly resulted in the extinction of the majority of species would leave the metalmark butterfly unchanged except for "micro" ways?.....besides, those "micro" ways would show up in differences between the metalmark fossils and the metalmark butterflies we have today.....

[PostmodernProphet]

And could it be that the butterfly was somehow able to either adapt to (in micro ways) or not affected by the "rapidly changing environment"?

that is the argument presented to explain the existence of 140,000 species of butterflies.....that they are quick to change and adapt to changes in environment.......

it is NOT a good explanation of why these butterflies did NOT change when the environment did......

[diuretic]

I suppose we've only got the evidence in front of us that butterflies haven't changed that much. Nor have crocodiles. Or sharks. Or the Wollemi Pine. Or the Cycads in Palm Valley. Or the coelacanth. Some species just hit on the right formula early and kept on truckin'. Some evolved, some didn't and some evolved a bit and then stopped evolving because they did the "hey this works!" thing. Maybe it could be that when adaptation offers a species no survival advantage they just stop adapting?

[Hagbard Celine]

I think all of you are assuming something that isn't true. Evolution isn't a sentient being that has an ultimate goal. Evolution is a force of nature like wind erosion. In that regard it's random, meaning that its outcomes are based on many different factors from the mating habits/preferences of the species involved to environmental elements. The fact that some species have remained unchanged for millenia is in no way indicative of the falsity of the theory of evolution. It simply indicates that the lifecycle of that particular species has remained constant over time--meaning there have been no significant changes in its reproductive habits or its environment that have produced any change. That's it. In the case of butterflies, moths, etc., I think you'd probably be surprised if you studied the different species related to the Metalmark butterfly. I'd be willing to bet that a few other species of butterfly have branched off from the Metalmark, meaning at some point, a group of metalmarks somewhere were affected by evolution. If you take the time to think about it, you'll understand:

Say you have one species, represented by the letter "O"

This "O" group splits in two or is divided by some environmental change or migration: "O" and "o"

"O" stays in the original habitat, environment, what have you but "o" has ventured off into a colder, arid, humid, etc. climate so while "O" stays the same, "o" changes over time into "Q." Get it?

Very simply put, that's how speciation occurs.

[PostmodernProphet]

this of course, ignores the point that while these environmental changes were so severe that it wiped out species "B"-"z(prime)", it had no impact on species "A" known for it's ability to change.....

[Hagbard Celine]

this of course, ignores the point that while these environmental changes were so severe that it wiped out species "B"-"z(prime)", it had no impact on species "A" known for it's ability to change.....

What?

[PostmodernProphet]

/sigh....

you posted that speciation occurs because changes in the environment trigger changes in the creature....

we are told that around 65 million years ago there was a major environmental change......dinosaurs became extinct, mammals emerged as the predominant species.....tens of thousands of species ceased to exist, and tens of thousands of other species changed.....yet the metalmark butterfly, the species that has the reputation of being the quickest to change to adapt to the environment.....didn't change at all....

I am saying I find that odd......

[Hagbard Celine]

/sigh....

you posted that speciation occurs because changes in the environment trigger changes in the creature....

we are told that around 65 million years ago there was a major environmental change......dinosaurs became extinct, mammals emerged as the predominant species.....tens of thousands of species ceased to exist, and tens of thousands of other species changed.....yet the metalmark butterfly, the species that has the reputation of being the quickest to change to adapt to the environment.....didn't change at all....

I am saying I find that odd......

Not all biological changes are caused by environmental factors. Environment is one of many things that can cause a species to change over time.

Now, mammals survived the meteor impact that killed the dinosaurs. So did crocodiles, mosquitos, roaches, ocean life, some dinosaur-like animals (that's why we have birds), etc. If parts of the Earth were affected by the change that the meteor impact brought about less than others, it's not implausible that some species would not have been as affected by it as others or even at all.

[darin]

Now, mammals survived the meteor impact that killed the dinosaurs.

Very biased source - but the Meteor/Comet-theory has changed lately..

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/03/0309_040309_chicxulubdinos.html


But authors of a controversial new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (online edition) contend that the asteroid behind the Chicxulub crater impacted Earth 300,000 years earlier than previously thought.

[Hagbard Celine]

Very biased source - but the Meteor/Comet-theory has changed lately..

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/03/0309_040309_chicxulubdinos.html

Yeah, I think I saw something about this. Some are now theorizing that there were two impacts. Others still hold the original one-impact theory. Maybe they just died-off due to global warming? :laugh:

[Missileman]

??....their inability to arm wrestle elephants?

If butterflies' survival were dependent on their ability to defeat elephants in arm wrestling, you'd have an argument.


seriously, there are more varieties of insects than anything else in the animal kingdom.....among insects butterflies are second only to beetles for the largest number of species......there are something like 140k species of butterflies and moths......

the explanation given for this is that they are the most susceptible and adaptable to environmental changes......yet a species of butterfly that existed at the time of the dinosaurs and experienced the same environmental changes that wiped out the dinosaurs and brought about the development of mammals supposedly had no effect on the butterflies that existed at the time?.......

You just answered you own question with the bolded statement. Their ability to adapt to environmental changes would more than adequately explain why they survived.

[PostmodernProphet]

You just answered you own question with the bolded statement. Their ability to adapt to environmental changes would more than adequately explain why they survived.

if they had changed, you would be right.....but they didn't change.....

[Missileman]

if they had changed, you would be right.....but they didn't change.....

You are assuming that the change in the environment would have a drastic negative effect on every species. As there are several species that have remained virtually unchanged for millions of years it must be possible that some environmental changes are beneficial to some species.

[diuretic]

Perhaps they didn't "change" because they didn't need to? Occam's razor/law of parsimony?

[PostmodernProphet]

law of parsimony

did they evolve into persimmons or parsnips?

[diuretic]

did they evolve into persimmons or parsnips?

:laugh2:


Good one! I like it. :clap:

[Pale Rider]

So... ten pages and no proof there is no God. I like that. But then, I knew there wouldn't be.

[diuretic]

So... ten pages and no proof there is no God. I like that. But then, I knew there wouldn't be.

Yep, there was never going to be. The original challenge was fatuous. But it's been a good read.

[Pale Rider]

Yep, there was never going to be. The original challenge was fatuous. But it's been a good read.

Definitely... kind of like this... :bang3:

So my aussie friend... you ever slam Jim Beam whiskey chased with Moose Head beer and eat Claussen "hearty garlic" pickles?

[bullypulpit]

This call is going out to all the DP Atheists out there....

For years, we hear from the likes of ya'll saying "Prove there is a God!" - I say, please Prove that there is NOT one! I'm all ears as I'm highly interested in any proof you can dig up!

Prove that there is one.

[Pale Rider]

Prove that there is one.

Listen man.... you know what this thread said... now either you got something to post that's proof, or you need to shut up.... OK? Don't answer a question with a question.

[diuretic]

Definitely... kind of like this... :bang3:

So my aussie friend... you ever slam Jim Beam whiskey chased with Moose Head beer and eat Claussen "hearty garlic" pickles?

Guilty on two counts only your honour. Last time I drank Jim Beam (by itself) was 1972. I remember it well. Or at least I remember the beginning....

I'd been introduced to Jim Beam by some USAF Sergeants I messed with (as in military mess) at an outback town called Woomera. There was a communications base run by USAF there. Good drink I thought. Then I was at a friend's buck show and drinking Jim Beam and there was a drinking game....

Haven't touched it since :laugh2:

Moose? Oh yep, in Canada, the Moose is Loose, we also get it here but I first hand it in Ontario in 1984, still drink it now when I can find it in a liquor store here.

But Claussen "hearty garlic" pickles....not yet and I do like pickles so I'll need to make a note on those, they sound good.

[Pale Rider]

Guilty on two counts only your honour. Last time I drank Jim Beam (by itself) was 1972. I remember it well. Or at least I remember the beginning....

I'd been introduced to Jim Beam by some USAF Sergeants I messed with (as in military mess) at an outback town called Woomera. There was a communications base run by USAF there. Good drink I thought. Then I was at a friend's buck show and drinking Jim Beam and there was a drinking game....

Haven't touched it since :laugh2:

Moose? Oh yep, in Canada, the Moose is Loose, we also get it here but I first hand it in Ontario in 1984, still drink it now when I can find it in a liquor store here.

But Claussen "hearty garlic" pickles....not yet and I do like pickles so I'll need to make a note on those, they sound good.

You sound like a good man diuretic... other than your nic... do you really have diabeties? I wouldn't want to lure you to America, get you drunk and have you die.... knowing you're sick that is...

[Hagbard Celine]

So... ten pages and no proof there is no God. I like that. But then, I knew there wouldn't be.

Hundreds of threads and still no proof that there is (shrug)

[bullypulpit]

Listen man.... you know what this thread said... now either you got something to post that's proof, or you need to shut up.... OK? Don't answer a question with a question.

FYI, I didn't "answer a question with a question". I was merely pointing out the falacy of attempting to prove or disprove an article of faith. Better minds than ours have been debating this issue for centuries with no satisfactory resolution in sight.

So, if you can't refrain from being an anal retentive, you need to shut up. OK?