Question on Christi...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Question on Christianity

177 Posts
32 Users
0 Reactions
3,231 Views
Data
 Data
(@data)
Trusted Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 55
 

Originally posted by Walter E Kurtz Presumably, mutations that favor survival are retained, while mutations that constitute a positive detriment do not endure, correct? It would have been more accurate for me to state that all initial changes are mutations. These mutations are not totally random as sexual organisms mix alleles to offer more variation in a process called recombination. These mutations are tested against the environment, and the environment (naturally) selects the fittest organism (environment includes sexual selection). You are correct, but fitness or survival is not the primary focus of evolution, reproduction is. That’s the whole point. Of course an organism that does not survive until maturity is a problem, but reproduction is at the center of it all.


   
ReplyQuote
bull35
(@bull35)
Eminent Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 41
 

Originally posted by RockSolid Thats an OPINION, not a fact, and vice versa. Well then, answer this Einstein: If 'god' was so lonely and created man in his own image because he liked being worshipped and the smell of burning animals (ie sacrificial lambs, sheep, etc), and science has PROVEN that modern 'thinking' man has been around for only 10 to 15 thousand years, what was your god doing the other 4,499,985,000 years after genesis?


   
ReplyQuote
Data
 Data
(@data)
Trusted Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 55
 

Originally posted by bodychem I do not doubt the theory of evolution; the evidence is compelling. But why does evolution exist? Why does life exist? If all life started in a primordial soup, why has it not died out a few billion years ago? What is the fuel that drives life and evolution? What or who put the wheels in motion? Would it not be easier to just die out? Why does life bother with living? There are too many questions to be certain about anything. I guess this is the problem I have with evolutionists and creationists. Both sides are so sure they know the answers. How the fuck do they know? Has anyone ever read any literature on quantum mechanics? How about any of the string theories? What do you think about the idea of six additional dimensions (or more) that possibly coexist in our 4 dimensional world? They are there but we cannot see them. It’s not only front to back, left to right, up/down and time. Is it possible to grasp such an idea? What about the effects gravity has on time or what about the infinite size of space? How could time slow down or how could anything be infinitely big or infinitely small? How much do we really know? Of course it would take more than a post or two to provide a sufficient explanation to your questions, and I can’t say that I fully understand the driving force behind evolution. However, I believe that the answers rest in the “new sciences” of biomathematics and biophysics. Research into the mathematics of biology, the physics of biology, and you’ll discover some interesting patterns that are universal. The closer you look at our biochemistry to draw a line between living and nonliving matter, the less living tissue looks alive. Perhaps for the same reason a snowflake always takes a specific shape, why a flower always has precise angles, bio-molecules will always take on characteristics that we call “life”. Realize that at the biochemical level it’s the arrangement of atoms that give rise to the property we call life. If you are interested I could provide a few references for further reading.


   
ReplyQuote
Data
 Data
(@data)
Trusted Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 55
 

Originally posted by RockSolid "Who created God?" is illogical, just like "To whom is the bachelor married?". A lot of theists present the argument ... If something can not come from nothing ... then how was the universe created without a creator? In that context, it is logical to ask who created the creator.


   
ReplyQuote
RockSolid
(@rocksolid)
Active Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 13
 

God is the Creator of the universe and that nothing is like God in our space-time creation. Essentially, this means that God has no equal and that God is supremely and infinitely exalted above all creatures. Also, it means that God is uncreated and that all creatures owe their original existence and continued preservation to God the Creator and the Preserver. That is the Islamic prespective. But I always wonder why atheists truly belive they posses the true, when in fact they cannot prove what they belive in, just like people that belive in God. Atheists cannot prove that God doesnt exist, while people that belive in God cannot prove that God exists. Its about belief, I belive I am right, while atheists belive they are right. But if you look at it without a bias, no one is sure who is right, I can be equally as right as you.


   
ReplyQuote
(@eddieboy)
Active Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 9
 

Ive always wondered why we evolve if there is no god? What is the point of "evolving" to make our survival better, if this life surves no purpose?? If there is no god "life" would be nutral and not care how long a species lived, and there would be no point to evolv. Why would a hominid need a fifth digit when he survived without one for thousands of years?? what is the point of evolution if there is nothing after this life?? athiest are the luckiest group of people on earth as they have all won the lottery already


   
ReplyQuote
Xan
 Xan
(@xan)
Active Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 19
 

the last time i posted on this thread i had enjoyed the debate i had with satan but now, its back to the you're dumb, no you're a moron arguments asking "who created god", if there is a god, isnt an illogical question anymore than asking "what was there before the Big Bang?" ...the answer to that, as any physcist will tell you, is that it it is outside of our universe's physics and therefore impossible for us to comprehend....the same could be said for a creator


   
ReplyQuote
Xan
 Xan
(@xan)
Active Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 19
 

also, some of yall seem to have mistaken notions of evolution...if you read the differences between dawkins and gould you'll see how many gaps there are in our understanding of it.....but overall, it is a good logical theory that makes sense as for the question of why humans needed to evolve a fifth digit....the answer is they never had one in the first place.....a land-dweling proto-primate slowly developed a prehensile digit that shifted along the span of the palm and became an opposable thumb...this led to advantage...manipulation of fodd and objects, live in the trees above predators....etc.......hominids and modern humans evolved form this ancestor this ancestor got along ok w/o the opposable thumb, but it gained an advantage with it and moved forward


   
ReplyQuote
Satan
(@satan)
Trusted Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 83
 

Originally posted by Walter E Kurtz OK. Substitute "man" for "hominid", "simian", etc. Adress the substance of what I posted. i'm confused. help me understand. you're inferring that man could not have evolved without the five digit hand?? the five digit hand evolved before man so how does this make sense??? primates with five digit hands have existed for tens of millions of years. if i substitute the word "hominid" the equation is completely changed. you can't interchange the words as they are totally different. stick to politics and women hating.


   
ReplyQuote
Satan
(@satan)
Trusted Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 83
 

Originally posted by durakelt1 I think you'd do well to read about them, especially (early) buddhism. Why? Because when you criticise religion you are usually only really criticising modern american Christianity. 🙂 A religion doesn't need to posit the existence of any particular god, nor have any strict rules, etc. buddhism and hinduism both believe in a "soul" and i do not. fundamentally i am at odds with both religions but i do find them to have more "life applications" than christianity. christianity is a joke. i've grown up defending myself from christian ignorance so i would be lying if i said i didn't have a bone to pick with christians. at this point in my life it has become too easy and i no longer get the satisfaction i once did so i suppose i will move on to other things. you can only pick on the dumb kid for so long.


   
ReplyQuote
bull35
(@bull35)
Eminent Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 41
 

Originally posted by RockSolid God is the Creator of the universe and that nothing is like God in our space-time creation. Essentially, this means that God has no equal and that God is supremely and infinitely exalted above all creatures. Also, it means that God is uncreated and that all creatures owe their original existence and continued preservation to God the Creator and the Preserver. That is the Islamic prespective. 1-WOW-you must have been around when all this went down to know so much! But I always wonder why atheists truly belive they posses the true, when in fact they cannot prove what they belive in, just like people that belive in God. 2- Atheists cannot prove what they believe in? Well, we don't believe in invisible beings in the sky. We believe what we see-and that is scientifically proven FACTS. Atheists cannot prove that God doesnt exist, while people that belive in God cannot prove that God exists. 3-That's just plain moronic, one cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Example: if I tell you there is a unicorn in the next room, the burden of proof is on me, not on you to 'disprove' it. Its about belief, I belive I am right, while atheists belive they are right. But if you look at it without a bias, no one is sure who is right, I can be equally as right as you. 4-I disagree. You believe in what you can't prove , hence this is known as faith. If something is real, why must one have to trust in that it is real instead of knowing? Atheists only believe what is KNOWN.


   
ReplyQuote
bull35
(@bull35)
Eminent Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 41
 

Originally posted by davelifter For BigKev and all the rest of you hellbound liberal secular humanist trash here is a wonderful website for you to learn about Creation Science. Glory ! Name calling is not very xtrian of you sir. BTW, 'creation science' is a contradictory term.


   
ReplyQuote
bull35
(@bull35)
Eminent Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 41
 

Satan, I ordered a sweatshirt from that site you pm'd me. It's the one with the praying hands crossed out saying "Stop talking to yourself, it's annoying"-LOL


   
ReplyQuote
metal machine
(@metal-machine)
Active Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 15
 

Originally posted by eddieboy Ive always wondered why we evolve if there is no god? What is the point of "evolving" to make our survival better, if this life surves no purpose?? If there is no god "life" would be nutral and not care how long a species lived, and there would be no point to evolv. Why would a hominid need a fifth digit when he survived without one for thousands of years?? what is the point of evolution if there is nothing after this life?? athiest are the luckiest group of people on earth as they have all won the lottery already Please read more of what was written above. Your misunderstanding is clear from your repetition of "What is the point of evolution...?" In religion, there is of course a "point" or "goal" that all things lead to (eternal life, heaven, reincarnation, perfection, etc.). Science does not posit that there is a "point" to anything or that there is any predestined goal that things move toward, particularly evolution. If conditions change in unpredictable ways, then evolution will change in unpredictable ways. There is no one outcome. Dinosaurs did not die out because they were less perfect than mammals. They died out because conditions somehow changed (though some of them evolved in ways that coped with the changes). The idea that we are somehow some kind of almost "perfect" beings at the top of some cosmic pyramid that all earth's history has worked to create is simply arrogance. We are neither a goal or something working towards a goal. In infinite time, and infinite history, we mean little to this universe (or any others that have existed). I suppose every ant colony thinks it is the grandest on the planet and that all history has somehow come together for the sole purpose of creating that particular ant colony. That doesn't mean that we are "nothing" and, truly, science is not a reason to dispair. Rather, we should rejoice in the absolutely amazing fact that we are able to comprehend our own existence in the immensity of time and space. We should be everyday appreciative of the gifts of life and consciousness, and we should be in awe that life has provided them. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Biochem falls into a similar trap when he writes: I do not doubt the theory of evolution; the evidence is compelling. But why does evolution exist? Why does life exist? If all life started in a primordial soup, why has it not died out a few billion years ago? What is the fuel that drives life and evolution? What or who put the wheels in motion? Would it not be easier to just die out? Why does life bother with living? There are too many questions to be certain about anything. I guess this is the problem I have with evolutionists and creationists. Both sides are so sure they know the answers. How the fuck do they know? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mostly I answered this above. However, about the assumption that evolutionists are arrogant and know all the answers, I look at it this way: Why do you know that you cannot walk through walls and that both walls and yourself are made of physical matter? Because from an early age you banged up against walls and said to yourself "Well, that doesn't work, think I'll try the door". Is it arrogant for someone to say "I know that walls are made of physical substance and that you cannot walk through one"? It is not arrogant, because the concept has been tested. We do not need to know everything about matter itself, such as the spin of each element of a quark to know that matter exists and we cannot walk through a wall. Evolution has been tried, tested, and works at a huge number of levels (genetic, medical, archaeological, biological). It is used because it works. It is no more a theory at this point than the Theory of Gravity. Imagine the frustration though if you were constantly under verbal attack from some flake who kept saying "Men can walk through walls! Miracles can happen! God can make it happen!" His argument would be that you don't really understand matter at all, and there are gaps in our understanding of matter (all quite true). But he would still be a flake and an impediment. No use pointing out to him (metaphorically) speaking that he has been bouncing off walls for 2,000 years doing nothing but bruising himself. So, I don't think admitting that evolution is a fact is "arrogrance", any more than admitting that steroids work is "arrogance". If something works, it works. If something doesn't work, it doesn't work. If someone says they are "happy" training naturally, well good for them. If they start spouting baloney about how steroids don't work and people taking them are arrogant meatheads, well, that's another... Metal


   
ReplyQuote
(@eddieboy)
Active Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 9
 

Originally posted by metal machine Please read more of what was written above. Your misunderstanding is clear from your repetition of "What is the point of evolution...?" In religion, there is of course a "point" or "goal" that all things lead to (eternal life, heaven, reincarnation, perfection, etc.). Science does not posit that there is a "point" to anything or that there is any predestined goal that things move toward, particularly evolution. If conditions change in unpredictable ways, then evolution will change in unpredictable ways. There is no one outcome. Dinosaurs did not die out because they were less perfect than mammals. They died out because conditions somehow changed (though some of them evolved in ways that coped with the changes). The idea that we are somehow some kind of almost "perfect" beings at the top of some cosmic pyramid that all earth's history has worked to create is simply arrogance. We are neither a goal or something working towards a goal. In infinite time, and infinite history, we mean little to this universe (or any others that have existed). I suppose every ant colony thinks it is the grandest on the planet and that all history has somehow come together for the sole purpose of creating that particular ant colony. That doesn't mean that we are "nothing" and, truly, science is not a reason to dispair. Rather, we should rejoice in the absolutely amazing fact that we are able to comprehend our own existence in the immensity of time and space. We should be everyday appreciative of the gifts of life and consciousness, and we should be in awe that life has provided them. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Biochem falls into a similar trap when he writes: I do not doubt the theory of evolution; the evidence is compelling. But why does evolution exist? Why does life exist? If all life started in a primordial soup, why has it not died out a few billion years ago? What is the fuel that drives life and evolution? What or who put the wheels in motion? Would it not be easier to just die out? Why does life bother with living? There are too many questions to be certain about anything. I guess this is the problem I have with evolutionists and creationists. Both sides are so sure they know the answers. How the fuck do they know? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mostly I answered this above. However, about the assumption that evolutionists are arrogant and know all the answers, I look at it this way: Why do you know that you cannot walk through walls and that both walls and yourself are made of physical matter? Because from an early age you banged up against walls and said to yourself "Well, that doesn't work, think I'll try the door". Is it arrogant for someone to say "I know that walls are made of physical substance and that you cannot walk through one"? It is not arrogant, because the concept has been tested. We do not need to know everything about matter itself, such as the spin of each element of a quark to know that matter exists and we cannot walk through a wall. Evolution has been tried, tested, and works at a huge number of levels (genetic, medical, archaeological, biological). It is used because it works. It is no more a theory at this point than the Theory of Gravity. Imagine the frustration though if you were constantly under verbal attack from some flake who kept saying "Men can walk through walls! Miracles can happen! God can make it happen!" His argument would be that you don't really understand matter at all, and there are gaps in our understanding of matter (all quite true). But he would still be a flake and an impediment. No use pointing out to him (metaphorically) speaking that he has been bouncing off walls for 2,000 years doing nothing but bruising himself. So, I don't think admitting that evolution is a fact is "arrogrance", any more than admitting that steroids work is "arrogance". If something works, it works. If something doesn't work, it doesn't work. If someone says they are "happy" training naturally, well good for them. If they start spouting baloney about how steroids don't work and people taking them are arrogant meatheads, well, that's another... Metal Hey man, I am by no means a creationist, I am a divine interventionist. What troubles me is why would we care to pass our genes along or perfect them if we are not going to be around to see the results in some way/shape/form. If we are here by chance, which is what evolutionists believe why would the cycle of life want animals to longer lifespans, or procreate so there species doesnt die out?? If this is by chance what difference does it make if the average man lives to be 20 or 80?? This is not a flame


   
ReplyQuote
Page 10 / 12
Share: