Why I don't think god exists

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Cainxinth, Dec 3, 2001.

  1. Taken Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    599
    "*Open mindedness is not a sin, foolishness, and ignorance are not attributes and I prefer to be open to Gods possibilitys rather than miss out due to my own arrogance. *

    Actually, foolishness and ignorance ARE attributes.
    While you sound very open-minded and wise and all that, all you are really doing is saying that one of God's possiblities is change.
    It isn't.

    For I am the LORD, I change not; ... "
    (Malachi 3:6, KJV).



    Did you do well on your reading comprehension tests in school?
    You are sad indeed, and in that I take grief. The good news is that you have made such a fool of yourself in front of those here who do not believe that they won't write of all Christians or God due to your best efforts to cause them to, but instead see you for what you are, deluded, ignorant and petty.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Cainxinth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    67
    'They can't even divide 3.8 billion by 3.3 billion, and understand the result."

    Tony, your going to have start coming up with some new material. By constantly repeating that statement all you’re doing is showing just how little you understand evolution or genetics.

    Even if was foolish enough to once again take the time to explain how base pairs don't evolve at steady rates as you suggest, or how evolution didn't move by the pace of base pairs, but by genes containing thousands of base pairs, would you be satisfied? No, you would just keep repeating your faulty attack on evolution over and over and over. So just save it. You ask for explanations, we supply them, and then you just ask the same thing all over again.

    I think you've found a loophole in debating. If you just keep repeating the same question over and over eventually the opposing opinion will tire and give up.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Xerxes asdfghjkl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,830
    Hehehe,

    After becoming used to it, your stupidity (tony10 only makes me laugh, its like teaching the alpha bet to 3 year olds.

    I mean you state the obvious which usually has no relevance to the scientific matters, in hopes of convincing us that science is stuped (tony1 spelling).

    3.8 billion divided by 3.3, or whatever. Anyone can divide. But you cant understand the concept behind the science of evolution. it doesnt work the way you 'think' it does.

    Feel free to keep insulting the scientific community. Someday we may all believe you are the one who cloned a sheep and coined Einsteins relativity. keep up that 'thinkin'!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Teg Unknown Citizen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    672
    HAHAHAHAHAHA

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    That's a good ojke tony1. We both know that life doesn't work like that. If people evolved one base pair at a time, well then you would be right and we wouldn't be here now. Since we are here it is a good thing that you happen to have little grasp of the concepts. The real number of distinct traits and noticable changes are much smaller. But then, being ignorant such as you are you would not know of such wicked machinations of science. Know thy enemy well!!!

    This is the inherent weakness in your book, it can't change. It's too bad that many new ideas have come about in the last 1900 years that have made an otherwise adequate storage of backward fairy tales, useful only for historical purposes. Not in the sense of accuracy, but rather in the extremis of abstraction. Also in both reality and in a practical sense, did not the character of Jesus change? In the least he went from corporeal to some goofy idea of spiritual form.
     
  8. Xelios We're setting you adrift idiot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,447
    I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees that Teg. The basis of all religions is that God cannot be questioned. And if he is, it provides no answeres other than "Because he made it that way". This is the only reason it has survived so long, because no matter how much scrutiny you put it under it will always have an answer because the answer is always the same.
     
  9. Cainxinth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    67
    getting back on topic, any thoughts on the statement that began this thread:

    "It is my solid belief that all religions, all theology, the belief in god itself is linked all the way back to that first caveman who couldn’t understand his world and was forced to make incorrect assumptions." - Cainxinth

    Did caveman make the right choice in assuming lighting and rain were supernatural forces? Did he understand his world better than we understand ours? Will the Red Socks ever win the world series? Discuss.
     
  10. daktaklakpak God is irrelevant! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    710
    The base pair math statement is just like a fool who argues that he is more related to a chimp than his father because he has 98% genetic similarity with a chimp but only 50% genetic similarity with his father.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Terenz Registered Member

    Messages:
    4
    mmmm

    ...
     
  12. tony1 Jesus is Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,279
    *Originally posted by Cainxinth
    'They can't even divide 3.8 billion by 3.3 billion, and understand the result."

    Tony, your going to have start coming up with some new material. By constantly repeating that statement all you’re doing is showing just how little you understand evolution or genetics.
    *

    On the contrary, by your refusal to deal with the issue of where all the base pairs came from, you are making it clear that the "science" of evolution is to close your eyes tight and listen to the teacher spout science fiction.

    *Even if was foolish enough to once again take the time to explain how base pairs don't evolve at steady rates as you suggest, or how evolution didn't move by the pace of base pairs, but by genes containing thousands of base pairs, would you be satisfied?*

    One would think that it would be easier to explain how a single base pair got tacked onto a gene, rather than having to explain how thousands of them got tacked onto a chromosome.
    That last one is the Dilbert explanation, anyway.
    "Well, the reason that evolution proceeds by fits and starts is that it is obvious that it didn't proceed gradually."

    *You ask for explanations, we supply them, and then you just ask the same thing all over again.*

    No one has "explained" how an average of one base pair per year gets added on top of bare rock to make a man.
    What has been explained is how people wish it had happened, by rapidly alternating between assertions that bacteria evolve, altho they don't, and how genes get tacked on in a form of punctuated equilibrium, altho that doesn't happen, either.

    *I think you've found a loophole in debating. If you just keep repeating the same question over and over eventually the opposing opinion will tire and give up. *

    It's a loophole in evolution.
    If it could be answered it would have been, but it can't be.
    So you turn it into a loophole in debating.

    *Originally posted by Elbaz
    But you cant understand the concept behind the science of evolution. it doesnt work the way you 'think' it does.
    *

    Let's find out.
    I think it works by means of a concept known as "fiction."

    *Originally posted by Teg
    We both know that life doesn't work like that.
    *

    Of course we do, but it is usually so dashedly difficult to get evolutionists to admit that.

    *This is the inherent weakness in your book, it can't change.*

    Of course, that weakness is its strength.
    There is another thing that won't change for a while, and that is the evolutionists' uncanny sense for detecting an impossible situation.
    It is easy to tell when an evo has run into a dead end.
    He starts to laugh hoping that no one will notice that he doesn't have a clue how to deal with an issue.

    Well, dude, how about explaining how evolution does work, by explaining how 3.3 billion base pairs got into the human genome.
    Hint: don't bother explaining how long it took or how slow the process is, since we know from your own numbers that it was 3.8 billion years.
    Hint: don't bother explaining how complex the human genome is, since we already know it has 3.3 billion base pairs.
    Don't bother bringing up the idea of punctuated equilibrium, since that is the definition of creation, too.

    *Originally posted by Xelios
    because no matter how much scrutiny you put it under it will always have an answer because the answer is always the same.
    *

    Is it possible that an atheist has revealed a glimmer of intelligence?
    Can't be, I suspect that it is merely accidental.

    Smart guy, how much do you expect the right answer to change?

    *Originally posted by Cainxinth
    Did caveman make the right choice in assuming lighting and rain were supernatural forces?
    *

    Did evolutionist actually find any caveman, or is evolutionist assuming his premises from his conclusion?

    *Originally posted by daktaklakpak
    The base pair math statement is just like a fool who argues that he is more related to a chimp than his father because he has 98% genetic similarity with a chimp but only 50% genetic similarity with his father.
    *

    Hello, chimp.
     
  13. Xelios We're setting you adrift idiot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,447
    To me that's not even an answer in the first place.
     
  14. tony1 Jesus is Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,279
    It's possible that you no longer recognize answers after being trained to question, question, question all through your formative years.

    I think they forgot to tell you, and you forgot to ask, what questions were for.
    Well, they are for getting answers.
    Science is a little weak in providing answers, so I can understand your inability to deal with answers.
     
  15. Cainxinth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    67
    i love you tony1, but i fear you too. i love people that are passionate about anything. too many people are mindless drones always following someone else’s lead. but i also fear those that believe deeply in fundamentalists ideologies. I know you won’t agree with me but let me tell you exactly why i feel this way.

    There is more evidence for evolution than Darwin ever dreamed of. Take any class of biology in any country in the world today and every single topic you will cover is connected to evolution. Anatomy, ecology, socialization, al the way down to the cellular and molecular level everything connects to and is explained flawlessly by evolution. The only reason its not a law is because people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and you Tony1 are playing a very old game. I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it until you acknowledge it, your denial of evolution is comparable in many ways to the denial of Galileo’s now proven theory that the sun, not the earth, is the center of universe by the Church in the 16th century. You haven’t studied biology but perhaps you’ve studied western civilizations, so please astound me by finding a way to deny the many occasions when religion has fervently directed the public to ignore scientific discoveries which were later proven true and accepted by the church. The denial of evolution will go down in the books as just another example. That’s the way I feel anyway. Your thoughts, Tony1?
     
  16. Xelios We're setting you adrift idiot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,447
    Science is not weak to providing answeres, you are just too weak to see them. Either that or you have not looked in the first place.

    Physicists could say "Matter behaves this way because it wants to" and it would be no less of an answer than "Because god made it that way". So if you think the latter is a valid answer, the former must also be. If this is true, science can have all the answeres, they just won't be any good, such as religion's answer is not.

    I really wouldn't bother Cain, talking to tony is like talking to a brick wall, he doesn't acknowlege anything but his Bible.
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,310
    Base pair addition/modification rates

    From http://www.talkorigins.org

    "What we must compare are the data from three independent sources: (1) fossil record estimates of the time of divergence of species, (2) nucleotide differences between species, and (3) the observed rates of mutation in modern species. The overall conclusion is that these three are entirely consistent with one another.

    For example, consider the human/chimp divergence, one of the most well-studied evolutionary relationships. Chimpanzees and humans are thought to have diverged, or shared a common ancestor, about 6 Mya, based on the fossil record (Stewart and Disotell 1998). The genomes of chimpanzees and humans are very similar; their DNA sequences overall are 98% identical (King and Wilson 1975; Sverdlov 2000). The greatest differences between these genomes are found in pseudogenes, non-translated sequences, and fourfold degenerate third-base codon positions. All of these are most likely very free from selection constraints, since changes in them have no functional or phenotypic effect. Since these regions are nonfunctional, all mutational changes are incorporated and retained in their sequences. Thus, they should represent the background rate of spontaneous mutation in the genome. These regions with the highest sequence dissimilarity are what should be compared between species.

    Given a divergence date of 6 Mya, the maximum inferred rate of nucleotide substitution in the most divergent regions of DNA in humans and chimps is ~1.3 x 10-9 base substitutions per site per year. Given a generation time of 15-20 years, this is equivalent to a substitution rate of ~2 x 10-8 per site per generation (Crowe 1993; Futuyma 1998, p. 273).

    Background spontaneous mutation rates are extremely important for cancer research, and they have been studied extensively in humans. A review of the spontaneous mutation rate observed in several genes in humans has found an average background mutation rate of 1-5 x 10-8 base substitutions per site per generation. This rate is a very minimum, because its value does not include insertions, deletions, or other base substitution mutations that render these genes completely nonfunctional (Mohrenweiser 1994, pp. 128-129). Thus, the fit amongst these three independent sources of data is extremely impressive.

    Similar results have been found for many other species (Li 1997, pp. 180-181, 191). In short, the observed genetic rates of mutation closely match inferred rates based on divergence times and genome differences, and, therefore, they can easily account for the genetic differences observed between the genomes of species."
     
  18. Xelios We're setting you adrift idiot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,447
    Let me guess tony, thats just more science crap right? It can't be real evidence, it just can't be! No, it must be a big crock of crap!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Teg Unknown Citizen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    672
    That joke keeps getting better. I can just imagine the creature assembling the base pairs with the use of some sort of manipulative architecture inherent to its being. Tell me when I form a chemical compound with a chain so long, how much time elapses? Don't forget that I am not adding one molecule at a time. Any chemist will reveal that such bonds are an easy task of natuarally occuring processes of negligable time span. But then I forget, you know very little of what you speak. Perhaps you might arrange learning sessions to combat this illness of ignorance.

    What about alternate theories: well the dinosaurs aren't that old and they were probably killed in the oft-mentioned flood. Except for the fact that no dinosaurs are hinted at in any moment of the bible and dinosaurs are obviously deeper in the Earth, placing them at a period before man.

    Or how about the funny little junk concerning intelligent design. How could humans be the work of random activity? The eye for instance: it was said that such an elegant instrument could only be the work of divine power. Guess what: those intermediary steps that Tony1 is always whining about are still around in various worms and other creatures with less-developed ocular structures.

    Every argument against evolution denied. Every argument for evolution upheld. Is there any doubt that this issue is moot in the school system? Evolution is the most accurate betrayal of life's processes.
     
  20. SISGroup Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    49
    Re: [Retitled] Why I don't think god exists: Open for debate

    human effort to understand the controller of universe had born religion and science. From religions, we learn to conditioned our self to receive clues from controller (called God). And science conditioned human to read the clues in the environments....

    SISGroup
    __________________________________

    What God doing before universe was born?
    God lies in a timeless dimension...no beginning and no end...everlasting dimension...so how we can understand what God doing?
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2001
  21. Cainxinth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    67
    is that a fact, sisgroup? Because you sure seem to present it as one.
     
  22. tony1 Jesus is Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,279
    *Originally posted by Cainxinth
    ...but i also fear those that believe deeply in fundamentalists ideologies.
    *

    You can relax.
    My point isn't to convert the entire world to Christianity.
    My point is to eliminate fuzzy thinking.
    I want to make sure that evolutionists don't end up believing that some element in the Bible backs them up.
    I want to make sure that believers don't end up thinking that they can incorporate secular beliefs in their own thinking.
    IOW, I want to make sure there are no fence-sitters.

    *There is more evidence for evolution than Darwin ever dreamed of. Take any class of biology in any country in the world today and every single topic you will cover is connected to evolution. Anatomy, ecology, socialization, al the way down to the cellular and molecular level everything connects to and is explained flawlessly by evolution.*

    There is definitely a large amount of evidence that people believe that evolution is true.
    Flawlessly?
    Even evos generally don't go that far.
    It's to easy to demonstrate the flaws.

    *The only reason its not a law is because people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and you Tony1 are playing a very old game.*

    The only reason it isn't a law is because there is still justice in this world.
    You actually want to force people to believe what you do at gunpoint.
    We say you can believe what you want.

    *your denial of evolution is comparable in many ways to the denial of Galileo’s now proven theory that the sun, not the earth, is the center of universe by the Church in the 16th century.*

    Actually, it is opposite to that.
    The "Church" as you refer to it, is the Catholic Church, which actually supports evolution.

    *You haven’t studied biology but perhaps you’ve studied western civilizations*

    I've studied both, which is why I'm against evolution.
    In both fields of study, it is quite clear that there is no general tendency to improve, merely a great tendency to get worse over time.

    *Originally posted by Teg
    I can just imagine the creature assembling the base pairs with the use of some sort of manipulative architecture inherent to its being.
    *

    That's the best you can come up with to explain evolution?
    Besides, I note the failure to explain how it does happen.

    One base pair per year is faaaaaaaast evolution.
    I'll bet even teachers can't explain that.

    *Except for the fact that no dinosaurs are hinted at in any moment of the bible and dinosaurs are obviously deeper in the Earth, placing them at a period before man.*

    You're right, the word "dinosaur" isn't an ancient Hebrew word, so it doesn't actually appear in the Bible.

    What's this crap about dinosaurs being "obviously" deeper in the Earth?
    Archaeologists don't have to dig in dinosaur mines to find dinosaur bones.
    They're all over the surface.
    You should try to get out more.

    *those intermediary steps that Tony1 is always whining about are still around in various worms and other creatures with less-developed ocular structures.*

    You may find this a little hard to believe, but in order to establish that man evolved from a single cell, you have to establish the entire lineage from the single cell to man.

    Pointing to a creature in existence TODAY, doesn't prove that creature was in the lineage 20 million years ago.

    Besides, why hasn't that creature evolved a better eye by now?

    *Every argument against evolution denied. Every argument for evolution upheld.*

    No doubt you get good marks in school.
    You'll be an idiot when you leave, though.

    *Is there any doubt that this issue is moot in the school system?*

    No.
    All kinds of crap exists in the school system.
    Schools are where idiots get jobs as teachers because no one else will hire them.

    You've heard the old saying...
    "Those who can, do.
    Those who can't, teach."

    *Evolution is the most accurate betrayal of life's processes.*

    ROTFLMAO!!!
    Isn't that the truth!!!
     
  23. Xelios We're setting you adrift idiot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,447
    I'm glad you finally agree.
     

Share This Page