The Human Body - Ok Foolish Atheist, who made your body???

Okay, well back many years ago, when I was an atheist, I overlooked the entire human body scenario.

So, my question to all you foolish atheist, is WHO MADE THE HUMAN BODY?

Now, i bet that all you atheist will no doubt heroically avoid this topic.
<what a hero u r >

i find that you people love to talk about the "universe", aliens, the supposed biblical fallacies, and all that junk, but what about if you look in the mirror right now at yourself for a second and start to realize how complicated your own body is? Have you ever done that? Please try. open your eyes ignorant one.

I recently graduated from a medical course and i had to learn a lot of medical terminology and they taught us how human organs worked.
I must admit, learning all this re-inforced my faith in God. <a designer>

See this link below for starters.

THE HUMAN BODY

It's no wonder that after taking med classes that most doctors are not atheist.
How could they ever be? They know more about your body than you do!

and anything that complicated needs a designer foolish one.

Well, Michael Jackson might have died from too many drugs, but probably really died from CNS failure or "Central Nervous System" failure from drugs. Ever heard of that mr. genius? you think yourself so smart.

Without a CNS, your brain basically disconnects itself and dies off.

What about your skin? ever thought about it?
it constantly re-generates itself holy cow, but what if it did not?
Then your skin would eventually resemble a toad or lizard.

What about your simple toe and fingernails?
They regenerate too. if they did not, then if you ever chipped a nail, then you'd lose it forever. goodbye nail.

What about the lymphatic system of nodes?
You got them in your armpits waists and elsewhere.
They protect you from cancer and other foreign cells.
they declare WAR and go fight and kill cells that would otherwise kill you.

What about your kidneys?
Did you know that they filter your blood.
Why does your urine have a yellow or green color?
Why? well it is because of your kidneys emptying wastes from your blood to your urine. did you know that mr. smarty pants?

If you want ultra clean urine, then just remove both your kidneys, oh, but then you'd be on dialysis for the rest of you life, trying to clean your blood.

What about your bladder?
Hey dummy, without a bladder you would pee and drip constantly.
Just ask anyone that had to have theirs removed. They wear a bag.

Oh and talking about urine, you don't actually pee out all that you drink!
your body recycles a lot of water back into your blood, so you don't have to drink 100 gallons a day of water. did you know that? huh?

What about your vascular system?
Your blood is in constant circulation as you read this.
It carries hormones, oxygen and nutrients.
Yes, mine broke down last year and i almost died.
but, anyways you have a system of arteries and veins. The arteries carry blood to your heart and the veins away from the heart.
Now listen!
Some arteries are made to FLOW ONLY ONE WAY!

You know in code where JCL give us some read only variables? Well guess what! Some of your arteries are designed so that blood flows only in one direction! Smart eghh? Because that increases efficiency of flow.

I could go on and on...
What about bones?

Geez, the stupid bones will re-grow themselves if you break one!
why??? without that ability, if you broke your arm, then you'd go to your grave with a broken arm.

What about the endocrine or internal organs?
Yes, this includes the sex organs.
You love sex, but what if we could not re-produce ourselves?? <have babies>
That is a very complicated process.

What about the gastro system? <your stomach>
After eating, your food goes through a series of stages to get digested. you have lower and upper abdomen systems.
Your farting helps you poop out your crap. with out it and you'd be hurting.
The crap itself is a waste that the body rids itself of. If you could not rid it, you would die a painful toxic death. But before ridding it takes all the vitamins and nutrients possible from it.
WHY?

In conclusion, how can you atheist look in the mirror, look at yourself and see your complicated body and conclude that there is no God.

Hey foolish one! Wake up and smell the coffee.

I know you got a good brain, now start using it.

Ran

lol, i see you learn alot during your studies, i love learning how the body works, all atheists need to answer this question, IS THERE A GOD, MAYBE, MAYBE NOT, I HAVE TWO OPTIONS, LIVE AND BELIEVE THEN DIE THINKING I'M SAVED OR LIVE AND DENY A GOD AND DIE HOPING HE ISNT, Y TAKE THE CHANCE?

Hi Darkinferno,

yes, i agree.


Hey everyone, look at this 3dgamestudio code here below!


Yes, will notice that gamestudio variable that JCL and Doug made called "TEMP" ?

Yes, well it is called that, because it is only for temporary use.

Now what about your bladder???
It is also for temporary use only.
It holds urine until you get time to pee in a toilet.
Otherwise, you'd be in a classroom or other public setting and then everybody would notice a smell. <sniff> What is that smell?!?! Ohhh, you have no bladder, so you just peed your pants unknowingly, poor guy...
Now everybody has to smell you.


Btw, the bladder is not technically needed. Did you know that?
You can survive without a bladder. They can remove it and you will live.

God just put it there, so you will have dignity and not live forever embarrased in your life.

So, it is not technically needed for life, so it is not evolutionary or any such nonsense.
Yes, i know, Conitec made the TEMP variable up for you to use, but God did not make a bladder for you? Yes, but how illogical... lol

How the human body came into existence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Species_(1872) (or the 1859 version)

A question each christian physician has to answer:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/


The bladder is not needed? You could live without it? Well, technically you could live with just one eye, but it would have the disadvantage that you can't see in 3d, and you see only half, which could be fatal if you have to recognise a tiger and how far it is away. That's why evolution "gave"* us two eyes.
If you don't have a bladder, you would pee onto your legs all the time, like you already said. You say it smells. Why does it smell? For a fly it smeels good. For us it smells bad because it can make us ill. That's why it's bad if we pee onto our legs all the time. That's why we have a bladder.

------
* of course evolution is nothing with a mind or purpose or that "gives" but this is the best way to express what I mean.

Evolution is fact.
Pee does smell bad.
Particles and mass are more interesting than fictional characters.
Peace to all.

The complexity of a human body is overwhelming. Sure!
But, this doesn't mean that there must a all-mighty being behind it to make it.
Endless time and endless space and material with properties that combines and divides under certain conditions, conditions that they mean for there 'neighbour'- material - and chance.
These are the ingredients the science needs to see correlations between planets and suns, chemical substances and bacterias, bacterias and mammal bodies.

Although these things are wonderful and fantastic, there is no need to imagine a maker.

Science and medicine have no advantage in imagining a maker, they have an advantage in supposing that this evolves from time, space, material and chance and that these conditions developed certain correlations that isolated further correlations and so on. That's where the insights came from that helped to develop all that help for ill people and so on.

God gave us a bladder so we have dignity? :p

I always thought giving us a digestive system at all was a punishment for eating the forbidden fruit?

And why did he place our sewage system right next to the pleasure grounds? For reasons of dignity? :p

How COULD anyone with a god-complex deny their own existance...

Without a CNS, what does the body dis-connect FROM. The CNS is what it connects USING.

No, you would resemble a burn-victim, no skin, exposed muscle, lots of pain...

As a Human, what in God's name are they good for? As an animal I could find many uses for them.
As a human, I can only scratch my head in wonder.

Thats the body way of eliminating evil spirits. ( Beer, Whiskey, etc... )
And why do animals require a bladder? They just let rip wherever and whenever they like.

Well DUH! Your body REQUIRES water and that WHY you drink. Only some of it is "wasted' as pee.

"Increases" effeciency of flow? Without one-way valves the blood would just move back an forth, no actual 'flow'.


Bones dont re-grow, they re-join. If a piece is lost it doesnt re-grow.
If it is not straightened, it will re-joined crooked and then your stuffed.

Then there wouldnt be anyone around to read this thread...

Because if it didnt we would die? And so not have babies, and die out as a species? Or is that too obvious?

Fairly easy, I look in the mirror and the, "Now that is one handsome Naked Ape!"

Quoting Ran Man.

Quoting EvilSOB.

OK, but not so fast.

Quoting darkinferno.

So a belief which claims there are dire consequences for not believing is superior to one without such consequences?
reversal - belief consequences: Residing with the first creator in a hereafter paradise might involve a seemingly eternal devouring process, where the deity's feeding ecstasy isn't REALLY shared. The bit about spending ever after as soul food might be suspiciously absent from many a script. Surely, there used to be mention of believers being eaten by gods after death?

Not so fast? We've been humans for quite a few generations now.
If humans had "never" been able to re-produce, NO-ONE of us would be here now...
Therefore no-one to read this thread. (except maybe some undercover aliens!)
That was my thinking whilst typing the previous post.

Superior? hmm dunno. Preferable? Hell yeah.
I would rather live my life thinking I will just "cease" at death, and be WRONG.
I would NOT like to live in expectation of heaven, depriving myself the whole way,
and then find out that death is THE END. Or even worse, find out that the bible was mistranslated
at some time in the past, and all the rules Ive followed will send me to hell!

I'm inviting everyone to think outside the box for once, how we work is not the question. Why we work and how we became who we are is.

Do you think the entire creation was just a mere accident? That everything is perfectly balanced for us humans. The distance from the sun, the planet orbiting, the unkown size of the universe, the complexity of the body as mentioned before, basicly everything. It surely can't be an accident.

I usually don't discuss when it comes to topics such as existence and stuff, this is my first entry, it sounded interesting so I just wanted to drop a quick reply in

How is everything perfectly balanced? The orbits of the planets aren't perfect. Earth will collide sooner or later.

Our body isn't perfect at all. There are many flaws that can be explained by evolution.

Why didn't god give us the ability to digest grass like cows? Then the world hunger problem would be much smaller.

The universe is huge, maybe even eternal. So there's a huge number of planets, each with other conditions. It might bea coincidence that Earth supports life, but it's not coincidence that we are living on Earth and not on Venus.


If there was a creator then he/she/it would have to bee even more complex and then we would have to ask: Who or what created the creator? (If you say he has always existed, why can't that be true for the universe?)

The mere (almost?) infinity of space and time makes an accident which is not probable but possible an unavoidable event.

The great biologist Jaques Monod ,in one of his books , defined the human body a sort of bricolage
Just a few basic materials have been recycled and recycled to accomplish completely different tasks
This is consistent with the evolution ,while a designer would likely choose the fittest material for each function

That's your main error though. Complex or complicated things do not imply a designer at all, especially when evolution is why life looks like it's designed. But it's not.

It's sad that in 2009 there's still people who don't understand a theory made by a biologist in the 19th century.. Human Evolution is indeed a slooooow process

I think RanMan and most anti-evolutionists biggest question sums up to this: How could something so complex be formed by accident? I'll try to explain..

Would a monkey with a typewriter be able to compose a Shakespeare complete play, in a day? 2 days? 1000 days? 4 billion years? No... never... How about 1000 monkeys for 4 billion years? No... 10 billion monkeys for 4 billion years? No...

If Evolution was just random, none of us would ever had a bladder, or pretty much anything else. But it isn't. Random is one element of the evolutionary process. The fact that only the fit survive and re-produce isn't random. The fact that traits are inherited isn't random.

If I were to have children, and they looked nothing like me, then I'd be questioning evolution myself. But they will look like me.. Only 1% of the DNA would suffer changes from a random mutation, and the other 99% will be a cross-over inherited DNA from me and my... (wife?) (I'm 27 I don't have a wife, or kids yet :P ).

So, back to the monkeys and the typewritter.. What if there's 100 monkeys and after a week one of em randomly punches the word "love" on the typewritter? What If we'd reward that monkey with a banana? And what if we slap monkeys that don't get any words right and even allow monkeys that do get it right to teach other monkeys? You get the idea... Evolution isn't about randomness..

Also... temp isn't used in lite-c anymore

Cheers,
Aris

maybe the reading many science books to explain how
life developed in detail during time is not as tempting
a to think :

"its just like it is, one entity created it all - we dont need
to know why, my parents told me so."

(strange that there are different dog breeds and portato variations..)

also: Evolution goes against the core bases of all religions,
that the humans have a superior.
If that superior did not created humans, it would not
be the overall superior.
Thats why evolution gets rejected without the need to
prove it.
Other beliefs, like the earth beeing flat and such, did not
go so deep into the fundamentals of the religion,
so they where accepted as wrong.

What makes more sense?
An 'almighty being' creating a 'lesser creature',
or 'lesser creatures' building a 'higher creature' together?

lol, yes agreed, but i used it a lot in the old c-script.

Yea, but they never collide. Why is that??? Think about it. Random choice of collisions say that they should collide, but no major collisions ever happen. Why?


There's nothing perfect down here. Both of my 3dgamestudio games fail to work on a certain PC computer here in my house. I think it has a DirectX and hardware issue with the A6 engine.
But, i never blamed conitec or JCL, because i do not expect our games to work on all PC's. Btw, when has conitec ever stated that their engine works on all PC's??? They don't and won't do that, because they are smart enough to know that there are too many PC types to support. So, there is nothing perfect down here. No human body, no PC and no other creation.
Even Satan or Lucifer was not perfect and he was a top angel of God.



Why? Evolution does not know or care about 2 or 3 eyes.
All it cares about is surviving. Your DNA determines your number of eyes.
DNA is another very complicated subject in itself.

Yes, well the point is that your body is not dependent on some aspects to survive. The theory of evolution is that your body's adapts to the environment to survive. But, certain items are not needed for survival, yet you have them anyways. Here are a few things that come to mind.

#1 Your bladder is not needed for life - but it makes life a lot easier for you.

#2 The estrogen made for your bones are not needed. < yes guys you have it too> it lubricates your bones. Women have more of it obviously.

#3 Your skin and nails automatically re-grow. You could live without it.

Btw, have you good folks ever looked at your knee?
I did look recently at a film of a knee replacement. The device that replaces your knee is very complicated and it does not work as good as a real knee.


Wait a minute. A monkey is very complicated and has some intelligence already. I understand that they are not as intelligent as we humans, but i tell you that we humans do under-estimate their real intelligence at times. They are smarter than we think.

Yes, but i have not quoted the bible in this thread. I'm just talking interesting facts about the human body and then marveling that lots of good folks do not believe in a designer for it.

Here is another thing that freaked me out in MED school a few months ago.
There are 2 incompatible tubes in your throat right now and they sit right next to each other.

The 2 incompatible tubes in your throat!

See this link below if interested.
THE HUMAN PHARYNX

Basically, you have a tube for AIR in there.
and you also have another tube for DIET in there.

One takes in only air or gases and the other takes in only nutrients.
If water, for example, goes by mistake into your air tube, then you drown.

Your lungs are hyper sensitive to only gases for intake. Anything else is painful.

Now, the tube to your stomach is a potential problem, because the stomach contains powerful acids to help you digest food. If those acids were to mix into the other tube, then your lungs would BURN ! Yeow!

So, how to separate the tubes???

THE SEPARATION:

Yes, well too separate the closely placed tubes in your throat, there is a valve or flap called "the epiglottis". This crazy switch detects automatically when you are eating and opens and closes like clockwork in order to close off the powerful acids of your stomach. Ahaa!

Is this crazy? OMG!
You've got a device like a toilet flapper in your throat! wow!

What about the cranium?

THE CRANIUM

This one really freaked me out. see this link below if interested.
THE CRANIUM

The skull or cranium consists of several bones. They protect your brain and after birth begin to fuse together to create a hard structure.

Ahh, but here is the interesting thing.
A baby has to pass through the birth canal in their mothers womb in order to get born. Right?

But, if these bones were fused before labor, then the mother would have to work ten times harder to bear a baby. Needless to say, this would KILL a lot of good women. But the fact is that at childbirth, these bones in your head were flexible and allowed your head to pass through the birth canal to be born.

Now, why is that??? It is a lot easier to be born with a fused skull, but instead it fuses together later on.


Anyways, now besides the monkey example, can anybody name something complicated that was not designed? The monkey is already designed and is complicated, so I'm talking outside of nature!

You could say "A TREE", but that is nature and a tree is complicated as it has offspring.

Name something not of nature that is complicated and has no designer.
A watch, a car, a plane, a stereo, a computer, a conitec engine. ?
What? They all have designers.

But, the most complex of them all, which is mother nature has no designer?

Com'on. where is your logic? Don't be blind. Try to think for a change...

Sorry to quote a bible verse, but the bible says: "The fool as said in their heart that there is no God."

I want somebody here to name something, that is not mother nature that is complicated, but has no designer. Okay go ahead if you can...

Back to topic:

Simple: God.

I agree...huh....
I feel it is reverse engineering
(lesser creatures' building a 'higher creature' together)...as far as complexity in beings and the universe, sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

I stepped away for a little while and the thread is 3 pages long.....God and/or politics....oh well.

Get a grip man.

If your telling me "the monkey is already designed" then you mean that all of nature is designed,
because 'your' god designed nature right?
In that case, then in your mind, god created the entire universe right, so how
can we give you an example of something 'complex" that is outside "nature".
You have excluded everything god may have made, which leaves nothing to choose from!

Take two guns in a room and let them shoot both in random directions. Will the bullets collide?



According to your belief, god is perfect. So why can't his creations be perfect?



It seems that you didn't read the footnoting. Didn't you noticce that asterisk? We have two eyes, because our ancestors with two eyes had an advantage over those who had only one.



I already explained why we do need a bladder. Please read my post!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution



And who designed the designer?



Actually this is not evidence for creation but for evolution! This very examples is mentioned in The Origin of Species. Why? Because if there was a designer, why should he have done all the nonsense of putting these two tubes next to each other and doing all the stuff to make it work. Our lungs could work like gills. Fishes don't have that problem. But our lungs did not envolve from gills. They envolved from swim bladders. That's why the trachea ist next to the esophagus.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution



Anything that is not made by human is considered as "natural". So not designed means not natural. So I don't know what you're looking for by saying "not natural and not designed". Maybe your definition of "natural" differs from mine.

Your bible quote is incomplete. Here's the complete quote of Psalm 14:1:

By the part you omitted I can say rightly what you christians often keep saying when you are out of arguments: I feel offended.

Ranman, I'm not sure if you still want to argue religion, or just showing off you newly acquired MED skills. In any case, I regret to say tl;dr. But I think I still got the gist of it..



Random choice of collisions say what? Can you be a bit more descriptive about this random choice of collisions law that you speak of?

Anyway, earth will not be here forever. Its atmosphere did let it survive the "random choice of collisions" for 4 billion years, but 500 million years from now it will be too hot for any life to survive on Earth, and 4 billion years later the whole planet will be completely engulfed by the sun. What's the designer's logic in doing that? He likes to press the 'reboot' button every 8 billion years or so, or should this be perceived as another one of Noah's Arc incident..




Funny, a few hundred years ago If you'd dare to speak of strange DNA stuff the Church would probably hang you. Just like they tried to hang Coppernicus for his theory on the earth revolving around the sun. The very same church you're a part of today, even though you relaxed in the whole sun-revolving-the-flat-earth issue..

To answer your question, the clue is in the title. It's called "the survival of the fittest" not, "the survival of the survivor". We're living a life bound to competitive rules. If you need you and your spawn to survive, then you have to be the BEST. Sure, a one-eyed ape could still see, but some two-eyed ape probably sneaked attacked him and killed him for his banana stash. And even today, i think that a normal human, or even a gifted or talented one in some way (beauty, intelligence, good actor, nice voice, etc) would have more chances having a nice healthy family and lots of kids, than one with no bladder that pisses his pants 5 times a day..




You want to argue about monkeys now just because I put them as an example? Would it make you feel any better if instead of monkeys it's a lite-c line that did this:

file_asc_write(fhandle,integer(32+random(90)));




Trust me, I base all my arguements and decisions on logic (whether mine is flawed or not is another case). I'm not the one believing in ancient stories about people walking on water here..

'Mother nature' has been created by the laws of physics. In turn, you could say that everything man-made has also been created by the laws of physics as a double derivative. You may argue if you want that God was the one that designed those very laws of physics and there would be no-one to oppose you. Most educated people I know are agnostics and they've never claimed to know the answer of what lies beyond this closed system that we call universe and where did all the energy first got introduced inside this system. But believing that this God figure of yours actually took out his sketchbook, drew a little bladder, maybe passed it through some holy beta test, then released it; well that's an argument that people can actually disprove, like jcl is doing in a neighboring thread.

Cheers,
Aris

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NSk_ZeAH_I
A very good youtube video related to this topic.
(I hope you may get interested in his book)

Yes, the entire crux of the evolution argument relies upon "species".
So, they rely on an already complex designed product to base their theory on.

But, if it were actually true, then it would not be confined to just species.
There would be other examples of evolution not connected to species.
Where is that?

If I park my car, for example, in a cave for 100 years, then come back to get it 100 years later, will i find a Caddilac or a Mercedez Benz there? Nope, just some ole rusty piece of junk, because that's what happens when things are left to themselves. They don't improve with time, but they decay.

The big hole in the argument, is that they tiddy with nature which in itself is very complicated. Darwin had an excuse for being ignorant of this many years ago, but you people nowadays have no excuse.

I'd like to see an example of evolution not involving complex species, but something simple. It's not there, however, so the whole thing is a lie.

Why? It's not hard. Have you ever heard of levitation? The people in the east know what that is. It's just having angelic powers lift you off the ground. No problemo. I used to see, hear and talk to them years ago, so this is nothing. They can do it easy.

There's no need, because there's no time in the supernatural realm. Time is only a measurement of physical decay, in the spirit world, there is no time, thus the meaning of "everlasting" becomes reality.


Yes, well learning the human body really surprised me and I'd like to share some eye opening points that i learned with ya.

Regarding the human body:
When I say and show how complicated the human body is, then do you understand what it means?
It means that try as they might, the humans of this world has not even come close to designing anything that is as complex and amazing as your body is. And they never will... They'll never make anything that is able to re-produce itself with babies. never....

In conclusion, when the bible calls the atheist "FOOLS", well I totally agree. And very IDIOTIC too I might add.

Oh no, not LITE-C . I'm too busy with my hands full with Apple's Iphone "OBJECTIVE-C" over here now. lol, take care, Ran

It is a crazy setup. surely makes 69ing much less dignified.

...seriously, how the fuck did you come up with that bullshit? a car is not a living being, therefore it can't evolve. besides, evolution doesn't work within 100 years. for fuck's sake, stop thinking in such short time spans.

and stop calling people who believe in scientific facts "fools". if your opinion differs from others, they're not automatically foolish just because of that. that would be like calling my best friend an idiot for not liking industrial or metal music.

so who made my body? it's simple. by my mom and my dad (please don't tell me that i have to explain the story bout the flowers and the bees to you...) which were created by my grandmother and my granddad and so on and so on... well... "created". you get the idea.

long story short: evolution did. (how foolish i am, dun dun dunnn. why yes, i shall burn in hell.)

The process of selection or any form of natural pressure onto environments causing change surely is visible on this planet in more areas than just the animal kingdom. It's not confined just to species in my opinion, but the definition of 'evolution' itself is rather specifically thought for species....

You should try to explain why you think something complex or complicated must be designed though, as that makes no sense at all. There's no need for a designer when one can easily see how a chain reaction of evolution through many many years had the results we all can see now.

This is not a silly argument
Apparentely evolution should lead to a graduation of living creatures rather than a rigid subdivision into species
This can be explained with the mathematical concept of relative MAX

Species are a pure categorization method,
just like seperating a Library into book themes (fiction, nonfiction) and then in more detail
(18th century french novels and modern art poems) or such.

Evolution on Earth must have started either from some protein-balls that formed
in a specific environment or a certain base organism (maybe brought by a Komet impact)

From there on was a constant seperation into evolved buildingplans. But all came from the same source.

The reason why we have a hard time to find the "inbetween"
creatures is simply, because the fossils are rather rare
snapshots of animals and plants in a certain time.
If all creatures where ot be preserved as fossils, we would be drowning in
past-time corpses.

Also the speed of chances can either be very slow and gradual
or change quite rapitly (still takes man generations then).

Evolution will usually change little in stable times, where constantly mastering a static environment is of key.
(the current successful is then likely to be the future successful)
Evolution make rapid jumps when "catrastophies" or simply
rapit climate change appear.
Then some mutations might drastically improve the sucess,
as an adaption has a higher possible return in hard times.

So evolution needs both: static times and catastrophic changes.
then it will end up with the high veriety as we have today.

From a distance it may look like a rigid subdivision into species, but it's certainly not. It may seem arbitrairy, but they're simply not random labels. Remember how there are a million ways of dividing groups of animals into 'species', which in the classic sense isn't much more than a group that allegedly belongs to the same family, having the same or a close common ancestor.

As we've already found out about a few times in the last decade, DNA is a much better method of determining family relationships of species.



That has little to do with how rare fossils are.. in my opinion they're not quite that rare. When it comes to 'missing links' though, creationists often simply do not acknowledge how evolution is a gradual process, meaning there won't be much fossils showing 'in between' forms, as entire generations of animals have been the 'in between' forms.

@Ran Man

Well thats seems to be the costs of being an poorly evolved mammalian species that some of us are not able to live without some greater purpose. But lets look at the facts we are basically great( there are other great apes gorillas, chimpanzees aso) apes, who are living on a planet that supports life for some time on some of its surface. The solar system will be no more according to our discoveries in about 4 billion years correct me if I am wrong about the exact number, so at least life on earth is limited to a very short cosmic timespan.


The human body in any way is far from “perfect” what ever you mean by “perfect”, the blind spot in the eye, the appendix, all kinds of disease that people got from the time of birth. So if someone talks about a missing link he should look in the mirror because we are also just another link, science is one of the great achievements of the human intellect because it is based on reason and evidence and not what is personally convenient.

I am an ape and it makes me happy and it is supported but overwhelming amount of evidence and you are saying no I am created and that makes me happy but you have no evidence, who seems to be closer to the truth ?


PS: Evolution is no ladder!
Maybe there should be more funny science games on that topic:)

I was talking about " inbetween " fossils of creatures living in the same geological era

Starting from a common ancestor and under the pressure of a blind evolution, I would expect a variety of semi-unique creatures a " continuos ", I mean, rather than a subdivision in species, even though with some similarities among different species

I wonder wherher someone made a computer simulation
Maybe some key features act as sort of " attractor "

HI,

Okay, let's pretend something for a moment. YOU ARE RIGHT!

Let's assume for a minute that evolution is correct.
That is --> That nobody made or designed the human body, but rather it has no designer. Okay?

You converted me, like you did Silverman.

Okay, but if the human body has no designer, then what about this human robot below?

Click on this link below if interested.
A CUTE HUMAN ROBOT GIRL MADE IN JAPAN! :-)

Okay, now when making a human robot, one has to assume that they were trying to replicate the human body.

Now, let me also announce something.

THIS PARTICULAR HUMAN ROBOT WAS NOT DESIGNED! IT WAS ONLY A PRODUCT OF TIME!

Wow!

And now you think i'm stupid right? Okay, you may be right. <just joking>

But, I'm only using your wonderful evolutionary logic yes?
This wonderful girl japanese robot at the movie above has no designer.

Aggh, but wait. Realize that an actual human body is more complicated than this robot. A real human needs far less maintenance and is capable of having offspring.

Understand and realize that - you laugh when I suggest the robot was not designed, but you also laugh when I suggest that your body was designed?

What? Excuse me Mr. logical atheist, but you are surely illogical !
Admit it. Admit it !

Admit that you have a blind faith. Yes, atheism takes faith.
I have less faith than you do, in order to believe in God, who is a designer.

You atheist have no designer and therefore live in a fantasy world.

We people who believe in God, have less faith than an atheist does !
We have truth and reality on our side. That's all.

You completely ignored my last post, except the bible quote part, which shows that you are ignorant. Admit it!

A robot can't be made by evolution because it does not reoproduce. We envolved frm a simple cell that was able to reproduce. Is that so hard to understand? Evolution did not began by something complex like a human body. It began simple and it became complex. IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDESTAND?

About the bible quote: I even feel offended by calling me "fool".


"Admit that you have a blind faith. Yes, atheism takes faith.
I have less faith than you do, in order to believe in God, who is a designer."
According to Richard Dawkins' definition "blind faith" means believing in something without any evidence. Evolution has MUCH evidence, which creationism has NO evidence. The people with blind faith are you, not us.
Faith at all means believing in something. We don't believe in god, so we don't have faith.
Else I could say that you must havemuch blind faith for not believing in Allah, Vishnu, Zeus or Horus.

"We people who believe in God, have less faith than an atheist does !
We have truth and reality on our side. That's all."
You have neither truth nor reality on your side. You have a thousand years old fantasy book on your side. We have overwhelming evidence on our side.

EDIT: I realised that you did answer to my question about who created the designer.
If there is no time, how can god do something? If you press the pause button while watching a film, everything stops. So this can't be true. And it doesn't even explain where god comes from.

Ran Man, you have a silly simlpe argumentation logic:

there is something that was created, it simpler compared to other things,
so other things must be created too.

You bring no logical argumentaion about all the
evolution topics stated here. Just phrases that you where taught in bible school.

Creationist dont follow scientific logig. Their whole argumentation
revolves around,
#1 creation must be true before proven, so it needs no prove.
#2 evolution is argumented against by picking topics that
simply had either no data (found yet) or had not
enough time to be explained / researched.

With this approach we would still be at a scientific stage
of Aristotele.

by the way, that japanese robot is not "humanlike", its
just a pupped with a lot of motors and some program
that makes it act preprogrammed or adapted movements. You could use a coffe machine in your example instead.

---

If you really want a "place" for gods creation, you could
take the events before the big bang.
As the time before that cant be explained scientifically,
for the lack of information about that stage.
So you may interpret the whatever cause into that.
But the events after the big bang, "belong" to science.

Ran Man, get off the caffine, SERIOUSLY.
We are not out to convert you, we are just trying to make you understand that
we have justifications for believing in our "faith", science.
Just because our 'belief' supports a different 'god' to yours doesnt make us wrong, OR YOU RIGHT.
And also, because yours is a different 'god' to ours, doenst make us right, or you wrong.
So just calm down a bit.


We do not laugh at your suggestion that our body was designed, we just DISAGREE on WHO it was designed BY.
You say God, we say Evolution.


Where are we being illogical?



No, atheism doesnt take faith, it takes a lack of blindness...

Ran Man, you must want to be converted by us, why else bother an assault like this on "atheism"? You want us to "admit it", but probably the most of us who give you valid counter arguments (that you are not listening to) are not atheists and you're fighting against a vacuum, it makes no sense what you're doing here.

Religion is a personal thing you yourself choose to believe in. I think religion is very powerful (and I don't mean politically), can offer personal peace, steadfast, hope and faith. It's not wrong to believe in God.

It's wrong to tell others they should.
I don't say that you do this, but you start to imply it.

And it's fine by me to believe in both God and evolution. You must allow yourself to accept this, though.

Yes, convert me if you can. lol but, i used to be one of you.
I'm only trying to understand how atheist (like my old self too) could run around and not believe in a designer, after knowing the complexity of the human body creation.

Please don't say atheist's are logical, because they are not. Anything that complicated MUST have a designer or creator. I happened to choose "Jesus", because I value the love concept, but others choose some other deity. Whatever you choose, it is logical, but to say there is no creator is illogical totally.


By believing the lesser complicated "robot" was created, but the more complicated "human body" was not created. It is faulty or false logic.


That's a good point. I've only been here 47 years, so who knows?
I do know for sure that I've seen demons or evil spirits years ago and they did not have a brain, but they were very intelligent personalities.

Now the scary thing is that to realize is that "YES" they are intelligent, but how will they ever die? OMG ! A spirit never decays, so they won't die! Will they die in 1000 years?! Heck no! a million years? Nope! There's no time limit, so in the supernatural there is no time. So, to ask who or when was God created, is not a valid question.

I used to be an atheist. But, I was an atheist looking and talking with spirits <of whom i did not believe in!> Now I ask you guys, WHAT WOULD YOU DO? My friends were all seeing the same things too, it's not just me.

Yes, but you left out "Krishna". This topic is for him too.


Yes, overwhelming evidence, like how the complex human fossils just appear abruptly on the fossil record "all of a sudden". The fossil record indicates creation more than evolution actually.


Yes, but it is illogical, because to make something that re-produces means that it is more complex. So, the most complex things in nature are not created, but the lesser complex things like a robot is definetly created. sheesh


Lucas, you are from Germany if i remember correct, there was a "Luke" as a conitec employee, so i should be careful. You might be JCL's right hand guy for all I know. lol I'd still like to finish my A7 "Angel" game project someday.

Oh okay, my apology. The old atheist "RAN" would have laughed at such things. I assumed you were like the old me. Thank God you are not.

But, hey nice talking with you guys. I should finish up this Iphone project, so i can get back to my A7 one. I'm just wondering if i can make money at this iphone / ipod stuff. ? It's worth a try.

First of all, I'm not an atheist, but I do believe you're dearly wrong on this. In fact, taking this path of argumentation will give you much more "enemies" than just the atheist. I guess only the guys over at scientology can appreciate this way of debate .


I think the robot is even far more complex than the human body! Because the human body is a result of natural flow, while the robot is synthetic. Creating a robot requires a high intelligence. Creating such a thing like plastic alone requires a complicated process (I don't see nature making a car, nor God Himself, with all respect). But the human body is not synthetic, it's a product of nature. A huge pile of elements that occur in nature everywhere as a result of geological and celestial processes. The only thing that currently lacks in a robot, and that the human body is superior in, is efficiency. A robot is not efficient, it has parts that are unused by the robot as a whole. Why a shell of plastic? What other use does that serve than being pretty? (though that has its use as well). But I hope you get my point. Where robots were created within a fifty years, the human body was structured from the most basic brick billions of years ago. A freakin' billion years, you could cycle to the next star in a bloody billion years. The immense heap of possibilities in a billion years is tremendous. No wonder that our body is most efficient, right? (though that doesn't mean it's perfect, we're just one of a tremendous amount of possibilities (oh, and here we go, perhaps there's no such thing as possibilities! But lets keep that for a different thread)).

In the upcomming years (decennia, centuries?) we'll find the true proof for life being able to exist in more places than just earth. Perhaps on some planet far far away, and perhaps some tiny microbes on saturn's moon Europe, or even Mars (since it has frozen water already).

If the creation of very basic lifeforms, living cells, appear to be possible by geothermal processes, do you still firmly hold on your believe that evolution doesn't exist?

And now a psychological question to show some insight in your thought process as a religious man:
If in the next decennia The Lord Himself comes down to earth, making some sarcastic jokes about us believing in evolution and then shows us the creation of earth, would you stand and laugh at "us atheists"?
I can assure you I'm not afraid to say the religion was true after all.
That's why I'm agnostic for. But I'm not making this huge point about it.

We'll see what time brings us.

And however you like to spend your life in religious circles, good luck on the iPhone stuff I'm sure there're ways to make money out of it!

Yes, well, i'm not really here in priority to make friends, but to tell the truth only, plus I'd like to see what makes em tick.

But, before anyone feels real sorry for these ignorant atheist folks, then see this link below and look at what they type about my older game.
And, they did it against me when I was very sick and trying to get well again. Those brave nuts.

An atheist site about my 2005 video game

And they attacked my youtube forum with foul material also.

They are as bad as the christians when reviewing my game works.
Because, they have a form of religion and "make up" their own truths, while ignoring other realities.

But some idiots ought to tell these dumb atheist punks that this particular older game title works on a pentium 3 ! So, them attacking my graphics and comparing it to modern titles is freaking ridiculous.

But, uggh, now that i got my health back, then i find it easier to take and accept their ugly venom.

because you use the sewrs more often when youre in pleasure ground :p

but in reality, its because there is stuff in our pee thats actally healthy and helps us prevent STDs and makes us heal faster.
BOING!

where does the body come from? 4 billion years of evolution for startes.
2 million years of human evolution alone. we are evolved apes, and those have more or less the same body adn are around much longer than we are.

also, im all for fictional characters if they are at least slightly grounded in reality...
want to show me your god? make him marvel... like thor, hercules and loki n stuff...

oh, did you know that there is no soul? you can mindwipe a person and he is gone. compleltey. like death. its awesome. heck, if i ever get alzheimers, id write myself some shady notes about some secret hidden somewhere and place them at certain places and when i forget it i have a great hunt


edit:
what i never understand is the logic of religios people. is it that much more logic and easier to believe that some all powerful deity created everything from scratch than to think that evolution took billions of years to create what we see today? dies it really make that much more sense?

Well, your gameart looks really amateurish.
Thats simply like it is. No matter of the games story/gameplay.
You have to expect such comments if you actualy want to
sell this game / be present on the market. Its not a free hobby game after all.
You even used template figures, wich where crappy looking
8 years ago already.
You cant simply excuse a bad graphical style with
"but it runs on that old computer etc. etc."
You could make much better looking games, using the
same resource-consuption.

Probably a lot less resource consumption even.
I get the impression that this thread was meant to be a talk-about-ran-issues rather than the human body. Fine by me to talk about ran issues, but no need to disguise that in a fancy subject about the human body.

You really can't consider all non-believers the same kind of atheists though, nor similar to you when you were an atheist. Atheism isn't a religion.

There are many people that do not believe because they feel it doesn't make sense, but who are far more agnostic about the whole concept of deities.



The complexity of the human body is severely overrated in context of evolution though. Yes, it's complex, but it literally had millions of years to evolve into what it's now.

I might have agreed with you that complexity can be proof of a designer if for some reason I would know that humans were only created yesterday with no ancestors existing. But it wouldn't be enough proof to conclude it must have been designed either, did you see some 'tools' lying around somewhere?

hi,


no, but everything else all around us that is complex is designed.
We do know that for sure.

Yes, well for some reason, the typical atheist overlooks that fact and assumes the vastly complex human body is not designed.

Why overlook the fact that everything else complicated has a designer?

Maybe all of us should all ask ourselves and further the atheist logic.

If all complexity needs no designer, then therefore maybe 3dgamestudio version A7 was not designed either? It was not designed by anybody.

In that case, we should all be demanding free downloads of the PRO version from conitec. After all, they did not design it and it was only a product of time. It should be free public domain work then... It was only a product of the environment.

Okay, i'm waiting for my free download now. lol Where's da link?

The working of gravitation is complex, and it's a natural event. It's something that inevitably happened, else there wouldn't be gravity like, everywhere. But why is it complex? Because we can't figure out how it works? Is a human being complex because we can't understand how we got here? If complexity is determined by the difficulty of understanding the mechanics behind the process, why does that mean there's a designer behind all the complex stuff?

Is a rock designed because an ant doesn't understand why a rock is hard?

Yeah god designed us there can be no doubt about that but I also think god is an ape (of course there is no evidence for god). So do have any arguments to make or are you just preaching to use by making bad games and pretending well god made me design it so poorly. What you are basicly saying well humans can build a computer thats because god made us the way we are, and reason is because I said so.

Sorry dude I think with your way of handling this problem you have only proven that you're poorly evolved primate like the rest of us, but we don't pretend to claim something without having evidence.

Whatever you took when you saw the "spirits" stop taking it.

But let's assume, what you say about spirits and gods is true. You say they live forever. So they live for an infinite time. Now you say time does not exist.
This does not make sense. You mix up infinity and zero. That's an infinite error!

So if god has been living forever, there must have been an infinite time BEFORE he created us! So he waited an infinite time! What did he wait for? And what caused him to create us? He could have waited longer or briefer. And when did he start to wait? Never, because he has always existed and all the time he has existed he has waited and planned to make us; so god living forever does not make sense.

If god living forever does not make sense, he must be designed, because he must be complex because he designed us, so god does need a designer! And who designed the designer of god, who is, as you claim, our designer?


If I drop a teapot, like the one, that orbits the sun, it will shatter, and there will be shards. The exact way these shards are arranged on the floor is complex and it's unlikely that they will arrange the exact same way if I drop an other teapot again. You say, everything that is compley needs a designer. So is the way the shards are lying designed?

And a great example of Lukas about the teapot. So I think we can safely say something complex is not necessary designed. God did not design the pattern of shards on the floor of the broken teapot, nor did he design a rock because the ant doesn't understand why it's hard, and nor did he create the human being because we can't understand how we got here. Those are NOT the reasons anything is designed by whoever.

Now, if you would state: "'God' designed the universe just before the very start. He arranged the energy before the big bang in such a way that we now walk here on planet earth.", then a lot more people would find your argumentation plausible. A possibility that may be true. One would find it more unlikely than another, but in fact, chances are 50/50 that it happened this way. As long as we have no clue whatsoever, it's a 50/50 chance to us.

Well, I wouldn't say it's a 50/50 chance. You don't know if there is a flying teapot orbiting the sun or if there is an invisible pink unicorn or if the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, but you wouldn't say the propability is 50/50.
Else I could ask: What is the propability that not god, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster arranged the energy? Or that Zeus did it? Or that no one did it? The propability for each possibility can't just be set 50%.

Well... yes, I was confusing the chances that it may be a possibility with the chances that it is a fact. It's either something arranging the energy, or nothing arranging the energy. We can't really tell, thus 50%. But indeed it's getting out of scope.

I'd vote for the spaghetti monster though.

Well okay, but the shards from the teapot are useless yes?
The teapot cannot hold anymore tea.

This example resembles the examples of present day DNA cloning.
it's only a destruction and mutation of something that used to be complex.

and i'm still waiting for conitec to give me that free download. they are the gods around this forum.
<there are many gods>

they can do it. <just joking>

or else A7 <the lower complex> was really designed and the human body was not designed. <the higher complexity>

good to see that all evidence i bring up is completely ignored...

i know what you mean spike... *pat*

You'd be surprised how often we don't really know whether it was designed or not. A lot of natural processes can make objects look like they were designed. Oldest example in the book are of course rocks that look like faces, but were never touched by human tools. Interpreting such rocks as man-made would be false, but not illogical if you don't do more research.



You still haven't responded to why it must be designed. Complexity says nothing about whether it must be designed or not, in fact.. most inventions are actually amazingly simple. Aren't those designed too?



We're not overlooking the complexity at all, we're just convinced it's not a given fact that everything that must be complex must have been designed. In fact, you're overlooking how evolution shaped us into what we are now. You could call this a passive design (evolution has no aim), but it doesn't mean some higher being must have designed us.

In fact, it makes no sense, as it would mean he created a universe, gave it a kick and billions of years later we came into existence. Doesn't sound very plausible to me at all, especially knowing how evolution is a process that still goes on until this very day. We are by far not yet the 'end product', in fact there's no such thing as an 'end product'.



Our logic is based upon knowledge and we're not assuming weird, physically impossible things though.



We can talk to the developers, we can understand the tools involved, we have some sight into what has been developed when..... all that in itself is more than enough proof of it being designed.

Remember... we can't talk to God, we don't have a clue what he could possibly have used to create anything, nor do we really have a good view onto when he created what (after all, most creationists believe our earth isn't billions of years old, which leads to an obvious problem following this kind of logic.)



That's exactly true for humans. No human nor designer holds a copyright on our species.

Yup, truly common quite-fundamentalistic-christian-online-forum-user behaviour it seems

which reminds me of this:...

Heehee nice

Nice? i don't think so. but sort of funny how non-believers make everything super complex, so that it's so hard to explain that there is no explanation, but only lame "far out" theories to believe, in order to be an atheist.



Well, let's see what you posted. hmmmnn...


And so mind-swiping is now proof of your personality not being created?

Oh yes, but there are many ways to mindswipe somebody.
That is nothing but disconnecting your brain from your eternal spirit.

and there is the MEDICAL way to do it and yes, this is science. See this link below.
A LOBOTOMY ANYONE?

There are also spiritual ways to do it, like through witchcraft and being a zombie.

But, that method will not work, especially if the power of Christ comes to their aid. so, i see no proof of anything there?

Well, if you play any of my games, you can hear Him talk and relate to the player. lol Seriously though, God wants you to live for Him by faith and not because you seen proof like I did. Because if you seen proof, then you might freak out and live for Him and the whole thing is somewhat meaningless. You might even make 5 different game titles like me. <just joking>

But why?
Why do you people summon the supposed goddess of time to explain your faith? why find something complex and then point to TIME as it's creator, because you know that billions of years cannot be proven nor dis-proven.

And then you have the faith enough to believe <in your religion>, that time alone did enable life to begin without a creator, knowing fully that time indeed decays everything around us constantly.

For example, you will be dead in 100 years being a victim of time and decay, but somehow that same time was what actually made possible life and living organisms itself?

Truly I say that atheist are far worse than religious folks about denying truths
.
Because, they use their faith in evolution to believe in only certain aspects of truth, while ignoring other realities, like the time decay phenomena...

at least those theories are more believeable than some weird stories about one eternal deity which came out of nowhere and created everything. and seriously, it's not so illogical once you actually THINK about it. as far as i see your point, you're still having one single person in mind. (talking about your example about time and decay) seems like you're forgetting some very important aspects about evolution: reproduction, mutation, adaptation, extinction, and so on and so on.

think about that once (as soon as your god allows you to):

Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him god.

-epicurus; 33 a.d.

btw, if men was created by your god, then who created diseases? satan? dun dun dunnnn.

oh, and one more link you should consider: clicketh me, sayeth yer lord!

also this one.

and while we're there, also this one.

5-year olds also take everything as taken (because Daddy says so) or with simple explanations.
Does not mean that you should not grow up.

The world IS complex. And there is no Daddy who made it all for you.

And as I said, it's only complex as long as we don't understand it.

And if there is one thing that's the most complex thing of all complex things, it must be God. Look at what chaos he brings among mankind .

Yes, and as I said, if it is not that complex, then we all ought to be able to create it ourselves and in our garage. but, we can't, yet i can create a PC from parts in my garage right now, but not a living body.



So, God allows the BAAL god to run around enticing Jews in the old testament, and any other god for that matter. It is up to the people <the jews> to resist and/or follow whichever god they want to follow.
The same goes for us.
It seems that you atheist guys insist of following the god of time as time makes living organisms become more complex, huh?

Your faith follows the ancient greek god Kronos perhaps?
Click on the link below:
KRONO'S IS HERE! THE GOD OF TIME! :-0

GO KRONO'S YAY !


God created all the angels.

Yes, many cultures assume that BAAL is another term for Satan, but diseases can be caused by your diet and also your way of life. Did you expect God to cause lightening or something in order to help people choose correctly? no, the entire thing is "free will" based.

On the subject of Baal though, well there are many demons down here <i saw a few of them years ago>, and they tempt or entice us to do whatever. Therefore, the angels and humans are being tested and free wills are being scrutinized right now constantly.

There is a huge unseen world inside our own world at the moment.

I'm confident and have no doubts that what I saw was real.
Or else, why would I have completed 5 different game titles and working on a 6th right now? a madman? or, or ? how about it was real? lol
How many game developers on this forum have completed 5 titles and going for #6 ???



They are comparing humans to animals on one of those vids. Oh well, animals were created also, so what's the point?

They are showing us cells. Big deal, let them make a cell from nothing in their garage and then i will be a believer. lol

If you find a willing (or un-willing even) woman, you CAN create life in your garage.
It will take about 9 months. (please leave the garage door down)
Could a 5 year-old build a PC with the parts that are already there?

AND, if you didnt have all the computer parts in your garage, that SOMEONE ELSE made, could you still build a PC?


Time is a PROCESS, not an imaginary entity. After all, it would be pretty silly for athiests to exhort
that Time (with a capital T), has always existed, even before time! (withOUT a capital T) Oo


Lets see you create a NAIL from NOTHING in your garage and I'LL become a believer.
A nail is a simple enough object for even a mere human?

so your saying humans are useful? and what determines usefullness..... what is considered a "good ending" and a "bad ending" to the universe itself, you really think you make a difference in the big scheme of things?

You are useless... I am useless. In the end everyone is useless.

Actually this is true and discussions like this show that your are right. In many countries situations like this even end in wars, lead by religious people, followed by blind believers. How useful is this?

Our body makes lots of sense and evolution can be seen easily. We dont piss into throusers every day because it helps to get a partner to have a muscle to hold it back. You smell better then. And it helped in the past to mark a terrain or to punish some other beings. It made some sense and still makes.
We have 2 eyes to see 3 dimensions. A third eye did not take advantage but takes more energy, can have infections, needs more maintenance (liquid to keep it clean, lids aso.)
The design is perfect because it was a success.

We needed a better brain because our weapons are too weak. Our teeth are weak, we have no claws, we cannot run very fast. So we had to find some way to get food more efficiently, to store it, to grow vegetables and so on.
A lion does not need a better brain. It would cost him much more energy and the hunting success still would be sufficiently good. It would turn into a disadvantage to be steadily hungry (because of brain draining energy) but not being able to grow some vegetables.

All this makes much sense. So I really dont see why RanMan talks in such an arrogant way about atheists with tons of little vilifications and some grim comments (especially in the first post).

I guess we have a deal then . Now we just sit and wait...



Indeed, RanMan sounds much less nice than usual. Something happened the past months?

Indeed. I have not read through the whole post here, but based on the title, I think what I am saying is relevant :P

[quote=Machinery_Frank
Our body makes lots of sense and evolution can be seen easily.[/quote]

In support to Frank's post, I do not think there is anything special about the human body, and why it is so. It is a perfect adaptation over a very long time, where adverse traits are bread out, and eventually we become highly specialized in our own environment.

Just like a bird is to flying, and a fish to water.

There is no need for a higher-order explanation. It works as it is.

Cheers,
Adrian

Ran Man, you ignored my argument that you are mixing up infinity and zero. Please read my last post again.


"Yes, many cultures assume that BAAL is another term for Satan, but diseases can be caused by your diet and also your way of life. Did you expect God to cause lightening or something in order to help people choose correctly? no, the entire thing is "free will" based."
Being infected by a virus is surely not free will based.



If we really were designed, why do we like to eat sweet and fatty food? It's bad for us, so why did god give us the desire to eat it and not the desire to eat vegetables?
Evolution can answer this. When we were still living like monkeys, we sweet and fatty food, which had the most energy, were rare. So any time this food is available, we eat it. Today fast food is always available, so we tend to eat too much of it and to become fat.

Dan Silverman won't be out here in a long, long time.
He was sentenced to 18 months in prison regarding his own daughter...
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/211015
Even Richard Dawkins attacks Dan: http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=87082
Also, Dan's former Deacon from the same church, an accountability partner, got 225 years for what he did to his own daughters.
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/210147

What a site.

Yes, well Carl Sagan recognized a possible "other world" in existence around our world in this video below.
Click on the link below to see it.
CARL SAGAN AND THE 4TH DIMENSION

Yes, since time is only a measurement of physical decay, then how can time exist when there are no zero's? Meaning that, if time is not affecting a decay of a particular being in a particular place, then time itself has become meaningless.

In any event, I wrote a praise song for all "time" believing atheist to sing.
All faiths need to sing to their god, in this case Kronos, so here is a song to the atheist god KRONO'S .

Please everyone, turn to page # 666 in your song hymn book and sing.

A MIGHT FORTRESS IS CHRONO'S

A might fortress is lord Chrono's .
For time is our great creator.

We know that time causes great decay.
but faith tells us we are not created in any way.

Now when the christians come to us with truth.
We instead believe our theories like some kooks.

We know that there is no god.
Except lord Chrono's , the timeless pod.


lol, hahaha!

Okay, nice and fun talking with you all.

Cool, we're back paddling into 'other worlds' right now.

The irony in that is that to some extent this actually makes sense. After all, a being limited to 3 dimensions, can't directly look into the 4th or 5th dimension because of it's perspective. Using tricks we can certainly understand it, but that's merely the theoretical part, right?

I'm sure by the time we figure out some alien ancestors created our universe from within a different dimension, people would argue God must have made them too.

I really don't see why creation must have happened. It makes no sense at all knowing how life has been a chain reaction of evolution that can be easily understood.

Holy shit. I can't believe that.

Yeah, I couldn't believe it either. I had emailed him and it wasn't like him to not respond to an intellectual debate. Then, I noticed his blog was down and then I just checked the news knowing he was talking about an upcoming case. I knew it was his daughter who accused him. Strange stuff. Don't think he'll be posting out here for at least 18 months.
This is stranger than fiction. Strange world we live in...

One big difference between Silverman and Stone was that Stone (the former deacon) took responsibility for what he did and showed remorse for doing it. Silverman confessed twice to the charges and his pychological evaluation showed that he is in denial, yet now he claims he is innocent.

Yeah. It appears the Dean Stone guy turned himself in and confessed before the Heritage Baptist Church/Cult congregation and Bob Barton (the other pastor before Dan Silverman). Dan Silverman confessed only after being in jail. I don't know how much stock one can put into a psychological evaluation, but their findings were interesting. Seems if Silverman was innocent, he wouldn't have confessed one thing to some, something else to others, and then blogged a very different thing altogether (he grazed her chest when she was falling or what have you) and he would have DEMANDED a lie detector test for both parties and took this to trial. If his daughter failed the test, and he passed it, wouldn't this have been the best evidence ever. Dan was advised in his blog comments to take this very route. What a redneck soap opera to have to sort out. Speaking of Human Bodies, I wish folks would leave children's bodies alone...

I heard both sides, and I definitely believe the girl. She was not falling and it was not a graze. It is horrible thing he did, and if anyone thinks it is no big deal, then I suggest you go into a biker bar and put your hand on one of their old ladies and see what happens. This was an innocent 12 year old girl and his own daughter which makes it even worse.

Another difference between the Minister of Evangelism /Deacon Dean Stone and the pastor Dan Silverman is that Dean got serious time and Dan got minimal time. The 5 years of probation is something, but in another blog the Silverman family was saying the reason for the protective order against Dan was fear for their lives and even another place said that his daughter thought her dad (Dan) was going to kill her. Now, if there's any truth to any of that, then him getting out in 18 months cannot be comforting for the victim(s). But the girl will never be the same after her own Dad doing that (assuming he did - can't seem to buy the whole conspiracy thing Dan was formulating in his War and Peace novelizing - or so it seemed).

Please do not discuss Dan's charge/sentence anymore. Continuing this discussion will lead to a ban. This thread is about an other topic anyway.

Dan got less time because of the difference in the charges. I really think if he had not retracted his confessions, admitted his guilt and at least pretended to be sorry that he may have gotten off with just probabtion. He did not fool the judge. As a matter of fact the judge called Dan's bluff and gave Dan another chance to change his plea to not guilty and go to trial, but Dan refused. No the girl will never be the same, but if Dan would at least take responsibility for his actions and be remorseful for what he has done, then his family could begin to heal...and so could Dan.

Sorry, saw the last post after I already posted.

Rose, I saw that smitty got banned earlier (by Lukas) because of their "attacks on Dan Silverman." Apparently this is a circle of friends that will defend him to the bitter end, and even ban somebody. Wow. I only thought folks might want to know why he's not responding to our emails etc.
Okay, Lukas. We'll stop. You win.
Back to the Human Body discussion. (enjoying the posts by the way)....

no, the point is that topics unrelated to DAN are being used to discuss about him.

Gosh, sorry to hear about all of this.

I admit that i was hoping he would post here and i could refute, but oh well.

This event and his fall from faith must be related for sure. Hopefully prison treats him better than life did.



In any event, I wish you all the very best in life. thanks for talking and for sharing. i hope i answered all your questions, but if not let me know.

and please remember, i don't ever hate any atheist's, because i was once you and totally understand your points of view. you all have great potential.
ran

Michael, It's been erased now, but it was cached on Google. Here is Lukas' own words pasted right here:
#279112 - Today at 17:31 Re: just ignored smitty [Re: sPlKe]

Lukas
Programmer
Serious User

Registered: 05/13/07
Posts: 1043
Loc: Germany To clarify this: I really banned smitty. Not just because of the PMs but because he attacked Dan.
EDIT: or she...


Edited by Lukas (Today at 17:32)
_________________________
www.brogames.de

So, Lukas banned smitty because of their attack on Dan.
Enuf said. Carry on with the discussion.

Thanks, Ran Man for the posts. It's been a good read.
I wasn't trying to hijack the discussion. Forgive a breech of etiquette/professionalism.

Sorry, I know this is OT, but there's been already much OT.

Maybe, we have the right to hear some clarification:

Dan's attorney said, according to the article:

"We're talking about one touch to the breast that lasted for just a moment..."

Is that the whole content of the accusation?

@ Shultz

omg ! Are you the infamous Sgt. Shultz?
Sargent Shultz Here! :-)

Please hijack anytime.

dan is not a victim.

he fell from faith and confessed to an officer according to that article.
It is no coincidence.

The police generally do not arrest dads, just on a whim, but they have reasons.

Interesting that I had a similiar experience with my neighbor a few years ago.
His daughter would visit my daughters and I worked graveyard shifts and slept in the daytime. Anyways, whenever i was alone in bed on several occasions, his daughter would JUMP into my bed with me and giggle a lot.
I scolded her and got her out of my bed and room asap all the time.

Well, what would prompt this behavior from a little girl, hummm ???

They arrested her dad a few months later and the couple divorced and moved away. i assume he was molesting her and she thought that behavior was appropriate for older men.

Yep, most of the time, they arrest those that need arresting...

"We're talking about one touch to the breast that lasted for just a moment..."


Like I said, walk into a biker bar and touch one of their old ladies on the breast for just a moment and see what happens. We are talking about an innocent 12 year old girl. Who knows if this was the first time Dan did this to a child, but hopefully it will be the last.

Can we stop these talks already that are totaly unrelated to the topic? Make your own blasted thread if you feel the urge to talk about Dan.

Didn't I tell you not to continue this discussion? If you continue, you will get a ban.
Back to topic now. This is my last warning.

I banned rose as we have proof that she was obviously smitty.

@RanMan:

This may be true, but according to Dan, he got set up by his wife, because he lost his faith in "their" religion.

I agree though, there's a good reason to assume, what is said to have happened, has happened. But without Dan being able to defend himself here, regardless of evil doings, it's just silly to even continue going on about this.



Yes. In fact, it's quite peculiar as the girl is said to be his own daughter. If there's no sexual motivation, I don't see why touching someone's breast would be harmful. Obviously, as long as there's no "pattern of abuse", as they say.

For example, I once touched someone's breast to prevent them from walking further and possibly getting under a truck... It wouldn't make sense to sue me for that either, right??

I think we should all agree that we can't possibly know the full background behind all this and should stop arguing.

Hi,

I totally agree. I like the man, his work and his ethics.

In Dan's defense, I can say that all my dealings with him were absolutely great.
I appreciate his work and those hannah and rueben human models creation and texturing worked wonders on youtube too.

Dan's Hannah and Rueben human models are at this link with over 200,000 hits already !

I can say that I found him to be a very genuine and not a "phoney" individual.

As a modeler and level designer, what he says he would do, well he did it!
Dan is not a hypocrite. Dan is the real deal.

Before ever being a hypocrite, Dan would rather just quit the faith altogether.
I can appreciate that.

Anyways, back to topic.
Since the human body is so complicated and much of it, especially in the brain is not even fully understood, then why do those of you who are atheist assume that time itself created it?

Understanding that areas like the brain are already so complicated that we do not know how it really works, but yet this complicated material has no designer? Really though, is this not fascinating?

Because we can see it happen with our own eyes. We dug out bones that look human, yet are different from ours, and actually more closely resemble apes. But this different species is nowhere found on earth anymore. What else could it be that this was how humans looked like thousands of years ago?


Fascinating it is for sure, but if we look to the past, there were many many more things that were not understood, thought to be so complex it's beyond our capability to understand, and thus a designer must've created it.

Remember the Earth was once flat.

But now we know it's not flat, there's no designer behind a flat world. Because there's no such thing as a flat world.

Why can't it be that, once we figure out how the brain works, the brain actually works so much different than we thought, it all makes sense, and is not complex anymore? As this way has proved to be quite common in the past...
If we figure it out, all of a sudden there's no designer anymore, and the designer seem to have "moved" to the more abstract and complex things that have risen by new findings.

God made everything a few thousand years ago!
*scientists prove otherwise*
Oh. well, God made everything a few million years ago!
*scientists prove otherwise*
No, wait, God made everything some billion years ago, and triggered evolution!
*scientists prove otherwise*
God triggered the Big Bang?
*scientists sigh*

This is how it's going for dozens of years. Religions come up with ideas, scientists with theories and proof. Why is it that the ideas are taken more serious than the proof? Why not base the ideas on the proof, and accept that they may change any time? It's fine to believe God is involved somehow, but why are religious people *spare the exceptions* so sure that NOW is the time they really know the answer?

@ Checkbutton
Why ban all my friends?
If you ban all of them, then all I got is a lot of foes around here.
lol


Yes, they resemble apes, because they are apes.
there are few "missing links" in the fossil record, but there should be many of them if it were true. The few missing links they claim to have are in dispute.

The brain is the most complex part of the human body.
They can do "heart transplants and kidney transplants.

But, how about a brain transplant?
Nope, it's not possible, because medical science knows that it's just too complicated.

but yet, an evolutionary scientist will claim that the brain is only a product of time and has no designer. lol, haha!

Yeah, It's funny when a person thinks about it.

so you believe a god can make you on an instant, but he couldnt set up a system that eventually after billions/trillions of mutations makes a human brain?

If you really can answer only one question per person, I would appreciate it if you pick the most difficult one to answer. Let's say, my last question.



If you really think you have seen the light, that would be very narcistic. Other than non-believers, who generally keep searching for meassurable proof and never settle down with a theory taken for truth.

But I wouldn't think it's odd, being narcistic. We place mirrors everywhere to look to ourselves. And whole mankind has been narcistic back in the days.

"Mankind depicted God to his image".

And the evidence is obvious. Who wouldn't want to be like a God, if you had the chance? The ultimate goal. And why would we want to go to heaven eternally? To get a little closer to this goal perhaps?

Though, admittedly, without this behaviour, we wouldn't have had science either. We look into mirrors to try and understand ourselves. We try to understand the universe, and as a side result, come up with fairytales like "God". <- Oh no I called God a fairytale! Be sure to comment on this one and not on the rest of this post!

Just because we disagree on our world views, shouldn't mean you're excluding friendships because of that though.

Lol, perhaps it's a shortsighted view, but in my mind that's exactly why religious people tend to wage their wars. :P

When it comes to friendship, I really couldn't care less if someone is an atheist or christian or hindu or Scientologist (what?!).

When you think about it long enough, you'll discover their God can not do lots of things.

You know, make a stone that's too heavy even for him to lift, even though he supposedly is able to lift any and all stones being almighty, right?

It's easy to see how 'almightiness' doesn't make any sense in a practical sense. This is true for many of the other characteristics, like 'it's presence', that's at the same time very much a non-presence.

Excellent point, lostclimate!

And you know what? I'm a Christian.

I've never posted here, but sometimes read threads for a laugh, lol. But sometimes I'm bothered by the amount of conflict between atheists and Christians today (not just here, everywhere). It's really sad. So, I hope to make a few points and at least get people thinking, even if you don't agree with me. The thesis of my monstrous post is that one CAN believe in BOTH God AND science. And, we ALL rely on "faith"; we just put in in different things/places.

It's a proven fact that ADAPTATIONS occur naturally in the animal kingdom. WE can even produce them artificially amongst a certain genus. Look at dogs... They came from wolves as a result of our artificial breeding. Chickens... They came from wild jungle fowl which we domesticated and selectively bred for their fighting abilities (surprisingly, not food, but cockfighting! One of the oldest known sports! Lol! :D).

Most people don't realize what the Bible, as we Christians know it, is meant to be. The Old Testament is a compilation of Jewish history and oral tradition. Every story is NOT to be taken literally (like any other work of literature, duh). Many stories are metaphors, parables, and analogies to demonstrate abstract points about life, God, the earth, etc. I've often wondered if the story of Adam and Eve is a parable that gives an abstract account of the Neolithic revolution, and man becoming intelligent and self conscious; developing the concepts of good and evil, and becoming forever separated from animals.

However, it is VERY true that the universe and earth was created in only six days. How? You've heard it took billions of years, right? Well, that is also true. Time is all about perspective. When the "Big Bang" occurred, according to contemporary science, matter exploded from the singularity in all directions. As the universe unfolded, space and time were warped by a factor of 1trillion. From earth, the universe appears to be anywhere from 12-16billion years old. To find the age of the universe at the very center, where either the "Big Bang" or "God" (whatever you believe) created everything from, we must divide the 15billion (for this point) by that factor of 1trillion. Doing so, we arrive at 0.015, which converted to earth days equals 6 days. And no, that's not "religious", it's "Einstein-ian" physics in action. Time and space simply aren't constants, as we think they are on earth. Time travel is actually possible from traveling at high speeds. We just lack the technology to go fast enough to make any significant leaps.

Back to life and "Evolution" before I try to cut this off....

Like I said, adaptation in plants and animals is undeniable. However, there are MANY problems with the "Theory of Evolution" as it is presented in textbooks and by scientists. The main problem is that a large portion of its assertions are totally unsubstantiated. First and foremost, the concept of "spontaneous generation". There's not a single shred of evidence that raw elements can just "create" life without outside influence. WE can not even produce it in a laboratory. The idea violates a very old law of science: Life can only be produced by other life. Louis Pasteur disproved the "Spontaneous Generation" theory in the 1800s. But somehow, it was resurrected for the theory of evolution. Life does not "generate" from elements today. Some scientists claim it is because the conditions on early earth were different, however attempts at doing it in a lab always fail (even though conditions can be fully controlled). It just doesn't work. Only amino acids can be formed in a lab, which sadly, are water-soluble. Therefore the "primordial soup" idea is also bunk. This idea also violates the second law of thermodynamics (look it up, too long to explain). The fact is, life can NOT be generated naturally NOR artificially. In fact, the simplest of bacteria is far more complex than a clock or an internal combustion engine. There are actually better odds of a clock or engine being produced "naturally" by the environment than life. And all of the "materials" needed to "generate" one exist naturally. Trippy!

The next problem with evolutionary theory deals with the concept of "mutation", and lifeforms transforming in radical ways (i.e., eventually going from a frog to a bird). Firstly, mutations always have one of three basic effects: 1) harm to the organism 2) kills the organism 4) no/negligible effect. Hemophilia and albinism are examples of mutations (obviously bad things). Humans are one of the only animals that can survive things like hemophilia because we have the medical technology to do so. Even albinism is deadly to wild animals because they are often blind, and always too poorly camo'd to survive. Therefore, they don't pass on their genes (which is actually good). You'd never want your child to have a mutation and "evolve", lol. Plain and simple, mutations are never good, and can not explain the diversity of life on earth. Secondly, there is NO genome flexible enough to "evolve" as extremely as the theory requires. A fish simply can not become a bird, no matter what. Humans have selectively bred animals for all of history, yet we can not go any further than making changes to a genus>species. Even with our hi-tech labs, cloning, and gene manipulation, we can not produce such radical changes even in billions of lifespans of bacteria (we have tried). We've also tried with fruit flies and other organisms that reproduce and die very quickly. It allows us to simulate millions, even billions of years of mammal "evolution" in a lab. We've produced interesting bacteria and flies, but never anything more than what we started with (flies and bacteria). I believe the "canis" (canine/dog/wolf) genome is the most flexible in animalia, yet we can not produce anything other than a new breed of canine. No cows, no monkeys, and no fish.

So here's the current scoreboard:

Universe had a beginning : PROVEN
Adaptation through selective reproduction : PROVEN
The modern "Theory of Evolution" : NOT PROVEN
Creationism as described by most Christians : NOT PROVEN

Evolution and Creationism BOTH rely on faith. We can not "prove" either one. It's that simple, yet many people are literally at each others' throats about "who is right".

In reality, there is NO conflict between science and religion. You can believe in BOTH. Science is to explain the "how", and religion can explain the "why". Science has no explanation for why we exist. Religion doesn't explain how we exist. Believing in both can give you a much better understanding of your existence (for some people). There is no need to fight over it or hate each other.

Personally, I don't see WHY anything should exist without a higher, sentient power. Why would life essentially "create" itself from raw elements so that it could feel pain and suffer? Then why would it "evolve" (if it could) to more advanced forms, more conscious and aware of its own suffering? Why should a universe/multiverse and any type of matter exist? And where in hell did that "singularity" responsible for the Big Bang come from? Of course, we can ask where did God come from as well. But I see an omnipotent and omnipresent God as being "infinite", having no beginning or end. Such a God is unexplainable and inconceivable with human language or even the human mind. Maybe one day we will understand, when we leave this world behind? Who knows? It blows your mind to think about the universe's origins whether you believe in God or not!

Sorry to go on and on for so long, but I hope I made an impact on all the "bad blood" between believers and non-believers. We ALL rely on faith, and have personal convictions and beliefs that we can not prove. And it is wrong to hate each other over those beliefs. At the end of the day, one thing is certain: we are all human beings who are stuck on this same planet together, and we might as well make the best of it!

Science doesn't rule out the concept of God (by definition), but it's stupid to say science relies on faith, it's not a religion.

Instead it is based on a lot more than the believe in thinking it's correct. It's based on laws, based on reproducible experiments, based on methods and basically based on actual proof as good as it can get.

Having faith in a God is not comparable at all to the reproducible knowledge science gives us.

Having faith in a God often implies disbelieving certain essential discoveries of science too, which hardly makes sense if you combine the two. You'll get silly ideologies where people believe in evolution, but still hold on to their believe in Jesus as being a supernatural God on Earth.

Remember that's a distinct difference in having confidence your methods are right and therefore the results tell us things about the truth, and having blind faith in something that hardly can be tested at all, let alone makes little sense in a theoretical and philosophical sense.

After all, why should there really even be a God when we already understand many of the ancient issues we used to invent Gods for??




Actually, you're quite wrong here. We may not be able to directly disprove God's existence (yet), but there's a whole lot we can certainly explain without supernatural causes. This is of course discarded by religious people, but in the end the 'faiths' you're speaking off are hardly the same kind.

Within science there's also a clear difference between laws, theories and so on. Sort of the different variations of how 'true' a certain idea will be. Contrary to religions, science doesn't arrogantly claim to have absolute knowledge though, hence why lots of theories are considered 'more than extremely likely to be true', but not considered absolute truth.

In a philosophical sense, science doesn't really deal with truths in an absolute sense at all, but only with relative knowledge.

This seems to be hard to grasp for religious people, but it's really not the same has having blind faith in an ancient and outdated idea for which there's no evidence at all.



It's very ironic how on one hand you say you can't possibly believe that something this incredible has happened while it clearly has, yet on the other hand you strongly believe a magical God must exist and be responsible even though that's really even much more far fetched and seemingly impossible.

After all, regardless of what started it, we can all witness right here and now where evolution and so on has brought us.



It's neither unexplainable nor inconceivable, it's basically not more than a philosophical answer anyways and nothing concrete. It's more a gigantic sign of not wanting to admit that you do not have an answer.

Not having an answer is fine, but pretending to know anyway is just incredible silly and strange.

Many people will have a 'gut feeling' that there should be an explanation or answer some where. But just because we're used to how things tend to make sense to some extent, doesn't mean it should be true for everything within our universe. Remember that in the most abstract way, things that 'seemingly do not make sense' are rather a good sign of our lack of understanding. I'm confident we can comprehend anything, not comprehending something simply means we should gather more knowledge so we CAN comprehend it.

The whole idea that things are too complex and unconceivable is just odd by definition, as it rules out future knowledge on beforehand.

So far, there's really absolutely no reason to assume Gods were either responsible for or present during the massive development of everything around us.

Nice post Jaeger, and good that you point out that a lot of the stories in the bible are metaphores and the like. I'm saddened that most people take them literally, both atheists and religious people.


And this is what most believers will not accept, or admit. That the God theory they believe to be true might adapt in the future, as it has been many times in the past. If you'd say this some seven hundred years ago in public, you'd be hanging that very day! The God theory changes every time science discovers new things. Were six days simply six rotations of the earth, now it's coupled to the very beginning of time and space.


On to the evolution subject:
Indeed, but as we keep trying to point out, science is not done yet! We've just started to understand the genes and mechanics within micro-organisms. How can you judge science so fast, while not giving a chance to prove itself? Wouldn't that be only fair? Or are you afraid that we might discover how it all works in the near future? There's no need to deny anything, just adapt the God theory again. Eventually we'll find the answer together.

Totally rejectable, a plastic digital alarm clock will never spontaneously be created just by loose elements present in the universe. It can not happen in an infinite amount of time UNLESS, unless some higher form creates it. But that does not mean the higher form is higher than the clock he created. The clock was made from the higher form's idea. It has been made out of complex thinking processes and applied chemics and physics. Therefore, I see the clock as a more complex object than the being that created it. The function of the object does not necessary define the complexity!

And the higher form? He's not made out of plastics, chips, wires and buttons, nor runs on exactly 12 volts. He's made of the basic (yet complex) organisms, which are made of the basic elements present all around us (no, not plastics).



You seem to be making no point out of this one. First, frogs do not mutate in a bird, because they are both from a different branch of evolution going way way way back. And yes, mutations CAN BE bad. Albinism isn't a nice thing. Yet it only emphatizes how nature is NOT perfect, thus another evidence how it is NOT created by a perfect God.


A fish can not become a bird, correct. But one, a genome has no property named flexibility. And two, if sufficient proper genes are hit by radiation or miscopied RNA, the animal will transform into a slightly different being. And animals don't live near as long as we do. A salamander lives about 7 years. Let's see, 488 million years ago life has exploded onto land, let's assume an ancestor of our salamander lived back then. So, 14 million generations, let's say one on four has undergone a slight mutation, visible or not. Then, 3.5 million mutations are not enough to make a four legged Cambrian being look like the salamander as we know it now? Then I think you do not realise how fast evolution CAN handle, if forced.


Laboratory may have simulated hundreds of years of generations with fruitflies (millions of years don't make sense. A fruitfly lives between 37 and 110 days. So that'd be 27 thousand years of research) but a fruitfly is already quite advanced. A fly has not been evolved much since the dawn of insects. It could very well be that the fly simply can not change anymore.

You keep thinking that dogs evolve into monkeys and fishes, but that's not how evolution works. A dog can not jump onto the evolutionary branch of the monkey, unless you let them breed together. But that doesn't work. They are too different. So a dog can only make its own path and branches using radiation, faulty copied DNA and reproducing with a different race, same for the fish and monkey. And a fruitfly... well... a fruitfly has way less complex genes than do dogs and monkeys. So radiation does not have such significant effects. A fly does not breed with other races. And thus the only significant way a fruitfly can change is through faulty copied DNA. Not a really fast process.


I can reason it in such a way that nothing is proven. The universe beginning has not been proven at all. The universe may be in a vicious cycle of expansion and shrinking, where the big bang is just a phase within this cycle. There, unproven. We just assume the most reasonable theory, and build from there. God is not more a reasonable theory than is evolution. Thus we choose evolution.


Nicely put I can settle with that. But why were you fiddling with the "how" in this whole post? Why not just be content that God exists, and that we're here for a reason, but the reason has yet to be found? And let science filter all the truths and lies... because like you said, science explains the "how".


I might be wrong on some points in this post, but I did my research as good as I ought necessary. I also once again state that I have much respect for religion, but I despise how believers start to fiddle and twist with the theories science presents.

Science is not based on laws at all its based on highly likely theories, and there is a difference and even if we are right about some theories, they aren't mutually exclusive to the idea of a "higher system" that we are not conscious of.

Nope, you're wrong, it ís based on laws, laws within the realm of our scientific knowledge. I already emphasized how science doesn't pretend to have absolute knowledge.

There's a good bunch of scientific laws that can be considered quite absolute, like the laws of physics (gravity and so on), considering the overwhelming amount of evidence.

Again, contrary to the belief in science, faith is belief despite the absence of proof.



I don't see any violation. After all, aren't we life? If we succeed making new life in a laboratory, we would still be producing life, whilst being life.

In fact, it's really not that far fetched to think that one day we will be able to create life. There are already countless of research projects going on about growing back limps and so on, very advanced biological research on the edge of sci-fi. By the time we've figured out how the actual code instructions work, we'd be building new life in no time.



Religion gives no answer to the "why" questions at all. For example, 'why' does God exist? 'Why' do we exist?

Don't give me that 'to serve God' crap for an answer here either as that's pretty much ridiculous. A philosophical concept being the reason behind a philosophical concept hardly makes sense, right?

No, its not absolute, its just overwhelmingly likely because of the evidence.

I said quite absolute, and I said within the realm of our knowledge.

That's really as good as it gets...

Contrary to what you seem to be arguing about here, I'm not pretending it's absolute.

@ Phemox:

ALL people rely on faith. And yes, science does too. You rely on faith when you loan a friend $20 (faith he will pay you back). A scientist relies on faith when doing experimental research (faith that the information from his peers is accurate). YOU rely on faith that the scientific theories you've heard about are true. You rely on faith that your spouse will not cheat on you. The examples are endless. Life is full of things we must put faith in and believe without physical proof. It's also funny that many atheists believe life exists on other planets, but then attempt to mock and belittle people with religious convictions. Yeah... You've missed the point by a long shot...

"Instead it is based on a lot more than the believe in thinking it's correct. It's based on laws, based on reproducible experiments, based on methods and basically based on actual proof as good as it can get."

Once again, way off... There are tons of scientific theories which are NOT reproducible, not possible to experiment with, and unproven; (i.e., evolution, big bang, string theory, etc). Scientists rely on faith that those theories are correct, based upon things we believe about the way the universe and physics work. And our theories change over and over. In 100 years, people will laugh at the ideas we hold so dear about life and the universe today. Just like century old ideas sound so comical today. You first say that science is based on proven facts, then turn around to say nothing is absolute... interesting...

"Having faith in a God often implies disbelieving certain essential discoveries of science too, which hardly makes sense if you combine the two. You'll get silly ideologies where people believe in evolution, but still hold on to their believe in Jesus as being a supernatural God on Earth.
"

That makes absolutely no sense. If evolution were proven, 100% beyond any doubt, tomorrow, that still doesn't negate the possibility that (a) God(s) exist. There's actually nothing in the Bible (or any other religious literature afaik), that says God(s) didn't design natural systems like evolution.

You're mistaking another main point about my initial post: It's NOT that I don't believe life can adapt and change over time to take radically different new forms. What I DON'T believe is the current, modern Theory of Evolution as a whole. In relies upon tons of unsubstantiated beliefs which have never been replicated in a lab, NEVER observed, and has no evidence to support them. For instance, no evidence life can "spontaneously generate" from raw element, and no evidence that any genome can be modified (naturally or artificially) far enough to explain the diversity of life on earth. It's just assumed. Once again, by faith...

"In a philosophical sense, science doesn't really deal with truths in an absolute sense at all, but only with relative knowledge."

....uhhh... no... And please stop saying "philosophical", lol.

"It's very ironic how on one hand you say you can't possibly believe that something this incredible has happened while it clearly has, yet on the other hand you strongly believe a magical God must exist and be responsible even though that's really even much more far fetched and seemingly impossible."

When you use the expression "on one hand... but on the other...", you're supposed to use to different, opposing, or contradictory ideas or thoughts that are in some way relevant. That entire block of text makes absolutely no sense. An example would be "On one hand, they claim to be certain we can put a man on Mars by 2012, but on the other, they aren't even sure how long the technologies will take to develop." I hope that helps...

"After all, regardless of what started it, we can all witness right here and now where evolution and so on has brought us."

So you *believe*. The only thing proven is adaptation via natural/artificial selection (we can observe and replicate it). That only accounts for diversity among a genus and sometimes our basic classifications (i.e., types of mammals, reptile, fish). There's not a single shred of evidence that single cell organisms just "magically" created themselves and eventually turned into us. It's purely hypothetical. Humans are primates. We have a fossil record that shows primates developing into different types of primates. So it is highly likely that man is a highly refined and adapted form of ape. We don't know this beyond all doubt, it's just very likely. However, we have no proof that it all started with single celled organisms. There's nothing in between. There are no fossils of transitional species between here and there. So you're relying on faith...

"It's neither unexplainable nor inconceivable, it's basically not more than a philosophical answer anyways and nothing concrete. It's more a gigantic sign of not wanting to admit that you do not have an answer.

Not having an answer is fine, but pretending to know anyway is just incredible silly and strange."

Plenty of things are unexplainable and inconceivable. For instance, the very origins of our universe! Any competent scientist will tell you that the very thought of how and why the universe actually exists is currently unexplainable and inconceivable. We do have things like the Big Bang theory, but that doesn't explain where the singularity came from that created everything. It doesn't address that nor the creation of dimensional reality, spacetime, and even gravity is unknown. We observe the effects of gravity, but no one is even sure where it comes from or why. One theory is that the mass of an object warps spacetime in all dimensions, like a fabric. We simply don't know. It's still totally inconceivable to us. I'm not claiming to have all the answers, I'm just pointing out that no one does.

"The whole idea that things are too complex and unconceivable is just odd by definition, as it rules out future knowledge on beforehand.

So far, there's really absolutely no reason to assume Gods were either responsible for or present during the massive development of everything around us."

You might want to try to rephrase that, because you failed to make any significant point...

And please note, don't take any of this personal or insulting. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you don't mean to be insulting either. We're just debating ideas. So I hope there's no hard feelings or animosity just because we might disagree about something.

And thanks Joozey.

I've yet to find ANY work of literature that doesn't use expressions, metaphors, and the likes. And the Bible definitely isn't an exception. We also lose a LOT in translations, and then have different sects wildly misinterpret the things they read. I don't belong to ANY sect of Christianity. Not Catholic, not Baptist, not Mormon... I'm just a plain old Christian. I read the Bible for myself, and often look at literary research about how things were translated from Hebrew, to get a better idea of what the original authors really meant. It's stunning how different that can be from what we consider the "standard" English Bible. For instance, it's believed by many scholars now that the "Red Sea" God parted during the Exodus is actually a mistranslation of the real name, "Reed Sea". It was actually a large lake full of reeds, not a "sea" as we think of it. Lots of interesting things like that.

I also do not, and will not, attend any church. I gave up on that years ago. Every church I've seen tends to be strongly oriented towards money. They constantly preach about how it is your "God ordained duty" to "tithe/donate" to the church. Total BS. I also don't feel like I need another person or organization between me and God. I don't need another man to interpret the Bible or "God's Will" for me. And virtually every religious sect has teachings and doctrines which are totally counter-biblical, or have nothing to do with the Bible.

"Indeed, but as we keep trying to point out, science is not done yet! We've just started to understand the genes and mechanics within micro-organisms. How can you judge science so fast, while not giving a chance to prove itself? Wouldn't that be only fair? Or are you afraid that we might discover how it all works in the near future? There's no need to deny anything, just adapt the God theory again. Eventually we'll find the answer together."

I'm not "judging science". I actually love science. The thing I have a problem with is theories which are still totally unproven are taken to be absolute fact. Especially evolution in its entirety. Evolution is a few concrete facts that act as the base for total speculation. Yet far too many people deem it "almighty truth", and attempt to belittle people of religious convictions when they too are relying upon faith in their own unproven beliefs. I must give you credit for being reasonable and respectful though.

"Totally rejectable, a plastic digital alarm clock will never spontaneously be created just by loose elements present in the universe. It can not happen in an infinite amount of time UNLESS, unless some higher form creates it."

You've hit the nail on the head! That's the point I meant to convey. But even the simplest of living organisms are infinitely more complex than anything mechanical, electrical, or digital. Our bodies are incomprehensibly more complex than the computers we're communicating with. And that was my point. We have no evidence that any form of life can be created without outside influence of a conscious being. And crazy as it sounds, it is statistically more likely a mechanical object could be created naturally than a single celled organism. Weird, but true.

"You seem to be making no point out of this one. First, frogs do not mutate in a bird, because they are both from a different branch of evolution going way way way back. And yes, mutations CAN BE bad. Albinism isn't a nice thing. Yet it only emphatizes how nature is NOT perfect, thus another evidence how it is NOT created by a perfect God."

I know exactly how the theory of evolution is said to work. I've had to study it before. I was just demonstrating a concept with a rather extreme example, using a little dry humor. However, the idea that "since the world isn't perfect, God doesn't exist" is way off. There would be no point in God creating a "perfect" world or any sort of perfection in nature. What would be the point of existence? A good way to relate it to something else would be games, tv/movies, and books. Would you play a game that had no "struggle" or "plot"? Watch such a movie/show? Or read such a book? Of course not! Virtually every religion is based upon the concept that this world and this life is a test or trial. If anything was meant to be perfect, this world would not exist. We would just be in heaven now, lol. I think life is a wonderful gift, no matter where you think it came from. It's the imperfection and "struggle" in our existence which makes it beautiful. I feel that without knowing the imperfection and troubles of this world, we could never appreciate the absolute perfection of heaven. We would almost be like those spoiled rich kids that annoyed you in grade school, with no appreciation of how fortunate they are.

"A fish can not become a bird, correct. But one, a genome has no property named flexibility. And two, if sufficient proper genes are hit by radiation or miscopied RNA, the animal will transform into a slightly different being. And animals don't live near as long as we do. A salamander lives about 7 years. Let's see, 488 million years ago life has exploded onto land, let's assume an ancestor of our salamander lived back then. So, 14 million generations, let's say one on four has undergone a slight mutation, visible or not. Then, 3.5 million mutations are not enough to make a four legged Cambrian being look like the salamander as we know it now? Then I think you do not realise how fast evolution CAN handle, if forced."

Genomes certainly do have a "flexibility" property. It's all too evident to people who breed animals. For instance, the canis genome is far more flexible than that of a cow or horse. Look at the diversity among canines; wolves, coyotes, foxes, and thousands of breeds of dogs taking radically different sizes, shapes, and properties. With something like a cow, we really only have control over color, a tiny degree of control over their size, and some other extremely minute differences. This is because the canis genome is very "flexible", receptive to changes, while the cow's (don't know scientific name) is not.

And yes, a salamander CAN become a new type of salamander. Given enough time, a tiny lizard could adapt into a gigantic, dinosaur-like reptile, provided it is in some way beneficial to its survival, or we have the time to breed them that way. Some scientists are actually planning experiments through gene manipulation to do just that, in hopes they can learn more about dinosaurs. However, NO amount of time and developmental stages can turn that little lizard into a mammal. It may be possible to make it bird-like, but you can't even produce a real bird from a reptile. We have no evidence that reptiles/dinosaurs "evolved" into birds. Now some people are going to shout, "What about Archaeopteryx!!!". But it was a primitive bird, NOT a 1/2 dino, 1/2 bird creature. The similarities are there, and it MAY be possible (to some extent), but we have no proof. But no matter what, you'll just never get a mammal. Maybe someday we'll discover things that show us the truth, but we currently have no facts to back such theories to this extremity. That's my whole point here.

"Laboratory may have simulated hundreds of years of generations with fruitflies (millions of years don't make sense. A fruitfly lives between 37 and 110 days. So that'd be 27 thousand years of research) but a fruitfly is already quite advanced. A fly has not been evolved much since the dawn of insects. It could very well be that the fly simply can not change anymore."

The actual lifespan is not what's important, but the speed of the reproductive cycle. The "house fly" has an even shorter lifespan, only 10-25days, and is also used commonly in experimentation. Yes, millions of years have been simulated, because we are artificially accelerating the process exponentially. We're keeping them in a confined area and artificially applying the changes we want on a small scale, which could take hundreds to thousands of years naturally. We're also physically manipulating the genes outside of natural reproduction, and even forcing mutations that are impossible naturally. If the current consensus on evolution is correct, ANY organism can change/evolve. There would be no such thing as an organism that "can't change anymore". And we can't forget, such experimentation is carried out on all kinds of creatures. Single celled organisms like bacteria offer an even further increased rate of "evolutionary simulation". Many have a reproductive cycles measured in minutes or hours. But, we can't produce anything radically different; just slight variations from our starting point.

"You keep thinking that dogs evolve into monkeys and fishes, but that's not how evolution works."

I know, it's an example. I know of all the stages that are supposed to be between things like this, but it would be impractical for me to list every one of them and all of the respective branches. Especially considering the fact that most of these "branches" are hypothetical, and no evidence supports the idea that they ever existed.

And well, you can say the universe having a beginning is unproven and this is just a cycle, but even this series of cycles has to have a beginning if anything we know about physics is true. If it doesn't, practically all physics become untrue, and we know nothing.

"Nicely put smile I can settle with that. But why were you fiddling with the "how" in this whole post? Why not just be content that God exists, and that we're here for a reason, but the reason has yet to be found? And let science filter all the truths and lies... because like you said, science explains the "how"."

I'm not fiddling with the how. I'm simply pointing out that we accept many things today as unquestionable scientific truth that indeed are unproven and only hypothetical. Therefore I'm hoping to emphasize the fact that the animosity and even hatred between many atheists and religious people is totally unnecessary, for we are more similar than we might want to believe.

Hi Jaeger,


The essence of religion. Really nice to read this. Also good to read you admit the bad sides of religious organisations and people, like the un-biblical teachings (needless to say I'm sure they serve more good than bad, and surely are you). You have spoken to Phemox about faith in science, while that contradicts to most scientist believings, and this is only fair. To solve both matters, we are talking about the people here applying religion or science. And people misinterpretate. Essentially the concept of science is based on fact from the lower levels leading to speculation to higher levels, bottom-up (we're having a harder time to prove evolution and quantum physics because we can't go bottom-up here, than proving the workings of a star). The concept of religion is based on faith in higher levels arranging the lower levels, top-down. Gotta be a programmer to say it like that :p.

Yes fair enough.


And here I disagree with you. I have said why I think a mechanic object is more complex than a living body. It was build by a thought process of other complex beings. Without those, it wouldn't exist. In my philosophy, that makes the mechanical object more complex. The clock is perhaps not an object that eventually will reach diety status, it's a different kind of complexity. Just look what time definition, a totally made up concept, did to the world. The clock is the interface to the concept of time, and as a whole it's surely more complex than a living body.

I doubt you can reason me thinking otherwise. And I understand why you see mechanical things as less complex. It's exactly the same in programming, an often made mistake is going top-bottom in Object Oriented languages, thinking that the higher components should control the lower ones, but in Object Orientation it's kind of the other way around .

Yeah dry humor is dangerous in these discussions . I kinda misinterpreted your point of view, but the argumentation still applies. The lizard will not turn into a mammal because it's too complex. But look at this animal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opabinia
An animal living 530 millions years back. It has five eyes, a fan shaped tail, a segmented body and a proboscis. This could be the ancestor of the spider, the bird, the armadillo and the elephant. But not the lizard, the lizard goes even further back. The lizard will never morph into a mammal indeed. Its not-so-lizardly ancestor did.

I do not know enough about the experiments to judge. I still don't believe we have simulated millions of years of evolution on a single branch. Yes we can let a billion fruitflies reproduce for a while, but that doesn't make the generation of one branch longer. That just expands the variety you will eventually get. Anyhow, without references I can't take this as truth.


Well, I listed one, though not scientifically proven. Could be a branch leading to five splits even and it's far more likely than a monkey turning into a human . It surely exists, as it's a found fossile (20 fossiles of those creatures have been found in total).


If we know nothing when the universe exists infinitely long, then we do not know if the physics would become untrue. If we know the physics would become untrue, we would know something we ought not to know according to the very physics that would become untrue... (this is getting psychologic now, be afraid of my nomenclature :D).


I understand. And I agree again with you!

Well, thanks again Joozey!

It's truly been nice to speak to you. You definitely command respect, even if we disagree on certain points. Thus goes the epic of humanity. We will never all agree on anything, except maybe the peaceful agreement to disagree.

Always a pleasure to have a reasonable and peaceful discussion/debate with someone else. It would be nice to see everyone do this, but some people just have personalities of conflict, lol.

I'll probably come back time to time, but discussions like these do eat up lot's of work time! Shame on us! Lol!

Take care, and I'll be praying for you, if you don't mind (no Voodoo, I swear it!)! Heheh!

P.S.- Now I want to make a game where you are a young Opabinia, locked in a brutal struggle for survival in the primordial seas! Haha!