why i don't believe in god

[lady_dw]

quote:Originally posted by IzzyReele:

umm, incorrect. first though, you have to remember religion was science at the time.

I know. My point was that just because science cannot explain a few things now, doesn't mean the explanation is supernatural. It just means we don't know yet.

quote:Originally posted by IzzyReele:

remember galilleo was imprisoned for showing the earth not the center of the universe.

Good point.

quote:Originally posted by IzzyReele:

and it was old sailor logic that you seen the mast of a ship before the hull of that same ship on the horizon, proving a curvature to the world.

Then why didn't they believe it?

quote:Originally posted by IzzyReele:

and there are still people the day that think the world flat.

http://www.flat-earth.org/.

but you can't really blame religion for it.

Yeah, I have heard of this before. It would be sad if it wasn't so funny.

quote:Originally posted by IzzyReele:

science is the exact same way.

How so?

quote:Originally posted by IzzyReele:

the big bang theory needs the actual recreation of the event to be proven, despite ALL OF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING it. including the background microwave radiation which is exactly as it should be if the big bang occurred, no other theory can account for it, yet people still do not believe it.

why? - it gives creationists a point.

At least that is more proof than religion has provided, the cop out: "If you question the existence of god he will never show himself to you and he will smite you."

quote:Originally posted by IzzyReele:

evolution from a single celled organism to man is so incomplete, it can only be a theory,

Again we hear the "evolution is just a theory" argument. I don't want to take the time to explain it myself again so here is a clip from an article: When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

quote:Originally posted by IzzyReele:

the ONLY thing supporting it is variation withing species, there is no evidence of one species giving birth to another. when trying to explain these they do the EXACT SAME THING RELIGION DOES, the mutations happen gradually over time, or once in while evolution makes a giant leap. with no verifiable evidence. there was a study done once where a scientist tried to "force evolution" on fruit flies, and through 70 generations all mutations returned back to the original fruitfly, some of the mutations would stick at the most 4 or 5 generations.

if evolution needed the same criteria as the big bang to be taken seriously it would be listed in schoolbooks the same as the big bang was when i was in high school, a two paragraph theory.

instead it takes up a whole year called biology, the first 27 weeks tells you how all this came from that, the last 9 weeks telling you all life has something called dna to keep the offspring resembling the parent and to prevent cross-species fertilization.

and anyone on a farm can tell you, mutations are frequent, quickly lost, and the most extreme don't live long enough to have offspring.

Like I said, just because science cannot explain a few things yet, doesn't mean that some all powerful invisible force is at work... How did the Big bang theory get involved in this conversation?

quote:Originally posted by IzzyReele:

why is evolution so supported? same reason the big bang was ridiculed, it defeats creationists.

No, it is supported because it is the only theory of our existence that at least has some proof.

quote:Originally posted by IzzyReele:

i'm not a creationist, i do believe in evolution; however, not in it's current form.

the problem is the same as religion though, to question it is ridiculed, and excuses take the place of facts to satisfy our belief of reality.

Good Point.

[Dark_Magneto]

]

quote:Originally posted by IzzyReele:

but you can't really blame religion for it

Scripture does support the idea of the Earth being a flat disc and established on an immoveable set of pillars.

quote:

the big bang theory needs the actual recreation of the event to be proven, despite ALL OF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING it. including the background microwave radiation which is exactly as it should be if the big bang occurred, no other theory can account for it, yet people still do not believe it.

It's more than enough evidence to convict. It's like finding a woman's husband dead fron a knife in the back with her bloody fingerprints on it, her leaving town the same day and taking all money out of their account, him having her skin under his fingernails when he scratched her as he was going down, her having the scratch mark with his fingernail residue in it, her having his blood on her hands and a powerful motive to kill him.

Now, of course you could come up with an alternate scenario like "ghosts set her up and convienently planted/created all the evidence", but when you're faced with scenarios like that, the simplest explanation that fits the evidence is most likely the correct one.

quote:

evolution from a single celled organism to man is so incomplete, it can only be a theory, the ONLY thing supporting it is variation withing species, there is no evidence of one species giving birth to another.

Macroevolution has been observed. Hell, we can do it today by cross pollinating the 2 types of plant that create corn.

quote:

when trying to explain these they do the EXACT SAME THING RELIGION DOES, the mutations happen gradually over time, or once in while evolution makes a giant leap. with no verifiable evidence. there was a study done once where a scientist tried to "force evolution" on fruit flies, and through 70 generations all mutations returned back to the original fruitfly, some of the mutations would stick at the most 4 or 5 generations.

the study showed that for evolution to succeed not one member of the parent species could have survived beyond 2 generations into the mutation.

here are some more http://www.godandscience.org/evoluti...ml#pseudogenes

You would do well to use a secular source for your information and not one that is fundamentally biased against evolution. 99% of all arguments I see that come from these creationist sites are errors generated by their misunderstanding/bastardizing evolutionary evidences.

quote:

if evolution needed the same criteria as the big bang to be taken seriously it would be listed in schoolbooks the same as the big bang was when i was in high school, a two paragraph theory.

instead it takes up a whole year called biology, the first 27 weeks tells you how all this came from that, the last 9 weeks telling you all life has something called dna to keep the offspring resembling the parent and to prevent cross-species fertilization.

and anyone on a farm can tell you, mutations are frequent, quickly lost, and the most extreme don't live long enough to have offspring.

why is evolution so supported? same reason the big bang was ridiculed, it defeats creationists.

No. Evolution is supported because it is holding all the cards and has all the evidence. Just look at the 29 evidences for macroevolution. Bear close inspection to Endogenous Retroviruses. Genetic fingerprints that exist in related species. The chances of 2 ERV's being the same are less than the chances of 2 people being born with identical fingerprints. I.e. so improbable that the facts must be accepted.

quote:

i'm not a creationist, i do believe in evolution; however, not in it's current form.

the problem is the same as religion though, to question it is ridiculed, and excuses take the place of facts to satisfy our belief of reality.

You must be reading some bogus shit on the evolutionary sciences then. Facts take precedence over speculation in the scientific community. In the creationist community, it's quite the opposite. Belief takes precedence over facts. That's why you'll see many creationist sites have a "statement of faith" that asserts that no evidence can be valid if it contradicts their beliefs. In otherwords, if reality conflicts with their preconcieved notions, it is reality that is at fault.