Free will?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Medjai
  • Start date Start date
The human heart, lol. I don't think I need to go into Anatomy...

Why I assert my non-belief
In asking why we assert a non-belief, you leave room for the questioning of why theists feel the need to share their own views, making web sites attempting to debunk evolution. After all, if they don't acknowledge evolution, they are doing the very thing you describe.

Further, we are not trying to prove non-existence of God. We argue that the universe was made logically and naturally without the influence of supernatural forces. This is our POSITIVE view, in that we think this to be true.

In fact you are being hypocritical, in proving God, you would disprove the concept of no-God. We are not aiming to disprove God but instead to prove that everything happened naturally. This in turn of course proves that there is no need for a God, but that is just hitting two birds with one stone.

I hope this answers any questions as to why I would be so inclined to discuss something I do not believe in.
 
I will never completely understand God, does that mean I should not follow him? That's where faith comes in. Although I have physically never seen him, I have felt his presense, I have seen answered prayer and I have seen people's lives change! People have died for him, happily! (I know other religions have extremeists too but let's not got there)

The point is no matter what, I CHOOSE to follow him. No one can take that away from me. I have my faith and it has never let me down. Does that mean that I never have hard times? No! In fact God doesn't always give me what I want, he often surpasses it!

Historical findings strengthen my faith. Our delicate nature and it's balance affirm my belief in intelligent design.

If you want to believe that we evolved from nothing, that's great. I have bigger plans and death does not bother me. I believe in an after life, if you want a dirt nap, lights out suit yourself.

You can't deny my personal experiences and you can't deny me my faith either. I'm not going to tell you what to and not to believe in.

Science has tried a lot to prove the theory of eveolution. Even falsifying some fossils. My faith does not need tangible evidence. But there is still a lot scientists can't explain. (why do atoms hold together??) There will be things in our lives that we can't explain, does that mean it does not exist?
 
Yet science never claims absolutes. It merely brings us closer to them. Religion claims absolutes without evidence.

Evolution is a fact, it has been shown to be true.

Evolution: The change of allele frequencies in a population over time.

That is what evolution is.

It is not a horse giving birth to a fish, this would be absurd.

If your faith requires no evidence, all faiths are true. You can not claim that you know the 'only' way to God without evidence, this is an absurd notion. Your personal experiences happen to others throughout the world, to people of all religions and even those without faith. You simply apply causation to that of something you already believe in because you can find no other means of understanding the experience.

I have seen people's lives change as well, mine changed (for the better) when I became an Atheist.

Many think that without God there is no moral foundation. This couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, religion allows for people to make excuses for commiting atrocities. Thus morals can be used and trashed as deemed convenient. Atheists must account for their own actions, when they amount to nothing and are not doing well in life, they can't fall into the safety net of "Its God's will". Instead they must take responsibility for their life, when they do well, they can attribute their success to themselves which is very fulfilling.
 
If Evolution is a fact then why is it still a theory? It still has a lot of holes and needs just as much faith as creationism IMO.

Seriously, we're still searching for the missing links right? Where are all the in-between species? And why are all the lesser species still around?

How can a wood pecker evolve so that it didn't crack it's skull pounding it's head into a tree trunk (doesn't sound like good trial and error to me)

I will grant you this, I do believe in adaptation and microevolution but I don't think I came from a monkey or pond scum.
 
Micro evolution is evolution. Now, imagine something getting slight changes over millions years, eventually the species will have distinct differences.

2 + 2 = 4

This is a theory.

Gravity's existence is a theory.

You are confusing theory with guess. A scientific theory is testable, and has been tested, over and over again, with no opposing results.

Creation is not a theory, it is a notion.

Missing links? I think you need to read up a little. Evolution is NOT disputed in the scientific community. The only thing that IS disputed in REGARDS to evolution is that of what started evolution.

Evolution is not the answer to life, it is merely how life changed to its present forms.

Mutations exist, sometimes mutations are beneficial thus allowing the mutated animal to thrive in comparison to its peers. It is a successfull breeder, and passes on its mutated genes, this goes on, and this is an example of evolution. Natural selection is the tool that evolution utilizes towards its function.
 
True. EVolution is not disputed in the scientific community.
By the way, you guys do know that the world is flat, right? I keep hearing a lot of people say it's a sphere. Oh yeah, and this one nut in astronomical sciences says that we're in a heliocentric orbit...what the freak is up with that? Everyone knows we're in a geocentric orbit. The universe revolves around us.

What dorks we have in this world. I mean, who can dispute that the sun is brought up by a pack of flaming horses, and that once, this guy tried to raise the sun, but it screwed up, and he got struck dead by some deity for messing it up? I keep hearing all this stuff about myths and whatnot. Losers.

(Cough.)

Mutations are microscopically beneficial. Well over 99% of the time are they harmful. And if that's the case, then we should be seeing, over the millions of years, a larger variety of better mutations, as it is, our bad genes should have been weeded out by now. And not by genetic engineers either (because that's planned).

EVolution is a theory. A scientific one. An unbased one, nonetheless.

I really love to use this example. Everyone's heard about Alexander Oparin and Harold Urey and Stanley Miller, right?

Great. Ignorance everywhere. Tsk. Oparin said in 1924 that complex compositions evolved from basic, simpler forms. In 1928, Haldane theorized that UV light on the earth's supposed primitive atmosphere caused sugars and amino acids to form up heavily in oceans, where life emerged from.

Urey says that the atmosphere would have been good for organic compounds to have come from.

Miller tested what Urey said. He made a prototype Earth's primitive atmosphere. Amino acids were produced in this atmosphere. Evolutionists were exultant. Creationists cursed the luck.

But...there was a ray of hope. Miller's experiment had a serious flaw (betcha never heard this in school). Miller had generated an environment of ammonia, methane and hydrogen. This theory was not randomly selected...it was based on what we can easily learn from physical chemistry. Why not pure sodium and hydrogen and oxygen? Why, because that would be a big boom. Immediately. ANd we NEVER see pure sodium on our atmosphere...but I still ask, why not pick those?
They didn't because they knew they wouldn't work. Thse guys weren't dorks. They knew inert gases like N and CO2 don't react (meaning, no life can be produced).

Since 1980, NASA has shown us that ancient earth never had such chemicals as ammonia, methane and hydrogen, for much. H20, C02, and N were the big proponents in the atmosphere of Earth back in the day. Not so good for spontaneously generating life.
Also what also helps to negate such experiments is that Miller used his mental capacities to generate such an environment, something we've never seen, and also used his mind to coordinate chemicals he knew would be good for supporting life.

Kinda scratches the Miller experiment and totally proving evolution right?

And transitional forms...to date, they have none for nothing. Every single form they have found has been disproved in one fashion or another. From Peking Man to Nebraska Man to Lucy. HIlarious examples, all, because of their childish enthusiasm over proving evolution, only to have it crushed in their face, but going right back out to prove it again, and the pattern repeats.

Give me a transitional form from the early-to-mid-1900s, Medjai, that has stood up against scrutiny, and I will give you props. I don't expect you to be able to.

Evolution is a scientific theory, still, because no one wants to let it go. So it won't be let go. Not until someone slaps them in the face with irrevocable evidence that evolution is bunk.

And no, Medjai, we will never know God for certain. Not until the end.
 
I don't know how this turned into a discussion on evolution, but it's interesting how this thread has evolved, nonetheless.

I'm more into philosophy than science, so I'm going to let Medjai handle most of that, but I've just go to say...

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]True. EVolution is not disputed in the scientific community.
By the way, you guys do know that the world is flat, right? I keep hearing a lot of people say it's a sphere. Oh yeah, and this one nut in astronomical sciences says that we're in a heliocentric orbit...what the freak is up with that? Everyone knows we're in a geocentric orbit. The universe revolves around us.

What dorks we have in this world. I mean, who can dispute that the sun is brought up by a pack of flaming horses, and that once, this guy tried to raise the sun, but it screwed up, and he got struck dead by some deity for messing it up? I keep hearing all this stuff about myths and whatnot. Losers.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right. Crazy, isn't it? Especially that thing about the sun - that's so obviously a myth, so obviously made for great story telling, full of symbolism and what not. WE know what REALLY happened..After the world was made in SEVEN DAYS, ADAM and EVE were fooled by a TALKING SERPENT into eating from the TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL...I mean, that right there is pure, literal truth...
 
Oh man, I would recommend editing that right away. Seriously. That was poorly phrased to start up a debate. You need to rethink that out. Again, those are Christian/Judaic beliefs. In fact, several believe there were pre-Adamites..but if Christians think about that, they can find that is totally false and rejectable because that would destroy the whole thing of Original Sin, and the need for a Redeemer, and thus the validity of the Word, and thus Christianity in general.

Those were the first two, true. We believe that, and I'm pretty certain that given nine hundred years of bebe-makin' one could have multipe children, who could then do the same to each other (as it stands, genetic purity is extremely high here but as in-breeding goes on, genetic traits begin to corrupt...and as we all know, in-breeding SUCKS the gene pool up BAD).

But Timor, really. If you're going to argue with Medjai on that point, he will laugh at your face. You need to brush it up. Arguing Adam and Eve against evolution won't stand up so well...
 
Ultima, what are you talking about? I'm on Medjai's side, and I'm ridiculing your attempt to compare evolution to Greek mythology.

BTW, you're absolutely right, Ultima. Adam and Eve v. Evolution, evolution is the clear winner. Saw it on PPV. Really.
 
Ultima, if it wasn't for science, the world would still be seen as flat. Who needs science right? It just led to Antibiotics, vaccines, and modern medicine, that's all, no biggy right?

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">What dorks we have in this world. I mean, who can dispute that the sun is brought up by a pack of flaming horses, and that once, this guy tried to raise the sun, but it screwed up, and he got struck dead by some deity for messing it up? I keep hearing all this stuff about myths and whatnot. Losers.[/QUOTE]

Who can dispute that some guy way back when actually died and rose from the dead! Who can dispute that donkeys and snakes can talk. Or that snakes eat dirt? How about the obvious fact that the earth has corners? I mean, only an idiot could find reason not to believe such obvious things...

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">Mutations are microscopically beneficial. Well over 99% of the time are they harmful. And if that's the case, then we should be seeing, over the millions of years, a larger variety of better mutations, as it is, our bad genes should have been weeded out by now. And not by genetic engineers either (because that's planned).[/QUOTE]

Agreed, but sometimes they ARE beneficial. By the way, mutations are not microscopic.

I think we should conduct an experiment. Count how many ribs a male has, than count those of a female. I ask you, does the male not have the same amount as the female?

Now, considering the technology that mankind possesses, one can ascertain the unlikelihood of natural selection having much effect on us. The naturally 'weak' don't die out so much any more.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">EVolution is a theory. A scientific one. An unbased one, nonetheless.[/QUOTE]

Unbased? Oh, you mean other than the proven methodologies surrounding it right? You mean other than its observability in bacteria? Oh, yes, of course, if you mean something is unbased despite observed evidence than yes, its unbased. lol.

As for you 'example'. I never claimed the validity of their experimentation, thus you have no grounds to show this.

Not that your example holds ground as that expirement merely showed conclusively that non living chemicals can produce the compounds necessary for life. Which it did successfully.
smile.gif


<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">Since 1980, NASA has shown us that ancient earth never had such chemicals as ammonia, methane and hydrogen, for much. H20, C02, and N were the big proponents in the atmosphere of Earth back in the day.[/QUOTE]

Is this just your rambling or can you actually back this statement up?

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">Give me a transitional form from the early-to-mid-1900s, Medjai, that has stood up against scrutiny, and I will give you props. I don't expect you to be able to.[/QUOTE]

Why not a modern example? Oh...

No, just because a creationist 'thinks' he has successfully shown fossils like 'Lucy' to have been beaten down in scrutiny, doesn't mean it actually was. I would love to see your documentation on this.

I will dig up some examples for you if you need, not right now though, I like to do things on my own time.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">Evolution is a scientific theory, still, because no one wants to let it go. So it won't be let go. Not until someone slaps them in the face with irrevocable evidence that evolution is bunk.[/QUOTE]

Actually it is still a theory because it happened, and we know it happened. Not only this, but it is happening as we converse. Scientists do not disregard things that negate theories, in fact they SEARCH FOR THEM.
 
 
just because i do not understand something doenst mean i can not believe in it, like i have said before i love Chemistry and Physics, i dont fully understand the principles involved in them yet, but in believe in them and trust them, because they end up turning out right, now apply that to faith and it works, because i do not understand Him completely doesnt mean i do not understand the steps that he tells me to do in his intrustion book( BIBLE) and i can follow that and get the end result, which in time will lead to more answer, as it does in Physics and Chem.( fo rme at atleast)

Oh yeah evoltuion

and survive of the fitess usually go together, but if that is true

then why is there still monkeys, apes, and allege on theplanet?
 
Lion, they are still around because we didn't come from them. You need to read up on evolution (not the creationist version of what it is, the real version).

I don't want to explain this, I am tired, I can tell you that if you look at all the links I provide the very question you asked is answered in detail.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (LionOfJudah @ Sep. 15 2003,1:40)]just because i do not understand something doenst mean i can not believe in it, like i have said before i love Chemistry and Physics, i dont fully understand the principles involved in them yet, but in believe in them and trust them, because they end up turning out right, now apply that to faith and it works, because i do not understand Him completely doesnt mean i do not understand the steps that he tells me to do in his intrustion book( BIBLE) and i can follow that and get the end result, which in time will lead to more answer, as it does in Physics and Chem.( fo rme at atleast)

Oh yeah evoltuion

and survive of the fitess usually go together, but if that is true

then why is there still monkeys, apes, and allege on theplanet?
Click to expand...
However, this is different, because you're saying you don't understand Physics and Chemistry (there are those who do), while saying that it's impossible to understand God.

And asking that question about why monkeys and apes are still around shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of evolution. As Medjai suggested, I'll let you go read up about it (a good place to start is http://www.talkorigins.org/). I'll start you off with a hint, however: man did not evolve from monkeys. *gasp* That's right. Common ancestors, perhaps, but not a linear evolution. And also, just because a new species, with new mutations, is more capable of surviving, does not mean the other is doomed to extinction.... Anyways, that's enough, I'll let you go read.
 
How did free will degrade into evolution??

Oh well.

How do you explain interesting facts such as at the rate the oceans are losing salt, they would have been to salty to allow for life a billion years ago? How about the fact that the planets are slowly getting closer to the sun (see the recent information on Mars, and it's closet points to Earth over the past few hundred years). It's a noticeable brightness difference (around 1000-10000 miles) over 500 years. How about the fact that the earth's rotation is slowing down. and backtracking over a few billion years, the speed would be such that the atmosphere would have flung off. And of course my personal favorite, How could life have formed, when the environement necessary for that formation, would be inimical to that life??

How can we date fossils, when we date them by the level of rock they're found in, but we date the rock level, by which fossils are found in it. Why does Carbon dating give such unreliable numbers when it's dating on historically provable items? (a young earth/old earth question here) How can we say 'Light beam X is so old' when the speed of light is not constant? How come it only takes a few hundred years to fossillize items (we have fossilized artifacts from the mid nineteenth century) How did we find a t-rex bone, with t-rex blood still on it? Why is the 'proof' of evolution always either those fruit flies or those spotted moths. both of which had the corresponding 'evolved' form already present within it.

How come we haven't noticed evolution in insect life? I mean we have a fly who's generation is less than a day. Yet over a hundred years of studying them, they're still the same fly (so give that generationa full day that's 365x100 or 365000 generations. Now comparing that to a human generation of 30 years that's the human time equilavent of 10,950,000. Nearly 11 million years. Surely there should have been SOME evolution in that time frame?



No, all evolution is, is a mere attempt to throw out God, to allow humanist and atheist beliefs to run rampant. And we just need to look at Communist China to see how wonderful humanist and atheist beliefs run rampant are.


Also If I placed about a dozen or so creationist links and said 'Don't reply until you've read them' Would you not call me a crackpot?
 
Whoah, Timor. I am astounded at your turnaround. You were a hardcore Bible believer.

Can I just ask you a few questions?
When you did believe in God, did you feel that He was speaking to you in your life, or acting in your life in some manner? If so, what are your thoughts on that now that you are an agnostic-atheist? What were your reasons for believing in God in the past?
 
Actually I would read them.

Most of the things you addressed are answered in the links I provided.

Additionally, evolution is not designed to throw out God. It is accepted by the vast majority of the Christian populace, than again, you probably wouldn't consider them to be Christians because their views differ from yours...

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]And we just need to look at Communist China to see how wonderful humanist and atheist beliefs run rampant are.
Click to expand...

Honestly, you shouldn't get into this area. Organized religion has caused far worse things than that of China. Don't even get me started.

Oceans losing salt... I have never even heard of this, do share some sources so I can look into it.

From your asking me such questions, you are only creating a 'God of the gaps' argument Kidan. You know as well as I do that just because we don't understand something as of yet doesn't mean it won't be understood at a later time with NATURAL explanation.

The difference is simple, you believe in magic, I don't.
 
Ok, on the concept of organized religion.

First off, let's make a simple statement.  Any organization can be used for good or ill.  That said, how bad has organized religion really been?  Can it compare with Hitler's millions or China's millions?  Maybe if you combine them all, including Islam, organized religion might have slaughtered as many over their course of existentce as my two examples have done in this century alone.  But truthfully that's neither here nor there.  The important issue to grasp is that atheists and humanists have NO moral bearing.  They have no true concept of what is right and what is wrong, since everything is relative to how they feel at a given time.  I can look at something, and say 'This is something I should not do as a Christian.'  An atheist, can look at the same thing, and say 'oh this is something I really shouldn't do as a decent human being, but noone's watching...'   The  entire debate rolls down to basically the simple question of 'Is truth Relative?'


Salty Seas link

As for the concept of evolution not being designed to throw out God, check these two articles
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c013.html and http://www.answersingenesis.org/home....ion.asp


A god of the gaps?  No,  rather I'm pointing out things that cause gaps in the theory.  And while something may be  understood later, does not mean the belief we hold now is accurate.  A prime example is the flat earth (which contrary to popular opinion, the Bible indicates the earth IS round, it was the catholic church that espoused the flat earth theorem).

Yes I do believe in magic, it's recorded in the Bible, but that's not my view on the creation/evolution stance.  I believe in an intelligent designer.  The concept of chance is just to preposterous, plus lacking any true, reproducible evidence, that I cannot hold to it.
 
GrandMaster, I'll PM you regarding your questions =D

Regarding morality, Kidan, worse things have been done in the name of religion, more people killed, more heinous crimes, than for any cause. In such cases, religion gives an excuse for immorality. Furthermore, why do you think that atheists have no moral bearing? Can you even back that up? I'm sure statistically, atheists commit less crimes than those who profess theism. Furthermore, with some critical thinking it becomes apparent that morality precedes religion. Observe.

An atheist does not hold any belief in any deity. Where, then, did these deities that so many people believe in, come from? Christianity, for example, is a very exclusive religion, condemning all other religions as false, correct? Therefore, all of the other deities worshipped must also be false. So basically, what we've established is that not all deities that are worshipped actually exist. These deities must therefore have been fabricated by a human mind. Yet almost all religions have some basis of a moral and ethical code, many of them quite admirable and instructing of good conduct. These morals, then, were concieved by a human mind! Religion came before morals, and as a way to "absolutize" moral values with the voice of a supreme deity. It is obvious, then, that humans are quite capable of creating good ethics and morals.

It is not hard to form these ethics, either. It is very easy to see the problems with allowing everyone to go around killing each other. Stealing also cannot be tolerated. Heck, even little kids, with no ethical instruction, are very visibly seen to feel wronged when another child comes and takes their toy from their hands. Perhaps the other kid does not feel that he has committed a wrong, but were the roles reversed, he'd surely feel as violated as the other kid. Therefore, it's very easy to establish such a code as "Treat others as you'd like to be treated." Such ethics are almost instinctive. Furthermore, immoral conduct does not equal lack of morals. Surely you Christians, with such rigid ethical ideas, know that you sin - that's the whole basis of your religion. Sin may even be described as amorality committed against God, if you wanted to take it that far. So obviously, even a religious person, with religious ideals to follow, sometimes breaches these morals, regardless of whether or not they say "I, as a Christian, should not be doint this." (In fact, I suspect it's often "I should not HAVE done this", a recognition after the fact.

I could go on like this forever, but I think it's pretty plain that such a statement regarding atheistic morality can only be made in haste and passive ignorance.
 
The sea is not losing salt at such a rate to which it would ultimately become saltless over time.

Water that falls on land dissolves salt in the soil. This process is called rock weathering. Rock weathering provides salt that eventually, through rivers and groundwater, drains into the ocean. In the meantime, the water cycle continues as water evaporates from the surface of the ocean, condenses and precipitates as rain. Seawater salts essentially do not evaporate despite the ocean losing pure fresh water through the process of evaporation. It seems that the oceans should be getting saltier over time, however, the salinity of seawater has remained constant at about 3.5 percent (35 g of salt dissolved in 965 g of fresh water). Why? There are chemical, biological and tectonic processes that act to remove salts from seawater in amounts that keep the ocean salt content from varying.

As to evolution being atheistic... A Catholic clergy man developed the theory, Catholics are in no way Atheists. In fact, they are the earliest Christians.

Timor has addressed your morality argument.

Now, we must go onto that of the harm to which organized religion has caused.

Hitler used Christianity (whether or not he was Christian is debatable) as a tool to brainwash the masses into hating the Jews. If you'll notice, he wasn't throwing them into the furnaces, his men were.

The crusades caused millions of deaths and terrorized the lands. September 11 was caused do to religious dispute. All mass suicides are religious in nature. I could go on...

The difference between Stalin and religious murder is that Stalin didn't kill in the name of Atheism, whereas those who were religious did kill in the name of their religion.

I will answer in more detail on any of these areas if you need me to.
smile.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top