Lets be serious:THERE IS NO GOD

Originally posted by mattlock
The proof that God does exist is evident in life itself.All living things no matter how simple they may seem are very comlex.Something as comlex as the human being or even mold cannot just happen let alone sustain itself by mere accident.One miss calculation and life does not exist,there must be a God and his name is Jesus the Christ.Give the bible a read and you will see the truth reveald,its Gods love letter to you and every one.

I agree living things tend to be very complex. You look at that complexity and simply throw your hands up and say 'ooo, it must be proof for god'. I can look at that complexity and say 'I can see how this could have evolved from more simple situations'.

My favorite analogy is with a motor car. The new Honda civic did not spontaneously come into being. Before it there was the old Honda civic. The designers (and there are designers because the Honda civic is a man made thing) took the old civic and changed a few things to make it better. Some did make it better and were kept in the new civic and some did not enhance the car and were dropped.

Before the Honda civic was another car, with a simpler design, and before that something even simpler, until we end up at the model T Ford. No one new car was designed prima facie without any regard to what came before. Each successive generation of car designers learned from the previous ones and made improvements. Cars are designed, yes, but they also evolve. Turbo-chargers and fuel injection systems are merely add-ons to the basic car design, that of a fuel system regulated in some way by the operator, an ignition chamber, some type of mechanism (normally a piston) to transfer that energy though a gearbox and to the wheels.

In the same way, plant cells and animal cells and many bacteria have similar biochemistries. Look at the evidence, more than 99% of organisms use DNA as their genetic material, most of the rest use RNA, a closely related complex. All organisms have proteins with roughly the same C:N ratio. All organisms have similar mechanisms of cellular reproduction, and many of them have the same enzymes such as DNA replicase. We share a huge amount of our genetic material with other organisms, over 99.5% with chimpanzees and over 70% with broccolli. All prokaryotic cells are basically the same, whilst the same is true for the physiology and biochemistry of eukaryotic cells. All mammals have basically the same physiology.

There are many many similarities in all living things, and, like cars if we look carefully we can see that they have common ancestors. Even the DNA hints at this - cladistic analysis can be used on the DNA sequences of different organisms to group them together into groups. And yes, we group with chimps (although also rather closely with bonobo monkeys).

Oh, and the whole 'where the universe any different...' argument doesn't work either. In another million plausible universes we don't exist (and aren't there to point it out). All the fact that do exist proves is that we do exist, a rather circular argument - look up the 'anthropic principle' for more info.

You can try and deny evolution if you like, but i'll take you on in an evidence based debate any day.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I agree living things tend to be very complex. You look at that complexity and simply throw your hands up and say 'ooo, it must be proof for god'. I can look at that complexity and say 'I can see how this could have evolved from more simple situations'.

My favorite analogy is with a motor car. The new Honda civic did not spontaneously come int ...[text shortened]... n try and deny evolution if you like, but i'll take you on in an evidence based debate any day.

I agree living things tend to be very complex. You look at that complexity and simply throw your hands up and say 'ooo, it must be proof for god'. I can look at that complexity and say 'I can see how this could have evolved from more simple situations'.


That is very easy to say, but can you show one example, just one
where that type of level of complexity has been over come, out side
of scientific fairy tales? Every time I have seen someone talk
about how it would be easy to over come that type of complexity,
what they do is pick a very small portion of developmental process,
just a little portion within blood clotting or some other subject, then
they pick out just one little fragment of that process where it is
simply teetering on ending up there anyway and say look it can
happen. That is sort of like a card shark stacking the deck to get out
what it is he wants or needs, and not caring you are watching him do
it right in front of you. Not only that, if you don't buy into that it is
even called science, you must not be educated enough to understand.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]I agree living things tend to be very complex. You look at that complexity and simply throw your hands up and say 'ooo, it must be proof for god'. I can look at that complexity and say 'I can see how this could have evolved from more simple situations'.


That is very easy to say, but can you show one example, just one
where that type of le ...[text shortened]... buy into that it is
even called science, you must not be educated enough to understand.
Kelly[/b]

I'm sorry you're going to have to be a little more clear, I'm afraid I don't get your full meaning.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I'm sorry you're going to have to be a little more clear, I'm afraid I don't get your full meaning.

Flipping a coin is 50/50 correct for heads?
No big deal flipping heads to fall out once, getting odds for just that
event isn't a big deal; however, that isn't the case if you were to
require 80 coin flips to fall out all heads. When we are talking about
blood clotting or eye sight, all that gets discussed it just one small
little section of the process, the single coin flip. When in fact what
we want to know is can it happen, can the string of coins really fallout
in just the right order for blood to clot correctly, for eyes to form and
see, for a brain to develop, for male and female sexes to appear at
just the right time in such a way as to work together to get off spring
that will reproduce too? In total the numbers required are somewhat
on the large side, and faith/belief is all that anyone can offer when
they look at that. Because examples of those types of odds are not
over come daily for one thing like blood clotting to be over come, let
alone everything else that needs to have happened for all the variety
of life to be here now too to show up the way they did as well.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Flipping a coin is 50/50 correct for heads?
No big deal flipping heads to fall out once, getting odds for just that
event isn't a big deal; however, that isn't the case if you were to
require 80 coin flips to fall out all heads. When we are talking about
blood clotting or eye sight, all that gets discussed it just one small
little section of the proc ...[text shortened]... ened for all the variety
of life to be here now too to show up the way they did as well.
Kelly

Okay, thanks for that clarification, I can see your point now.

Yes, I agree the possilibities of getting 80 consecutive coin flips to go one way or the other are very small 2 to the power 79 in fact. 6 time 10 to the power 23. Roughly the number of carbon atoms in 12 grams of carbon. In other words it ain't gonna happen.

So it's a good thing that this is not the way that evolution operates. Evolution takes a preexisting design, such as the eye spot of flatworms, and, 'improves' it if you will (I dislike the word improve, but at the moment can't think of a better one). There is heaps of variation in the genetic material of species, and sometimes an organism will have a mutation that confers some advantage. For example, in the case of flatworms, if one had a mutation that curved the area of eye spot cells then it would improve the resolution of the eye, and also allow the flatworm to 'see' more. If this led to the flatworm being more effective at hiding from predators and more effective at finding food then it is likely that this worm would have increased fecundity, leading to more little deformed flatworms. Each improvement, as soon as it evolves (provided it isn't wiped out immediately, for instance by dying) will spread through the gene pool. Then another million mutations will occur most of them deleterious, but some will have a positive benefit.

In terms of speciation, the most normal reason for this is geographical separation of populations, for instance being separated by a mountain range which they are unable to cross. Each group becomes more and more unique as they adapt to their own envirnoment. As the environment becomes 'full' then selection pressure picks the weakest off first leading to the populations becoming more and more different. Eventually these organisms become so different they are unable to breed to produce viable offspring even if the geographical barrier is no longer there.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
[b]Excuse me but I was not aware that there were english teachers out there.

That is because you are very very new to the site. We aren't teachers, but watch yourself, you will be corrected more often than not.

For the most part I do not use capital letters ON PURPOSE! Please don't judge my meager intellect by my poor use of Eng ...[text shortened]... u, as you are apparently under the impression that there is no evidence in support of evolution.

That is because you are very very new to the site.[/b][/b]

Which is exactly why you should cut the dude some slack.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm betting he got passed the 2nd grade. I could of swore I saw
him the year I was there, or was it the years I was there? 🙂
Kelly

Why thank you, KJ 😵

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Okay, thanks for that clarification, I can see your point now.

Yes, I agree the possilibities of getting 80 consecutive coin flips to go one way or the other are very small 2 to the power 79 in fact. 6 time 10 to the power 23. Roughly the number of carbon atoms in 12 grams of carbon. In other words it ain't gonna happen.

So it's a good thing t ...[text shortened]... unable to breed to produce viable offspring even if the geographical barrier is no longer there.

Like I said, fairy tales of science. Changes that occured over millions
or billions of years, are to me what "Thus says the Lord" is to an
atheist, someone else's faith or beliefs. Stating it only means you
have something you believe in, not something you have witnessed
or recorded. I'm sure though you could pick out some small portion
of something that has great odds against occuring and give me
an example of how it may have occured, or better said, how some
small part of it occured.
Kelly

Originally posted by Halitose
Why thank you, KJ 😵

You know me, always aiming to please. 🙂
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Like I said, fairy tales of science. Changes that occured over millions
or billions of years, are to me what "Thus says the Lord" is to an
atheist, someone else's faith or beliefs. Stating it only means you
have something you believe in, not something you have witnessed
or recorded. I'm sure though you could pick out some small portion
of something ...[text shortened]... n example of how it may have occured, or better said, how some
small part of it occured.
Kelly

Well, for example, most people complain about the lack of missing links, however two spring to mind. Archaeopteryx, with characteristics of both birds and dinosaurs, and the Coelacanths - fish with proto-legs. Look them up.

The thing that differentiates science from belief is that we use physical evidence to make our predictions, such as the use of radioactive decay in dating things, the fossil record etc.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Well, for example, most people complain about the lack of missing links, however two spring to mind. Archaeopteryx, with characteristics of both birds and dinosaurs, and the Coelacanths - fish with proto-legs. Look them up.

The thing that differentiates science from belief is that we use physical evidence to make our predictions, such as the use of radioactive decay in dating things, the fossil record etc.

A Coelacanth was caught off the shores of South Africa in the 60's.

Originally posted by Halitose
A Coelacanth was caught off the shores of South Africa in the 60's.

Indeed.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Ah yes, the big three are the only religions.
Wow, must mean all those Shamen, Bush people (abs not GW)
and those Pseudo-religious ones are destined for hell.
There must be some REASON for god wanting to give all those
souls to the devil. Hmm, lets see, what could that be.
Could it be because you are spouting BULLSHITE? Nah, has to be
another answer right?

I don't yet see a reason for the hostility. Perhaps you could explain to me which religions you have studied thus far, and we can then cmopare notes and have an intellectual discussion about the topic in a civilised manner.

If you make a valid case for what you consider a religion, and what you consider to be a religion worthy of following, I would take some time to look at it as well.

I would like to point out that you've already made the assumption that God has direct controll over the will of human beings, and that it would be used to counter the very reason for the aforemention "religions". I would some "reason" for that assumption as well.

If it helps, all religions will be noted as "religions". At the very least, the skeptics will be motivated to stay in this conversation.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
Funny how everything you consider a proper religion worships the same God...

I could make a case against that. But, as I said, I made the division according the the formation/revelation of the religion, not who or what is worshipped.

Please find fault where fault lies.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
How about you guys just provide some evidence in favor of your beliefs. A proof is nice and final, but even a shred of evidence would help you a lot. There is evidence for evolution up the wazoo, maybe you should worry about evidence before proofs.

I didn't state my position on the matter. Rather, I availed myself as a mediator and chose to remain as one who can be consulted for matters regarding the aforementioned faiths.

Once again, someone on this site assumes I have said something I have not. It does get tiresome. 🙁

In retrospect, if I had known this discussion would soon be hijacked by evolutionists, and I should have, I might have added that to my list as well.

Too late for that I suppose...