U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-04-2009, 03:05 PM
 
Location: Brussels, Belgium
971 posts, read 1,503,992 times
Reputation: 235

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by elwill
i can understand from your entire view that you think that these conditions ( as gravity or temperature..., etc ) are suitable for just the life we knows , which means that other conditions may made the life possible but with different life or different systems than we know , correct me if i misunderstood you
Partly correct. I also point out that there's a huge number of planets in our universe. So even if it's unlikely that any given planet will be at the correct distance from a star etc., statistics tell us that a few planets most likely will. (This is known as the Anthropic argument, by the way.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by elwill
i'm really seek to know , what makes you athiests convinced that universe be made by chance . is there any scientific reasons ?
I think you're lumping several different subjects here.

1. The Big Bang Theory, which explains things about the origin of the universe. That's what determined the rate of expansion of the universe, and various physical forces that are vitally importance for the existence of complex molecules (as we know them).
Unfortunately, that theory is very complicated. Wikipedia provides an overview of the evidence supporting this theory, but I think you need years of study to truly understand it...
So I rely on the fact that scientists understand it and agree with it.

2. Abiogenesis, which explains how life appeared from non-living matter. At this point, the exact process is unknown, though there are various hypothesis. But much research is made in that domain, so I expect the answer to be discovered in my lifetime.

3. The Theory of Evolution, which explains how living organisms change (over the course of millions of generations) and gradually become more adapted to their environment, and often more complex. That one is indeed heavily supported by evidence. Actually, the idea that species change over time is now considered a fact (see this article). The scientific community overwhelmingly supports it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elwill
why we can't see more creatures beside us created by chance in front of our eyes ( it's just seems to me that according to you chances are very easy to be happen with creations )
If you're talking of abiogenesis, that would be because we don't know yet where to look for. We do not know whether life started near an underwater volcano or on crystallising minerals.

All current hypothesis also assume that it's a rare event (though remember, it only needs to happen once ), so it's not like we can point a microscope at random and expect to see new life turning up. If the event is so rare than it only happens once every thousand billion years or so, we may not even be able to witness it happening naturally. It's even possible that it could only happen in specific atmospheric conditions that are now impossible (the earth changed a lot since its formation).


If you're speaking of evolution, then we do see it happen in front of our eyes. See this thread for example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elwill
if the nature succeeded to creates us and animals and fishes and insects .... etc by chance , and succeeded to create the plants to produce oxygen for us by chance , and it was by chance either that creatures produce CO2 for plant to live and then it found the sun which help her to grow , so every thing around us are created by chance , yet we can't proof it or witness new chances !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're making a couple of mistakes here.

- "Chance" is only part of how evolution work. When we say fishes evolved, we don't mean that they suddenly appeared out of thin air (that would be creationists ). Only the original living organism, if it can be called "living" (it was probably barely more than a self-replicating molecule), happened "by chance", as far as we know.

- Plants didn't start exploiting CO2 and sunlight "by chance". They did because it was an efficient way of producing energy. And air-breathing animals only started to evolve when there was enough oxygen-producing plants to make breathing a good strategy. The reason we have a balanced ecosystem today is that for millions of years plants and animals adapted better and better to their environment - and slowly transformed it as well.

Evolution of species to adapt better to their environment is well-documented. Once again, see rifleman's thread for example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elwill
do you think that believers believe in God's existence blindness , or do they have at least convinced reasons (even if you don't agree with ) ?
They do have reasons - not every creationist is a lying hypocrite, of course. They just aren't good reasons.

What they see is the appearance of design. There are incredibly complex organisms that are perfectly adapted to their environment, which looks so wonderful. For centuries, it was considered proof enough that a god existed.

This is in fact a God of the gaps argument. Because they didn't understand how it could happen naturally, they assumed a supernatural entity. Of course it's a fallacy. Snowflakes also look designed. Today, we know they are merely the product of physical laws - and we also know where animals come from.

Before Darwin, creationism (in one form or another) was a common belief, and I guess they had a sort of excuse - they didn't know any better. Today? It shouldn't exist any more. I blame the education system, and close-minded theists who see evolution as a threat for some reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich
Yes, I understand the idea of probability.


My point is that I believe some people have replaced the idea of an omnipotent God with the idea of omnipotent chance...meaning that it's unbelievable that a God exists...but they are willing to believe that it just happened by chance.
To what, specifically, are you referring to? With all these confusions between evolution, abiogenesis and the Big Bang, I'm not sure. As you most certainly know, evolution is only partly about chance and that part is well-documented (the random mutations).

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmarie123
If you blow up a brick house, are the bricks going to fall down from the explosion and make an even better house? NO! Yet that's what the big bang theory says happened to the universe.
You may be thinking of thermodynamics and entropy. While what you describe is true in a closed system, it is not so in an open system. If the house explode but then a bunch of people come and put the bricks back together, the house can be rebuilt - at the cost of these men's energy.
For evolution, this is the job of the sun. The sun sends tons of energy our way, making life (and evolution) possible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-04-2009, 03:34 PM
 
1,788 posts, read 4,154,767 times
Reputation: 1232
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTO Luv View Post
Ok so let's god did create the world and it's only 5,000-6,000 years old like the christians think. Then how are we able to carbon date things back MUCH further than 6,000 years? That is a big whole in the creation nonsense. Creationism is masquerading as science. Yes science is based on theories and creationism is a theory (as well as evolution, a big bang, etc...) but it does not have credible proof behind it.
There are much better dating processes now than carbon dating. Also, creationism is not a theory.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2009, 03:37 PM
 
4,669 posts, read 3,910,914 times
Reputation: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roxolan View Post
To what, specifically, are you referring to? With all these confusions between evolution, abiogenesis and the Big Bang, I'm not sure. As you most certainly know, evolution is only partly about chance and that part is well-documented (the random mutations).
define "well-documented".

My beef against evolution and abiogenesis (which is discredited) would be that they just haven't been proven in any way. Darwin himself said that if his theory was true we would be finding new fossils to prove his theory. Today, darwinists are claiming that the fossil evidence will one day be discovered....

Until you find that evidence, I'll believe in something more logical--a Creator.

As for the Big Bang? I see no reason to believe that God didn't say the word and everything we see exploded into existence.

Quote:
You may be thinking of thermodynamics and entropy. While what you describe is true in a closed system, it is not so in an open system. If the house explode but then a bunch of people come and put the bricks back together, the house can be rebuilt - at the cost of these men's energy.
For evolution, this is the job of the sun. The sun sends tons of energy our way, making life (and evolution) possible.
The whole of the universe IS a closed system. No new energy is coming into our universe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2009, 04:13 PM
 
1,788 posts, read 4,154,767 times
Reputation: 1232
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich View Post
The whole of the universe IS a closed system. No new energy is coming into our universe.
How do you know?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2009, 04:29 PM
 
Location: Brussels, Belgium
971 posts, read 1,503,992 times
Reputation: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich
define "well-documented".
You're not seriously telling me you don't believe in mutations, are you? It's ubiquitous in modern biology. Not even creationists deny it any more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich
abiogenesis (which is discredited)
Are you aware that there currently isn't a "theory of abiogenesis", only a bunch of hypothesis? How you could "discredit" them all is beyond me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich
My beef against evolution [] would be that they just haven't been proven in any way.
For the benefit of non-kdbrich readers who will actually take the time to read, here's an overview of the evidence supporting evolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich
Darwin himself said that if his theory was true we would be finding new fossils to prove his theory. Today, darwinists are claiming that the fossil evidence will one day be discovered....
Specific quotes in both cases please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich
As for the Big Bang? I see no reason to believe that God didn't say the word and everything we see exploded into existence.
As far as science is concerned, the cause of the Big Bang is yet unknown (it is possible that the question makes no sense).
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich
The whole of the universe IS a closed system. No new energy is coming into our universe.
Certainly, as far as we know. However, earth alone is not. We constantly receive new energy from the sun, which is the original fuel for life (and evolution, and plant growth...).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2009, 04:35 PM
 
1,366 posts, read 1,932,594 times
Reputation: 770
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich View Post
define "well-documented".

My beef against evolution and abiogenesis (which is discredited) would be that they just haven't been proven in any way. Darwin himself said that if his theory was true we would be finding new fossils to prove his theory. Today, darwinists are claiming that the fossil evidence will one day be discovered....

Until you find that evidence, I'll believe in something more logical--a Creator.

As for the Big Bang? I see no reason to believe that God didn't say the word and everything we see exploded into existence.



The whole of the universe IS a closed system. No new energy is coming into our universe.
Many fossils have been found that show a link beween two species. Here is a list of transitional fossils from wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

You can research each of these further if you choose to find the evidence you are looking for.


Also, once again you are claiming ideas about our universe as absolutes. You have that nobel prize on your research? Otherwise, you should consider qualifying your statements. Don't mean to be rude...just a thought
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2009, 04:52 PM
 
Location: Downtown Omaha
1,362 posts, read 4,125,418 times
Reputation: 519
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZugZub View Post
There are much better dating processes now than carbon dating. Also, creationism is not a theory.

Anything can be a theory. I could theorize that the sky is blue because a giant colored it that way with a huge crayon. That theory can be disproven though but it's still a theory.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2009, 04:59 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,041 posts, read 30,723,387 times
Reputation: 12222
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTO Luv View Post
Anything can be a theory. I could theorize that the sky is blue because a giant colored it that way with a huge crayon. That theory can be disproven though but it's still a theory.
Actually no, not if you use the scientific meaning of theory...What you are talking about is hypothesis.

A scientific theory is understood to be a testable model capable of predicting future occurrences or observations and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2009, 05:05 PM
 
Location: Minnesota
1,489 posts, read 1,276,524 times
Reputation: 1895
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich View Post
It's interesting that this is the only planet ever discovered that has the right mix of environmental traits to sustain life, though. It would certainly SEEM that it was created for us.

I've always wondered why we feel the need to define the needs of life as only those that apply to life as we have it on earth.

How can we be so certain that all life in the universe functions exactly as life on earth does ?

Just look at the variety of life on earth....now wander light years off and can you imagine how differently things might be and how other varieties of life forms may function.

We're very egotistical and ethnocentric in our thinking it seems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2009, 05:27 PM
 
Location: Minnesota
1,489 posts, read 1,276,524 times
Reputation: 1895
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTO Luv View Post
Ok so let's god did create the world and it's only 5,000-6,000 years old like the christians think. Then how are we able to carbon date things back MUCH further than 6,000 years? That is a big whole in the creation nonsense. Creationism is masquerading as science. Yes science is based on theories and creationism is a theory (as well as evolution, a big bang, etc...) but it does not have credible proof behind it.

When I was in Highschool I had a christian biology teacher and that exact question came up in class. He told us that god had created the world approximately 6000 years ago and given it a "history" by creating fossiles and all those other things that carbon date to way before 6000 years ago. Obstensibly to fool us as to our real age I gather ?

If god is playing tricks on us....shame on him ! Making us confused as to our history doesn't seem to be a very kind way to treat his creation

I used to be a literal bible believer until I started to think that so many things that I'd been taught in my youth just made no sense to me anymore. How the heck can you continue to live a rewarding life if you never feel completely comfortable with your beliefs....so I now keep an open mind and feel much better this way.

I have a spirtual side, so I am not an atheist.....but I don't think it really matters what the details are regarding our creation....does it really, although it certainly is intellectually stimulating to discuss these opinions.

I sometimes think the only people who can truly be objective are those with no firm beliefs on such matters as creation vs. evolution etc...

Maybe both sides are wrong to some degree ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top