I believe in God, so BITE ME.

I don't need evidence, i don't need proof...i choose (how novel a concept) to believe.
Even the english dictionary gives the same definition of Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence/The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

MY CHOICE, i don't owe nobody an explanation

whocares:

I believe in God, so BITE ME.

I don't need evidence, i don't need proof...i choose (how novel a concept) to believe.
Even the english dictionary gives the same definition of Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence/The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

MY CHOICE, i don't owe nobody an explanation

Indeed, your choice. Your choice is entirely irrational and as a matter of fact anti-rational. You may indeed choose such a thing, but that choice should not bind anyone, because it is based on absolutely nothing.
Please refrain from engaging in any activity that requires rationality. You have [b]no [/b]position to reason from.

Again.....BITE ME!

As your way is obviously the only way

whocares:

Again.BITE ME!

Why would I do such a thing? I have nothing against you

whocares:

As your way is obviously the only way

You are free to present alternative ways. I promise to look into their merits. Irrational faith does not do the trick for me

Mr Sabi sabi, by definition 'Faith' is Irrational

whocares:

Mr Sabi sabi, by definition 'Faith' is Irrational

I only used it for effect. Some people here claim that faith is rational

Thank God we have you to set them straight

whocares:


Thank God we have you to set them straight

See, we can all live together in peace and harmony

beautiful thread, it's hard to be in science this days and not be carried away by the theory of evolution.
however i am puzzled! Last semester a professor told us the earth was initially a reducing atmosphere (i.e no oxygen and life forms were all anaerobic.
Next we were told mitochondria used to be bacteria originally (they actually look like some bacterial forms), but it is argued that it is only speculative.
Next we hear eukaryotic cells engulfed mitochondria to produce energy and respire using O2.
Next we are told they became predominant by "natural selection" and gradually changed the atmosphere to an oxidising one...
Next we here, eukaryotic cells eventually evolved into plants and animals??


Question is: Is man here by the actions of a divine being or are we a result of natural selection?
If so why have we not seen an ape change to a human by natural selection? Why are we yet to observe a half man half ape?
Is it possible nature designed the wonders and intricacies of the human body?

Who designed the solar system as we know it? The big bang?
If we know that most molecules tend towards a state of entropy, how come nature was able to design such an ordered system we call the earth?

How did the dinosaurs come about? Why did they die out? Natural selection? Evolution?
Why are we yet to see the "evolution" of new "strains" of humans that are resistant to the diseases such as cancer and HIV AIDS?

Why has it been so hard to make clones of human embryos unlike those of animals?

Is there really no evidence of the existence of God or are we just tryiing in vain to exclude Him from our lives?

If belief in God is irrational and not based on evidence, on what evidence do we then place our belief in evolution?

For instance, how do we talk of evolution when there is no physical evidence?

davidylan:

Question is: Is man here by the actions of a divine being or are we a result of natural selection?

Natural selection, wheteher it was started by some kind of a supernatural being is debatable.

If so why have we not seen an ape change to a human by natural selection? Why are we yet to observe a half man half ape?

Why should we see an ape (ape in the colloquial non scientific usage) change to a human?It seems you are under the impression the evolving to humans is an evolutionary goal, well that's not the case. Also, what characteristics would you expect to see in a half man - half ape?

Is it possible nature designed the wonders and intricacies of the human body?

Yes

Who designed the solar system as we know it? The big bang?

Processes and occurences long after the big bang "designed" our solar system, however theistic proponents of the big bang theory believe their deity started off the process.

If we know that most molecules tend towards a state of entropy, how come nature was able to design such an ordered system we call the earth?

Life and everything on Earth, were able to come to be mostly due to that great big source of energy with a low entropy called the sun.

How did the dinosaurs come about? Why did they die out? Natural selection? Evolution?

They evolved . Scientists agree that the dinosaurs, like many of the organisms at the K-T boundary, died due to a global climatic change. I'm not sure all the details of what caused the climate change have been discovered, but a popular hypothesis is the one that asserts a meteorite crashed into the Earth causing the changes

Why are we yet to see the "evolution" of new "strains" of humans that are resistant to the diseases such as cancer and HIV AIDS?

There are humans that have "evolved" an immunity to AIDS, see: http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/517399.html. As for cancer, I think it is hereditary, if it isn't then immunity wont become a trait in humans.

Why has it been so hard to make clones of human embryos unlike those of animals?

I don't know the scientific details on why it is hard to clone human embryos, but I do know that generally cloning is hard, and is even harder when it comes to primates. See: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml

Is there really no evidence of the existence of God or are we just tryiing in vain to exclude Him from our lives?

If belief in God is irrational and not based on evidence, on what evidence do we then place our belief in evolution?

For instance, how do we talk of evolution when there is no physical evidence?

There are plenty of physical evidences for evolution, some include the fossil records, observed speciation, genetics etc.

Hi davidylan,

Your questions seem to come from someone who is honestly in search of knowledge. I commend your effort

davidylan:

beautiful thread, it's hard to be in science this days and not be carried away by the theory of evolution.
however i am puzzled! Last semester a professor told us the earth was initially a reducing atmosphere (i.e no oxygen and life forms were all anaerobic.
Next we were told mitochondria used to be bacteria originally (they actually look like some bacterial forms), but it is argued that it is only speculative.

It's a little more than speculative. Mitochondrial DNA closely resembles bacterial DNA. If you are really interested in thissubject, look up the work by professor Lynn Margulis

davidylan:

Next we hear eukaryotic cells engulfed mitochondria to produce energy and respire using O2.

In animals, energy is produced through the citric acid cycle or krebs cycle. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid_cycle for more info

davidylan:

Next we are told they became predominant by "natural selection" and gradually changed the atmosphere to an oxidising one...

Plants use the energy coming from the sun and through photosynthesis (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis) it is transformed in complex carbon based molecules that make up the plant. This energy is mainly stored in the plants in the form of carbohydrates. Animals use that stored energy later on, using the krebs cycle. Mind you this is very much a simplification

davidylan:

Next we here, eukaryotic cells eventually evolved into plants and animals??

I don't know the precise process here. There is no fossil evidence of that evolution prior to the Cambrian explosion for obvious reasons (there is no material to fossilise in one celled organisms). You'd better ask your biology prof for an exact explanation. I'm not a specialist.

davidylan:

Question is: Is man here by the actions of a divine being or are we a result of natural selection?
If so why have we not seen an ape change to a human by natural selection? Why are we yet to observe a half man half ape?
Is it possible nature designed the wonders and intricacies of the human body?

Humans did not evolve from living apes. Apes and humans have a common ancestor. Both evolved in different directions from that point onward.
The best possible on line explanation evidence for evolution can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Evidence for human evolution can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

davidylan:

Who designed the solar system as we know it? The big bang?
If we know that most molecules tend toward a state of entropy, how come nature was able to design such an ordered system we call the earth?

Entropy must increase in a closed system. Earth is not a closed system, as it has a constant input of energy coming from the sun.

davidylan:

How did the dinosaurs come about? Why did they die out? Natural selection? Evolution?

I would suggest you read a general introduction in evolution. this http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ might help you

davidylan:

Why are we yet to see the "evolution" of new "strains" of humans that are resistant to the diseases such as cancer and HIV AIDS?

Cancer has a different mechanism, as it is an internal genetic malfunction. It is not comparable to infectious diseases. Evolution does not have an impact on it, as there is little selective pressure coming from cancer (usually manifests itself after reproductive age)
As for HIV, this disease is still too young to have a significant effect on human evolution, although some people in Africa have started developing resistance against AIDS. A better example would be sickle cell anemia, which is actually a protection against malaria that evolved in Africa after the introduction of agriculture (and thus the appearance of the specific mosquito that causes malaria in the human environment). Another example of evolution at work is the development of lactose tolerance in human populations that consume significant amounts of milk and milk products.

davidylan:

Why has it been so hard to make clones of human embryos unlike those of animals?

It isn't harder than for other animals, we just don't do it for ethical reasons.

davidylan:

Is there really no evidence of the existence of God or are we just trying in vain to exclude Him from our lives?

There is no evidence for the existence of God. Belief in God rests on faith, a belief without evidence based on authority

davidylan:

If belief in God is irrational and not based on evidence, on what evidence do we then place our belief in evolution?

It is irrational, as it rests on faith. Rationality does not accept faith as method, only evidence, logic and inductive and deductive reasoning from the evidence (material observations).
Belief in evolution is based on the evidence and only on the evidence. The evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelming

davidylan:

For instance, how do we talk of evolution when there is no physical evidence?

There is a lot of physical evidence, please read the links I gave you above

I hope you'll find what you're looking for and feel free to ask further questions.

@ KAG
Our respective posts have crossed. Luckily there's not too much duplication. We tackled the questions from slightly different angles.
Keep it coming. We need more people that can make the light of reason shine in here

i guess am tired of the arguments and seun has warned that i YAB too much. I guess God is in the best position to defend His existence and He will surely do. Who am I?

Frankly, there is no evidence of God's existence that can't be debunked by science. That is why God is God coz He cannot be explained. The day God is explained by some equations, then He's no longer God but a man's discovery.

My God, prove yourself in the life of these dudes so they can see the light.

My God, prove yourself in the life of these dudes so they can see the light.

Theists and atheists have the same facts. The difference is in the way we both interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms).. The Light is there. Its left for 'them' to see it for what it really is.

Frankly, there is no evidence of God's existence that can't be debunked by science

As a matter of fact, everything in life can be subjected to that fact. It depends on which perpective u look at it. If u look at a man with xray light, u'ld only see his bones. This should not nullify the presence of skin. U can only see GOD for who he is under the light of his word.

Its not within our jurisprudence to proof GOD.

One thing i know about God is that He is a good programmer. And His code reuse ability is what all programmers should seek for on a daily basis..

joftech:

One thing i know about God is that He is a good programmer. And His code reuse ability is what all programmers should seek for on a daily basis..

I wouldn't say that. His code is full of pointers, contains so much garbage and he doesn't use comments at all. Calling it spaghetti code would be a very mild description

Did you say proof?

There are a thousand and one things you have believed without seeing proof.

How do you know that woman they say is your mum is really your mum?

Did you ask for a blood test first to be sure she is your mother?

Why dont you ask your dad if he is actually your dad?



How come you then deprive yourself of the rest of God by seeking truth your own way?

I wouldn't say that. His code is full of pointers, contains so much garbage and he doesn't use comments at all. Calling it spaghetti code would be a very mild description

Some codes are can only be apparent to people with enough knowledge. That we don't fully understand His code does not mean His codes are rubbish.

As long as everything work am less concerned with the intricasies of His coding skills.

God exist and Evil exist

for those that says God doesn't exit and wants prove, i have some questions for you

can you tell me the origin of language

To make it simple for you, read the link below

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language

God exist and I will prove it to you,but first answer my question,am still coming up with more questions after then I will prove to you that God exist

My dear grailife. I agree with half of your statement. Evil does indeed exist.

I do want convincing evidence of the existence of a supreme being. Obviously, if you have sufficient functioning neural connections in your neocortex, you will understand that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a supreme being on a metaphysical level. However, you can easily disprove the existence of a specific supreme being with assigned or implied properties.

What I don't understand is that you need to frame the debate in your terms before you would enter it. Are you not comfortable stating your case first, or maybe you do not have a case and just want to lure us into saying something contradictory. I hope you will have the fortitude to bring this little debate to a conclusion and are not going to jump bail if the outcome doesn't go your way.

Anyway, I will take the bait and answer your question about the origin of language. My sources will be evolutionary genetics (more specifically the genetical origin of language and the FOXP2 gene), the works of Steven Pinker and Noam Chomsky and of course, my best friend Google Mind you, my choice of taking Pinker and Chomsky as sources does not follow from the link you provided. I have read and own several of the books by Steven Pinker and Chomsky is the grand old man of linguistics with his contributions to the concept of universal grammar.

Language is an evolutionary adaptation that allowed humans to more effectively communicate and maintain knowledge that was crucial for survival. Hominids, as well as other mammal species have been using different forms of communication quite long ago in our evolutionary history. Living in small groups and being relatively weak, our human ancestors needed to be very effective in the communication, both to outsmart the predators and to hunt and gather food themselves.
Some time between 150000 and 50000 years ago. The FOXP2 gene, which, from what evo-devo (evolutionary developmental biology) teaches us, is a regulatory gene that controls the development of some elements crucial to what forms human language today. One of these faculties is the ability for fast articulation. Another adaptation that FOXP2 may have caused (although we are not certain about that yet) is the ability of complex mental projection (which allows things like lying and the ability to find out when someone is lying to you - an evolutionary arms race in a the competitive/cooperative environment of our hunter-gatherer ancestors)
So, even though forms of proto language were already present in our ancestors (and are still available in some of our closest relatives, such as chimpansees), the big leap forward came when the mutations to the FOXP2 gene occurred and gave us mental abilities that were far beyond what our predecessors and our closest relatives had.

Now, my dear grailife, could you enlighten me on how this question is relevant to whether or not God exists?

I will answer your questions but first i want you to read the below link

http://www.meaning-of-life.info/IsThereaGod.html

http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2005/05/catholicism_in_.html


Remember i still have some more questions for you after then i will prove to you that God Exist

Do you play computer games....i'll like you to download this game The Sandbox of God

God is still working......i hope your also working because God created you in his own image

Thanks again for your interest in my well being, grailife.

I have read those links, thinking I might find some new arguments or maybe some insight. Unfortunately, it was the usual collection of apologetic semi arguments. I won't bother to dismiss them one by one. I have neither the time, nor the energy to do so. If you find an argument that, in your opinion, is absolutely, convincingly evidence of the existence of God, do not hesitate to present it. I will read it with a vivid interest.

so nferyn, if i may ask "WHY DON'T YOU BELIEVE GOD AS AN EXISTENCE"?

timmy:

so nferyn, if i may ask "WHY DON'T YOU BELIEVE GOD AS AN EXISTENCE"?

No need to shout (typing in all caps = shouting). I do not believe in God, because there is absolutely no reason to believe in such a thing.

@nferyn why r u so vehement in the way u debunk ppl's claim about God. Has God done you wrong? If you need to square with God, you could invite Him to a contest. At least, if He doesnt exist, He wont show up

@ dejiolowe

I have already explained in a few other threads what my motivations are, but I am usually only replying to people that make claims that they cannot convincingly substantiate. Many here have tried to convert me. I am answering their questions to the best of my abilities and usually, they walk away from the debate after a few rounds. With some people (e.g. chrisd, layi, nicetohave) I have had really meaningful conversations and that alone makes it worth the effort.
The main reason why I continuously enter in these debates, is that I want to understand why people believe.

Can you explain me how I invite someone to a contest that I believe not to exist?

nferyn:

because there is absolutely no reason to believe in such[size=16pt] a thing.[/size]

OMG wtf was dat, why you call God a thing, gosh you make me sick, im really in the mood to blast, lash and scold you, but illd hold back not witstanding the vex in me.. and dont expect me to let out, the agro we had over the tdaves gay issue is enuff..

But guy u sure belive in the supernatural right, tell me au science can beat that. and tell me why science still find it difficult to read dreams, or even read minds (even the lie detector is not 100% accurate

timmy:

OMG wtf was that, why you call God a thing, gosh you make me sick, im really in the mood to blast, lash and scold you, but illd hold back not witstanding the vex in me.. and don't expect me to let out, the agro we had over the tdaves gay issue is enough..

I wrote that first as in such a thing as a supreme being and I removed that last part. Sorry if I offended you sensibilities, it was not intentional. But still, why would that be reason for such a reaction?

timmy:

But guy u sure believe in the supernatural right, tell me au science can beat that. and tell me why science still find it difficult to read dreams, or even read minds (even the lie detector is not 100% accurate

I do not believe in the supernatural at all. Science is gradually, but definitely moving into area's that were once believed to be supernatural. I am convinced that there will be few things left that science cannot explain. Now, science only deals with the [i]how [/i]questions, not with the [i]why [/i]questions, unless you're looking at direct causality, but that has little to do with ultimate meaning or purpose.
Anyway, I, personally, do not need the concept of a supreme being to make sense of the world. I can accept that some people do need that, for several reasons. That does not mean that people that do not share my outlook on life need to belittle me or scoff at me because I do not believe in something that rationally makes no sense.

can science really explain dejavu's and dreams, can science explain people who can fortell the future, can science explain voodo, i live in africa where voodoo is sure real, ive seen it LIVE, no stories or what haveyou, not even illusions

timmy:

can science really explain dejavu's and dreams,

that depends on what you call exlain, but in most cases, yes.

timmy:

can science explain people who can fortell the future,

Can people foretell the future? I think not.

timmy:

can science explain voodo,

Depends on what you call voodoo

timmy:

i live in africa where voodoo is sure real, ive seen it LIVE, no stories or what haveyou, not even illusions

If you can find any credible claims of the supernatural, take up the Randi challenge: http://www.randi.org/research/
There's a million US dollars for the taking.

@nferyn
I think the JREF randi challenge is useless. The reason beign that the judge are already sitting on the other side (atheists). U've not only got a job to proove paranormal events but an almost impossible job of making them shift ground.
$1,000,000 prize tag is merely a mockery. I see voodoo live here in Nigeria. I have seen cripple walk. In short I've seen paranormal forces (good and evil) at work. I'll advise spend a part of the money to travel down to africa. I'll show them "power" free of charge.

@layi

The conditions for the Randi chalenge are quite clear. The judge would not be anyone of the Randi foundations, but an independent person, upon agreement by both partners.
It seems obvious that those people don't want to subject themselves to independent scrutiny and already presuppose a paranormal explanation, without even investigating the actual source of the event.