Author Topic: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]  (Read 10142 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6471
  • Darwins +771/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #87 on: January 18, 2012, 02:22:41 AM »
Truthsearcher, it's easy to have all the answers when you get to make them all up. With no corroborating evidence.

Saying that science points to a creator means that you are interpreting things a bit differently than those that are coming up with the very answers you cite. Their math says that the gasses do clump up. Why do your hopes trump the math? Is a mere statement from you supposed to put a wet blanket on tons of scientific work?

I'd just like to know how this works. Your opinion being more valuable than actual study and research. Your conclusions being more valid than those that did the studies.

Your habit here of providing short little responses to long and serious posts indicates an unwillingness to deal with lots of information. I wrote a long post that responded to things that you had said and you honed in one one irrelevant detail that you carefully misinterpreted. You diss quickly and get out. Is that perhaps why you haven't bothered to give us anything but your opinion on things like life (it had to come from life because that's the only thing that makes sense to you. Hence it is true). Because that's as far as you've gotten, think-wise?

Your opinion that the human body, being good enough, is proof that a god was involved is like someone saying "I've got a dollar, so I'm pretty close to being a millionaire". There is no resemblance between the claim and reality. Twenty-five percent of all men get hernias because of weak walls in the abdomen and all you can say is "See, we were designed!" People die every year from choking on food because the both food and air go in the same opening and you probably say "Hey, that confirms a god fer sure!" If it were just atheists and other heathens who suffered from these problems, you might have a point. It's not. You don't.

If all you have to offer is your opinion, and you aren't in the mood to provide any more than that, you might find another hobby.

Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #88 on: January 18, 2012, 02:24:08 AM »
Samothec, your reasons are based in religious interpretation, not in science, what does science tell you?
bold mine

Whose butt did you pull that idea (in bold) out of?

My reasons are based on my personal observations, science and an objective reading of the bible.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4366
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #89 on: January 18, 2012, 10:37:10 AM »
I remember reading one of Richard Bach's books a while back, where he talks about something that he used to do quite a bit: barnstorming throughout the midwest, selling rides in his biplane.  He related the story of one woman who wanted a ride but wasn't sure whether the plane was safe.  He told her that the plane was built one year before he was born and was still going to be going strong long after they were both dead.  And the biplane, obviously, was designed and built by puny humans, not an omnimax being.

Personally, though, I think my favorite design "feature" of the human body is the fact that the openings for the esophagus and the trachea are located right next to each other, so that we can conveniently choke on our food.  Brilliant.

Where would you re-locate them?

Not sure, but dolphins and whales seem to do okay.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #90 on: January 18, 2012, 11:52:21 AM »
Wright, maybe I worded that a little wrong, if you have a cloud of gas (ie spread out from a “big bang”) then gravity won’t cause the cloud to become any more dense, it will just stay a cloud or become less dense, gravity isn’t strong enough to overcome the gas pressure within the cloud.

Velkyn, just because I or you interpret the bible differently doesn’t mean there is no creator, just because someone doesn’t like the bible doesn’t mean there is no creator, what we need to do is let science lead us where it will and as far as I can tell it leads directly to a the conclusion that there must be a creator, I don’t want there to be a creator, but who am I to oppose what science so clearly shows.
Well, TS, as soon as you put attributes on your "creator" I can show it doesn't exist.  It is only by making your god so vague that it means nothing that you can claim any thing at all.  But I'm pretty sure you don't mean some attributeless force, you only hide behind the idea, whilst trying to ignor the evidence that your particular god doesn't exist at all.  Science is indeed about following the facts, not some lies and assumptions by theists.   the "renaissance" was started by people trying to find god in nature and realizing that the ignorant explanations in the bible didn't match reality.  God fell into the cracks and has yet to come out, them getting smaller each year.    You are such a pathetic liar too.  Oooh "I don't want there to be a creator".  BS.  If you really didn't, you'd actually know the science that you attack.  But you don't, you repeatedly show that you are not interested at all in what sciene shows and you lie when you say that science shows a creator.  You can't even support that lie in your willful stupidity, you just spew what some ignorant creationist has told you.

And wow, more ignorance about gravity.  Way to go with that and the lies that you understand science at all.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #91 on: January 18, 2012, 11:59:22 AM »
where would you re-locate them?

of course, an excellent answer by Pianodwarf.  Cetaceans have a good system.  Insects have their spiracles not associated with their mouths (would need more oxygen in the atmo to make it work well for human sized critters).  Let's see... Puppeteers have two heads complete with mouths and with tracheas so one head can breath and the other eat.   lots of ways to avoid the problem.  I'd also go with having the fun sex parts seperate from the waste removal area.   But hmmm, I'm guessing there's some ridiculous Christian thing on how that positioning was from the "fall" or god is a prude or some such nonsense.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #92 on: January 18, 2012, 02:52:50 PM »
nope. I gave it some thought myself and just didn't know how it could work, assuming we weren't removing or adding bits.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #93 on: January 18, 2012, 02:54:00 PM »
nope. I gave it some thought myself and just didn't know how it could work, assuming we weren't removing or adding bits.

well, if you are the god you claim to believe in, there should be no problemsin doing any of the above.  right?
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #94 on: January 18, 2012, 03:01:44 PM »
assuming their is a better design, I guess not.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #95 on: January 19, 2012, 07:32:00 PM »
I want my vitamin C back.  Most mammals can make their own vitamin C but the common ancestor of primates was living in a fruit filled jungle and never noticed the loss.  Humans are the only primates stuck with getting scurvy.

I want my chlorophyll back.  What we commonly call plants are descendents of eukaryote single-celled animals.  There are some sugars in animal cell walls but the plant ancestor had the mutant sugar cellulose which is nearly indigestible.  It gave up mobility for wooden armor.  The animals cells, with the exception of a few like the paramecium gave up chlorophyll.  I want my chlorophyll to soak up the sunlight in Florida.  I want to produce some of my own oxygen so I can hold my breath longer.  It's easy being green.

I want my lateral line back.  It's a little known fact that most fish, not just the electric eel, produce electric charges.  They communicate lots of chirps and noises and detect nearby objects in the dark.  People think telepathy and psi powers should come from the brain.  No, we need a transmitting and receiving organ and in fish that was a line down each side of the rib cage called the lateral line.  Evolution dropped that because air can't conduct.  I want my lateral line back but with a high enough frequency[1] so I won't stumble so much in the dark and I can detect people and so on.

I want a 4th optical pigment.  I want to be able to see the difference between a true yellow and a mixture of red and green.  While we're at it, I want to be able to see as far into the ultraviolet as a bee does.  That will require a 5th pigment.  There must be all sorts of stuff I'm missing without that.

 1. Just 20 to 60 khz -- I'm not asking for much.

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #96 on: January 20, 2012, 12:29:50 AM »
I want my vitamin C back. ...
I want my chlorophyll back. ...
I want my lateral line back. ...
I want a 4th optical pigment. ... That will require a 5th pigment. ...

These are all very cool ideas. I'm personally not sure about my skin having a green tint but if it helped me tolerate sunlight better, cool. I'm wondering if the lateral line might cause any problems with our electronics though - or vice versa.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline TruthSearcher

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #97 on: February 14, 2012, 02:14:09 AM »
Azdgari, if we had Jesus writings carved in stone today, we’d still argue over whether what we had was really written by Jesus, so n we wouldn’t have a leg up.   You know there are more than 24,000 ancient manuscript portions of the new testament writings in museums/universities and churches today, and we still argue over the correctness of the text, so one in stone wouldn’t help much.

ParkingPlaces, call my answers made up or whatever you like, it doesn’t change the science that I’m pointing you too, you just don’t like what I’m doing, and I fully expect this opposition, do you think I’ve never experienced this kind of opposition before? ?   The assumptions associated with the math of the first star forming is the most interesting part, do you agree with them all?

My main point is, do you want there to be a creator, to get everyone thinking about their motive for believing the evolution theory.   Isn’t it valid to question our motives behind what we believe, or hope for.  Many “hope” there isn’t a creator because the idea of hell is just absolutely abhorant (I hate it myself and I hope there isn’t one, but as far as I can tell its real).   You’ve said you’re an atheist because religious people do hideous things, but can you see my point that regardless of what religious people do it doesn’t change the truth regarding the existence of a creator, can you agree with that?

Your suggestion that only atheists should suffer from problems like hernias suggests then that Christians should live forever, however I don’t see why anyone would want to live forever in this very broken down world, that would be a disaster and illogical assuming the creator wants us to have the opportunity to change us into perfect people after we die, if we have given him the right to do so, otherwise he leaves us on our own after death, if that is what we want now, for him to leave us along, then he will continue to leave us alone after we die, he doesn’t force himself on anyone.

Samothec, the only reason you gave was religious, so I went with it, so what is the biggest piece of evidence you think proves there is no creator?   On religion though you suggest that the pain and suffering in the world is proof there is no loving God, so you’d like God to remove death from this world is that what you want?

Velkyn, I say I don’t want there to be a creator because I don’t want there to be a hell, and that is not BS, I really don’t want there to be a hell, I assume you don’t want there to be a hell either?

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12297
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #98 on: February 14, 2012, 08:17:41 AM »
Azdgari, if we had Jesus writings carved in stone today, we’d still argue over whether what we had was really written by Jesus, so n we wouldn’t have a leg up.   You know there are more than 24,000 ancient manuscript portions of the new testament writings in museums/universities and churches today, and we still argue over the correctness of the text, so one in stone wouldn’t help much.

Oh, you're right in that we wouldn't have a leg up in confirming their source.  But we would have a leg up in that we'd have something that supposedly was written (or rather, carved) by Jesus himself.

Right now, with the New Testament, we don't have the words of Jesus at all.  The NT doesn't even claim to be written by Jesus.  At the very best, it is the writings of others, about Jesus.

That's the leg-up that supposedly-original Jesus-writings would give us.  They'd be something that at lease could be argued to come from the horse's mouth, so to speak.  We don't even have that right now.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Traveler

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2056
  • Darwins +142/-2
  • Gender: Female
  • no god required
    • I am a Forum Guide
    • Gryffin Designs
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #99 on: February 14, 2012, 09:32:44 AM »
Many “hope” there isn’t a creator because the idea of hell is just absolutely abhorant (I hate it myself and I hope there isn’t one, but as far as I can tell its real).   You’ve said you’re an atheist because religious people do hideous things...

I can only speak for myself here, but the concept of hell is so absurd it certainly has no impact on my belief whatsoever. And I know very few, if any, atheists who are atheists because religious people do hideous things. It's just one hypocrisy that stands out in our minds. I've never believed in god. I don't hope to believe in god. And by the way, a belief in a creator does most certainly not necessitate a belief in the christian god or in hell. There are many other creator-concepts out there, many without a hell concept. In fact, many christians don't believe in hell.

Quote
Samothec, the only reason you gave was religious, so I went with it, so what is the biggest piece of evidence you think proves there is no creator?   On religion though you suggest that the pain and suffering in the world is proof there is no loving God...

Again, only speaking for myself here. Its not a question of proving there is no creator. It's logically impossible to prove a negative. The issue is that there's absolutely no proof, no credible evidence, that there is a creator.
If we ever travel thousands of light years to a planet inhabited by intelligent life, let's just make patterns in their crops and leave.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6471
  • Darwins +771/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #100 on: February 14, 2012, 10:12:07 AM »
ParkingPlaces, call my answers made up or whatever you like, it doesn’t change the science that I’m pointing you too, you just don’t like what I’m doing, and I fully expect this opposition, do you think I’ve never experienced this kind of opposition before? ?   The assumptions associated with the math of the first star forming is the most interesting part, do you agree with them all? {/quote}

What I don't like is people speaking about something they know nothing about. Especially when it's important and relevant to their lives. And if you don't like the math of how stars form, I would suggest you come up with a new formula that explains either how they actually did form or the disproves the current scientific thinking. Your simple statement that the math doesn't work out says nothing to me other than that you are suspicious. Are you capable of specifics?

Quote
My main point is, do you want there to be a creator, to get everyone thinking about their motive for believing the evolution theory.   Isn’t it valid to question our motives behind what we believe, or hope for.  Many “hope” there isn’t a creator because the idea of hell is just absolutely abhorant (I hate it myself and I hope there isn’t one, but as far as I can tell its real).   You’ve said you’re an atheist because religious people do hideous things, but can you see my point that regardless of what religious people do it doesn’t change the truth regarding the existence of a creator, can you agree with that?

I agree. Either there is a creator or there is not. What I hope or want or wish for is irrelevant when compared to reality. I am not an atheist because I fear hell, nor am I an atheist because of seeing believers do unacceptable things. I am an atheist only because I have seen no evidence whatsoever that ANY of the creation myths out there or ANY of the god stories out there hold water. None. Nada. Zip.

{quote]Your suggestion that only atheists should suffer from problems like hernias suggests then that Christians should live forever, however I don’t see why anyone would want to live forever in this very broken down world, that would be a disaster and illogical assuming the creator wants us to have the opportunity to change us into perfect people after we die, if we have given him the right to do so, otherwise he leaves us on our own after death, if that is what we want now, for him to leave us along, then he will continue to leave us alone after we die, he doesn’t force himself on anyone.

Sorry. I tend to think that if someone is going to be a believer in a true god who loves them, said god might give them some perks. I didn't imply that christians should live forever (which would take the fun out of the heaven story) but that they should live a bit better. Health-wise or otherwise. They don't. I am not aware of any statistical advantage they have over other religions or atheists.

The general description of what it's like to be a christian involves having a giddy feeling because you think some invisible being loves you and the ability to tell others they are going to hell with an authoritative voice. And perhaps the ability to listen to Rick Santorum without throwing up. I hope I'm wrong about the last one.

That's not enough for me. Especially since there is not a god. Christian or otherwise. You say there is. With equal assuredness. At least one of us is wrong. Perhaps we both are and the Hindu's are right. Or some other religious group. But every single religion requires some type of belief and some type of faith because not a single one can come up with anything concrete. And with nothing concrete, I'm not going to pay a bit of attention. Because of that, religion makes no sense to me. And it has to before I'm going to give any thought to converting.

If there is a god, he made me that way, and screw him for making me unable to swallow the tale. If there isn't, no hard feelings.

Edit: left out a word
« Last Edit: February 14, 2012, 10:58:36 AM by ParkingPlaces »
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #101 on: February 14, 2012, 11:03:50 AM »
Azdgari, if we had Jesus writings carved in stone today, we’d still argue over whether what we had was really written by Jesus, so n we wouldn’t have a leg up.   You know there are more than 24,000 ancient manuscript portions of the new testament writings in museums/universities and churches today, and we still argue over the correctness of the text, so one in stone wouldn’t help much.
Which should tell you something about a book that is claimed to be divinely written. You are left with some choices.  Does this god not care that no one understands it?  IS this god too stupid to get its message across?  Or does this god simply not exist?
Quote
ParkingPlaces, call my answers made up or whatever you like, it doesn’t change the science that I’m pointing you too, you just don’t like what I’m doing, and I fully expect this opposition, do you think I’ve never experienced this kind of opposition before? ?   The assumptions associated with the math of the first star forming is the most interesting part, do you agree with them all?
  What science, TS?  You’ve not shown any actual evidence which is what science is based on.  You are amazingly ignorance in real science, TS, evinced by your ignorances about gravity, the BBT, etc.  I’m sure you’ve used the same nonsense before and were simply too desperate to cling to your religion to actually learn anything about the science that you ignorantly attack.   

Quote
My main point is, do you want there to be a creator, to get everyone thinking about their motive for believing the evolution theory.   Isn’t it valid to question our motives behind what we believe, or hope for.  Many “hope” there isn’t a creator because the idea of hell is just absolutely abhorant (I hate it myself and I hope there isn’t one, but as far as I can tell its real).   You’ve said you’re an atheist because religious people do hideous things, but can you see my point that regardless of what religious people do it doesn’t change the truth regarding the existence of a creator, can you agree with that?
  Oh and the usual theists attempts to claim that atheists only want to disbelieve theistic myths since they don’t like hell.  Your claims that hell is real (and just how can you tell?) is such a pathetic revenge fantasy. Ooh those mean ol’ atheists disagree with me so I hope they are tortured for eternity.  How childish and petty.  There is no evidence for your god.  Get it?  None.  No evidence for your god or Allah, or Tezcatlipoca, just petty little people who want to feel special.  You have no evidence for a creator so there is no reason to assume there is one because humans have made one up.
Quote
Your suggestion that only atheists should suffer from problems like hernias suggests then that Christians should live forever, however I don’t see why anyone would want to live forever in this very broken down world, that would be a disaster and illogical assuming the creator wants us to have the opportunity to change us into perfect people after we die, if we have given him the right to do so, otherwise he leaves us on our own after death, if that is what we want now, for him to leave us along, then he will continue to leave us alone after we die, he doesn’t force himself on anyone.
IF this world is so bad, why don’t I see hordes of Christians volunteering for dangerous, but helpful, jobs, like removing landmines, TS?  You all whine and complain about this world, but none of you seem to want to leave it as soon as you can.  Such hypocrites.  I’m guessing that your supposed faith that this heaven exists isn’t so strong after all.  And I do love how you so piously claim that your god doesn’t force himself on anyone, when your own bible belies this claim.  It also is pretty funny considering how badly so many Christians want to do exactly that, force their religion on everyone.
Quote
Velkyn, I say I don’t want there to be a creator because I don’t want there to be a hell, and that is not BS, I really don’t want there to be a hell, I assume you don’t want there to be a hell either?
I know that there is no hell.  I don’t need such pathetic baseless superstions.  I don’t believe for a moment that you don’t want there to be a hell.  All I see is a scared greedy theist who needs a god, a heaven and a hell.   You’ve done your best to claim that there is “really and truly” tht there is one, that you supposedly can tell it’s real.  Well, dear, show evidence that this hell is real.  If you can’t, then you do seem to need a hell to be real since all you have is your baseless claims that it is.  To need  a god that is petty and violent, that is no more than a powerful brat, that’s rather sad. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #102 on: February 15, 2012, 05:06:45 AM »
Samothec, the only reason you gave was religious, so I went with it, so what is the biggest piece of evidence you think proves there is no creator?   On religion though you suggest that the pain and suffering in the world is proof there is no loving God, so you’d like God to remove death from this world is that what you want?

The reason I gave was not religious. I left religion behind long ago but still believed in a creator separate from any religion and tried to understand that creator. That search lead me to where I am today.

Pain & suffering: disease, cancer, natural disasters, fragile bodies, childhood death, giving birth killing the mothers – do you really need me to go on? Eliminating those things would not eliminate death, just the causes of early death. If the creator was loving, benevolent and competent those things would not exist to start with.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #103 on: February 15, 2012, 08:45:16 AM »
My main point is, do you want there to be a creator, to get everyone thinking about their motive for believing the evolution theory.   Isn’t it valid to question our motives behind what we believe, or hope for. 

Sure is.

Makes me wonder why you are seemingly so keen NOT to believe in evolution?  Could it be that you've made your mind up for a creator because you want there to be one, rather than because the evidence really points that way?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline shnozzola

Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #104 on: February 17, 2012, 04:48:17 PM »
My main point is, do you want there to be a creator, to get everyone thinking about their motive for believing the evolution theory.   
Truthseeker, open your mind up to the idea that everything created has been created through evolution – everything.  It’s actually much more interesting and wild that way than with a creator.

 My motive is only the truth, and when you stand back, and begin to see things from a universal view instead of a human view, you realize the power of simple, never stopping, totally random, evolution – in some kind of fantastic way it is much more cool than needing a creator.  It has no purpose and it has all been luck.  And here we are.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2012, 04:52:58 PM by shnozzola »
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #105 on: February 18, 2012, 12:17:59 PM »
My main point is, do you want there to be a creator, to get everyone thinking about their motive for believing the evolution theory.   
Truthseeker,

Ah, not to nit-pick... actually, yes, to nit-pick. We're 2 seperate people.

I know it was an honest mistake. Our names are too close.  :-\
« Last Edit: February 18, 2012, 12:19:49 PM by TruthSeeker »

Offline shnozzola

Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #106 on: February 18, 2012, 12:24:49 PM »
Yes - I'm very sorry   :-[-  a suppose we'll never see truthSEARCHER again - not really searching.
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline orpat

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 252
  • Darwins +2/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • What is in the bottle? No it's water
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #107 on: February 29, 2012, 02:54:26 AM »
You can not wan't.

You can hope there was.

You can hope he still exists.

Or you can live up to the fact-No one was.
Hello Homo Sapiens

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3894
  • Darwins +258/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #108 on: March 01, 2012, 09:36:34 AM »
You can not wan't.

You can hope there was.

You can hope he still exists.

Or you can live up to the fact-No one was.


Yes, no one was the "creator" there is no evidence for it.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline BaalServant

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 297
  • Darwins +8/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Praise Ba'al really hard!
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #109 on: March 01, 2012, 03:06:14 PM »
You can not wan't.



Why would you make Ba'al cry with such a bold misuse of the apostrophe? 

Also, who is 'he,' and why would any 'he' be any more likely to exist than any other?
.   ###$$$$$$$$$$$$###
   ################
   ###  PRAISE BA'AL  ####
 #### FOR THE ALTAR ####
##### OF BA'AL!!!!!! #####
####################

Offline GodlessHeathen

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Darwins +9/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Absence of evidence is not evidence of existence.
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #110 on: March 01, 2012, 09:52:55 PM »
By the way you might want to answer the question: Do I want there to be a creator and if not, why not?

Nope, don't care one way or the other. If there is a God, he does not care enough to make his presence known, so why should I care whether he exists or not? I simply take the default position that he does not.

To paraphrase Tweedledee, in answer to the question, Do I want God to exist? "He may if he chooses. I've no objection. Contrariwise!" (Borrowed from Lewis Carrol's Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 4)
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" (Christopher Hitchens).

Offline TruthSearcher

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #111 on: March 15, 2012, 02:09:39 AM »
Azdgari, the NT claims to quote Jesus a lot, so we do have a claimed source from the horses mouth so to speak.  They also claim to be eyewitnesses of the things Jesus did.   Big claims.

Traveler, so you say there is no evidence for a creator, but what about all the evidence that indicates evolution hasn’t happened, see below?

ParkingPlaces, yes I’m suspicious, specifics, try this circular reasoning from Astronomy...  ‘Astronomers don’t know for sure how the universe made its first stars, but they do have a reasonably good guess. (As you can imagine, there’s no way to observe the formation of the first generation of stars, so all the work is based upon theoretical considerations.) The best scenario has molecular hydrogen playing the role of the cooling agent. If the clouds from which stars formed were some four to five times denser in the early universe than they are today, then enough collisions between hydrogen atoms would have taken place to create a lot of molecular hydrogen. The big question is: Were the first galaxies that much denser? Obviously the overall density of the universe was much higher back in the early days, but no one knows whether the star-forming clouds were this much denser.  Most astronomers would say that the fact that stars do exist tells us that the density was higher back then, because otherwise there would be no stars … Nowadays, of course, nature has found a simpler, easier way to cool the clouds (with water), so that’s what she uses.’    Talking Back, Water, water (almost) everywhere, Astronomy 27(6):16, 1999.

So, if you don’t mind the idea of hell or what christians do, then why don’t you question the theory of evolution more closely?

Velkyn, if you did some research into the % of people in aid organisations who are hristians you will find a lot are doing helpful jobs like removing land mines.   “none of you seem to want to leave it”... how many Christians do you actually know?   There are about 2 billion of them on the planet.    And you can’t say you know there is no hell because you haven’t died yet, you just hope there is no hell, just like I hope there is no hell.

Samothec, why does suffering exist yes, its a big question, but bigger still is why do we die, why don’t we live forever?

Anfauglir, there is just a lot of things that point to evolution not happening, that’s all.

Here are a few of them...

“Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles."  "The probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments." --Burke, Molly K., Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 587-590.
“the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities.  One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved."-- Reznick, David N., Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842.
"major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity."  "The principal 'types' seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization.  No intermediate 'grades' or intermediate forms between different types are detectable."  Koonin, Eugene V. Biology Direct, Vol. 2:21, pp. 1-17.
All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress "under construction". 
Every plant and animal, living or fossil, should be covered inside and out with useless growths and have parts under construction.  This is what the theory of evolution predicts, but it is not observed anywhere.
"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous.  Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?  Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."  Darwin 1859, pp. 279–280
The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found in the fossil record.
Gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures and complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges) called the Cambrian Explosion and then again between them and fish.
Dragonflies appear suddenly in the fossil record, fully formed. 
Archaeopteryx is not a transitional form.   "We now know that the transition into true birds -- physiologically and metabolically -- happened well after Archaeopteryx." --October 2009. American Museum of Natural History News Release.
"Different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories.  We've just annihilated the tree of life...Biology is vastly more complex than we thought.”  Lawton, Graham. 21 January 2009. Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life. New Scientist Magazine, Issue 2692.
Microbes, insects, plants, and animals do not fit a "tree of life" with linear descent.  There is no pattern to their similarities and differences because each one is a uniquely designed, complete creature.
Wings would have had to evolve completely independently four times: in insects (with multiple different types of wings), flying reptiles, birds, and bats.
Evolutionists think bioluminescence evolved independently 40 to 50 separate times. --Haddock, Steven H.D., 2010. Annual Review of Marine Science, Vol. 2, pp. 443-493.
A photographic study of growing vertebrate embryos was conducted in 1997 that found that Ernst Haeckel’s drawings were so far from reality that they could not have been done from the actual embryos. Richardson, Michael K., Anatomy and Embryology, Vol. 196, No. 2, pp. 91-106.
"Maybe it's time to correct the textbooks, many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a vestigial organ."  W. Parker. August 12 2009, Journal of Evolutionary Biology.
The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. Are only variation in the gene pool, not evolution
There are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of.
There is much variation in bacteria and fruit flies.  There are many mutations.  But they never turn into anything new.  They always remain bacteria or always remain fruit flies.  Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening.
Parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence.  Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. 
Mutations in DNA happen fairly often, but most are repaired or destroyed by mechanisms in animals and plants. 
All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal. 
The theory of Evolution violates The Second Law of Thermodynamics (law of increasing entropy) which says that natural processes proceed in only one direction, toward equilibrium and disorder.  This is always observed in nature.  It prohibits any functioning biological mechanism from falling together by pure chance
The theory of Evolution also violates The Law of Biogenesis.  Established by Louis Pasteur, it simply says that life only comes from life.   Chemicals never fall together and life appears. 
The famous 1953 Miller/Urey experiment only produced some amino acids. 
Amino acid molecules that form proteins, and nucleotide molecules that form DNA and RNA resist combining at any temperature.  To combine, they need the help of mechanisms in a living cell or a biochemist in an organic chemistry laboratory.
DNA is made of only right-handed versions of nucleotides, while proteins are made of only left-handed versions of amino acids. 
The smallest known genome (Mycoplasma genitalium) has 482 genes.  Most bacteria have 1000 to 4000 genes.  Everything about the cell is stunningly complex.  Plants and animals contain a great variety of cells.  The human body has about 210 different types of cells.
Cells are made of proteins.  Proteins are generally 50 to 2000 amino acids long.  The temperature and chemical concentrations must be right for a protein to fold correctly, and many proteins get help from special proteins called "molecular chaperones".  Chaperones can keep proteins separated from each other while they are folding, prevent mistakes in folding, and even unfold mistakes to give the protein a second chance to get it right.  After helping one protein fold, a chaperone will go help another one fold.  Science News, December 1, 2007, Vol. 172, p. 342
"The complexity of living organisms is staggering."  Alberts, Bruce,  2008. Molecular Biology of The Cell, 5th edition. Garland Science, New York.
The basic things necessary for a cell to function are:
    Replication, recombination, and repair
    Transcription
    Cell cycle control, mitosis, and meiosis
    Defense mechanisms
    Cell wall/membrane biogenesis
    Signal transduction mechanisms
    Intracellular trafficking and secretion
    Translation
    Post-translational modification, protein turnover, chaperones
    Energy production and conversion
    Carbohydrate transport and metabolism
    Amino acid transport and metabolism
    Nucleotide transport and metabolism
    Coenzyme transport and metabolism
    Lipid transport and metabolism
    Inorganic ion transport and metabolism
    Secondary metabolite biosynthesis, transport, and catabolism
Darwin wrote in chapter 6 of On the Origin of Species that "natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being... If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Cells have mechanisms that maintain the original design of a creature within its variation boundaries, and minimize the accumulation of mutations.  These include:
    A proofreading system that catches almost all errors
    A mismatch repair system to back up the proofreading system
    Photoreactivation (light repair)
    Removal of methyl or ethyl groups by O6 - methylguanine methyltransferase
    Base excision repair
    Nucleotide excision repair
    Double-strand DNA break repair
    Recombination repair
    Error-prone bypass36
Harmful mutations happen constantly.  Without repair mechanisms, life would be very short.  The mechanisms not only remove harmful mutations from DNA, they also remove all mutations, so evolution can’t happen.
The theory of evolution cannot explain how gene regulatory networks came to be.
"The theory is in trouble because it insists on locating the driving force solely in random mutations."  Prof Richard C. Strohman, March 1997, Nature Biotechnology.
"We do not know how the transition to digitally encoded information has happened in the originally inanimate world; that is, we do not know where the RNA world might have come from."  Vasas, Vera,  January 26, 2010. PNAS, Vol. 107, No. 4, pp. 1470-1475.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12297
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #112 on: March 15, 2012, 07:33:30 AM »
Azdgari, the NT claims to quote Jesus a lot, so we do have a claimed source from the horses mouth so to speak.  They also claim to be eyewitnesses of the things Jesus did.   Big claims.

Which is not the same as having something that was allegedly crafted from the hand of Jesus himself.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3894
  • Darwins +258/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #113 on: March 15, 2012, 07:40:47 AM »
Samothec, why does suffering exist yes, its a big question, but bigger still is why do we die, why don’t we live forever?

2009.

Telomere damage, through various environment exposures including unavoidable cosmic radiation. That and accident.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #114 on: March 15, 2012, 09:47:19 AM »
Azdgari, the NT claims to quote Jesus a lot, so we do have a claimed source from the horses mouth so to speak.  They also claim to be eyewitnesses of the things Jesus did.   Big claims.


TrtuhSearcher, spreading lies doesn’t’ make them come true.  I see you are back to spewing nonsense and being too lazy or afraid to do your own research.  They weren’t eyewitnesses.  Nothing indicates this and we have directly contradictory claims about events. 

There is no evidence of a creator and wow, you are quite a failure in the lies you post about evolution. 

The Big Bang Theory fits the observed universe.  It’s predictions have always worked.

There is no evidence of your god, a hell, a heaven, etc.  Evolutionary theory is supported by evidence.  The same science that supports it?  You use it everyday and have no problem with it at all.  You trust it because it has earned your trust.  You only become a hypocrite when this science shows your religion to be garbage. 


Velkyn, if you did some research into the % of people in aid organisations who are hristians you will find a lot are doing helpful jobs like removing land mines.   “none of you seem to want to leave it”... how many Christians do you actually know?   There are about 2 billion of them on the planet.    And you can’t say you know there is no hell because you haven’t died yet, you just hope there is no hell, just like I hope there is no hell.
  I was a Christain and I know many many Christians.  And I love when Christians claim how many of them there are.  You like to claim that there are so many of you but when it comes down to it, most of those you don’t agree with and don’t consider True Christians.  TruthSearcher, are Roman Catholics Christians?  Evangelical Protestants?  Mormons? Jehovah’s Witnesses?  Christican Scientists?  Seventh Day Adventists?  The Family?  And I know that there is no hell because there is no evidence for your magic god to have created it.  Why should I believe in a hell or even entertain the idea that it’s real since everything else in your bible has been shown to be nonsense?  No evidence for your god, any of the essential events in the bible, etc.  Your religion is just as ridiculous as Wicca, Islam, Hinduism, etc. 

We die because physics and chemistry work that way. 

As for your claims against evolution, can you explain what they say in your own words.  I see just a list of quotes presented in no context.   Take that first one.  Wow, two sentences from one paper, not even contiguous.  Here’s the paper: http://eebweb.arizona.edu/nachman/Suggested%20Papers/Lab%20papers%20fall%202010/Burke_et_al_2010.pdf

Now here are the paragraph that have the two sentences:
Quote
Our work provides a new perspective on the genetic basis of adaptation. Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually
reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles. This is notable because in wild populations we expect the strength of natural selection to be less intense and the environment unlikely to remain constant for,600 generations. Consequently, the probability
of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments. This suggests that selection does not readily expunge genetic variation in sexual populations, a finding which in turn should motivate efforts to discover why this is seemingly the case.
  Nothing here saying evolutionary theory is wrong.  Indeed, in the abstract it says that evolution occurs
Quote
Experimental evolution systems allow the genomic study of adaptation, and so far this has been done primarily in asexual systems with small genomes, such as bacteria and yeast1–3. Here we present whole-genome resequencing data from Drosophila melanogaster populations that have experienced over 600 generations of laboratory selection for accelerated development. Flies in these selected populations develop from egg to adult 20% faster than flies of ancestral control populations, and have evolved a number of other correlated phenotypes. On the basis of 688,520 intermediate-frequency, high-quality single nucleotide polymorphisms, we identify several dozen genomic regions that show strong allele frequency differentiation between a pooled sample of five replicate populations selected for accelerated development and pooled controls. On the basis of resequencing data from a single replicate population with accelerated development, as well as single nucleotide polymorphism data from individual flies from each replicate population, we infer little allele frequency differentiation between replicate populations within a selection treatment. Signatures of selection are qualitatively different than what has been observed in asexual species; in our sexual populations, adaptation is not associated with ‘classic’ sweeps whereby newly arising, unconditionally advantageous mutations become fixed. More parsimonious explanations include ‘incomplete’ sweep models, in which mutations have not had enough time to fix, and ‘soft’ sweep models, in which selection acts on pre-existing, common genetic variants. We conclude that, at least for life history characters such as development time, unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time.”
  Again, it seems that creationists, who are desperate for any evidence for their god, have made a common mistake, lying.  They try to present the fact that we do not understand everything about evolution yet, as that we do not understand it at all and nothing supports it.  Experiments like this support the concept that environment selects for favorable attributes, in this experiment, the environment (humans) has selected for fast development.  This study was to see if changes sweep through sexually reproducing population as they do through asexually reproducing populations.  They are different and indeed they aren’t the same.  Here is a real biologist explaining the paper and explaining why creationists are such poor liar. 

Let’s try another one. 
Quote
"Different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories.  We've just annihilated the tree of life...Biology is vastly more complex than we thought.”  Lawton, Graham. 21 January 2009. Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life. New Scientist Magazine, Issue 2692.
What?  Darwin was wrong? Victorian science in 1859 wasn’t as advanced as ours in 2012?  Gee, it seems that creationists can’t quite get their minds around that science has changed since Darwin.  Whodathunk that 200 years of research let to changes? &)  Here is the usual creationist stupidity to attack superseded information.  Why yes, biology is more complex than we thought, and again, this article still doesn’t show that evolutionary theory is wrong.  The “tree of life” is now quite a lot like a “bush”, and yep scientists say that, with evolution still intact and no it does not show that each creature is “uniquely designed”.  More creationist lies.  How unsurprising. 


Quote
Microbes, insects, plants, and animals do not fit a "tree of life" with linear descent.  There is no pattern to their similarities and differences because each one is a uniquely designed, complete creature.
nice little plagiarism there, TruthSearcher.  You should watch what you cut and paste.  Here’s the original creationist nonsense: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Always good to see that creationists never change their spots. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Do you want there to be a creator? [#2629]
« Reply #115 on: March 20, 2012, 03:44:49 AM »
Samothec, why does suffering exist yes, its a big question, but bigger still is why do we die, why don’t we live forever?

You are the believer so the questions are for you to answer: "why does suffering exist?" and "why do we die, why don’t we live forever?"

My answers should have been obvious: there is no god to stop the suffering which is a natural part of life; and we evolved and have the natural lifespan determined by our heritage.

It is only when god enters the picture that suffering and death do not make sense. It means that either god does not exist or that god is malevolent. A benevolent god would not have created this world.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther