First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply God vs. science
Member
23685 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / F
Offline
Posted 2/23/08 , edited 4/18/08

Stickmania wrote:


skygod333 wrote:

Don't worry Seraph, without God, there is no science.


Proof please? Other wise you cannot make that statement.


Precisely how unbelieving can you be? Reprove you refuse to hear, guidance you refuse to pay heed to.

Why don't you try proving the reason for your existence? Why have men appeared? Why has the Earth appeared. How it appears can be argued, why. We Christians have a reason, and we live that reason.

So why are you alive on earth?

Posted 2/23/08 , edited 4/18/08

Stickmania wrote:


skygod333 wrote:

Don't worry Seraph, without God, there is no science.


Proof please? Other wise you cannot make that statement.


What God does not love does not exist.
Member
23685 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / F
Offline
Posted 2/23/08 , edited 4/18/08
But don't refuse science totally. I believe to put science on the far extreme of God is a perversion of the devil. It's not so clearcut. In fact, God can teach you about the stars and the moon, but the devil has perverted it to become stars being your destiny, and fate.

The wonders of human differences have been perverted into a form of worship, worshipping people with strange abilities, or believing in things like palmistry or going by face. A person with a 'bad face' should therefore cease to live because he is damned because of his looks. Oh, you can have this talisman for 2k, it'll change your luck. Luck? So by luck, you're damned? You save yourself with your efforts? A talisman which you have to pay for 'may' change your luck, but it won't make you feel anymore loved 'knowing' your face is damned. Where's your claim for that? Why do people run after idolatry like that when the one who's always with them is patiently waiting?

What can science do for you beyond knowledge? Does it help you find peace? Joy? Where do you go for these things? Various sources? The way of Jesus is SO simple that people don't like that. They want to work for it.
Posted 2/24/08 , edited 4/18/08

Faeleia wrote:


Stickmania wrote:


skygod333 wrote:

Don't worry Seraph, without God, there is no science.


Proof please? Other wise you cannot make that statement.


Precisely how unbelieving can you be? Reprove you refuse to hear, guidance you refuse to pay heed to.

Why don't you try proving the reason for your existence? Why have men appeared? Why has the Earth appeared. How it appears can be argued, why. We Christians have a reason, and we live that reason.

So why are you alive on earth?



Look that was a classic answer from someone who has a closed mind. You don't even consider the alternatives. By being an atheist it means I don't believe at all, which I thought you knew. Thats why I ask questions to see if I should believe, to see if I might be wrong. I can think of at least ten other ways in which love and the human race came to be that do not involve the Christian God. I would have to be an idiot to accept your opinion without looking at the other possibilities. In short how ignorant can you be? You chose Christianity without even considering the other possibilities first? And so long as its good guidance I will follow it by the way. So far though it hasn't been. Its a shame because I really want there to be a God who spreads love and kindness which is why I keep asking you Christians difficult questions, in the hope that one of you will prove my current views wrong. So far however I am forced to conclude that there is almost certainly no God at all up there, with all things taken into account. I'm constantly disappointed with your answers because they are so vague and my mind can easily think of several reasons why they might well be wrong or contradictions which show they are every time. Until I can convince myself that there is a God up there I am not going to waste my life in a church like you guys do when I could be out having fun.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
52110 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 2/24/08 , edited 4/18/08
How did the first human reproduce? What are the odds of a male AND female creature evolving as the same exact species with the same exact amount of chromosomes within the natural life span of the organism? What are the odds that each organism found a mate like that? Faith is not weakness, faith is strength. It's the inner strength to look past ourselves as the authority over us, and realize that God is real and that He does love us and provides. Instead of God vs. Science, it should be God + Science. They go hand in hand.
Posted 2/24/08 , edited 4/18/08

SouskeAizen wrote:


Stickmania wrote:


Faeleia wrote:


Stickmania wrote:


skygod333 wrote:

Don't worry Seraph, without God, there is no science.


Proof please? Other wise you cannot make that statement.


Precisely how unbelieving can you be? Reprove you refuse to hear, guidance you refuse to pay heed to.

Why don't you try proving the reason for your existence? Why have men appeared? Why has the Earth appeared. How it appears can be argued, why. We Christians have a reason, and we live that reason.

So why are you alive on earth?



Look that was a classic answer from someone who has a closed mind. You don't even consider the alternatives. By being an atheist it means I don't believe at all, which I thought you knew. Thats why I ask questions to see if I should believe, to see if I might be wrong. I can think of at least ten other ways in which love and the human race came to be that do not involve the Christian God. I would have to be an idiot to accept your opinion without looking at the other possibilities. In short how ignorant can you be? You chose Christianity without even considering the other possibilities first? And so long as its good guidance I will follow it by the way. So far though it hasn't been. Its a shame because I really want there to be a God who spreads love and kindness which is why I keep asking you Christians difficult questions, in the hope that one of you will prove my current views wrong. So far however I am forced to conclude that there is almost certainly no God at all up there, with all things taken into account. I'm constantly disappointed with your answers because they are so vague and my mind can easily think of several reasons why they might well be wrong or contradictions which show they are every time. Until I can convince myself that there is a God up there I am not going to waste my life in a church like you guys do when I could be out having fun.


If you think there are several reasons what are the reasons? I don't think you would be able to answer because there is no scientific reason for love and the human race. Let me ask you two questions, what is love? who was the first human being and how did he exist? The Bible is not only a book but it is God's Word. In the beginning there was the Word of God and the Word of God created everything including humans and love


Ok a scientific reason for love. Love is a beneficial emotion to us and helps us to survive i.e. mothers who love kids protect them, those kids are more likely to live and reproduce etc basic theory of evolution. Therefore love could have evolved, and I can see reasons why it would have done. Just another thing to ensure the survival of the human race basically. If mothers didn't give a damn what happened to their kids then babies would never grow up then would they. Think about it logically. And nobody knows where the human race came from, but there is certainly nothing to suggest that life couldn't have just appeared by freak chance (after all humans are made up of the same building blocks that non living things are made of, the only difference is that its put together differently. Its hard to prove because we can't exactly go back in time and check can we.
Member
8059 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / floating....away....
Offline
Posted 2/24/08 , edited 4/18/08
i smell trouble here... anyway, i just want to say that...

its normal to contradict something.. especially religion. but contradicting is the easy way, we know that it will be difficult to PROVE to someone who does not believe.... but that is the main thing..... WE BELIEVE.....
and again, THAT IS WHY IT IS CALLED FAITH. Faith is for someone who is strong who can live with the contradictions given and still stand up strong....

Faith is something not all can understand but people would WANT to understand.
i believe of the love theory........ and i also believe that God is Love......
we can always look it at a scienific way... but WE CHOOSE to have Faith of someone who for us excists with all our heart... and guess what??? WE ARE HAPPY WITH IT! we dont have any grudes held.... we live a happy life. because we lean in to the Lord.
we may suffer but we are happy to suffer..... you may call us idiots but we are happy idiots...

and we would rather be happy idiots and make others happy that be the cause of someones misery.

we dont feel any HOLE in our hearts because it is Filled with Jesus. and because of it, we feel complete........

i believe in the saying, "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks"

and i believe, athiest feel lonely that is why they tend to make debates and all.... admit it.... there is something missing that you cant explain......

i lost the Lord once..because i keep asking questions and i doubted Him... but He told me, "Emm, you are mine. and its good that you are trying to find Me. and those to whoever searches for me and believes will find me."

and guess what. i did find Him. and now? my life has never been like before.... why dont you believe? is this faith to God... too big for you to truly understand?

and whoever you are..... i will be here as a friend for you. im saying that... i DO NOT feel mad about what you say because i understand you. and i am not insulted by what you say against God and Jesus. because i know in my heart the truth....... i may not be able to say it.....explain it..... but i know. and it is just simple......

ps: besides ive had been to debates since i was a child, i was trained by my too intelectual family.... debates now only give me headaches.... well, unless there is a grade given in it.... il join.(if it is really necessary)
Scientist Moderator
digs 
52110 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 2/24/08 , edited 4/18/08

magnus102 wrote:


digs wrote:

How did the first human reproduce? What are the odds of a male AND female creature evolving as the same exact species with the same exact amount of chromosomes within the natural life span of the organism? What are the odds that each organism found a mate like that? Faith is not weakness, faith is strength. It's the inner strength to look past ourselves as the authority over us, and realize that God is real and that He does love us and provides. Instead of God vs. Science, it should be God + Science. They go hand in hand.


Im sorry if you dont think evolution is real you are either ignorant or an idiot.


I would like to see the logic behind your statement. Is evolution scientific law? No. Does evolution have holes? Yes. does evolution have bias in its favor? You betcha. If someone goes against what the biased world says is fact when they have no proof, doesn't that make someone stronger?
Posted 2/24/08 , edited 4/18/08

magnus102 wrote:


digs wrote:


magnus102 wrote:


digs wrote:

How did the first human reproduce? What are the odds of a male AND female creature evolving as the same exact species with the same exact amount of chromosomes within the natural life span of the organism? What are the odds that each organism found a mate like that? Faith is not weakness, faith is strength. It's the inner strength to look past ourselves as the authority over us, and realize that God is real and that He does love us and provides. Instead of God vs. Science, it should be God + Science. They go hand in hand.


Im sorry if you dont think evolution is real you are either ignorant or an idiot.


I would like to see the logic behind your statement. Is evolution scientific law? No. Does evolution have holes? Yes. does evolution have bias in its favor? You betcha. If someone goes against what the biased world says is fact when they have no proof, doesn't that make someone stronger?


The logic is that there is so much evidence for evolution it can not dismissed. Why would people want to have a bias in favor of evolution? Remember than in science a theory is supported by tons of evidence. Gravity is a theory after all. There is not evil secular group that is trying to make evolution accepted to hurt religious faith.

No it does not make them stronger if they are denying something that is so well supported. It makes them stupid.


You do know that both creationists and evolutionists are half right? Ever heard of the mitochondrial eve that I bring up from time to time? You can't sit there and be on the extreme on either side. You have to be in the middle. Not to mention, the mitochondrial eve has been proven with genetics (Another study of science) so don't try to deny it. Science also never debunks the supernatural or divine. Science debunks the natural and ordinary.
Posted 2/25/08 , edited 4/18/08

magnus102 wrote:


skygod333 wrote:


magnus102 wrote:


digs wrote:


magnus102 wrote:


digs wrote:

How did the first human reproduce? What are the odds of a male AND female creature evolving as the same exact species with the same exact amount of chromosomes within the natural life span of the organism? What are the odds that each organism found a mate like that? Faith is not weakness, faith is strength. It's the inner strength to look past ourselves as the authority over us, and realize that God is real and that He does love us and provides. Instead of God vs. Science, it should be God + Science. They go hand in hand.


Im sorry if you dont think evolution is real you are either ignorant or an idiot.


I would like to see the logic behind your statement. Is evolution scientific law? No. Does evolution have holes? Yes. does evolution have bias in its favor? You betcha. If someone goes against what the biased world says is fact when they have no proof, doesn't that make someone stronger?


The logic is that there is so much evidence for evolution it can not dismissed. Why would people want to have a bias in favor of evolution? Remember than in science a theory is supported by tons of evidence. Gravity is a theory after all. There is not evil secular group that is trying to make evolution accepted to hurt religious faith.

No it does not make them stronger if they are denying something that is so well supported. It makes them stupid.


You do know that both creationists and evolutionists are half right? Ever heard of the mitochondrial eve that I bring up from time to time? You can't sit there and be on the extreme on either side. You have to be in the middle. Not to mention, the mitochondrial eve has been proven with genetics (Another study of science) so don't try to deny it. Science also never debunks the supernatural or divine. Science debunks the natural and ordinary.


Mitochondria are the cells' power sources. Are you saying we are all decsended from a cells power source???????????


Look up "Mitochondrial Eve". You'll see what I mean.
Posted 2/25/08 , edited 4/18/08

magnus102 wrote:


skygod333 wrote:


magnus102 wrote:


skygod333 wrote:


magnus102 wrote:


digs wrote:


magnus102 wrote:


digs wrote:

How did the first human reproduce? What are the odds of a male AND female creature evolving as the same exact species with the same exact amount of chromosomes within the natural life span of the organism? What are the odds that each organism found a mate like that? Faith is not weakness, faith is strength. It's the inner strength to look past ourselves as the authority over us, and realize that God is real and that He does love us and provides. Instead of God vs. Science, it should be God + Science. They go hand in hand.


Im sorry if you dont think evolution is real you are either ignorant or an idiot.


I would like to see the logic behind your statement. Is evolution scientific law? No. Does evolution have holes? Yes. does evolution have bias in its favor? You betcha. If someone goes against what the biased world says is fact when they have no proof, doesn't that make someone stronger?


The logic is that there is so much evidence for evolution it can not dismissed. Why would people want to have a bias in favor of evolution? Remember than in science a theory is supported by tons of evidence. Gravity is a theory after all. There is not evil secular group that is trying to make evolution accepted to hurt religious faith.

No it does not make them stronger if they are denying something that is so well supported. It makes them stupid.


You do know that both creationists and evolutionists are half right? Ever heard of the mitochondrial eve that I bring up from time to time? You can't sit there and be on the extreme on either side. You have to be in the middle. Not to mention, the mitochondrial eve has been proven with genetics (Another study of science) so don't try to deny it. Science also never debunks the supernatural or divine. Science debunks the natural and ordinary.


Mitochondria are the cells' power sources. Are you saying we are all decsended from a cells power source???????????


Look up "Mitochondrial Eve". You'll see what I mean.


Oh right I remember this crap now. This does not make creationists half right. I remembered reading this awhile ago and I went and found it for you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html


* The name Eve, in retrospect, is perhaps the worst possible name to give to the entity in question. I believe that this is probably the cause of so much confusion in understanding what the significance of this entity is. People think that this title has some deep theological or religious consequences. Nothing of that sort. Someone you come across who claims that the bible (or the book of Genesis) has been validated by the discovery of the Mitochondrial Eve, is talking crap---you should feel free, and even obligated, to tell them so.
* The Mitochondrial Eve of 200,000 years ago (ME for short henceforth) is NOT our common ancestor, or even common genetic ancestor. She is the most-recent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today with respect to matrilineal descent. That may seem like a mouthful, but without even a single one of those qualifying phrases, any description or discussion of the ME reduces to a lot of nonsense.
While each of us necessarily has two parents, we get our mitochondria and mitochondrial DNA from the ovum (and hence from our mothers). Our mothers got their mitochondrial DNA from their mothers and so on. Thus, while our nuclear DNA is a mish-mash of the DNA of our four grandparents, our mitochondrial DNA is an almost exact copy of the DNA of our maternal grandmother (the match may not be exact due to mutations. In fact, the mutations in the mitochondrial DNA provide the molecular clock that allows us to determine how much time has elapsed since the ME lived).
The ME represents that woman whose mitochondrial DNA (with mutations) exists in all the humans now living on Earth. That does not mean that she is our lone woman ancestor. We have ancestors who are not via matrilineal descent. For example, our father's mother (who did pass on her mitochondrial DNA to her daughters) is an example of an ancestor who is not matrilineal to us. However, she did exist at one time and was probably of the same age as our mother's mother, who is a matrilineal ancestor of ours and from whom we got our mitochondrial DNA.
* The term Mitochondrial Eve itself is a title given retroactively to a woman. Often (and as is certainly the case with the ME that we are discussing) the conferring of the title occurs many hundreds of thousands of years after the death of the woman in question.
* ME lived with many other humans (men and women); she was certainly not alone. When she was alive, she was most certainly NOT the Mitochondrial Eve. The title at that time was held by a distant ancestor of hers (and of the many humans who were her contemporaries).
* The existence of the Mitochondrial Eve is NOT a theory; it is a mathematical fact (unless something like a multiple-origins theory of human evolution i.e. the human species arose independently in different geographically separated populations, and that the present-day ease of interbreeding is the result of a remarkable convergent evolution, is true. Few people subscribe to the multiple-origins theory, and the Mitochondrial Eve observation is a refutation of multiple-origins).
* The proof for the existence of a Mitochondrial Eve is as follows (based on an argument by Daniel Dennett in the above mentioned book).
Consider all the humans alive today on Earth. Put them into a set S.
Next, consider the set of all those women who were the mothers of the people in the set S. Call this set S'. A few observations about this new set S'. It consists of only women (while set S consists of both men and women)---this is because we chose to follow only the mother-of relationship in going from set S to set S'. Also note that not every member of set S' needs to be in set S---set S consists of all people living today, while some of the mothers of living people could have died, they would be in set S' but not in set S. Third, the size of set S' is never larger than the size of set S. Why? This is because of the simple fact that each of us has only one mother. It is however overwhelmingly more likely that the size of set S' is much smaller than that of set S---this is because each woman usually has more than one child.
Repeat the process of following the mother-of relationship with set S' to generate a new set S''. This set will consist of only women, and will be no larger (and very likely smaller) than set S'.
Continue this process. There will come a point when the set will consist of smaller and smaller number of women, until we finally come to a single woman who is related to all members in our original set via the transitive-closure of the mother-of relation. There is nothing special about her. Had we chosen to follow the father-of relation, we would have hit the Y-chromosome Adam (more on him later). Had we chosen to follow combinations of mother-of and father-of relations, we would have hit some other of our common ancestors. The only reason why the mother-of relationship seems special is because we can track it using the evidence of mitochondrial DNA.
Thus there must exist a single woman whose is the matrilineal most-recent common ancestor of every in set S.
A few others points to keep in mind. One might say that if each woman has only a single daughter (and however many sons), the size of the sets will be the same as we extrapolate backwards. But also note that this backwards mathematical extrapolation is an extrapolation into the past. This process cannot be continued indefinitely because the age of the Earth, life on Earth, and the human species is finite (this argument comes from Dawkins).
Also important to keep in mind is that while the final set S'* has only one member (the Mitochondrial Eve), she was by no means the only living woman on Earth during her lifetime. Many other women lived with her, but they either did not leave descendents or did not leave descendents via the matrilineal line, who are still alive today.
* Let us now see how the title of Mitochondrial Eve can change hands.
Consider an extremely prolific woman living today. She has many daughters and takes a vacation to a remote Carribean island for a week. During the same week a plague of a mutated Ebola virus sweeps the Earth and drastically decreases the fecundity of all living women. Not only that, the viral infection also changes the genome of these women so that the daughters they give birth to will inherit this reduced fecundity. This means that far more than average of their fetuses will undergo abortions (or, in a somewhat kinder scenario, their female fetuses will be aborted more often than male ones).
Only this one woman and her daughters who were off in this Carribean island are safe from the viral plague. Also assume that the viral plague consumes itself within that fateful week. This woman and her daughters are now free to breed in a world where their reproductive potential far outstrips that of every other woman alive (and to be born of these women). Soon, almost every one on Earth will be related in some fashion to this one woman. Finally, when the last woman who was born to one of the matrilineal descendents of an infected woman dies, the non-infected Carribean tourist takes on the title of the new Mitochondrial Eve. Every human alive on Earth at that point in time is now related via the mitochondrial line to her.
But consider this new twist. Suppose a group of astronauts (men and women) were sent off into space during the infection week, and were thus not infected themselves. After many centuries in a Moon or Mars colony, they returned to Earth. At that time, suddenly, the title of Mitochondrial Eve would revert back to our own ME. The humans alive on the Earth at that time would all share their mitochondrial DNA with an earlier common ancestor.
* Thus the title of Mitochondrial Eve depends very critically on the present human population of the Earth. As people die or are born, the title can change hands. Once a ME is established (via the death of a matrilineal line), further births cannot change the title. Further deaths can, however, transfer the title to a more recent woman. The older ME is still the common ancestor of all humans alive today on Earth with respect to matrilineal descent, but she is not the most-recent .... This is part of the reason why I said that each and every word of that definition was important.

As an exercise, try to eliminate just one phrase of the definition of the ME and see what happens. The key terms are most-recent, common ancestor, humans alive today, matrilineal descent.

I mentioned the Y-chromosome Adam (YcA for short) earlier in discussing patrilineal descent. The YcA has also been identified (by the careful sequencing of a small region of the Y-chromosome that all men carry) and has been dated considerably more recent than the ME (yet another slap-in-the-face for bibliolaters---their Adam and Eve lived many tens of thousands of years apart). The YcA is not as special as the ME because only men carry the Y-chromosome, whereas all humans, men and women, carry mitochondria and mitochondrial DNA. So the YcA would not leave the same kind of trace in women living today as the ME did. However, the existence of the YcA is as mathematically necessary as the existence of the ME (use the earlier set argument, but now with the father-of relationship).

While the existence of the ME and the YcA are mathematical, I am more interested in the point in time when the titles were conferred on the particular ME and YcA were are talking about today. These people have held their respective titles for perhaps many centuries, but the really tantalizing question is when they qualified. Was the original human population (from which we all descended) so small that our ME was identified very quickly after her death or did the death of an old woman in a remote village in Southern Africa during the time that the Pharohs ruled in Egypt represent that critical demise of the last matrilineal line not connected with our ME. Similar arguments hold for the YcA.

A final note. The techniques of DNA sequencing, DNA-relatedness comparisons, and the calibration of the molecular clock have been improving dramatically over the past few years. The existence of the Mitochondrial Eve and the Y-chromosome Adam are no longer in any doubt (remember, both are mathematical necessities)---what is still being discussed is the estimation of how long ago they lived. Determining their ages requires an accurate calibration of the molecular clock and there is some disagreement here.




Yes it does. They argue that there was only ever one man and one woman to start out with. They were almost there. The first modern human woman came through evolution along with the males in her tribe. Yes, there is evolution. No, there was one woman to start out with because we are all genetically related. Both are half right.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.