By
contributing to Online
Onslaught,
you'll help make sure we're around for years to come. Toss us as little as
a few bucks, or as much as your generosity allows. Thanks!
Posts 1571
Registered 6-27-2007 Location Where everyone is rich but me Member Is Offline
Mood: need coffee
posted on 2-27-2010 at 06:24 PM
quote:Originally posted by BBMN
You'll have to provide examples... I'm sure there is an instance or two where even the most vocal atheist would agree, but then again,
this statement can cut both ways... there's people that feel that they must insert (their) religion into all types of publicly funded
institutions. If people hate the separation of church and state so much... there's always Saudi Arabia.
Carl Sagan's panspermia comes to mind (cums to mind?). Which might address the issue with the earth not being old enough to support DNA
formation from base proteins, but there's still the problem that the universe still isn't old enough (I know this is abiogenesis and not
technically evolution).
I was talking to SETI physicist years ago and asked him how likely he thought there really was other intelligent life out there, since astronomers and
biologists seem to disagree on that likelihood. There's two ways to look at the chance of dna formation: either there's an endless supply
of soups of proteins and one will coalesce into dna, but the chances of that happening is so small that there aren't enough planets in the
universe to support it, or you have one location and one soup and wait long enough for chance to form the dna molecule, in which case the universe
isn't old enough. His reply was that since we're here talking about it, it happened. Just because the chance is 1 in 10 to the 25th power
doesn't mean you have to turn over all 10 to the 25th coins to get the right one. Maybe you get the right one really early - or we're
missing a piece of the puzzle and the chance is much lower than we think. Either way, since it happened here it could happen out there. To me, the
idea that in 13 billion year old universe with a vastness we can't measure there still shouldn't be dna points to a creator, to the
non-believer it just means we're lucky, and if we weren't lucky we'd never know.
I was out for beers and football with two college physics profs, one was my 325 instructor and the other was a guest speaker. I don't remember
what the guest (who was a believer) asked, but the answer from my non-believer prof was "couldn't entropy have entered our universe from a
dying universe in another dimension?" He caught my WTF look and said, "well is that really any less believable than a supreme God?" I told him that
I personally would say yes, but I could see his point and I hope he never mocks someone for believing in an unseen god.
It's like I said before, it's rarely about creation and evolution - your preconceptions about a divine God make something as unknowable
like the progression of the universe too big to argue without falling back on the god vs no god debate. We might agree 100% on the timeline of the
universe and you can say that the gaps and impossibilities are just things we don't know yet scientifically, and I'll say that God did
it.
quote:Originally posted by borntorun
BZZT WRONG
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
We know that the big bang happened (Gen 1:1) and eventually gas coalesced into a giant spinning disk and smaller accretion disks formed (Gen 1:2).
Formless and void. Then the center disk got massive enough to spark a nuclear reaction while the smaller, outer disks coalesced into solid masses but
were not massive enough to go nuclear (Gen 1:3).
quote:Originally posted by atothej
This is an interesting point, but it still then presupposes that God created circumstances under which some of his creation could not survive without
adaptation. Therefore, God created a being that could not survive, as created, in the world he created. Then, he gave them adaptability rather than
simply set up the world so that they would be acclimated to it without changes.
Again, if the idea is that God simply sets things in motion and then the mechanism must work, I can see that. Usually, however, that is not the
perception of most Christians regarding God.
Theologically, though, the two are very different. Man's fall is stems from free will, not an inability to survive in the conditions as
created. Without getting into a long discussion of free will, I think it is apparent that the finch's beak change is one that was necessitated
by the finch living in an environment in which it could not survive. Thus, God created a being (the finch) and an environment that were incompatible.
That would appear to be an error in design that belies omniscience and infallibility.
[Edited on 2-27-2010 by atothej]
I think what you're missing, or maybe it's the way I'm reading it, is the free will leading to the fall. The bible tells us that God
became displeased with his creation, indicating it did change from what he intended. Not because he goofed, but because we did.
Damn bitches and their apples:
The "B" is for Bargain!
borntorun
God of This World
Posts -8686
Registered 7-22-2003 Location Breathe Member Is Offline
Mood: House, Monk-E
posted on 2-27-2010 at 06:55 PM
quote:Originally posted by doctorb
We know that the big bang happened (Gen 1:1) and eventually gas coalesced into a giant spinning disk and smaller accretion disks formed (Gen 1:2).
Formless and void. Then the center disk got massive enough to spark a nuclear reaction while the smaller, outer disks coalesced into solid masses but
were not massive enough to go nuclear (Gen 1:3).
My "BZZT WRONG" comment was about OOMike's statement that "then there was light" WAS the Big Bang, which is impossible because in the
creation story the earth was created before light.
But aside from that, your analysis (and Genesis) goes against the common belief that the sun is older than the earth as well as later happenings in
the creation story that has God create stars and, depending on which version you're reading, the moon and the sun itself after Earth is
basically finished.
Posts 1643
Registered 5-2-2003 Location Halifax, Nova Scotia Member Is Offline
Mood: Superior
posted on 3-13-2010 at 12:03 PM
quote:Originally posted by drmuerto
And yet in the Bible they profess to read the god they profess to believe in is constantly revising its plan. First it's all "Oh whoops, you
eat from the tree of knowledge, you have to leave paradise". Then it's all, "Too much sin around, so I'm gonna wipe it all out with a
flood and we can start over with sort of a clean slate" After that it's all, "We can't have this Tower of Bable thing, so now everyone
has to speak a different language." Then it's "OK seriously now, let's set up a covenant and me lay out the ten commandments you have to
follow." Then it's, "Remember that last covenant? That's null now, and I'm gonna send my child down to set up a new one." Then
Paul's, presumably speaking for god's interest, says that you don't have to get circumcised any more. And so forth.
The way I figure it, the only way you can claim the inerrancy of the Judeo-Christian god is to not actually read the texts that claim to depict it.
And in fact there are a number of studies about these sorts of fundamentalist and literalist forms of Christianity that show that what's
important is that you claim the inerrancy of the Bible, not that you actually know much about its content.
The problem with these fundamentalist sects of Christianity is that they worship The Bible, not God. By doing this, they are going against one of the
great commandments "thou shalt not worship any god but me" aka Idol Worship. Bible worship is idol worship. Which means the opinions of all
fundamentalist Christians should be taken with a grain of salt because they are all idiots. But you all already know this.
As for evolution disproving the existence of God because it shows he had to tweak his invention as it went on, as Dr Muerto pointed out, The Bible
points out the EXACT SAME THING! The idea behind the constant introduction of new covenants is that idiotic people routinely clung onto outdated
values. As a result, they stagnated and became lost and did not understand why. So these new covenants were introduced so as help these people move on
with their lives. Regardless, we still had (and continue to have) free will so we are allowed to choose what covenant we follow.
In essence, new covenants are introduced every day. The people responsible for promoting The Bible just decided that they are irrelevant because they
are not in The Bible.
Devineman
Showstopper
Posts 522
Registered 10-7-2006 Location UK Member Is Offline
Mood: Cynical
posted on 3-13-2010 at 02:03 PM
Maybe I need to spend more time on American-heavy sites, but I'm actually shocked by some of the opinions in this thread regarding evolution,
what it is, and how it may level with Christianity.
I'm going to keep pretty stum as this is an emotive issue and I'm sure I'd add nothing but fuel to a fire that really
shouldn't be burning. The one thing that I will say, is that I am a Christian and there is absolutely no argument in any community (apart from
religious ones) about evolution.
It doesn't fit with my religion, but neither does millions of other things, and people should stop trying to jam it in. Faith is called faith
because it's hard to believe in, if you need to make it 'easier' by jamming science into your religion, then I'd take a look
at how strong your commitment to God really is.
DrBoz
Man of a Thousand Holds
Posts 1038
Registered 1-2-2006 Location Indiana Member Is Offline
Mood: Bubbly!
posted on 3-16-2010 at 04:50 AM
quote:Originally posted by Devineman
Faith is called faith because it's hard to believe in....
Isn't this like the opposite of faith? True faith is an unwavering belief in the face of all attempts to dissuade. Faith is also something
that, by definition, cannot be proved. Otherwise, it would be fact (or fiction if disproved).
Oops sorry. Forgot that my main purpose was to attempt to derail this thread. So here is true faith:
Posts 1011
Registered 11-2-2004 Location @columbo527 Member Is Offline
Mood: GodDamnWOOO
posted on 3-16-2010 at 11:04 PM
i miss eli stone
"The North Cafeteria, named after Admiral William North, is located in the western portion of East Hall, gateway to the western half of North Hall,
which is named, not after William North, but for its position above the South Wall. It is the most contested and confusing battlefield on Greendale’s
campus, next to the English Memorial Spanish Center, named after English Memorial, a Portuguese sailor that discovered Greendale while looking for a
fountain that cured syphilis."
wings76fan
Fella
Posts 350
Registered 1-2-2009 Location Somewhere along I-74 in Illinois Member Is Offline
Mood: Zombie
posted on 8-9-2010 at 02:04 AM
How's this for a merging of creationism with conspiracy: my dad seems to think that Jesus was an alien and that he'll "be back soon."
