Finally, proof there is no God.
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I didn't say that at all. I think it is entirely possible, in theory.
I just said that if we had been created as a biotech experiment (i.e. the alien created us a finished species, which is how I interpreted your premise), there maybe evidence for that on the planet, perhaps by there being no evolutionary link to all the other life on earth. Given that we KNOW we share 50% of our DNA with bananas, the alien creator would have had to create all of life on earth from scratch to cover his tracks and make us look like we evolved. That is possible, but rather less likely than life evolving on the earth from "scratch" so to speak.
If we shared no DNA with other life on earth, that may be considered evidence that we did not evolve on our own planet.
cymtriks said:
...the theory does not disprove a creator, it could equally well be seen as evidence of a creators plan.
"Having seen some teenagers in the middle of the night with planks and bits of string in a corn field making crop circles, you are concluding that the crop circles are still proof of aliens as some aliens made the teenagers do it."Does this statement seem logical to you?
It is as logical as your statement about a creator.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Not really, just perhaps a misunderstanding. When you said "original lifeform created by an advanced alien bio-scientist" I understood you meant something far more complex than say a banana.
If you just meant the very very first lifeform ever in its most basic form before any other life on earth existed, then, yes, it is possible and I also concede it might be hard to detect evidence for such a subtle 'seeding'.
Timsta said:
drainbrain said:
2 Timothy 2:23
Deuteronomy 22:28-29https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deute...
"28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
So rape is OK then in the bible? WTF?
If he's not discovered, no problem, presumably?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I think this sort of thing is where some atheists find the idea of intelligent people believing in religion difficult to understand - though as I've said in the past it seems there must be some kind of genetic brain function reason that the two are clearly not mutually exclusive.How can you read a book that basically says "rape is OK if you get away with it, otherwise marry the victim", and not question what this really implies (shouts) about the underlying principles / origins of religion. The belief gene it seems puts some sort of barrier in the way of seeing through the rather obvious contradiction here. What sort of God would really promote such a moral - other than a dodgey man-made one, keen to promote a sexist dark age prejudices against women.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I do find it fascinating how you can pick and chose from a book like that. The book effectively defines the religion and the God. If it doesn't, what else does?
When that religion and its God tolerates rape how on earth do you tolerate the rest?
It (hopefully) is the case that no believers in such a bible actually think or supports the tolerance of rape; but how on earth do you reconcile entries such as this with the rest of the book.
cymtriks said:
WinstonWolf said:
It can only bare a passing resemblance to anything if what is written is incorrect or fudged.
And what's wrong with Thor, why isn't he god any more?
Thor is still a God. Some people in Scandinavia still worship in "the old custom" as they call it.And what's wrong with Thor, why isn't he god any more?
Not certain exactly what you think is incorrect or fudged. I would suggest that any interpretation of an ancient record (religious text or not) requires some allowance for how the original authors saw their world. This is what is sadly lacking on all sides. That is why I think that Christians who try to argue that all animals being on the Ark means all animals in the world today are wrong. Even a scant regard for the original circumstances would lead to the conclusion that it means all *your* animals, in other words breading pairs from the tribal village.
Just consider how a modern farmer faced with rising flood water would respond if a government official said "get pairs of every animal onto the evacuation truck". Would he start worrying about pairs of lions and penguins? Or would he think "right, two best pigs, two best cattle and two best sheep". Context is required.
What do you believe was Gods role in the farmer and goats on a raft story? I thought part of the deal was that God spoke to Noah?
cymtriks said:
///ajd said:
"Having seen some teenagers in the middle of the night with planks and bits of string in a corn field making crop circles, you are concluding that the crop circles are still proof of aliens as some aliens made the teenagers do it."
Does this statement seem logical to you?
It is as logical as your statement about a creator.
I would prefer:Does this statement seem logical to you?
It is as logical as your statement about a creator.
"Having seen some teenagers in the middle of the night with planks and bits of string in a corn field making crop circles, I conclude that there may still be an overall message or plan behind them."
The "plan" could be that the farmer paid them to do it to charge for access to view the "mystery". Seriously, that did happen, I actually knew someone who made crop circles!!
That was really my point. The probability of e.g. something like entropy being the origin of life as opposed to a creator is similarly tipped in favour of the more naturally logical explanation.
Troubleatmill said:
The whole premise of the flood was that God was pig sick of us. And wanted to start again. Wiping us all off the earth.
How that would be achieved by a localised event, makes no sense.
Why would the Chinese be allowed to escape God's wrath?
And if it was going to be a localised flood. Why build a boat? Why not use the time ti get out of Dodge?
And if the flood wiped out everything in the region. What did the animals eat once the flood receded?
(Vegetation doesn't really do very well under water )
Have we discussed God's love for infanticide yet?
It seems to be one of the few things that cheer him up and pacify him for a while.
What is the infanticide? Any quotes from the gospel on this? How that would be achieved by a localised event, makes no sense.
Why would the Chinese be allowed to escape God's wrath?
And if it was going to be a localised flood. Why build a boat? Why not use the time ti get out of Dodge?
And if the flood wiped out everything in the region. What did the animals eat once the flood receded?
(Vegetation doesn't really do very well under water )
Have we discussed God's love for infanticide yet?
It seems to be one of the few things that cheer him up and pacify him for a while.
ash73 said:
///ajd said:
The probability of something like entropy being the origin of life...
Entropy cannot explain the origin of life, but it may describe the direction it takes. By the way, single-celled to 50 ton dinosaurs to birds? Are there some examples in the history of evolution which support the theory?If the environment "wants" to be in a state of maximum entropy what causes life, as a chemical reaction or energy exchange, to delay that process? What sets the arrow of time and defines maximum entropy as the end state?
It ascribes order to a universal process we don't understand; it doesn't really explain anything.
For the question on single cell to bird, are you questioning whether the theory of evolution can explain this? I thought it was scientifically recognised that this was valid? Only the very initial origins are as yet unclear / unexplained / proven as I understand it, but just a matter if time before science stumbles on the answer and proves it in a lab. Are you hinting that you don't think they will and that there must have been an intelligent designer at work in the process?
ash73 said:
///ajd said:
Are you hinting that .. there must have been an intelligent designer at work in the process?
I ask for some examples as evidence to support the entropy-based evolution theory, which seems reasonable, and you tar me with that brush?! Don't be so binary.ash73 said:
By the way, single-celled to 50 ton dinosaurs to birds? Are there some examples in the history of evolution which support the theory?
The way you phrases this suggested evolution could not explain it. If not evolution, what exactly did you have in mind? It seemed you were implying a non-scientific deity type answer, but happy for you to confirm you rule that out.Derek Smith said:
History tells us that all scientific theories are wrong. That is what makes the scientific method so dependable.
The desert nomads came up with their theory of everything and put it down. It has become accepted and to challenge it renders you suspect of some phobia or other, or maybe even gay.
Newton came up with his theory of gravity - amongst others - and wrote Principia Mathmatica, a much, much more important book than any bible. For a while it was seen as wrong to challenge it but eventually errors were discovered and we had it rewritten. Newton, to call him one of the greatest minds in the history of science is to underrate him, was wrong, yet we flew to the Moon using his science whilst knowing full well that much of what he'd written had been replaced.
Darwin saw the evidence for evolution. It was overwhelming. Nothing can be argued against evolution any more than we can argue against gravity. All Darwin did was explain the mechanics of it. His theories have been modified, substantially so, most notably with the discovery of DNA. In essence, Darwin was wrong, albeit in the mechanical side.
Or, to put it simply, our knowledge progresses. Those who present current evolutionary theories stand on his shoulders. In fact, the theory of evolution evolves, as do all scientific theories.
Now let's take a religion, say based on a book written about 3000 years ago with additions and modifications about 1700 years ago.
The book contains, we are told, moral certainties. But morals have moved on and it is no longer seen as a good thing to slaughter all the canaanites, or to criminalise gays, or stone adulterers. We've moved on. The old beliefs should be dead. We can follow the broad scope, such as loving your neighbour, but throwing your daughter to the mob is frowned upon. There are better books to go by.
We don't need religion for guidance. We don't need to fear eternal damnation to keep our wanton desires in check, we don't need to keep women in the kitchen.
The bible predated earth, wind and fire, and I don't mean the band. We've moved on to better things, and I might include the band in this.
Much of what was preached in the bible would be criminal nowadays. If, as many seem to do, it is alright to pick and choose (as Constantine did), then that is not christianity. You are believing in your own little construct.
The suggestion most often repeated is that there are 10bn devotees of religion in the world and atheists, of which I do not class myself, are arroagant as they are suggesting they know better than all these people. But, it would seem, an awful lot of those have invented their own. So in fact, each religion has few adherents. The current pope has recently reinforced that you should not use condoms when indulging in sex. Those who do use contraceptives are saying they know better than the pope. Whilst I accept that many of us do know better than the pope when it comes to the use of condoms in Africa, for someone to call themselves a catholic and ignore the pope is a bit of a no-no.. They invented their own religion, especially if they don't stone adulterers. Or kill canaanites.
I'm not sure what you are saying at the end Derek?The desert nomads came up with their theory of everything and put it down. It has become accepted and to challenge it renders you suspect of some phobia or other, or maybe even gay.
Newton came up with his theory of gravity - amongst others - and wrote Principia Mathmatica, a much, much more important book than any bible. For a while it was seen as wrong to challenge it but eventually errors were discovered and we had it rewritten. Newton, to call him one of the greatest minds in the history of science is to underrate him, was wrong, yet we flew to the Moon using his science whilst knowing full well that much of what he'd written had been replaced.
Darwin saw the evidence for evolution. It was overwhelming. Nothing can be argued against evolution any more than we can argue against gravity. All Darwin did was explain the mechanics of it. His theories have been modified, substantially so, most notably with the discovery of DNA. In essence, Darwin was wrong, albeit in the mechanical side.
Or, to put it simply, our knowledge progresses. Those who present current evolutionary theories stand on his shoulders. In fact, the theory of evolution evolves, as do all scientific theories.
Now let's take a religion, say based on a book written about 3000 years ago with additions and modifications about 1700 years ago.
The book contains, we are told, moral certainties. But morals have moved on and it is no longer seen as a good thing to slaughter all the canaanites, or to criminalise gays, or stone adulterers. We've moved on. The old beliefs should be dead. We can follow the broad scope, such as loving your neighbour, but throwing your daughter to the mob is frowned upon. There are better books to go by.
We don't need religion for guidance. We don't need to fear eternal damnation to keep our wanton desires in check, we don't need to keep women in the kitchen.
The bible predated earth, wind and fire, and I don't mean the band. We've moved on to better things, and I might include the band in this.
Much of what was preached in the bible would be criminal nowadays. If, as many seem to do, it is alright to pick and choose (as Constantine did), then that is not christianity. You are believing in your own little construct.
The suggestion most often repeated is that there are 10bn devotees of religion in the world and atheists, of which I do not class myself, are arroagant as they are suggesting they know better than all these people. But, it would seem, an awful lot of those have invented their own. So in fact, each religion has few adherents. The current pope has recently reinforced that you should not use condoms when indulging in sex. Those who do use contraceptives are saying they know better than the pope. Whilst I accept that many of us do know better than the pope when it comes to the use of condoms in Africa, for someone to call themselves a catholic and ignore the pope is a bit of a no-no.. They invented their own religion, especially if they don't stone adulterers. Or kill canaanites.
Are you saying it is wrong for an atheist to ever protest that they do infact 'know better' than the pope when it comes to e.g. aids and africa?
I would have thought that was one of the concrete examples where it is right to stand up and say 'believe what you want, but we can't stand by while your belief needlessly kills people."
In that respect something like the primacy of human rights should be at the fore, and religion at the back. We cannot surely just say "there are two positions, both might be right to some minds, so we carry on and don't try and change e.g. the policy on no african condoms as it might offend.".
Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 7th March 11:08
///ajd said:
ash73 said:
///ajd said:
Are you hinting that .. there must have been an intelligent designer at work in the process?
I ask for some examples as evidence to support the entropy-based evolution theory, which seems reasonable, and you tar me with that brush?! Don't be so binary.ash73 said:
By the way, single-celled to 50 ton dinosaurs to birds? Are there some examples in the history of evolution which support the theory?
The way you phrases this suggested evolution could not explain it. If not evolution, what exactly did you have in mind? It seemed you were implying a non-scientific deity type answer, but happy for you to confirm you rule that out.i
The acorn > oak is not even evolution, just the progress of one species, but it illustrates a point. Plus the 50t dinosaur probably did start out as a single fertilised egg cell, though I know you were suggesting you were doubtful as to whether the species could evolve in such a way. So what is you position?
ash73 said:
Acorns evolve to oak trees, omg 
Again ash, are you questioning evolution and suggesting a deity is involved?TwigtheWonderkid said:
You seem to be suggesting that a single cell organism can't become a 50 ton dinosaur.
Think for a minute about what I wrote...ash73 said:
England said:
We can show very simply from the formula that the more likely evolutionary outcomes are going to be the ones that absorbed and dissipated more energy from the environment’s external drives on the way to getting there
Is this actually true? Do birds suck more orderliness from their environment than dinosaurs? Does life always evolve to be more energetic, or does it adapt to the amount of energy available? I'd like to see some examples that fit the formula.The acorn > oak is not even evolution, just the progress of one species, but it illustrates a point. Plus the 50t dinosaur probably did start out as a single fertilised egg cell, though I know you were suggesting you were doubtful as to whether the species could evolve in such a way. So what is you position?
REALIST123 said:
///ajd said:
i
The acorn > oak is not even evolution, just the progress of one species, but it illustrates a point. Plus the 50t dinosaur probably did start out as a single fertilised egg cell, though I know you were suggesting you were doubtful as to whether the species could evolve in such a way. So what is you position?
An acorn growing into an oak tree is not evolution, it's growth.ash73 said:
Acorns evolve to oak trees, omg
Again ash, are you questioning evolution and suggesting a deity is involved?TwigtheWonderkid said:
You seem to be suggesting that a single cell organism can't become a 50 ton dinosaur.
Think for a minute about what I wrote...ash73 said:
England said:
We can show very simply from the formula that the more likely evolutionary outcomes are going to be the ones that absorbed and dissipated more energy from the environment’s external drives on the way to getting there
Is this actually true? Do birds suck more orderliness from their environment than dinosaurs? Does life always evolve to be more energetic, or does it adapt to the amount of energy available? I'd like to see some examples that fit the formula.The acorn > oak is not even evolution, just the progress of one species, but it illustrates a point. Plus the 50t dinosaur probably did start out as a single fertilised egg cell, though I know you were suggesting you were doubtful as to whether the species could evolve in such a way. So what is you position?
A single dinosaur egg turning into a fully grown dinosaur isn't evolution, it's growth.
A single called life form, mutating, dying, reproducing and constantly changing, ending up as a dinosaur, now that would be evolution.
ash73 said:
///ajd said:
Again ash, are you questioning evolution and suggesting a deity is involved?
I think I answered this earlier in the thread, sorry if I'm repeating myself. Darwinian evolution is the best theory we have, but there are some problems, specifically macro evolution is an extrapolation; by that I mean evolution is time based, give it enough time and completely new species emerge, but we haven't directly observed it. What we have observed is ebb and flow in the gene pool from selection, which is a form of evolution, and from there one can extrapolate a theoretical macro change.Also a time-based theory is at odds with a billion years of single-celled stagnation followed by the Cambrian explosion, where a huge number of species, and *all* the modern building blocks for life, were created in a few million years; subsequently there have only been "configuration" changes. There are plenty of possible explanations, one doesn't need to regress to mystical "intelligent design", but we are only part way to understanding the process. I do think the evolution of complex components such as the eye and visual cortex is remarkable, staggering even.
However, I don't think Darwinian evolution says anything about the origin of life, only the natural process by which it adapts to its environment. If you adopt Dawkin's position of DNA as self-replicating software carried about by biological machines, what purpose does it serve? How did it originate? Is it unique to Earth? I think a creator is a possibility and there may be a higher purpose; the former based on logic the latter pure speculation. I quite like Carl Sagan's quote "we are a way for the universe to know itself".
England's new theory of entropy-led evolution says it is inevitable, which is interesting, but only raises more questions. I'd like to see a more detailed explanation and some supporting evidence. Can the theory make any predictions? Single-celled to dinosaurs fits ok with subsequent generations sucking more orderliness from the environment; but how does a modern 50 gram bird absorb and dissipate more energy than a 50 ton dinosaur?
TL/DR acorns to oak trees really tickled me, bless
I would agree the origin remains unexplained, but intuitively it seems likely a theory like Englands will explain it without recourse to a deity. This is only based on all the other things science has explained, it seems the trend is that they will fill more and more gaps.
As such I'm sure its obvious I don't feel there is a role for a deity in these processes. For me whether its making a human out of thin air, or just creating the 20-odd amino acids vital for life - if these are to be instigated by a deity, then both cases would equally invoke the problems of a so called intelligent designer.
Moonhawk said:
cymtriks said:
The point is that the original authors did not see the world the way we do. Also some context is required.
Isn't this essentially the line unbelievers take. Rather than the bible being the word of god - it is simply a book written by men who saw the world in a certain way. They explained that which they didn't understand with "god did it".Once we recognise that the original authors saw the world differently to the way we do - it's not a huge leap to suggest that they also saw god where none exists.
Interesting to see a merican try and rubbish the science behind the moths in 2002; I wonder what the motive was? Thankfully science has since confirmed the science behind the observed evolution in moths is sound.
y
It becomes more like a recorded natural event - like the japanese tsunami - rather than God trying to wipe us out apart from noah who he tipped off (thats pretty mean to those he killed, no?)
Isn't it likely this is just a story that gas nothing to do with a god as a result? Isn't that the real rational 'context'?
cymtriks said:
The point is that the original authors did not see the world the way we do. Also some context is required.
As I pointed out earlier "every animal" would not mean every animal in the world if a modern day farmer was told to get every animal onto a truck to evacuate his farm. It probably didn't mean every animal in the world to Noah either. In the context of a hasty evacuation of the tribal settlement it would mean their farm animals.
Also there is a clear candidate for the Flood circa 2900BC. It covered a huge area and would certainly have seemed like "the whole world" to anyone living on the plains of Iraq at the time.
The problem is that both the religious and the non religious are reading the text without regard to the period in which it was written or to the context of the event.
In that case, in that context, the significance of the flood is surely changed also?As I pointed out earlier "every animal" would not mean every animal in the world if a modern day farmer was told to get every animal onto a truck to evacuate his farm. It probably didn't mean every animal in the world to Noah either. In the context of a hasty evacuation of the tribal settlement it would mean their farm animals.
Also there is a clear candidate for the Flood circa 2900BC. It covered a huge area and would certainly have seemed like "the whole world" to anyone living on the plains of Iraq at the time.
The problem is that both the religious and the non religious are reading the text without regard to the period in which it was written or to the context of the event.
It becomes more like a recorded natural event - like the japanese tsunami - rather than God trying to wipe us out apart from noah who he tipped off (thats pretty mean to those he killed, no?)
Isn't it likely this is just a story that gas nothing to do with a god as a result? Isn't that the real rational 'context'?
cymtriks said:
WinstonWolf said:
Books are in one of two categories, fact or fiction. The bible seems to be in the latter.
What a silly statement.The Bible works very well as a tribal history. Events can be fitted into a historical framework, places can be identified as real places, individuals can be identified as real people.
The people that told the stories believed that the events that were important enough to write down were influenced in some way by God. Telling the account that way does not make it false, it merely reflects how they saw their world.
Classifying the bible as fiction looks like wishful thinking, an irrational belief that anything associated with religion must be nonsense.
It has been admitted that a literal translation of the bible cannot be fact, and it has to be interpreted. This casts enormous doubt on the veracity of any of its claims of a deity and a 'sun' of that deity.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
As winston says, placing stories in real places does not make them true.Jesus may well have existed.
The question is, was he anything other than a normal bloke?
Evidence for feeding the 5000? Seems made up/exaggerated.
Also, tellingly, what about the storm on the lake with the disciples - where they were "saved by the son of God and they knew he was real". So they were in a terrible storm, feared for their lives but then the storm cleared, the sun came out and all was good. Indeed the sun of god did save them.
Do you have any specific parables that you think are convincing that show Jesus was indeed the son of a deity via virgin birth? What is the evidence, other than the bible - which we seem to be agreeing is largely fictional?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff