God and Man/Man and God - Questions - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-13-2002, 12:09 AM   #16
The Fly
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Long Island, New York, USA
Posts: 208
Local Time: 03:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isbest:
In the second post in this thread, Zooropa16 said "I would have to say that logic certainly points toward man creating God". Now, he wasn't just stating his opinion, he was also saying "Logical people, like me, will tell you there is no God, so if you say there is one, you are not using logic".
That is correct. Logic, by definition, is the study of the principles of reason.

Reason or reasoning, by definition, is an underlying fact that provides logical sense for a premise or occurance.

Therefore, if you are using logic, there is no God, because there are no facts that prove he exists. Believing in God IS illogical. However, it is important to remember that faith is inherently illogical. To believe in something or someone that can can't be proven to exist is at the very heart of having faith. Logic is not always correct, so for me to say that logical thinking would point towards man creating God was not intended as an insult and should not be taken that way.

I would love to here some of your Proof of Gods existence. Oh, and By the way, 90's U2 was better than 80's U2!


------------------
Don't let the bastards grind you down.

Zooropa FTP

[This message has been edited by zooropa16 (edited 04-12-2002).]

[This message has been edited by zooropa16 (edited 04-12-2002).]

[This message has been edited by zooropa16 (edited 04-12-2002).]
__________________

__________________
zooropa16 is offline  
Old 04-13-2002, 01:00 AM   #17
The Fly
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Long Island, New York, USA
Posts: 208
Local Time: 03:35 PM
80sU2,
I am curious to here what you thought of the rest of my quote, not just the "there is no God" part.

------------------
Don't let the bastards grind you down.

Zooropa FTP
__________________

__________________
zooropa16 is offline  
Old 04-13-2002, 11:24 AM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by zooropa16:
I would love to here some of your Proof of Gods existence. Oh, and By the way, 90's U2 was better than 80's U2!
First, I now have PROOF that you are wrong - you like 90s U2 better than 80s U2 - how could anyone trust the ideas of a mad man?

While I did state myself that no complete proof is known about that God exists, theer is certainly scientific evidence to support the reasonable belief taht God exists. In afct, one thing I find particularly funny is that the "Big Bang" theory is actually one major thing that scientists who believe in the existence fo God use as evidence. I will copy and paste some sources in a a couple of paragraph. I am not a scientist, so I will leave that to the exact wording of people who are scientists.

But first, I will present personal evidence, from my own life. One thing that I think supports the existence of God is that miracles do occur. How would miracles (not just pure chance) occur without a God behind them. I will now detail 2 miracles that have occurred in my life, starting with the most recent:

1) About 2 years ago, I was driving alone in my car, and approaching an intersection. I was heading North. As I came ever closer to the intersection, something began to tell me inside my heart, my spirit, whatever, to stop at the intersection. However, my eyes told me I had a green light. However, I kept being told to stop. My mind kept reasoning "But I have the green-the East-West bound traffic has the red". But the more I reasoned, the stronger the conviction became. As I got closer to the intersection, I saw that the west bound car was indeed slowing down, and it appeared that it would do teh lawful thing and stop at the intersection; however, I was still being told to stop. Finally, I arrived at the intersection and gave up my mind's will to that of my heart. There was no one behind me, so I stopped, even though my light was green. Just as my mind had expected, the west bound car did its lawful duty and stopped also. However, at the instant that I would have been crossing that intersection, an east bound car (that I swear to you I had not seen) busted the light at a very high rate of speed (at least 50 miles an hour). If I had not stopped, I would have been right in that car's path. I would have been dead or at least seriously injured.

2)In early 1990, my father, who had Emphysema, was admitted into the hospital. While there, he got pneumonia in both lungs, and it soon almost completely filled both lungs. The doctors could do no more; the meds were not responding. The main doctor told us to gather our family in from all parts of the state, for he would be gone soon. There was no hope for his survival whatsoever. Everyone thought he was a goner. Except me and my friend. God told my spirit "He's not going to die. You should pray as you have never prayed before". So, I did - I prayed as I have never prayed before, and I even went to his hospiatl bed and prayed over him as he slept. The next day. the doctor came out and told us that something quite unexpected and unexplainable had happened; the pneumonia, which had shown no signs whatsoever of retreat, was now suddenly reversing itself and and had left both lungs almost completely. That is no lie.

Anyway, those two were my experiences. Believe they happened or not, I don't care. I know they happened, because I lived them. However, the following is copied and pasted. Additional links follow:

The following is from : http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html
:

The Real Issue
Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God


Meet the Author: Dr. Walter Bradley
Walter Bradley received his Ph.D. in materials science from the University of Texas at Austin. After eight years at the Colorado School of Mines, he came to Texas A&M University where he is currently a professor and Senior TEES Research Fellow in the department of mechanical engineering. He has received two teaching awards, one national and five local research awards, and from 1989-1993 served
as the head of the department. He has received over $4,000,000 in research grants and contracts resulting in the publication of 100+ technical articles. He has been honored for his technical contributions by being elected a Fellow of the American Society for Materials. He and his wife, Anne, have two grown
children.

…Happily, along the way I have discovered many additional areas in which alternative evidences for the existence of God can be found, persuading me of two things: (1) God's fingerprints are ubiquitous in his creation, giving "clear evidence of his eternal power and divine nature through the things that have been created" (Romans 1:19-20); and (2) almost anyone who works in a field of science could potentially develop a presentation of this type in their area of expertise.
It is important in such a presentation to acknowledge the limited goal: namely, to demonstrate the character of the universe clearly suggests an intelligent creator. While Hume and later Kant argued convincingly that one cannot prove the existence of God through teleological, or design arguments, it is fair game to study the universe and ask whether it is more reasonable to posit that such a universe could have originated from chemical and physical laws alone, or that it has the markings of an intelligent creator.
When I first began presenting Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God, I was usually met with strenuous objections that such an enterprise was completely inappropriate-that to infer anything about God from science was illegitimate.
However, with the publication of a large number of books in this area by secular scientists over the past six years, this objection has become the exception rather than the rule. Even popular magazines are getting into the fray (e.g., "What Does Science Tell Us About God," Time magazine cover story, Dec.,
1992; "Does the Universe Hold Clues to God?" Chronicle of Higher Education, May, 1993; "10 Great Unanswered Questions of Science," Discover cover story, Nov., 1992; "Science and the Soul," cover story for Omni, Oct., 1993).
In a fascinating book entitled A New Guide to the Debate About God, philosopher Martin Prozesky (a nonChristian) evaluates the various arguments for and against the existence of God. He considers the arguments from science, especially the big bang, the origin of life, and the anthropic principle to be net
positive evidence for God's existence, with the strongest arguments against the existence of a theistic, Christian God being philosophical (evil) and theological (why so many people are going to hell without having heard of Christ).
It is a shame so much of the dialogue of the last 35 years between Christianity and science has centered on the age of the earth and creation science. It has left the average person, Christian and nonChristian alike, with the impression that modern science and the Bible are seriously at odds, maybe irreconcilably
so. It is ironic this impression has developed during the same period of time that scientific understanding and the attitudes of many modern scientists have moved strongly toward belief in an intelligent creator as a result of the scientific discoveries of the past 35 years. A preoccupation with the age question has only diverted discussion from the strong, scientific supporting evidence for Biblical theism, putting this very bright light under a bushel basket, so to speak.
In the remainder of this article, I would like to summarize the scientific evidence which I use in my presentation of Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God. I note, however, this is such an active field today that I am continuously scurrying to replace current information with even better information as it becomes available.

Key Elements for Scientific Evidence
Up until 1960, there was a general optimism that the more we learned about nature through our scientific investigations, the more we would be able to explain the world around us, including its origin, and render belief in God unnecessary, though not impossible. During the past 30 years, we gradually became aware of flies in the ointment of naturalism, and they have grown to the point that doubt now exists as to whether they can ever be removed.
The Washington Post, describing an international conference held in Washington D.C. in the late 1980s, noted,

“Many scientists who were not long ago certain that the universe was created and peopled by accident are having second thoughts and concede the possibility that some intelligent creative force may have been responsible.”

It should be emphasized one cannot scientifically prove or disprove the existence of God. Nevertheless, it is perfectly permissible to study the character of the universe and ask, "What does it reasonably suggest:
an intelligent creator, or a universe which is in some sense self-caused?"
I will consider in a cursory way just three such flies:
(1)evidence for design in the universe;
(2) the origin of the universe; and
(3) the origin of life.

Evidence for Design
Evidence for design comes from three sources: (1) the simple mathematical form that nature takes; (2) the coincidence that the universal constants are exactly what they need to be to support life of any type on this planet; and (3) the coincidence that the initial conditions in many different situations are also
critical and happen to have been exactly what they needed to be for the universe and life to come into being.
In a mathematical sense, we can say the universe is described by deceptively simple and elegant differential equations which just happen to have universal constants which are exactly what they need to be and initial conditions precisely prescribed to allow for the unfolding of a suitable habitat for life and for the appearance of life itself.

Nature Bound by Simple Mathematics
As a young physics student in high school, I was surprised and pleased to learn that the many diverse observations in nature find their description in such a small number of simple mathematical relationships such as Newton's laws of gravity and motion or Maxwell's equations of electricity and magnetism. It would
probably surprise many of our earliest scientists to discover that today the universe is adequately described by such a small number of fundamental physical laws, represented by simple but elegant mathematical relationships, that they can be easily written on one side of one sheet of paper. The equations of physics have in them incredible simplicity, elegance, and beauty. That
in itself is sufficient to prove to me that there must be a God who is responsible for these laws and responsible for the universe,
said astrophysicist Paul Davies in his book Superforce (1984). The famous Russian physicist, Alexander Polyakov put it this way in Fortune magazine (October, 1986),

“We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.”

Coincidence of the Universal Constants
One of the remarkable discoveries of the past 30 years has been the recognition that small changes in any of the universal constants produce surprisingly dramatic changes in the universe, rendering it unsuitable for life, not just as we know it, but for life of any conceivable type. In excess of 100 examples
have been documented in the technical literature and summarized in such books as the Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1986).
For example, if the strong force which binds together the nucleus of atoms were just five percent weaker, only hydrogen would be stable and we would have a universe with a periodic chart of one element, which is a universe incapable of providing the necessary molecular complexity to provide minimal life functions
of processing energy, storing information, and replicating. On the other hand, if the strong force were just two percent stronger, very massive nuclei would form, which are unsuitable for the chemistry of living systems. Furthermore, there would be no stable hydrogen, no long-lived stars, and no hydrogen
containing compounds.
As a second example, if the relationship between the strong force and the electromagnetic force were to vary only slightly, we would not have the quantum energy levels which allow the remarkable conversion of beryllium to carbon (nearly 100% efficient) and the partial conversion of carbon to oxygen. With slight changes in either of these constants, we would have had a universe either rich in beryllium and little, if any, carbon or alternatively, a universe rich in oxygen with no carbon. Since carbon is unique in its ability to chemically bond with almost all other elements in bonds that are stable but not too difficult to break (playing the critical role of the round pieces in a tinker toy set), it is remarkable that these forces are so precisely tuned to provide carbon in abundance, along with oxygen which is critical in its own right.
Many additional examples could be cited. If I rolled a dice and got a "6," you would not be surprised. If I rolled a dice five times and got a "6," you would begin to be a little suspicious. However, if you rolled the dice 1,000 times and got a "6" each time, you would be certain that there is something funny about the dice. So it is with our quirky universe in which everything has to be just so and is indeed found to be.
Hume and others have argued incorrectly that it is not surprising that everything is just so, else we would not be here to observe it. The well known atheist J.L. Mackie (Miracle of Theism, p.141) saw the flaw in
Hume's criticism:

“There is only one actual universe, with a unique set of basic materials and physical constants, and it is therefore surprising that the elements of this unique set-up are just right for life when they might easily have been wrong. This is not made less surprising by the fact that if it had not been so, no one would have been here to be surprised. We can properly envision and consider alternative possibilities which do not include our being there to experience them.”

Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous British astronomer and agnostic, in The Intelligent Universe commented on the cosmological coincidences discussed by Mackie,

"Such properties seem to run through the fabric of the natural world like a thread of happy coincidences. But there are so many odd coincidences essential
to life that some explanation seems required to account for them."

"Slight variations in physical laws such as gravity or electromagnetism would make life impossible . . . the necessity to produce life lies at the center of the universe's whole machinery and design," stated John Wheeler, Princeton University professor of physics (Reader's Digest, Sept., 1986).

University of Virginia astronomers R.T. Rood and J.S. Trefil conclude their book Are We Alone? by estimating the probability of life existing anywhere in the universe to be one in a billion, and thus conclude the existence of life on planet earth, far from being inevitable, is the result of a remarkable set of
coincidences.
"If I were a religious man," Trefil wrote in the concluding chapter, "I would say that everything we have learned about life in the past twenty years shows that we are unique, and therefore, special in God's sight." Instead he concludes that life on planet earth is a remarkable accident, unlikely to have been
replicated anywhere else in the universe, which his book powerfully argues.

Initial Conditions
Initial condition problems are found in many places in our scenario of the origin of the universe, its development into a suitable home for us, and the origin of life. These initial condition problems have, in fact, grown much worse with the recognition that many critical processes in the origins scenario are
nonlinear, and therefore, require particularly precise initial conditions. Trefil and Rood's book cited above mentions some of these problems in detail. I will also discuss, briefly, initial conditions problems having to
do with the origin of the universe and the origin of life. In summarizing this section, it is clear that there does appear to be something unique and special about our home in the universe and our existence in it.

Origin of the Universe
Cosmology is not neutral when it comes to philosophy and theology. A universe that eternally existed is much more congenial to an atheistic or agnostic worldview. By the same token, a universe that began seems to demand a first cause; for who could imagine such an effect without a sufficient cause?
In a dramatic address to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1977, Robert Jastrow, Professor at Columbia University and Founder and Director of the Goddard Space Center, made a presentation which was later published as a book entitled “God and the Astronomers”. In this
presentation, Jastrow, who is himself an agnostic, argued that the evidence for the Big Bang cosmology had been quite superior to competing cosmologies since 1929, but that many scientists had refused to accept it because they did not like the philosophical implications. For example, Sir Arthur Eddington commenting on the Big Bang in the 1950s noted,

"Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant . . . I should like to find a genuine loophole."

By the 1970's, after the discovery of the background radiation in 1965, John Gribbin in Nature said, The biggest problem with the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe is philosophical-perhaps even theological-what was there before the bang? This problem alone was sufficient to give a great impetus to the Steady State theory; but with that theory now sadly in conflict with the observations, the best way around this initial difficulty is provided by a model in which the universe expands from a singularity, collapses back again, and repeats the cycle indefinitely. [Articles published in 1984 in Nature by Guth and by Bludman clearly demonstrate the impossibility of a "bouncing" universe.]
Jastrow went on to argue that it is time that astronomers begin to acknowledge the philosophical implications of their discoveries. Jastrow concluded his presentation (and his book publication of it) with the comment,

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story [of the big bang] ends like a bad dream. For the past three hundred years, scientists have scaled the mountain of ignorance and as they pull themselves over the final rock, they are greeted by a band of theologians who
have been sitting there for centuries."

Furthermore, recent measurements by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and by the Hubble Space Telescope, both reported in 1992, seem to confirm beyond any reasonable doubt that the Big Bang cosmology is indeed correct. George Smoot, Professor at the University of California at Berkeley and Principle Investigator of the COBE team which made the discovery, said regarding these new observations,

"What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe . . . It's like looking at God."

"The scientific community is prepared to consider the idea God created the universe a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years," Frederic B. Burnham, science historian, declared.
It is worth noting that Steven Hawking's book, A Brief History of Time, has as its stated purpose to try to escape the implications of the Big Bang, to which he strongly objects for philosophical reasons, not scientific ones. His book is filled with conjecture not rooted in observational science and should be taken
not as careful science, but as a polemic argument motivated by Hawking's own "religious" beliefs. The very fact that Hawking felt compelled to write such a book indicates the force of the Big Bang in arguing for a theistic universe.

Information Theory and Origin of Life
There is a necessary molecular complexity required to provide minimal life functions: processing energy, storing information, and replicating. Chemical evolution, as distinct from biological evolution, cannot look to mutation and natural selection to solve its problems (which don't solve the problems of macroevolution either).
Chemical evolution addresses the development of living systems from a prebiotic soup which did not initially have molecules, much less systems, capable of replicating. The production of molecules such as protein, RNA and DNA from a prebiotic soup is extremely difficult to imagine. The original euphoria
associated with the making of building blocks such as amino acids under prebiotic conditions by Stanley Miller in 1952 has gradually been replaced with a somber recognition that the assembly of such molecules into function biopolymers is indeed the real problem. It is analogous to the problem of selecting a sequence of letters by randomly picking out of a box of typeset and hoping to accidentally get a sequence that corresponds to words, sentences, and coherent paragraphs.
"The current scenario of the origin of life is about as likely as a tornado passing through a junkyard beside Boeing airplane company accidentally producing a 747 airplane," Sir Fred Hoyle suggested in The Intelligent Universe.

In an article in Scientific American (February, 1991), Sir Francis Crick wrote,

"The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."

In the same article, Harold Klein who chaired a National Academy of Sciences committee which reviewed the origin of life noted,

"The simplest bacterium is so damned complicated from the point of view of a
chemist that it is almost impossible to imagine how it happened."

Anyone who thinks recent work on RNA has or will solve the problem of the origin of life should read Robert Shapiro's article in Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere (1988) or Klaus Dose's article in Interdisciplinary Science Reviews (1988) entitled "Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers."

Summary
It is abundantly clear evidence abounds for the existence of an intelligent creator. I have only provided information from three narrow areas, but similar arguments could easily be formulated from many different scientific disciplines. One need never be ashamed of the intellectually respectability of belief in an
intelligent creator; modern science has come down decisively on the side of the person who would posit such a belief. While Hume and Kant may have been right in their arguments that scientific proof for the existence of God cannot be made, they would surely be as impressed as I am with the compelling
evidence that makes such a belief perfectly reasonable.

That’s the end of that one, but here are some more links: http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...eismintro.html

The Evidence:
1)Evidence for the fine tuning of the universe: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html
2)Incredible Design Of The Earth: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designss.html
3)From the Beginning to Man: How God declares His love to us: http://www.godandscience.org/love/design.html
4)Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe (Did you know that that 40% of American
physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God--and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but
a deity who takes an active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers ?) Here are some quotes: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html

on a related note:
5) Scientific Evidence for Answered Prayer and the Existence of God: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html
6) Scientific Studies that Show a Positive Effect of Religion on Health: http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...ionhealth.html
7)Answers for Athiests and Agnostics: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheists.html
8) Man, Created in the Image of God: How Man is Unique Among All Other Creatures on Earth: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/imageofgod.html


[This message has been edited by 80sU2isBest (edited 04-13-2002).]
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 04-13-2002, 11:41 AM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by zooropa16:
80sU2,
I am curious to here what you thought of the rest of my quote, not just the "there is no God" part.
Okay, I will answer:

You said:
If you take the Bible as fact, then where would Dinosaurs fit into the equation? Is the bible metaphorical?

I say:
I believe in Dinosaurs. Many scientists believe that dinosaurs existed at the same time as man. The Bible even speaks about a "leviathan", which many Biblical scholars believe was a ginat sea-creature (a dinosaur). Even if Dinosaurs existed before man, that would not prove the Bible wrong. the Bible itself says that animal was created before man. There are a lot of Biblical scholars who believe that God may have created life on this plnet in stages, which is not really contradictory to the Bible's account of 7 days, as the Bible does say that a day to the Lord "is as 1000 years".

You said:
"Is the bible metaphorical? If so why would the Supreme being, who is often betrayed as being so generous, want to make it hard for his people to understand his wishes."

I say:
First, no, the Bible is not mainly metaphorical. There are metaphors in the Bible, such as the parables of Christ, and possibly the Revelations and other prophecy.
As for the part of teh Bible that IS metaphorical, I don't always know why He related it that way. I do know that God works in mysterious ways and that his ways are not our own. I suppose if we knew why he does everything he does, we'd be gods. in fact, one of the fallacies of argument amongst the "there is no God" camp is that they are defining God by their own finite definition and terms. God is infinite, he is outside of space and time. How can he be completely explained and limited by finite terms? Really though, this question you posed has nothing to do with the existence of God argument, anyway.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 04-13-2002, 12:23 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 10:35 AM
Sir Francis Crick also believed we originated from aliens, i.e., transplanted from an existing civilization on another planet, not from God.

But ultimately, these are the growing pains of science. Anytime one theorizes on something that, previously, we never thought of before, it tends to go to extremes. Ultimately, I'm sure that people thought that God would be rendered obsolete when civilization realized that the Earth revolved around the Sun, rather than the opposite. When both evolution and genetics arose around the same time in the 19th century, the same thing happened. Ultimately, once we think about something long enough, we realize that it changes very little about our core beliefs.

As a side note, the "intelligent design" theory (which is exactly what this is) is currently up for debate in the Ohio educational system. Now, ultimately, if it presented this theory much like this in that it doesn't point to any particular deities, doesn't involve Scriptural quotations and as long as traditional evolution education was taught prior, I could possibly see how this could work in the public school system. There are certainly flaws within the original Darwinian model for evolution, but the educational system is stuck between such biased individuals in all extremes that I find it very hard to believe that people would have enough integrity to teach it unbiased.

Comments?

Melon

------------------
"Still, I never understood the elevation of greed as a political credo. Why would anyone want to base a political programme on bottomless dissatisfaction and the impossibility of happiness? Perhaps that was its appeal: the promise of luxury that in fact promoted endless work." - Hanif Kureishi, Intimacy
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-13-2002, 12:28 PM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
As for the part of the Bible that IS metaphorical, I don't always know why He related it that way. I do know that God works in mysterious ways and that his ways are not our own.
The pursuit of knowledge and goodness is more satisfying than actually having it. Plus, ultimately, I don't think there is just "one" answer to apply to everyone. I think we are all here for different purposes.

Melon

------------------
"Still, I never understood the elevation of greed as a political credo. Why would anyone want to base a political programme on bottomless dissatisfaction and the impossibility of happiness? Perhaps that was its appeal: the promise of luxury that in fact promoted endless work." - Hanif Kureishi, Intimacy
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-13-2002, 01:24 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon:
Sir Francis Crick also believed we originated from aliens, i.e., transplanted from an existing civilization on another planet, not from God.
This point is worth fleshing out. If I recall correctly, the reason Dr. Crick believed this was because very few of the many different "transitional fossils" needed to establish an evolutionary link between humans and other life forms have been found. To oversimplify the point, it looks like humans originated out of nowhere, given the current state of the fossil record.

It's certainly possible that many of these transitional forms may be found, or that some convincing explanation may be given as to why they do not exist, but don't hold your breath.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 04-15-2002, 11:56 PM   #23
Mr. MacPhisto's Whiney Wench
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: the open space of my bed
Posts: 275
Local Time: 03:35 PM
12.5 years ago, my (religous - believed in god - was confirmed) 19 year old sister was crushed and killed by a boat which came off a trailer which had detached from a passing car.

Fuck-you very much, 'god'

No offence 80s, but why did you deserve these 'miracles' ahead of her?


__________________
RufusYoungblood is offline  
Old 04-16-2002, 12:23 AM   #24
Ghost of Love
 
gvox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In The Ballroom of The Crystal Lights
Posts: 19,836
Local Time: 10:35 AM
That's what makes a belief in God such a hard sell...people who attribute things to God. God didn't save 80s ass anymore than he saved that WTC survivor that walked out of a building that 2000+ people perished in...or were those people hopeless cases in His eyes? Cmon!

God created the universe, man and life as we know it. There is no evidence to disprove this, plenty of evidence that points to a highly intelligent design beyond even our comprehension, and the oldest book on earth tells us so. Maybe not scientifically enough for the skeptic evolutionists, but the bible wasn't intended to be a science book.

Somewhere along the way, man re-created God into his own image: tiny, selfish, greedy, pathetic.


Gabriel

------------------
"...well the God I believe in isn't short of cash, mister!"
BTBS, Rattle and Hum

[This message has been edited by gabrielvox (edited 04-15-2002).]
__________________
gvox is offline  
Old 04-16-2002, 06:41 AM   #25
War Child
 
CannibalisticArtist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: West Coast babyeee
Posts: 511
Local Time: 07:35 AM
you have to realise that if God did exist then God would be in control of everything, good and evil. after all, God made the devil, the epitome of all evil.
even if you believe in God, you don't have to love God, just like you don't have to follow your leader. God would be just another entity, that you could choose to love/hate depending on your feelings towards God.

[This message has been edited by CannibalisticArtist (edited 04-16-2002).]
__________________
CannibalisticArtist is offline  
Old 04-16-2002, 09:23 AM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by RufusYoungblood:
12.5 years ago, my (religous - believed in god - was confirmed) 19 year old sister was crushed and killed by a boat which came off a trailer which had detached from a passing car.
Fuck-you very much, 'god'
No offence 80s, but why did you deserve these 'miracles' ahead of her?
I didn't "deserve" those miracles anymore than your sister. In fact, I have three times in my life where I would have asked for a miracle but didn't get them. Would you like to hear them?
My brother was also killed in a car wreck. At the age of 31. He had a wife and two young children. But I'm not angry at God for that. I know that God did not cause that accident.
Less than a year later, my son died, 8 hours after birth. But I'm not angry at god for that.
3 years later, my father died (4 years after the miracle). But I am not angry at God for that.
Why are you angry at God because he gives some people miracles? When I hear about other people who have been miraculously saved in a car accident, I don't curse God for saving them but not my brother. I rejoice, and praise God for saving someone's life.
Just as I rejoiced when God saved my dad and when he whispered in my ear to stop at the light.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 04-16-2002, 09:26 AM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by gabrielvox:
That's what makes a belief in God such a hard sell...people who attribute things to God. God didn't save 80s ass anymore than he saved that WTC survivor that walked out of a building that 2000+ people perished in...or were those people hopeless cases in His eyes? Cmon!
God created the universe, man and life as we know it. There is no evidence to disprove this, plenty of evidence that points to a highly intelligent design beyond even our comprehension, and the oldest book on earth tells us so. Maybe not scientifically enough for the skeptic evolutionists, but the bible wasn't intended to be a science book.
Somewhere along the way, man re-created God into his own image: tiny, selfish, greedy, pathetic.
Gabriel
You know, you are a mystery to me. In another thread, you claim to be a Christian, and yet in that same thread, you raked me over the coals for being offended by an article insulting Christianity. Now, you appear to be claiming that God doesn't work miracles. How can you be a Christian and not believes in miracles? Have you read the Gospels at all?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 04-16-2002, 09:27 AM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon:
The pursuit of knowledge and goodness is more satisfying than actually having it. Plus, ultimately, I don't think there is just "one" answer to apply to everyone. I think we are all here for different purposes.
Melon
Very good, Melon. Thanks.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 04-16-2002, 10:22 AM   #29
Ghost of Love
 
gvox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In The Ballroom of The Crystal Lights
Posts: 19,836
Local Time: 10:35 AM
Quote:
you raked me over the coals for being offended by an article insulting Christianity. Now, you appear to be claiming that God doesn't work miracles. How can you be a Christian and not believes in miracles? Have you read the Gospels at all? [/B]
First off, please accept my apologies if you felt that I raked you over the coals. That was completely not my intent, if you will recall I also raised questions on whether the piece that offended you so much should have been posted at all. I was simply stating that you seemed to get overwrought about your faith or other's inability to share it. It's just my opinion, but even in your response you are demonstrating that same trait. I never claimed that I didn't believe in miracles, but I doubted that you have experienced one. While your experiences touched me as very being very dear to you, they didn't strike me as directly miraculous by God's hand. Now, that doesn't make my faith any weaker or less than acceptable to God. Again, I don't know you that well at all, but it seems that you are unable to tolerate someone who believes, but maybe a bit differently from you, and that is troubling. That type of intolerance is the root of 99% of the problems in the world as it relates to religion. Where my ancestors come from, they're still fighting, historically and sometimes even still very violently, over which brand of Christianity is the best.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but for someone who doesn't like offensive posts, you border on perpetuating this your own self. Have I not read the Gospels? Is this supposed to be an earnest sincere question or an insult? If you have read my other threads you will see that clearly I have.

In the end, though, its just an opinion that I am expressing. I don't claim to have a handle on absolute truth any more than any other Christian should.

Gabriel



------------------
"...well the God I believe in isn't short of cash, mister!"
BTBS, Rattle and Hum
__________________
gvox is offline  
Old 04-16-2002, 10:56 AM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by gabrielvox:
I was simply stating that you seemed to get overwrought about your faith or other's inability to share it. It's just my opinion, but even in your response you are demonstrating that same trait. I never claimed that I didn't believe in miracles, but I doubted that you have experienced one. While your experiences touched me as very being very dear to you, they didn't strike me as directly miraculous by God's hand. Now, that doesn't make my faith any weaker or less than acceptable to God. Again, I don't know you that well at all, but it seems that you are unable to tolerate someone who believes, but maybe a bit differently from you, and that is troubling. That type of intolerance is the root of 99% of the problems in the world as it relates to religion. Please don't take this the wrong way, but for someone who doesn't like offensive posts, you border on perpetuating this your own self. Have I not read the Gospels? Is this supposed to be an earnest sincere question or an insult? If you have read my other threads you will see that clearly I have.
The reason I asked you had you read the Gospels is because the Gospel is full of miracles. Your response to my "miracles" was not one of "how am I supposed to know that those things really happened?" Nope, your response was one that flat-out said that what happened in my life were not miracles. You left no room for any question about that. Do I need to remind you that you said:

"That's what makes a belief in God such a hard sell...people who attribute things to God. God didn't save 80s ass anymore than he saved that WTC survivor that walked out of a building that 2000+ people perished in...or were those people hopeless cases in His eyes? Cmon!"

So, I ask you...if you believe that God does indeed work miracles, why is it hard for you to accept that teh things that happened in my life are miracles? How would you know? And how else would you explain the fact that my father was suddenly healed, or that someone told me to stop the car when there was no real reason to stop the car? Your assuredness that the miracled didn't happen in my life, when you did not come up with any possible other explanations for what happened, was waht led me to believe you don't believe in miracles. And that is why I asked if yo had read the Gospels.
Also, you keep saying implying that I don't tolerate other people's beliefs. That just simply is not true, not true at all. What I do is defend my own faith when it is being attacked? Why is that wrong? You got all your opinion about me from reading my posts for an hour straight (those were your words, not mine), and all of a sudden you are an expert on me. How nice.



[This message has been edited by 80sU2isBest (edited 04-16-2002).]
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com