Do Christian's have to explain God.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Ok, this is mainly a question for other Christians.

Do we have to explain God.
God is an omnipotent being, he created the world. But most of the time when something happens or people get into deep theological debates, other people expect us to be able to discuss the inner workings of God's mind.

Come on....... God knows everything, he lives outside of time!

(Before we go any further. God allows evil, because we sinned originally. Since that was OUR choice he lets us live with it.)

Evolutionists can not explain the Big Bang, nor the inner workings of evolution. Sure they can say we changed, but why did we become man. Why not a sentient bird race? That would allow for easy travel. Yet they are not required to explain these things, because they are too complex.
If they can not explain a natural process

Why do we have to explain God?

Before we even begin discussion. THIS IS NOT a forum discussing the validity or falsity of God's existance. Let us not get bogged down in deep theology

Aka. Let us abort all babies so they can go to heaven. (Seriously?!)

TheNewDemoman:

Evolutionists can not explain the Big Bang, nor the inner workings of evolution. Sure they can say we changed, but why did we become man. Why not a sentient bird race? That would allow for easy travel. Yet they are not required to explain these things, because they are too complex.

Wonderful post. It's so wonderful to see a post in the R&P forums not tinged with some kind of hateful vitriol right from the start.

Now, I'm not a christian, but I wanted to answer the section that I quoted. The biggest difference between the "Evolutionists" and the Christians is not whether the big bang or God exists, but what the truth is. I can promise you that if God was to come down from Heaven and make an appearance today, they would all do a Heel-toe-face and covernt -right- -now-. But since that's unlikely, they go with what they can prove, and I'm with them.

We can't prove the big bang, we can't prove evolution, and I italicised that because while we can't prove that evolution happens becanse this gene is here and it causes this to happen, the evidence for evolution is quite high. While we weren't around to watch the evolution of Man, we have observed evolution in other animals, so unless man is an unnatural life form, man as a living being on this planet still plays by the same rules which we have evidence for as well.

The best example I can come up with offhand right now is blacks and whites. Yes, I know, let's jump right into the racism, but where do you see black people? The majority of blacks come from africa originally, a land mass with little weather, a lot of sun, and a high majority of outdoor cultures. Their skin adapted to resist being burned by the sun due to the longer periods of time they spent outside. Blacks have darker skin and darker hair, but tend to have less body hair than whites. If you look at europeans, they have lighter skin mostly(and this is speculation) due to their ancestors wearing body covering due to their climate making the dark pigmentation unnecessary, while the additional hair was more there for a small amouth of warmth. Evolution in action in the human race.

Granted, no one can prove this because no one was there to see the common ancestor, but if you look towards what we believe to be the cradle of civilization in the middle east and northern africa, you have people with skin darker than most europeans and lighter than most africans. It can't be proven without a doubt, but the evidence suggests it. Anything else would make the color changes arbitrary, and if so, why did it happen?

As for why humans, as far as science can tell, it was pure random chance. Once upon a time, the world favored reptiles. They thrived and grew to massive sizes, ruling every corner of the planet. SOmething wiped them out and left a power vacuum and apes filled the void, growing and thriving and changing just as reptiles did.

Now, to the real question from your thread, Why do christians have to explain God? Well, the short answer is, they don't. Science, and the theory of evolution, operate on what what we think we know and what we can prove. If we couldn't find evidence that evolution had taken place, then we couldn't very well said it happened without being dismissed as a crackpot idea. It's like saying man was transplanted here by aliens from mars. It's a fine idea, but without any proof, how can you say it happened? However, christianity doesn't need proof. Christianity requires faith, and thus is free from the burden of evidence. No matter what the evidence is, if you believe because of faith, the evidence doesn't matter. God cannot be proven, and he cannot be disproven.

God is...God. He doesn't exist, not in any physical means. He acts in "mysterious" ways through other people and things. So if you're looking for evidence, he doesn't exist. But if you believe in him simply because you believe in God and Christ the Lord, which we DO have some evidence that there was a Jesus whom the bible spoke of(though no evidence for what the stories were. Cripples walking and blind seeing, still working on it). Faith is untouchable, so no one has to explain, reason, or prove it.

Why do you have to explain god?

Would there be any Christians if 'Jesus' had not done so originally? Would it have survived if the people he told not passed on the 'information'?

You don't have to, you do if you want Christianity to spread. Which for some, sad, reason you do.

"Evolutionists can not explain the Big Bang, nor the inner workings of evolution. Sure they can say we changed, but why did we become man. Why not a sentient bird race? That would allow for easy travel. Yet they are not required to explain these things, because they are too complex.
If they can not explain a natural process"

Why not a smart bird race? Crows are smart.

However it follows logic. Having a brain requires lots of blood, lots of energy and lots of heat. Being covered in feathers is not a good factor for getting rid of heat. Furthermore birds must be small, reducing the amount of blood. Light, reducing bone density. Overall, what use would birds have for our brains? Without hands they cannot put it to much use.

No. We EVOLVED to be this way. This means there was a progression from no brain to brain. It doesn't have to be the best possible creature, in fact signs of our imperfections demonstrate evolution. All a creature has to do is survive.

The big bang is well founded. Evolution is well founded (we've proven it in regards to small organisms, why does this not constitute large organisms).

Evolution will be proven if we live long enough anyway.

Why do you feel the need to disagree with what are incredibly well proven, logical theories? Why do you take the biased view that you must see the world through your religion and interpret the facts accordingly? Are you worried your religion will not stand up to reality?

TheNewDemoman:
snip

We do, because defining (or at least trying to) is a major part of our spiritual development.

Jesus said to have faith like children, and I've never met anyone who asked "why?" more than a five year old.

TheNewDemoman:
Ok, this is mainly a question for other Christians.

Do we have to explain God.
God is an omnipotent being, he created the world. But most of the time when something happens or people get into deep theological debates, other people expect us to be able to discuss the inner workings of God's mind.

Come on....... God knows everything, he lives outside of time!

(Before we go any further. God allows evil, because we sinned originally. Since that was OUR choice he lets us live with it.)

You realize you just said "we can't know anything about how god works, but here's how god works"... right?

If you want to make claims about the reality and moral authority of god, and even moreso if you want to enact those moral standards in such a way that they effect others who do not subscribe to your beliefs, you need to be able to explain the validity of those moral standards. If you can not describe god, how can you reasonably assert any authority of god?

TheNewDemoman:
Evolutionists can not explain the Big Bang,

The big bang isn't biology, and isn't realted to evolution. Evolution is the biological process by which complex life arose on the planet.

The big bang is a cosmological event that produced the universe as we know it. It is the domain of physicists, cosmologists, and mathemeaticians. Not biologists.

TheNewDemoman:
nor the inner workings of evolution. Sure they can say we changed, but why did we become man. Why not a sentient bird race? That would allow for easy travel. Yet they are not required to explain these things, because they are too complex.

This is, frankly, full of shit.

Science does have a very firm grasp of the inner workings of evloution, from how DNA mutates to create phenotype changes to how those phenotype changes lead to reproductive advantage/disadvantage. We know how speciation works. We can trace evolutionary lines back millions of years. We can trace anscestory via genetic markers. we can identify branch points along the evolutionary tree that led to the rise of every known species on earth. we can demonstrate evolutionary cange in a lab. we've been using these principles knowingly or unknowingly to domesticate animals, and create more hardy crops since we as a species learned agriculture.

TheNewDemoman:
If they can not explain a natural process

We can.

TheNewDemoman:
Why do we have to explain God?

because if you're going to assert that something is real, and that it should have an effect on other people, you should be able to explain what that thing is and how it works.

Otherwise you're [largely] pulling shit out of your ass, and chalking it up to "interpretation" and "god's mysterious ways". By asserting anything about what god says or does, you are laying claim to an understandig of the workings of god. If you cannot then describe those workings - what validity do your assertions hold?

-m

TheNewDemoman:
Do we have to explain God.

1 Peter 3:15: "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have."

1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Test everything. Hold on to the good."

Yes, I'd say - even according to your own standard.

And always bear in mind there is no shame in admitting "I don't know" - but at the same time, if you can't answer what many would consider to be basic questions, don't expect people to agree with your beliefs nor the justification for them.

God is an omnipotent being, he created the world. But most of the time when something happens or people get into deep theological debates, other people expect us to be able to discuss the inner workings of God's mind.

Come on....... God knows everything, he lives outside of time!

Before we go any further. God allows evil, because we sinned originally. Since that was OUR choice he lets us live with it.)

*struggles not to flay this comment apart*

Before we even begin discussion. THIS IS NOT a forum discussing the validity or falsity of God's existance. Let us not get bogged down in deep theology

(Hint: if you don't want to discuss deep theology, don't just fire off a statement like this about a deep theological issue as if it's fact as that is pretty much asking for a response.)

Oh, and didn't you just make a claim about how God works there?

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

Evolutionists can not explain the Big Bang, nor the inner workings of evolution.

Uh...yes we can.

And the term is SCIENTISTS. Evolution has jack-all to do with cosmology.

And even then, you've imposed a false dichotomy, as science is agnostic with respect to god - there are plenty of Christians who accept contemporary cosmology and biology.

Sure they can say we changed, but why did we become man.

Because our traits, the same as any other species, were favoured by the environment of the time.

Why not a sentient bird race? That would allow for easy travel.

Bird: Why didn't we evolve into humans instead? They have brains that can reason!

There is no ultimate, uber-genome under evolution. There is a level of survivability with respect to the environment, which is liable to change, ergo the optimal traits for survivability change with the change in environment.

In conclusion - so....what?

We are evolutionarily...interesting in that we are capable of subverting natural selection to some extent, that comes with reason and sentience. That said, there is nothing spectacularly significant about how we got here, for the most part.

Yet they are not required to explain these things, because they are too complex.

Except for the fact that we totally can, despite the complexity.

Not understanding an explanation and a lack of explanation existing are two different things....

If they can not explain a natural process

Why do we have to explain God?

You know how Jesus wasn't that hot on the old double standards? "But those guys are doing it too!" (or what I like to call "the Roman Catholic Church Paedophilia Excuse") is not a viable excuse for you.

Aka. Let us abort all babies so they can go to heaven. (Seriously?!)

Yes, it's amazing what the logic of some believers implies.

Matt_LRR:

TheNewDemoman:
Ok, this is mainly a question for other Christians.

Do we have to explain God.
God is an omnipotent being, he created the world. But most of the time when something happens or people get into deep theological debates, other people expect us to be able to discuss the inner workings of God's mind.

Come on....... God knows everything, he lives outside of time!

(Before we go any further. God allows evil, because we sinned originally. Since that was OUR choice he lets us live with it.)

You realize you just said "we can't know anything about how god works, but here's how god works"... right?

If you want to make claims about the reality and moral authority of god, and even moreso if you want to enact those moral standards in such a way that they effect others who do not subscribe to your beliefs, you need to be able to explain the validity of those moral standards. If you can not describe god, how can you reasonably assert any authority of god?

TheNewDemoman:
Evolutionists can not explain the Big Bang,

The big bang isn't biology, and isn't realted to evolution. Evolution is the biological process by which complex life arose on the planet.

The big bang is a cosmological event that produced the universe as we know it. It is the domain of physicists, cosmologists, and mathemeaticians. Not biologists.

TheNewDemoman:
nor the inner workings of evolution. Sure they can say we changed, but why did we become man. Why not a sentient bird race? That would allow for easy travel. Yet they are not required to explain these things, because they are too complex.

This is, frankly, full of shit.

Science does have a very firm grasp of the inner workings of evloution, from how DNA mutates to create phenotype changes to how those phenotype changes lead to reproductive advantage/disadvantage. We know how speciation works. We can trace evolutionary lines back millions of years. We can trace anscestory via genetic markers. we can identify branch points along the evolutionary tree that led to the rise of every known species on earth. we can demonstrate evolutionary cange in a lab. we've been using these principles knowingly or unknowingly to domesticate animals, and create more hardy crops since we as a species learned agriculture.

TheNewDemoman:
If they can not explain a natural process

We can.

TheNewDemoman:
Why do we have to explain God?

because if you're going to assert that something is real, and that it should have an effect on other people, you should be able to explain what that thing is and how it works.

Otherwise you're [largely] pulling shit out of your ass, and chalking it up to "interpretation" and "god's mysterious ways". By asserting anything about what god says or does, you are laying claim to an understandig of the workings of god. If you cannot then describe those workings - what validity do your assertions hold?

-m

Always a pleasure Matt.

I am saying we can't understand EVERYTHING.

stinkychops:
Why do you have to explain god?

Would there be any Christians if 'Jesus' had not done so originally? Would it have survived if the people he told not passed on the 'information'?

You don't have to, you do if you want Christianity to spread. Which for some, sad, reason you do.

"Evolutionists can not explain the Big Bang, nor the inner workings of evolution. Sure they can say we changed, but why did we become man. Why not a sentient bird race? That would allow for easy travel. Yet they are not required to explain these things, because they are too complex.
If they can not explain a natural process"

Why not a smart bird race? Crows are smart.

However it follows logic. Having a brain requires lots of blood, lots of energy and lots of heat. Being covered in feathers is not a good factor for getting rid of heat. Furthermore birds must be small, reducing the amount of blood. Light, reducing bone density. Overall, what use would birds have for our brains? Without hands they cannot put it to much use.

No. We EVOLVED to be this way. This means there was a progression from no brain to brain. It doesn't have to be the best possible creature, in fact signs of our imperfections demonstrate evolution. All a creature has to do is survive.

The big bang is well founded. Evolution is well founded (we've proven it in regards to small organisms, why does this not constitute large organisms).

Evolution will be proven if we live long enough anyway.

Why do you feel the need to disagree with what are incredibly well proven, logical theories? Why do you take the biased view that you must see the world through your religion and interpret the facts accordingly? Are you worried your religion will not stand up to reality?

No?

They are just theories, which means they aren't Scientific Law (hence the Theory of Evolution).

The Big Bang did happen -_- I am not denying this.

And if we evolve well guess what throw a f***ing parade.

Because if you want people to take your beliefs seriously, you're going to have to back them up.

ShadowKatt:

TheNewDemoman:

Evolutionists can not explain the Big Bang, nor the inner workings of evolution. Sure they can say we changed, but why did we become man. Why not a sentient bird race? That would allow for easy travel. Yet they are not required to explain these things, because they are too complex.

Wonderful post. It's so wonderful to see a post in the R&P forums not tinged with some kind of hateful vitriol right from the start.

Now, I'm not a christian, but I wanted to answer the section that I quoted. The biggest difference between the "Evolutionists" and the Christians is not whether the big bang or God exists, but what the truth is. I can promise you that if God was to come down from Heaven and make an appearance today, they would all do a Heel-toe-face and covernt -right- -now-. But since that's unlikely, they go with what they can prove, and I'm with them.

We can't prove the big bang, we can't prove evolution, and I italicised that because while we can't prove that evolution happens becanse this gene is here and it causes this to happen, the evidence for evolution is quite high. While we weren't around to watch the evolution of Man, we have observed evolution in other animals, so unless man is an unnatural life form, man as a living being on this planet still plays by the same rules which we have evidence for as well.

The best example I can come up with offhand right now is blacks and whites. Yes, I know, let's jump right into the racism, but where do you see black people? The majority of blacks come from africa originally, a land mass with little weather, a lot of sun, and a high majority of outdoor cultures. Their skin adapted to resist being burned by the sun due to the longer periods of time they spent outside. Blacks have darker skin and darker hair, but tend to have less body hair than whites. If you look at europeans, they have lighter skin mostly(and this is speculation) due to their ancestors wearing body covering due to their climate making the dark pigmentation unnecessary, while the additional hair was more there for a small amouth of warmth. Evolution in action in the human race.

Granted, no one can prove this because no one was there to see the common ancestor, but if you look towards what we believe to be the cradle of civilization in the middle east and northern africa, you have people with skin darker than most europeans and lighter than most africans. It can't be proven without a doubt, but the evidence suggests it. Anything else would make the color changes arbitrary, and if so, why did it happen?

As for why humans, as far as science can tell, it was pure random chance. Once upon a time, the world favored reptiles. They thrived and grew to massive sizes, ruling every corner of the planet. SOmething wiped them out and left a power vacuum and apes filled the void, growing and thriving and changing just as reptiles did.

Now, to the real question from your thread, Why do christians have to explain God? Well, the short answer is, they don't. Science, and the theory of evolution, operate on what what we think we know and what we can prove. If we couldn't find evidence that evolution had taken place, then we couldn't very well said it happened without being dismissed as a crackpot idea. It's like saying man was transplanted here by aliens from mars. It's a fine idea, but without any proof, how can you say it happened? However, christianity doesn't need proof. Christianity requires faith, and thus is free from the burden of evidence. No matter what the evidence is, if you believe because of faith, the evidence doesn't matter. God cannot be proven, and he cannot be disproven.

God is...God. He doesn't exist, not in any physical means. He acts in "mysterious" ways through other people and things. So if you're looking for evidence, he doesn't exist. But if you believe in him simply because you believe in God and Christ the Lord, which we DO have some evidence that there was a Jesus whom the bible spoke of(though no evidence for what the stories were. Cripples walking and blind seeing, still working on it). Faith is untouchable, so no one has to explain, reason, or prove it.

Thank you for being reasonable unlike some people (Matt).
I just keep wondering how we can change so much from a simple reptile, to a complex human with a range of emotions and sentience and intelligence.

TheNewDemoman:
I am saying we can't understand EVERYTHING.

Either god is knowable or god is unknowable.

If he is knowable - you should be able to produce a consistent and functional model of god, that is at least mostly describable.

If he is not knowable - you (collective "you", mind - religious people) have no basis of consistency from which to draw claims about god or his authority.

You either know god or you don't.

-m

Kiefer13:
Because if you want people to take your beliefs seriously, you're going to have to back them up.

Ok can you back up your beliefs with HARD evidence

Science is testable and repatable. Evoultion in none of these. It is an theory based on assumptions. In Evolution people change the facts to match the evidence. That is not science.

TheNewDemoman:
Thank you for being reasonable unlike some people (Matt).

I'm being perfectly reasonable. You're just arguing from ignorance.

TheNewDemoman:
I just keep wondering how we can change so much from a simple reptile, to a complex human with a range of emotions and sentience and intelligence.

The answer to this question is known by science - that you fail to understand (or haven't looked for) that answer doen't make it any less "the answer".

-m

TheNewDemoman:
No?

They are just theories, which means they aren't Scientific Law (hence the Theory of Evolution).

No.

No no no no no.

Laws do not outrank Theories.

Laws are descriptions of what occurs in reality. Theories are explanations of the descriptions - the Laws - that are based on factual, empirical evidence. A theory is as good as it gets in science, and does not translate to "guess" the way it does colloquially.

The Big Bang did happen -_- I am not denying this.

And if we evolve well guess what throw a f***ing parade.

Exactly. So why make a huge deal out of it?

TheNewDemoman:

stinkychops:
Why do you have to explain god?

Would there be any Christians if 'Jesus' had not done so originally? Would it have survived if the people he told not passed on the 'information'?

You don't have to, you do if you want Christianity to spread. Which for some, sad, reason you do.

"Evolutionists can not explain the Big Bang, nor the inner workings of evolution. Sure they can say we changed, but why did we become man. Why not a sentient bird race? That would allow for easy travel. Yet they are not required to explain these things, because they are too complex.
If they can not explain a natural process"

Why not a smart bird race? Crows are smart.

However it follows logic. Having a brain requires lots of blood, lots of energy and lots of heat. Being covered in feathers is not a good factor for getting rid of heat. Furthermore birds must be small, reducing the amount of blood. Light, reducing bone density. Overall, what use would birds have for our brains? Without hands they cannot put it to much use.

No. We EVOLVED to be this way. This means there was a progression from no brain to brain. It doesn't have to be the best possible creature, in fact signs of our imperfections demonstrate evolution. All a creature has to do is survive.

The big bang is well founded. Evolution is well founded (we've proven it in regards to small organisms, why does this not constitute large organisms).

Evolution will be proven if we live long enough anyway.

Why do you feel the need to disagree with what are incredibly well proven, logical theories? Why do you take the biased view that you must see the world through your religion and interpret the facts accordingly? Are you worried your religion will not stand up to reality?

No?

They are just theories, which means they aren't Scientific Law (hence the Theory of Evolution).

The Big Bang did happen -_- I am not denying this.

And if we evolve well guess what throw a f***ing parade.

So you're saying that if evolution were proven beyond a doubt it would not effect your views at all?

Then why did you bring it up? Don't start insulting the scientific rigour of people in fields you do not even understand.

To reject evolution is to almost reject logic, as far as I can see.

By the way, to say "they are just theories" shows you don't understand the scientific meaning of the word theories. Gravity is a theory, maybe if you pray really hard god'll stop all the coincidences and you can float away!

Here's a theory: You're not interested in arguing over this particular aspect of your question. your ignorance demonstrates how little you care to find out despite having "read the textbooks", but you'll be polite to Matt and pretend to take what he says on-board (Despite being more insulting/impatient than my post) due to some perceived internet celebrity.

So fine. I'll leave your thread so that you can discuss this with Christians. I'm sure you'll get a legitimate, non-bias answer that way. But don't respond to my posts if you don't intend to RESPOND to my posts.

TheNewDemoman:
Science is testable and repatable. Evoultion in none of these.

Actually it is both testable and repeatable, and has been both tested, and repeated in the lab.

We use the predictive nature of evolution to determine how to cross breed crops and animals to create disease resistent strains of wheat, and to get the perfect blonde coat on a show-bred golden retriever.

TheNewDemoman:
It is an theory based on assumptions.

It is a [scientific] theory based on hard data, and observation. Gravity is a theory too, I don't see you claiming you're about to float off into space.

TheNewDemoman:
In Evolution people change the facts to match the evidence. That is not science.

This statement is plainly false.

-m

TheNewDemoman:

Kiefer13:
Because if you want people to take your beliefs seriously, you're going to have to back them up.

Ok can you back up your beliefs with HARD evidence

I think you're assuming he "believes" in science.

Science is testable and repatable. Evoultion in none of these. It is an theory based on assumptions.

Theories ARE testable and repeatable - and evolution is. Not only are repeatable experiments done on modern lifeforms who genes are altering now, one can also do repeatable scientific examinations of fossils, genes etc. All of them confirm evolution.

In Evolution people change the facts to match the evidence. That is not science.

No, this is blatantly false. Please back up your claim, or retract.

You disagree, fine - don't make shit up about an entire profession that you demonstrably understand nothing about.

TheNewDemoman:

Kiefer13:
Because if you want people to take your beliefs seriously, you're going to have to back them up.

Ok can you back up your beliefs with HARD evidence

Science is testable and repatable. Evoultion in none of these. It is an theory based on assumptions. In Evolution people change the facts to match the evidence. That is not science.

Wow. This has gone from arrogant dismissal to all out bullshit. Will full ignorance.

I'm sure god will like the way you attacked things you have no comprehension of.

TheNewDemoman:
Do we have to explain God.

Come on....... God knows everything, he lives outside of time!

(Before we go any further. God allows evil, because we sinned originally. Since that was OUR choice he lets us live with it.)

Okay, you see what you did right there? You just made claims about God. Therefore, you must understand God. You have no basis to talk with authority about the way God operates or his motivations if you can't explain his nature. So yes, you absolutely do have to explain God, because he needs explanation if you want to be able to justify your arguments for him. If you don't explain God, all you're doing is shouting a bunch of incoherent arguments that even you don't understand. If you can't explain him, how can you argue for him? How can you speak with authority about what he wants for humanity or how he's telling us if you don't understand him. You are making the claim, and you have to back it up for it to be valid.

Evolutionists can not explain the Big Bang, nor the inner workings of evolution. Sure they can say we changed, but why did we become man. Why not a sentient bird race? That would allow for easy travel. Yet they are not required to explain these things, because they are too complex.

First thing, "evolutionist" is not a word. And secondly, what the hell? We didn't become a sentient bird race because that's how we evolved. Evolution isn't guided towards the best possible thing - it's guided in the general direction of whatever happens to work. As it turns out, a bipedal, mostly hairless primate with an abnormally large brain happened to work. The problem here isn't the scientists' ability to explain evolution, it's with your ability to comprehend it (which seems to be almost inexistent).

TheNewDemoman:

stinkychops:
Why do you have to explain god?

Would there be any Christians if 'Jesus' had not done so originally? Would it have survived if the people he told not passed on the 'information'?

You don't have to, you do if you want Christianity to spread. Which for some, sad, reason you do.

"Evolutionists can not explain the Big Bang, nor the inner workings of evolution. Sure they can say we changed, but why did we become man. Why not a sentient bird race? That would allow for easy travel. Yet they are not required to explain these things, because they are too complex.
If they can not explain a natural process"

Why not a smart bird race? Crows are smart.

However it follows logic. Having a brain requires lots of blood, lots of energy and lots of heat. Being covered in feathers is not a good factor for getting rid of heat. Furthermore birds must be small, reducing the amount of blood. Light, reducing bone density. Overall, what use would birds have for our brains? Without hands they cannot put it to much use.

No. We EVOLVED to be this way. This means there was a progression from no brain to brain. It doesn't have to be the best possible creature, in fact signs of our imperfections demonstrate evolution. All a creature has to do is survive.

The big bang is well founded. Evolution is well founded (we've proven it in regards to small organisms, why does this not constitute large organisms).

Evolution will be proven if we live long enough anyway.

Why do you feel the need to disagree with what are incredibly well proven, logical theories? Why do you take the biased view that you must see the world through your religion and interpret the facts accordingly? Are you worried your religion will not stand up to reality?

No?

They are just theories, which means they aren't Scientific Law (hence the Theory of Evolution).

The Big Bang did happen -_- I am not denying this.

And if we evolve well guess what throw a f***ing parade.

Heard of the theory of gravity? Or the Germ theory of disease? They are "just" theories.

A theory is an explanation of the facts we observe. Evolution like Gravity is a fact. The theories simply explain the facts we observe.

Please stop conflating the colloquial sense of the word "theory" with the scientific usage.

Matt_LRR:

TheNewDemoman:
Science is testable and repatable. Evoultion in none of these.

Actually it is both testable and repeatable, and has been both tested, and repeated in the lab.

We use the predictive nature of evolution to determine how to cross breed crops and animals to create disease resistent strains of wheat, and to get the perfect blonde coat on a show-bred golden retriever.

TheNewDemoman:
It is an theory based on assumptions.

It is a [scientific] theory based on hard data, and observation. Gravity is a theory too, I don't see you claiming you're about to float off into space.

TheNewDemoman:
In Evolution people change the facts to match the evidence. That is not science.

This statement is plainly false.

-m

See Matt I like you you make statments and make no evidence.

How can we repeat a simple organism, evolving into something complex? Sure birds beaks change, dogs get longer coats, but do they start reading Aristotle and studying physics.

No.

There is no scientfic evidence for evolution. You just see something miniscule, and then create something massive out of it. So if I can lift over 100 Lbs, I am then super man right. Because something small CAN BE something big, if you think like that

Godavari:

TheNewDemoman:
Do we have to explain God.

Come on....... God knows everything, he lives outside of time!

(Before we go any further. God allows evil, because we sinned originally. Since that was OUR choice he lets us live with it.)

Okay, you see what you did right there? You just made claims about God. Therefore, you must understand God. You have no basis to talk with authority about the way God operates or his motivations if you can't explain his nature. So yes, you absolutely do have to explain God, because he needs explanation if you want to be able to justify your arguments for him. If you don't explain God, all you're doing is shouting a bunch of incoherent arguments that even you don't understand. If you can't explain him, how can you argue for him? How can you speak with authority about what he wants for humanity or how he's telling us if you don't understand him. You are making the claim, and you have to back it up for it to be valid.

Evolutionists can not explain the Big Bang, nor the inner workings of evolution. Sure they can say we changed, but why did we become man. Why not a sentient bird race? That would allow for easy travel. Yet they are not required to explain these things, because they are too complex.

First thing, "evolutionist" is not a word. And secondly, what the hell? We didn't become a sentient bird race because that's how we evolved. Evolution isn't guided towards the best possible thing - it's guided in the general direction of whatever happens to work. As it turns out, a bipedal, mostly hairless primate with an abnormally large brain happened to work. The problem here isn't the scientists' ability to explain evolution, it's with your ability to comprehend it (which seems to be almost inexistent).

We can understand some things.

Not everything.

stinkychops:

TheNewDemoman:

Kiefer13:
Because if you want people to take your beliefs seriously, you're going to have to back them up.

Ok can you back up your beliefs with HARD evidence

Science is testable and repatable. Evoultion in none of these. It is an theory based on assumptions. In Evolution people change the facts to match the evidence. That is not science.

Wow. This has gone from arrogant dismissal to all out bullshit. Will full ignorance.

I'm sure god will like the way you attacked things you have no comprehension of.

See this is what I mean. When a person can't discuss. They simply insult and pretend they are above everyone else.

Sure things change in a small amount. But can a protozoa evolve into a fully rational being, with emotions? If that is true than by God, I don't have enough faith to believe in that.

TheNewDemoman:

stinkychops:

TheNewDemoman:

Ok can you back up your beliefs with HARD evidence

Science is testable and repatable. Evoultion in none of these. It is an theory based on assumptions. In Evolution people change the facts to match the evidence. That is not science.

Wow. This has gone from arrogant dismissal to all out bullshit. Will full ignorance.

I'm sure god will like the way you attacked things you have no comprehension of.

See this is what I mean. When a person can't discuss. They simply insult and pretend they are above everyone else.

Sure things change in a small amount. But can a protozoa evolve into a fully rational being, with emotions? If that is true than by God, I don't have enough faith to believe in that.

You sir are entirely ignorant of evolution. You don't understand it. I don't think you even try to.

It makes me feel a little sick to be honest - not at you but at the environment you have be raised and taught in.

You are a defender of creeds and not a seeker of truth.

You are the embodiment of the ignorance that comes with dogmatic religious beliefs.

Go to talk origins and read the stuff if you care. Watch the videos by AronRa if you care. If you don't bother to look at those things don't talk about evolution again if you don't want to be a colossal hypocrite.

TheNewDemoman:

. But can a protozoa evolve into a fully rational being, with emotions? .

Yes. But it takes aeons. Literally, passages of time so immense that average Joe/Jane human cannot really comprehend it.

TheNewDemoman:

Matt_LRR:

TheNewDemoman:
Science is testable and repatable. Evoultion in none of these.

Actually it is both testable and repeatable, and has been both tested, and repeated in the lab.

We use the predictive nature of evolution to determine how to cross breed crops and animals to create disease resistent strains of wheat, and to get the perfect blonde coat on a show-bred golden retriever.

TheNewDemoman:
It is an theory based on assumptions.

It is a [scientific] theory based on hard data, and observation. Gravity is a theory too, I don't see you claiming you're about to float off into space.

TheNewDemoman:
In Evolution people change the facts to match the evidence. That is not science.

This statement is plainly false.

-m

See Matt I like you you make statments and make no evidence.

How can we repeat a simple organism, evolving into something complex? Sure birds beaks change, dogs get longer coats, but do they start reading Aristotle and studying physics.

No.

There is no scientfic evidence for evolution. You just see something miniscule, and then create something massive out of it. So if I can lift over 100 Lbs, I am then super man right. Because something small CAN BE something big, if you think like that

::sigh::

Back in 2008, a researcher by the name of Richard lenski published the conclusions of a 20-year long study of evolution in a colony of e-coli bacteria.

the result of the study was that by manipulating environmental factors, his experiment gave rise to several evolutionary strains of e-coli that could metabolize Citrate as a nutrient as effectively as other growth mediums - something that e-coli can't normally do (ecoli is normally unable to use citrate to grow at all).

He has in his posession samples of the original e-coli, as well as samples taken at several points throughout the run of the experiment. My understanding is that he noted the modification of several protiens in the bactria that ultimately gave rise to the citrate eating e-coli.

The end result is that, if someone were to take the origina sample of e-coli and run the entire duration of the experiment they could replicate the same results (thus it is repeateable)

Several other scientists have taken more recent samples of the bacteria, and recreated the evolutionary shift to metabolization of citrate in replications of the later periods of the experiment.

Predictively, we can conclude that under specific conditions bacteria can grow to metabolize non-standard nutrients to continuue their survival.

(and since then we have discovered other bacteria that metabolize arsenic as a growth media, confirming the previous conclusions).

wikipedia summary of the ecoli experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

ecoli-experiment project website: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

publications of the e-coli experiment documenting the experiment: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/PublicationSearchResults.php?group=aad

newscientist summary of the discovery: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

National Geographic report on the NASA aresenic bacteria: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101202-nasa-announcement-arsenic-life-mono-lake-science-space/

NASA press release about arsenic bacteria: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/astrobiology_toxic_chemical.html

sorry, what was that about eveidence?

-m

Matt_LRR:

TheNewDemoman:
Science is testable and repatable. Evoultion in none of these.

Actually it is both testable and repeatable, and has been both tested, and repeated in the lab.

We use the predictive nature of evolution to determine how to cross breed crops and animals to create disease resistent strains of wheat, and to get the perfect blonde coat on a show-bred golden retriever.

TheNewDemoman:
It is an theory based on assumptions.

It is a [scientific] theory based on hard data, and observation. Gravity is a theory too, I don't see you claiming you're about to float off into space.

TheNewDemoman:
In Evolution people change the facts to match the evidence. That is not science.

This statement is plainly false.

-m

I believe in evolution, but Matt or anyone here, have they found verifiable evidence of macro evoltution? One species changing so dramatically it becomes a whole new species? I'm saying i disagree i'm just saying i'm out of the loop and i'd be curious to know that.

TheNewDemoman:
-Snip-

Demoman,

You need to listen first before you can preach. Take the bar out of your eye before you take the spec out of anothers.

If you want to defend God, you need to equip yourself. Learn, seek knowledge, and ask why? Why do i believe what I do, why do evolutionist believe what they do, why do atheist believe what they do. You need to ask these questions, and seek out knowledge. You need to read the Bible and challenge your faith.

TheNewDemoman:

They are just theories, which means they aren't Scientific Law (hence the Theory of Evolution)

Wrong, theories in Science are Scientific Law. Or rather, the explanations behind Scientific Law. Hypothesis' are not. Very big difference. You really do not understand Science at all, do you?

TheNewDemoman:
Do we have to explain God.

God is an omnipotent being, he created the world. But most of the time when something happens or people get into deep theological debates, other people expect us to be able to discuss the inner workings of God's mind.

Come on....... God knows everything, he lives outside of time!

You just contradicted yourself. If you cannot know God, then you cannot know any of this, or speak such without being intellectually corrupt and speaking in presumptions.

TheNewDemoman:
Evolutionists can not explain the Big Bang, nor the inner workings of evolution. Sure they can say we changed, but why did we become man. Why not a sentient bird race? That would allow for easy travel. Yet they are not required to explain these things, because they are too complex.

..What the fuck is an "Evolutionist"? The field of Evolution is not a sole field on it's own, it is a combination of several fields of science. Biology only touches upon certain aspects of it. Also, the Big Bang is not biology. The Big Bang did not occur as a biological process, but as a cosmological one.

TheNewDemoman:
[If they can not explain a natural process

http://talkorigins.org/

They can. Read.

TheNewDemoman:
Why do we have to explain God?

If your God is infinitely unknowable, then you cannot explain Him regardless.

In other words: You are speaking out of your ass, and have been given multiple sources in which to read up on this, and yet you keep making strawmen posts exactly like this one (and ignoring what we give you). Seriously, stop.

coolicus:

TheNewDemoman:

stinkychops:

Wow. This has gone from arrogant dismissal to all out bullshit. Will full ignorance.

I'm sure god will like the way you attacked things you have no comprehension of.

See this is what I mean. When a person can't discuss. They simply insult and pretend they are above everyone else.

Sure things change in a small amount. But can a protozoa evolve into a fully rational being, with emotions? If that is true than by God, I don't have enough faith to believe in that.

You sir are entirely ignorant of evolution. You don't understand it. I don't think you even try to.

It makes me feel a little sick to be honest - not at you but at the environment you have be raised and taught in.

You are a defender of creeds and not a seeker of truth.

You are the embodiment of the ignorance that comes with dogmatic religious beliefs.

Go to talk origins and read the stuff if you care. Watch the videos by AronRa if you care. If you don't bother to look at those things don't talk about evolution again if you don't want to be a colossal hypocrite.

Look I do try. It just doesn't make any sense -_-.

We evolved over eons into what we are now. I can't wrap my head around it. If that is I flaw in my mental capacity, then fine. I watch the freakin videos. They just seem to raise more complex questions. I am not going to debate anymore, everyone of these forums end with me arguing with someone, about deep theology.

Pascal's Wager applies for me, and if has logical flaws so what. The basics still apply.

I seek truth, and I have found mine.

aPod:
I believe in evolution, but Matt or anyone here, have they found verifiable evidence of macro evoltution? One species changing so dramatically it becomes a whole new species? I'm saying i disagree i'm just saying i'm out of the loop and i'd be curious to know that.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

If you want to find out mate, just read.

And don't stop there, look into it yourself. There stuff is out there, despite Macro Evolution being a Creationist strawman term.

ShadowsofHope:

TheNewDemoman:

They are just theories, which means they aren't Scientific Law (hence the Theory of Evolution)

Wrong, theories in Science are Scientific Law. Hypothesis' are not. Very big difference. You really do not understand Science at all, do you?

TheNewDemoman:
Do we have to explain God.

God is an omnipotent being, he created the world. But most of the time when something happens or people get into deep theological debates, other people expect us to be able to discuss the inner workings of God's mind.

Come on....... God knows everything, he lives outside of time!

You just contradicted yourself. If you cannot know God, then you cannot know any of this, or speak such without being intellectually corrupt and speaking in presumptions.

TheNewDemoman:
Evolutionists can not explain the Big Bang, nor the inner workings of evolution. Sure they can say we changed, but why did we become man. Why not a sentient bird race? That would allow for easy travel. Yet they are not required to explain these things, because they are too complex.

..What the fuck is an "Evolutionist"? The field of Evolution is not a sole field on it's own, it is a combination of several fields of science. Biology only touches upon certain aspects of it. Also, the Big Bang is not biology. The Big Bang did not occur as a biological process, but as a cosmological one.

TheNewDemoman:
[If they can not explain a natural process

http://talkorigins.org/

They can. Read.

TheNewDemoman:
Why do we have to explain God?

If your God is infinitely unknowable, then you cannot explain Him regardless.

In other words: You are speaking out of your ass, and have been given multiple sources in which to read up on this, and yet you keep making strawmen posts exactly like this one (and ignoring what we give you). Seriously, stop.

Hmmm straw men posts. I guess so my friend.

Well as I have said multiple times we can only understand a few things.

I understand science at a basic level. I understand psychology better. What I do know is that, I feel I am right, I am not saying you are wrong so thanks for the usual insult later.

TheNewDemoman:

ShadowsofHope:

TheNewDemoman:

They are just theories, which means they aren't Scientific Law (hence the Theory of Evolution)

Wrong, theories in Science are Scientific Law. Hypothesis' are not. Very big difference. You really do not understand Science at all, do you?

TheNewDemoman:
Do we have to explain God.

God is an omnipotent being, he created the world. But most of the time when something happens or people get into deep theological debates, other people expect us to be able to discuss the inner workings of God's mind.

Come on....... God knows everything, he lives outside of time!

You just contradicted yourself. If you cannot know God, then you cannot know any of this, or speak such without being intellectually corrupt and speaking in presumptions.

TheNewDemoman:
Evolutionists can not explain the Big Bang, nor the inner workings of evolution. Sure they can say we changed, but why did we become man. Why not a sentient bird race? That would allow for easy travel. Yet they are not required to explain these things, because they are too complex.

..What the fuck is an "Evolutionist"? The field of Evolution is not a sole field on it's own, it is a combination of several fields of science. Biology only touches upon certain aspects of it. Also, the Big Bang is not biology. The Big Bang did not occur as a biological process, but as a cosmological one.

TheNewDemoman:
[If they can not explain a natural process

http://talkorigins.org/

They can. Read.

TheNewDemoman:
Why do we have to explain God?

If your God is infinitely unknowable, then you cannot explain Him regardless.

In other words: You are speaking out of your ass, and have been given multiple sources in which to read up on this, and yet you keep making strawmen posts exactly like this one (and ignoring what we give you). Seriously, stop.

Hmmm straw men posts. I guess so my friend.

Well as I have said multiple times we can only understand a few things.

I understand science at a basic level. I understand psychology better. What I do know is that, I feel I am right, I am not saying you are wrong so thanks for the usual insult later.

..I give the fuck up. Really. This is like speaking to a brick wall.

I'll remove myself from this thread before I say something I'll regret, thank you.

aPod:

Matt_LRR:

TheNewDemoman:
Science is testable and repatable. Evoultion in none of these.

Actually it is both testable and repeatable, and has been both tested, and repeated in the lab.

We use the predictive nature of evolution to determine how to cross breed crops and animals to create disease resistent strains of wheat, and to get the perfect blonde coat on a show-bred golden retriever.

TheNewDemoman:
It is an theory based on assumptions.

It is a [scientific] theory based on hard data, and observation. Gravity is a theory too, I don't see you claiming you're about to float off into space.

TheNewDemoman:
In Evolution people change the facts to match the evidence. That is not science.

This statement is plainly false.

-m

I believe in evolution, but Matt or anyone here, have they found verifiable evidence of macro evoltution? One species changing so dramatically it becomes a whole new species? I'm saying i disagree i'm just saying i'm out of the loop and i'd be curious to know that.

the problem with this question is that speciation is a continuum, not a shift. I mean, they've documented how our primate ancestor evolved into what we are tday, and have identified several different species along that line that were progressively more human.

We've extensively documented the evolutionary changes from species to species that gave rise to the horse.

Even darwin made note of how several varieties of birds were variations on a single species. The categorization of a species, though, is problematic, because it's an artificial construct.

We (typically) define a species as a group of animals that can interbreed and form fertile offspring... so:

Lets say you have birds, a type of seagull, each living on a different island.

Population A can breed with population B. (both subspecies of the same species)
Population B can Breed with A or C.
Pop C can breed with B or D, but not A. is it now a new species?
D can breed with C or E, but not A or B. New species?

-m

TheNewDemoman:
See Matt I like you you make statments and make no evidence.

You made the thread, you opened without evidence.

Put the effort in to actually back something up, and people will follow suit. But as far as I'm concerned, if someone opens asserting something without evidence, then any one responding is under no obligation to provide evidence for their point of view either.

aPod:
I believe in evolution, but Matt or anyone here, have they found verifiable evidence of macro evoltution? One species changing so dramatically it becomes a whole new species? I'm saying i disagree i'm just saying i'm out of the loop and i'd be curious to know that.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.christianforums.com/t155626/ (and that was a thread from seven years ago, the list we were clobbering creationists with recently on that board has grown significantly since then).

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked