Do you believe in God?

[truthguild]

nope, there's no evidence to suggest that the energy wasn't always there except for the fact that we all know very well that energy rapidly dies away because it is not a stable "object."

no, energy does not "die away". as previously mentioned, the energy of the universe is a constant.

yep, natural explanations work quite well except for the little part about no amount of energy or lack of it being able to create life out of non life once that matter has been formed.

it's a bit more complex than that. to form life, a series of processes have to occur - particularly, lipids, nucleotides, and amino acids have to form and come together; then self-replicating chemical reactions need to begin; then natural selection applies until the first protocells form and finally evolve into more stable cells.

But we can ignore that minor little detail can't we? We'll just stick to the main facts, namely: science hasn't been able to prove God's existence, therefore it is impossible that He exists. right?

science isn't in the business of proving, it's in the business of explaining based on evidence. so far to date, no empirical evidence for any god has ever been discovered. to posit a supernatural cause, empirical evidence for that supernatural cause would need to be presented; note that appeals to ignorance aren't evidence.

 

[datababe]

The (Mayan) calendar depicts the year 2012 as being the end of the world.

This has fascinated me for a while, and all the more recently as I'd like to know just how the HECK the Mayans knew than Nancy Pelosi and Sarah Palin would go head to head for the US Presidency.

(sorry, couldn't resist...and my sincerest apologies to anyone for whom my warped imagination now causes recurring night terrors....)

 

[ichwar]

no, energy does not "die away". as previously mentioned, the energy of the universe is a constant.

well, that contradicts more scientific evidence. energy dissipates very quickly.

it's a bit more complex than that. to form life, a series of processes have to occur - particularly, lipids, nucleotides, and amino acids have to form and come together; then self-replicating chemical reactions need to begin; then natural selection applies until the first protocells form and finally evolve into more stable cells.

well, you've repeated the hypothesis of evolution very well. now it's time to get around all the scientific evidence that has show that life can NOT come from nonlife. let me know once you've done that.

science isn't in the business of proving, it's in the business of explaining based on evidence. so far to date, no empirical evidence for any god has ever been discovered. to posit a supernatural cause, empirical evidence for that supernatural cause would need to be presented; note that appeals to ignorance aren't evidence.

So, if I managed to read that all right, you're saying that since physical science hasn't been able to see a spiritual God, therefore he doesn't exist. On that reasoning, let me add that since physical science can't see physical evolution, it's not happening!:nuts:

 

[kyuusei]

well, that contradicts more scientific evidence. energy dissipates very quickly.

Energy is constant, when energy "dissipates" it merely changes state or location. eg, when a piece of wood is being burned, the energy stored within it gets converted to heat, which is transferred to the surrounding area. When the fire dies, the energy in the wood has fully dissipated and its energy completely converted into heat which helped raised the ambient temperature by.00001 of a degree.

 

[ichwar]

Energy is constant, when energy "dissipates" it merely changes state or location. eg, when a piece of wood is being burned, the energy stored within it gets converted to heat, which is transferred to the surrounding area. When the fire dies, the energy in the wood has fully dissipated and its energy completely converted into heat which helped raised the ambient temperature by.00001 of a degree.

exactly, that's what I mean by dissipate. duh.
there is no way that all this massive energy is going to just stay in one spot and concentrate itself in just the right way all by itself to for life.

 

[adamparkzer]

This has fascinated me for a while, and all the more recently as I'd like to know just how the HECK the Mayans knew than Nancy Pelosi and Sarah Palin would go head to head for the US Presidency.

(sorry, couldn't resist...and my sincerest apologies to anyone for whom my warped imagination now causes recurring night terrors....)

... What are you talking about
I've never even heard of Nancy Pelosi before, and Sarah Palin was the Republican vice president elect.

 

[truthguild]

well, that contradicts more scientific evidence. energy dissipates very quickly.

no, it doesn't. all evidence indicates that energy in the universe remains a constant.

well, you've repeated the hypothesis of evolution very well. now it's time to get around all the scientific evidence that has show that life can NOT come from nonlife. let me know once you've done that.

evolution is a theory and a fact, from which many hypotheses are made (all of which end up being correct when tested). also, i didn't say a thing about evolution - what i described, although highly simplified. was abiogenesis - a completely different and unrelated process. it isn't even the same scientific discipline (abiogenesis is chemistry, evolution is biology).
can you point to a single peer-reviewed scientific journal article saying abiogenesis is impossible? after all, i can show exactly how it is possible:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

So, if I managed to read that all right, you're saying that since physical science hasn't been able to see a spiritual God, therefore he doesn't exist. On that reasoning, let me add that since physical science can't see physical evolution, it's not happening!:nuts:

then you're going to hate to know evolution has been directly observed both in the lab and in the wild multiple times.
Edit:

exactly, that's what I mean by dissipate. duh.
there is no way that all this massive energy is going to just stay in one spot and concentrate itself in just the right way all by itself to for life.

take a moment and re-read my topic on logical fallacies - pay particular attention to the "argument from personal incredulity" fallacy.

 

[ichwar]

then you're going to hate to know evolution has been directly observed both in the lab and in the wild multiple times.

don't mix up your terms man. I'm talking about MacroEvolution, not MicroEvolution. Let's try and stay on topic and not just jump around between different terms. Those two terms are NOT interchangeable.

 

[truthguild]

don't mix up your terms man. I'm talking about MacroEvolution, not MicroEvolution. Let's try and stay on topic and not just jump around between different terms. Those two terms are NOT interchangeable.

not only are they not interchangeable - they're both out of usage. science no longer uses micro and macro evolution since it was discovered that they are the exact same process - it's just evolution. has been that way since the 1960's - try to be a bit more up to date.

on a secondary note - using the old terms, speciation falls under mecroevolution, not microevolution, and has been repeatedly directly observed both in the lab and in the wild.

 

[ichwar]

not only are they not interchangeable - they're both out of usage. science no longer uses micro and macro evolution since it was discovered that they are the exact same process - it's just evolution.

it seems you've never heard what these terms mean. let me explain.
microevolution is an organism adapting to the environment to create a more specialized species of the original origanism.

macroevolution is an organism's DNA changing so radically that the results can be a totally different species.

The first has been observed many times. The second has never been observed and never will.

on a secondary note - using the old terms, speciation falls under mecroevolution, not microevolution, and has been repeatedly directly observed both in the lab and in the wild.

as I just said, this has has never been observed and never will. I'm going to ask you for some citation from a reputable source before I even try to answer what you said.

 

[aaronj10]

This has fascinated me for a while, and all the more recently as I'd like to know just how the HECK the Mayans knew than Nancy Pelosi and Sarah Palin would go head to head for the US Presidency.

Now, that my friend has some faults behind it, I am not saying that you are wrong I am just saying that there are faults, for starters the information that you're reading about "The Mayans" has been edited and re-writen numerous times for years upon years, and so on.
Not once have I seen with the two very eyes I see with, the Mayans Language, and, (KEY WORD) Their writeings, in all honesty, I don't think that a guy named Tom for say, (name off the top of my head) was a Mayan, and at that, if he so happened to be a Mayan, how the HECK is he going to write the information online and have it appear through Google, saying that the Mayans knew a bit of information of an individual can not be true in many ways, that's like saying the Mayans wrote all their informations and belifs on Microsoft Word 2003, on a dell Laptop that they took where ever they went in a breif case..
I don't belive it what so ever.
Please know, I don't mean in any way, shape, or form, to insault anyone who reads this.
Kind Regards,
Aaron.

 

[ichwar]

Now, that my friend has some faults behind it, I am not saying that you are wrong I am just saying that there are faults, for starters the information that you're reading about "The Mayans" has been edited and re-writen numerous times for years upon years, and so on.
Not once have I seen with the two very eyes I see with, the Mayans Language, and, (KEY WORD) Their writeings, in all honesty, I don't think that a guy named Tom for say, (name off the top of my head) was a Mayan, and at that, if he so happened to be a Mayan, how the HECK is he going to write the information online and have it appear through Google, saying that the Mayans knew a bit of information of an individual can not be true in many ways, that's like saying the Mayans wrote all their informations and belifs on Microsoft Word 2003, on a dell Laptop that they took where ever they went in a breif case..
I don't belive it what so ever.
Please know, I don't mean in any way, shape, or form, to insault anyone who reads this.
Kind Regards,
Aaron.

First of all, let me make it clear that I think this mayan calender thing is total hype.

Now, let me see if I can make sense out of what you just said.
If I understood that right, you said that if the mayans could tell the future (which you are saying is impossible?) there is no way we would ever know that they could tell the future or what their calendar looked like?
Is that what you're trying to say?

Sorry, but I just couldn't make real sense out of that paragraph without writing the whole thing out.
Correct me if I phrased that summary wrong.

 

[truthguild]

it seems you've never heard what these terms mean. let me explain.
microevolution is an organism adapting to the environment to create a more specialized species of the original origanism.

macroevolution is an organism's DNA changing so radically that the results can be a totally different species.

The first has been observed many times. The second has never been observed and never will.

wrong. the correct definitions were: microevolution - evolution within a species
macroevolution - evolution at or above species level, including formation of new species

as I just said, this has has never been observed and never will. I'm going to ask you for some citation from a reputable source before I even try to answer what you said.

apparently, you never researched it
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
it has been observed so many times that we've had to come up with categories of different types of speciation events.

 

[ichwar]

wrong. the correct definitions were: microevolution - evolution within a species
macroevolution - evolution at or above species level, including formation of new species

Wrong, what you have just done there is redefined macroevolution to include microevolution, which then makes the whole theory of macroevolution sound more plausible.

apparently, you never researched it
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
it has been observed so many times that we've had to come up with categories of different types of speciation events.

Actually, I have researched it. What you've just done is make a common error: namely, you're just trusting everything you read off of every site with out any evidence.
Both of those two pages say a whole lot about species of plants scientists have discovered lately. I don't see any evidence for macroevolution there, we're always discovering species we've never heard about.
I did notice they also brought up the case of the mutant Drosphila discovered in 1963. In this discover, scientists found a fly that had a mutation that caused it to lose some information thus causing it to not be able to mate with the original Drosphila. Thus, a "new" species was formed by an organism losing genetic information. That doesn't sound like macroevolution to me either.
Lastly, I also noted a whole ton of examples they gave of microevolution, where they observed organisms like certain beetles, maggots, and mice adapt to new environments.

All in all, I read through most of both those pages and failed to find any examples of macroevolution. Perhaps you could show me where in those lengthy articles they are hidden? If you could do that, we can get on a bit as I find it much easier to argue over something if I know what that thing is. Don't you?

 

[truthguild]

Wrong, what you have just done there is redefined macroevolution to include microevolution, which then makes the whole theory of macroevolution sound more plausible.

wrong - back in the days that science actually used the terms, that's what they meant. if it was below the level of species it was micro; at or above the level of species, it was macro.
once we discovered that they were the exact same process in every respect, the terms got dropped from scientific use altogether as they have no real meaning and were simply replaced with "evolution". if you doubt this, find any article published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal after 1970 that uses either microevolution or macroevolution. considering the thousands of articles about evolution published in them, if there is a difference, you shouldn't have any difficulty finding them.

Actually, I have researched it. What you've just done is make a common error: namely, you're just trusting everything you read off of every site with out any evidence.
Both of those two pages say a whole lot about species of plants scientists have discovered lately. I don't see any evidence for macroevolution there, we're always discovering species we've never heard about.

you didn't look very well - first example on the first page occured in a lab; Oenothera gigas evolving from Oenothera lamarckiana.

I did notice they also brought up the case of the mutant Drosphila discovered in 1963. In this discover, scientists found a fly that had a mutation that caused it to lose some information thus causing it to not be able to mate with the original Drosphila. Thus, a "new" species was formed by an organism losing genetic information. That doesn't sound like macroevolution to me either.

and you should look up the shifting the goalposts fallacy - a new species is a new species and is, by definition, evolution - and the degree of it you asked for. also, there is nothing in their papers mentioning a loss of genetic information - in other words, you're being blatantly dishonest.

Lastly, I also noted a whole ton of examples they gave of microevolution, where they observed organisms like certain beetles, maggots, and mice adapt to new environments.

every example in those lists is speciation - which does qualify as what macroevolution meant when it was a word and goes beyond what microevolution meant when it was a word.
secondly, in biology, adaptation refers to changes within the individual to be better suited to its environment and are non-inheritable traits. for example, if you move from a warmer climate to a colder climate, your blood will thicken, but your offspring won't genetically inherit that trait. that is an adaptation.
conversely, individuals do not evolve, populations do. those changes are genetically inheritable.

All in all, I read through most of both those pages and failed to find any examples of macroevolution. Perhaps you could show me where in those lengthy articles they are hidden? If you could do that, we can get on a bit as I find it much easier to argue over something if I know what that thing is. Don't you?

every example meets what the definition of macroevolution was.
but since the terms macroevolution and microevolution are out of use - let's just stick to the proper term - evolution.

 

[soulpurge]

Oh my an intelligent thread about beliefs in Gods and religion. I didn't read through all of the pages simply because I'm tired and theres 11 pages to date. Personally, I believe in Gaia. Mother Earth. The planet we all walk on daily. I believe in reincarnation. That when one dies, they travel to a check-in station. This station provides a gate to another life. However, if you have successfully completed the given task that Mother Earth gave when you were born then you get to choose what life you want next.

It may sound silly to most but that is my belief. However, when I was younger, I was raised in a Jehovah's Witness family. I was raised to believe in one God and that any other God was false. As I grew up, though, I came to wonder what the world was really like outside of that faith. At 17, I left and went into the world with endless knowledge to be grasped. I studied many religions for years and 'tried' various ones. I never really found my place until I came upon the theory of Gaia and such as I've explained above.

This thread is interesting though. I'm def. going to keep checking back.

 

[Mind-Designers]

Well i don't believe in god.
Becaus i don't believe there is a higher power that have created use and al the living things on Earth.


But i respect those you believe in god.

 

[ichwar]

every example meets what the definition of macroevolution was.
but since the terms macroevolution and microevolution are out of use - let's just stick to the proper term - evolution.

It is pointless to argue since you are making up your own definitions for terms. If a species, in this case the drosphila, changes to a new species, another type of drosphila, that is micro evolution. If a species, for example a cow, changes into a totally different animal, for example a whale, that is macro evolution.

We observe microevolution all the the time, we have never observed macroevolution. Those two terms are NOT out of use.

 

[truthguild]

It is pointless to argue since you are making up your own definitions for terms. If a species, in this case the drosphila, changes to a new species, another type of drosphila, that is micro evolution. If a species, for example a cow, changes into a totally different animal, for example a whale, that is macro evolution.

wrong and shifting the goalposts (as well as a strawman).
if cows produced whales, that would disprove evolutionary theory.
if a new species evolves from a previous species, that is evolution - since it is a new species from a previous species, it falls under the defintion of the old term macroevolution and the current term evolution. if s pecies evolves but it doesn't cross the species barrier, then is falls under the definition for the old term microevolution and the current term evolution.

We observe microevolution all the the time, we have never observed macroevolution. Those two terms are NOT out of use.

point to a single article in any peer-reviewed article of any scientific journal since 1970 that uses them.

 

[loveispoison]

yes i do believe in god,most people pray to the same god but in a deferent way but they still pray to the same god except budhist few n others