Do You Believe In God, Why? Don't You Believe In God, Why?

[Polymath257]

It is not numerology. These are facts. This is how the universe is arranged.

The universe is not based on our choice of units, so the moon being 2160 miles across is a coincidence, not anything fundamental. If we measure it in kilometers, it has a different number. The same goes with your other examples.

Pure numerology.

 

[Valjean]

Adultery is never considered a sign of respect.

Gravity cannot form spheres that create plants or living organisms. Its not an example of creative powers, like God is.

Gravity forms the spheres, but it's the particular geologic conditions and planetary chemistry that create the organisms.

 

[Skywalker]

Gravity forms the spheres, but it's the particular geologic conditions and planetary chemistry that create the organisms.

Geologic conditions and planetary chemistry don't make a change of kinds possible. Even evolutionists on this thread have admitted that changes of kinds don't happen in evolution.

 

[Skywalker]

Strange plants? Why would strange plants have to be from the fall? What makes a fall generated plant strange?

Are you assuming all cultures have 'spouses', that all cultures have marriage customs like our own or marital values like our own?
Chemistry is physics, and it's physics that gives the universe the order we see in it.
Would you consider that creative?

This article is from an Israeli religious recruitment magazine known for making extraordinary Bible inspired claims and predictions. Living Armstrongism: Reading PCG's Watch Jerusalem

Googling reveals a lot of such articles in various magazines, usually religious, making sundry claims about the locations and destruction of these cities.
The non-religious sources outline several possible locations and possible catastrophes.
Destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, and Jericho: Geological, Climatological, and Archaeological Background - Oxford Scholarship
And from the mighty Wiki:

Plants that alter the mind were not a part of God's original question.

The details of how a wedding happens varies from culture to culture, but the basic idea of a union is the same. White wedding dresses are more common in Christian cultures, and in China women wear red at weddings. But the idea of fidelity is a part of marriage in all cultures.

Chemistry being physical doesn't change that it has origins in the singularity. Is there any conclusive proof of God? | GotQuestions.org

1. Proof of God: The Law of Cause and Effect. This law of science states that every cause has its effect and every effect has its cause. This law is the basis of all science. As such, this law bears a relationship to the origin of the heavens and the earth. In fact, scientists agree that the universe has not existed forever, that it had a beginning at some point in time.

The theory of relativity, which is almost universally accepted among scientists, has certain implications for this Law of Cause and Effect. One is that the universe—defined as time, space, matter, and physical energy—had a beginning, that it is not eternal. And it is through Einstein’s equations that scientists can trace the development of the universe back to its very origin, back to what is called the “singularity event” when it actually came into being. Science has proven that the universe really did have a beginning. This means that if the universe had a starting point in history, then it obviously began to exist, and it must have a cause for its existence.

Therefore, if the universe needs a cause for its coming into being, then that cause must be beyond the universe—which is time, space, matter, and physical energy. That cause must be something similar to what Christians call “God.” Even Richard Dawkins, probably the most prominent proponent for atheism in our time, admitted in a TIME magazine article that “there could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.” Yes, and that is God!

We can best summarize this cosmological evidence with the following statements:
(1) Whatever begins to exist must have a cause for its existence.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) Therefore, the universe must have a cause for its existence.
(4) The attributes of the cause of the universe (being timeless, existing outside of space, and so on) are the attributes of God.
(5) Therefore, the cause of the universe must be God (Genesis 1:1).

 

[Valjean]

The human hand. How do all the joints work together to move it so perfectly? Without one part the entire hand wouldn't function.

You say you're familiar with the ToE, but questions like this, previous statements and assertions, and misuse of technical terms leads me to believe you don't know what you're talking about. You don't understand the theory you're so opinionated about, and explanations seem to go in one ear and out the other.
Nor do you seem to understand the scientific method or how to evaluate evidence.

Intermediate doesn't have a strict definition. Something can be intermediate and mixed, or neither. There are different degrees of intermediate. If my ancestors had intermediates of my organ, eventually it would have to be half of my what my organ is now.

What's meant by intermediate is perfectly clear. What you mean by "mixed," and how it relates to the process of evolution -- not so clear.

The Caspian Tiger is a close cousin of the siberian tiger but there was no change of kinds with them. Both animals are still tigers. Other than Tiktaalik I can think of no possible changes of kinds.

Feline cladogram:

Each intersection a transitional order, family or species.

You can google cladograms of horses, whales, elephants, humans, reptiles -- anything. There are thousands of distinct, transitional species known.

There is very little evidence of those in the fossil record, besides the Tiklaak fish.

There are THOUSANDS of 'tiktaaliks', of every species. You're clearly completely ignorant of the mountains of evidence, fossil, genetic, morphologic, and historical that's been accumulated.

 

[Skywalker]

You say you're familiar with the ToE, but questions like this, previous statements and assertions, and misuse of technical terms leads me to believe you don't know what you're talking about. You don't understand the theory you're so opinionated about, and explanations seem to go in one ear and out the other.
Nor do you seem to understand the scientific method or how to evaluate evidence.
What's meant by intermediate is perfectly clear. What you mean by "mixed," and how it relates to the process of evolution -- not so clear.
Feline cladogram:

Each intersection a transitional order, family or species.

You can google cladograms of horses, whales, elephants, humans, reptiles -- anything. There are thousands of distinct, transitional species known.

What about evolution I do't understand, from my opinions about irreducible complexity?

Something can have features of both from being a hybrid or a subspecies, and not be an intermediate being.

There are very few transitional species apart from possible exceptions like the tiktaalik. There are even doubts about Titaalik because some people believe that it was a regular fish. Is Tiktaalik Evolution’s Greatest Missing Link?

 

[Valjean]

Mutations are generally not favorable.

That's not true. It's creationist propaganda.
Most mutations are neutral, they have no obvious effect. Some are harmful, and natural selection suppresses their proliferation. Some are clearly beneficial. I can cite examples if you're skeptical.

The fact that people who believe in evolution say that there are no changes in kinds shows that its a hypothesis.

Huh?
First off, "kind" is a vague, creationist term. Contemporary evolution of new species has been observed.
Observed Instances of Speciation Scroll to 5.0 for observed examples.

Evidence. Browse, if you dare:29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent[/QUOTE]

 

[Skywalker]

That's not true. It's creationist propaganda.
Most mutations are neutral, they have no obvious effect. Some are harmful, and natural selection suppresses their proliferation. Some are clearly beneficial. I can cite examples if you're skeptical.

How could evolution be true if natural selection suppresses their proliferation?

 

[Valjean]

Nobody said that people living together before marriage is the worst thing ever, but I also believe that it is contrary to what it means to be married.

Yet it's the traditional norm in many other cultures.
Apparently you don't know much about anthropology, either.

Evolution being gradual means that by definition there are gray areas and intermediates.

Kinds has no meaning at all in the science of biology because changes of kinds are impossible.

They never changed kinds.

The fact that tiktaalik isn't a change of kinds shows that a change of kinds is a self-defeating statement. What existed in between the fish ancestors or the tiktaalik and the tiktaalik? There was nothing in the fossil record because it's not logically possible for a being to have half of any type of organ.

Please define "kind." You say it's a meaningless term in biology, then, in the same sentence, make biological claims using it.

There were once no land plants or animals at all. So where did they all come from, magic poofing? You really think that's a reasonable explanation?
The fossil record shows many animals that are no longer here, and many modern animals that didn't exist a million years ago. Where did all these new animals come from? No-one's ever seen any of them pop into being, as you suggest, but we've seen plenty of evidence for and examples of gradual evolution.

 

[Skywalker]

Yet it's the traditional norm in many other cultures.
Apparently you don't know much about anthropology, either.

Please define "kind." You say it's a meaningless term in biology, then, in the same sentence, make biological claims using it.

There were once no land plants or animals at all. So where did they all come from, magic poofing? You really think that's a reasonable explanation?
The fossil record shows many animals that are no longer here, and many modern animals that didn't exist a million years ago. Where did all these new animals come from? No-one's ever seen any of them pop into being, as you suggest, but we've seen plenty of evidence for and examples of gradual evolution.

That's not fossil record evidence.

Gradual things have gray areas and intermediates.

 

[Valjean]

Mutations changing to natural selection is unlikely at best.

[Mutations changing to natural selection?" What does that mean? Mutations aren't selected. They're random.
The primary driver of evolution in higher animals like vertebrates is reproductive variation, not mutation.

What is your belief about how evolution works? I believe that evolution either works that way, or there is an intelligent designer. There is no other possibility.

How did you manage to avoid biology classes in school? Read some of the links I posted previously. Learn what evolution is, how it works, and the evidence for it.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Sorry this post somehow escaped me yesterday.
Let's count assumtions necessary to explain the perceived beauty on earth also for landscapes that are in no way a good habitat for man (such as the Alps-picture shown in an above post):
1) God proposition. 2) naturalistic explanation.
Let's alter 1) first: I don't narrow it down to a God. I just say "higher force that is loving" ok? Theoretically it could be a loving version of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, too. ok?
And lets further talk about a specific kind of love: the one that is perceivable. Many people feel love for persons but never show it. This kind of love may not be called "love" for a moment, ok? Love as used here, may refer to something active, the kind of love that the loved individuals can really sense.
Furthermore, I speak of some "higher" or "greater" love meaning that it comes from some propbably supernatural source...

So now, lets count the number of assumptions necessary to explain the beauty?

1) a higher love exists.

2) a/ there is an evolutionary benefit for people to find landscapes beautiful that are detrimental as a habitat. Meaning those who recognise non-beneficial landscapes as beautiful... have better chances to survive.

b/ this effect is cutting enough to have an influence on the evolutionary process. It is not only beneficial to think that non-beneficial lanscapes are beautiful (see a/) ... but in the process of evolution, it really makes a difference if people pass their perception of beauty on to their offspring.

c/ this effect (b/) developed so early in humankind that the tendancy of ascribing beauty to non-beneficial landscapes.... had enough time to be spread and can be found in at least half of humankind by now.

d/ the effect (a/) is not evened out by potential detrimental effects of ascibing beauty to non-beneficial landscapes.

So 1) had 1 assumption... whereas 2) had 4 assumptions, so 2) is less parsimonious.

Sorry, but there are several flaws in your logic.

First off, you are assuming that there are only two possible explanations for why humans see beauty in nature. However we’ve already established that neither one of us know EVERYTHING, so it’s quite possible that there’s an explanation that neither one of us has thought of.

For example… I’m going to hypothesis that there is a chemical in our air that we have yet to identify that causes human beings to perceive things as being beautiful or ugly. And I am going to claim that my ‘evidence’ that such a chemical exists is the fact that we perceive beauty in nature. So now we have two opposing hypothesis, one that claims we see beauty because of a ‘being of love’ and another that claims we see beauty because of a chemical in the air and BOTH of us claim that the ‘evidence’ for the existence of this loving being and the chemical in the air is the fact that humans perceive beauty in nature. Now, unless I have a confirmation bias, that is I’m either seeking evidence for a loving god being or I’m seeking evidence for a chemical in our air, I cannot conclude that I believe that one is the cause and not the other, since the evidence for both claims is exactly the same.



Now we have four possible explanations.

1) A loving god being

2) A natural product of evolution

3) A yet unidentified chemical in the air

4) Another possibility that neither of us has thought of yet.



So how do you determine that one of those four is worthy of your belief and the other three are not?



As for there being no logical reason why humans would find beauty in desolate uninviting places, I disagree. If I am a human living in a dry arid desert or a cold frozen wasteland, I would think that it would be easier to survive if I viewed my surroundings as being starkly beautiful instead of viewing it as being desolate and ugly.


Furthermore, the evolution hypothesis isn’t asking us to view the fact that humans find beauty in nature to be ‘evidence’ of evolution. There is plenty of evidence that evolution is a real process. Thus this hypothesis is based on something we know actually exists. Your hypothesis is based on a loving god being for which we have NO evidence. Likewise, my chemical agent in the air hypothesis is ALSO based on a chemical for which we have NO evidence. Based on that alone, the evolution hypothesis had more merit. But even then, there isn’t sufficient evidence to conclude that evolution IS the explanation.



So ultimately, if you are truly being unbiased, we’d have to conclude that the reason humans find beauty in nature is UNKNOWN. And if it’s POSSIBLE for any number of different explanations to be correct, it’s IMPOSSIBLE for me to say that I genuinely believe that any one of them is true.

 

[Valjean]

There is only one God. Witchcraft is people trying to be God. Let there be light has nothing to do with witchcraft.

"Let there be light" proposes no natural mechanism. It's a magical incantation.

I believe that the standard of what's right and what's wrong comes from God.

....And your evidence?
[QUOT]But to be an intermediate, ti would have to either by definition not be fully formed or it would have to be a fully functioning intermediate.[/QUOTE]
How are you defining "intermediate?"
Intermediate doesn't mean inchoate or incomplete. We're talking past each other, using different definitions, talking about different things.
Get with the program. We've been posting about this for days, explaining and re-explaining, and you just aren't processing our posts.

Outside of a lab, what's an example of chemical reactions creating life forms that have been shown to have evolved or show signs of evolution?

Any plant or animal.

Jesus didn't stay dead because he resurrected, not as a zombie-like being like Osiris, but as the resurrected prince of glory.

Preaching.

That doesn't mean that macroevolution is possible, because there are limits to the changes that mutations allow.

What are these limits? How do they work. What phenomenon disallows change. How does evolution or an evolving organism know when to stop changing so as to avoid becoming a new species? How do you explain the in vivo speciation that we've directly observed?

And why this emphasis on mutation? With a few exceptions it's not what's driving the speciation you're talking about.

It's not possible for populations to develop survival traits without individuals first developng those traits, and those individuals would die before they develop their survival traits.

No, they're born with the survival traits: thick fur in a cold climate, long legs or protective coloration in prey animals, &c.

 

[Valjean]

I believe in God because I want to believe that there is some goodness (God is good!) behind the magic. I see too much magic.

So you believe in God because it's a comfortable belief; because you want to believe in him? You're more concerned with comfort than truth?
Me, I'd rather believe what's actually true, pleasant or not.

I agree! But, still, there are hundreds, even thousands, of unexplainable happenings that I want an explanation for so I opt for God.

Unexplained, not unexplainable.
First, many of the 'unexplainables' have been explained, it's just that the creationists, magic poofers and flat-Earthers are unaware of them, or choose to ignore them -- perhaps because they're not so comforting as believing in a loving god.

Theists have been using this argument for millennia. It's a false dilemma argument. Anything unexplained is adduced as 'proof' of God, and as soon as the natural explanation becomes known, they cast about for the next unknown.

Is this a conversation about sex?

Among other things.
Sex is the method slow-reproducing organisms use to create the genetic mix that produces the reproductive variation needed for natural selection to create the adaptive changes needed in a changing environment.

 

[Valjean]

Mutations itself have limitations in how much they can mutate.

OK... but there's no limit on how often they can occur, or how many at one time.
A single mutation also varies in effect. Most produce no visible effect, but others can cause downs syndrome, immunity to atherosclerosis or HIV, &c.

Modifications of other traits is microevolution, not macroevolution.

What's the difference? How many times do we have to explain this to you?

 

[Valjean]

DNA changes have limits. A being can't evolve into a change of kinds. Macroevolution is different from microevolution because it implies a change of kinds.

Stop it with the "kinds," aready.

An individual doesn't change into another species, but the changes accumulate, generation to generation, till something quite unlike the prototype becomes the norm.
Compare to language. An individual never speaks a different language from his parents or children, yet the small changes accumulate, until the present generation speaks a language that would be entirely indecipherable to his distant forbears.

 

[Skywalker]

OK... but there's no limit on how often they can occur, or how many at one time.
A single mutation also varies in effect. Most produce no visible effect, but others can cause downs syndrome, immunity to atherosclerosis or HIV, &c.
What's the difference? How many times do we have to explain this to you?

Since there are limits on how much they can mutate, how often mutations can occur or how many at one time can occur doesn't make a difference in terms of making macroevolution mutations possible.

HIV is not positive, so it supports that mutations have limits and don't cause macroevolution. The lab studies of plant macroevolution only demonstrated changes within kinds, not changes of kinds.

If macrevolution is not true, that leaves us with microevolution, which cannot explain where all life evolved from.

 

[Skywalker]

Stop it with the "kinds," aready.

An individual doesn't change into another species, but the changes accumulate, generation to generation, till something quite unlike the prototype becomes the norm.
Compare to language. An individual never speaks a different language from his parents or children, yet the small changes accumulate, until the present generation speaks a language that would be entirely indecipherable to his distant forbears.

Tiktaliik was a fish. It wasn't a gray area or an intermediate. All gradual things have gray areas and intermediates. Is Tiktaalik Evolution’s Greatest Missing Link?

Tiktaalik Is a Fish
Whatever else we might say about Tiktaalik, it is a fish.
Whatever else we might say about Tiktaalik, it is a fish. In a review article on Tiktaalik(appearing in the same issue of the scientific journal Nature that reported the discovery of Tiktaalik), fish evolution experts Ahlberg and Clack concede that “in some respects Tiktaalik and Panderichthys are straightforward fishes: they have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and have well-developed gill arches, suggesting that both animals remained mostly aquatic.”6

In other respects, however, Ahlberg and Clack argue that Tiktaalik is more tetrapod-like than Panderichthys because “the bony gill cover has disappeared, and the skull has a longer snout.” The authors weakly suggest that the significance of all this is that “a longer snout suggests a shift from sucking towards snapping up prey, whereas the loss of gill cover bones probably correlates with reduced water flow through the gill chamber. The ribs also seem larger in Tiktaalik, which may mean it was better able to support its body out of water.”

Without the author’s evolutionary bias, of course, there is no reason to assume that Tiktaalik was anything other than exclusively aquatic. And how do we know that Tiktaalik lost its gill cover as opposed to never having one? The longer snout and lack of bony gill covers (found in many other exclusively aquatic living fish) are interpreted as indicating a reduced flow of water through the gills, which, in turn, is declared to be suggestive of partial air-breathing—but this is quite a stretch. Finally, what does any of this have to do with fish evolving into land-dwelling tetrapods?

 

[Valjean]

More often than not the opposite is true.

How so? Examples?

 

[Valjean]

What constraints of environment predict a dog?

Huh? Not following. Explain, please.