Evolutionists, atheists,scientists Insist On Facts, Yet Live By Faith

[roli]

So we should totally ignore the insurmountable mountain of facts, evidence, and data along with the logical conclusion that one would arrive to and simply trust the mystical insight of some random guy on the internet?

Who me, ..ya right, that is something you need to find out for yourself in this life .... the day you exit this world will most certainly prove what is truth regarding who and what you trusted in.
Call it mystical if you choose ,but that day will be more real and self evident than anything you ever trusted in this life.

 

[LuisDantas]

Who me, ..ya right, that is something you need to find out for yourself in this life .... the day you exit this world will most certainly prove what is truth regarding who and what you trusted in.
Call it mystical if you choose ,but that day will be more real and self evident than anything you ever trusted in this life.

I want to be sure that I got this right: are you claiming that God wants you (and, it seems, everyone else) to make a daring bet that somehow the truth is not what facts and evidence indicate, but rather something else that we will only find out when we "leave this world" (in effect, after we die)?

Isn't that simple disregard for facts out of pride for your religious convictions? If there is any difference, may you please explain which would it be?

 

[darkendless]

?
By the context of your response, it is apparently clear to see why you can't find God.
Proof of His existence is under your nose, not up to me to prove him to your closed mind.

Do you read any books of antiquity, how much do you rely on them ,well my friend the bible has more volitity,history ,science, geography, and accuracy, not to mention it has been the top selling ,most printed, most circulated and life altering book of all time... and your opinion means what?

And obviously you have'nt read the bible or researched the scientific truths that are in it.


It may be totally substantial for you in supporting your cause ,buit it certainly is not the be all end all of life. It almost sounds as if you endorse this as one may their religion..... uhm!!!!!!!!


Those who live in glasss houses should'nt cast stones.
Your house may seem to be built on a sure foundation but the day will reveal it is sinking sand


Science does no such thing, please don';t include me in the cess pool in which you claim to come from.




Call it what you will, I guess you'll never know the reality in which I profess.
May it be your ignorance that is openly confessed here!!!!

My mind is closed to circular reasoning and dogmatic proof. My mind is not closed, just not easily opened to the magical world you live in on lollypop lane.

Ancient history should not be taken literally. All we take from historical sources is a general idea of what happened and where. 99 times out of 100 theres Author bias, we also have to take into account a range of things. The bible is an anti-science text book. Everything you claim it is is far from realistic.

It is a best-seller because there are millions of sheep out there.

I do not endorse science like a religion, but it would make sense to do so, they don't live behind a wall of lies and hypocrisy

There are no scientific truths in the bible. Scholars are famous for finding hidden meanings of things. Im sure if they wanted to, they could have used to bible as a manual on how to defeat the NAzi's

Our origins, for your convenience Roli:
The first metabolic process by which organic molecules could be used as
food, in the absence of oxygen, was the inefficient fermentation process, of
which CO2 is a waste product. Eventually, as the food source would have run
out otherwise, autotrophic organisms evolved. A number of different
strategies are still seen today from the chemotrophs who obtain energy from
mineral oxidation, to phototrophs who utilise light energy, to produce organic
compounds from CO2. The early photosynthesisers used H2, H2S, or the much
more available H2O as electron and H sources to fuel the production of
organic compounds. Methanogens still use H2 producing CH4. Cyanobacteria
are still capable of using H2S or H2O. Oxygen (O2) is a waste product of the
photosynthesis process using H2O.
Production of methane
• As the early atmosphere was already mildly reducing, CH4, a
reduced from of carbon, was quite stable and increased to
concentrations around 1000 ppm (600x todays level). CH4 is a
greenhouse gas that would have caused the temperature to be
increased by about 15ºC and influenced many systems. The
increase in CH4 lead in turn to the development of
methanotrophic bacteria.
Production of oxygen
• Stromatolites are sedimentary rocks produced in shallow marine
environments by the binding of sediment with cyanobacteria.
These cyanobacteria would have been using H2O some of the
time and thus producing oxygen. Stromatolites are also the
earliest definite signs of life that we can determine, and the
earliest ones are in Shark Bay, WA, where the cyanobacteria
are still happily producing stromatolites. Thus, O2 was being
produced 3.5 b.y.a., but free oxygen does not seem to have
appeared in the atmosphere until 2.2-2 b.y.a. The O2 produced
by photosynthesis was entirely consumed by reactions with
reduced gases and materials on Earth.
Decrease in CO2
• The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere had already
decreased even before life had formed, due to the
dissolution of CO2 in the vast oceans and the reaction of CO2
as part of the weathering of silicate minerals to form
limestone.
CaSiO3 + CO2 ® CaCO3 + SiO2
Effect of Life on Early Atmosphere
ii
The evolution of photosynthesising
organisms further depleted the
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
This came about not solely due to
photosynthesis, which is nearly balanced
by respiration, but by the deposition of
detrital carbon in the ocean basins where
it is buried and lithified and therefore
unable to be used as food. It is this
process that produces excess O2!
Oxygen will react readily with reduced substances. The presence of high
concentrations of oxygen indicates a planet far from geochemical
equilibrium. It essentially means that life is present.
The reason that oxygen took about 1.5 b.y. to increase in the atmosphere
was because of the presence of enormous sinks of reduced material that
consumed the O2 being produced. The entire surface of the planet and
even the mantle was undergoing a transition from mildly reducing
conditions to oxidising
conditions. These changes are
recorded in the geological
record.
2H2 + O2 ® 2H2O
2CO + O2 ® 2CO2
This time lag was actually a very good thing for life because oxygen was
incredibly poisonous to the organisms that were producing it! The eventual
introduction of oxygen to the atmosphere triggered the first great mass
extinction.
• The prokaryotic organisms present were
faced with two choices in order to survive.
They could either adapt to the changing
conditions by producing enzymes necessary to
cope with oxygen toxicity, or they could
retreat to areas that remained free of oxygen.
Some organisms adopted one of these
strategies. Most became extinct.
• Some of those that evolved turned into
eukaryotic organisms, which was another
important evolutionary step (due to the
development of sexual reproduction).
The presence of oxygen had two important effects. First of all the early
organisms were limited by fermentation (or other processes) in the
energy yield they could win from the organic compounds they either
produced or consumed. The presence of free oxygen allowed the
development of complete oxidative respiration, which by releasing a far
greater amount of energy (>100x) from the fuel molecules, enabled the
biosphere to invest the surplus into evolution, diversification and
increased biomass (ie. large organisms could evolve).

Source: Pr Peter Teasdale, School of Environmental Science, Griffith University

Please take a special note of whats in bold

 

[rojse]

I'm guessing that there might be one or two that make you stop and consider "what in the heck is that supposed to mean"?

Am I right?

There are some that do that, yes, but others that make me think because they present an intelligent view that adds to the current discussion.

 

[rojse]

My mind is closed to circular reasoning and dogmatic proof. My mind is not closed, just not easily opened to the magical world you live in on lollypop lane.

Ancient history should not be taken literally. All we take from historical sources is a general idea of what happened and where. 99 times out of 100 theres Author bias, we also have to take into account a range of things. The bible is an anti-science text book. Everything you claim it is is far from realistic.

It is a best-seller because there are millions of sheep out there.

I do not endorse science like a religion, but it would make sense to do so, they don't live behind a wall of lies and hypocrisy

There are no scientific truths in the bible. Scholars are famous for finding hidden meanings of things. Im sure if they wanted to, they could have used to bible as a manual on how to defeat the NAzi's

Our origins, for your convenience Roli:
The first metabolic process by which organic molecules could be used as
food, in the absence of oxygen, was the inefficient fermentation process, of
which CO2 is a waste product. Eventually, as the food source would have run
out otherwise, autotrophic organisms evolved. A number of different
strategies are still seen today from the chemotrophs who obtain energy from
mineral oxidation, to phototrophs who utilise light energy, to produce organic
compounds from CO2. The early photosynthesisers used H2, H2S, or the much
more available H2O as electron and H sources to fuel the production of
organic compounds. Methanogens still use H2 producing CH4. Cyanobacteria
are still capable of using H2S or H2O. Oxygen (O2) is a waste product of the
photosynthesis process using H2O.
Production of methane
• As the early atmosphere was already mildly reducing, CH4, a
reduced from of carbon, was quite stable and increased to
concentrations around 1000 ppm (600x todays level). CH4 is a
greenhouse gas that would have caused the temperature to be
increased by about 15ºC and influenced many systems. The
increase in CH4 lead in turn to the development of
methanotrophic bacteria.
Production of oxygen
• Stromatolites are sedimentary rocks produced in shallow marine
environments by the binding of sediment with cyanobacteria.
These cyanobacteria would have been using H2O some of the
time and thus producing oxygen. Stromatolites are also the
earliest definite signs of life that we can determine, and the
earliest ones are in Shark Bay, WA, where the cyanobacteria
are still happily producing stromatolites. Thus, O2 was being
produced 3.5 b.y.a., but free oxygen does not seem to have
appeared in the atmosphere until 2.2-2 b.y.a. The O2 produced
by photosynthesis was entirely consumed by reactions with
reduced gases and materials on Earth.
Decrease in CO2
• The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere had already
decreased even before life had formed, due to the
dissolution of CO2 in the vast oceans and the reaction of CO2
as part of the weathering of silicate minerals to form
limestone.
CaSiO3 + CO2 ® CaCO3 + SiO2
Effect of Life on Early Atmosphere
ii
The evolution of photosynthesising
organisms further depleted the
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
This came about not solely due to
photosynthesis, which is nearly balanced
by respiration, but by the deposition of
detrital carbon in the ocean basins where
it is buried and lithified and therefore
unable to be used as food. It is this
process that produces excess O2!
Oxygen will react readily with reduced substances. The presence of high
concentrations of oxygen indicates a planet far from geochemical
equilibrium. It essentially means that life is present.
The reason that oxygen took about 1.5 b.y. to increase in the atmosphere
was because of the presence of enormous sinks of reduced material that
consumed the O2 being produced. The entire surface of the planet and
even the mantle was undergoing a transition from mildly reducing
conditions to oxidising
conditions. These changes are
recorded in the geological
record.
2H2 + O2 ® 2H2O
2CO + O2 ® 2CO2
This time lag was actually a very good thing for life because oxygen was
incredibly poisonous to the organisms that were producing it! The eventual
introduction of oxygen to the atmosphere triggered the first great mass
extinction.
• The prokaryotic organisms present were
faced with two choices in order to survive.
They could either adapt to the changing
conditions by producing enzymes necessary to
cope with oxygen toxicity, or they could
retreat to areas that remained free of oxygen.
Some organisms adopted one of these
strategies. Most became extinct.
• Some of those that evolved turned into
eukaryotic organisms, which was another
important evolutionary step (due to the
development of sexual reproduction).
The presence of oxygen had two important effects. First of all the early
organisms were limited by fermentation (or other processes) in the
energy yield they could win from the organic compounds they either
produced or consumed. The presence of free oxygen allowed the
development of complete oxidative respiration, which by releasing a far
greater amount of energy (>100x) from the fuel molecules, enabled the
biosphere to invest the surplus into evolution, diversification and
increased biomass (ie. large organisms could evolve).

Source: Pr Peter Teasdale, School of Environmental Science, Griffith University

Please take a special note of whats in bold

That's as bad as a theist who posts ten pages of his holy book at once, Darkendless.

 

[darkendless]

That's as bad as a theist who posts ten pages of his holy book at once, Darkendless.

Forgive the length but do you have a reason to disagree with any of it? Can you prove any of it wrong. Tell me, as a fellow Australian who might know the university, why would they teach us this if it was controversial and only accepted by the minority?

Perhaos you should read it Rojse instead of simply dismissing it based on its length?

 

[rojse]

Forgive the length but do you have a reason to disagree with any of it? Can you prove any of it wrong. Tell me, as a fellow Australian who might know the university, why would they teach us this if it was controversial and only accepted by the minority?

Perhaos you should read it Rojse instead of simply dismissing it based on its length?

I'm not disagreeing with the content, (don't know enough) but my point is when someone starts pasting large tracts from any work, whether it be the Bible or a science textbook, most people will not spend the time looking at it.

As for myself, I have made some personal research in the area, but would not pretend to understand all of what you have posted. You are using quite a few complex scientific terms with laymen, in which I include myself. Large tracts from a science textbook with quite a lot of scientific jargon is no more likely to win anyone over than the ten pages of the holy book I was on about.

 

[crystalonyx]

Dawkins, I think it was, said that the ToE makes it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist. I guess I would counter that it also makes it possible to be an intellectually satisfied theist.

Just for my own info, where did he say this?

 

[Father Heathen]

Who me, ..ya right, that is something you need to find out for yourself in this life .... the day you exit this world will most certainly prove what is truth regarding who and what you trusted in.
Call it mystical if you choose ,but that day will be more real and self evident than anything you ever trusted in this life.

Are you implying god would toss me into hell for merely assuming the sensible and obvious? Punish me for using the very intellect and reason he gifted us with?

 

[Pagan Spiritualist]

Sorry, I don't believe in evolution or creationism. I live in reality, and reality is the fact that I don't know, and won't know until I find out. At the moment though, evolution seems more valid. Creationism is faith, but evolution is too - most of us haven't seen any real evidence for evolution first hand. We are not scientists(well I'm not a scientist, can't say for you all).

Since there's no real proof we were spontaneously created with magic or whatever, which is what most of creationists seem to suggest. I have no problem with Creationism as a concept, but I do believe i f we were created it was through natural processes of a higher race.

You only proved how Evolution and creationism are based on faith though. You did not cover atheism. I think I am an atheist... I believe in the real world. I believe the universe is God... Am I still classified as atheist? I don't believe the universe is conscious though. If it is, though, I try not to impose on it too much... I feel bad for imposing on our relationship in the past(if the universe is conscious).

 

[darkendless]

Sorry, I don't believe in evolution or creationism. I live in reality, and reality is the fact that I don't know, and won't know until I find out. At the moment though, evolution seems more valid. Creationism is faith, but evolution is too - most of us haven't seen any real evidence for evolution first hand. We are not scientists(well I'm not a scientist, can't say for you all).

If you dug about 3m under your house you'd find bedrock at least 200 million years old, possibly older depending on your location.
Also some Iron ore desposists demonstrate that we are 1.9 billion years old as they shows distinct layers of sediment build ups.
Then again laymen cannot just look at the rock and go OMG thats exactly 480 million years old can they. I guess we have to have faith in our superiors that they're teaching us correctly.

 

[roli]

Are you implying god would toss me into hell for merely assuming the sensible and obvious? Punish me for using the very intellect and reason he gifted us with?

Is what you really get from this, you send yourself to hell by rejecting him and making knowledge your god and trusting in the very intellect he gave you to be the sole basis for truth.

The bible says "they worship and serve the creation over the creator.
Do you imbelish the gift over the giver of the gift?

 

[LuisDantas]

Surely God (if he does exist) is wise enough to have some criteria.

 

[gnostic]

And it's functional, too!!

It looked like he is wearing a nipple....or dummy.

No, no, no. I means "yes", he looks like a dummy...what I really mean it look like a "pacifier".

 

[sputnik323]

Much of this discussion has been an argument of semantics - depending on how you define faith, evolution, and differences in scientific theory vs scientific evidence. If faith is defined as a belief in something not proven that promotes action, then science uses faith all the time (its how researchers move from theory to testing hypotheses). If faith is defined as a set of religious beliefs one adheres to, then it has no place in science at all (because it sets in assumptions before testing).

I think what roli was trying to say (although it is still unclear) is that many times people treat science like they treat religions. They claim to know evidence and proof that isn't there (almost like the second definition of faith). For example there is no empirical evidence for how life began. Biology is stumped (even Dawkins has left open the option for aliens (a form of intelligent design) to have caused life to begin) because we just dont know. Evolution can be scientific fact or theory depending on how it is defined. Hell, biology can't even nail down the definition of species for certain. Empirical evidence is a good way to gain knowledge about our world, however, it is very limited. We can't duplicate the universe and test all the variables. You can tell when someone works around science by their level of certainty of concepts. The more certain they are, the more you can assume they only have a high school ed., or they just like to read but do not work in scientific principles.

 

[Paroxys]

Mmm... Roli does have somewhat (but only somewhat) a legitimate point. Scientists do have "faith" (to use Roli's terms) in the law of Induction, i.e. the world will continue to behave as it always has, this is something we fundamentally grant to be true, so that science can progress, for science simply wouldn't exist were it not for this assumption.

So, yes, there is faith, faith that some sort of truth is out there, and somehow that its fathomable by our minds, faith that the world will continue to work as it has. However, does merely faith make a religion? No.

The principle difference between science and religion is that unlike religion, science changes, it evolves. Over the course of 2000 years, has the Bible really changed? Has the Koran? Have the beliefs of varying religions across the world truly evolved in extreme and dynamic ways? If so, please point me to an example. Just in the past 100 years, science has changed dramatically, Einstein completely reworked the concept of physics with his introduction of quantum mechanics, something that completely disproved traditional Newtonian physics. Chemistry has now been able to synthesize various chemicals previously unheard of.

The root of this difference stems from a fundamental difference between science and religion, namely, that science knows and acknowledges its fruitlessness in striving to its goal. Science attempts to explain as much as possible, but despite this, we as scientists know, that a perfect explanation will never be achieved, and despite that, we will constantly strive for perfection. Religion knows its ultimate answer, some manifestation of a divine being higher than humans.

 

[darkendless]

The root of this difference stems from a fundamental difference between science and religion, namely, that science knows and acknowledges its fruitlessness in striving to its goal. Science attempts to explain as much as possible, but despite this, we as scientists know, that a perfect explanation will never be achieved, and despite that, we will constantly strive for perfection. Religion knows its ultimate answer, some manifestation of a divine being higher than humans.

Religion also staunchly defends its answers and refutes criticism towards them. How much have we changed in 2000 years compared to a bible written 2000 years ago for people 2000 years ago?
Our culture and attidues have changed which is reflected by the modern age of science. On the other hand the bible still stands by its principles which in a way keeps us in check, but also restricts our scientific behaviour somewhat. Im not saying that its a bad thing though.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Is what you really get from this, you send yourself to hell by rejecting him and making knowledge your god and trusting in the very intellect he gave you to be the sole basis for truth.

The bible says "they worship and serve the creation over the creator.
Do you imbelish the gift over the giver of the gift?

You just don't "get it", do you, Roli.

Father Heathen (and a few others) reject your Bible as being the word of God. They reject the very existence of your God.

Your condemnation of them, and your proseltyizing to them is wasted breath.

Let me put it to you this way - since you don't pray to Odin, you will never make it into Valhalla. Does that thought bother you? No?

I didn't think so.

 

[darkendless]

You just don't "get it", do you, Roli.

Father Heathen (and a few others) reject your Bible as being the word of God. They reject the very existence of your God.

Your condemnation of them, and your proseltyizing to them is wasted breath.

Let me put it to you this way - since you don't pray to Odin, you will never make it into Valhalla. Does that thought bother you? No?

I didn't think so.

I'm going to Valhalla. Ive already got my Valkrye wings tattooed to my shoulders Im going to fly away and join the hall of the dead, and jesus can't stop me

I dislike being told im straight out wrong. If im going to hell thats fine, at least there i wont have to put up with blind proseltyizing :angel2:

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I'm going to Valhalla. Ive already got my Valkrye wings tattooed to my shoulders Im going to fly away and join the hall of the dead, and jesus can't stop me

I dislike being told im straight out wrong. If im going to hell thats fine, at least there i wont have to put up with blind proseltyizing :angel2:

I absolutely believe that you have every bit as much chance to spend eternity in Valhalla, as I believe that Roli will spend eternity in heaven.

In fact, I have no doubt of it.