question for athiests

[thefanwithnoname]

But only if you can prove every single that is known has a creator and this cannot be done.

On a beach there are 3 objects. A washed up boat that you can show to be created by man. A washed up toy that you can show to be created by a man. Finally there is a shell, by your logic the shell was created by a man.

You need to show evidence that EVERYTHING we know was created before you can logically say any new, unknown thing, must also have been created and you simply cant do this. So to assume that everything has a creator is just plain wrong.

Depends on your starting point

A boat and a toy are created by man, man is created by........
a shell is created by (depends on shell I guess) calcium carbonate, which is created by........

sooner or later you end up back at creation/origin, then the fun starts

 

[thefanwithnoname]

Bingo!

We know dinosaurs had sex because we've found fossilised eggs and babies.

but we have no proof/evidence that they had sex. we just put 2 and 2 together based on what we know

Evolution is a widely accepted theory with screeds of supporting evidence.

evolution does NOT explain how it all started. evolution needed 'creation' to start. Even then there are elements to evolution that are based on assumptions etc

There is NO evidence that the universe was created by a creator and you cannot provide us with any.

There is no evidence that the universe was created WITHOUT a creator, based on what we know

You've asked us about countless things and we've provided you with answers. Whether you accept them or not is up to you.

you can stop posting anytime you like, with respect.

You, however, expect us to accept that there must be a creator based on NO evidence.

I dont expect anything really in all honesty, its only a forum

however all evidence points to a creator, based that what we know and no other evidence being available

 

[thefanwithnoname]

anyway fellas have to shoot

its actually been pleasnt thus far today



keep the 'faith'

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

so you havent put forward a 'theory' right?

No, nor have I claimed to.

ok you believe nothing as we know it has a creator?

Not in the 'magicking it up from nowhere' sense, no.
Making something from constituent parts certainly happens and creatures reproduce through natural processes, if you want to count those as creation.

No it tells us we dont know that bit, as in where did the cretor come from. doesnt negate a creator though

It doesn't suggest one, either and it makes the answer utterly irrelevant.

its not 'unacceptable, but your line was 'others have said'

You've said before that not knowing was unacceptable to you.
Have you changed your mind?

lack of evidence? what about 'what we know'. as in dinosaurs and sex etc?

We have evidence of the existence of dinosaurs and their reproduction.
There must have been a method for it, so we can conclude that the current theories are the most likely explanation of that method.

We have no evidence of a creator at all.

NOT TRUE. I said we didnt leap from monkey to man. which is different

So you believe that man evolved into our current form?
From what?

or we simply dont know.

No, wisdom teeth and our third eye-lid don't have a use.
Wisdom teeth are actually a hindrance, if anything.

The eyeball confused Darwin to the point he believed it made his theory fail

I've explained this bullshit to you before.
Why do creationists always **** this quote up?
When Darwin talked about the eye, he was saying that whilst his theory may at first appear to be counter-intuitive, it's actually true.

The quote that your lot love is this:
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

Unfortunately for you, he actually goes on to explain the solution to the problem that he's suggesting, but the sites that you visit don't mention that:
"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound".

Well it was a link you posted and i lifted exact quotes from it, make of it what you want

No, you quoted out of context and failed to understand the whole, just as you did with the Darwin Eye thing.

 

[The Raging Oxter]

TFWNN

About three days ago on this thread (!) I suggested you read up on cosmology. The reason I did so was because I believed it would give you a better grasp of the subject at hand. If you had taken me up on the offer you would realise that the way the universe "works" at a molecular level is very different from the way it does at a macroscopic level.

At that level, where scientists study the origin of the universe for example, things pop in and out of existence all the time. As yet, there is no concrete evidence as to why that happens. Light acts differently at that level too. As does gravity. As do a million and one other things.

Your whole basis of "something exists, therefore there must be a creator" goes completely out the window. This is the very basic building blocks of the universe we are talking about here and scientists cannot explain why something exists or where they came from.

Your argument is flawed I'm afraid. In fact, it's undone by the very thing you argue in favour of: a creator. In quantum physics it seems it is perfectly reasonable for something to come into existence without being created by some external force. It is possible for a single light beam to split and be in two places at once.

The more we look into the "creation" of the universe the more we see that things are illogical and may never even be explainable.

Did someone or some thing create the universe? I simply don't know. But so far there is no evidence to suggest that there was and until there is proof, even anecdotal evidence, I will continue to believe that there is no such thing as a creator, be it spiritual or physical.

 

[Erik]

thefanwithnoname appears to have somehow become even more dumb in the 24 hours (or less) since he was last here.

"We can't prove Dinosaurs had sex" and "(some people) claim evolution as the cause/creator of the Universe" being my favourite parts of today's session.

As i said

Nothing as we know it is created from nothing
everything as we know it has a creator

therefore it is logical to conclude there is a creator

You appear to be confusing yourself with the word 'creator' again, and I know we have had this issue before. Saying something has been 'created' establishes a 'creator'. Maybe if you try and tear yourself away from the words 'created' and 'creation' you may go some way towards getting a proper scientific education. Perhaps what you mean is "nothing we know of exists without prior cause". Though of course this too is wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Also, have you looked up 'endogenous retroviruses' yet? I did say they would be of great interest to you, given your laughable lack of understanding of the DNA evidence for Evolutionary Theory.

 

[SUPERNORWICH 23]

die thread die die die, and die..............Science 10 God lovers 0......................TFWNN, GIVE IT UP SON

 

[GasheadinChelt]

The trouble I find religious people have in debates like this is the fact that they base their arguments on what was written 1,500 - 2,500 years ago and treat it as fact. As I've stated on a previous submission on this thread, back then peoples knowledge and understanding of things was nowhere near as much as they are today. As science and education have developed and our knowledge and understanding of things has increased and expanded our horizons we have been less reliant on taking things at face value. Science is all about going beyond what we know and pushing the boundaries back. Religion is static - this is what was understood 2,000 years ago so it must be true no matter what. I couldn't accept that as a 7 year old back in 1975 and I can't accept that now. Just because someone saw a bright light doesn't mean he saw God, Angels or any other "mythical" being. I still can't explain how the universe began - I'm still not a scientist. The answers will never be known in my lifetime and might take several hundred years to come about but it will be discovered and have a rational, logical, scientific explanation.

 

[thefanwithnoname]

No, nor have I claimed to.

2 things, one it defeats the purpose of the OP. 2 the theist claims that athiests love to mock etc is true no?

Not in the 'magicking it up from nowhere' sense, no.
Making something from constituent parts certainly happens and creatures reproduce through natural processes, if you want to count those as creation.

who said anything about 'magicking'. Everything as we know it has a point of origin, a creator

It doesn't suggest one, either and it makes the answer utterly irrelevant.

based on what we know it certainly does suggest it, as nothing as we know it comes from nothing. What it is can be debated, even the 'big bang' is suggestion of a 'creating force'. so the answer is the key


You've said before that not knowing was unacceptable to you.
Have you changed your mind?

I was talking from your perspective. I think 'knowing' or seeking to know is the only way to make an informed decision.
you dont?

We have evidence of the existence of dinosaurs and their reproduction.
There must have been a method for it, so we can conclude that the current theories are the most likely explanation of that method.

and based on that we know that for something to 'be' there needs to be a creating force.
or is it a case of accept what suits?

We have no evidence of a creator at all.

there is plenty of evidence, our very existence based on what we know suggests a creator. as in nothing is created...... you know the rest


So you believe that man evolved into our current form?
From what?

From man. No different to the evolution in terms of height etc

No, wisdom teeth and our third eye-lid don't have a use.
Wisdom teeth are actually a hindrance, if anything.

The use of wisdom teeth was vital in the development of man. Evolutions forgotten
the third eyelid (or nictitating membrane) is thought to have shrunk to the little pink bit in the corner of the eye. so is it a 3rd eyelid?
having said that there is nothing to suggest that we know its use. Just like the spleen, gall bladder etc there is new research that suggested that they were 'more' useful than first thought.

I've explained this bullshit to you before.
Why do creationists always **** this quote up?
When Darwin talked about the eye, he was saying that whilst his theory may at first appear to be counter-intuitive, it's actually true.

The quote that your lot love is this:
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

Unfortunately for you, he actually goes on to explain the solution to the problem that he's suggesting, but the sites that you visit don't mention that:
"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound".


Please, this is a classic case of 'making it fit'. The parts of the eye are multiple. According to darwins 'natural selection' It would have had to be multiple evolution processes happening in tandem for that to work, as you may well know some elements of th eeye are useless outside the sum. do you know how many ifs buts and maybes are involved in the evolution of the eye? The eyes earliest fossils are found in the cambrian period. And as you will know the cambrian period is what Darwin saw as the biggest objection to his theory

No, you quoted out of context and failed to understand the whole, just as you did with the Darwin Eye thing.

what was the 'right' context?

 

[thefanwithnoname]

The trouble I find religious people have in debates like this is the fact that they base their arguments on what was written 1,500 - 2,500 years ago and treat it as fact. As I've stated on a previous submission on this thread, back then peoples knowledge and understanding of things was nowhere near as much as they are today. As science and education have developed and our knowledge and understanding of things has increased and expanded our horizons we have been less reliant on taking things at face value. Science is all about going beyond what we know and pushing the boundaries back. Religion is static - this is what was understood 2,000 years ago so it must be true no matter what. I couldn't accept that as a 7 year old back in 1975 and I can't accept that now. Just because someone saw a bright light doesn't mean he saw God, Angels or any other "mythical" being. I still can't explain how the universe began - I'm still not a scientist. The answers will never be known in my lifetime and might take several hundred years to come about but it will be discovered and have a rational, logical, scientific explanation.

This isnt about 'religion' or 'god' its about origins and creator

 

[thefanwithnoname]

thefanwithnoname appears to have somehow become even more dumb in the 24 hours (or less) since he was last here.

"We can't prove Dinosaurs had sex" and "(some people) claim evolution as the cause/creator of the Universe" being my favourite parts of today's session.



You appear to be confusing yourself with the word 'creator' again, and I know we have had this issue before. Saying something has been 'created' establishes a 'creator'. Maybe if you try and tear yourself away from the words 'created' and 'creation' you may go some way towards getting a proper scientific education. Perhaps what you mean is "nothing we know of exists without prior cause". Though of course this too is wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Also, have you looked up 'endogenous retroviruses' yet? I did say they would be of great interest to you, given your laughable lack of understanding of the DNA evidence for Evolutionary Theory.

Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are sequences in the genome thought to be derived from ancient viral infections of germ cells in humans, mammals and other vertebrates; as such their proviruses are passed on to the next generation and now remain in the genome.

 

[The Raging Oxter]

TFWNN

About three days ago on this thread (!) I suggested you read up on cosmology. The reason I did so was because I believed it would give you a better grasp of the subject at hand. If you had taken me up on the offer you would realise that the way the universe "works" at a molecular level is very different from the way it does at a macroscopic level.

At that level, where scientists study the origin of the universe for example, things pop in and out of existence all the time. As yet, there is no concrete evidence as to why that happens. Light acts differently at that level too. As does gravity. As do a million and one other things.

Your whole basis of "something exists, therefore there must be a creator" goes completely out the window. This is the very basic building blocks of the universe we are talking about here and scientists cannot explain why something exists or where they came from.

Your argument is flawed I'm afraid. In fact, it's undone by the very thing you argue in favour of: a creator. In quantum physics it seems it is perfectly reasonable for something to come into existence without being created by some external force. It is possible for a single light beam to split and be in two places at once.

The more we look into the "creation" of the universe the more we see that things are illogical and may never even be explainable.

Did someone or some thing create the universe? I simply don't know. But so far there is no evidence to suggest that there was and until there is proof, even anecdotal evidence, I will continue to believe that there is no such thing as a creator, be it spiritual or physical.

 

[Erik]

Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are sequences in the genome thought to be derived from ancient viral infections of germ cells in humans, mammals and other vertebrates; as such their proviruses are passed on to the next generation and now remain in the genome.

Another of your problems seems to be with the fact that science isn't as arrogant as religion. Do you not understand why terms such as "thought to be" are included in descriptions of biological functions, etc?

 

[RAVENBLACK]

Another of your problems seems to be with the fact that science isn't as arrogant as religion. Do you not understand why terms such as "thought to be" are included in descriptions of biological functions, etc?

Bollocks.

 

[thefanwithnoname]

TFWNN

About three days ago on this thread (!) I suggested you read up on cosmology. The reason I did so was because I believed it would give you a better grasp of the subject at hand. If you had taken me up on the offer you would realise that the way the universe "works" at a molecular level is very different from the way it does at a macroscopic level.

At that level, where scientists study the origin of the universe for example, things pop in and out of existence all the time. As yet, there is no concrete evidence as to why that happens. Light acts differently at that level too. As does gravity. As do a million and one other things.

Your whole basis of "something exists, therefore there must be a creator" goes completely out the window. This is the very basic building blocks of the universe we are talking about here and scientists cannot explain why something exists or where they came from.

Your argument is flawed I'm afraid. In fact, it's undone by the very thing you argue in favour of: a creator. In quantum physics it seems it is perfectly reasonable for something to come into existence without being created by some external force. It is possible for a single light beam to split and be in two places at once.

The more we look into the "creation" of the universe the more we see that things are illogical and may never even be explainable.

Did someone or some thing create the universe? I simply don't know. But so far there is no evidence to suggest that there was and until there is proof, even anecdotal evidence, I will continue to believe that there is no such thing as a creator, be it spiritual or physical.

religion is also a form of cosmology, as it too deals with origins.
The problem is the starting point. If the Big Bang is the starting point then to me that is not origins. The big bang is stage B if you like, we need to start at A

 

[The Raging Oxter]

religion is also a form of cosmology, as it too deals with origins.
The problem is the starting point. If the Big Bang is the starting point then to me that is not origins. The big bang is stage B if you like, we need to start at A

What is it you want exactly?

An answer to a question that no one has a definitive answer for?

 

[xumanah]

TFWNN

About three days ago on this thread (!) I suggested you read up on cosmology. The reason I did so was because I believed it would give you a better grasp of the subject at hand. If you had taken me up on the offer you would realise that the way the universe "works" at a molecular level is very different from the way it does at a macroscopic level.

At that level, where scientists study the origin of the universe for example, things pop in and out of existence all the time. As yet, there is no concrete evidence as to why that happens. Light acts differently at that level too. As does gravity. As do a million and one other things.

Your whole basis of "something exists, therefore there must be a creator" goes completely out the window. This is the very basic building blocks of the universe we are talking about here and scientists cannot explain why something exists or where they came from.

Your argument is flawed I'm afraid. In fact, it's undone by the very thing you argue in favour of: a creator. In quantum physics it seems it is perfectly reasonable for something to come into existence without being created by some external force. It is possible for a single light beam to split and be in two places at once.

The more we look into the "creation" of the universe the more we see that things are illogical and may never even be explainable.

Did someone or some thing create the universe? I simply don't know. But so far there is no evidence to suggest that there was and until there is proof, even anecdotal evidence, I will continue to believe that there is no such thing as a creator, be it spiritual or physical.

You don't know yourself, but you'd knock someone else for having a different view?

The Last Question -- Isaac Asimov

 

[The Raging Oxter]

You don't know yourself, but you'd knock someone else for having a different view?

The Last Question -- Isaac Asimov

Science has provided us with answers to a lot of the questions. Religion has given us no answers.

 

[xumanah]

religion is also a form of cosmology, as it too deals with origins.
The problem is the starting point. If the Big Bang is the starting point then to me that is not origins. The big bang is stage B if you like, we need to start at A

And what is Stage A. If time is a dimension and created at Stage B (Big Bang), how can you go back?

 

[thefanwithnoname]

Another of your problems seems to be with the fact that science isn't as arrogant as religion. Do you not understand why terms such as "thought to be" are included in descriptions of biological functions, etc?[/QUOTE]

In this case because they are talking bubbles. Furthermore it does not address the question at hand. something has to exist to be passed on. Its how it came into existence that is the issue at hand

again i would emphasise that this is NOT about religion. Its about origin.
What is arrogant is that to suggest a creator = religious nut to some.
also what is arrogant is that we have sex so dinosaurs must have had sex, although there is no 'proof' as to how etc.
yet its seen as ludicrous to suggest that everything has a point of origin and a creator, therefore ........you know the rest