Do u think god id real i do!

Posted By:

Unforgotten-l
Member since:
January, 2007

Status: Offline
Posts: 2771

Date: 7/29/2007 12:40:29 PM
Author:
Date: 7/12/2007 3:37:23 PM
Author:
The Big Bang could have easily formed the universe.

Just because you don''t know how something happened doesn''t automatically mean that ''god did it.'' That''s called the ''God Of The Gaps'' Fallacy.

well doesn''t mean u don''t know how it happened , it didn''t automatically turn into ''Big bang did it'', does it?

No, it''s just that that theory is more backed up. Right now in my mind it''s more like "The big band most likely did it, but that''s not for certain."

Do u think god id real i do!

Posted By:

ShadowXP93
Member since:
July, 2007

Status: Offline
Posts: 1026

But I can believe in both. In fact, I can believe that the Big Bang AND God r real. I would just have to believe that god created the Big Bang. See Evolution and Creation, Big Bang or some other theory, can''t really be backed up by Christianity. I can very much say that God created Evolution or the Big Bang, but I choose not to. I don''t really know about the Big Bang, but I don''t really know if it''s wrong either!!!

"The people, who were trying to make this world worse are not taking a day off... How can I?...
It is my duty to my Father to light up the darkness of the world. And you can count on me fulfillin'' my duty!"

~Shadow Vista

Do u think god id real i do!

Posted By:

XvengeanceX
Member since:
January, 2007

Status: Offline
Posts: 1762

Actually, you can believe in creation and evolution, The Pope, yes, Pope annouced today on a morning news station that he believed in a mix of creation and evolution.

_________________________
hey moon, please forget to fall down. hey moon, don't you go down.

Do u think god id real i do!

Posted By:

ShadowXP93
Member since:
July, 2007

Status: Offline
Posts: 1026

I agree, you could believe that God CREATED EVOLUTION!!!!

"The people, who were trying to make this world worse are not taking a day off... How can I?...
It is my duty to my Father to light up the darkness of the world. And you can count on me fulfillin'' my duty!"

~Shadow Vista

Do u think god id real i do!

Posted By:

RawrSkittles=)
Member since:
July, 2011

Status: Offline
Posts: 14158

"Unforgotten-l" wrote:
Date: 7/12/2007 6:21:21 PM
Author: _alexomalex_
''i meen who made us if there isent any god???? gods the only thing that could have made us!!!! what do u believe??? ~Roxy ''

I absolutely agree! The universe is so wonderfully complex, how could it happen on accident?

The following wasn''t written by me.

The next scientific type of argument is called Intelligent Design xID). It states that life on Earth is so complex that it must have had an intelligent designer. This argument has evolved from the creationism argument, and it's gaining strength by masquerading as a science. It's a belief structure and not science because there is no body of research to support its clxxxs, and it makes no testable predictions. To get around legal restrictions on teaching religious dogma, proponents of ID often say that they don't know what this designer wasx it could have been an alien or a god. This is disingenuous. If it was an alien, then the obvious question is: where and how did the alien originate? If they really mean God, which is what some of them have admitted, then ID is basically creationism with a few new ideas. So, I will treat ID and creationism as basically the same.

Proponents of Intelligent Design make many clxxxs:

The apparent design of the universe design requires a designer, like a watch requires a watchmaker.

The complexity of life and the universe require a cause that is not part of this natural universe.

Irreducible complexity shows that the odds against natural causes for certain processes are too great, so a designer is necessary.

The physical laws require a lawgiver.

The laws of physics were fine-tuned for life.

Science can't explain all the features of life.

Our system of life on Earth was designed.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics proves that evolution is impossible.

What they really clxxx is God did it!

Let''s start with the apparent design of the universe, and use a story of Sir Isaac Newton as an example. A deeply religious man, Newton was struck by the order that he observed in the orbits of the planets, with all of them in the same plane. He could think of no reason for this, so he attributed it to God. Of course now, thru science, we understand the gravitational dynamics in the formation of solar systems fairly well, and no longer need to invoke a god. Science is similarly showing how the rest of the universe works and eliminating the need for theistic explanations.
Now let's look at the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This states that any closed system will tend toward disorder. However, it does not apply to the Earth, because we live in an open system with energy constantly streaming in from our sun. This is the energy that powers almost all life on our planet. Thus the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to evolution or any living being.

Next, let's consider the laws of physics. They are quantified explanations of how matter and energy behave - not anything like man-made laws. We currently don't know why the parameters of matter and energy have certain values, but that doesn't mean that some god set them that way. The simple solution to the question of the source of the laws of physics is to accept them as brute fact, with no source. Besides, if it were true that a god set up the universe specifically for us, he certainly waited a long time for the result. The universe has been around for about 13 billion years. It took about nine billion years before Earth was formed from the remnants of supernova stars. Single celled bacteria were forming ecosystems about a billion years after that, as shown by the evidence for Earth's history in its rocks and fossils. For about two and a half billion years life consisted of only single celled organisms. Life evolved and became more complex with multi-celled organisms. It then took another billion years for fish, reptiles and mammals to appear. Then humans, God's supposed reason for the whole creation, finally came along within the last 150,000 years or so - on one planet orbiting one of the trillions of stars. This seems like a lengthy, complex, massive, and apparently natural process for an omnipotent being that could have simply snapped everything xor just one magic planet) into existence. Using God as the source of the laws of physics just doesn't make sense. Once again, religionists are trying to explain one mystery with a bigger mystery.

It''s also important to note that life is exceedingly rare in the universe - even if it exists on every planet and moon. All we do know is that life exists on one oasis - Earth. Most of the universe is nearly empty, and almost all of the matter is in stars or nebulae. Any sort of life that we can imagine only has a chance on planets or moons. The universe was not designed for lifex in practically the entire universe conditions are extremely hostile to life. Saying that the universe is made just for us is like a frog looking at his pond and thinking that the whole world was made just for him.

The core argument in Intelligent Design is the fact that evolutionary biologists can't yet fully explain all the features of lifex therefore ID clxxxs that life must have been designed by some intelligent being. This is the old "god of the gaps" argument, and it is scientifically, logically, and historically flawed.

ID is scientifically flawed because it violates the ground rules of science by allowing supernatural xmeaning outside of nature) causation.

ID is logically flawed in two ways. The first logical flaw in ID is that it''s based on a lack of knowledge - explaining gaps in knowledge by invoking the magic of an unknown xperhaps supernatural) being. Like all "god of the gaps" arguments, ID is not falsifiable, can't even be tested, and says nothing about the moral qualities of this unknown being, god, or gods. The second logical flaw is in the assumption it makes that, because something is supposedly very highly unlikely, something else must have designed it. What ID proponents blatantly ignore, because they take the existence of their god as a given, is the fact that this unknown designer must be even more complex, and thus less probable, than what ID was invoked to explain.

ID is historically flawed because science has shown excellent progress in explaining the world around us, and there is nothing to show that evolutionary biology should be abandoned simply because it has not yet explained the origins of every single process of life. Because biochemical processes don't leave behind fossils, it's not as easy to explain their origins as it is for bone structures that do fossilize. However, evolutionary biologists are making excellent progress in understanding the origins and processes of the biochemistry of life.

Proponents of ID have also created the idea of irreducible complexity, which is central to ID. It states that many processes of life are too complex and irreducible to have evolvedx therefore a designer must have created them. This complexity comes from many interrelated parts or processes, which supposedly are useless without all the other parts or processes. This is just another "god of the gaps" and it also falls apart under close examination.

"What good is half an eye?" they ask. The answer is simple. Any amount of vision is better than none, and any change that improves vision probably improves survivability. Starting with a basic light-sensing cell, eyes have evolved thru natural selection - one small step at a time. Richard Dawkins has an excellent explanation of this xand much more) in his book Climbing Mount Improbable.

An icon of the irreducible complexity concept is the bacterial flagellum, with its many similarities to an electric motor - and about 30 protein components required to produce a working biological function. Unfortunately for the ID movement, research has demolished the flagellum''s status as an example of irreducible complexity. Some bacteria use what is known as type III secretory system xTTSS) to allow them to inject proteins directly into the cytoplasm of a host cell. TTSS has a strong likeness in structure to the flagellum, and uses about 15 to 20 of the same proteins. This shows that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex, because a functioning structure xalbeit with a different function) can be made with 10 to 15 fewer proteins. A detailed analysis can be found in The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity". [Link removed]

Intelligent Design is simply not sciencex it''s religion dressed up to look like science to the uninformed. It is mystical pseudoscience.

I''d like to address a common statement made by creationists - that scientists have supposedly never actually witnessed evolution, so evolution either: a) isn''t real science, or b) hasn''t happened. First, this is a gross mischaracterization of science. There are many processes that scientists can understand without directly witnessing them, such as much of geology or fusion at the cores of stars. Second, this statement ignores the fact that evolution usually takes thousands or millions of years. It''s like looking a tree and saying that it is not growing because you can''t see any growth in a day. Third, scientists have actually witnessed the rapid evolution of new species - the apple moth from the hawthorn moth, a new species of polychaetes fish, and many more.