How many of you believe in God?

College Confidential Community
81

<p>Providing an entire Universe of evidence for something and expecting people to believe the opposite for no particular reason is ludicrous. Is he trying to trick us? I can see it now--we get up to the pearly gates, and St. Peter says,"Ha-ha! You didn't actually believe all that scientific evidence, did you? You had to have faith in things that were demonstrably false! You go to Hell." It doesn't make any sense.</p>

<p>Pseudogenes are awesome evidence for evolution because they are "true" vestigial structures. Because they lack a functioning start codon, they are never transcribed and translated into proteins, so they cannot possibly influence the activity or traits of an organism. Since they are genes that cannor be expressed, they are not subject to natural selection, and thus, they just kind of...stay there. Pseudogenes could only arise from evolutionary processes, or from a retarded God.</p>

<p>Explanations about how the first self-replicating mechanism came into existence are still in the hypothesis stage--that's the great thing about science, nobody jumps to conclusions without really, really strong evidence. However, there are numerous viable explanations and competing hypotheses, so of course scientists can't tell you "this is definitely how it happened." The identity first self-replicating mechanism is one of the many debates going on in the scientific community, and if you could get over your Krazy Khristian-indoctrinated, irrational vendetta against one of the most well-supported scientific theories, perhaps you could begin to comprehend the actual controversies in the field of biology.</p>

<p>What is your definition of a "species?" At what point does one species become another? One clever trick that creationists use is that they try to make a distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution," when no dichotomy exists. I'm sure that if you took two different breeds of dogs, many people would assert that they were, in fact, different species.</p>

<p>Last 2/3 of your post: argumentum ad-hominem. I need say nothing more.</p>

<p>"Have you ever noticed that creationists look a little unevolved?"
-Bill Hicks</p>

82

<p>Just thought I'd throw this out there:
<a href="http://craptaculus.com/News/science/humans_link.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://craptaculus.com/News/science/humans_link.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

83

<p>I believe in a thing called love :p, but not god...I'm an athiest, I have been since I was like ten years old...In my opinion god was really just made in man's image to control the masses...just look at the story of Adam and Eve: knowledge is bad, don't eat from the tree, be ignorant and happy, and naked in the super-duper garden :). I think Buddhism is kinda cool though, and have been meaning to look into it, I just don't have much time.</p>

84

<p>I'm atheist, though if I was religious I would probably be Buddhist. </p>

<p>I think that humans are an accident of nature. The very fact that there is life on Earth is just luck. I believe that the purpose of life is to help people/do good for the sake of being a good person, not so you can go to heaven. I believe that people should take responsibility for their own actions, and not blame it on other people/things (the devil, drugs, etc.)</p>

<p>I have nothing against religion. If you want to worship a god, or many gods, then go right ahead. It's only when people try to push their religious beliefs on to others that I get annoyed. I don't think religion has a place in science classes, or public schools for that matter. I also don't think that politics should be mixed with religion. The only time it should be involved in the above situations is if it's teaching acceptance/tolerance of all people.</p>

85

<p>"In God We Trust"</p>

<p>familiar?</p>

86

<p>LMAO Spanks I bet you like to be naked ;D!Heh I get annoyed by ex-friend who was Catholic and yelled at me for believing more than 1 God. [laughs] XD yay I'm going to hell. :P Got to go run! See you later!</p>

87

<p>I thought it was "In God we trust"...</p>

<p>Either way, Europeans, who were predominately Christians or Catholics, settled North America. Yes, religion, particularly Christianity, is a huge part of our lives. On the American currency, it says "In God we trust" (or something to that affect). In court, people swear on a Bible. Politicians often include references to God in their speeches. However, just because something has been a huge part of society for generations, doesn't mean that it should.</p>

<p>Someone once said that religion was the opiate of the masses. It was used as a way to explain why things were the way they were (why some people were kings/emperors while others were peasants), and to keep the people in their place (if you suffer now, you will be rewarded in heaven)</p>

88

<p>How can life "just have" the capacity to reproduce? Who or what designed the mechanisms of reproduction, who programmed the DNA that governs it, who or what set all these things in motion? And another thing, is it possible for a computer program to write itself from scratch? Did DNA (essentially a program)design itself? Then who designed the designer? No matter how far back you go, you cannot avoid the question: where the hell did the matter required to make up everything come from, since the amount of matter in existance is constant? Another thing you pro-evolutionists have overlooked is mass-extinction events, such a when meteors strike the earth, wiping out nearly all life (like with dinosaurs) In such cases evolution would have to pretty much start ALL OVER again and lo and behold, the morphology of pre-imapct animals is pretty much the same as those of the post-impact variety. Looks like evolution has a pretty good memory.And like I said in a previous post, why are there not ANY transitional animals today i.e. animals that are even remotely displaying signs of evolving into another species. There should be plenty of examples because evolution happens at differernt speeds for different organisms. Some animals should be more evolved, some less, some barely visible, although those that began to mutate first should today be showing the most evident signs of transformation. Where are the animals with clearly evolving but currently-useless organs and limbs? Why don't all animals evolve (crocs, other amphibians), can they "will" evolution away? And if life somehow managed to developed in the hostile environment of early Earth, why can't scientists create life in a laboratory with the most favourable of conditions? Why Why Why?</p>

<p>I'm real tired of this **** too, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, though just know that I in NO WAY feel like the loser of this debate and I feel that I have made a good case for my side of the story. Believe what you will, it is your God given, whoops, evolutionary right!!</p>

<p>The Second Law of Thermodynamics (as slope-head volant so kindly put out), or the Law of Entropy, clearly shows that a system's entropy is increased as it moves towards a more disorientated and unplanned state, from a more ordered and organised one.</p>

<p>The mechanism offered by Evolution thus totally overthrows this basic physic law. Systems should decay over time, giving less not more order. The fundamental order of the heart should be less organised over time. This total contradiction of laws has been noted by Roger Lewin1, who also seems to agree with me that evolutionists are indeed cushion-headed pillocks who should have have been dissected like poisonous, ****-eating rodents and left to die.</p>

<p>The thermodynamic impossibility of the spontaneous formation of life via complex molecules such as DNA, proteins and RNA, and the unfeasibility of explaining the existence of complex living mechanisms by natural law has clearly thus wet many an evolutionist's pants.</p>

<p>Fortunately, mankind will be saved from anymore blushing disgrace because many scientists agree that the Entropy Law will be the ruling paradigm over the next period of history and is the supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe2.</p>

<p>But, I'm sure someone will contradict this by cowering under the mangled futility that the Second Law of Thermodynamics only holds true for closed systems, and that "open" systems are beyond the scope of this law.</p>

<p>
[quote]
A new species with muscle fibres present in essentially all individuals form

[/quote]

LOL Homology3 is a myth. Homologue organs do not prove that certain living species have evolved from common ancestors because:</p>

<p>[a] One finds homologue organs in creatures of completely different species among which evolutionists have not been able to establish any sort of relationship, such as in squids, vertebrates and anthropods.</p>

<p>** The genetic codes of some creatures that have different organs are utterly different from one another.</p>

<p>[c] The embroyological development of homologue organs in different creatures are completely different.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Fast forward a million years: Through mutation or natural variation or both, the organisms have developed far more cells then previously, this allows a greater amount of cellular processes to be performed. The organism now relies on its 'heart' to provide the oxygen it needs for all it's cells to survive because osmosis is not efficient enough, if an organism forms without the muscle fibres present it dies because it cannot support all its cells.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>********. For the safety of yours and others I urge you to go and read:</p>

<p>W. R Bird, "The Origin of Species Revisited" and;</p>

<p>S. R Scadding, "Do Vestigial Organs provide Evidence for Evolution?" Evolutionary Theory, vol 5</p>

<p>Unfortunately, I don't have time to delve into the incredible fallacy and myth surrounding vestigial organs nor the denounciation that Evolution progressed as a result of random mutations.</p>

<p>No. And hell, don't even get me started on Embroyological Recapitulation.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Roger Lewin, "A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity", Science, vol 217, p. 129</p></li>
<li><p>Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View, New York, Viking Press, p. 6</p></li>
<li><p>Frank Salisbury, "Doubts About the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution", American Biology, p. 8</p></li>
</ol>

89

<p>here are some interesting links:</p>

<p><a href="http://evolutionoftruth.com/evo/evotxtbk.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://evolutionoftruth.com/evo/evotxtbk.htm&lt;/a>
<a href="http://evolutionoftruth.com/adm/overview.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://evolutionoftruth.com/adm/overview.htm&lt;/a>
<a href="http://evolutionoftruth.com/hum/humor.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://evolutionoftruth.com/hum/humor.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>or if you want to start at the contents page
<a href="http://evolutionoftruth.com/adm/contents.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://evolutionoftruth.com/adm/contents.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

90

<p>Imagine A is one species and B is the new species that evolved out of species A</p>

<p>A,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,B</p>

<p>Each comma is one generation, and each generation is slightly different than the last. So there is a long, UNBROKEN sequence of evolution from species A to species B. Therefore, if such a thing really happened, there must be a long, UNBOKEN fossil record that clearly shows this transition from one species to the next, right? Because millions of years passed between A and B, there should countless zillions of transitional fossils that document the long, UNBROKEN development A into B, right? For every B fossil that is found there must be countless zillions of transitional fossils that show it's evolution, right?
Then let me show you what the transitional fossil record of species actually looks like:</p>

<p>A . . . . . . . . B</p>

<p>Does it look like anything above? No? Even though the ratio of fully-formed fossils to transitional fossils should be something like 1:9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999, only a very few have been found. Why are there such giant gaps? The existance of such missing links is one of the strongest arguments against evolution. To somehow explain this baffling absence of a long UNBROKEN fossil trail, evolutionists have come up with some amusing theories:
- most of the fossils of transitional forms have not been preserved so the fossil record cannot be fully completed (So how come the fossils of fully-formed species have been fully preserved?)
- trans. fossils exist but haven't been found yet (Iraqi WMD anyone?)
and the most idiotic of theories, one put forth by Harvard paleontologist Stephen Gould: "punctuated equilibrium" - this theory claims that evolution didn't happen in small slow steps but rather in giant bounds. This idea is diametrically opposed to the concepts of slow, gradual evolution but it was still seriously proposed as the answer why a long UNBROKEN transitional fossil record does not exist. So much for serious science.</p>

<p>So when asked to explain the non-existance of an UNBROKEN transitional fossil record, evolutionists will claim that it does indeed exist, though there are a "few gaps here and there." Uh-uh, sorry pal, not acceptable. If you can find a few transitional fossils then you must be able to find them ALL, you must be able to show the long, continious and UNBROKEN evolution of species A into species B. This is after all what evolutionists say happened. But when they can't find the conclusive proof to do so, they start claiming that some IS all, that it is "unreasonable" to inisist on an complete unbroken trans. fossil record. Charles Darwin himself said that his theory would be proven wrong if a complete transitional fossil trail couldn't be found. So now the question must be asked, what will be found first: a complete transitional fossil trail or Saddam's weapons of mass destruction?</p>

<p>do the world (and yourself) a big favour and read these books:</p>

<p>Duane T. Gish, Evolution?: The Fossils Still Say No!, Master Books; (June 1979)</p>

<p>Whitcomb, John. The Early Earth, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986.</p>

<p>Bliss, Richard. Origins: Creation or Evolution? El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988.</p>

<p>Ranganathan, B.G. Origins?, Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988</p>

<p>Johnson, Phillip. Darwin on Trial, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991.</p>

<p>Numbers, Ronald L. The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism. University of California Press: Berkeley (1992) pp. 85, 103.</p>

<p>Marvin L. Lubenow, Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of the Human Fossils, Baker Book House; Reprint edition (December 1992)</p>

<p>Carl Wieland, Stones and Bones: Powerful Evidence Against Evolution,
Master Books; 2nd edition (December 1996)</p>

<p>Williams, George C. The Pony Fish's Glow and Other Clues to Plan and Purpose in Nature. BasicBooks, HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.: New York (1997) pp. 37-38.</p>

<p>Phillip E. Johnson, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, Intervarsity Press; (August 1997)</p>

<p>Henry Madison Morris, That Their Words May Be Used Against Them, Master Books (January 1998)</p>

<p>Wise, Donald U. "Creationism's Geologic Time Scale," American Scientist. (March-April 1998) pp. 160-173.</p>

<p>Hanegraaff, Hank. The Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution. Word Publishing: Nashville, TN (1998).</p>

<p>Lee M. Spetner, Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, Judaica Pr; (March 1998)</p>

<p>Michael J. Behe, Darwins Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge To Evolution, Free Press (March 20, 1998)</p>

<p>William A. Dembski, Brian Skyrms, Ernest W. Adams, Ken Binmore, Jeremy Butterfield, Persi Diaconis, William L. Harper, The Design Inference : Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities, Cambridge University Press; (September 13, 1998)</p>

<p>James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism, Refuge Books; (July 1999)</p>

<p>Hal Hellman, Great Feuds in Science : Ten of the Liveliest Disputes Ever, John Wiley & Sons; 1 edition (August 20, 1999)</p>

<p>William A. Dembski, Michael J. Behe, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, Intervarsity Press; (November 1999)</p>

<p>Carl Edward Baugh, M. E. Clark, Steve Miller Why Do Men Believe Evolution Against All Odds? Hearthstone Pub; (December 15, 1999)</p>

<p>Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, Park Street Pr; (March 2000)</p>

<p>Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution, Perennial; 1st edition (September 15, 2000)</p>

<p>Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny : How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe, Free Press; (February 1, 2002)</p>

<p>Judith Hooper, Of Moths and Men: An Evolutionary Tale, W.W. Norton & Company; 1st American Edition edition (August 15, 2002)</p>

<p>Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Regnery Publishing; 1 edition (October 1, 2000)</p>

<p>Michael Behe, William A. Dembski, Stephen C. Meyer, Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe, Ignatius Press; (December 1, 2000)</p>

<p>John F. Ashton, In Six Days : Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, Master Books; (January 1, 2001)</p>

<p>William A. Dembski (Editor), James M. Kushiner Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, Brazos Press; (February 2001)</p>

<p>R. L. Nyborg, The Case Against Evolution, University Publishing House; (February 2001)</p>

<p>Dean L. Overman, Wolfhart Pannenberg, A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization, Rowman & Littlefield Publishing, (June 1, 2001)</p>

<p>William A. Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence, Rowman & Littlefield, (December 2001)</p>

<p>Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, Regnery Publishing; (January 2002)</p>

<p>Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler Pub</p>

<p>Phillip E. Johnson, The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism, Intervarsity Press; (November 2002)</p>

<p>James Perloff, The Case Against Darwin: Why the Evidence Should Be Examined, Refuge Books; (December 16, 2002)</p>

<p>Thomas Woodward, Phillip E. JohnsonDoubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design, Baker Book House; (June 2003)</p>

<p>Also, though his work is mildly "intriguing" and "breath-taking," R. Dawkins suffered being an agressive atheist and was a keen proponent of ******** - hence, one should be wary of the personal influences of such a scientifical nut on the conceited wool-over-eyes, world-wide propaganda of the despicable evolution theory...</p>

<p><a href="http://evolutionoftruth.com/adm/contents.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://evolutionoftruth.com/adm/contents.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

91

<p>Your debating style reminds me of many a creationist, throwing out dozens of faulty arguments and making it impossible to respond to all of them. Have you, by any chance, heard of Duane Gish?</p>

<p>Numerous experiments have indeed verified that RNA, amino acids, and other organic molecules form spontaneously in primordial conditions, including those that can self-replicate, i.e. ribozymes. Your next issue is not relevant (where did it all come from?) because it does not address biological evolution. However, here you go anyway:
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE440.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE440.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Mass extinctions, contrary to your simplistic view, actually enhace the process of evolution, since in destroying a good portion of Earth's species, countless ecological niches are opened up. Organisms evolve in order to fill these niches.</p>

<p>Once again, evolving organs are not "useless," just less functional than nmore evolved ones. The bladder that some fish use to get oxygen from the air is not as developed as a lung, but it is still functional. That is how evolution works--gradual, successive improvements.</p>

<p>Some species have persisted for millions of years because they are good at filling their respective niches. Therefore, there is no reason for them to become extinct.</p>

<p>Jesus Christ, you write a lot. As for your second law BS:
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Homologous Characters/Recapitulation:
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB811.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB811.html&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB701_1.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB701_1.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Transitional forms:
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB805.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB805.html&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Your comment about punctuated equlibrium demonstrates a complete lack of comprehension of even the basics of Gould's theory. I can't say I'm surprised, though...</p>

<p>All of the books you listed have been shown to be factually erroneous and devoid of any scientific argument.</p>

<p>The links you provided are a joke. They do nothing more than reiterate the factually lacking, illogical tripe that has been thoroughly discredited in about 10,000 different ways.</p>

<p>Explain pseudogenes...I'm still waiting!</p>

<p>While you're at it, why don't you explain why creationists don't publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals or subject their work to the scrutiny of the scientific community, like real scientists do? All you're advancing here is a fringe lunatic form of pseudoscience.</p>

92

<p>I believe strictly in the Christian God of the Bible. </p>

<p>I can understand how the absolute standards of Christian doctrine may seem narrow-minded and intolerant to many of you. It's human nature to dislike ideas that say you are wrong. I'm a Christian for personal reasons, but also because I have never heard any intellectual argument that validly refutes it or proposes a valid alternative.</p>

<p>I also realize that Christianity may seem very non-intellectual to many of you. The truth is that Christian theology and the Bible are very intellectual subjects. Countless books have been written, some of them quite invigorating reads. Some of the most intelligent people in all of history were Christians. Here are some people you can look up:</p>

<p>G. K. Chesterton - amazing Christian author
Greg Bahnsen - amazing philosopher / debator / author
William Craig - amazing scientific Christian debator</p>

93

<p>
[quote]
All of the books you listed have been shown to be factually erroneous and devoid of any scientific argument.

[/quote]

prove it</p>

<p>I'll explain pseudogenes, if you can explain why there isn't a God...or how an universe is created....how can matter just apppear?</p>

94

<p>If there is a God, he's in my room.</p>

95

<p>It has been argued that the presence of apparently copied, non-functional DNA sequences support the theory of evolution and invalidate the idea that an intelligent Agent created life on earth. Until 2003, no function had been found for any pseudogene. However, like other classes of non-coding DNA, a regulatory function has been found for at least one mammalian pseudogene. This finding destroys the evolutionary argument that these genes are merely evolutionary mistakes.</p>

<p>That's all I can say...</p>

96

<p>The difference here is that you are throwing out 30+ BS books that you expect me to refute, while I ask only that you explain one tiny little piece of evidence for evolution. If I wanted to, I could make it much harder and ask you to explain the massive fossil record we have, or the observation of the adaptation of populations, or any of the physical sciences I listed a while ago.</p>

<p>Maybe you missed the links I provided before. Here they are again:
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE440.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE440.html&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF101.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF101.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Additionally, the burden of proof lies on you to prove that God exists, not the other way around.</p>

<p>Furthermore, whether or not God exists has no bearing on evolution whatsoever. Plenty of biologists (of which about 99.85% recognize evolution) are also devoutly religious. (here's the statistic: <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p>

97

<p>Source, thesloc?</p>

98

<p>You give me links, but you can't explain it yourself?</p>

99

<p>just so you know, I've spoken to biologists and evolutionary scientists in both Europe and Australia and NONE of them could explain to me , they just say "Oh, that field of research hasn't been fully explored yet." ****heads, if something hasn't been fully explored or explained, you can't declare it to be true!!! #-o</p>

100

<p>All those links would probably say is that respiratory/reproductive systems evolved rapidly, in the space of a few generations, even though that's physically impossible. And that still wouldn't explain how organisms survived and functioned with semi-evolved organs, because if organisms evolved, then their organs had to evolve too. A half developed brain isn't too useful, you can't breathe with quarter-formed lungs and you can't reproduce with an incomplete reproductive system. I guess these creatures already thought about that so they had 2 of each, one transitional, the other under construction. Oh, and keep in mind that there were no blueprints, no plans, it was just a lucky break that things worked out so nicely. :)</p>