Scott777ab wrote:mesquite wrote: That there is no supporting evidence for the enslavement of the Hebrews or the ten plagues goes against the validity of the biblical accounts.
Actually there is quite a lot of evidence in the myths of the time. Most not all myths have a flood. So there has to be SOME TRUTH to that.
Of course there is some truth to that. Flood events happen all the time. That a major flood event would become basis for a legend is nothing unusual. It most certainly is no basis to give credence to the biblical story of a god directed world wide flood and an ark which carried a pair of each species to repopulate the world.
Scott777ab wrote:And there are many other things like that also that are in different myths.
Now it is based on these myths that really are the foundation of what I really believe.
Most myths have a god or gods.
I believe there is one God.
To me that is the only thing that makes logical sense.
Now I am not saying that I believe that the God of the bible is God.
Nothing unusual about primitive man inventing gods to explain the unknown.
Meet Otzi (clickety) click.
And the biggest reason I don't believe in Allah, is because there is testimonial evidence from a different sources that say, " the catholic church was the behind scenes cause of the rise of the Muslims. One such testimony comes from a former Catholic priest whose name is Alberto.
Scott777ab wrote:I mean it all comes down to only two sides.
God or no God.
Creation or Evolution.
Most of the post on this forum revole around only just those two points.
The "NO GODERS" say, PROVE THERE IS A GOD.
The "GODERS" say, PROVE THERE ISN'T A GOD.
Neither gets anywhere with the other.
The burden of proof lies with the one making the extraordinary claim.
Scott777ab wrote:The CREATIONIST say PROVE EVOLUTION.
The EVOLUTIONIST say PROVE CREATION.
And again neither gets anywhere with the other.
So the question remains in both questions, what is the TRUTH.
I think of evolution and the randoms and next to near impossibilities that involved of anything at all happening, and I just can not accept that is just randomly happened.
rosborne979 wrote:real life wrote:.......but you have faith that randomly occurring mutations can produce whole new body plans, novel organs and completely new chemical and physical processes by chance.[/u]
No, we don't have faith, we have evidence. Lots and lots of multidisciplinary overlapping multifaceted mutually corroborating evidence. And not a single instance of anything which completely conflicts with the model (no fossil lizards in precambrian rock, no whale fossils before the cretaceous, no equus before eohippus, no people before primates, and no Boeing 747's before Kitty Hawk. Not a thing out of place. Anywhere. Ever.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2172558#2172558
Scott777ab wrote:So I have to ask. "Where did it come from."
And I am forced by logic to give the possibility that maybe there might be a God. And if that is the truth, then everything else makes sense. But without the possibility of a God, nothing makes sense. Nothing could ever exist, without something creating the original matter that the big bang supposedly came from. But if there is a God, then I have to give that maybe from there, God let the big bang happen and helped it all along. But if he could create the original matter that the big bang came from why could he just not create the universe all at once with no bang. I am therefor dictated by logic to give that a possibility. And if that is so then is not not also possible of a creation in six days. Well that is if there is a God. I don't just not believe in evolution to be contrary and arguementive to those who do believe in it. I just go by the simple process that the most simple answer is usally the correct answer. And on that basis the most simple answer to explain everything is:
There is a God.
God created everything, all at once.
So my religion is based on logical deduction based on thought and not just blind faith.
What does your logic tell you about where this god that had the ability to instantaneously poof all of this interacting complexity into existence came from?
Quote:What does your logic tell you about where this god that had the ability to instantaneously poof all of this interacting complexity into existence came from?
God works in mysterious ways. It is not for us to question or understand. Just believe.
If you have a question you can't answer than God is the answer. You need to look no further.
After all, that's logical and easy.
mesquite wrote:rosborne979 wrote:real life wrote:.......but you have faith that randomly occurring mutations can produce whole new body plans, novel organs and completely new chemical and physical processes by chance.[/u]
No, we don't have faith, we have evidence. Lots and lots of multidisciplinary overlapping multifaceted mutually corroborating evidence. And not a single instance of anything which completely conflicts with the model (no fossil lizards in precambrian rock, no whale fossils before the cretaceous, no equus before eohippus, no people before primates, and no Boeing 747's before Kitty Hawk. Not a thing out of place. Anywhere. Ever.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2172558#2172558
Wow, that one leads back to a thread with Timber in it. Good Nostalgia
mesquite wrote:What does your logic tell you about where this god that had the ability to instantaneously poof all of this interacting complexity into existence came from?
That is a good question mesquite. I have asked that myself many times in my life myself.
I truly believe there is a God, ok.
Now I can give that with there being a God, evolution becomes possible.
But without a God, evolution is just statically impossible.
Now for the sake of the this question, I do not believe this though, I'll say God exists and pretend evolution actually happened. Now the universe in this pretend scenario works out just fine.
I have always said that with a God, evolution is possible, but without impossible.
Back to the question where did God come from.
I believe God created everything.
But before everything was nothing.
What really is nothing.
It is the space that is in between the electron and nucleolus of an atom.
OUCH this is hurting my head.
I will say that according to true logic.
The existence of God is impossible
BUT I will also say that according to true logic.
That without God, the existence of the universe is impossible.
So where do we go from here?
I'd really like to know.
I see now why you don't believe in God, its just so impossible to believe. And yet in this impossiblity of the existence of God, I know he exists, I just know it, I can't explain how I know it, but I know it without a single doubt in my heart.
GOD EXISTS.
LOL ok now i have to agree with the guys video.
That is a pretty deluded statement.
But o well.
I know, God exists.
Nothing can change that.
God exists.
Scott777ab wrote:LOL ok now i have to agree with the guys video.
That is a pretty deluded statement.
But o well.
I know, God exists.
Nothing can change that.
God exists.
Actually, the video doesn't say that belief in god is delusional, just belief in christianity. The reason for this is that the concept of God is undefined (different for everyone), so we can't really address it at all without a personal definition. The definition of christianity however is pretty well established and defined from within, so it's challengeable against known realities.
The video and the logic behind its arguments can not be generalized to the various concepts of god (primarily because there is no established consistent concept for god).
rosborne: The video and the logic behind its arguments can not be generalized to the various concepts of god (primarily because there is no established consistent concept for god).
That's the reason why I keep asking christians to describe god for us. I'm curious to find out how god looks like because according to the bible, man is in "his image." If he has a penis, and no woman to satisfy his sexual urges, does he masterbate? Is he jesus' father? Had sex at least once?
Scott777ab wrote:Now I can give that with there being a God, evolution becomes possible.
But without a God, evolution is just statically impossible.
Your last statement is incorrect.
We know for a fact that the process of biological evolution, once started is not only statistically possible, but completely inevitable, it's a mathematic certainty. Replication combined with variation and selection can not help but produce adaptive results.
The question of biological origin is a different question. It is an unknown at this point, even though all evidence leads to the logical conclusion that life began in a simple chemical replicative form which initiated the evolutionary process. Once that process is started, no external manipulation is required to evolve complex forms.
cicerone imposter wrote:rosborne: The video and the logic behind its arguments can not be generalized to the various concepts of god (primarily because there is no established consistent concept for god).
That's the reason why I keep asking christians to describe god for us. I'm curious to find out how god looks like because according to the bible, man is in "his image." If he has a penis, and no woman to satisfy his sexual urges, does he masterbate? Is he jesus' father? Had sex at least once?
Hi CI,
I assume most christians would describe a relatively similar concept for God. And yes, they would try to rationalize why it's a "HE" and not an "IT" and whether it has human body parts and emotions, despite the fact that it's just about the most alien thing that could ever be imagined.
But the concept of God goes way beyond christian definitions. Many people who do not even consider themselves religious still have conceptual views of god.
When someone says they believe in God, we really don't have any idea of what they are talking about until they start adding details and examples.
rosborne: When someone says they believe in God, we really don't have any idea of what they are talking about until they start adding details and examples.
Precisely!
I see nothing has changed here much
husker, Long time no see! Are you okay? Missed you, big guy. Nice to see you back.
doing pretty good stuck in my virtual reality game LOL
rosborne979 wrote:Scott777ab wrote:Now I can give that with there being a God, evolution becomes possible.
But without a God, evolution is just statically impossible.
Your last statement is incorrect.
Let me clarify then
Without God, macro evolution is statically impossible.
Micro evolution on the other hand is sci fact.
A dog no matter what breed is a dog.
A cat no matter what breed is a cat.
There is no link, of a cat evolving from something other than a cat.
Laugh all you wish.
But the burden is still on you to prove any type of link of a cat evoling from anything but a cat.
None of you "NO GODERS" can do it.
What makes you think there's a "burden" for us to prove a silly statement made by a religionist?
And you godders can't produce god. LOL
This is what we now know about the evolution of cats.
January 6, 2006
DNA Offers New Insight Concerning Cat Evolution
By NICHOLAS WADE
Researchers have gained a major insight into the evolution of cats by showing how they migrated to new continents and developed new species as sea levels rose and fell.
About nine million years ago - two million years after the cat family first appeared in Asia - these successful predators invaded North America by crossing the Beringian land bridge connecting Siberia and Alaska, a team of geneticists writes in the journal Science today.
Later, several American cat lineages returned to Asia. With each migration, evolutionary forces morphed the pantherlike patriarch of all cats into a rainbow of species, from ocelots and lynxes to leopards, lions and the lineage that led to the most successful cat of all, even though it has mostly forsaken its predatory heritage: the cat that has induced people to pay for its board and lodging in return for frugal displays of affection.
This new history of the family, known as Felidae, is based on DNA analyses of the 37 living species performed by Warren E. Johnson and Stephen J. O'Brien of the National Cancer Institute and colleagues elsewhere.
Before DNA, taxonomists had considerable difficulty in classifying the cat family. The fossil record was sparse and many of the skulls lacked distinctiveness. One scheme divided the family into Big Cats and Little Cats. Then, in 1997, Dr. Johnson and Dr. O'Brien said they thought most living cats fell into one of eight lineages, based on the genetic element known as mitochondrial DNA.
Having made further DNA analyses, the researchers have drawn a full family tree that assigns every cat species to one of the lineages. They have also integrated their tree, which is based solely on changes in DNA, with the fossil record. The fossils, which are securely dated, allow dates to be assigned to each fork in the genetic family tree.
Knowing when each species came into existence, the Johnson-O'Brien team has been able to reconstruct a series of at least 10 intercontinental migrations by which cats colonized the world. The cheetah, for instance, now found in Africa, belongs to a lineage that originated in North America and some three million years ago migrated back across the Bering land bridge to Asia and then Africa.
Dr. O'Brien said the cats were very successful predators, second only to humans, and quickly explored new territories as opportunity arose. Sea levels were low from 11 million to 6 million years ago, enabling the first modern cats, in paleontologists' perspective (saber-tooth tigers are ancient cats), to spread from Asia west into Africa, creating the caracal lineage, and east into North America, generating the ocelot, lynx and puma lineages.
The leopard lineage appeared around 6.5 million years ago in Asia. The youngest of the eight lineages, which led eventually to the domestic cat, emerged some 6.2 million years ago in Asia and Africa, either from ancestors that had never left Asia or more probably from North American cats that had trekked back across the Bering land bridge.
Sea levels then rose, confining each cat species to its own continent, but sank again some three million years ago, allowing a second round of cat migrations. It was at this time that the ancestors of the cheetah and the Eurasian lynxes colonized the Old World from the New.
Chris Wozencraft, an authority on the classification of carnivorous mammals, said the new cat family tree generally agreed with one that he had just published in Mammal Species of the World, a standard reference. Dr. Wozencraft, a taxonomist at Bethel College in Indiana, based his classification on fossil and zoological information, as well as on DNA data already published by Dr. O'Brien's laboratory.
Cat fossils are very hard to tell apart, because they differ mostly just in size, and the DNA data emerging over the last decade has helped bring the field from confusion to consensus, Dr. Wozencraft said.
Despite their evolutionary success, most of the large cats are in peril because their broad hunting ranges have brought them into collision with people. "With the exception of the house cat and a few other small cat species, nearly every one of the 37 species is considered endangered or threatened," Dr. Johnson and Dr. O'Brien write in the current Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics.
Fewer than 15,000 tigers, cheetahs and snow leopards remain in the wild, they estimate, and pumas and jaguar populations have been reduced to about 50,000 each.
Scott777ab wrote:Laugh all you wish.
But the burden is still on you to prove any type of link of a cat evoling from anything but a cat.
None of you "NO GODERS" can do it.
common ancestor of cats, dogs, bears..and much more-this from a very long article
http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/4505_Colbert_&_Morales_1991.htm#Miacids
THE FISSIPED CARNIVORES [see Carnivore Taxonomy]
The fissipeds are the modern and familiar land-living beasts of prey that have been dominant from late Eocene and early Oligocene Superfamily: times to the present day. They are the dogs and their relatives, the bears, the raccoons and pandas, the varied mustelids such as the weasels, minks, badgers, wolverines, skunks and otters, the Old World civets, the hyenas and the cats. It is probable that at the time the early fissipeds appeared or soon after, the aquatic pinnipeds, the sealions, seals, and walruses, originated. However, the fossil record of the latter carnivores does not extend back beyond the Oligocene epoch.
The twofold division of modern fissipeds into canoids and feloids is based upon various technical details of anatomy, especially the structure of the tympanic bulla that surrounds the middle ear. When fossils are taken into account the distinction between these two groups of carnivores is not very sharp, since some of the primitive forms in each superfamily approach each other closely in structure. On the whole, however, this makes a good practical arrangement for grouping the fissiped carnivores beyond the miacids, and it probably expresses their basic relationships with a fair degree of accuracy.
Scott777ab wrote:rosborne979 wrote:Scott777ab wrote:Now I can give that with there being a God, evolution becomes possible.
But without a God, evolution is just statically impossible.
Your last statement is incorrect.
Let me clarify then
Without God, macro evolution is statically impossible.
That is incorrect. (for the same reasons as given before)
