How can Christians say this?

Gungasnake, you don't mind if I ask you to elaborate on your statement that evolution has been "massively disproven"?

Where would you like me to start??

Just tell me when and how it was disproven.

The fruit fly experiments I mentioned were the first thing that fell apart. That freaked a number of the scientists out so bad that they dropped out of evolutionism, most particularly the famous case of Goldschmidt and his "hopeful monster theory". All of that was back in the teens and twenties of the last century. Many web resources on that one, the one I recommend:

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut10.htm

Then there was piltdown man, Haekel's faked drawings, and a number of famous frauds which had always been viewed as support for evolution. The fact that it took the dufes several decades to figure the thing with piltdown out does not speak well for them.

Then there's the thing about the fossil record. Darwinism demands that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediate types, and the fossil record does not show any at all. For that reason Gould, Eldredge, and a number of leading paleontologists got tired of having their papers vetoed by evolutionists and devised a new version of the thing called "punctuated equilibrium", or "punk eek", which is supposed to jive with the fossil record, but the new version turns out to be even more fubar than the old version for a number of reasons.

Then there's the problem of population genetics and the Haldane dilemma, and the multi-quadrillion and quintillion year time frames which spreading evolutionary changes through the populations of animals on the Earth would take even in theory. A sizeable number of scientists have dropped out of evolution on account of that.

Then there's the problem of life itself arising from inanimate matter, or "abiogenesis". Mathematicians claim it's impossible from a purely probabilistic and statics point of view. Evolutionists claim evolution is not related to abiogenesis, but that's a sort of a copout.

Then there's the problem of human evolution. The neanderthal has been ruled out as a possible ancestor for modern man since his dna shows him to be a glorified chimpanzee, and all other hominids are much further removed from us than the neanderthal. That leaves no other plausible ancestor for modern man at all.

That's aside from the fact that the standard thing you see on PBS (Pinko Broadcasting System) showing homo erectus coming down from the trees to live on the savannas is basically ludicrous. All monkeys, apes, and humans are too slow and too NOISY to live on the savannas. What's gonna happen the first time some human infant starts screaming his head off out on the African savannas with 500-lb predators walking around all over the place??

Get yourself a copy of Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and/or Wells' "Icons of Evolution" and catch up a bit.

Well put GungaSnake, very well put. I think I will get one of those books, maybe off ebay.

i dont even really pay any attention or draw any arguments over something nobody knows about its just a bunch of crap i think.

Wondering whether evolution is real? Before you bother researching fossil records, dna, chemistry or any other field of science just go down to your local video store and hire the BBC video tape "island of the vampire birds" and watch evolution happening in real time right before your eyes. It's a documentary by a group of people out on an island video taping a bunch of birds over many many years, a natural disaster happens and the birds begin evolving to survive. The filming was just supposed to be a wildlife special... that they caught evolution on top is just fortunate coincidence.

Then once you've seen it with your own eyes, why not look at other real world examples of it occuring within our own time. Bacteria becoming immune to anti-biotics or rabbits adapting to the human-released miximitosis virus in Australia.

Arguing against evolution when you can see it occur right in front of you...

Anyway, that aside.

Creationists are funny... You find really ape-like fossils (but not quite like apes) who are all between 3.9 million and 3.0 million years old. (Australopithecus afarensis)

Then you find ones that are much less apelike and more human, they're all between 3 and 2 million years old. (Australopithecus africanus)

Then you find ones that are even less apelike and getting quite human, they're all between 2.4 and 1.5 million years old. (Homo habilis)

You find some very very human ones now with are from 1.8 million to 300,000 years ago. (Homo erectus)

You don't find any of these fossils outside their time period and they're all neatly arranged in a timeline leading from man to ape. Then you have creationists saying there are no intermediate fossils betwen ape and man. I swear. If you hit those people over the head with a sledgehammer they still wouldn't get it.

It's not just humans. Every species on earth is laid out through time in this way. It all makes a very neat chain that easily demonstrates evolution. Again it's all pretty obvious and evident.

Want to see something funny? Ask a creationist to explain why there were no homo erectus 10 million years ago, or why there are no australopithecus around today.

That's all the really simple stuff. Beyond that if you want to get into more complex science then there's still TONS of evidence. Chemistry for example, Cytochrome C... it's a molecule that's pretty much needed for life, everything has it. Now imagine the number 2 with 93 zeroes after it. That's a pretty big number, huh? That's how many different ways you can make Cytochrome C, they all work in exactly the same way.

It doesn't matter which version a creature uses, to prove this some scientists took the Cytochrome C from wheat and replaced it with Human Cytochrome C (humans and wheat are about as different as you can get, animal/plant etc) and the wheat kept on working exactly the same as it always does.

So with this gadzillions of ways of making this stuff all of which work exactly the same, why is it that humans and chimpanzees make it exactly the same way, whereas the life form the least related to us (a type of yeast) has 51 differences. This relationship continues down the chain, with the more related two species are the more similar the Cytochrome C.

Want to see something hilarious? Ask a creationist to explain that.

There are thousands of different bits of proof for evolution, beyond the fact that you can see it with your own eyes. Why anyone educated in these fields could think that it doesn't occur is beyond me.

Now that I've clearly established how much proof there is, let's move on to gungasnake's points.


Lol, apply to same standards to christianity and the shroud of turin would be decisive proof against it. Some d***head making fake fossils just makes everyone look bad, but there's always someone in every crowd ready to ruin it for everyone else.


Every fossil is an intermediate between something and something. The problem is someone finds a fossil in between... for example ape and human. They name it an australopithecus (or however you spell the damn thing) and next thing you know the anti-evolution crowd is saying, "so where's the intermediate fossil between australopithecus and humans. Someone finds a fossil between them and names it homo habilis. The anti-evolution people go "so where is the intermediate fossil between homo habilis and humans... etc.

You can see how impossible this argument is to win.


Despite the fact that intellectually dishonest people continously quote Gould out of context to make him against evolution he is quite an advocate of evolution. He has a different theory of how it works than everyone else, but science doesn't mind that.


This is one reason why evolution frequently occurs in leaps during periods of isolation or during natural disasters which both reduce the population and apply a great deal of selection pressure.


<sigh> only an idiot would expect a group of biologist to be responsible for proving a theory based on organic chemistry. They're entirely seperate fields. I can't address abiogenesis, I've only studied evolution so I'll leave this segment of snakey-boys problems to others.

While you're at it why not get a group of Astronomers to attempt to prove continental drift? Or a group of computer programmers to build a computer in a factory.


Uh, dufus? OUR dna shows US to be a glorified chimpanzee.


They're really not. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Do you?


Homo heidelbergensis... Sheesh... Don't you even know what people evolved from? And they evolved from Homo Erectus, who evolved from Homo Habilis.


Yes, because real scientists win arguments by calling their opponents communists.


Yes. Then after you've read Michael Behe's book you can read why he's wrong.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/behe.html

Always glad to help.

There are still a lot of people including many scientists who speak of evolution as if it were a fact and who view it as some sort of a winning program in a struggle for progress or something. Nonetheless, pretty much everybody with any real claim to brains or talent who's ever taken a hard look at evolutionism has given up on it. One fairly humongous compendium of statements made by people who've actually done their homework on the suibject resides here:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/cequotes.html

If you guys want to really debate about evolution, instead of diddling around here, go to the real evolution debate thread here.

Anyways, regarding the original subject about "Who created God?"...

Skeptics often taunt Christians with "If God created the universe, then who created God?" (and many genuine thinkers ponder similar ideas). But the Bible defines God as the uncreated (i.e, eternal) creator of the universe, and what applies within the universe need not apply to God, so the question "Who created God?" becomes illogical, just like "To whom is the bachelor married?"

So a more sophisticated questioner might ask, "If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn't God need a cause? And if God doesn't need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?" The following reason stands up to scrutiny:

--Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
--The universe has a beginning.
--Therefore, the universe has a cause.

It is important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so does not need a cause. In addition, Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space at the beginning of the universe. Since God, by definition, is the Creator of the entire universe, He is the Creator of time. Therefore, He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so He has no beginning in time. Therefore, He does not have, nor need to have, a cause.

In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the laws of thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.

--1st law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.

--2nd law: The amount of energy in the universe available for work is running down, or entropy (a measure of disorder, or of the decrease in useable energy) is increasing to a maximum.

If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of useable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all useable energy and reached what is known as "heat death." For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. So the best solution is that the universe must have been created with a lot of useable energy, and is now running down.

Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause-- no one really can deny that in their heart. All science, history, and law enforcement if this law of cause and effect were denied. Also, the universe cannot be self-caused-- nothing can create itself, because it would need to exist before it came into existence; a logical absurdity.

So, in summary:

--The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.

--It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.

--The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.

--God, as Creator of time, is outside of time. Therefore, He had no beginning in time, has always existed, and so does not need a cause.

Whichever way you look at it-- the evidence from the Bible, the incredibly complex, organized information in living things, or the origin of the universe-- belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator God, as revealed in the Bible, not only makes sense, but it is the only viable explanation.

That was incredible Rex. You've really got me thinking. You've put in a way that I've never seen before. Very good...

HE started it

Anyways, regarding the original subject about "Who created God?"...



Again, not without severe provocation... this kind of attack usually occurs after the thousandth time some moron who believes in an uncreated entity tells us that evolution is false because an uncreated entity is impossible.


God... he's a monk. (that would have worked much better with nuns if you'd said spinster or something but meh).



Again, after typing that several thousand times you'll appreciate the brief simplicity of the three word response "who created god?"



Really? I would have thought Newton's second law of motion... What is it with Newton and his second laws? They're always the most frequently quoted... anyone ever noticed that?



In the beggining was the word and the word was god. And the Earth was without form and void?

Odd... no mention of "the universe requires a cause". Are you sure you've actually read this book?



So let me get this right. You've (at length) proven that the universe needs a cause. I'll yield that one to you since frankly I don't understand space-time entanglement or the precise nature of the big bang (nor do you, I wouldn't mind betting). Okay, so proof proof, logical chain in slow step by step form aaaaaaannnnnddddd JUMP. Next thing we know, we've gone from "universe needs a cause" to "this particular document that was written by this tribe of fairly ignorant people is true".

Now this document was written by a group of people so ignorant that they believed goats having sex watching a striped rod would have stripy goat kids.



You know... I'm trying to reconcile the might and majesty of the known universe with a God who says things like "I will make you eat sh*t". Nope, doesn't work. Sorry.

You can argue physics all you like. But unfortunately once you get to the bible it pretty much disproves itself.

Yeah, so, are you planning to make another post to actually disprove what I said? Or are you just content with making jokes and saying what I said-- and the Bible-- is false without posting any evidence to back yourself up?

I agree with both of you. I think I could understand the thing about God existing and always being because he was outside of time, but I still don't beleive any sh*t from the bible. That's all ridiculous. But, a higher being? Yes Rex, you have at least shown me how that can happen.

*Checks* Yep, I'm content. You don't sound too happy yourself though, so for your sake I'll elaborate...

What you said wasn't all that bad. You get bonus points for correctly stating some of the laws of phyics, *thumbs up*, but it doesn't conceal the fact that you're attempting to discuss things that are way outside your ability to understand.

Before you get offended about that, it's way beyond my ability to understand either. In order to understand the specifics of the creation of space and time or the way that said creation would interact with the laws of physics is something maybe three or four people on this Earth could understand. Stephen Hawkings isn't famous for his skill at basketball, he's famous because he can do what no one else can.

But let's assume that your entire chain of reason was correct and there is a cause to the universes existence. Fantastic yet your aim was clearly to prove the existence of your particular deity and the veracity of the bible. You did nothing whatsoever to establish this. You "proved" that the universe has a cause but established no connection whatsoever that this cause was your deity, outside of an unproven suggestion that God is the only viable explanation for the universe.

Tell you what. You want to be disproved? Fine, I'll even use your axioms.

---Everything that begins requires a cause.

---The universe began.

---Therefore the universe requires a cause.

---The laws of physics did not begin.

---Therefore the laws of physics does not require a cause.

---Therefore the laws of physics could have caused the universe.

---Therefore God is not the only viable explanation.

---Therefore Rex the wonder squirrel has been disproved.

In fact, you wanted an omnipotent and omniscient cause? The laws of physics are omnipresent; they act on every particle everywhere. They are omnipotent; they always act and can not be counteracted. They are omniscient; you can't conceal anything from them.

I don't assume there is or isn't a God. I'm intelligent enough to realise that I'm not intelligent enough to reason the absolute nature of the universe.

What I can realise is that whether there is a God or not, the bible is not a rational or scientifically accurate text, if you acknowledge the science that determines the universe had a beginning then at the same time you refute the bible. You can not have your cake and eat it too.

Yet that is another discussion. Simply put your argument is refuted because you do not have an argument. Proving that the universe has a cause in no way predetermines what that cause is. Since our basis of knowledge is the universe, attempting to determine things that are outside of it is ridiculous.

I'm still content... how about you?

Except I wasn't intending to prove that God was the explanation of the cause of the universe as much as I was proving that God doesn't have a beginning, answering the original question of this thread.

Now, about what you said...



--The laws of physics require a universe to exist in

--The universe has a beginning

--Therefore, the laws of physics had to have had a beginning

--Everything which has a beginning has a cause. It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.

--Therefore, the laws of physics have a cause

--Therefore, the laws of physics could not have caused the universe in which they begin and have cause

--Again, God as Creator of time is outside of time. Therefore He had no beginning in time, has always existed, and so does not need a cause.

--Therefore Rex the Wonder Squirrel has not been disproved

--Therefore theantibuddah has been disproved

I'm content, yes.

Sorry Rex, but I'm gonna have to go with Buddha in this one. He made some really nice points and yours are kinda unbeilevable, although some are good. Don't ask me which ones I don't beleive, cuz it won't change.
Buddha, good job!

Which I just disproved.



In what way? Please don't tell me that I need to provide more scientific evidence, because I think I've more than done my part in that area.

I don't really know, wich is true of all of us cuz we can't be sure. My instinct goes with buddha.

"It" had no beginning in time. Not "He", "It". A "He" implies an animal, and a male one at that, neither of which an omnipotent/omniscient alien which exists outside of time, can be, no matter what mask it chooses to wear.

I win, I win, tralala.

(ahem), cough. I mean, oh thankyou bouncy, I appreciate that.



You just love pulling unproven statements out of your rectal cavity don't you. Your problem is that you've already made up your mind and will invent whatever axioms you wish to logically justify your pre-existing decision. Can't win an argument? Just invent something.

Christian "Nothing can exist without a creator. Therefore God exists."
Non-christian "Really? That's not proven. But okay, if you believe that then who created God?"
Christian "Uhhh, okay... Nothing that has a beginning can exist without a creator. Therefore God exists."
Non-christian "Really? That's not proven and we don't know much about the pre big bang universe, but accepting for a moment that that your premise is correct and the universe did in fact begin that doesn't require a God. The laws of physics could have created it."
Christian "Uhhh, the laws of physics exist within the universe. Therefore God exists."
Non-christian "Really? That's not proven. In fact given that we can't spot the laws of physics within space and that they don't change over time implies that they exist externally to space-time and thus the universe."
Christian "No they have to have a beginning because otherwise I'd be proven wrong."
Non-christian "I think I see how this game is being played. Look, regardless of the causal nature of the universe, even if it has a cause that proves Odin just as much as Jehovah."
Christian "That's a theological discussion. We're talking science."
Non-christian "Of course we are."

The universe doesn't require a god, that doesn't mean one doesn't exist or that you can not believe in one if you wish. But it is certainly not proven. Stephen hawkings, possibly the one guy who actually understands what's going on with the universe, has said that the universe can exist without a god. But then maybe that's because he can't make things up as he goes alone to prove that it does.


You keep telling yourself that.