What happens after we die.

[Silver Sky]

Originally Posted by Izzy

It's nice to know that you believe women should be stoned to death for minor offenses and should never be allowed to have an ounce of authority.
Also the thing about the earth only being 5000 years old.

That was back then was when the Old Law was taken into effect. Now there are new laws. And the bible never says how old the earth is. If so? Show me where?

Also, understand that everything in the bible should not be taken into the context of us replicating it. A lot of the bible is also just a history book, so when it says women WERE stoned for this and that, it means just that: WERE. The nation of Israel went around destroying other cities and conquering them. Does that mean we should be doing that today? Of course not! It is simply stating history and guidelines for us today, history that HAS been proven as true, and guidelines that DO help us today.

[cixOclock]

Misunderstanding? You clearly say that there is NO god. You've said it countless times, and suddenly I'm the hypocrite for saying its random?

[ogmsband]

Yes it is in fact quite logical, considering the latter would be saying a magical man caused a magical explosion that created our sophisticated bodies in roughly 5billion years. Its a much better story. Bacteria to fish could be explained easily through evolutionary adaptation. Say the bacteria isn't where the food is, it is logical to say that it would need to find food. Minute changes through the bacteria leads to bacteria that are more adapted to finding food, they flourish and those less adapted will eventually die out from being out competed. Over millions of years this same process will continue to happen and create even more efficient body forms, means of locomotion, means of ingestion, etc...

[cixOclock]

Originally Posted by ogmsband

Yes it is in fact quite logical, considering the latter would be saying a magical man caused a magical explosion that created our sophisticated bodies in roughly 5billion years. Its a much better story. Bacteria to fish could be explained easily through evolutionary adaptation. Say the bacteria isn't where the food is, it is logical to say that it would need to find food. Minute changes through the bacteria leads to bacteria that are more adapted to finding food, they flourish and those less adapted will eventually die out from being out competed. Over millions of years this same process will continue to happen and create even more efficient body forms, means of locomotion, means of ingestion, etc...

C'mon, don't get into this again.
The fossils of birds called by scientists Archaeopteryx (or, ancient wing) and Archaeornis (or, ancient bird), though showing teeth and a long vertebrated tail, also show that they were completely feathered, had feet equipped for perching, and had fully developed wings. No intermediate specimens, exhibiting scales developing into feathers or front legs into wings, exist to give any semblance of support to the evolution theory

[Reach]

This thread is getting off topic quickly. I also fear those that read my posts don't understand them, so I might not be posting for much longer.

Misunderstanding? You clearly say that there is NO god. You've said it countless times, and suddenly I'm the hypocrite for saying its random?

Evolution is not a random process. God does not need to be present for something to be non-random.

Natural selection for example, one component of evolution, is fundamentally non-random. Genes that are better able to replicate themselves continue to be passed on from generation to generation. Others that are not so able die off.

This is the very definition of non random, because there is a selection process - those that are better at reproducing live on, those that are inferior have a tendency to die off.

If it was random who lives and who dies would be determined by chance.


If you're confused as to what exactly does the selection process, the answer is the environment. The Earth. The Earth determines the path evolution will take by dictating the conditions under which the genes must compete.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by Ryn2075

@MR. Rubix

I apologize, I think you guys are understanding that I'm trying to disprove evolution by itself. I'm pushing my discussion that the theory of everything being created is logical.

After thinking about it for a second, I realize turning at 70 mph might not be such a great idea. XD Our internal organs would most likely be sloshed around a bit. but MY point is, it hasn't been done, not because they don't want to, but because they CAN'T. Your article you posted clearly states that every attempt to make a wing-flapping aerial device has FAILED. Tell me, why is that? Are scientists incapable, or not intelligent enough to figure it out? Hardly, if other advances in technology are any indication. They haven't done it because they CAN'T. You say we would have no need for such a thing. In the case of the cheetah, I realize you're 100% correct. But in the case of a plane, it's completely logical to make something like that. Not only would it be safer for the environment, but it would most likely be safer overall as there are less problems that can occur midflight, the least of them being that you can't ever run out of fuel.

In a sense, I am trying to disprove evolution by saying creation is LOGICAL, but in essence, I can't, because in the end what I believe is just that: A belief. You are 100% correct in saying that I don't have undeniable, irrefutable facts that point to creation being true instead of evolution, but logically, creation can be argued as a solid theory just as much as evolution, simply because, as I stated, the designs in many of natures more complicated animals cannot be duplicated. And the other point I'm making is, while you say you have mountains of evidence, evolution is STILL not viewed as 100% undeniable, irrefutable fact. I have no problem with you saying you believe it based on the evidence you have, but I DO have an issue with you saying it is factual, because in the end there isn't enough proof to say it IS factual.

Now listen, I don't want you getting the wrong idea guys. I'm not trying to change anyone's thoughts or say that I am undeniably right, I'm just having a simple discussion. I hope you guys understand that, we're all just having a simple disscussion with our various opinions, just like any other topic that could ever be discussed that hasn't been proven as completely true.

By the way, I have a question. What keyboard set-up do you use Mr. Rubix?

~Ryan

I just explained to you why wing-flapping tends to fail. It's not impossible -- it's just that we have no real practical application to justify it, and it's harder to replicate because of the fine-tuning required. A brain can do these fine-tunings easily, much like how we can fine-tune how we walk. But it's still difficult to create, say, a machine that can literally run. Running is not a purely automatic process -- we're constantly adjusting ourselves all over the place when in motion because of how we respond to a huge variety of stimuli. Making a machine that constantly adjusts itself and can maintain the weight is more difficult, but not impossible.

Creation is logical for things we know are created. We tend to associate creation with complex things because we, as humans, can make complex things. It doesn't mean all things complex were created. Complexity is a huge problem in this sense, but this is precisely what evolution solves. It explains how complexity arrives from simplicity -- all without the need for a creator.

We have all sorts of evidence to substantiate evolutionary processes based on similarities across different animal types and their histories/origins/shared functionalities based on location and environment types/genetics and mutation/fossils/chemistry/physics/etc. We know how certain species have propagated and why others died out. We understand how mutations work and why certain forms are considered more fit than others. We have evidence for how certain complex structures like the eye or wing came about. There's mountains of substantiation to back up evolution and natural selection -- and yet what evidence is there of a God or great Creator? None.

Re: last question, ASKL or DFJK.

[cixOclock]

Then you should have no problem making a fleshly body part from scratch. Have fun.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by cixOclock

Misunderstanding? You clearly say that there is NO god. You've said it countless times, and suddenly I'm the hypocrite for saying its random?

Well, yes, because evolution is not random.

I never said "God is impossible." I am saying "I don't believe in a God because a Creator is not necessary to describe anything in our universe."

And it's impossible to ever DISPROVE a God. But by that same logic, we can't disprove Zeus, or Apollo, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Reach's Planet of Blue Hedgehogs Collecting Rings, or the Tooth Fairy, or an alternate dimension where Spider Man 3 wasn't a total disaster of a movie.

We can't disprove things that are by definition unfalsifiable. If you define God as always being outside of science and proof, how can science or proof suggesting a God is not needed ever DISPROVE such a God? There are an infinite number of things we could choose to believe in. The onus is on you to explain why you believe in something. So if I believe in evolution, I should have evidence to support my belief if the pursuit is truth. If you believe in a God, you too should have evidence for it. Evidence, by the way, needs to itself be true and consistent -- justifiable. Simply saying, for example, "I believe in God because humans are damned complex and beautiful" is not sufficient evidence when we have contradictory evidence to show how complexity doesn't require creation.

Of course, many people misinterpret this argument and say "So you can't disprove God! HAH! Look at how faulty you are!" The true point of what I am saying is that when we're looking into the unknown, there are infinitely many things we could say are "possibly true" if we don't know for sure. However, some people would rather arrive at conclusions through evidence and simply say "I don't know yet" to the unknown rather than say "There must be a God" to explain that unknown. Only, in this case, many people use God to refute arguments that actually ARE known and HAVE explanations, further making the issue all the more profoundly ridiculous.

[Ryn2075]

@Mr. Rubix

It's nice you believe all your "evidence" Rubix, but why do the scientists who actually study this stuff extensively not believe it wholly themselves? They continue to do research to try and prove it as fact, and yet research is still being done. There are numerous scientists who have been quoted as saying that the theory of a God creating everything is not improbable or impossible, and it's because as they study evolution more and more, more holes pop up.

Also, another thing that you posted way back didn't make any sense. The reproduction process is not genetic mutation. It's as simple as drawing cards from two different decks of cards. You pull genes and hereditary idiosynchrisies(spelled right? XD) from two people, and the end result is a life. Cards aren't drawn from a third deck to alter the genes of that life, it just grows into a human baby.

Everyone is gonna have their perspectives and their opinions. To one person, something might not make sense, while to others, it makes perfect sense. No topic is going to be agreed on by every single person alive, and in the end, discussions about our various opinions ensue. I can tell you right now that, despite all our discussion, you won't change my viewpoint, and you're no slouch in backing your own viewpoint as well, so I know I can't change your mind, but I wasn't trying to in the first place. I suggest we get back to the topic at hand, which is what happens to us after we die, which, I must commend you for your belief. It's totally logical to think that when we die, there is nothing. Scientifically it makes sense, and the bible also says the same thing happens when we die. *shrug*

P.S. - It really sucks that I started index, because ASKL is a wonderful setup, but I'm not used to spread, so it's like I have to get good at the game all over again. D=

[cixOclock]

Not once have I read about how you have undeniable evidence that evolution is true.
You keep saying it, but I don't see it, like a dog who wants a treat really badly. I've researched evolution, I understand the mutations and the belief in the weak dying, but devonin deleted my post of what I knew of evolution. So it doesn't much matter.

And quit saying I don't have proof, trusting in the words of kings and presidents never gets anyone anywhere. Its the same with science, the Bible isn't a scientific book, but on the cases it does talk about scientific subjects such as the spherical shape of the earth. And hanging the earth upon nothing in Job.
My evidence is in the bible, and your evidence is in news articles that scientists publish for more money.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by Ryn2075

@Mr. Rubix

It's nice you believe all your "evidence" Rubix, but why do the scientists who actually study this stuff extensively not believe it wholly themselves? They continue to do research to try and prove it as fact, and yet research is still being done. There are numerous scientists who have been quoted as saying that the theory of a God creating everything is not improbable or impossible, and it's because as they study evolution more and more, more holes pop up.

Also, another thing that you posted way back didn't make any sense. The reproduction process is not genetic mutation. It's as simple as drawing cards from two different decks of cards. You pull genes and hereditary idiosynchrisies(spelled right? XD) from two people, and the end result is a life. Cards aren't drawn from a third deck to alter the genes of that life, it just grows into a human baby.

Everyone is gonna have their perspectives and their opinions. To one person, something might not make sense, while to others, it makes perfect sense. No topic is going to be agreed on by every single person alive, and in the end, discussions about our various opinions ensue. I can tell you right now that, despite all our discussion, you won't change my viewpoint, and you're no slouch in backing your own viewpoint as well, so I know I can't change your mind, but I wasn't trying to in the first place. I suggest we get back to the topic at hand, which is what happens to us after we die, which, I must commend you for your belief. It's totally logical to think that when we die, there is nothing. Scientifically it makes sense, and the bible also says the same thing happens when we die. *shrug*

P.S. - It really sucks that I started index, because ASKL is a wonderful setup, but I'm not used to spread, so it's like I have to get good at the game all over again. D=

Please find me an example of huge disagreement amongst those who understand the evolutionary process. Give me an example of such a "hole" you describe.

Preemptive answer: There really isn't a whole lot of disagreement among those that understand the process. Many creationists, from what I've seen empirically, try to point out that there are disagreements among scientists where there aren't any. The only real disagreements come to life about finer details WITHIN the process itself (did this animal originate here? How might these species be linked? How might the timelines have progressed for these forms? How may the environment of this area contributed to the formation of this type of lifeform?). THESE types of questions are what generate "disagreements," but the process of evolution itself is not something that scientists disagree on given they understand what it entails.

In short: Evolutionary scientists may disagree on HOW evolution occurs in specific cases -- not WHETHER or not it occurs. Very important distinction that people tend to confuse.

Again, please back up your claims. Give me an example that shows scientists who study evolution largely don't believe it, because that sure is news to me. What isn't news to me is the fact that many people like to say evolution has holes and disagreements where it doesn't.

As for mutation... of course we're made from our parents. I am a business/math major and not a biologist, so my understanding of the intricacies of mutation are limited, but all living creatures have DNA which carry the instructions for how an organism looks/behaves/operates/etc. DNA needs to be arranged in a certain order/sequence so instructions are carried out correctly when read by the cells. But sometimes the DNA is arranged incorrectly in certain areas or may be read incorrectly by the cells, leading to genetic mutation and variation. On a larger level, two parents that create a child is giving that child a mix of traits. Natural selection may or may not favor specific combinations of traits, and over time, the weaker traits are filtered out depending on how the environment pushes back against them.

Sexual reproduction and the genetic process is not perfect, but this is what generates the variation. Without the variance, we're very much looking at an all-or-nothing type outcome. Either none make it or they all do. The imperfection of the process is what helps contribute to the mutations that allow for the genetic variety necessary to allow stronger straits to show up and propagate.

[Reach]

I love how the burden of proof is always on Evolutionists.

Anyway, a good site to start with is: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Lots of evidences presented by a biologist. You asked where the mountains of evidence were. They're right there, though, in all honesty this is only a fraction of the totality of evidence for evolution that exists.

(However, I guarantee you that none of the evolutionary critics here will read it.)

Also, cix, you already made it abundantly clear that you don't understand evolution. Don't lie.

It's nice you believe all your "evidence" Rubix, but why do the scientists who actually study this stuff extensively not believe it wholly themselves? They continue to do research to try and prove it as fact, and yet research is still being done. There are numerous scientists who have been quoted as saying that the theory of a God creating everything is not improbable or impossible, and it's because as they study evolution more and more, more holes pop up.

So many things we need to clear up here.

Name some evolutionary biologists that don't believe in Evolution. I am somebody that studies this stuff and every biologist I know understands how abundantly clear and sound the theory of evolution is.

Research is still being done because...that's what science does. Science is never complete and it is never assumed that you know the entire truth. Science is fundamentally the opposite process of religion - whereas you start with a presupposed answer, scientists start with data and formulate models. As more evidence accumulates and more facts pour in, models become more complex and eventually theories are born. Evolution is an ultimate theory that has withstood the test of time and more than a century of scientific scrutiny.

Some evolutionists do believe in God, but not because evolution has holes in it. They believe God set into motion the laws of nature to work as they have done, or some variant of that.

I can tell you right now that, despite all our discussion, you won't change my viewpoint

This is the worst position anyone can ever take in life.

You should always be open to new evidence and new arguments that, if strong enough, can shift your viewpoint.

Anything else is admitting that you are content with ignorance.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by cixOclock

Not once have I read about how you have undeniable evidence that evolution is true.
You keep saying it, but I don't see it, like a dog who wants a treat really badly. I've researched evolution, I understand the mutations and the belief in the weak dying, but devonin deleted my post of what I knew of evolution. So it doesn't much matter.

And quit saying I don't have proof, trusting in the words of kings and presidents never gets anyone anywhere. Its the same with science, the Bible isn't a scientific book, but on the cases it does talk about scientific subjects such as the spherical shape of the earth. And hanging the earth upon nothing in Job.
My evidence is in the bible, and your evidence is in news articles that scientists publish for more money.

For someone who claims to have researched evolution, you clearly don't understand it too well.

And you don't have proof of a God because, simply, there is no proof of God. If you have something, please do share. But if it's along the lines of the "proof" you offered up earlier, that is not proof of God and is not proof against evolution.

Let me ask you: Why is your evidence in the Bible? Not all scientific articles are merely "published for money," and you act like articles are the only source in which we can learn about science, lmfao. Science is a pursuit of truth that may or may not involve money -- the pursuit of truth can be expensive (since sophisticated equipment is not free), so to suggest that money corrupts scientific truth is just silly. Are you implying that everything we've come to learn and understand scientifically is bogus?

Again, though, why the Bible? People who believe in the Bible are essentially putting their faith in with a bunch of guys who wrote a book years and years ago in absence of much of what we know today. Much of it is demonstratively false. How much of it is a true recollection and how much of it is meant to be taken as a metaphor? Science changes as we learn more -- the Bible does not. Just because the Bible contains a few pieces of "scientific truths" such as the shape of the Earth doesn't mean the Bible itself is, on the whole, a scientific work meant to be taken objectively.

[cixOclock]

That was the biggest waste of my time reading that article. I understood it, but it was a waste of time. What you call ignorance isn't ignorance on my part, I did read the article. But all it is is simply conjecture, it talks of mircoevolution, and that is true--our bodies do adapt, but its no significant change to the race as a whole.

For evolution to work it has to effect an entire race in a significant way--but there has been no significant change to the human race, we have been the same since the start of historians in roughly 10--6,000 b.c.e
I understand where you guys are coming from, but at the same time I have to say your blind. You claim higher knowledge and wisdom but all I see is two people who can't think for themselves and believe in the next new thing.

I'm not blind, I can see how people could believe in eventual mutation. But there is no real solid evidence to prove it except conjecture. And its annoying you keep black listing us christians because to you, we're "ignorant".

[Silver Sky]

(cough) post #66

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by Silver Sky

And the bible is real yes. All these scrolls they found in Hebrew wasn't just a coincidence. The bible tells about so many different prophecies that occured and still are occuring. Examples? I will be glad to explain some. For instance with Babylon the Great. It was prophesied that Babylon the Great would become desolated. Jehovah God brought that city to ruin cause of the things happening there. And God even said that No one would ever even live there again. Results? Find me one person who lives in that vast desert. 2) All these troublesome times we are living in. You might not be feeling it yet but it's going to get far worse. All dating back to 1914. The bible actually has all dates leading up to prophesying that Satan the Devil was hurled down to the earth in 1914. Results? War World 1 Yes the bible prophesied this happening. Do research on how the world was before 1914 and how it was afterwards, and you tell me something didn't happen. 3) As brought out before about these troublesome times. Read 2 Timothy 3: 1-5. It says and I quote: But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, having a form of Godly devotion but proving false to its power, and from these turn away. Hmm....weird All these events are taking place today. There are so many prophecies that have occured and are occuring. So yes the bible is real.

This post REEKS, absolutely REEKS, of confirmation bias. Not to mention that your last point is hardly indicative of prophecy but just a reasoned assumption of the human condition that is not a hard stretch to make (as it is an opinion anyone of that time era could have made about even their current condition of man).

BTW, I'll make a prophecy right now. The Devil will come back to Earth again in 2022. I'm sure that when that year comes, you'll be able to point out something bad in that year and assume I must have been able to predict it based on your logic.

[Silver Sky]

Wow you sounded really smart. Have you read the bible? Didn't think so. Therefore your stuck on your evolution. Let me ask you a question. You believe in the micro evolution and all that. So everything comes from one atom then correct?

[N.T.M.]

Originally Posted by N.T.M.

Look up Aubrey de Grey, Cynthia Kenyon, and Rob Freitas.

I've been researching them for a while.

Feel better with such prospects?

And yet it piqued nothing here.

Originally Posted by Silver Sky

Wow you sounded really smart. Have you read the bible? Didn't think so. Therefore your stuck on your evolution. Let me ask you a question. You believe in the micro evolution and all that. So everything comes from one atom then correct?

I'm not gonna comment on your argument's plausibility, nor the cube's indelible conceit, but any effort on your part is futile here.

[Reach]

Alright, I give up. You win. Rubix, you can continue to take this punishment if you want.

CixOclock, stop lying to yourself. You didn't read the article. Sufficient time hasn't elapsed since I first posted it to read through it all.

I'm sick of you wasting my time, but for my last post here, I'll demonstrate why you haven't read it and why if you did, you're a moron. You've yet do demonstrate you understand even a single evolutionary principle.

Alternatively, you're a troll, which is also a possibility. At this point though, I don't care.

it talks of mircoevolution

Aside from the fact that I'm supposed to take you seriously when your posts are grammatically littered with mistakes and spelling errors, it's an article about macroevolution, not microevolution.

but there has been no significant change to the human race, we have been the same since the start of historians in roughly 10--6,000 b.c.e

As evidenced in part 1,3, there has been significant change in the genus homo over the past several million years, as well as changes in sapiens.

As for the 10-6000 b.c.e. comment...wow.


At this point I can do nothing but laugh and bit you farewell.

Ignorance is bliss. Bask in it, friend.

[Ryn2075]

Originally Posted by Reach

This is the worst position anyone can ever take in life.

You should always be open to new evidence and new arguments that, if strong enough, can shift your viewpoint.

Anything else is admitting that you are content with ignorance.

Wow, you need to get over yourself man. You think I say that halfheartedly, without firm belief in what I'm saying? Stop trying to act all high and mighty and get your head off the pedestal you've put it on. I said my belief wouldn't be changed because I HAVE looked into evolution, more extensively than you seem to think I have, and there ISN'T enough evidence, in my mind, to shift my viewpoint. It's not ignorance, I just don't see it as true.

Saying that you won't change my belief on whether the earth is flat or not is being ignorant, because the spherical shape of the earth has been proven BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT as being true. Evolution has not. That is the simple fact. You guys can fool yourselves into thinking that evolution has been proven absolutely true, but it's all theory in the end and you know it. It doesn't matter how much more evidence you think you have, because everyone has evidence that someone else doesn't see as real evidence, and if it isn't true beyond a shadow of a doubt, people are gonna have different opinions and perspectives about it.

You're welcome to "win" the "argument" if it's really that important to you. I was trying to be level-headed and keep it to a discussion. I never once presented my viewpoint as fact or that you guys should be believing in what I believe, I was simply explaining my belief in the form of a discussion, and I apologize if you guys took it any other way. I even acknowledged the good points you guys made. However, you guys are pushing evolution down my throat as fact, and I'm trying to tell you that I've already been down that road and I don't accept evolution as fact. If you had said you BELIEVE in evolution, as your own personal opinion, things would have been much better, but at the moment you guys (or rather, just Reach, you've been pretty good about it Rubix) are acting like you're superior to me in some way, and it pisses me off. I'm supposed to be inferior because I don't believe what you believe? I never once gave you guys that impression, and that's why I say that you need to get over yourself Reach.