Let me learn somethin from ya....are athiest mad when people believe there is a creator of all this creation? Seriously wonderin. I like your political mind although we differ but I wanna understand other views even when mine are different. I did this as a msg because some folks might not be able to discuss differences without being rude & pissin either you, me or both of us off.
I don't, but atheists are all different... Some of us act like we're angry at "god" when if they realy believed there wasn't a god, there wouldn't be anyone o be mad at... I think you havethe right to believe anything you want, but you don't have the right to force those beliefs on others.
Well I wish you knew my God that saved an un-deserving turd like me but if you build a wall that never lets you see Him I'm your buddy anyway. You pay more attention than most to whats going on in the world and even when you have an opinion that might be different than mine it's an educated opinion. Thanks for giving me your take.
1st, I didn't mean any of it to try to get you to believe what I do. I respect peoples right to not believe as much as mine to believe. But who I was refering to is God as introduced through the bible. Not "a" god as in money or stars or an object.
np, but right now is probably a bad time to discuss this with me, I've had enough with judgmental asshole xtians who have no idea what the bible actually says or what they really believe and have been on the defensive for most of the night. So really, unless you want to listen and have a polite adult discussion about your judeo-christian god and how horrible of a character he is. Now is not the time... no offense meant
If someone is being judgemental they're not being a Christian & probably don't know the bible. Give em' hell. Maybe.....just maybe you'll show em' how little they do know....& oughtta know before they start mis-representing what they believe.
I don't believe we evolved and I don't think Darwin did on his deathbed but it's what's taught. We can almost always find something to bust apart someones truth or make a wrong belief more credible. One thing is sure though.....We ALL are going to experience eternity. Dead in a grave or heaven or with the martians. It's crazy when we put so much planning into our retirement and 401K and some don't even investigate and take a serious look into eternity. If there's nothing after death & this was all a mistake, fine. But everyone should take a look.
I remember! In his later yrs Darwin said that he's found one reason that he has to abandon his theory and believe that there is a creator. The eye ball. I didn't read it myself so maybe it's myth and I dang sure don't understand why the eye. But I'm sure it could be googled. I better get to bed. It's been real pilgrim!
Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proven to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye witnesses;—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many fake religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wildfire had some weight with me. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct."
( Charles Darwin in his Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Dover Publications, 1992, p. 62. )
Sir Francis Darwin (1848-1925)
"Lady Hope's account of my father's views on religion is quite untrue. I have publicly accused her of falsehood, but have not seen any reply. My father's agnostic point of view is given in my Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I., pp. 304-317. You are at liberty to publish the above statement. Indeed, I shall be glad if you will do so. Yours faithfully, Francis Darwin. Brookthorpe, Gloucester. May 28, 1918."
( Quoted from James Moore, The Darwin Legend, Baker Book House, MI. 1994, p. 21. )
Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
"I think that generally (& more & more as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."
( Quoted from Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1991, p. 636. )
Ok, you got technical on me. That's ok, if ever there was a subject to be technical on it;s this one. There IS an eternity. This is fact for both of us. Now what (if any) place we have in eternity is what I think EVERY person should at least look in to. Maybe you already have and are convinced there is nothing. There was a great collision of masses in space that were purely accidental and evolved to us & when we die, that's it. Something like that? I admit I'm not as educated in disbelief. Just like a non-believer can be amazed at my belief in God and all of His miracles I am totally amazed in the belief that it takes to NOT believe. Creation is all around us. I can look at a tea pitcher and can figure out that it is a creation and therefore has a creator. So to look at how beautiful and complex the world is with all of it's oceans, sky, ecosystem, the plants and animales that reproduce and speaking of that; the reproduction of any creature is such a mind boggling work of art that to me only a divine God could be such an artist. A "big bang" might have occured on the day this earth was created but I don't believe in accidents. I've heard it said that it would be a million times more believable for two pieces of metal to collide and create a Buick. I believe that. As for Darwin, I didn't know he was agnostic. If I read my websters right he didn't believe it could be proved either way. I think he couldn't see the forest for the trees because he knew the pen in his hand had a creator but couldn't believe that the hand that held it did. The brow above his eye to shield it from sweat or the gripping lines on his hand and fingers that aren't on places of the body that don't require gripping......to think that someone could believe that this magically popped into existence this way require more faith than I have.
The tornado argument made by creationists and proponents of intelligent design states that attributing the development of life to natural forces such as evolution through natural selection is like expecting a tornado moving through a junkyard to result in a fully functional Boeing 747. The argument was originally made by British astronomer Fred Hoyle. This analogy depends on a fundamental misunderstanding of the "randomness" involved in the development of life, as well as a blurring of the separate issues of how life arose from non-life and how subsequent life developed from earlier living things (the jet is clearly supposed to suggest the complexity of current living organisms).
ID advocates sometimes present calculations showing the impossibly low odds of a given protein spontaneously self-assembling from a batch of amino acids. William Dembski uses this approach in his paper, "Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence" (383k PDF). Such calculations are irrelevant because they ignore important features of proposed evolutionary mechanisms — the very features that get around such seeming impossibilities, in fact.
The tornado argument depends on the common fallacy of equating "natural" explanations of life with "randomness". Only a small part of evolutionary theory is actually based on randomness. Genetic mutations and natural genetic variation present in populations are, to a large extent, random; and the kinds of selective pressures encountered by individuals (predation, food supply fluctuations, etc.) are to some extent random in nature. However, the differential benefit of one characteristic over another in dealing with these environmental pressures (that is, the "fitness" part of "survival of the fittest") is not random. Some adaptations are clearly beneficial to the organism and some are clearly not. This means that Darwin's proposed driving force behind evolution, natural selection, is anything but random.
In addition, evolution doesn't work quickly by way of massive, uncontrolled forces, as tornadoes do. Evolution theory suggests that small changes, accumulated over extremely long periods of time, result in the current diversity of life.
Most importantly, the tornado analogy lacks the two main elements that make evolution work: reproduction (which enables "descent with modification") and selection (which enables increasing complexity). The lack of these aspects reinforces the improbability of anything useful coming out of the process.
The fact that the argument posits the creation of a working airplane reveals another misconception: that evolution has as its goal the creation of complex living organisms. Evolution has no final goal or purpose; it is merely a consequence of variation among individuals coupled with environmental pressures.
Finally, the kind of calculations made by Dembski are based on (or perhaps intentionally rely on) a fundamental misunderstanding of what probabilities should actually be considered. The odds of a particular group of amino acids assembling into a particular protein may indeed be small, but the kinds of amino acids and proteins that current life is based on are not the only ones possible. Indeed, even the mixture of atoms that life on Earth is primarily based on is not the only possibility (see Wikipedia:Alternative biochemistry). And at the other extreme, the current range of living things we see around us are not the only possible life forms that could have evolved.
To illustrate the previous point with another analogy, consider the probability that Dembski's own parents would create a child exactly like Dembski. The odds are astronomical. But, of course, they did. On the other hand, consider the probability that Dembski's parents could create any child. Those are much better odds.