Well when the title of the thread said I can prove God exists, I assumed, obviously wrongly, this was to do with religion.
My point is that Invest is just choosing to fill the gaps of knowledge in with a deity, and its a primitive instinct.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
I can prove God exists
- Thread starter invest07
- Start date
Well when the title of the thread said I can prove God exists, I assumed, obviously wrongly, this was to do with religion.
My point is that Invest is just choosing to fill the gaps of knowledge in with a deity, and its a primitive instinct.
Werbung:
Almost all religions have some sort of metaphysical basis, all of which are surprisingly similar.
I agree with you there, except I prefer the word suspiciously to suprisingly.
r0beph
Well-Known Member
*Sigh* wrong...wrong...and wrong...
Religions that are divergent, such as your Judeo-Christian-Islam religions (all which "surprisingly" came from the same region....) A major influence on these Abrahamic religions was Zoroastrianism .Then your Hindu-Buddhist connection (surprisingly again (sarcasm here) they themselves acknowledge are related (buddhism was founded by an originally hindu) however, the metaphysical basis of hinduism -> christianity ends at the fact they both acknowledge a higher power of some sort, there is relation between the two faith systems, Vedic roots and Abrahamic, though the causative factor of this can be attributed to cultural contamination and cross pollination of religious ideals . Then you have your Celtic born religions divergent from druidic/nature bases (wicca falls in here), your native american religions, also nature based, but completely different in base from the Celtic nature religions.
An example of religious cross-contamination can be seen in the Tao/Buddhist/Native mythology mix found in china. While no particular "belief system" is defined by the en mass belief system by most casual practitioners of buddhism/taoism in china, it can be seen that it contains many aspects of both religions as well as chinese mythos (demons/ghosts), funeral rites are a great example here. Chinese burn Joss paper items (money, material items, etc fashioned from paper) however, this is distinctly in the face of buddhist anti-materialistic beliefs, although many of the practitioners of this funeral rite would state buddhist beliefs.
There is no strange coincidence or unexplained reasoning behind why many religions seem similar. It is not odd, or surprising. Religion can be viewed no differently as a language, since it is transported around cultures/geographies by communicative tides. Just as the local language may contain geographical (and even with geographical bounds, cultural dialection) dialects, so do religions.
Syncretism is the word for this. Syncretism occurs when a disparate school of thought/language/culture/art/whatever meet in a cultural locale. To rectify this disparity a natural syncretism occurs, it tends to meld over time ideas from each of the opposing ideals into a single school of thought that is unopposing to either (although this often is distasteful to those who prefer absolute purity in their ideals) During the spanish inquisition this was a common occurrence, many of the opposition to catholicism would incorporate ideas of catholicism while at the same time resisting conversion to the faith, this however was often seen by the inquisition as conversion thus saving the life of the syncretic convert.
In this wordy post, I'm simply saying, there is no surprise that religions often seem to have the same basis, most of contemporary religions come from about 1 of 4 or so base belief systems that have merged, mixed, and become what they are today.
True, but have you watched Zeitgiest? Just watch the religious bit, it all gets a bit wacky with the 9/11 stuff, but the religion bit is really worth watching.
You can see it here for free:
http://zeitgeistmovie.com/
You can see it here for free:
http://zeitgeistmovie.com/
invest07
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 550
A challenge to everyone posting in this forum
I haven't changed my initial assertions in the least.
1. There are no examples of naturally occurring codes or languages. The count here is zero, zilch, nada, goose egg.
2. Every code or language known to man required intelligence to create.
3. The mathematical odds of DNA evolving naturalistically are astronomically slim, so slim as to merit no serious consideration by any person with half a brain.
4. So if DNA couldn't evolve and no other codes or languages have evolved, where did DNA come from?
Everyone dances all around my assertions but no one directly addresses them. Is there a problem with my math? What specific problem? Is there a code or language that you can demonstrated occurred naturalistically? Is there no one that can directly dispute my math?
I maintain DNA was created. I have presented facts, reasoning and mathematics that support this position. So far, no one has managed to positively dispute any of my assertions with specific facts.
coyote has babbled something about linearity but I have made no linear assumptions. Army wrote some kind of satire or feeble attempt at humor. Because I'm just a hick from the sticks, I confess I didn't read his post, as the first paragraph went right over my head.
What were you expecting as to evidence? If science can't prove or disprove the existence of God, (no smoking gun) then the best evidence available is circumstantial.
I haven't changed my initial assertions in the least.
1. There are no examples of naturally occurring codes or languages. The count here is zero, zilch, nada, goose egg.
2. Every code or language known to man required intelligence to create.
3. The mathematical odds of DNA evolving naturalistically are astronomically slim, so slim as to merit no serious consideration by any person with half a brain.
4. So if DNA couldn't evolve and no other codes or languages have evolved, where did DNA come from?
Everyone dances all around my assertions but no one directly addresses them. Is there a problem with my math? What specific problem? Is there a code or language that you can demonstrated occurred naturalistically? Is there no one that can directly dispute my math?
I maintain DNA was created. I have presented facts, reasoning and mathematics that support this position. So far, no one has managed to positively dispute any of my assertions with specific facts.
coyote has babbled something about linearity but I have made no linear assumptions. Army wrote some kind of satire or feeble attempt at humor. Because I'm just a hick from the sticks, I confess I didn't read his post, as the first paragraph went right over my head.
What were you expecting as to evidence? If science can't prove or disprove the existence of God, (no smoking gun) then the best evidence available is circumstantial.
I notice you have changed your stance, no longer using your piss poor theory to prove the existence of the Christian God, but rather some kind of creator.
What you fail to take in is that you fill your gaps with a deity, rather than just accepting they are there and we don't know the answers.
What you fail to take in is that you fill your gaps with a deity, rather than just accepting they are there and we don't know the answers.
Coyote
Well-Known Member
Looking at your arguments I come up with the following:
All codes spring from one source: DNA (can you prove otherwise?)
Intelligence only refines them.
DNA is naturally occurring.
Negative. All codes spring from DNA. DNA evolved naturally.
Slim is not none. What are the mathematical odds for the existence of a supernatural deity?
But it could have evolved.
Coyote
Well-Known Member
Fundies make the claim that DNA could not have evolved naturally. They claim that DNA needs certain proteins in order to replicate. Proteins need DNA to form. Neither could have formed naturally without the other already in existence.
According to scientists: DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication (Jeffares et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999; Poole et al. 1998). The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids (Böhler et al. 1995). A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA -- all without any protein enzymes (Levy and Ellington 2003).
References:
1. Böhler, C., P. E. Nielsen, and L. E. Orgel. 1995. Template switching between PNA and RNA oligonucleotides. Nature 376: 578-581. See also: Piccirilli, J. A., 1995. RNA seeks its maker. Nature 376: 548-549.
2. Jeffares, D. C., A. M. Poole and D. Penny. 1998. Relics from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 18-36.
3. Leipe, D. D., L. Aravind, and E. V. Koonin. 1999. Did DNA replication evolve twice independently? Nucleic Acids Research 27: 3389-3401.
4. Levy, Matthew and Andrew D. Ellington. 2003. Exponential growth by cross-catalytic cleavage of deoxyribozymogens. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100(11): 6416-6421.
5. Poole, A. M., D. C. Jeffares, and D. Penny. 1998. The path from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 1-17.
According to scientists: DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication (Jeffares et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999; Poole et al. 1998). The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids (Böhler et al. 1995). A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA -- all without any protein enzymes (Levy and Ellington 2003).
References:
1. Böhler, C., P. E. Nielsen, and L. E. Orgel. 1995. Template switching between PNA and RNA oligonucleotides. Nature 376: 578-581. See also: Piccirilli, J. A., 1995. RNA seeks its maker. Nature 376: 548-549.
2. Jeffares, D. C., A. M. Poole and D. Penny. 1998. Relics from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 18-36.
3. Leipe, D. D., L. Aravind, and E. V. Koonin. 1999. Did DNA replication evolve twice independently? Nucleic Acids Research 27: 3389-3401.
4. Levy, Matthew and Andrew D. Ellington. 2003. Exponential growth by cross-catalytic cleavage of deoxyribozymogens. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100(11): 6416-6421.
5. Poole, A. M., D. C. Jeffares, and D. Penny. 1998. The path from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 1-17.
invest07
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 550
Coyote
You have said on 2 different occasions that there is a shortage of transitional fossils due to rarely occurring conditions necessary to form fossils.
So let me see if I understand your belief in MacroEvolution:
1. You say there are few fossils.
2. The fossils are your evidence of Macroevolution.
3. So doesn’t this mean there is little fossil evidence of MacroEvolution?
The Smithsonian Museum of Natural History has over 40 million cataloged fossils.
http://paleobiology.si.edu/collections/paleocollections.html
Hardly sounds like a scarcity of fossils to me.
If one museum has over 40 million, my guess is that the total number of fossils cataloged worldwide must be way over 100 million and may be as high as 500 million. MacroEvolutionary theory requires every species to be in virtually continuous transition. So the Smithsonian should be bustin' at the seams with transition fossils. At least 25% of fossils should clearly exhibit transition and the actual count is a small fraction. Very, very small.
We should be rolling in transition fossils worldwide. There should be so many transition fossils that MacroEvolution should be undisputed. Instead you Darwinistas are still making excuses for “gaps in knowledge”.
No matter how you spin this, there simply are nowhere near enough transitional fossils. And Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge agree with me, on this one point.
"All codes spring from one source: DNA (can you prove otherwise?)" I already did. The mathematical probability of DNA evolving are astronomically slim. And even if DNA is hypothesized to have evolved from simpler forms, all 6 billion of those amino acids got into the right space by some method. No way it happened naturally, as the probability clearly demonstrates.
You are correct when you say that a slim probability does not mean impossible. I could win the FL lottery this weekend. The odds are 47 million to one that I won't but that does not make my winning impossible. The odds of DNA evolving are billions and billions of times smaller than this.
Believe MacroE if you chose but I refuse to accept any science that requires one to suspend one's brain and accept as reality an unproven hypothesis that has virtually zero probability of occurring.
You have said on 2 different occasions that there is a shortage of transitional fossils due to rarely occurring conditions necessary to form fossils.
So let me see if I understand your belief in MacroEvolution:
1. You say there are few fossils.
2. The fossils are your evidence of Macroevolution.
3. So doesn’t this mean there is little fossil evidence of MacroEvolution?
The Smithsonian Museum of Natural History has over 40 million cataloged fossils.
http://paleobiology.si.edu/collections/paleocollections.html
Hardly sounds like a scarcity of fossils to me.
If one museum has over 40 million, my guess is that the total number of fossils cataloged worldwide must be way over 100 million and may be as high as 500 million. MacroEvolutionary theory requires every species to be in virtually continuous transition. So the Smithsonian should be bustin' at the seams with transition fossils. At least 25% of fossils should clearly exhibit transition and the actual count is a small fraction. Very, very small.
We should be rolling in transition fossils worldwide. There should be so many transition fossils that MacroEvolution should be undisputed. Instead you Darwinistas are still making excuses for “gaps in knowledge”.
No matter how you spin this, there simply are nowhere near enough transitional fossils. And Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge agree with me, on this one point.
"All codes spring from one source: DNA (can you prove otherwise?)" I already did. The mathematical probability of DNA evolving are astronomically slim. And even if DNA is hypothesized to have evolved from simpler forms, all 6 billion of those amino acids got into the right space by some method. No way it happened naturally, as the probability clearly demonstrates.
You are correct when you say that a slim probability does not mean impossible. I could win the FL lottery this weekend. The odds are 47 million to one that I won't but that does not make my winning impossible. The odds of DNA evolving are billions and billions of times smaller than this.
Believe MacroE if you chose but I refuse to accept any science that requires one to suspend one's brain and accept as reality an unproven hypothesis that has virtually zero probability of occurring.
ArmChair General
Well-Known Member
which is why you insert a creator out of thin air?
by the way, if you really are interested in knowledge and not just pissing your life away, heres a couple links on MacroE,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.life.uiuc.edu/bio100/lectures/sp98lects/25s98evidence.html
Coyote
Well-Known Member
Let me see if I can make this simple enough for you Fundies.
Some years ago it was estimated that the animal kingdom comprised between two and eight million species of which only 1.4 million were known to science. More recent studies indicate that these numbers are actually much higher and could vary between thirty and fifty million species or more. That's 30-50 million NOW - in the world today. Add to that every species that became extinct. 99.9% of all species that ever existed are extinct according to paleontologist David Raup. Now do the math.
r0beph
Well-Known Member
You're asking for evidence of something that is being defined as such that requires intelligent engineering. Your definition of "code/language" is as such, yet vitally incorrect. DNA is an example of a code/language that was naturally created. Denying this factor, is the basis of your argument which concludes that since DNA is a language/code (which none naturally created exist) it is created by intelligence, do you NOT see the flaws in this argument, it's laughable.
unless you count DNA, which would fundimentally fail your argument. It's circular reasoning AKA you fail.
Of course, having only half a brain, you wouldn't want to waste that limited intellect on thinking about reality. But let me bite. Mathematically it is not slim. Chemistry works as it does due to the laws of chemistry/physics and fundamental atomic interactions. DNA formed AS it did, because it could. Asking the mathematics behind its plausibility is a silly thing to do as proof exists that the odds of it occurring are 1:1. It's like me asking you what are the probabilities for oxygen bonding with iron in our blood in such that hemoglobin works as it does. 1:1, whats the probability that carbon can form into an ultra hard substance, such as diamonds. 1:1... what's the probability that you're using flawed reasoning? 1:1...
Problem with this is that DNA CAN evolve. again, flawed circular argument. DNA is NOT a naturally occuring "code" because naturally occurring languages/code cannot exist, because DNA is intelligently created. Again sire, FAILURE.
Everyone dances all around my assertions but no one directly addresses them. Is there a problem with my math? What specific problem? Is there a code or language that you can demonstrated occurred naturalistically? Is there no one that can directly dispute my math? [/quote] You've submitted NO math.
your "facts" revolve around factors that "prove" each other without requiring external corroboration.
I'm not going to even respond to this, your reality differs from that of normal people.
r0beph
Well-Known Member
Deus Ex Machina. The literary savior of all bad writers.
Werbung:
I wasn't talking about religion, was I?
I distinctly remember saying 'metaphysical basis'.
Now, kindly show how hellenistic philosophy is somehow derived from any of the various eastern philosophies, then we can discuss this.
