Staredit Network

If you say that there is no proof that God exists then I ask you thi simple question: "Is there any proof that he doesn't exist?"

Exactly as you said, the Big Bang is a theory that can be proved wrong, any theory no matter what can be proved wrong.

Take Isaac Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, it was proved wrong by Albert Einstein's theory of Space distortion by Gravity. Isaac Newton proposed that Gravity is in which a body attarcts another body. Albert Einsteain proved him wrong by proving that gravity distorts the space around an object much in a similar way when you spread a sheet and put a bowling ball in the middle and spin a golf ball around it. The golf ball will eventually reach the bowling ball.

BTW: You told Clokr_ that it wasn't a flame. Here is the flame:

The insane amount of caps make it even more of a flame.

Do you have any proof that he isn't, in fact, fictional? Most of the people here are thinking of this in a scientific manner, and as Cheeze said, in science, everything is wrong until proven otherwise.

Edit: Guess I shouldn't get the phone while posting.. keg said pretty much what I did.

Did you even read cheeze's post? I mean, seriously? He was right on just about everything. You guys can go ahead and live in your own little happy fantasy world, but if you guys try to play hardball with us skeptics, you're gonna get hurt. And you already have, thanks to cheeze.

Power to the blind!

Well, good thing I didn't play hardball and tried to be open-minded.

But anyways, Neiji, don't think everybody believes in God and/or worships the same way you do. Don't treat people like they HAVE to worship God or they go to hell. People don't like that.

Ummm... I didn't. I'm just mad because they made fun of us first...

And did animals and humans... I mean did every different species of animals evolve without meeting each other or anything? Or, did everything come from one small "simple" organism? If everything came from ONE organism, how did they "split up" and turn out this differently, or why did they split up?

And is there any more proof other than fossils that prove that evolution is true? I mean like there can't be fossils of one cell organisms...

Nejii- nothing evoloved without "meeting eachother up", everything fills its own niche in the ecology, for instance, vultures evolved their specialized necks and bodies because mutations of the sort made scavanging easier. Of course, with animals not only mutations come into play, but also gene mixing, as often only the animals which have succeded the most in their lives "found food ect..." are likely to gain an oppurtunity to mate, thus the weaker genes are removed from the gene pool.
The animals all turned out this different because of filling ecological niches, the above vulture example showed that birds had adapted to feed upon the carcasses of other creatures, and thus were able to tap a previously unclaimed food supply. The same goes for other animals, when some animals evolved digestive tracts compatable with greenery, some others took a differnt evolutionary path, and hunted the creatures eating the greenery instead of eating it themselves, they had found a new food supply. So, from one protoavian creature, three seperate types of bird evolved, scavangers, predators, and consumers, each filling their own ecological niche.

Ok, since several people here don't seem to understand evolution, I'll put it to you in a very basic way:
There are two microbes feeding in an area with a large food supply. One of these microbes has a mutation giving it small hairlike protrusions all over its body, which allow it to move. The other microbe has no ability to move, and is thus limited to a small area in which to feed. But the microbe with cilia (the hairlike things) can move about, and can thus feed in a much larger area, giving it an advantage. Since this microbe eats better, it can now divide more often, thus we have the dominant hairy microbes, and a few normal microbes left. It is unlikly that it would really be as simple as a single mutation granting cilia, rather it would be a branching tree of mutations, with many dead ends where mutations that were harmful were present.
This same idea applies to larger creatures.
(That evolution summary took about 5 rewrites to get to what it currently is)

People using atheism to prove there's no God make me giggle...God, by definition, would transcend all that, including proof. There's really nothing you can do to prove/disprove it, hence faith. This is why anyone who uses a secular science to prove/disprove God deserves a damn good thrashing.

From what I understand, creation from nothing (or rather energy) is a possibility. But a possiblity doesn't point to/away from God, so let's stop pretending it does, shall we?



I dunno about anyone else but I honestly had trouble reading more than the first half of Genesis...I think I got to "am I my brother's keeper?" before I just quit.



That quote makes the baby Jesus sad. Wasn't there something he said about loving thine enemy? And how are we obstacles anyway? Am I gonna drag you into the pit of fire with me? If it's atheists discussing it, and you actually have trouble, I think you may want to reasses your faith...seems to me true faith would lead you to heaven whatever you see (according to my understanding of protestantism, anyway).



Atheism is a belief system. There's no god, that's what it believes. The lack of belief in something would be more in vibe with nihilism.



I smiled when I read that last line..."your arguments don't work cuz my belief system conveniently doesn't consider that." Anyway, just because you say it might be able to be understood doesn't mean you ever will either. The nature of such things is unknown.



A miracle is defined as "An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature." So yes, you're right, miracles lack evidence. But if they didn't miracle wouldn't be the word to use, would it?

Now for them damn good thrashings...whar's me stick...

1.What caused the mutation?
2.How did splitting evolve to mating?
3.What are the chances of all animals having a nose, eyes, ears, and mouth on the head? I mean ALL animals?
4. I thought all life came from 1 single cell organism? Where did brains come in? Heart? Blood? I don't think they came in with evolution...

1.-
Genetic error, survival of fittest... etc., etc., etc., all the stuff people have been telling you in the entire thread.

2.-
It took millions of years. The processes got more complex and complex from sharing genetic materials or some sort of symbiotic reproduction. I'm not a scientist. I can't explain it exactly.

3.- If they evolved from a single basic form of organism, the chances are pretty high :/
Obviously it was the best form at the time as it's lasted this long.

4.-
They gradually evolved and got more and more complex.

READ THE THREAD. EVERYONE KEEPS TELLING YOU.

1. Mutation is caused by random changes in a living beings genetic material, this can be caused by many things, including pure chance.
2. Bacteria/microrganisms that were able to share some of their genes (called conjugating)'s offspring had a better chance of survival, as the levels of fatal mutations were reduced. Conjugation later evoloved into the more conventional methods of reproduction most animals use today.
3. Timmy explained this pretty well, if for instance, a microrganism with a small spot of light sensitive tissue had a better chance of survival, then it would have more oppurtunities to conjugate, and thus would spread its "eye" gene over a larger number of bacteria. Further mutations that were beneficial were further spread, thus it seems quite logical that many animals would have these traits in common. Oh, and nejii, not all animals have those traits, there are several species of cave organisms that have devolved their eyes, as they are a waste of energy in pitch dark caves. (Yes, the cave thing has little relevance).
4. Sorry to break it to you Nejii, they did come from evolution, as a simple mutation can easily create organs which would be precursers to those modern organs, the eye spot is an excellent example of this, first a mutation grants an eye spot, which is merely a patch of tissue senesitive to light, further mutations making it more sensetive would eventually lead to something similar to an eye. As for brains Nejii, not all animals have brains, but we have live animals today with precursers to brains, such as starfish, which only have a ring of nerves in their middle, not a true brain. Having a brain essentially is just developing a place to store instincts, which were a highly useful mutation. As for hearts, developing a system to circulate food and wastes through an organism would be a great improvment, as it would allow much larger organisms, ones that didn't depend on osmosis from their "digestive tract" to get nutrients.

I think I speak for all of us that Neiji is an ignorant religious punk and it is pointless to argue with him.

Lisk, I think you do speak for us all. I tried to hint that he was over-religious in a previous post.

'cept I'm more harsh and to the point

And i think you're all wrong.

If you want to see what true "ignorant religious punks" are, read "Inherit The Wind."

What exactly do you mean Millenium, are we wrong for not believing in god, is lisk wrong for assuming Nejii is a religious punk, are our anwsers to nejiis questions wrong?
Edit: Never mind, you edited to specify

I'm just curious...

Off-topic: One thing I have been wondering though about "evolution" though, is that since separate species do not cross-breed (the galapagos island birds for example) and that there were relatively few organisms compared to now (probably only a few trillion):

1) Where did the occurances of sexes take place. I mean, it would definately be more "efficient" to have one organism reproduce on it's own then have some random genetic mutation somehow cause "sexes" to be the better choice.

I will state this in a simple question, but first I would like to state this question:
"Why should we tell the truth when it would be an advantage to tell a lie?"

The reason i stated that is because the question I am asking evolutionists is this:
"Why should there be sexes if it would be an advantage to produce asexually?"
Come on now, it shouldn't be too hard for all you scholars.

On Topic:
Yes, Christianity still exists. The fact that this thread is even up is one proof that it still exists; if it doesn't exist in history, why would you be talking about it?
But enough about logic. The duelism Intellegent Design vs. Evolution (aka good philosophy vs bad philosophy) still exists today. Unfortunately, both sides make this outrageous claim that the other has already discredited as a theory, which causes absolute controversy, which is why these threads are all "ad hominens".

Too bad CheeZe isn't here.

I swear to holy stuff (or darwin, if you prefer), if I see the word "ignorant" used again, I will smite thee. IN TRIPLICATE

and then I shall lock the topic, and if there is any type of evasion of this, sans the people with more rank then me, I will warn, dock minerals and request a ban from this forum.

oh. and remember that warning for flaming; you have your verbal warning in the thread yoshi pinned, and I have been pretty leniant only warning you when I catch it. Technically I could get you banned, and wouldn't that be a waste of talent for getting in so much trouble and getting temp banned from a StarEdit forum, because you couldn't control your temper in the Serious Discussion forum?

Wow. That might have been a little harsh, but its true. Spread around what I just said, but I'm pretty sure the only people it applies to are the people who hang around the religous thread.

Thank you for your time, and although I seem really mean, I do love ya. Take any problems up with me, and if you don't like me, talk to admins about removing me.


~Your Mistress Kame

Edit: I wanted pretty colors

Hey, I didn't yell. They only get mad when I present good questions...

I used to know this offhand, but I forgot and had to do some thinking Yes, one sex and asexual reproduction seems advantageous. There is, however, an evolutionary advantage in multiple sexes. Let's review evolution:

1. Random mutation occurs in organism
2. Organism reproduces, mutation remains in the offspring
3. Disadvantageous mutations are ironed out, advantageous ones survive as the organism is better suited to survival

Also, let's remember the earth took a while to get to complex life forms.

Sexual reproduction allows for improved evolution, due to the fact that the random mutations are being mixed into the gene pool at large, rather than merely the progeny of whatever had the mutation. Single cell asexual evolution took a damn long time to get anything done, but you'll see that as soon as species capable of sexual reproduction pop up, you have an increased rate in evolution, and consequently a larger selection of species have multiple sexes, more of these being complex creatures because as the new mutations enter the gene pool, a more complex life form is possible.

Anyway, that's a basic answer that I sorta reasoned out just now. Read some confirmation on a forum, trying to find a concrete source right now, I'll post it if I find it.

The why it happened is beyond me. God, chance, I dunno. But that's the advantage to multisex species.

EDIT: Collision caused sex, some stuff about what I said in there, and some further explanation. Worth a read to answer your question.

OKay. the topic is DEAD.
Christianity is a religion so it exists -_- (obvious)

About the big bang, it's not supposed to explain what happened before it and how the matter was created, it just explains the big explosion of all the matter that was contained in a single point and what happens afterwards. It doesn't explain what happened before the big bang, so I don't think you can use that as an explanation for the creation of matter and everything.

Also after watching "The Elegant Universe" it says that at the point of the big bang when everything was so condensed and things got extremely hot that forces such as the weak and electromagnetic forces meld together and become indistinguishable from eachother to become the electroweak force, and some scientists believe that as you get even closer to the big bang that the strong force would combine with that to become one force.

Also when trying to use general relativity and quantum mechanics together to describe things like the big bang and black holes you get nonsensical answers. The two theories that work on their own for some reason don't work together and thats why string theory could unite everything and explain everything.

No no no, if you were curious, you would have read what everyone posted.

No they get mad when they explain something, and you ask them to explain again.

Since you will ask this again in a few posts, I'll answer it before it happens.
There is a cell right? It divides into two cells in a process called "cytokinesis".
There are two separate nuclei, but they are in the same cell. The cell needs to be split in half. The events of cytokinesis are divided into phases, which begins in anaphase and continues on through telophase. The first visible sign of cytokinesis is when the cell begins to pucker in, a process called furrowing. Furrowing tends to take place at right angles to the axis of the spindle (so that each nucleus is placed in a different cell of course!). The cytoskeleton is reused to build the next spindle for mitosis. Now the two cells will continue the cell cycle and begin their interphase again.



Meaning.. Now you have two cells, which will both divide into two making for cells, which will all divide in two making 8 cells. This is how your body, my body, and every living thing grows.

Are you "curious" enough to read all of that? Because if you aren't that's "proof" that you just want to make us wrong.


Finally, you have absolutely no excuse to not know any of this, this is 7th grade science. In Korea (I infer that you are Korean) you should understand this more than
I do.