Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[psyche]

wow you seriously look like an idiot and a hypocrite with that post.

Yup, keep throwing the hypocrite and idiot remarks, it makes you look very intelligent.

we have tried being patient with you but you dont seem to get it

WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO GET? SPELL IT OUT ME KILL3R, IF YOU ARE SO WISE.

You can quote your "intelligent scientists" all you like but their opinions doesnt change ours. Just because someone smarter than you has the same beliefs as you do it doesnt give your argument ANY credibility.

Maybe not, but the quotes from those various scientists have plenty of credibility. So these quotes from some of the most intelligent scientists in our history, making claims of the universe being evidence of (a) God, don't sway your opinion even in the SLIGHTEST?

So what exactly are your beliefs and speculations about the creation of the universe and the existence of everything, from your atheist point of view? I would like to hear it.

Also how does Lord William Thomson Kelvin count as a modern scientist he died in 1907! a lot has changed in 100 years.

His comment about atheism rings true today as much as did it back then, therefore his quote is indeed still very relevant.

And why is it difficult for a scientist to admit they belive in god? The scientific community isnt some sort of atheist gang that dismiss scientist believers as any less entitled to an opinion.

You would be suprised, a lot of the scientific believers in 'creation with a purpose' appear to be in a fierce conflict and debate with the atheist scientists, understandably. I imagine some scientists firmly believe that 'God' has no place in science, but that idea is being challenged by other scientists more and more.

And no you havnt explained how god can exist yet the universe is incappable of existing in the same way. By your current reasoning that everything has to have been created by your own logic then that means God/Superior Being whatever has to have had a creator as well. And if thats true then he/it is hardly a superior being let alone a god!

F***, actually have already explained, and here you are lecturing me about losing patience.  I realise it's a difficult concept to comprehend, but if you just THINK about it very carefully for a moment it's not too hard too understand. It seems like you are just arguing for arguments sake now...

The most widely accepted concept is probably similar to:

But some may ask, "But who created God?"  But the answer is that by definition He is not created; He is eternal.  He is the One who brought time, space, and matter into existence. Since the concept of causality deals with space, time, and matter, and since God is one who brought space, time, and matter into existence, the concept of causality does not apply to God since it is something related to the reality of space, time, and matter.  Since God is before space, time, and matter, the issue of causality does not apply to Him.

Omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, and eternal and necessary existence. Look it up tbh.

It does depend on your individual belief though, there are of course some religions that believe in multiple God(s) or deities. The Christian religion is, arguably the one religion with the most historical evidence to support it though (in the form of the Bible) As for scientists, there is probably a decent amount of scientists that believe in the Christian God - while some others, it seems just believe in a "higher power", unsure exactly what but something.


man, I hope atleast some of you appreciate the effort I put in these posts :disappoin

[Simon_NZ]

And that's a only very small fraction of them. Would you like to see more?

please do.

So to you, the opinion of some first year students are more credible than that of some of the greatest scientific minds in modern and recent history?

Copernicus believed in the occult.

Newton believed that you could lead into gold.

Darwin was not religious, once again he was agnostic.

Einstein was agnostic, he did not share the concept of a personal 'god'

None of this matters? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Debating with people like you is like pissing into the breeze.

I don't know where you heard religion is dying, but it isn't - and a growing number of intelligent scientists around the world are starting to openly admit they believe in God or a  'Supreme and intelligible Creator'

The University of Michigan - "In general, the importance of religion has been declining in the developed world," says Inglehart, "whereas in countries experiencing economic stagnation and political uncertainty, religion has remained strong."

No, they're not.

According to a 1996 survey, about 60% of scientists in the United States expressed disbelief or doubt in such a god.This compared with 58% in 1914 and 67% in 1933. Among leading scientists defined as members of the National Academy of Sciences, 72.2% expressed disbelief and 93% - disbelief or doubt in the existence of a personal god in 1998. You can find similar studies in nature.

It's difficult for a scientists to openly admit that they believe in God, because it undermines their credibility in the eyes of the scientific community due to the stigma attached to it.

No, it isn't. Any noteworthy scientist(s) has his/her work per-reviewed. Religion has nothing to do with.

His book sucks aswell

Your opinion, it is subjective - flawed from the outset.

I addressed this concept in one of my earlier posts. I don't think many people believe God is ABSOLUTELY perfect (though I could be wrong), when you really think about it how can something be perfection? Something can always be improved in some way. But I'd say pretty damn close to perfection.

god isn't perfect? are you high? omni-present, omni-potent, omniscient.

[psyche]

please do.

Will post some more soon, or tomorrow.

You are telling me stuff I already know about Newton, Einstein and Copernicus. But as for Darwin, though he was agnostic, as i've already posted, even he admitted that the laws of nature, so unimaginably complex, could only logically have been created, which of course, implies a Creator.

You managed to miss all the other scientists I quoted, including modern-day ones, expressing their belief of God and how it relates to science.

Debating with people like you is like pissing into the breeze.

lol, yet here you are, debating. Quit being a noob.

According to a 1996 survey, about 60% of scientists in the United States expressed disbelief or doubt in such a god.This compared with 58% in 1914 and 67% in 1933. Among leading scientists defined as members of the National Academy of Sciences, 72.2% expressed disbelief and 93% - disbelief or doubt in the existence of a personal god in 1998.

You shouldn't rely on statistics from a survey to come to that conclusion that religion and belief in God are 'dying out'.

Your opinion, it is subjective - flawed from the outset.

Opinion shared by many others it seems.

[Retardobot]

You shouldn't rely on statistics from a survey to come to that conclusion that religion and belief in God are 'dying out'.

Wow, that is probably, bar none, THE most dumbest thing i have EVER read on these forums, even above what cnvrt posts.

Shouldn't rely on statistics from a survey ? I just shot milk out my nose and I haven't had any milk latley.

[psyche]

Really? So a survey, done in ONE country, in 1996, 12 years ago, is supposed to be evidence that belief in God is dying out?

You do realise a survey only questions a certain amount of people, sometimes as little as 50, and results are never completely accurate or to be taken at 'face value', right?

Who's the dumb one now?

This is getting boring, just arguing for the sake of arguing.

[Simon_NZ]

Will post some more soon, or tomorrow.

dood, it doesn't matter how many of them you post.

Because what you're going to do is go to the Institute for Creation Research or Wikipedia and copy one of their lists - it will say something like "creation scientists can now be found in literally every discipline of science, and their numbers are increasing rapidly"

Because then I will Google Project Steve, a National Center for Science Education project. Which circulated a statement to selected Steves, Stevens, Stephens and Stephanies with Ph.D.s in the sciences. Using data from the Census Bureau, they calculated that approximately 1 percent of the U.S. population possesses a qualifying name, so every signatory represents about 100 scientists.

Currently the Steve-o-meter is at 868, that equates to roughly 86,000 scientists. Now remember, to qualify you need a Ph.D. This excludes a lot of other postgraduate and undergraduate qualifications.

[psyche]

Because what you're going to do is go to the Institute for Creation Research or Wikipedia and copy one of their lists - it will say something like "creation scientists can now be found in literally every discipline of science, and their numbers are increasing rapidly"

Negative. I obtained those quotes from a variety of sources. They are quotes from well respected and incredibly intelligent people from around the world. I'm not sure exactly what the point is that you are trying to make, if any..

yawn, i'm off, night.

[Simon_NZ]

Really? So a survey, done in ONE country, in 1996, 12 years ago, is supposed to be evidence that belief in God is dying out?

Something newer and closer tome home then?

The latest census figures show the number of people who say they have no religion is significantly growing in New Zealand. If the current trend continues, New Zealand could officially become a majority non-Christian nation by the next census. The latest census figures show that over a quarter of a million more Kiwis now consider themselves to have no religion than did in the previous census, which equates to one in three New Zealanders.

Census figures from 2006 show 32% of New Zealanders now consider themselves to have no religion. The number of Christians dropped 5% to 2.1 million. Anglican numbers dropped by 30,000 and the number of Presbyterians dropped to less than one tenth of the population for the first time in a century.

If the current trend continues, New Zealand could officially become a majority non-christian nation by the next census.

But let me guess, you don't trust the government either?

[Simon_NZ]

Negative. I obtained those quotes from a variety of sources. They are quotes from well respected and incredibly intelligent people from around the world. I'm not sure exactly what the point is that you are trying to make, if any..

yawn, i'm off, night.

I'm fairly confident that nearly everyone else on the forum will understand the point I was making.

[psyche]

Something newer and closer tome home then?

Did you even read what I said about the accuracy of surveys? They only survey a small amount of people Unless of course they get their results from the cencus or something. Only 32% don't have a religion? It's not much, and even then just because someone doesn't follow a religion doesn't mean they don't consider themselves spiritual and/or believe in God, take me for example - I'm not religious but I still believe in God, or atleast pretty damn convinced so far..

I'm fairly confident that nearly everyone else on the forum will understand the point I was making.

and what was it?

Are you going to answer some of the questions that I posed to you earlier?

ok now i'm seriously off.

[cobra]

can anyone explain to me how quoting atheist and agnostic scientists out of context then claiming that they believe in god is an argument?

i am lost here

just a quick search for Darwin brought lots of evidence that he didn't believe in a creater - couldn't be fucked with the rest

"Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but at last was 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."

"I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine."

"The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection had been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws."

but as simon pointed out - since most scientists dont believe in a god then doesn't the whole "smart people think" argument swing in the favour of the atheists/agnostics?

[KiLL3r]

But some may ask, "But who created God?"  But the answer is that by definition He is not created; He is eternal.  He is the One who brought time, space, and matter into existence. Since the concept of causality deals with space, time, and matter, and since God is one who brought space, time, and matter into existence, the concept of causality does not apply to God since it is something related to the reality of space, time, and matter.  Since God is before space, time, and matter, the issue of causality does not apply to Him.

Omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, and eternal and necessary existence. Look it up tbh.

It does depend on your individual belief though, there are of course some religions that believe in multiple God(s) or deities. The Christian religion is, arguably the one religion with the most historical evidence to support it though (in the form of the Bible) As for scientists, there is probably a decent amount of scientists that believe in the Christian God - while some others, it seems just believe in a "higher power", unsure exactly what but something.


man, I hope atleast some of you appreciate the effort I put in these posts :disappoin

http://www.carm.org/questions/God_created.htm

no i dont want some copy and paste job i want your reason why god doesnt need a creator but the universe does!

[Arnifix]

I'm fairly confident that nearly everyone else on the forum will understand the point I was making.

Everyone else on the forum is depressed that you're wasting your time responding to this mouth-breather, rather than posting some awesome sneakers or some shit.

[Simon_NZ]

Did you even read what I said about the accuracy of surveys? They only survey a small amount of people Unless of course they get their results from the cencus or something. Only 32% don't have a religion? It's not much, and even then just because someone doesn't follow a religion doesn't mean they don't consider themselves spiritual and/or believe in God, take me for example - I'm not religious but I still believe in God, or atleast pretty damn convinced so far..

IT WAS A FUCKEN CENUS YOU IDIOT.

1/3 of the country think you are full of shit.

biye.

[DDM]

Negative. I obtained those quotes from a variety of sources. They are quotes from well respected and incredibly intelligent people from around the world. I'm not sure exactly what the point is that you are trying to make, if any..

yawn, i'm off, night.

What is the ratio of religious scientists to non-religious scientists? You claim to search for answers, yet you seem to be grasping quite fondly to your religious quotes and openly ignoring the non-religious ones.. that or misinterpreting them completely anyway.

[Ngati_Grim]

You probably shouldn't have bothered going to the effort of explaining the carbon dating thing, I'm not all that in it interested to be honest

But if you want to use it in an argument to cement your position, you would do well to at least have a passing understanding.

But working in the field of Geology, of course you are going to be adamant that the tools you use are completely accurate, or maintain that appearance when I've heard lots of evidence to the contrary

Well, yes, the tools/machines/equipment we use are very well calibrated/maintained/ designed (in the engineering sense, not the I.D. sense). I can go into technicalities, but as this is a lay-people's thread, I will keep it simple. Completely accurate can be a big ask, but before you seize on this, the accuracy is exceedingly good, well-tested and at levels of precision that would leave your mind boggling.
Sometimes I use a sledgehammer, and that IS completely accurate, as is the powergel, or the corer, or the lovely Estwing rock pick I have:http://www.estwing.com/category.php?category_id=8

However, as this is not a debate about Geology (more's the pity :cussing:), there are very well calibrated 'tools' in the other major Sciences as well: Physics, Chemistry, Biology...(remember, I'm keeping it simple for you).

Mind you I don't doubt that Earth is millions of years old, the thing that gets me is how some scientists claim to know exactly how the planet was back then, exactly what the landscape/climate was and exactly how everything happened, and ALL of this information from some friggin' rocks and a few other scraps of evidence?!

Try Billions for starters.
Rocks can tell you loads of information, if you know how to read them.
For example: The Banded Iron Formations of the Hammersley Basin:

"Banded iron formations
Banded iron formations are sedimentary rocks made up of alternating layers of iron-rich minerals and chert, a form of quartz. These formations are the source of most of the iron ore mined in the world, such as in the Hammersley Ranges in Western Australia. Banded iron formations are believed to have formed by iron minerals dissolved in sea water combining with oxygen, and falling out, or precipitating from the water. This is evidence that there was enough oxygen in the atmosphere at that time to cause iron minerals to precipitate. Banded iron formations reached their maximum development about 2,000 million years ago."

http://museumvictoria.com.au/dinosaurs/milestones_oldest_evidence.html

That is a very basic explanation, however, there are extremely abundant and quality PEER-REVIEWED articles about them. I doubt you would read them though, they're quite 'scientific'.

that's the kind of thing that pisses me off is some scientists trying to force their biased beliefs and explanations on people when in reality they have very little knowledge of how everything happened

They/we also have very good knowledge about how a lot of things happened. We'll get back to you on everything next week :disappoin

Beliefs and explanations based on observation will necessarily be biased, towards the 'truth'. But we have gone through the Scientific Method with you before and you're not taking it in.

I'm curious, you say you know of a few scientists who are also religious. Do you know any personally, in your field of work? If you do - what's your view on that? Do you think people can logically believe in God and respect science aswell?(sic)

I do not know of any Geologists who are religious. I do not know of any who believe in a god. I have no problem with any scientist believing in a god as long as it doesn't affect the quality of their research. I think that people can believe in a god and respect science, it's just that when they become dogmatically bound by their belief in the supernatural (for that is what belief in god is: the supernatural realm) they can cloud their decision making. I sense you will like to turn this the other way, and again I refer you to the Scientific Method.

If that's the case why hasn't life developed on any of the many planets around us? Some of them have somewhat habitable landscapes for life to develop, yet they are completely barren. I suppose they haven't been fully explored, but still you'd think we would have found something by now

1: how do we know it hasn't. It probably hasn't, yet that may be because of our understanding of 'Life'.
2: Somewhat habitable? Barren? See 1.
3: Why would you think we would have found something by now? The search has only just begun. It's quite a large area.

lol, so you actually genuinely really believe that scientists might eventually find the answers to the existence of the universe, life and reality?

It's possible. We've only just begun



You see, we've only just emerged from the shackles of religion, and it held us back for centuries, nay, Millennia, as far as scientific progress is concerned. And, I must say, it (Science) appears, so far, to be doing a much more thorough job of investigation than religion.

So I guess you could say, 'it came from the effect of the Big Bang' or something - but it's as if there is something that wanted this all to work, y'know? Or I guess it's your opinion that it's all just a huge coincidence of random events.

Why is it as if there is something that wanted this all to work? Why?
What is wrong with coincidence? Does it make you feel less of a person if you don't have you special friend who designed it for you and your mates to make use of?

There's nothing really wrong with using wikipedia as a source of information either

I guess it's 'peer-reviewed' too! :asian:
However, when debating with Scientists, using wiki is like using a toothbrush to paint a house, because it isn't anywhere near as rigid, nor contains editorial specialists  in the same way as, say, Nature or NZJGG for that matter.
You can wear your coat of ignorance to keep you warm against the chill of reality, but one day it will become threadbare and the buttons will fall off.

Jerry Bergman

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/j_bergman.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Bergman (from your beloved wiki...:sunnies:)
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/bergman-j.html

This guy is a quack! Yes, I kn ow he is 'qualified', but by dint of his supporting of these issues, he is playing the role of a stooge, to give their argument more 'weight', yet by doing so and by his association, his actually ends up giving it less!

I love the way you link us to sites which either have associations with Creationists, Intekkigent Designers (purposeful spelling mistake!), or people who, after a wee bit of searching are linked towards organisations that promote this dribble, who use quotes OUT OF CONTEXT to a) ensnare the ignorant "oooh, I didn't know that, he's a 'scientist', must be true, look at all the evidence" b) back up their claims (out of context though...) c) promote disinformation which goes against the majority of good, robust, Scientific research.

It is truly pathetic that you continue to follow science blindly so determinedly when clearly it does not, and will not ever have the answers to the truth of our unique existence in the universe. Learn to start thinking outside the box, and learn to appreciate the unbelievably amazing complexity of everything around us, and you will begin to appreciate life in a new way.

Wow, as I look out my window, I see the hills and the trees and I wonder at their amazing complexity. I don't need a supernatural invader to feel the sense of wonder. My wonder comes from my knowledge of Science and its sublimity.
One day, we may well have the answers about life, the universe, and everything. It's not a bad endeavour to pursue, and certainly may be attainable. Remember, essentially, we've only just begun! (cue song)

Ok, Climate - when reconstructing past climate multi-proxy analysis is typically used. This can include tree rings, ice cores, deep sea cores, pollen records, etc. All these can be used to infer past climate. It isn't rocket science.

Past Landscape? Fission track dating, cosmogenic nuclide sampling, cores, geodesy, the list goes on. Once again, it isn't difficult stuff to understand, but if you can't be bothered then don't try. I dare say it is beyond you anyway.

Welcome aboard big boy! Been enjoying your posts and have kept quiet, because I really wanted a peaceful weekend. It seems you're/you've been involved with the Earth Sciences?

[Ngati_Grim]

You, and others have some specific ideas about answers to the questions we don't know the answers to. I don't know the right answers, but I am pretty comfortable that they aren't the ones you're proposing, because they contradict much of what we've managed to learn to date.

It's the Sisyphus complex here, by the looks. No matter how much we repeat ourselves and consistently try to back up our claims, there are those who, while claiming to be individual thinkers, actually do not display very much in the way of critical thinking. Don't let it grind you, Woohoo, there just seem to be people like that, no matter what.

You look around, and nothing looks created to you? But everything WAS created. It was created by the Big Bang, aswell (sic) as whatever created The Big Bang.

Another example of words being hijacked by connotation. I try not to use the word 'created' when writing/talking/ discussing Science, because of the negative connotations and sly implication.
Whatever 'created' the Big Bang does not lead very well into your argument for god though, not on many levels, and still requires a leap of faith and displacement of logic.

Oh really. So how exactly do you know it's not the "truth"? Enlighten me oh knowledgable one. The fact is, some of the greatest thinking minds in our history have concluded that the only way everything like this can really exist, can only really be explained by some supremely intelligent and higher being having purposefully designed it all.

we're talking Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, aswell as numerous other geniuses...so what do you say to that? Are you a greater and more knowledgable mind than Copernicus, Newton Darwin and Einstein?

I'm not the saying it's the truth either, but it's the most plausible explanation whether YOU like it or not.

The fact is that 'some of the greatest thinking minds in history' were working under a religious paradigm that influenced their thoughts/ research/access to knowledge. Those four names you posted above are important in the establishment of modern scientific method, but they are not the be all and end all of Science. In fact, I now have a far greater understanding of Science than any of them, as do many modern scientists, purely because Science has progressed and built upon (and sometimes discarded) their work and has, to a great extent unshackled itself from the bonds of religious ignorance and superstition. Also, the access to information is so much better than in, even, Einstein's day. Other here have addressed your 'god's Scientists' claim, I don't wish to regurgitate, as I have to chew your mealy postings more than enough to digest them anyway.

Just to put this into perspective, a mathematical calculation has been done to calculate how probable the "chance" of a planet like this existing outside our solar system is: it's something like 1/1000000000000 (one in a trillion) considering there are quite likely only in the "billions" of planets in the universe, it's basically impossible.

 But not entirely impossible? Again, we come to the possibility that Life may be entirely different elsewhere, so then the conditions could be entirely different. Comprende?

In fact, if it indeed was all random coincidence, we would probably be in a dangerous part of the universe, our solar system and planetary conditions would be fucked, we would either be weird creatures with four eyes and six arms or we would be DEAD, but we're not - we're intelligent, complex, thinking, contemplating, discovering, consciously aware beings with the ability to discover the workings of nature and the universe itself.

Nope, we're here because the chances all came together for our type of life.
Who are you to say that the creatures with four eyes and six arms are a) weird and b) not intelligent, complex, thinking, contemplating, discovering, consciously aware being etc etc..? This is one of the dangers of an anthropocentric argument, especially when dealing with the concept of life elsewhere.

I believe (yes BELIEVE, motherf*cker) there is a reason why our existence is not a perfect one, and that it was intended to be that way. I don't know why of course, I can only guess and contemplate.. I also think it is quite possible Earth was meant to be a "paradise" type place, but for whatever reason it could not be..

Crikey!

I mean... if everything in the universe is a very complex set of well-defined working laws, it's going to take a while for everything to start working harmoniously from the moment of creation, for the laws of nature to establish and start working effectively, things like that take time they don't just happen instantly.

Then they weren't very well-defined working laws were they! Why don't they start working instantly? I thought they started working from the get go?

and although i'm not a Christian or religious in any way, and I have yet to read the Bible and learn all about this Jesus character, I have to admit I am interested to, from what i've seen there are lots of amazing, influential, thought-provoking scriptures and stories beneficial to mankind in there that are well worth reading, a lot of it backed up by historical evidence (of course there will always be debates about inconsistencies, literal interpretations ect. ect.)

Yes, there are some interesting stories. There are, however, some really disturbing bits too, conjured up under the influence of drugs (shamanism, essentially) or schizophrenia!
The historical evidence is an interesting proposal, and while it makes sense for there to be some physical basis for places mentioned in the bible, no one has ever, ever found the garden of eden, noah's ark, heaven, or many other places. Some places are historic, but it's all a bit too cut and paste and talks too much about god and supernatural events for my liking. Great way of bringing the masses into the fold though: fire and brimstone, things 'he' can do that you can't, but we won't show them to you, we'll just propagate the seed and sow the lies....and then some (less and less though....religion is on the outer) modern day people still get fooled because they NEED something to believe in that's greater than it all, but not something that can be taken away, because then they'd just be alone, so they cling to this ridiculous concept (see previous discussions for why it is ridiculous, no....really...do it, and read it this time) and embrace superstition (knock on wood, anyone? cross your fingers? pray?).

The list is laughable. And it reads like an appropriation from an 'answers in genesis' type list...nice quotes taken out of context, and for some such as Hawkins, a misunderstanding of his use of the word "god".

Again I will quote Lord William Thomson Kelvin..

Quote:
"Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us...the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words."

It's difficult for a scientists to openly admit that they believe in God, because it undermines their credibility in the eyes of the scientific community due to the stigma attached to it.

Kelvin? You're using a quote of Kelvin to back up your ....um.....claims? GTFO!
Sorry, but that guy was wrong about a few things. Mayhap he was wrong about this quote as well?

I addressed this concept in one of my earlier posts. I don't think many people believe God is ABSOLUTELY perfect (though I could be wrong), when you really think about it how can something be perfection? Something can always be improved in some way. But I'd say pretty damn close to perfection, imo, if it has the ability to create a complex universe for life to live. Assuming one does believe in God, the fact that everything may not have gone to plan, I don't think that's something we can fault the Creator for, considering it still gave us the privilege to exist in the first place, and especially if it is true that we brought our own demise upon us.

Something...blah blah blah...hoisted....petard...rhyming slang

His comment about atheism rings true today as much as did it back then, therefore his quote is indeed still very relevant.

Well then, what are the OVERWHELMINGLY strong proofs?
Why is the Atheistic idea non-sensical when compared with belief in an invisible creator?

You shouldn't rely on statistics from a survey to come to that conclusion that religion and belief in God are 'dying out'.

Oh, but they are! You have to look at what the World has been through and the 'big hammer' that religion used/s to maintain  (or try to) its position. As more and more people gain a world view greater than going to the next village and the access to, and flow of information increases, it appears that more and more are turning away from religion. It may look like the numbers are increasing because population is increasing, but when looked at as % figures, there is actually a marked decrease.

Bring it on. :rnr:

[mish]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to rep you for this effort.
(tl;dr)

[psyche]

Yeah I'm not going to read that, or going to respond to any of it - I read a bit of your post and you are talking an absolute load of shit now Ngati.

And I'm sick of you people acting like a bunch of cocks for no reason, so fuck all of you

Have fun believing that the the world, the universe and everything magically appeared to due to completely random chance! you dumb fucks

[Ngati_Grim]

Yeah I'm not going to read that, or going to respond to any of it - I read a bit of your post and you are talking an absolute load of shit now Ngati.

And I'm sick of you people acting like a bunch of cocks for no reason, so fuck all of you

Have fun believing that the the world, the universe and everything magically appeared to due to completely random chance! you dumb fucks

Oh, I'm sorry you didn't take the time to read it in its entirety. I, at least, took the time to read all of your posts (well, everyone's posts :/ ).
If I'm acting like a cock, then you're a chicken for not presenting any evidence and just flat out coming forward with emotional responses, and your feelings, or presenting dubious research from dubious sites.

Thanks, finally, for your excellent sign off. I will hold that close to my chest for all eternity (or until I die).

I can thus, reciprocally, wish you freedom from your shackles of ignorance and superstition and that one day you discover peace and tolerance, along with your intelligence.

[cobra]

Yeah I'm not going to read that, or going to respond to any of it - I read a bit of your post and you are talking an absolute load of shit now Ngati.

And I'm sick of you people acting like a bunch of cocks for no reason, so fuck all of you

Have fun believing that the the world, the universe and everything magically appeared to due to completely random chance! you dumb fucks

lol - you would make a good christian

have fun believing the universe and everything magically appeared

[psyche]

have fun believing the universe and everything magically appeared

That's what YOU believe ya fucking dipshit

[psyche]

Oh, I'm sorry you didn't take the time to read it in its entirety. I, at least, took the time to read all of your posts (well, everyone's posts :/ ).
If I'm acting like a cock, then you're a chicken for not presenting any evidence and just flat out coming forward with emotional responses, and your feelings, or presenting dubious research from dubious sites.

Thanks, finally, for your excellent sign off. I will hold that close to my chest for all eternity (or until I die).

I can thus, reciprocally, wish you freedom from your shackles of ignorance and superstition and that one day you discover peace and tolerance, along with your intelligence.

Nah, see, it's because you're just acting like a pompous know-it-all dickhead now,  you might think you know it all but you don't know shit. You're a fucking geologist, you study rocks. You're not studying the incredible complexity of nature and the universe, so of course you don't appreciate the underlying mechanics as much as what other scientists do.

You think the Hadron Collider thingie is going to be able to recreate the Big Bang? I fuckin' lol'd. They're only studying the conditions AFTER the Big Bang, there's absolutely no way they can scientifically explain what happened before the Big Bang or how it happened.

That dude Jerry Bergman isn't credible? Funny, he's got shitloads more credibility than you will ever have. I read his entire article, then read a rebuttal from an atheist to his article, then he ripped apart that rebuttal and no-one else has attempted to critique his essay thus far. If you think his article is a load of shit, let's hear your rebuttal to it. Abiogenesis IS impossible anyway you fucking numpty. I have to say, atheists are some of the stupidest motherfuckers I have ever encountered, it's like they filter out certain information and only listen to other information, or they are too just too goddamn stubborn to appreciate things that they cannot understand. Atheists = morons.

And then there's morons like kill3r who give me shit for copying and pasting text from an article, even though I've explained it to him like 5 fucking times already and he can still can't process it through his thick head. Look up your own information you fucking dingbat if it's such a problem, it's not that hard. Aswell as Gingerbread man, who whinges and moans like a little bitch for no fucking reason other than no-one likes him and the world hates him because he's an oversized Ginga.

Those quotes from scientists were taken out of context? Lol, bullshit, none of them look they are taken out of context to me - that's you just being an arrogant know-it-all prick.



Here's some more just to spite you:


Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy):

"I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."


Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".


Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."


Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist):

"The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."


Robert Jastrow:

 "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."


Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]."


Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."


Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."


Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."


Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."

"When you are searching for truth you should use every possible avenue, including revelation," said Dr. Murray, who is a member of the Pontifical Academy, which advises the Vatican on scientific issues, and who described the influence of his faith on his work in his memoir, "Surgery of the Soul" (Science History Publications, 2002).

Since his appearance at the City College panel, when he was dismayed by the tepid reception received by his remarks on the incompatibility of good science and religious belief, Dr. Hauptman said he had been discussing the issue with colleagues in Buffalo, where he is president of the Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute.

"I think almost without exception the people I have spoken to are scientists and they do believe in the existence of a supreme being," he said. "If you ask me to explain it - I cannot explain it at all."

Dr. Collins said he believed that some scientists were unwilling to profess faith in public "because the assumption is if you are a scientist you don't have any need of action of the supernatural sort," or because of pride in the idea that science is the ultimate source of intellectual meaning.

But he said he believed that some scientists were simply unwilling to confront the big questions religion tried to answer. "You will never understand what it means to be a human being through naturalistic observation," he said. "You won't understand why you are here and what the meaning is. Science has no power to address these questions - and are they not the most important questions we ask ourselves?"

[cobra]

That's what YOU believe ya fucking dipshit

because god pulling the universe out of a hat isn't magic?

no magic in my world view - unless you are talking about the magic of science

[psyche]

because god pulling the universe out of a hat isn't magic?

no magic in my world view - unless you are talking about the magic of science

The 'magic of science' LOL. So where did 'the magic of science' come from?

You really are a fucking moron aren't you?

I want an answer by the way. I would like to know where you think the 'magic of science' came from. Please enlighten me.