Religion Thread 2.0

[Jake]

Well then I am more than happy to share my views with you.
I definitely believe that dinosaurs did exist, I also believe that the earth is somewhere around the 6,000-10,000 year old mark. In the book of Job it describes a creature called the 'behemoth' that fits the description of a brachiosaurus like creature. This does contradict the theory that dinosaurs died millions of years before humans existed, however it is my personal belief that humans and dinosaurs co-existed and that dinosaurs didn't go extinct until most probably just after the flood, due to the change in environment, lack of food etc. or even [unlikely but possibly] as late as a thousand years ago.
There are many historical documents (including the bible) that talk about creatures that fit the description of dinosaurs, of course the word dinosaur wasn't given to the until early 1800s (correct me if I'm wrong there) so of course it used many other words to describe them, one of the most commonly used terms to describe a creature with that description is 'dragon' which is featured in all manner of mythology, history of different cultures, other religions etc.

As for carbon dating...
I believe that the flood changed a lot of things about the earth, I don't understand the science of it 100% however I do have a pretty good grasp of it, so I'm not going to try and explain it however I will point you in the direction of an article that I think explains it pretty well. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

Here's what I never understood about the young earth argument. You literally believe that God snapped things into existence and made them appear to be weathered and old, despite their existence being supposedly very new. Somebody who honestly wants to know the truth doesn't try to skew their interpretation of science to fit the bible. They let the evidence speak for itself. it's apparent that the more scientists uncover, the harder it gets for Christians to justify their position. If you believe the earth is 6000-1000 years old, do you also deny evolution?

Take a look at this graph of skin pigmentation in relation to geopgraphy (I apologize that it can't be blown up).

We can somewhat clearly see that people living north and south of the equator have evolved to accommodate the lack of solar radiation, and are therefore able to absorb higher levels of vitamin D into their skin. People living nearer the equator have evolved to have darker skin, allowing them to maximize their protection against the suns rays by producing more melatonin. As a christian that believes in young earth creationism, you must either argue that God planted people in those locations and gave them that specific color pigmentation to give off the appearance of evolution, or you must argue that evolution is actually occurring, but not at a macro scale. The first argument need not even be addressed. The second one is also insane, because it's not even possible for the skin pigmentation of a species to adjust that much over the course of 6,000-10,000 years.

[Matty_Richo]

Well then I am more than happy to share my views with you.
I definitely believe that dinosaurs did exist, I also believe that the earth is somewhere around the 6,000-10,000 year old mark. In the book of Job it describes a creature called the 'behemoth' that fits the description of a brachiosaurus like creature. This does contradict the theory that dinosaurs died millions of years before humans existed, however it is my personal belief that humans and dinosaurs co-existed and that dinosaurs didn't go extinct until most probably just after the flood, due to the change in environment, lack of food etc. or even [unlikely but possibly] as late as a thousand years ago.
There are many historical documents (including the bible) that talk about creatures that fit the description of dinosaurs, of course the word dinosaur wasn't given to the until early 1800s (correct me if I'm wrong there) so of course it used many other words to describe them, one of the most commonly used terms to describe a creature with that description is 'dragon' which is featured in all manner of mythology, history of different cultures, other religions etc.

As for carbon dating...
I believe that the flood changed a lot of things about the earth, I don't understand the science of it 100% however I do have a pretty good grasp of it, so I'm not going to try and explain it however I will point you in the direction of an article that I think explains it pretty well. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

Here's what I never understood about the young earth argument. You literally believe that God snapped things into existence and made them appear to be weathered and old, despite their existence being supposedly very new. Somebody who honestly wants to know the truth doesn't try to skew their interpretation of science to fit the bible. They let the evidence speak for itself. it's apparent that the more scientists uncover, the harder it gets for Christians to justify their position. If you believe the earth is 6000-1000 years old, do you also deny evolution?

I get what you are saying, and you make a fair point. As far as things that look old and weathered despite being young, I honestly haven't really thought about it much before but thinking about it now, my first thoughts would be that firstly, before the flood, the earth was a very different place and we can't know how things happened before that, and also that the flood itself and the aftermath of the flood could have caused it. But again, this is my uneducated thoughts on that particular matter, and I am happy to do a bit more research on that and get back to you.

I also don't think that evolution is total crap, I think that as the world changes, people, animals and plants change with it too. It's true I don't believe that humans evolved from apes and that I also don't believe in the big bang and whatnot, but I do believe that to an extent evolution is present and real.

Take a look at this graph of skin pigmentation in relation to geopgraphy (I apologize that it can't be blown up).

We can somewhat clearly see that people living north and south of the equator have evolved to accommodate the lack of solar radiation, and are therefore able to absorb higher levels of vitamin D into their skin. People living nearer the equator have evolved to have darker skin, allowing them to maximize their protection against the suns rays by producing more melatonin. As a christian that believes in young earth creationism, you must either argue that God planted people in those locations and gave them that specific color pigmentation to give off the appearance of evolution, or you must argue that evolution is actually occurring, but not at a macro scale. The first argument need not even be addressed. The second one is also insane, because it's not even possible for the skin pigmentation of a species to adjust that much over the course of 6,000-10,000 years.

I think you raise another very good point here. However since I am a Christian I believe that God is omnipotent, basically he created the world, he knows exactly how everything in the world works and he has created people to fit into how he created the world to work. I think it is very possible that as the earth has slowly changed the people have changed with it. But overall yes, I believe that God created people ready to live in these conditions, and that people have grown into that over time, partly by evolution and partly because that simply how God created them to live.

[T-Rok]

One says big bang, other says no. How about I jump in here with what I learned growing up as a Latter Day Saint, more commonly known as Mormon, God created the big bang. Argue over that for awhile, I'm enjoying reading all this.

[Torch]

Matty, you're mixing scientific evidence with religious text, you've created an abomination!

[Jake]

Well then I am more than happy to share my views with you.
I definitely believe that dinosaurs did exist, I also believe that the earth is somewhere around the 6,000-10,000 year old mark. In the book of Job it describes a creature called the 'behemoth' that fits the description of a brachiosaurus like creature. This does contradict the theory that dinosaurs died millions of years before humans existed, however it is my personal belief that humans and dinosaurs co-existed and that dinosaurs didn't go extinct until most probably just after the flood, due to the change in environment, lack of food etc. or even [unlikely but possibly] as late as a thousand years ago.
There are many historical documents (including the bible) that talk about creatures that fit the description of dinosaurs, of course the word dinosaur wasn't given to the until early 1800s (correct me if I'm wrong there) so of course it used many other words to describe them, one of the most commonly used terms to describe a creature with that description is 'dragon' which is featured in all manner of mythology, history of different cultures, other religions etc.

As for carbon dating...
I believe that the flood changed a lot of things about the earth, I don't understand the science of it 100% however I do have a pretty good grasp of it, so I'm not going to try and explain it however I will point you in the direction of an article that I think explains it pretty well. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

Here's what I never understood about the young earth argument. You literally believe that God snapped things into existence and made them appear to be weathered and old, despite their existence being supposedly very new. Somebody who honestly wants to know the truth doesn't try to skew their interpretation of science to fit the bible. They let the evidence speak for itself. it's apparent that the more scientists uncover, the harder it gets for Christians to justify their position. If you believe the earth is 6000-1000 years old, do you also deny evolution?

I get what you are saying, and you make a fair point. As far as things that look old and weathered despite being young, I honestly haven't really thought about it much before but thinking about it now, my first thoughts would be that firstly, before the flood, the earth was a very different place and we can't know how things happened before that, and also that the flood itself and the aftermath of the flood could have caused it. But again, this is my uneducated thoughts on that particular matter, and I am happy to do a bit more research on that and get back to you.

The argument that God created the big bang makes much more sense than trying to fit science in with all of the strange things that the bible claims (although the bible never specifically claims how old the earth is). Think about it this way: If God made the laws of the universe, why is it out of the realm of possibility that he designed evolution, or that he designed the original laws so that one day humans would be created? it's a much more elegant explanation than trying to jam two puzzle pieces together that very obviously do not fit. Does it really make sense to believe that God created a planet that looks old when it's actually young, then placed humans on the planet and modified their pigmentation depending on the climate to trick us into believing the world is millions of years old?

I also don't think that evolution is total crap, I think that as the world changes, people, animals and plants change with it too. It's true I don't believe that humans evolved from apes and that I also don't believe in the big bang and whatnot, but I do believe that to an extent evolution is present and real.

If you believe in micro evolution than there really is no point in not believing in macro evolution. If something changes bit by bit over time, and you give it long enough, it will turn into something completely different. If humans can evolve to adapt their skin pigmentation, why can we not keep evolving in different and more extravagant ways given a long enough amount of time? Here's a perfect analogy explaining why macro evolution is very similar to micro evolution. http://www.thinkatheist.com/photo/this-is-the-best-way-ive-ever?context=featured

[Mystery]

One says big bang, other says no. How about I jump in here with what I learned growing up as a Latter Day Saint, more commonly known as Mormon, God created the big bang. Argue over that for awhile, I'm enjoying reading all this.

This is a common standpoint among fairly free-thinking religious people. A point which can't really be argued over.

Matty, you're mixing scientific evidence with religious text, you've created an abomination!

It's only an abomination when they're doing it wrong.

However since I am a Christian I believe that God is omnipotent, basically he created the world, he knows exactly how everything in the world works and he has created people to fit into how he created the world to work. I think it is very possible that as the earth has slowly changed the people have changed with it. But overall yes, I believe that God created people ready to live in these conditions, and that people have grown into that over time, partly by evolution and partly because that simply how God created them to live.

What are your thoughts on vestigiality?

As for carbon dating...
I believe that the flood changed a lot of things about the earth, I don't understand the science of it 100% however I do have a pretty good grasp of it, so I'm not going to try and explain it however I will point you in the direction of an article that I think explains it pretty well. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

The website page you links to makes its own assumptions which are bigger problems than the much easier to consider ones of pro-carbon dating, the biggest of that being the rate(which can fluctuate drastically)of which atmospheric conditions can change.

Also, in response to the website you linked in which I'd like you to answer: If God knows everything about science completely, then why in the flying porkchop did Jesus curse the fig tree when he reached for fruit and found 'nothing but leaves'?

I am aware of the Luke 13:6-9 parable. That didn't give him the right to hurt it, at all. Jesus is perfect. Hurting anything makes someone imperfect. It was also a fig tree out in the open. The only reason an ordinary person would want to kill a fig tree is if they were using trees specifically on their own land for fruit to clear out those ones which yielded nothing, or if it was growing somewhere they didn't want it on their land(I personally wouldn't harm it in either situation).

I also know about the 'taqsh' argument. To that I say people take the story out of context. Look carefully at how the story is said.

The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it.

When evening came, they went out of the city.

In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter remembered and said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!"

"Have faith in God," Jesus answered. "I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, `Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins."

It says nothing but leaves, but BECAUSE it's being compared to the fact it's not the season for figs. This makes it an relatively safe assumption to say there were taqsh.

And if you still don't think there were taqsh, then Jesus harmed a fig tree just for a lesson of faith which could've easily been accomplished without pain, and as aforementioned, he couldn't have because he's perfect(the other possibility is that he's not perfect, but that is not a stance you would take). Your argument loses either way.

[Torch]

One says big bang, other says no. How about I jump in here with what I learned growing up as a Latter Day Saint, more commonly known as Mormon, God created the big bang. Argue over that for awhile, I'm enjoying reading all this.

Do you think it's possible if not most likely that the big bang wasn't created by a God? I don't really see any evidence to support this theory.

[T-Rok]

One says big bang, other says no. How about I jump in here with what I learned growing up as a Latter Day Saint, more commonly known as Mormon, God created the big bang. Argue over that for awhile, I'm enjoying reading all this.

Do you think it's possible if not most likely that the big bang wasn't created by a God? I don't really see any evidence to support this theory.

Anything is possible. Hell, you could believe a flying spaghetti monster created everything for all I care. Plus, I also don't see any evidence to deny this either, do you?

Well then it's final. A flying spaghetti monster created everything. Glad we all agree.

[Jake]

One says big bang, other says no. How about I jump in here with what I learned growing up as a Latter Day Saint, more commonly known as Mormon, God created the big bang. Argue over that for awhile, I'm enjoying reading all this.

Do you think it's possible if not most likely that the big bang wasn't created by a God? I don't really see any evidence to support this theory.

Anything is possible. Hell, you could believe a flying spaghetti monster created everything for all I care. Plus, I also don't see any evidence to deny this either, do you?

Well then it's final. A flying spaghetti monster created everything. Glad we all agree.

Being unable to prove something does not exist does not prove it's existence. And yes, I understand you are joking, but some people actually don't understand the fallacy in that logic :p.

[Mystery]

One says big bang, other says no. How about I jump in here with what I learned growing up as a Latter Day Saint, more commonly known as Mormon, God created the big bang. Argue over that for awhile, I'm enjoying reading all this.

Do you think it's possible if not most likely that the big bang wasn't created by a God? I don't really see any evidence to support this theory.

Anything is possible. Hell, you could believe a flying spaghetti monster created everything for all I care. Plus, I also don't see any evidence to deny this either, do you?

Well then it's final. A flying spaghetti monster created everything. Glad we all agree.

What Torch is saying is that it's safer to say 'we don't know what caused the Big Bang' without evidence then to outright state what caused it. This goes for anything for me. Better to just say you've got no clue than to claim to be saying things you can't verify. If something is both an unfalsifiable and an unprovable concept, you may as well think nothing of it.

Appealing to lack of evidence is a fallacy which doesn't deserve anyone's attention, though I see the joke and I appreciate its humor.  :P

[Torch]

One says big bang, other says no. How about I jump in here with what I learned growing up as a Latter Day Saint, more commonly known as Mormon, God created the big bang. Argue over that for awhile, I'm enjoying reading all this.

Do you think it's possible if not most likely that the big bang wasn't created by a God? I don't really see any evidence to support this theory.

Anything is possible. Hell, you could believe a flying spaghetti monster created everything for all I care. Plus, I also don't see any evidence to deny this either, do you?

Well then it's final. A flying spaghetti monster created everything. Glad we all agree.

Right, so why is the focus of the debate on whether or not a God created the big bang? Why does this theory deserve more recognition than any of the other infinite (quite literally infinite) number of possibilities? Doesn't seem worth considering to me.

@Mystery: Pretty much, yeah. Much better to look for evidence of anything and work backwards from there. It would be incredibly bias to look for evidence of a God in the creation of the big bang just because it is a religiously convenient theory.

[Jake]

My favorite is when people tell me that I must think that I know everything because I'm an atheist. My answer to them is that I am actually an atheist because I know close to nothing about our universe and how it was created.

[Torch]

Another thing to consider with our knowledge of the universe is the sheer scale of things.

Human life is infinitely minuscule in every dimension. We've only been alive for a couple thousand years, which when compared to the billions years the earth has existed is nothing! We've barely made a dent on the history of our own planet, which when compared with our universe is infinitely more minuscule. By the time humans are extinct, our impact on the universe will have been next to nothing. In fact, our whole solar system is almost irrelevant on the scale of the entire universe.

To truly believe that we are the center of some intelligent design is to reject everything we know about the universe. Each of us is a biological organism with basic survival functions, the same as any other animal on this tiny planet, in this tiny solar system, in this tiny galaxy.

[Jake]

To truly believe that we are the center of some intelligent design is to reject everything we know about the universe. Each of us is a biological organism with basic survival functions, the same as any other animal on this tiny planet, in this tiny solar system, in this tiny galaxy.

We're contemplating the reason for existence. Don't downplay our awesomeness. Not to mention we, as living organisms, have qualitative phenomenal experiences that can't be measured.

For example (I stole these off wikipedia, bite me). Here's a few philosophical questions that the Hard problem of consciousness asks (swearing added for dramatic effect):
"Why the hell should physical processing give rise to any inner life at all?"
"How the hell is it that some organisms are subjects of experience?"
"Why the hell does awareness of sensory information exist at all?"
"Why the hell do qualia exist?"
"Why the hell is there a subjective component to experience?"
"Why the hell aren't we philosophical zombies?"
"the hell, man?"


The first question sums it up the best. There's no reason for us to be self-aware. We should reasonably be philosophical zombies, aka beings that can move, talk, and act normal, but don't actually possess self-awareness, just very good AI that makes us seem self-aware. In fact, I cannot prove that everyone in this world is not a philosophical zombie, or that anyone experiences consciousness or subjective experiences other than myself. According to physicalism, facts determine all other facts, and everything is physical, including consciousness. If physicalism is true, it means that we can logically perceive a world that is identical to our own, yet contains p-zombies rather than conscious beings. Since it is possible to imagine conflicting worlds that are physically the same, David Chalmers holds that physicalism is actually false, and there is a metaphysical aspect to the universe.

Either way, I think the idea that something is playing the strings is a possibility (please, here me out). Until we can prove that there are unlimited universes out there with unlimited variables of laws, it stands to reason that the likelihood of complex organisms being formed is infinitesimally small.

Imagine a desert that takes up a world the size of the sun. Now imagine getting one chance to find a specific speck of sand located anywhere on this desert planet. Imagine even further finding the correct speck of sand once per day for a billion years, by sheer chance. The only explanation for this even being remotely possible is if there are infinite amounts of people on this desert planet with the same chance at finding the right speck of dirt for a billion years. The problem is, just because we accept the possibility that infinite amounts of invisible people are trying to do the same thing, making a winner inevitable, doesn't mean we are less surprised when we find out we're the winner. We are now forced to conclude one of two things: Either there are infinite amounts of invisible people on this planet trying to find the speck of sand and we were the lucky one that betrayed all odds, or the system was rigged from the start. Both options seem unlikely if not impossible, yet we deduct that one has to be true. Which do you pick? My thoughts are that the game might just be rigged. By what or who, you ask? I have no effing idea. You may argue that this is pushing the question of life back further, by asking who is rigging the game rigger, and I say it's turtles all the way down (teehee I hope somebody gets my reference).

[Yankyal]

So you think god created evolution, or god created the big bang?

But the big bang theory states that the big bang lead to the creation of earth, whereas the bible says God created it himself.

The bible includes god created things out of nothing. Don't ever try to mix religion and science when religious texts break the very fundamental laws of science. You cannot create things out of nothing, saying "let there be light" will not create light. And if god created evolution I would expect he would do a better job of it.

Really, nipples on males? One tube for food and air? Can't bend our knees backwards? Not directly burning fat for energy? Blindspot in my vision? My spine can't repair itself?

This does not point to intelligent design really...