The argument over the existence of God

I would like to start a new thread (and it may not be in the right category) on the topic of God's relation to creation vs. evolution. And also discuss the existence of God. New sub-topics welcome we do not have to adhere to one sole argument.

If you want to believe in god, thats fine. That is a BELIEF you have. Beliefs do not require proof of any kind.

Evolution is on the other hand a scientific fact. Let me give you a definition of The Theory of Evolution.

In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinized for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

Oh God not againnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

science says nothing on god. god does not factor into any scientific theories. that's how it works. science leaves no place for god in its thinking

Firstly, this thread is probably not going to last. At least not in the ATS. Probably the BTS area.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
science says nothing on god. god does not factor into any scientific theories. that's how it works. science leaves no place for god in its thinking

Actually, you might want to check out the idea of "Schrodinger's cat" before you make such a conclusion.

Here's the definition:

Schrödinger's cat is a seemingly paradoxical thought experiment devised by Erwin Schrödinger that attempts to illustrate the incompleteness of the Copenhagen interpretation when going from subatomic to macroscopic systems. Schrödinger proposed his "cat", after a suggestion of Albert Einstein's, stating in essence that if a scenario existed where a cat could be so isolated from external interference (decoherence), the state of the cat can only be known as a superposition (combination) of possible rest states (eigenstates), because finding out (measuring the state) cannot be done without the observer interfering with the experiment — the measurement system (the observer) is entangled with the experiment.

The thought experiment serves to illustrate the strangeness of quantum mechanics and the mathematics necessary to describe quantum states. The idea of a particle existing in a superposition of possible states, while a fact of quantum mechanics, is a concept that does not easily scale to large systems (like cats), which are not indeterminably probabilistic in nature. Philosophically, these positions which emphasize either probability or determined outcomes are called (respectively) positivism and determinism.

reply to post by jfj123

I will go along with this.
Science theories require evidence to back them up. Now where is your evidence to back up the scientific claims that they have made? The belief system is sort of like the theory system. We all try to find evidence for our beliefs, just like scientists try to find evidence for their theories.
But the beginning is unknown, and will not be solved anytime soon. So therefor they are both just beliefs. Whether you believe that God created this universe, or that molecules came out of nowhere, bumped into each other and created this whole universe, it is just a belief.
There are no facts about how this universe was created.

I think science and religion can co-exist, I do not believe we evolved from apes, I do not know where we came from nor do I care. I mean there are
apes that have been around since humans existed, and how come they
never evolved into human beings? Sure we do evolve, but we only evolve
to be able to live in the environment around us.

/\my 2 cents/\
\/my 2 cents\/

I never understood why posts about god get moved out of ATS. Fact is the existence of god is probably the largest conspiracy to effect man kind ever...

Many governments of the world and huge religious organizations continue to propagate a lie about a mystical, magical all knowing everlasting creator with absolutely zero proof. None, nota, zipo.

God is THE most widely believed in alien being EVER.. The existence of god fits right in on ATS.

I actually believe in intelligent design so there could be a god in my mind but...the world has conspired, and even brainwashed generations of people to believe in a myth.

I chose to believe its possible but I can NOT provide any proof.

[edit on 3-9-2007 by Xeven]

think science and religion can co-exist, I do not believe we evolved from apes, I do not know where we came from nor do I care. I mean there are
apes that have been around since humans existed, and how come they
never evolved into human beings? Sure we do evolve, but we only evolve
to be able to live in the environment around us.

The idea that we evolved from apes is a common misconception generally propagated by creationists/Intelligent Design. In actuality, Apes and man share a common ancestor millions of years ago and diverged into to separate and distinct species.

also,
When discussing The Theory of Evolution, we must keep in mind the following:
-When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use. In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Originally posted by jfj123
Here's the definition:

Schrödinger's cat is a seemingly paradoxical thought experiment devised by Erwin Schrödinger that attempts to illustrate the incompleteness of the Copenhagen interpretation when going from subatomic to macroscopic systems. Schrödinger proposed his "cat", after a suggestion of Albert Einstein's, stating in essence that if a scenario existed where a cat could be so isolated from external interference (decoherence), the state of the cat can only be known as a superposition (combination) of possible rest states (eigenstates), because finding out (measuring the state) cannot be done without the observer interfering with the experiment — the measurement system (the observer) is entangled with the experiment.

The thought experiment serves to illustrate the strangeness of quantum mechanics and the mathematics necessary to describe quantum states. The idea of a particle existing in a superposition of possible states, while a fact of quantum mechanics, is a concept that does not easily scale to large systems (like cats), which are not indeterminably probabilistic in nature. Philosophically, these positions which emphasize either probability or determined outcomes are called (respectively) positivism and determinism.

Ahhh yes, Wikipedia. The "observer" is what we'll be looking at. The experiment basically brings about the question "is the act of observing what determines existence?" It of course also asks about alternate realities, but for this example, let's just see the first question.

This question would basically lead to God. Kind of like a mix of science and philosophy. Pretty interesting stuff.

Originally posted by Equinox99
I mean there are apes that have been around since humans existed, and how come they never evolved into human beings? Sure we do evolve, but we only evolve to be able to live in the environment around us.

You're almost there really. Now take the environment issue and apply it over millions of years for diverging populations.

Ok, so lets say, for example, that there was a species of ape. Lets call them the proto-ape.

This species lives in the jungle. A bit like chimps do now. But, eventually a subgroup of this species (i.e. lets say 25% of its population) move to a different environment. Lets say it was the forest edge onto savannah.

Add 5 million years, what do you think might happen? A decendent group of apes still live in the forest (might even have split again - cf. bonobo vs common chimp), but the split group eventually moved onto the savannah and beyond. In fact, they spread from Asia to the Americas, we might even see minor differences between these groups.

If we looked into the fossils of these two group of apes, what might we see? If we check the genomes, what might we see (e.g., ERVs, pseudogenes, chromosome 2)?

If we could follow from you to your ancestor 5 million years ago through every single ancestral parent, where would we end up? At that point, if we follow down from a relative who stayed in the forest to the present, who would we find?

If you're interested, read Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale. Well worth the time.

[edit on 3-9-2007 by melatonin]

reply to post by jfj123

The idea that we evolved from apes is a common misconception generally propagated by creationists/Intelligent Design. In actuality, Apes and man share a common ancestor millions of years ago and diverged into to separate and distinct species.

May I ask what kind of ancestor we shared?

To melatonin:

Now T have to ask you, why would those Apes leave the forest to explore
a place where they have never been before? Apes have 48 chromosomes
while humans have 46, so what happened to the 2?

"In the case of the striking similarities between human and chimp
genomes, by far the simplest explanation anybody has ever proposed is
that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, and a fairly recent one
at that. Because nobody has ever produced compelling evidence that this
explanation is wrong, it is the one that scientists tentatively accept.
If such evidence were to emerge, then scientists would look to modify
the explanation."

C. Perkins

What you guys indicate is an explanation with no proof. It is what would make sense so that is what they have people believe. You need to think
outside the box, and not follow others theories. It is alright to believe
we evolved from chimps. When people start calling each others beliefs
conspiracies that is when the battle between two sides begin.
I can easily say evolution is a conspiracy to get you away from God,
it was created by evil people. But that is not true, so I will let you guys
believe what you want, you guys can be right or we may be right.
We will not find out until the end.

Originally posted by Equinox99
Now T have to ask you, why would those Apes leave the forest to explore
a place where they have never been before? Apes have 48 chromosomes
while humans have 46, so what happened to the 2?

[ABE: I missed the first part - because they were overpopulated? Because they were inquisitive? Because of food shortages? Because the trees were greener? For the same reasons other species move from one place to another.]

Good question!

I gave the answer in my post. What do you think evolution would predict? I'll let Ken Miller explain it...

C. Perkins

Of course, that is the nature of science. If you can show something to be wrong with reliable and valid evidence, it is readily accepted. But when evolution makes specific predictions that are eventually validated (e.g. chromosome 2), then we can be even happier we are on the right track.

What you guys indicate is an explanation with no proof.

There's lots of proof/evidence. Chromosome 2, for example. Add to that ERVs and pseudogenes. Then add to that fossils.

ABE: here's some more Ken Miller on the fossil record:



[edit on 3-9-2007 by melatonin]

Well as science has proven before, Radiation can cause DNA to mutate:
University of Utah
Evolution 101

So what makes it impossible that humans over time can not have DNA mutation? The Earth has been bombarded by the suns radiation since the beginning of time, and back then we did not have pollution to keep some of
the suns radiation out. So all in all claiming we came from Apes because of
2 mutated chromosomes is not a correct thing to say. Radiation and chemicals
can break down our chromosomes, when the cells try to repair it, it might
not do a perfect job doing so.
All this information is coming from scientific sources.

Originally posted by jfj123
If you want to believe in god, thats fine. That is a BELIEF you have. Beliefs do not require proof of any kind.

Evolution is on the other hand a scientific fact. Let me give you a definition of The Theory of Evolution.

uh uh. check your definitions. Evolution is a THEORY which some (probably rich) white guy put together to try to explain some observations about life on this earth.

Originally posted by Equinox99
Well as science has proven before, Radiation can cause DNA to mutate:

Of course it can. But it needs to mutate the germline cells to have an impact on heredity. It also tends to make targets sterile in good doses. And to mutate in exactly the correct way to produce a fused chromosome which fits perfectly with a relative ape is a bit far fetched, no?

So what makes it impossible that humans over time can not have DNA mutation? The Earth has been bombarded by the suns radiation since the beginning of time, and back then we did not have pollution to keep some of the suns radiation out.

DNA mutations do not require radiation. You likely have about 100 passed from your parents. Mutations are an important evolutionary mechanism. They provide variation for natural selection to act on.

So all in all claiming we came from Apes because of 2 mutated chromosomes is not a correct thing to say. Radiation and chemicals can break down our chromosomes, when the cells try to repair it, it might not do a perfect job doing so.

But it's not just chromosome 2. We also have ERVs and pseudogenes that show a close relationship with apes.

Thus, we have evidence of viral insertions into the genome that show a phylogenetic relationship between apes. We also see that humans and apes have the exact same 8 base-pair deletion in the Hyrodxylase-21 pseudogene.

We see similar relationships across other related species. In science, theories make predictions. This evidence is validation of ToE. There's more evidence as well, such as transposons, functional redundancy etc etc check the rest of the page from the links above.

I guess you have to have a religious reason to ignore such evidence, and if so, what's the point of discussing it? You've made your mind up already....




[edit on 3-9-2007 by melatonin]

[edit on 3-9-2007 by melatonin]

reply to post by jimjamjerry


Evolution probably came to be when people started questioning religion, and
when religion probably became corrupt. That is when you had the crusaders
and such.
If you believe in evolution that is fine by me, if you believe in creationism that is fine by me also. However do not push your thoughts on another person to try to change their ways, because often that will lead in a revolt. People do not want to hear I am right and you are wrong! But if they keep pushing a person and their beliefs in a corner then the person has no other choice but to defend themselves.
I am not going to say evolution is wrong, because I have no proof, but you
can not prove that religions are wrong also. So therefore this is a dead
conversation, similar to an Atheist vs a Religious person.

Originally posted by melatonin

Thus, we have evidence of viral insertions into the genome that show a phylogenetic relationship between apes. We also see that humans and apes have the exact same 8 base-pair deletion in the Hyrodxylase-21 pseudogene.

We see similar relationships across other related species. In science, theories make predictions. This evidence is validation of ToE.

[edit on 3-9-2007 by melatonin]

what the heck are you trying to say here?

reply to post by melatonin


I understand what you are saying, now lets take it back even further. What do
you consider happened, the big bang theory? or what other theory?
Do you believe that we evolved from bacteria?
Sorry for the re-re edit. My min was always made up and thus we have a stalemate. There is no use arguing you bring facts about evolution I will
ask you how the universe started and this war becomes similar to Atheist vs Christianity.
[edit on 3-9-2007 by Equinox99]

[edit on 3-9-2007 by Equinox99]